Alexander The Gained

Once upon a time, there lived a remarkably determined king named Alex. As a child, he had grown up believing that the world was flat and that the last enormous empire located at the edge of the earth was this fertile land with a unique culture. Its rulers were powerful, and its citizens were prosperous.

While the rulers there had made no such claims, Alex was told that only the one who ruled there could claim the world as his. 

Thus, as a young prince, Alex had set his eye on the throne there. 

As soon as he inherited the kingdom from his father at age 20, he set about riding his favourite horse with his vast army marching toward the East. They had a singular aim of conquering this legendary land. 

It would help him in his quest to claim the world as his own.

Over the next ten years, the adolescent king fought innumerable chieftains and kings along the journey and defeated them all. These were all battles, but no great war was worth mentioning. 

He defeated them all and kept advancing until he finally reached India. 

He instantly met his match in Porus, whom he attacked with all his might. 

However, Alex was in for a big surprise.

His cavalry horses were terrified when they encountered colossal elephants. He and his entourage marveled at the exquisite beauty of the intricate architecture adorning magnificent structures. The scholars and astronomers who accompanied him were humbled by the vast knowledge available to the Brahmins. They learned here that the world was not flat, as they had believed, but spherical. 

This revelation was a turning point in their understanding of the world. 

Alex now wondered if his victory would lead him to the world's edge. 

Alex could not defeat Porus even in asymmetrical warfare. 

That is so because Porus fought fiercely, even when attacked by Alex unannounced. Finally, with the help of Porus's jealous cousin, Alex defeats him, and Porus is captured alive. 

Alex felt like he was on top of the world. He felt like he was the master of the world! 

Alex wanted to make an example out of Porus, the defeated emperor of the most famous, influential, & prosperous empire, in front of his generals. As per the prevalent practice in the West, Porus was to be killed in full public view.

To his utter surprise, when Porus was brought into his presence, he appeared calm and composed despite being defeated, captured & shackled. Far from begging for his life, like the many defeated leaders he had captured in the past, Porus looked anything but scared.

"How should I treat you?" Alex asked his prisoner.

Porus replied defiantly, "As a king would treat another."

Alex was not prepared for such a reply. This man sounded different. He did not know how to react to the fearless Porus.

When he regained his composure, he exclaimed angrily, “I defeated you!"

Porus exclaimed, "Defeated? You did not even send your envoy to announce your wish to engage in a battle.” 

Alex’s expression revealed that he didn't understand what Porus meant. 

Hence, Porus explained, "In this part of the world, we avoid war at all costs. You are expected to send a message explaining exactly what you want and the reasons behind the demand. Perhaps I may have given it to you without a fight. Maybe we could have agreed upon a compromise. War may be considered inevitable only after exhausting all peaceful options. Even then, both parties should agree to a date and place to battle. This venue is generally barren land outside the city limits to minimize loss of public property. Finally, a code of conduct is agreed upon before engaging in battle."

Alex hailed from a region where they believed everything was fair in love and war. 

He was puzzled by what Porus had just explained. Dumbstruck, he questioned in bewilderment, "Who decided these war guidelines?" 

Porus smiled and replied, "The wise Brahmins, who act as advisors to kings." 

Alex frowned, "And what gives them the authority to advise kings? My men tell me that these Brahmins do not even belong to the royal class." 

Porus proceeded, "Brahmins are our teachers. They are also students of all natures, including human nature. Over time, they have gathered huge insights into human beliefs and the resultant behaviour. They have analysed human behaviour patterns for centuries. They have provided meaningful codes of conduct for all key events, like birth, marriage, and death, as well as for housewarmings, the inauguration of a new business, and during wars. After deep contemplation, they have laid down guidelines for preserving and sustaining society and the larger humanity. This makes them qualified to guide the mightiest of kings on how to wield their power."

"How?" asked a very interested Alex, sliding to the edge of his seat.

"In our society, the status of the wise Brahmins is higher than that of royalty. The mightiest emperors bow down to the Dharma Guru who regularly reminds the royals of their Dharma – the principled duty," said Porus. 

Alex asked curiously, "… and what is that principled duty?"

Porus continued, "The kings must use their resources to establish a welfare state and serve their subjects so that prosperity reigns supreme. That should be the sole objective of anyone in authority. Every king strives to achieve peace. The best creativity occurs only during peaceful times, and society thrives.” 

Alex liked what he heard and implored Porus to continue.

Porus warned, “If this is not followed, human conflict becomes inevitable. The service to people keeps rulers away from an overzealous expansionist mindset. The army ensures peace lasts and merely serves as a defence mechanism."  

After hearing this sound wisdom, Alex became deeply introspective.

All his life, he had been a proponent of unbridled expansion. That had led to violence. He had begun to feel a bit uneasy about his life choices. In fact, he felt remorseful. Behind all the outward bravado was a tired man. His army, too, was on the verge of mutiny. Just a few weeks back, he had lost his favourite horse, which had been his companion since childhood. 

Despite winning against Porus, Alex felt no real joy. On the contrary, To Alex, Porus looked like he was at ease. 

Alex was left facing the real question for which he had no answer—since the earth was round, what if conquering this land did not make him the ruler of the world? 

He ordered Porus to be unshackled. 

Alex queried, "You had said there is a code of conduct for wars, right? Can you please elaborate on that?"

Porus sat beside him and continued, "If conflict becomes inevitable, the code of conduct is to minimize death & destruction. Only the royal class, comprising the king and the army men, fought on the battlefield. The other three classes of the society, i.e., the teachers & scholars, the traders & business folks, and the workers & city up-keepers, do not participate. The society continues to run as it is, unaffected by the war which takes place outside the city limits."

Far from making a spectacle out of Porus, Alex found himself in the company of a wise king beyond words. After hearing Porus, he became aware of his wrong outlook. Amidst a supposed celebration of the grandest of all victories, Alex felt his heart sinking. He felt vulnerable. Far from appearing like a mighty and victorious king, he now wore an expression of a child being reprimanded. 

He sat there absorbing the lesson of his life from a noble teacher.

Strangely, he had no hesitation to do this in the presence of his men. On their part, Alex's top generals were equally engrossed in the unprecedented scene unfolding in front of them.

Porus spoke sagely, "The victorious king deeply respects the defeated king because he, too, was simply doing his job. In fact, in our society, even the dead soldiers of the enemy are given an honourable funeral. The defeated king then becomes the minister of the victorious king and pays a small royalty from his tax collection to the victorious king. In this manner, civil life goes on smoothly despite any war."

Porus admonished, "If we do not abide by these regulations, there would be constant wars, and victory & defeat would lose all meaning. The world would become a dark and gloomy place."

Alex, who had been on a war path from the moment he had ascended the throne and had only seen death and destruction, could now understand the futility of bloodshed. His eyes were moist with tears of repentance. He begged Porus for more.

Porus cited, "The king's primary duty is to use his power towards establishing welfare in the state. His job is to keep his subjects safe and secure. The king’s pride lies in the happiness of his subjects. He does not believe in ruling them but yearns to serve them. This can happen only when there is stability. Kings, too, cannot function ably in a state of perpetual fear. He is unable to act constructively if he is constantly engaged in fighting. What good is a maimed populace, a fractured society, or a destroyed city to the victorious king? What, then, is the difference between victory & defeat?"

Alex began to see more light as he sat there pensively. As if Porus read his mind, he put his hand across Alex's shoulder and implored, "What have you built? How have you served your people? As I see it, you have never really sat on a throne and used its power to establish peace. All your life, you have only sat on horseback. Aren’t you tired of it? Even the grass you trampled upon on the way may have grown back. You haven't built any tangible legacy. You have not created anything but destroyed everything in your path."

Alex realized in vain that he had travelled so far, only to learn that he had inadvertently wasted himself away. His heart sank, and he was gripped with fear. He found himself in a state of despondency. He began trembling in realization. He bowed his head, begged Porus for forgiveness, and thanked him for showing him the way.

Porus pulled him up, smiled, and said, "Past is dead. You cannot change that, but you can certainly work on your future. Please don't live in guilt, as it only saps energy. Start afresh. Rise again. Go back. Build a legacy for your people and claim the future."

Alex was full of gratitude. He promised Porus that he would follow his dharma as a just king and dedicate his life to his subjects, his principled duty. Alex had gained a lifetime's worth of wisdom in his conversation with Porus. 

Porus accompanied him to the border of his kingdom to bid him farewell.

While bidding farewell, they hugged each other for the last time. This was when Porus whispered in his ear, "Unprepared as I was when you attacked me without warning, you still admired my tough resistance. I am amongst the smallest of kings here. I am not the emperor of Bharat. I am not located at the edge of the world. My kingdom lies in an insignificant corner of another massive empire. Compared to them, I am merely like a sentry guarding the fort gate that houses a huge army. They are several times bigger than me."

As they were about to part, Alex said bye. Porus exclaimed, "My friend, I hope to see you again!” Once a relationship is established, we do not say bye. In fact, in our language, there is no word for it."

As fate would have it, Alex passed away during his return journey. 

In his last thoughts, far from feeling like a great conqueror of lands, he was nonetheless grateful to have conquered his own mind. He understood the concept of Karma and felt blessed to have set foot on this sacred land, which had helped him evolve into a better person. 

Unfortunately, the wisdom he had gained from this part of the world was lost without being delivered to the West, from where he came.

When his people back home found out he was returning without conquering the vast empire at the world's edge, they still decided to posthumously confer the title of Alexander the Great for his daring attempt. They believed he had to be hailed as the greatest hero from which future generations could draw inspiration. 

Alexander ruled only for 12 years and died young at the age of 32. 

Several places were named after him. Groups dispute whether they have an inheritance to his legacy. Impressive structures and artifacts built before and after his reign have stood the test of time. 

However, there is absolutely nothing worth mentioning that he built!

Muslims of India are no Blacks of America

Race is indeed an issue in America.

Some political liberals who compare Black-White race relations in the United States to Hindu-Muslim relations in India need a reality check. Every society has fault lines, but they are not the same.

The history of Black Americans is unique; they were brought to the United States as slaves, families were torn apart, and they experienced official segregation until the 1960s. 

Unofficial discrimination persists even today. Nothing comparable like mass enslavement and legally enforced segregation has ever happened to Indian Muslims.

Yet many political Liberals in India treat Muslims as the primary example when arguing for social equity. 

Their claims rest on weak assumptions, such as the idea that Muslims do not feel safe in non-Muslim neighborhoods. They would if they assimilate, but most don't and it remains exclusively a self-imposed self-isolation self-identity issue of the Muslims. 

Would those same liberals send their daughters into Muslim neighborhoods wearing skirts? Would they, themselves, openly express their progressive views there?  

Islamophobia is a media's creation. The fear is not unfounded. Non Muslims, be they Hindus or the happy-go-lucky Parsis don't feel secure in Muslim dominated areas. The progressive Muslims too fear fatwas. 

The fundamentals must be understood before spitting out verdicts.

Muslims did not enter India as slaves. Many arrived as conquerors with a religious mission, converting people as they expanded their rule. That desire to convert the "infidels" very much exists even today and is openly taught by the Muslim clergymen. 

Muslim dynasties governed large parts of India for centuries. The non-Muslims suffered forced conversions and the destruction of places of worship.

It was the Muslim leaders that demanded a separate and exclusive Pakistan. After partition, the Indian Muslim politicians continued to use a victim narrative for political advantage demanding seperate civil laws. 

Contemporary liberals often amplify a casual narrative, speaking for Muslim communities without adequately considering causes of social and economic disadvantage of the Muslims. 

Part of the problem is cultural: the girl child education is very poor and some parents do not teach children that social respect is earned through personal achievement and contribution, rather than by claiming perpetual victimhood. As a result, many Muslims lag behind economically and adopt the stance: "What has the country done for me?"

In India, Muslim communities must take primary responsibility for addressing their own problems.

Practical steps start with building a positive reputation. Identity politics and constant explanations for backwardness are not solutions. 

Muslim leaders should celebrate and promote role models who have succeeded by engaging with wider Indian society - people such as the Khan trio actors, shenai ustad Bismillah Khan, tabla mastero Zakir Hussain,  archeological expert KK Muhammed, ace tennis champ Sania Mirza, cricket captain Mohammad Azharuddin, Air Chief Marshal I.H. Latif, former Supreme Court justice A.M. Ahmedi, India's UN representative Syed Akbaruddin, software king Azim Premji, president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, etc. 

Regularly citing such examples positively would give youth icons to emulate. Unfortunately, the assimilating and mixing Muslim greats are looked upon as incomplete Muslims. 

After partition, India’s overwhelmingly Hindu Constituent Assembly rejected the idea of a state exclusively for Hindus. 

India’s cultural secularism has deep roots; for example, the Cheraman Mosque, one of the earliest mosques in the world, was built with the support of a Hindu king. 

That spirit of accommodation by their Hindu brothers, combined with Muslim contributions across fields, should be emphasized by Muslim parents to their children so they recognize India’s inclusive character and their own potential.

Muslims should discard baseless anxieties, avoid ghettoization, and strive for greater assimilation. They should see themselves as a large, confident community - the “second largest majority.” Ordinary, hard-working Muslims ought to reject self-styled spokespersons who promote victimhood and instead assert that they constitute about 15% of India’s population, a whopping 200 million in strength, are indigenous to the soil, and wish to contribute actively to a modern India. 

They can emphasize that they do not require special minority privileges to participate and prosper. They are capable of self-reliance and of providing charity and guidance across communities, not only to the Muslims, but anyone deserving. 

That constructive, self-confident stance, rooted in achievement and public service would be a truer source of Muslim pride than being quoted as convenient data points by liberal elites with whom they have little in common.

No tail should ever wag the dog

Let's be clear - stupidity is secular.

It was, is, and will always be true that in every group, tribe, or community, a few will go deviant.

At that moment, the first job of the many is to condemn the few who have gone rogue. That should be both an instant reflex - born of anguish and embarrassment, and a mature, thoughtful response keeping the distant future in mind.

And at that delicate moment, outsiders must not try to justify why some apples have turned rotten.

That is so, as then the rogue elements get an encouragement and there is a risk that the entire community’s reputation could get damaged globally.

We can take a clue from how the Sikhs handled it.

They did not allow the dreaded reputation of the tiny fraction of Khalistanis, which had spread as far as the UK and Canada, to stick to the larger Sikh community.

They also showed the world how to fight the mistaken-for-Taliban identity in foreign lands.

Barring the fringe, most Sikhs were always aligned with the mainstream. But those few Khalistanis had the potential to damage the reputation of the whole community.

And so the wise among the Sikhs, through the clarion call of elders and religious leaders, became consciously aggressive in positive posturing all over the world. 

They did not remain mute spectators to a forming narrative. 

They took it head-on. 

They set themselves up as powerful, positive examples for others to emulate.

A 2020 PEW Research survey showed that 95% of Sikhs are proud Indians.

Had the elders not done their job, those few deviants would have been encouraged to march on, setting the tone for many others to be swayed by negative propaganda - especially the next generation. 

That would have given a bad name to the entire Sikh community.

Today, Sikhs are viewed as folks at the forefront of national security, people who never beg, but selflessly serve wherever they go.

Their deeds cement the stereotype and helps build into a positive reputation. And with time and consistency, that reputation has ripened into a brand.

No wonder the turbaned Sardar is today a proud and solid global brand!

Democracy ..... really?

Thank God there is no absolute democracy in how we run homes, schools, offices, courts, or Dharmic institutions, nor is there total freedom of speech in those places. 

If there were, we would be handing out lollipops to win the votes of the naive everywhere.

But when it comes to running the country, India has more democracy than it can handle.

The Indian nation is burdened with the world's largest number of media outlets, political parties, and independents, all staking a claim to rule. To put it in perspective: As on date, India has 6 national parties, 65 registered regional parties, and over 2,500 individuals and unregistered parties. Adding to the chaos are more than few hundred news channels and over 150,000 print, digital and podcast outlets in English, Hindi and regional languages.

Unfortunately, competition is so fierce that many are willing to sacrifice the country's well-being for self-interest. By comparison, America has a tiny fraction of this - a minuscule free media landscape and a dominant two-party system that shows considerable convergence.

The idea that democracy is always good and dictators are always evil has become the default assumption in popular discussion. Frankly, it is Goebbels' law at work - indoctrination through repetition is what creates this pro-democracy belief.

Goebbels' law says that if a big lie is presented as serving a purpose and repeated long enough, most people will eventually accept it.

Evil dictators are rare, yet they are quoted often, becoming favorite examples for those pushing strawman arguments. Ironically, Hitler, evil and cruel as he may be - rose through democratic means, and Joseph Goebbels became his propagandist.

Today his technique is used to promote the same damage in the name of democracy.

In theory, democracy can be the least evil system. In practice, however, a visionary unelected leader can be far better than the best democracy. 

Why not start from this premise: elite intellectuals are a tiny minority; whenever the majority wins, mediocrity usually prevails?

Democracy is ill-suited where the elected representatives from opposing factions don't apply themselves and blindly confirm to their party's view to cancel out each other and so never reach a consensus. The population on the other hand is over reliant on their representatives to decide for them, and so are poorly engaged in regular sociopolitical conversation. 

It requires real awareness and long-term thinking among the people - qualities often absent even in developed countries. Low awareness of long-term public good leads to poor choices and weak decision makers. 

A clear example: UK's elected leaders could not reach consensus on a complex issue and left the momentous Brexit decision to the average street voter, who voted against their own long-term interest. The UK has not recovered since then and has seen seven prime ministers in the decade since the June 2016 Brexit referendum.

Voting rights are akin to giving lollipop-sucking children the power to choose their own babysitter. Such caretakers hand out populist candy whenever the kids demand attention, so they can be left alone. Over time, they begin to serve themselves, not the children. Democracy then becomes an excuse for both rulers and the ruled to avoid accountability.

Democracy with a strong, vigilant opposition that creates internal checks and balances is a brilliant hypothesis. Yet in practice, vigilant opposition often becomes obstructionist and self-interested. 

To counter this, parties resort to hyper-marketing to stay in power, requiring massive, repeated funding. Ruling parties then have little choice but to accept bribes in cash or kind - and return favours. They solicit "donations" and craft policies that benefit their supporters.

A quid pro quo model develops between business and the ruling class. Companies often fund major political parties across the spectrum, forming an informal soft cartel. Parties compete publicly but tacitly cooperate in select areas, to their personal gain and the public's detriment.

Once, one could not criticize a monarchy. Now we can criticize elected leaders - but should we? 

Venting against the government has become a national pastime, with each group viewing issues through its own lens. It is absurd: even with limited knowledge, groups fight like blind men describing an elephant.

The more the mainstream press and social media warriors scream negativity at the elected government without offering workable solutions, the more the ruling class must spend on marketing to create a self-serving counter-narrative and assert relevance. We argue for democracy from the comfort of our living rooms, with hearts anchored in idealism and minds aligned with morality, even when the system fails to deliver its fundamental objective: a welfare state.

Empirical evidence from the world's democracies suggests that the system succeeds only after a nation's per capita GDP crosses USD 8,000. No country has had a smooth transfer of power below that threshold. 

Maslow's hierarchy applies: basic needs and economic security must be met before sophisticated democratic engagement follows.

Those who cite America should remember its democracy evolved over 150 years and remains imperfect. It functions as a two-party regime with large overlaps and few material differences. 

America's rigid, expensive ecosystem makes it difficult for third parties to emerge. Despite the advantage of a global reserve currency, the American system is strained by rising debt that future generations are cursed to repay, and often survives on exploitative wars - actions dictators might avoid for fear of domestic uprisings as everyone can pinpoint the war monger in chief. 

Yet Western powers keep pushing other countries toward democracy, using economic influence, military power, and subverted narratives about democracy's virtues,  while happily cozying up to dictators when it suits them. 

Sadly, India granted adult franchise immediately after independence, when most of the population lacked financial freedom and lived in poverty. Not widely known: Indian women voted in every election before all American women did.

India remained dependent on the West. Nehru delivered his first speech in the language of the erstwhile oppressor, even though 11% were literate then, and hardly spoke English. He borrowed elements of Western constitutions without fully adapting them to local culture and context - a symbol of continued cognitive dependence.

The consequence is that after 75 years, India - the first colony to gain independence and adopt democracy, still lags on many parameters. 

The West thrives not necessarily because of democracy, but because it exploits global trade, currency mechanisms, control of global monetary institutions, veto power at global bodies, and weaknesses it creates in other nations through democracy. 

Is there still hope?

Hopefully, India will move toward a single-party democracy. One can hope that in the next general election the BJP, a nationalist party - emerges as the single largest force with pan-India presence and disproportionately large control of both houses. That would be a blessing.

India has huge potential and a vast domestic market waiting to be unleashed. That could produce near double-digit growth for years, as happened in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia when single parties ruled for two to three decades. China, too, without democracy, eliminated extreme poverty at breakneck speed and, for practical purposes, has become a developed nation. Some Middle Eastern kingdoms also show outcomes that invite envy: you cannot criticize the royalty, yet citizens are not hand-to-mouth, in fact wealthy. 

A strong multiparty democracy can produce the opposite of its intent; "democratic development" often becomes India's oxymoron. 

Some will argue that Singapore, a city-state single-party system - cannot be compared with India, and that a strong democracy ensures checks and balances. But the past has taught us that what we have, simply doesn't work. It is time to apply those lessons and move away from the status quo.

City-states can tolerate some inefficiency in messaging or service delivery because their governments have a clear line of sight and can amend or act quickly. How much harm can inefficient distribution do in such contexts? Governments in Singapore or Dubai can correct course swiftly; one could physically drive across the city to oversee the flaw get fixed. 

Even after decades, India lags in many areas and must catch up fast. For India, it's a race against time to get rich before it gets old. 

It needs bullet-train speed in implementing projects, not obstructionist democracy. For a vast subcontinent, there is even more reason to reduce hurdles and distractions - the mini-mutinies staged by selfish regional parties from all corners. The perpetual dispute between states and the Centre must ebb.

Indians must end opportunistic politics and coalitions of convenience, and free the administration from parties driven only by self-interest, especially the family owned dynasties. India must have compelling central leadership, effective control, and distribution under the oversight of empowered, engaged chief ministers, with minimal implementation lag.

At the least, the citizens should themselves weaken democracy if they are not prepared to eliminate it. The press may remain free but should be subordinated to India's integrity. Singapore law restricts news in the sense that media can publish freely but must accept subordination to the government's purpose and national integrity. Authorities can act if a journalist or media house works against these.

Why? Because such coverage often turns toxic and offends people. 

For anyone to believe that the government and nation are non-living entities is an illusion. 

There is a direct linear psychological correlation between ineffectiveness in performance with nonstop scrutiny and criticism. Average people become the stories they tell themselves, and they tell themselves the negative stories the media sells. Governing or uniting such dispirited, cynical people is then difficult.

Independence of the Election Commission and Supreme Court is possible. The integrity of India should be the fundamental responsibility of all institutions. The single party must still seek the people's confidence every five years. If it fails, a party with fresh ideas can get rejuvenated, rise, and challenge the incumbent.

This alone can resurrect the India of our dreams!