Thoughts on the Existence of India, and Indians.

I am reading a fascinating book written by Ramachandra Guha, called 'India after Gandhi'. He suggests, perhaps unconsciously, in the beginning of the book, that the British propagated the administrative creed of 'divide and rule', in India, because they did not understand India as a nation, when they used the yardstick of the typical western nation. In the west, after the 1857 struggle, there were new nations being carved in Europe, on the basis of common modes of culture. I believe, Romania was formed, when one of the larger European empires was divided, perhaps, and this was before 1857, around 1815(?), or thereabouts. In the west, people need ideas to bind them together. In India, I have never heard of a revolt, apart from the revolt of 1857, against the British Empire. This was because, the British did not want to assimilate into the Indian culture, because the idea of the Indian identity, did not appeal to them. In the west, the poor are rejected by the rich, or are ignored by them, In India, the poor and the rich, live together. In the west, it is thought, that poverty, and the poor, are indecent. In India, a person can be poor, and be respectable. Perhaps, poverty is not seen as indecent, in the present, by the west. But during the times of the Industrial Revolution, it was perhaps a fad, to think that poverty was the refuge of those who were incapable of earning a respectable amount.
The main idea, which comes to mind, is that the Indian is much too individualistic, to think that the larger community is responsible for his good, or bad fortune. If the westerner, does not belong to a larger cause, then he revolts. The Indian ethos, does not allow for this to happen. The Indian is responsible to himself, while the westerner thinks that his existence is linked to common factors with others like him. For example, whatever the government may think in India, the poor people do not think that the government is responsible for their plight. Also, in modern India, in the metropolitan societies, one does not see a culture of feudalism, which may be experienced in some remote areas, and the poor do not revolt, in these metropolitan areas. Now I must express a slight paradox. The Indian, is equally social, and equally individual. The Indian, if he is poor, puts himself in the shoes of the rich, and has the strength to be a part of the larger society, even if he is the disadvantaged part of the society.
Because the west, is dependent on ideas of state, or was dependent, on ideas of state, to exist as a state, they needed mechanisms to assure that the state existed. In India, individual existence, or life, does not depend on the idea of the state. Perhaps, this has to do, with the abundance of that, which sustains life in India, in nature, as compared to the nations of Europe.

General observations on naval warfare.

I have read a writing on naval warfare a few moments ago. The writing described the strategies, and tactics of pioneers of naval strategy, and thinking. Timing is of the essence, in a naval strike. Also, the old concept of a 'doubled broadside', is important, not because navies' use the broadside, but because the concept of using overwhelming sea power against the enemy ships is decisive. Hence, in present times, what would be the equavalent of a doubled broadside? A combined attack by guided missiles, air power, and submarines, against surface, and submarine vessels of the enemy. If crossing the 'T' was the dream of an admiral who was in control of a sea battle, then in modern times, the isolation of the various arms of the navy of the enemy, and their rapid destruction, is paramount. Naval battles were never won by owerwhelming force, perhaps, because then, The attack on Pearl Harbour, should have won the Japanese Imperial Fleet the supreme advantage during the war. I believe, that the Imperial Japanese Navy, lost the war for Japan, because they could not replenish the number of heavy aircraft carriers they had lost during the Battle of Midway, and the heavy aircraft carriers of the Japanese Fleet, in the Battle of Midway, were only four, compared to three that the United States Navy had assembled for the battle. How could the Japanese Navy have gained an advantage? Perhaps, by researching naval aircraft bombers, which could reach Pearl Harbour, from a considerable distance which was less, than the distance it took the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour. I would also have developed a submarine fleet, in number and technology. In sea warfare, the enemy must not communicate between friendly ports, by sea, or the merchant and naval vessels must not communicate between friendly ports by sea. One must see an inherent advantage, in operation of the national navy, at sea, and exploit it.

How should the government overcome the Naxal movement?

The government represents the Naxals, also, since the Naxals stay in the territory of India. How has it come to pass, that in the heartland of India, the people have decided that the government does not represent them? If the forests and rivers, which are the sustenance of the tribals, are sold to multi-national companies, then the government represents the interests of the rich, and does not represent the poor of India. Can the government guarantee that the tribals will be rehabilitated? Has the government rehabilitated the many millions of poor people in India? How does Mr Chidambaram stay in a government bungalow, and have the trappings of power, and represent the poor of India? Does he feel as do the poor of India? He makes the excuse, that the trappings of power are the prerequisites of the government. Then what are the prerequisites of the tribals, and the poor of India? Does the government of India, really represent the poor? Why do the poor not care about the government's writ over India, or why does the tribal not care about the writ of the government? Also, Mr Chidambaram is from a mercantile background, before he joined politics. Does he see the matters of governance, from the point of view of commercial development? The rich do not need Mr Chidambaram, and yet he assists the rich, and does not assist the poor. The government will have to take some hard decisions, and may have to rollback on certain policies, which benefit commercialism. Otherwise, the government will find the unenviable position of fighting the poor, who are resisting big corporate houses. Then the government of India, will be fighting India.