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 haz 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—mass enslavement and legally enforced segregation—ever happened to Indian Muslims.

Yet many 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. If that were true, would those liberals send their daughters into Muslim neighborhoods wearing short skirt? Would they, themselves, openly express their progressive views there? 

Non Muslims, be they Hindus or the happy-go-lucky Parsis don't feel secure in Muslim dominated areas. 

Islamophobia is a media's creation. 

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. 

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

It waz the Muslim leaders that demanded a separate and exclusive Pakistan. After partition, some Indian Muslim politicians continued to use a victim narrative for political advantage. 

Contemporary English-speaking, Western-influenced liberals often amplify that narrative, speaking for Muslim communities without adequately considering internal causes of social and economic disadvantage.

Part of the problem is cultural: some Muslim 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 posture: "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 figures to emulate. Some are unfortunately 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, forward thinking, 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), 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 to the deserving across communities - not only to co-religionists.

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 waz, is & will always be the case, that a few will be deviant in every group, tribe or community.

At the earliest instance, the job of the many from the group or community then, is to condemn those few who have gone rogue. 

That as much as an instant reflex due to the deep sense of both anguish & embarrassment and also a mature thoughtful response.

And at that delicate moment, those from outside the community trying to give justification on why some apples have become rotten, achieves opposite of the intent especially when there's a risk of a negative reputation for the entire community reaching global proportion. 

A clue can be taken on how the Sikhs did not allow the Khalistani brand which had reached as far as UK & Canada, to stick on the community.

One can also learn from them, on how they fought the mistaken-for-Taliban identity in foreign lands. 

Barring the fringe, most were always aligned to the mainstream, but the few had the potential to damage the reputation of the entire Sikh community.

But the wise Sikhs themselves, through the clarion call of their elders & religious leaders, became consciously aggressive in positive posturing everywhere in the world. They didn't remain mute spectators to the forming narrative but 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 jobs, those few deviants would have got encouragement to march on & set the tone for the many to be influenced by the negative propaganda, especially amongst the gen-next,  and that would have given a bad name to the entire Sikh community. 

Today the Sikhs are instantly stereotyped as - those folks who are at the forefront of national security & those who don't ever beg, but on the contrary selflessly serve wherever they go. 

The confirming deeds then cements the stereotype into a positive reputation & with consistency, it further ripens to becoming the brand. 

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

Democracy ..... really?

Thank God there is no absolute democracy in running homes, schools, offices, courts, religion, 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 highest number of media outlets, political parties, and independents all staking a claim to rule the people. To put things in perspective: India has 4 national parties, 65 registered regional parties, and over 2,500 individuals and unrecognized parties. Adding to the chaos are more than 500 news channels and over 150,000 print and digital media outlets and political podcasts in English, Hindi, and regional languages.

Unfortunately, the competition is so fierce that many are willing to sacrifice the country's well-being for their own 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 — indoctrination through repetition — that creates this 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, rose through democratic means, and Joseph Goebbels was a Nazi propagandist. 

Today hiz 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 dictator 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 population is poorly engaged in regular sociopolitical conversation. Democracy 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 selection of leaders.

A ripe example: the UK’s leaders could not reach consensus on a complex issue and left the momentous Brexit decision to the average street voter, who voted against his own long-term interest.

Voting rights are akin to giving lollipop-sucking children the power to choose their 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 — cash or kind — and return favors. 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 haz 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 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 suggests democracy succeeds only after a nation’s GDP per capita 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 debt and often survives on exploitative wars — actions dictators might avoid for fear of domestic uprisings. Fiscal discipline is lacking in both major parties.

Yet Western powers keep pushing other countries toward democracy, using economic influence, military power, and narratives about democracy’s virtues. Sadly, India granted adult franchise immediately after independence, when most of the population lacked financial freedom and most 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 96% of Indians did not speak English then. 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, and weaknesses it created in other democracies.

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, 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.

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 haz taught us that what we have 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 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 see it.

Even after decades, India lags in many areas and must catch up fast. 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.

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

At the least, we should weaken democracy if we 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 consistently works against these.

Why? Because such coverage often turns toxic and offends people. To believe that the government and nation are non‑living entities is an illusion. There is a direct correlation between corruption and ineffectiveness on one side, and nonstop scrutiny and criticism on the other. Average people become the stories they tell themselves, and they tell themselves the stories the media sells. Governing or uniting such dispirited, cynical people is 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 rejuvenated smaller party can rise and challenge the incumbent.

This alone can resurrect the India of our dreams.