A CRITICAL TRIBUTE TO NEHRU: THE VISIONARY FIRST PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

 

On his 58^th death anniversary, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, appears a highly polarising and controversial personality. This was not the case a few decades back when I was studying in a university in the national capital named after him -   Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU). But even during late 1980s and early 90s, Pandit Nehru was not a very popular figure even in a premier University that was named after him. But he was definitely not hated or despised by any standard. 

We are the largest democracy in human history with free speech enshrined in our constitutions as a fundamental right. But I don't remember at any point of time in my entire life, at least from mid 1970s since when I remember things clearly, that  one could either admire or criticise  a big leader or even disapprove of his/her decisions at any public platform, without losing  goodwill or inviting some retribution. Today, strangers, if not bots, are waiting to pounce upon anyone on social media with all kinds of vituperative diatribe over any divergent perception on an issues or even a leader. 

Nevertheless, in the best interest of democracy and governance, decisions of every important leader, howsoever great, must be open to impartial and enlightened public inquest or intellectual scrutiny. One must never be insulting or prejudiced in such exercise. But an honest venture with candour shall certainly helps build better perspective on governance and democracy. 

During my days in JNU, leftists not only dominated the intellectual discourse on the campus but virtually bullied, mocked and intimidated the rest. They often mocked Pandit Nehru, describing his vision of socialism as fake, insincere and utopian. This was prior to collapse of communism in 1989. This was the time, when even the remotest association with Congress Party or BJP, or for that matter any centrist party, was considered a stigma on JNU campus. I remember during 1988-89, Congress Party had arranged a series of cultural programmes to mark birth centenary of Pandit Nehru. But I doubt it had any positive impact at least in JNU.   

Interestingly, certain shades of socialists, opposed to Congress Party in 1980s, hailed Nehru as their own icon.  They showed enormous praise for Nehruvian socialism, even while opposing and condemning Indira Gandhi over her assaults on democracy during the famous "Emergency" era  and eroding and scuttling integrity of nearly all institutions. Some of the elderly and towering socialist leaders like late Shri Chandrashekhar ji and his associates cited Nehru's five-year plans, or his initiatives to build s strong public sector and institutions of learning, his leadership of post-colonial Afro-Asian world to resist “neo-imperialist, neo-colonial hegemonic agenda of the United States” in 1950s, without capitulating to Russia, as hall-mark of great leadership.  

They particularly praised Pandit Nehru’s vision of a modern and scientific India, which in their opinion were manifest in Bhakhra Nangal project to IITs to steel plants to atomic power projects etc. We hardly talk about Bhakhra Nangal today, but I was told that it was inaugurated with festivity and joy, befitting a national festival. They opined that these were so very difficult to conceptualise in the atmosphere prevailing in the immediate aftermath of independence. 

Many politicians who were young in 1950s and 1960s, had mentioned that despite all its claims to promote democracy, the United States had refused to help India with steel manufacturing technology or any heavy engineering industry or technological modernization plan on which Nehru ji was very keen. Later suspicion of American hand in killing of Homi J Bhabha virtually confirmed Indian apprehensions of  American hostility. With John Foster Dulles vindictive policy of 1950s that those who were not with America were against it, was yet another indicator of American disdain towards India's autonomy and independence in conduct of foreign policy.  Under these circumstances, Nehru appears to have handled initial challenges of governance and geopolitics so very well.  

But these admirers of Nehru also criticized the latter's overly anglicized ways, his stance on Tibet, his follies over Kashmir and of course the debacle that he invited in the war with China in 1962. They identified the root cause  of these failures in Nehru's patronizing and self-righteous approach that bordered on some degree of narcissism. Yet in hindsight, his narcissism was far less malevolent compared to not only Mao, Stalin, Khrushchev or even Churchill but also likes of even Tito, Nasser, Sukarno and Nkrumah, who were suspected to have clandestinely eliminated/oppressed some of their key rivals.  

Nehru's financial integrity, as per all available records, was impeccable. Unlike Jinnah, who was committed to excesses in luxury and sensuous indulgences, Nehru led an austere life. This was despite having seen luxury and comfort that his father had once provided for. His association with several women were well known. But that was the case with nearly all men in power of that era, in almost every part of the world, varying from Churchill to Mao.

 

Nehru was thoroughly committed to governance and remained fairly impartial in dealing with of most his colleagues. Chinese betrayal in 1962 had left him shattered and he made no bones about it. In the last interview of his life, which I have inserted in this blog, he was unequivocal that India had to become a strong military power to repel Chinese threat via Tibet. Even at the height of his soft corner for China, he never hesitated in giving shelter to young Dalai Lama.

 Source: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=nehru%27s+last+interview&docid=607999303091500460&mid=733C6AD9FEBFFABB87B4733C6AD9FEBFFABB87B4&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

When India, with its rich civilizational heritage, gained independence as a vast and yet fractured nation, with a set of challenges that were far too complex and  yet humongous, it needed an exceptional and towering leader to preside over the initial phase of tumult and uncertainty. Even if Nehru was not the perfect choice, he was certainly one of the best options that the country had at that point of time. He had several strengths but also a share of follies. How Subhash Chandra Bose or Sardar Patel would have acted is a hypothetical proposition. But these leaders did appear more decisive, forceful and realist on several parameters. But Bose was not there and Sardar Patel passed away prematurely. 

There was no dearth of a galaxy of brilliant leaders even in cabinet of Pandit Nehru or outside. Nehru did occasionally support even those who were opposed to his views but in few cases, he did appear vindictive. I am not citing specific examples only to avoid controversies. But I doubt that there was any leader in any part of the post-colonial world at that point of time, who was better. We can argue that as the first Prime Minister, he could have done more. But this is an endless debate.   

Subsequent researches, incorporating some de-classified military-diplomatic documents, demonstrate that Nehru ji was least receptive to the then military, security and diplomatic establishments of the country. He over-rode institutional wisdom on several issues of critical importance.  Deadlock in Kashmir in 1948 or Chinese intrusion in Aksai Chin in 1950s or abdicating offer of a permanent seat in UN Security Council in favor of China or ultimately being surprised by the Chinese attack in 1962 are some of the examples in this direction.

It is debatable whether such lapses emanated from Nehru's romanticist view of the world that he had nurtured as an idealist freedom fighter under the patronage of Mahatma Gandhi. He lacked adequate exposure to geopolitics and security issues or one can say the very principles and practices of statecraft and warfare. Alternatively, he had remained distrustful of incumbents in those very military, intelligence and diplomatic institutions, who until sometime back had faithfully served an external colonial master, helping in oppression of their own people. 

Nehru in his bonhomie with Mao in 1950s, failed to appreciate Chinese or Maoist psyche emanating from long uninterrupted tradition of deceptive warfare and diplomacy. Mao was a top guerrilla warrior, adept in overwhelming bigger adversary exploiting their trust and complacence. Nehru had virtually given up on North-East India during the Chinese war besides letting down troops with deficient supply of essentials. He probably acted far too naively in dealing with Islamist radicals, as if they were liberal Muslims.  

But a great  leader cannot hide behind these excuses. Sardar Patel too had no exposure to statecraft. But he acted with such levels of realism, pragmatism, integrity and vision – in uniting 500 plus princely states, including difficult ones like Hyderabad and Junagadh among others- that could pale even the most seasoned governance and statecraft strategists. 

Leaders cannot be omniscient. But they must optimally harness all their resources, including their associates. With all his strengths and good intent, Pandit Nehru could not sufficiently trust his own associates and he probably remained far more than the first among equals in his council of Ministers. He trusted his own wisdom and decisions far too often, ignoring his associates. This contributed to a great visionary and idealist flounder on some major issues of strategic importance. 

         But today, Nehru is no more and India and the world and the larger context and sub-contexts of governance and geopolitics have significantly transitioned. United States is the closest partner of India, notwithstanding India's refusal to directly condemn Russia for invasion of Ukraine. India- China competition and rivalry is likely to stay forever. Successes and failures of Nehru offer huge lessons in leadership, politics, governance and geopolitics and diplomacy.  The biggest criticism that Pandit Nehru faces is on introduction of dynastic politics in India. Probably, it never happened during his own life time. It was Lal Bahadur Shastri who had succeeded Pandit Nehru but following his unexpected death in Tashkent, Indira Gandhi took over premiership with help of some clever courtiers, who had intended to exploit her naivete. She outsmarted all of them and turned out to be exact opposite to her father on tolerance to dissidence or even corruption. But it is pertinent to ask, what were the rest of Congressmen & women doing? 

Even today, the Nehruvian idea of egalitarianism is neither fake nor irrelevant. An extreme inequality in society disturbs its strategic equilibrium, undermining the quality of cohesion and competition and consequently the capacity of a society evolve and flourish optimally. Today, China with 109+ highly profitable public sector companies in the list of Forbes Fortune 500, has demolished the myth of inefficiency of public sector. Ability of these companies to invest in R&D without worrying for immediate returns, has helped  China surge ahead of even the United States in many critical areas of fundamental research. Yes, we need to avoid obtrusive controls of the kind that the Soviet Russia and erstwhile communists practiced, killing innovation and excellence and choking output of their societies. 

Nehruvian model sought to retain people's control over mega companies and major resources without curbing freedom of ideas, initiative and enterprise. The model could have been refined alongside transformation of larger ecosystem to foster higher quality of trust, collaboration, competition and excellence. 

But it is time Nehru is liberated from partisan, acrimonious and politically discordant discourses. His lapses must be remedied and  his contributions need to be consolidated upon. But this is possible only if his great grand children set an example of some self-sacrifice. Their presence at the helm of Congress Party, by virtue of sheer birth in a family rather than any accomplishment as well as their association with dishonest courtiers, amounts to the biggest indictment of Nehru as harbinger of nepotism, favouritism, dynastic entitlements and corruption in every sector in contemporary India. 

Pandit Nehru's great grand children can emerge as powerful agents of change to redeem not only pride of  their own great grandfather but also help India realise its optimum potential as a state and society, that Pandit ji had envisioned. 

Racial Mass Shooting in New York: Need For Re-Structuring Governance Priorities In Democracies

        Shock and anguish were the first reaction to a news this morning about a racially motivated shoot out at a grocery store in New York. An 18 year old white supremacist young man had shot 13 persons, killing 10 of them. 11 of the 13 victims were coloured people. 

This Victims in this case were all innocent and none deserved to lose their lives the way they did. Their families also did not deserve the ordeal and trauma or scar that may persist for life. The debate over this killing even in the United States focuses on gun laws. People assume that once access to guns is stopped, probably such killings may stop. They may not be entirely be wrong. With knives and hammers, far lesser casualties can be inflicted. Victims in such cases, may have better prospect to fight back and protect themselves. But what is more serious is the depth of hatred and poison in the hearts of such assailants as well as social and otherwise conditions promoting such state of mind or mental instability among a few.  

There has been a complaint from sections within the American society, that most stakeholders of United States lack sincerity or conviction to address this menace. Their condemnations of such killings and expression of outrage sounds more like hollow rituals rather than real intent or purpose. Probably a steeply inequal and materialistic society, that worships wealth, may struggle to attach priority to an issue where victims are irrelevant in larger economic and political power equations. 

This incident happened far too away and it may look absurd for an Indian to take it so seriously. People in most parts of the world are least impacted by it, even though some Indians may feel concerned as they may have their family  or relations in New York or similar other parts of the world. But I assume that most of them probably may not be required to frequent such neighborhoods.  

Nevertheless, I feel that the regularity with which such shootouts have been taking place in the world's most powerful democracy, reflects serious deficiencies and dysfunctionality of some of their institutions. But such phenomenon is nearly universal in many democracies, even though their forms and contents may vary. Some of the underlying conditions that drive such racial or hate-filled attacks are omnipresent in nearly all plural societies. 

But apathy towards human life may be more pronounced in some of the authoritarian societies as well as post-colonial democracies. Even the better governed authoritarian states, where masses may not have access to guns, it is enforcement agencies and their personnel who frequently unleash such or somewhat similar terror which may not even get reported. Many excesses and acts of violence by them may not have sanction of the political leadership.   

Since the world look up to  America to assess the standards of governance, integrity and efficiency of institutions and state of human rights in their own countries, it becomes imperative to delve deeper into this phenomenon and explore solutions that may be universal in nature.

Of course the American gun-laws are outrightly atrocious. There is no place for such laws in a society that aspires or pretends to be a beacon for entire humanity. But probably abolition of laws in themselves may not be sufficient. It is more important that effort is made to eliminate those conditions where people need such deadly weapons of mass killings. If they need it for their own security from wild animals or deadly criminals, let there be a less lethal weapon in the market that only immobilizes  people  but only temporarily, without causing any injury. Even sale and use of such weapons must be strictly regulated only for self-defense. 

The second question that has come to fore is racial prejudice and motivation of the assailant. I have always maintained that democracies all over the world need to pay serious attention to usher in a firm and effective mechanism of rule of law. Even political mobilization in  the name of identity- race, religion or language- must be banned. Attempt to profiteer out of identity politics is nothing but day light assault on principles of democracy and equality. This holds true not only for politicians but also religious seminaries or civil society groups who have been seeking to demonize all members of other identity. 

I realize that there are certain theological principles and so-called religious texts that instigate violence against members of other faiths. These must be banned. Preaching or advocating violence or hatred against any community is no freedom. It is rather abuse of freedom and the biggest threat to lives, liberty and security of people as well as security and stability of states and societies. 

Finally, I would call for re-prioritization of some of the governance objectives, especially in democracies. Human health-both physical and mental- has to be at the top. I am not advocating that democratic states should create an army of lazy parasites who produce nothing and consume a lot. But probably, all democracies need to create a citizenry that is physically and mentally healthy, professionally and technically skilled  and ethically conscientious to foster optimal collaboration of the highest possible quality.  

The attacker in this incident is certainly a mentally ill person. There are lot of mentally unstable and ill people around us. Some of them are sadly harming themselves but many among them are inflicting severe harm on their societies and people around them.  If mentally ill persons get power- either in the form of a gun or even a position of authority- they may simply become unmanageable monsters. 

A deterrent action, howsoever strong, can do very little to retrieve the situation once the harm of this nature has already been inflicted or some human lives have already been lost.  Hence, it is important that democratic states restructure their priorities to attach optimal importance to physical and mental health of their citizenry.  Wherever required, even families must be counselled to ensure that they provide optimal conditions for wellbeing of their children. A regular physical and mental health check-up must be mandatory in all societies for all individuals. 

Similarly, universal access to quality education, dignity of labour, basic economic security must be prioritized.   Leadership in democracy, or what I envision as Indocracy in its more humanised form, is all about leading people towards a better society that fosters better collaboration and trust. Hence, leaders must harness collective strengths and capacities of their people towards collective goals. Today the victims of attack from a mentally unstable may be few poor hapless black citizens of a mighty democracy. But tomorrow even the mightiest among the mighty may face consequences of reckless actions of normal looking insane persons, with lot of destructive power at their disposal.     

Indocracy and An Indigenous Strategy on Terrorism for India

 

Dear Readers, I had taken probably the longest break from my blog due to a variety of factors.  I had promised that I shall soon be spelling out certain details of Indocracy and the one year period is too long. One can write a series of books in such a duration.  

Meanwhile, I have spelled out my ideas of Indocracy at various other platforms as well. Interestingly, many other people have started using the phrase or caption "Indocracy" @ "Bharat Tantra". I wish they used it to produce some meaty and thought-provoking concepts. But this is simply not possible for plagiarists or people lacking even basic integrity to acknowledge that they have got an idea from somewhere.  

While at one level I was eager that many people used or at least became conscious of the requirement of something like Indocracy or Bharat Tantra. But at another, I remain apprehensive of distortion of this idea. Indocracy @ Bharat Tantra is not about going back to past, howsoever glorious it may have been. It is also not about anguish and pain over certain developments that may not be perfect. It is more about a scientific knowledge and practice driven futuristic perspective on governance, geopolitics, national security and leadership to drive these.  It is neither possible for researchers nor for specialists. 

Anyways, the most hilarious encounter I had on this issue was by an acquaintance from JNU who teaches Hindi in some college of Delhi University. During a casual interaction, I mentioned to him about my idea of Indocracy. He became excited and soon invited me to a WhatsApp group that was captioned JNUites for Indocracy. I was appalled that many ideas from my own blog were being rehashed and in some cases even people did not bother to change the language. Meanwhile, I was told that the concerned acquaintance used his connections to organise seminars and public meetings and started peddling his own interpretation or misinterpretation of my ideas as Indocracy @ Bharat Tantra. I exited that platform and took resolve to avoid something like that. 

Integrity and Humanism are at the core of the idea of Indocracy. Indocracy is an intellectual revolt against the idea of entitlement and dishonesty. Indocracy envisions innovation and excellence, which is impossible through petty theft of ideas or wealth. The concept of leadership in Indocracy is driven by the highest form of altruism and one feels quite disturbed to see people claiming to be creator of some concept like this in name of our civilisation and making a beeline for personal favour at corridors of power.   

While our detailed interaction on Indocracy shall continue, I am taking liberty to post a research paper of mine that I wrote last year on need for an indigenous strategy on terrorism. There is a world-wide decline in terrorism but the larger ecosystem of terrorism in South Asia shall ensure that the problem shall persist. Further, massive counter-terror infrastructure shall start hurting us soon. It is time that we modify these institutions with larger change in the context. 

Though many factual details have changed since the paper went to press but most of its contents remain relevant even now. It will be pleasure to have feedback of my valued readers.    

 

Jitendra Ojha's Paper on Terrorism

WHY INDOCRACY? Vol-3; INDIA MUST CHART OUT A NEW COURSE OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

 

ERODING CREDIBILITY OF DEMOCRACY

 By the 1^st quarter of 21^st century, the democratic political systems, in their current shape, have appeared increasingly incapable of effectively pursuing some of their own promises. These include universal access to security, opportunity, dignity and justice. Challenges in this direction may be quite profound in the developing world, but developed nations too are not entirely immune to some institutionally inbuilt discriminations or inequities. Howsoever, subtle or even discreet these may be but their own people have been quite vocal about these.

 One cannot deny the fact that life for average humans is far more safe, secure, just and fair today, in most parts of the world, than at any other point of time in the past. Yet, an overwhelming majority of people, continue to face wretched, miserable, unjust and grossly unfair conditions. These deny them not only a secure and dignified existence but also impede collective progress of societies and states. 

Democracy has helped improve plight of people across most divides but its benefits have not percolated to all strata of society and universally. Marginalised sections even in some of the rich and powerful democracies continue to be deprived of the fruits of wealth and prosperity that their societies boast of.  

 These only suggest that the idea of democracy has to cover a long distance to realise some of the goals and objectives that the world leaders had set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the perceived cornerstone of the modern representative humane democracy, in the aftermath of 2^nd world war (1948). In this context, sustained governance under-performance of major democracies, especially in face of resurgence of an authoritarian China, and steady erosion in norms of probity in most open societies, can derail the larger human advancement towards a fairer and just world. 

 Democracy’s advances, since the end of the second World-war, have been accompanied with persistence of many of the existing, and emergence of several newer forms of, conflicts. These are negatively impacting governance output of open societies across a wider divide. The larger consequences of this anomaly is going to impact even elite in these societies, unless remedial measures are initiated. The real test of democratic leadership- whether in the realm of ideas or actions- would lay in their ability of to find newer and innovative ways and means to address or negotiate these conflicts or challenges.  

 A little deeper analysis of issues, and awareness of the contexts, awakens us to possibilities of viable and sustainable institutional innovations to foster greater cooperation, collaboration and even competition among people. These can be potentially harnessed to enhance the quality of governance in open societies, with larger focus in the developing world. The idea of Indocracy is only an effort in this direction. It envisions refinement - and not dilution - of the core ideas, institutions and promises of democracy.

 

DEMOCRACY’S PROMISES

 Modern representative democracy promises a social order that is universally just, fair and secure. It pre-supposes a high degree of communication, trust and collaboration among people. This is possible only if social behaviours and institutional processes are driven by higher levels of integrity and empathy.

     The biggest hindrance in this direction comes from continuation of some of the basic survival or combative human instincts. These include insecurity, anxiety, aggression, greed or dishonesty, or even sheer absence of self-restraint or self-belief, in large sections of citizenry. In the post-colonial states, these challenges have been further compounded by continuation of some of the oppressive and repressive practices of the state institutions, which were devised during colonial era by external occupiers. Sadly, in most contexts, even the new local ruler have found these immensely convenient to secure themselves and oppress their political opponents. 

The governance output of most democracies in the developing world remains way short of their potentials and capacities. This has been pushing the popularity of surveillance and coercion driven Chinese model, especially in fragile democracies where rulers are keen to quickly showcase some of their accomplishments to obtain popular approval. They find many of the instruments and processes of representative government, devised and perfected in the West, incapable of meeting their requirements. 

Many of the existing democratic instruments and processes, despite their universal orientation, do carry several cultural, social and behavioural connotations. Their efficacy to pursue some of the fundamental promises of democracy in social, cultural and economic contexts other than West, appears a little suspect. Governance challenges and priorities of the post-colonial developing societies differs not only with their counterparts in the developed world but even amongst themselves. Hence, the need for innovation in democratic institutions may be quite serious and substantive with appropriate variations in different regional-cultural contexts.

Over the past few centuries, the idea of democracy, as well as many of its institutional practices and procedures, have substantially evolved  from their medieval moorings even in the west. From a power-sharing arrangement among an exclusive club of property-owning adult males, democracy has assumed a more universalistic character as symbolised by universal adult franchise. Nevertheless, these appear inadequate to transform societies and states in the developing world or create optimally secure social spaces that are conducive for collective betterment of people.

A careful evaluation of the past suggests that sustained and comprehensive progress of communities and states have been driven more by persuasion, trust and collaboration. Coercion, fear and intimidation may have been critical, and even unavoidable under certain conditions, for building vibrant societies and robust states but these had their limitations. The ideas of justice, fairness, equity and human dignity, as per norms in the each context,  always played a bigger role in such persuasive collaboration among people.  While no society could have adhered to these values and principles of trust and justice driven collaboration in their absolute form but a higher degree of observance of such would have provided a stronger bedrock for cohesive and robust societies.

However, it is quite possible that the idea of justice, fairness, equity, and human dignity may have carried different connotations in different contexts. Simultaneously, these have also been evolving over time. But there is no confusion that the contemporary scientific and humanist democracy, as developed in the West, promises and practices, these values and ideals to a relatively higher degree than all other forms of political systems known to the mankind over the last one millennium or even more. 

But these institutions are not perfect in themselves. They remain vulnerable to subversion by survival, combative and opportunistic human instincts. While economic and physical security, as well as social and behavioural training, may have helped curb some of these instincts but people nowhere are entirely immune to such or similar human frailties. A sturdy mechanism of rule of law has come to act as a serious deterrent against deviant social behaviour, but, in absence of a favourable ecosystem, rule of law is difficult to uphold to an optimum degree. 

Compared to established model democracies, developing countries appear to have been trapped in a vicious cycle. An unfavourable internal and external and internal ecosystem has been hindering progress towards rule of law. Simultaneously, poor state of rule of law has also been vitiating social and economic space to an extent that these societies are losing most benefits of democracy and representative governance. Nevertheless, there have been a few exceptions, where leadership driven initiatives have ushered in serious transformation of institutions towards effective governance within a democratic political framework. But is mostly relatively smaller states like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan that appear to have benefitted more than larger states.  

In the context of India, the challenges of its huge size, humongous diversities and fragility of institutions have been compounded internal fissures by an unfavourable external ecosystem. While, India has managed internal fault-lines quite creditably but these have impacted both internal cohesion and consensus on building high quality governance institutions. Simultaneously, identity driven threats from both Pakistan and China have been far too deep, intractable and even emotive in their own respective ways. West’s inability to think and act strategically, as manifest in its sustained ambivalence - or even support to Pakistan and Islamic extremism - until recently, have further complicated challenges for both India and the overall plight of democracy. Currently, the combined Pak-China all-pervasive threat makes India probably the most vulnerable or threatened nation in the world. These have been generating  their own pressure on the governance institutions. 

 

WHY MUST INDIA CHART OUT A NEW COURSE OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

Sustenance of democracy in India, amidst extreme adversity, has often been attributed to persistence of some of its original humanist civilisational values. This is notwithstanding their severe distortion, as well as disruption of normal progress, following larger decay of Indian state and society leading to their external occupation. Sustained social and intellectual movements, as well political and military resistance campaigns,  followed by leadership initiatives of the freedom fighters and first-generation statesmen of independent India, may have successfully rekindled and improvised some of these values, norms and practices.  These appear to have been harnessed to lay sturdy foundations for a  representative government as well as simultaneous social and economic transformation.

 India has enriched the idea of democracy with its unique civilizational roots of social trust, humanism and pacifism, notwithstanding all exceptions, aberrations and shortfalls. Compared to all other civilizations, India had practiced the highest possible degree of amiability and goodwill not only among human beings but also with the forces of nature. Curb on arbitrary power of rulers, rules of war, absence of large-scale collateral damage of civilian population during armed conflicts, absence of slavery and use of slave labour in building imposing monuments, absence of large-scale crime, emphasis on spiritual development, art, science and music etc during pre- medieval India may have had an important role in shaping an outlook, national psyche and behavioural norm that differentiates India from the rest. Some of these ingredients of civilizational values may have had profound contributions in sustenance of  an open and accountable political system. 

Simultaneously, worshipping nature, earth, rivers, trees, mountains and certain animals may appear a hollow ritual. But probably these were instruments of psychological conditioning for masses. These inculcated values like humility, pacifism, non-violence and respect for nature. While there are always significant exceptions, but average Indian is more likely to be less violent than people from identities. This is not to deny the impact of combined pressure of globalisation and a culture of capitalistic acquisitiveness, alongside abuse of democratic freedom, on wider behavioural norms of the people. 

 India has to explore possibilities of refining its institutions by incorporating advanced scientific knowledge in areas of governance and leadership. It needs far more effective and rational tools to foster internal cohesion and deter external threats to optimise its comprehensive strengths. A democratic and resurgent India can lend an strong momentum to the larger human advancement towards democratisation. 

Setbacks and disruptions have been part of the larger progress and evolution of the idea of democracy. Probably, this is a continuous journey without a final destination. The idea of Indocracy can constitute a serious advancement of the idea of democracy provided India is able to fuse its original civilizational values with contemporary scientific principles and practices to transform the quality of democratic governance in India.  This can be a model worth emulation by other developing nations, besides offering a few significant lessons to even the developed world. 

 Plurality and heterogeneity of India, with its myriad complexities and challenges, calls for investment of far more powerful ideas to optimise its potentials and strengths. An initiative in this direction has to be extremely well thought. A reckless misadventure is more likely to backfire, inviting even a bigger disaster than status -quo. But status-quo is probably untenable in the prevailing context. 

 Some of the greatest states and societies,  including India, have faced major setbacks in the past by their inability to appreciate the need for change at the right time and invest appropriate efforts in this direction. The contemporary democratic India has been facing a crying need for serious overhaul of its institutions for quite some time. Economic liberalisation of 1991 should have been followed with reforms in civil service, political parties, private sector, judiciary, policing, municipal governance, media, and even health and education sector among others. Nevertheless, it is still not too late for the world’s largest democracy to chart out a newer course of democratic governance for itself.

[ The next write up shall spell out a specific structure of change in the legislative institutions  and processes of the country]

 

WHY INDOCRACY? Vol 2

Pandemic Exposes Deficient Institutions 

 When life is returning to near normal in the developed world, India is battling an aggressive  second wave of Corona pandemic. Suddenly, from the position of major relief provider to the world, by virtue of its vaccine and pharmaceutical prowess, India has become a recipient of relief materials and an object of world-wide sympathy. 

Mass agony over unprecedented but many avoidable deaths due to shortage of  medicines, ventilators, oxygen cylinders and hospital beds, as well as apathy of a section of hospitals, have found graphic depiction in the local media. Government's challenges have been further compounded by black-marketing of medical essentials and flooding of even spurious drugs. Popular confidence in institutions has also faced a setback following derailment of the vaccination programme. 

Meanwhile, Head of the key vaccine manufacturing company has sneaked out to London, betraying his promises to the people and the country to ensure universal access to vaccination. His actions have also raised a serious question mark over the state policy of depending upon profit-drive private ventures for supply of critical essentials during national emergencies. 

Resentment against large sections of political class has also been brewing over what appears a callous approach on their part and somewhat insensitivity towards human lives. On the other hand, there have been exemplary instances of brilliant and selfless contributions by fairly large sections of people from civil society as well as significant number of state functionaries. But sections of politicians, across party divides, have appeared more anxious to make a political capital, including individual publicity, out of human sufferings, rather than managing the situation.  

Indian state’s inability to avert or deftly manage a crisis of this magnitude has caused a lot of concern among its own citizenry as well as its well wishers internationally. This is especially in the wake of a few media reports hinting at the possibility of China exporting the second wave of pandemic through suspected weaponization of the virus.  Hence, challenges for India at this juncture appear quite formidable, especially given large size of the country and its burgeoning population. These are going to generate massive pressure on its not so developed infrastructure. 

While, there have been tactical failures on part of the existing dispensations but the present state of affairs can be attributed to failure of successive dispensations to explore innovative ways to effectively address some of the existential issues threatening the country. As a great civilisation, India has been deriving lot of prides in its glorious past and it also nurtures extra ordinary ambitions about its future. However, there is an urgent need to build necessary psychological wherewithal to find newer ways to pursue its aspirations. If a similarly sized China can make extra ordinary advances towards to economic, technological and military advances, there is no justification for a democratic India with a longer civilisational roots faltering in this direction. 

Better and Not Perfect Institutions    

Few years back in my inaugural write up on Indocracy at my blog, I had written that ‘the world has never been a perfectly fair place. And it is unlikely to be so even in future. But it can always be fairer and better than what it is. This is the sentiment that must have driven all great civilisations, societies and states. None may have ever been perfect.’ 

Our failure and pain at this juncture has been beseeching us to chart out a new course of action to bolster our national self-belief and national self-esteem. Instead of obfuscating the issue with emotional outbursts, the real test of leadership would lay in its ability to harness the spirit of national cohesion and sense of collective pain towards building robust governance institutions. We must aim to build stronger capacity to prevent and deter such calamities - when man made or inflicted by nature- in future. 

No society has ever achieved a perfect and permanent solution to all its challenges.  But resilience and vigour of a nation or its people is reflected in its ability to generate, respect and conscientiously pursue powerful ideas, imaginations, initiatives for their comprehensive and sustained advancement. This is what has differentiated great societies from the rest. The idea of Indocracy envisions concrete and scientific principles and practices that can build a robust political -governance framework which can push individual and institutional excellence, with a sustainable synergy between the two. This is critical for larger security, stability and accelerated all round progress of India, as per its own unique goals, challenges and priorities. Details of these specific innovations shall be spelled out in due course but this piece only intends to throw up a rationale for such an innovation.  

Deplorable Plight of South Asia

South Asia or Akhand Bharat or the civilizational state of India has been at war with itself for far too long. It is irrelevant, who is to blame and who is responsible for such a plight for one-fourth of the mankind. This region has thrown up great leaders at regular intervals but probably it needed a large galaxy of high quality leaders, thinkers and doers who could reverse the course of downhill momentum that the Indian civilization has been facing for far too long.  Brilliance of large variety of them who have come up in recent centuries, has probably been insufficient given our size and intensity of challenges.

[Source: Web; Pre-Islamic India, or Mauryan India or pre-Mauryan India, consisting of  whole of modern day South Asia depicted in the map or probably more, exercised profound influence, as a civilization, over South West Asia to East Asia, including Eastern Turkistan and modern day Tibet, going all the way to entire South East Asia. Buddhist influence in China as well as Japan and modern day Koreas too has been profound]

India's glorious past way back in the distant history, as well as initiatives to rejuvenate and resurrect it as a civilization, have also been accompanies by a series of sustained failures and lapses. Very often we appear to have refused, as a society and  state, to learn lessons from these. The modern-day South Asia or undivided civilizational state of India accounts for just 3.5 percent of the total surface area of this planet with nearly one-fourth of the total population of the mankind. 

Such an anomaly is simply not viable unless, the region was extremely prosperous in the past with people migrating to its from every other part of the world, in search of a better existence. But the Indian subcontinent  has been collectively on decline for far too long, notwithstanding multiple efforts and stellar contributions by visionary leaders and reformers. Our current state of affairs, as depicted by the following table, sums it up quite aptly:

Parameter	West Asia	Central Asia	South Asia	South East Asia	East Asia
Major Countries	Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Syria, UAE, Jordan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Lebanon, Bahrain +	Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan	India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives	Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Brunei, E Timor	China, Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan
Total Area	5.994 mn sq km	4.003 mn sq km	5.2 mn Sq KM	4.546 million Sq Km	11.84 mn Sq Km
Total Population	313.428  million	72.96 million	1.84 billion	655.298 million	1.6 billion
GDP (PPP/Nominal)	US$ 9.063/3.383 Tn	US$ 1026/300 bn	US $ 12.752/$3.598 Tn	US$ 9.727/3.317 Tn	US$ 37/25.6 trillion
Human Develoment Index	0.699	0.779	0.642	0.723	Japan:0.919; S Korea:0.916; China: 0.761; Mongolia:0.737
GDP Per capita in US $	From Qatar US $139 K, UAE 70k, Kuwait 68k,  Saudi US $57K , Oman 48k to Yemen 2.3k	US $ 21,701	US $ 1956.6	US $ 5017 (Exch rate)	US$ 16,000 (Nominal)

     [Source: Compiled from various credible sources, including UN annual reports]

  Even if we hold Pakistan responsible for inducing strife in the region, or waging covert war, to destroy aspiration of people of South Asia, as major civilization with an exceptional pool of human resources, we cannot escape the blame. This is especially after comprehensive military victory handed over to the country by its armed forces in 1971, following a substantial one in 1965. 

Instead of finding excuses, India's leaders should have found ways and means of addressing the challenges posed by either Pakistan or China as nothing is in the realm of impossibility. This is especially for the high quality human minds, driven by integrity, that India boasts of.  As natural leader of the region and inheritor of the legacy of the greatest and scientifically the most advanced humanist civilization on this planet, India needed to build institutions and values that could have handled both external threats and internal discords better and yet optimised collective potentials and strengths of its people.   

Institutions Must Optimise Collective Strengths and Potentials of People:

A closer look at the greatest societies of past, and even present, suggests that they owe their success to their better ability to harness the strengths of their people towards their common objectives and goals. They could empower a much larger, but not necessarily the entire, component of their citizenry and created far bigger space for individual excellence and innovation, and yet married these to their collective goals and objectives. They did it more effectively than others in their context. They built such behavioural norms as well as formal institutions, either consciously or unconsciously, that fostered greater collaboration and fairer competition. 

 Empowering people should not be about doles or charities to help them survive without contributing in real terms. It is more about building such physical, cognitive, technical and social skills and capacities that enables citizenry to contribute effectively to collective national productivity and prosperity. Some degree of coercion may have been necessary and even unavoidable for such goals but no society can consistently progress on the basis of coercion alone.

 In absence of appropriate social values, behavioural norms and institutional practices, that adhere to wider norms of fairness and justice in each context, formal rules or laws cannot sustain real cohesion or collaboration among people. Hence, the quality of progress of societies and civilizations have been dependent upon their ability to build a higher quality of mutually empowering equilibrium between individuals and societies or communities. 

 Progress or evolution in this direction has never been unilinear or consistent. Some have done better than others. But this has not necessarily been due to factors within their control. Very often, external variables or elements of nature or adversarial or supportive faces have played an important role. But erosion in institutional capacities has often resulted in prosperous, stable and culturally advanced societies capitulating to less civilized marauders, and the latter's deployment of instruments of deception and guerrilla or similar strategies of war. 

But can a great civilization or society accept perpetual under-performance blaming external forces? If Pakistan has been a spoiler or external forces have been hostile, what has prevented popular and charismatic leaders from creating conditions that can bolster our national capacity to address these elements?

 It is a fact that robbing herds of nomadic groups plundered and pulverised a much prosperous and advanced civilization on this subcontinent. They neither had any experience or exposure or any orientation to provide high quality governance that a larger and stable society needed. Hence, most of India and Indo-Asia region, has faced severe setbacks, distortions and degenerations, notwithstanding few exemplary initiatives to resurrect and rejuvenate governance institutions. These have not been sufficient for undoing the setbacks to our collective progress inflicted over centuries .It was again bad governance that pushed the entire region into colonial subjugation. It is again not fare to bracket entire Muslim community in this category of external marauders.  Very large sections of Muslims on the subcontinent has been indigenous inhabitants and they were probably driven more by egalitarian and humanist ethos of the faith rather than criminality, murder and loot that continue to be practiced in the name of Islam.  

Indocracy: A Futuristic Perspective on Governance: 

 Instead of  attempting to find follies and virtues in the past, and condemn or deride people of any identity, India needs a sincere intellectual inquisition to explore a more reliable route to an optimally secure and yet consistently progressive social, political, economic and governance order. If viewed from the prism of contemporary sensibilities, none of the societies of the past would appear perfectly harmonious, humane and yet progressive. Nevertheless, ancient India was way ahead of the rest both in terms of material prosperity and social amiability, as well as scientific temper and intellectual ambience, at least in its own context. 

What caused the eventual decline of India can never be conclusively established. But it is clear that some of the institutions, failed to safeguard the region from external invasions or threats as well as internal decay and degeneration. The blame cannot be placed entirely at the door of the so-called invaders or their perceived descendants. A great society and state must be resilient enough to anticipate such threats and prevent or deter these or quickly come out of such setbacks. It has not happened in case of India. Even if majority of the so-called invaders displayed complete lack of ethic of governance or commitment to  collective interests of the people,  the current discourse on governance must avoid this issue. 

In the prevailing context, we need serious and scientific exploration for better governance order. In the process, we must examine the efficacy of some of the existing instruments and processes of governance towards fostering higher degree of social amiability, trust and cohesion. Anything that breeds conflict and fractures societies or pushes them into under-performance, needs to be remedied. The hallmark of great institution is their capacity to protect people from not only their needs and wants but also from forces of nature and hostile adversaries.

 Indocracy is not an attempt to go back to the past. It is probably far more about learning from the failures and lapses of the past in the context of India as a civilization. It is a scientific attempt to explore ways and means to build more vibrant and robust societal and governance institutions that foster excellence and harmony both. One can never be perfect in this direction. But entire progress of societies and states has resulted from conscious investment of ideas and efforts in this direction.

 

[To be continued……]