Welfare State - The Bhartiya Way

The names of some of the non-democratic and notorious dictators that stand out are often associated with communist regimes: Think Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin.  

They claimed to pursue equality by redistributing wealth. In practice, they delivered poverty on an equal scale. 

They targeted religious faiths, wealthy individuals, big business, and certain interest groups in the absolute without applying any mechanism to discern, blaming them for all social inequality, and systematically suppressed or eliminated them. They believed that the power must be in the hands of the people. 

The result was catastrophic. Faith and moral codes were weakened. God was killed and sin got a free run.

Over 10 crore citizens were killed, with most damage in Cambodia, China, and the Soviet Union. As expected, economies of these nations collapsed into free fall.

And so the case for democracy. 

However, the long-term effectiveness of democracy in delivering public goods is open to question.

Did these dictators fail because they were non-democrats or because they hated God, knowledge gurus, and wealth creators? 

The People's Republic of China is not a liberal democracy. Under Xi Jinping's leadership, the state maintains strict control over foreign media, promotes a market-oriented economy, and seeks to rejuvenate traditional Chinese civilization. A key policy objective is also the sinicization of foreign religions to ensure they conform to the local and cultural norms. The results are for anyone with an open mind to appreciate. 

America was accidentally discovered by Europeans. Its earliest settlers got a lot of land and resources with zero competition and very little resistance. The simple indigenous tribes of the land were almost wipped out by the new inhabitants. Being a clean slate with no legacy, it became the world's first nation that was formed without a king. It built the nation ground up, using slaves from Africa. 

Later, by another accident of geography, it escaped the evils of the world wars as not a single bomb fell on it, but did benefit from it as a supplier of arms and ammunition to the warring factions. It did drop the Atom bomb to prove and declare itself as the undisputed master of the world. It began to dictate the fate of other nations through alliances or sanctions. 

America believes that democracy must prevail across the world. 

However, America itself became what it did, on a model of gradually evolving and controlled democracy over 170 plus years. Unfortunately, India, even when not ripe,  became a full fledged democracy soon after getting its independence. That allowed all adult citizens to vote, including "all women," a decade before all Americans did. 

While we are very much of a democracy, frankly, even today, America is not. It runs on a two-party "regime," with huge overlaps, which it calls democracy. And it declares itself as a model for success.  

I think it simply has a higher standard of living, not life. It suffers from broken families, homelessness, high debt, crime, gun violence, deep racism, substance abuse, addiction, polarization, mental health issues, etc. 

But the world believes and accept what the Americans preach because of its economic and military might. It is America that decides what is good, bad, or mad. 

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

Only democracy serves, is just a childhood indoctrination spread through the American hard and soft power, a constant self-serving narrative building exercise. 

Many of us began with the conviction that democracy is the best form of government, only to later settle on the more pragmatic view that it is merely the least undesirable. 

Today I feel that compared with a benevolent dictator, democracy is appearing inferior. Yet it retains one crucial advantage: when no benevolent ruler emerges, citizens can at least remove a bad one through the ballot.

The difficulty, however, is that while we can't locate the good, the genuinely malevolent rulers do come to power; ironically through democracy. 

History offers several examples. Once in office, such leaders often learn how to manipulate institutions from within and extend their power well beyond the limits that democracy was meant to impose.

Think Hitler, who was angry with the reparation costs imposed on Germany, as according to him, Germany did not lose the first World War, but was manipulated from outside and betrayed from within by domestic revolutionaries and the Jews.

So, democracy is ineffective in keeping dictators at bay. 

This raises an uncomfortable question: is a dictator always necessarily worse than a flawed democratic order? 

Leaders are often branded as tyrants by powerful foreign democracies, and by their media systems that pick up some inevitable frictions or lapses as spoken by rivals or opposition within a foreign country and then use that to amplify the problem. 

Media was supposedly created to keep power within its home country honest through truthful reporting and not an overreaching commentary on other countries' matters. 

Political reputation, in other words, is rarely neutral.

History also shows that public perception of leaders is deeply contested. 

Muammar Gaddafi was, for many, as beloved to his people as Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan is to Emiratis, or Putin is to many Russians. 

Each of these leaders pursued welfare-oriented policies in his own way. Iran too complicates simple categories: it is not a straightforward dictatorship, and its democratically elected political leadership has long been viewed differently by Iranians and by the United States. 

The Shah, for example, was detested by many Iranians but admired by America.

The deeper problem is that humanity has not yet perfected the art of self-government. 

Compared with the great empires of ancient Bharat, modern democracy has often produced only limited pockets of welfare-state success. This is especially striking in an era when territorial disputes are largely settled, yet many leaders still struggle to survive even a second term. Some, facing likely defeat, are tempted to weaken the electoral process itself rather than accept a rightful exit.

Today’s conflicts are no longer mainly about land. They are about markets, resources, and influence. 

That makes external intervention a persistent feature of political life, often aimed at weakening a nation’s standing in global trade and commerce. In such a world, political freedom without economic strength can leave a country vulnerable.

For this reason, I believe a nation should first attain at least middle-income economic strength before being granted full democratic freedom. Economic maturity gives society the resilience needed to resist narratives that undermine its people and its leadership. 

In India’s case, our tragedy has been to expand democratic freedoms before building durable economic foundations. The result is that voters are too often offered short-term handouts instead of governance that breaks dependence on election-time doles.

Once economic strength is secure, a gradual transition to a more disciplined political model, such as a single-party democracy like Singapore’s, may be worth considering. 

Even then, the public must retain the power to remove the top leader at the end of a term if performance is poor. 

Alternatively, a party-state system in which elections occur within the party rather than directly among the public may work, provided it is guided by Dharmic principles.

Why should such a model be taken seriously? Because human beings are naturally drawn toward adharma when self-awareness weakens, imagination runs unchecked, memory fades, conscience slackens, and willpower fails. 

Governance, therefore, cannot rely on idealism alone. It needs modeled restraint, institutional discipline, and a clear sense of duty towards the state and the subjects.

That is why the equivalent of Chanakya–Maurya model deserves revival, one where a Brahmin-led moral counsel could serve as a reminder to the mightiest Kshatriya rulers, that to rule the world, one must first serve it. Here God is not the enemy of the state but solace for anyone when misfortune strikes. 

Only a civilization as ancient as Bharat and a country as young as India, rooted in its past and committed to its future, can attempt such a long-term project with seriousness. 

If it succeeds, India need not merely govern itself well; it can become an example for the world to follow.

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, which for me meant Pakistan. 

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 Iran 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 senseless 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 chameleonic standard.

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. They don't get it that Modi serves the motherland with deep devotion. 

Modi baiters can't articulate why it's worthwhile for them to be a fan of some other politician in the opposition. Notice, they never ever really showcase adequate virtues there. And so they expend their energy on finding Modi's faults. 

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 benchmarking 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 nobody believes 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. 

India's Foreign Policy & the Modi Doctrine

It is unfortunate that many Indians haven't understood their own national foreign policy.

That's also an irony, as perhaps it is one of the very few policies that haz remained consistent since the time of independence.

The Nehruvian thought of non-alignment haz been adhered to, irrespective of the dispensation in power in New Delhi.

Modi haz simply given impetus to it, namely:

A) He's reframed that value-based belief from being equi-distant to equi-proximate with all, to the maximum practical possibility. 

2) He's put that belief into firm action, and so embraced Washington & Moscow, Tehran & Riyadh, and Tel Aviv & Ramallah, making him perhaps the world's first & only person, dead or alive, to have achieved that distinction of hugging leaders from each of the warring-in-cold pairs.

One should note that he's as much at the high table in the North as connected with the Global South.

3) Finally, hiz unique characteristic is that as the first Indian leader to be born post-independence, he haz traveled the world, sans any hangover or inkling of colonial past. In fact, as a true Bhartiya, he haz unabashedly engaged the diaspora and used India's soft power to the brim. He is known to have demanded from hiz hosts the return of stolen from India ancient idols, even as he gifts them unique artifacts from across India, made by our artisans today.

To hiz distinction, he haz remained undefeated & steadfast since May 2014, while all hiz counterparts across the world are seen playing musical chairs. Irrespective of who comes to power and from which party, a Modi-meet is seen to be on every global leader's to-do list. Modi haz been conferred more highest civilian national awards in foreign lands than any other contemporary leader.

It became a great vantage point for India, as, notwithstanding the global pandemic, or the Ukraine war, or instability in the global order, most national capitals consider India as a reliable friend. 

India, under Modi's watch rose on the GDP ranks from #11 to #4 (soon to be #3) with one of the best macroeconomic performances in the world. 

The last G20 summit under Modi's India turned out to be a showpiece for the world, achieving what even the UN had not.

At the G20, a body of the most powerful & wealth controling nations, India managed to bring the otherwise disagreeing America, Russia, and China to converge on a joint communique, including bringing the poor African Union on board.

India haz begun to exert influence & move the global commodity markets.

Its growing military power, financial muscle, and technological prowess are worthy of envy for many.

Whether in the Western or Eastern hemisphere, she is well represented in every major body, including the QUAD & BRICS, both of which are opposing forces. The G20, I2U2, and the G7, to which India is a permanent invitee, are the other names worthy of mention. All these bodies are now suddenly witnessing a vociferous contribution by India.

Not being on the permanent member list at the UN as that bloated body fails to reform, is not India's embarrassment, but the UN's.

Under Modi's leadership, India is expanding its global footprint through various bilateral agreements, including trade in regional currencies. 

It is he who had begun to alter, if not change, the global narrative, and not the ever-volatile Trump. On the contrary, America under Trump is seen isolating itself.

All thiz haz clearly generated great interest about India across the world 

So, what is India's unique serving proposition?

Let's get one thing clear - India haz no enemies, not even Pakistan. She works with whosoever satisfies the security and needs of her people.

India doesn't dominate. In fact, she is famous for being the first responder to the distress call from any corner of the world. While the rich world hoarded vaccines to make a quick buck during the global pandemic, India indulged in vaccine diplomacy by playing the savior for the smallest and the poorest nations of the world.

India sure haz her agenda for peace.

Having said that, she is not naïve. 

India is a forward moving modern nation and simultaneously a wise ancient civilization. History haz taught her well of the wicked ways of the mean world. These memories have been revived under the Modi regime, so, a robust defense program is under implementation. 

India is no longer a soft state; she's a sharp power, writing her own story. 

If anyone haz an alternative agenda for her, then she mitigates and responds accordingly, putting the adversary in its place.

The calibrated Operation Sindoor, is a ripe example. It waz started, courtesy the damn Pakis' who provoked through a cowardly terror act, and so we responded with force, but when the decimated other side halted firing, we too instantly stopped our generous selves from continuing the war. 

Unprovoked, the new government of Maldives postured against India, favoring the Chinese. Knowing that the island economy relies on Indian tourists, Modi gestured Indians to visit Lakshadweep instead. They instantly realized their folly and fell in line. India too reciprocated friendship. 

The same is true with Turkey. They had no business to support the damn Pakis. We resumed relations with them but only after responding in kind, namely supporting their adversary, Armenia, and reporting to the Turks that they bloody well fall within our missile range.

We had already begun normalizing relations with China after they withdrew their troops in October, restoring the status quo. Our leaders, including Rajnath Singh, S. Jaishankar, and Ajit Doval, were in touch with them since the incursions.

The correct way to look at all thiz is that at times, some lose their minds and walk out, but India keeps the door ajar. Upon regaining conscience and scruples, they all reenter our good graces.

Enjoy the ride; you're sitting atop an unshackled wise elephant that marches on.

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki … Jai Ok Please!

 

 

English Vinglish

The language wars in India are so sad. 

Most of us don't realize the gravity of the situation we're dealing with. 

Words are energy pellets. 

Words can be translated but not the connotations they carry. 

The connotations also give rise to both imagination and emotions. If language is the vehicle of expression, the denotation & connotation combined are potent enough to change the conscience & the direction of the travellers in that vehicle. 

The honerable Home Minister Amit Shah recently said, "Language is not just the medium of communication, in it is also the soul of the nation. Our roots, traditions, history and culture, cannot move forward separately from the Indian languages. We must keep our languages alive and also enrich them."

The gap between the thought and speech is an impairment. 

While we can't give up English due to its global spread arising out of the British imperialism in the past, considering that we are an ancient civilization, there needn't be a sense of pride in the language of the oppressor. 

In the Be-Know-Do sequence, let's not forget our Beingness.

We must not turn anti-English, but we can surely attempt to be non-English.  

It means, English can be our language for the sake of easy of transaction, not thought. That still allows us to be as good in English as anyone else in the world. 

Today's zero-summing is hurting us. 

A lot of our ills today are due to the impact of the infamous Macaulay education system. 

It was a system where one was made to feel that English-ness was the only ticket for escaping poverty, no matter how alien the language was to the Indian way of life. 

Post independence, we continued it as a mandatory requirement for higher education, not mindful of the employ-ability for almost all of the population. 

Even today, after 75 years of independence, only around 11% speak English as their first language of choice. 

What's worse is that we look down upon those who don't speak good English and hold in awe those who do, especially if it carries an American accent.

Ironically, in words of none other than Rahul Gandhi, "The escape from poverty in India became more difficult than the escape velocity of Jupiter!"

Interestingly, the Chinese have not just translated but even sinicized a lot of foreign works, including the Gita, Bible, & Koran. 

I believe that if an Indian Muslim student read her religious texts in an official Sanskritized version, i.e., in the vernacular language of her choice, be it Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarati, etc., she & her faith would be well served.

Currently, she risks being manipulated as she can't understand Arabic, and so is at the mercy of the middlemen. I guess she is somewhat shackled simply because she learns per the translators' vested interests and follows his agenda and not what the text prescribes.

Communication is the key to being upward bound. 

In that, the first rule of effective communication is that your language should be aligned with the language in which your listener is having an internal dialogue. So, if Indians speak in English to an English man, it's all well, good, and understood. Both's proficiency, and cognitive frequency, if matching, adds to the effectiveness. However, we must appreciate the gaps if one is not good in English. 

The distinction that comes to the fore is that between our wealth and wellbeing. 

With English, one can get wealthy a wee bit more easily in India, even when very few speak it, and that is our peculiarity worthy of being ashamed of. 

It doesn't mean others can't be rich. The issue is, some of us are wealthy just because we speak in English. 

When one can't associate with the masses and vice versa because you are somewhat "foreign" to them & they to the you, your psychological well-being is that much compromised. 

Nehru's 'tryst with  destiny' speech, being in English, remained a speech writer’s joy as almost all Indians at the time couldn't understand the one who delivered it, and vice versa. 

Modi is considered as one of the best communicator. 

It is time that we get it that Modi's 'global leader' status is not because he speaks in English. 

It is, because he thinks in "Indian" and therefore as an Indian PM and representative of his country, he can speak his mind with confidence. 

That confidence comes with being at ease with his origin even in the international arena.

In the final reckoning, strength recognizes strength.

Sadly, within India, his speeches in Hindi are well understood by about half of the Indian population!