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.

The Women Reservation's Bill.

The first reaction of mine, when I heard that the Women's Reservation Bill was being presented in Parliament yet again, was "Why was India divided, and why was Pakistan formed"? If Mr Nehru had given the Muslims reserved seats in Parliament, then India would not have been divided into India, and Pakistan. Why should ladies, be given the privilege of a seat in Parliament, without going through the ordinary parliamentary procedure?

Perhaps, the time will not come, when Muslim's, Bengali's, Maharashtrian's, will want reservations in Parliament, for their respective groups, but is Ms Sonia Gandhi carrying out the vision of Mr Nehru? What if it is insinuated, that Mr Nehru wanted the independence of India, because he wanted the nation to be obliged to the Congress Party, and he wanted himself to be the first Prime Minister of India, instead of Mohammad Ali Jinnah? Where does the wisdom of our founding fathers stand, on the tabling of this bill? Why should proud parliamentarians like Ms Brinda Karat, be given a seat in the Lok Sabha by default, if by chance, there is no candidate to the Lok Sabha, who is a woman, and also not her equal in caliber? I saw, some female cohorts of some women leaders,(or perhaps they were leaders themselves), acting like hooligans outside Parliament, demanding the implementation of the Women's Reservation Bill. How is the august house of Parliament, to treat some parliamentarians, because all of Parliament is not in concord? The Congress Party would make a martyr of Ms Sonia Gandhi, if she was forcibly ejected out of Parliament, and that is the fate of those, who will be ejected out of parliament before the debate on the bill. The main question of mine is, 'Why Have Reservations In Parliament', if there is no reservation for all the seats in Parliament? Is not the ideology of Mr Raj Thackeray vindicated, by this action of the ruling coalition? Where is Mr Thackeray wrong, when he wants all the people who apply for the Indian Railway job's in Mumbai, to be ethnic Maharashtrians?

General Observations on International Affairs.

What explains the rather complicated international and domestic policies of China? The leader Deng Xiaoping was not appreciated in the democratic nations, for the suppression of the Tianamen Square uprising. It was, as if, the democracies expected more, from the leader. What was the preoccupation of the Chinese leaders, during the Tianamen Square uprising? This is very simple, the unity, and integrity of The People's Republic of China. The danger then was, that those provinces of China, which did not have the same view as the Chinese Communist Party, would want to have an independent national identity, apart from China. We must remember, that The People's Republic of China, was formed because of the union of many parts of China, under the Chinese Communist Party. What if the Chinese Communist Party were not to exist? Would the provinces of China, then want independence, apart from the People's Republic of China? Does China have an identity which can unite her, apart from the Chinese Communist Party? Patriotism in China, is identified by patriotism to the form and mode of government. Deng Xiaoping knew, that it was easier to bring economic reforms to The People's Republic of China, than to change the identity of the Chinese state.

On another line of thought, what if India, and China were to resolve all differences, and if India were to be very cordial with the United States? Where would Pakistan be, strategically, without any strategic significance? China does not perhaps, see the consequences of such an instance, but the United States does. Pakistan would have no need for the United States, or China, because the United States or China, would not need Pakistan. What, then? Pakistan deliberately plays on the differences between Pakistan and India. She needs to see the differences between the states of Pakistan, and India. As far as I can see, Pakistan, cannot influence the relation between India, and China, presently, except by putting emphasis on her strained relations with India, vis-a-vis the current relation between India and China, which is not to the advantage of Pakistan, and to the disadvantage of India.

The issue of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought.

I am presently reading a book on India's foreign policy, edited by Mr Sumit Ganguly. The first chapter of the book, on India's relations with Pakistan, is superb, and leaves nothing to the imagination. What made me think, was the second chapter, on India's relations with Bangladesh. I am reading the chapter, and I came across this part, where the writer consciously, or not, made a connection of the rise of the capitalist economic thought in world markets, and the emergence of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought. This immediately caught my attention. How can this be possible, if it is possible? Is Islamic practice against the existence of free trade of goods and services? The Islamic thought encourages minimum interference, perhaps, in the business dealings of the subject, by the state. I emphasize that I have used the word 'perhaps'.

What can the economic thought of the Islamic market be identified as, in the modern world? Can it be, that the Islamic point of view, sees the pursuit of economic interests by the west, as being disassociated with a sense of personal ethics, or something similar?

For example, the west kept cordial relations with both Israel, and the Arab and other Muslim nations, when the west did not necessarily agree with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel. The western economies were very dependent on machines working on oil. Why did not the west make it's differences with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel more open to scrutiny, on it's own part?

Also, the Muslim world had the opportunity to interact with the Soviet Union, in the previous situation where The United States and the Soviet Union were bipolar superpowers of the world. The Soviet Union were not friendly with the Arab's, as well as with Israel. Being friendly with the Soviet Union, was not seen as being unacceptable, before the invasion of Afghanistan. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the situation changed. Both the Soviet Union, and the west, became unacceptable to certain Muslim identities. If one looks from the viewpoint of the ex-Mujahedeen, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, The United States did, what exactly the Soviet Union did. The United States attacked Iraq, which was a front line state in the previous war against Shia Iran, and also was an enemy of Israel. The logic being, for those embittered by Soviet and United States foreign policy, that it was OK for an Arab nation to invade another Arab nation, but not OK for a non-Arab nation to attack an Arab nation. Perhaps, the United States and the west, was interfering in the business of other states, and in radically different manners, in two separate situations in time. Perhaps President George H. W. Bush was very alarmed by Iraq's invasion of her neighbouring state, and perhaps, the unilateral action of the United States and her allies, was the cause of the rise of the al Qaeda.

The idea of this blog post is, that the West is seen to be entirely influenced by material considerations, in it's dealings with other identities, by some Islamic identities.

On second thoughts, the Gulf War, was the beginning of the transition of the world, from a bipolar world, to a unipolar world, where Russia, China, and the United States, all pursued a market economy, and the rest of the world, was also beginning to follow this trend. Perhaps, today, the world is progressing together on the same path of market reform, and the markets of even the Arab nations, are not in conflict with the west.

The issue of price rise of essential commodities.

Perhaps, measures can be taken, to alleviate or make easier, the burden on the common man, in his day to day business transactions, of buying and selling essential commodities. It is the common man, who is the primary participant in the buying and selling of essential commodities. By the term, 'common man', I describe the man who is responsible for the primary production, distribution, and consumption of essential commodities. I do not refer to those, who are living in poverty, because they have no say, in the production, or distribution, or consumption of essential commodities.

If I may compare the common man, to the not so common, or wealthy man, then what is the difference in the consumption pattern between the two? One does not need neither more nor less of the essential commodities than the other. This is true, of the people who live on, and below the poverty line, too. Then, why do we see the price rise in essential commodities? The reason is very evident to all, which is the unequal remuneration among those who deal in essential commodities. The middle man who sells daal to the shopkeeper, is also a common man, in all but income. What is the issue with the farmer, in his dealings, with the wholesale agent? The farmer cannot bargain with the wholesale agent. Why so? Because, he cannot store his produce. Why was the Amul model, not also experimented with, in respect to farmers? Why do not the farmers, make a common storage facility for their food grain, and act as if the storage facility belongs to them all? After the food grain is sold, then they can distribute the money got from the food grain after selling to the wholesale agent, in proportion to the share of the individual farmer in the produce. Perhaps, the problem, is that the individual farmer acts in his individual capacity, as a dealer of essential commodities. In the same way, all the farmers who grow vegetables in an area, come together, and settle their price, at which they would like to sell to the wholesale dealer, in their individual capacity. It is not as if, the wholesale vendor is at an advantage, if the essential commodities do not reach the consumer, because, then, he will not make a profit, nor have a turnover. Every person in the chain of the business of essential commodities, needs to see, that the essential commodity reaches the common man. otherwise, no one will make a turnover. The farmer is not making a turnover at all, he sells vegetables at a price, where he may not make a profit. This may perhaps be the solution for the farmer.

If these measures work, for the farmer, then who will be responsible for the prohibitive cost of essential commodities if the cost is prohibitive to the consumer? Will the whole sale agent be able to sell his commodities to the retailer, at a very high price? The profits of the retailer will decrease, because he will have to pass the high costs on to the consumer. This will reduce the profits of the wholesale agent, too.

What then of the commonly perceived as uncommon man, or those who live below and on the poverty line? These people must be integrated into the economy, in the most fundamental way, initially. How can they be imparted vocational training, free of cost, in the most fundamental way?

India's diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka.

The Government of India, cannot afford to take decisions on her cordial relations with Sri Lanka, without taking the opinions of the people and Government of Tamil Nadu with brevity. The Indian Government does not entirely govern India, as much as she represents India. What I find to be a matter of fact, is that all the people of Ceylon are the descendants of Indian ethnicity, as are the ethnic Tamil's living in Sri Lanka. The differences between the Sinhalese people, and the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, are indeed a matter of concern for India. The Tamil people of Sri Lanka have the Tamil's of India, with whom they share a close bond of familiarity, and affinity. The Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, have no such ethnic identity in India, with whom they can share a similar bond of familiarity, and affinity. It might be possible, that the Sinhalese people were ethnic Tamils, before they developed their own identity. The matter which is the business of difference between the Tamil's and Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, is that these two people, live, and go about the functions of life, in what is seen as being different from each other. It would be beneficial for the Sri Lankan government to bring the Tamil speaking minority of Sri Lanka, into the mainstream of that nation. The Indian Government could then have any degree of cordiality with the Sri Lankan Government, unfettered by any other influences, in India. I see no other influence on the Sinhalese people, to better their relations with the Tamils, but by the good offices of the Indian Government, because the Indian Government has a prominent Tamil political party as a part of her national coalition. The Tamil's of Sri Lanka, do not emigrate to other nations on a comparatively large scale, as they might, if there is terrible strife in Sri Lanka, for them.

There are other factors, too, that influence the attitude of the Tamils of India, towards their Sri Lankan Tamil brothers. The Tamils of India, and of Sri Lanka, share a very strong tradition of culture, which is unique in the world, as also do the other cultural identities of India. The Tamil people of India are very mindful of their interests, and are very quick to identify situations, when they feel, that their interests may be compromised. Perhaps, they are more ambivalent about issues, which they see as influencing those influenced by their identity as Tamils. This is a natural reaction, and is particular to the Tamil, in the tenor and tone of their expression.