Modi Hai To Mumkin Hai!

Not just in India but the world over, the view outside the Overton Window, has completely changed. 

The Left-Liberal ideology, the political mainstay of national leaders, is giving way to the Right-Conservative thinking. Whoever gets it, rules by it, and whoever doesn't, pays by it. 

Those who still prioritize loose globalization over civilizational ethos, democracy over development, secularism over security, freedoms over duties, and human rights over human dignity, are asking for a template that has in recent times been tried, tested, and failed.

It is being discarded by nations across continents. 

That model worked brilliantly after the 2nd world war, when the global economies were wrecked and America, a nation with no ancient cultural moorings nor kings, and no bombs that fell on it despite participating in that global war, demonstrated an unprecedented growth, beginning the 1950s. 

From governments to teenagers, everyone wanted to emulate the American way of life. 

Today, America is leading the dismantling of a system that it invented as that engine is now sputtering. 

Presently, every nation is averse to imitation of the other, and instead wants to accept only suitable elements of the other, so long as they can be contextualized civilizationally. 

Coming to India, a bit of background: Unlike much of Western history, shaped mostly by crusades, conquests, slavery, and colonization, India’s civilizational arc is ancient and distinctive.

Even when the Western constitutional psyche often springs from a different set of historical experiences, including guilt, unfortunately India’s founding fathers borrowed heavily from Western models when drafting our Constitution. 

That injustice was further degraded by the surreptitious insertion of the out of context words "Secular" and "Socialist" in the midst of a national emergency. 

The result: governing India requires choosing the path of least resistance among many competing demands. 

Laws and policies must be constitutionally sound, socially acceptable, culturally appropriate, economically feasible, technologically viable, parliamentarily passable, legally defensible, and geopolitically prudent - all at once!

It is akin to solving an endless Rubik's cube where even if one face is aligned, it is at the cost of messing up the other. 

So to get anything done, strong and popular leadership matters more in India than in any other country, because ruling here is exceptionally difficult. 

Unrest can smolder in multiple regions at the same time, and yet a leader must still win a national majority from people who, less than a century ago, lived under more than 560 separate princely states. 

To succeed, a leader must be ambidextrous: able to connect with diverse, often disconnected groups across the subcontinent.

In the end, only a government that is philosophically plural, ideologically patriotic, socially engaged, culturally conservative, fiscally liberal, technologically experimental, and disciplinarily tough can somewhat keep the society cohesive and hope to deliver steady reforms that bring long-term transformation. 

The current Modi Sarkar has a sound understanding of just that.

The government therefore is run by a party that is cadre-driven, as opposed to being family led, and so comes closest to that ideal. The ideal being delivering maximum good for maximum people, but pragmatically never attempting the impossible task of pleasing all the people all the time. 

The results are visible: India is rising in wealth and respect. It is delivering social aims through market-led dynamics.

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki .... Jai Okay Please! 🇮🇳

Be Indian, be blessed

Most happiness rankings put India at the bottom of the list. The 2025 global poll, conducted by French research firm Ipsos is one with a difference, it places India at the very top!

It begs the question: how is that even possible?

First things first.

If anything is true about India, its opposite is equally true.

Nevertheless, we must stop believing foreigners who rate the happiness of others’ homes from the outside.

They need to recalibrate their happiness scales. They need to get that everything is subjective. 

Once upon a time there was a rich man. He had a servant. The servant did whatever the rich master ordered.

The master believed he was smart, while his servant had low skills, low aptitude, and weak survival instincts. He must be miserable, thought the master. 

By his measurement scale, the servant ranked low.

The master believed the servant couldn’t survive without him.

One day the master went boating on a pleasure ride at sea, with the servant rowing the boat.

An unexpected storm caught them by surprise and pushed them deep into the middle of the wild sea.

They spotted an island and took refuge on that uninhabited place.

It was all wilderness.

The master couldn’t figure out anything in this new place.

The servant, however, could climb trees for fruit, catch fish with his bare hands, and cook on a fire started by rubbing stones.

Such was their fate that the servant became the master and the master became the servant on the island.

Roles reversed, and now the new master believed he was smart, while the newly minted servant had low skills, low aptitude, and weak survival instincts. The new master concluded that the former master-turned-servant must be miserable.

The former believed the latter couldn’t survive without him.

By his measurement scale, the erstwhile “master” ranked low.

And so Indian philosophy teaches us: your position doesn’t matter; your duties do. One must discharge those duties faithfully, in whichever avatar one presently dawns.

Do your duties well, or you will face karmic justice. The rulers of today will be held to account by the ruled whenever the karmic cycles wheel makes a turn. 

Coming back, any ranking of India by the West, good or bad, is like a blind man’s opinion of an elephant.

India’s many opposites live happily, and in close proximity.

Amitabh Bachchan, the Bollywood superstar, lives less than a kilometer from slums.

So, while America’s definition of maturity is reaching one’s heights, India’s is detachment; the ability to settle down. The former is ambition-driven; the latter is aspiration-based.

India’s unique proposition is this: good or bad is not a function of what is, but of one’s frame of mind. What is, is neutral!

Most of us miss this wisdom, and so we remain unsettled, tiring ourselves as we chase the heights.

This is the only land where Buddhas, Mahaviras, Rams, and Krishnas, royalty soaked in the comforts of wealth, but still used their whole intellectual selves to descend from the heights and move in the opposite direction to fulfill their dharmic duties.

That is why, despite a low standard of living, most people here are very happy. Their standard of life is fulfilling. 

Each wedding season, ladies travel from the wealthiest suburbs, pass the poorest slums of Dharavi, to attend weddings in Central Mumbai, and back, wearing glittering jewelry without skipping a heartbeat, even past midnight.

Poverty is plentiful. Crime in India is a rarity.

In the final reckoning:  

“Everything is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth.” - Friedrich Nietzsche.

Currently, the West is financially powerful, so it uses its influence to decide what happiness means.

I shudder to think how the West would behave if it experienced even a little scarcity.

During Covid, we saw how Americans turned into hoarders of toilet paper and vaccines alike.

In India, people came out and emptied their hearts and purses. No riots. No murders. No looting.

America has push-button comforts and plenty of personal space to enjoy them alone, yet many are restless; some regularly fire on innocent passersby for no reason at all.

Why doesn’t that happen in India?

The other USP of India is that Indians believe in reincarnation. So they bypass frustration and despondency associated from a single life’s unaccomplished goals. Shortfalls if any, are due to past Karma. Doing well in the present circumstances will lead to better times. And Indians carry this attitude wherever they go. 

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is an American offering.

India's is different: Lives, Duties, and the Experience of Bliss.

In fact, happiness can only be experienced by de-pursuing. And so Indians pace, not pursue!

Welfare State - The Bhartiya Way

The long-term effectiveness of delivering public goods through democracy is doubtful.

Many of us began with the ideal that democracy is best, then shifted to the pragmatic view that it is the least evil form of governance.

Compared with a benevolent dictator it may pale, but at least democracy allows people to vote out a bad ruler when no benevolent dictator exists. 

In practice, truly malevolent dictators are relatively rare. 

When one rises, however, they can also win power through democratic means - think Hitler, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Putin, or Trump. 

Once in office, they often tend to find the keys to unlock the system from within and extend their power or term well beyond the limits democracy intends.

That raises some very difficult questions on the original question to which purportedly democracy waz the answer - is a dictator necessarily bad?

A dictator whether they come to power through democratic processes or otherwise, are they not sometimes portrayed as bad by their rivals, including larger influential democracies with the help of a dishonest media that waz ironically built to keep leaders honest through sincere reportage?

We learn that Muammar Gaddafi waz, to many, as beloved to hiz people as Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan is by Emiratis, or Putin is to most Russians. 

Each of these leaders pursued welfare-state policies in their own ways. 

Iran, meanwhile, is not a straightforward dictatorship but a quasi-democracy Americans dislike; the Shah (Pahlavi) had the opposite reputation, detested by many Iranians but admired by the United States.

Humans have not figured out how to govern themselves. 

Controversial as my opening claim may sound, when compared with the great empires of the ancient Bharat, which endured for centuries - modern democracy tends to produce only small pockets of successful welfare states, despite the fact that territorial contests are mostly settled today. Most leaders struggle to win even a 2nd term through the ballot and so some are motivated to undermine the process of election itself rather than accepting their fateful exit.  

Because the wars are no longer for land and indeed are for markets and resources, outside interventions are the order of the day. These are done primarily to undermine a nation's influence in the global trade & commerce. 

I believe a country should first achieve at least middle-income economic strength before being granted full democratic freedom, so that the nation can resist narratives that are undermining its position, people, and leader.  

Our tragedy in India is that we extended democratic freedoms before solidifying economic foundations. 

Today, voters often receive short-term handouts instead of the governance needed to escape dependence on election-time doles.

Once economic strength is established, a gradual move toward single-party democracy, as in Singapore, can be considered. The public can, if need be, always remove the top leader at the end of the term if the administration under him or her is found to not be performing.  

Alternatively, a party-state rule where election is within and by party members and not the public might work well, when guided by our own Dharmic principles.

Why?

Because human beings are naturally inclined toward adharma especially when self-awareness is wavering, imagination runs unchecked, memory is poor, conscience is weak, and willpower is frail. 

A Brahmin led moral counsel helps to remind the mightiest of rulers and governments that to truly rule the world, they must serve it. 

A Chanakya-Maurya model needs to be retrieved.

Only a civilization as ancient as Bharat and a country as young as India, one that is rooted in its past and wedded to its future, stands a chance to bear long-term fruits. 

We can surely be an exemplary role model for the world to emulate.

Ind-yeah is excitin!

From the outside, that caption captures the typical Westerner’s impression. 

Yet many outsiders fail to see that India is neither monochromatic in character nor monolithic in structure. Its vast landmass and people are the most diverse in the world - socially, culturally, economically, historically, including by geography and terrain. 

Sadly, many Indians miss thiz too. They often prioritize democracy over development, secularism over survival, freedoms over duties, and human rights over human dignity. 

They admire the economically successful West without testing its relevance for civilizational Bharat, which has a very different cultural context. 

Unlike much of Western history — shaped more recently by crusades, conquests, and colonization — India’s civilizational arc is ancient and distinctive; the Western constitutional psyche often springs from a different set of historical experiences, including guilt.

Ironically, India’s founding fathers borrowed heavily from Western models when drafting our Constitution. 

Governing India requires choosing the path of least resistance among many competing demands. 

Laws and policies must be constitutionally sound, socially acceptable, culturally appropriate, economically feasible, technologically viable, parliamentarily passable, legally defensible, and geopolitically prudent — all at once!

Leadership therefore matters more in India than in most countries, because ruling here is exceptionally difficult. 

Unrest can smolder in multiple regions at the same time, and yet a leader must still win a national majority from people who, less than a century ago, lived under more than 560 separate princely states. 

To succeed, a leader must be ambidextrous: able to connect with diverse, often disconnected groups across the subcontinent.

In the end, only a government that is philosophically plural, ideologically patriotic, socially engaged, culturally conservative, fiscally liberal, technologically experimental, and disciplinarily restrained can somewhat keep the society cohesive and hope to deliver steady reforms that bring long-term transformation. 

The current BJP dispensation is cadre-driven and comes closest to that ideal.

The results are visible: India is rising in wealth and respect. It is delivering social aims through market-led dynamics.

Congratulations to Narendra Damodardas Modi for being the most effective and longest-serving Pradhan Mantri of India cum Pradhan Sevak of Bharat; it is he who made India exciting!

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki .... Jai Okay Please! 🇮🇳

An idea worth idolizing!

Some claim that I was "ecstatic" about Trump 2.0, but now I'm suddenly not.

Well, that's somewhat putting words in my mouth.

I live in India, and Trump means nothing to me—nor does Modi, for that matter.

From my perspective, Trump didn't win by fluke. As a second-time candidate, he was under the spotlight with cameras on him, so voters evaluated him carefully.

I was ecstatic about his promises, not the man himself, on three broad fronts, that he'll:

1) Be good friends with Russia.

2) Be not-so-good friends with China.

3) Go after the Islamist terror networks.

As a politically conscious and geopolitically aware Indian, all three suited my tastes perfectly. Besides, I had his first term as reference.

It was he who got Israel and the UAE to become friends—both of who are our buddies. The I2U2 got tailwinds under Trump 1.0.

Now, let's look at Trump 2.0.

During wartime, a leader's ratings in America are typically elevated. Yet, his popularity is super low—in fact, it was low even before the war. He holds the distinction of being a president with the lowest first-year popularity.

So, notwithstanding the evaluation, he's made Americans outside the MAGA inner circle equally unhappy, including his capitalist superstar buddy, Elon Musk.

That president Trump has truly betrayed candidate Trump—and disproportionately so—by undoing what he did in his first term and not adhering to his promises, would be an understatement. The war with Russia is still on. He's visiting China, not India. Trump's favorite Field Marshal is in Pakistan! That's a high aberration, even by a long-career politician's standards.

On me idolizing Modi.

Well, let's go deeper. In India, we're smitten by the ways of the US but still locked in some outdated political correctness. 

We the educated don't discuss politics as openly, and we pretend it's not the single most important factor in deciding a nation's destiny.

In the US, it's opined about by university provosts, iconic folks during music and movie awards, and big business house leaders who officially host or attend donation luncheons in support of candidates.

In India, you'd be chastised.

The term "Modi bhakt" slur is a prime example. It's not out of blind bhakti, as implied by those on the opposite camp. 

At best, it's name-calling by those who can't distinguish between fans of the man and worshippers of this sacred land. In particular, Modi baiters can't articulate why it's worthwhile to also be a fan of some other politician in the opposition, as they can't really showcase adequate virtues there.

I think the Modi detractors are locked in some moral world of their own personal reality, so they take a stand where they unabashedly sit,  no matter what the evidence to counter their position.

Well, they better get it: Modi's unabashed clarion call for "India First," "Atmanirbhar Bharat," and "Viksit Bharat" serves the Bharat bhakt creed well.

BTW, that became possible simply because Congress vacated that place in favor of short-term vote-bank politics.

India is a young country and a country of the young.The slogans Bharat Mata Ki Jai and Vande Mataram were distinctly under Congress' ownership at one time; today's young generation can't believe it as true.

In a trade-warring, deglobalizing world, nationalism is sexy—very, very sexy.

A servant of the nation who delivers on promises is worthy of being idolized!

Democrazy 101

RaGa-baba said that he wants more of democracy in Congress. Modi on the other hand is accused by some of having reduced democracy in BJP.

Democracy is a sweet dream at best & nightmare at worst - in politics (as in business).

Why?

It is a sweet dream, as from initial stage of interview (in party or business), you select & then promote people who are like you, who subscribe to your ideological agenda. Taking their opinion is an approx farce, if not a complete one - as it will deliver more of the same. Those with disproportionate differences are fired or quit. A self fulfilling prophecy.

It is a nightmare, as selection by majority leads to mediocrity. Thought leadership is the domain of few. Publicity then leads popularity. A self fulfilling fallacy.

The masses in the real world are divided into those who observe, those who rationalize, those who synthesize and those who contemplate.

The synthesizers are leaders. They are usually wedded to the cause & so are able to connect unseen dots and can imagine the emerging future picture that affects the cause. They need to work in isolation & not get distracted with inevitable machinations spewed out by the members that make up winning arithmetic of the democratic process. The leader then articulates, inspires & influences. It is the leader's job "to get others to do, what he wants to do - as they want to do it."

Contemplation is for (management) gurus, who can advise & coach the leaders but themselves cannot perform.

RaGa-baba beware, democracy is a Frankenstein of sorts - to slay it, you'll need to be a full 56" chest-ed fellow !

The folks in the ghettos

Let's get it: We are, what we were.  

To understand a community's culture in the present context, one also needs to get its' past, namely:

A) Ontological understanding - the way the culture came into being. 

B) Epistemological understanding - how the community in that culture learns. 

C) Anthropological understanding - how the community folks behave.  

Only the last is visible to outsiders.

In certain cultures, speaking as realistically as metaphorically, wherever the community members go in the world, they have a tendency to ghettoize. 

That is so, because the community is very identity centric. They strongly relate to people like themselves. So far, so good; nothing wrong with that. 

The problems occur in the subsequent steps. 

Knowing what exactly is the criteria for having a strong identity centricity, and why it takes precedence over all else, such that the community members need to permanently huddle together very closely, and emit non-welcoming signals to outsiders, would help. 

That can only be understood, if we get all the aspects of community's birth and growth. Namely, how that community came into being or the essence of its DNA, how it indoctrinates its young in the formative years and disseminates information & knowledge later. Finally, what & how it communicates and acts within and outside. 

Often, such identity centric folks can relate only with each other, believing that nobody understands them, and make little attempt to engage with the larger world outside their own, and so the community experiences perpetual insecurity or victimhood. As a consequence, they remain financially or ortherwise backward, incompatible to the larger society and the spirit of the times. 

With passage of time, that feeling of insecurity and the experience of the victimhood, no matter how large the group becomes, doesn't recede but gets exacerbated. 

These folks then seek comfort of their own, even when there's enough evidence that they have no need to feel insecure, and on the contrary, engaging outside their self-created narrow space could empower them on multi-dimensional levels.  

Because of the earliest indoctrination, and later education methodology, such folks will however be unwilling to assimilate and unwilling to move out of their ghetto. They can only transact within the community and are of little value to majority outside their community. 

Assimilation is defined as being rooted to your past while still being wedded to your future. 

It means that while you are proud of your identity, culture, and traditions, you are equally keen & willing to share the elements from there, and engage with others from varying backgrounds for mutual benefits to enrich the overall society. 

You pose no discomfort to the other, speaking feelingly. 

So, while others assimilate and move on, the identity centric communities remain stagnant and frozen in time. 

Unfortunately, those who are bothered by such communities indulge in a very surface level, and sanitized discussion, bypassing over the real issues mentioned above. 

That's half the problem. 

They however offer a moralist world view, a childish good-natured verdict, one without trail. It's an idealistic view,  one that's not derived any morals from the real world experiences unfolding before them, including global examples shouting out loud. 

They continue to quote the exception and so miss the root cause. 

As hyper moralists, they give verdicts to selves and others that they must see everyone equally and fairly. 

That's a Utopian fairytale, best suited in our personal imaginary realm, not the reality. 

To treat unequal people equally is itself unfair. 

So, the idea of diversity and inclusivity also is at best, an illusion.

We must enforce to offer equal opportunities, but not assume equal outcomes.  

Equal outcomes from different people is not possible. 

Two fruits on the same tree aren't equal, even when they were recipient of the same amount of sun, water, and minerals. 

We should pursue diversity, not automatic inclusivity. 

Based on the outcome that the diverse groups produce, we can decide whom to include. In fact it happens by the law of natural selection. 

By logic, we can include those that enrich us and our environment and not those that want to use our value based institutions to only secure their exclusivity and live happily thereafter in their ghettos to our detriment. 

Doing just that would be equally fair.