Idea of India And Idea for India from the world: Series 1 – Democratic, Socialist, Republic, Secular India

Series 1 – Democratic, Socialist, Republic, Secular India

India as a nation has rich history and has lots of Ideas of its own. As time progressed, influence from outside India significantly shaped our destiny too. Neither can we stay in a cocoon shielded from external influence nor stay complacent not influencing outsiders. So we need to take the best of original Ideas of India and from external world which are Ideas for India. Ideas of India have come from its own vedic ages, saints, writers, philosophers, scientists, political leaders. Ideas for India come from the external world, eastern and western countries.

India has a glorious past. We are nation proud of thousands of years of civilization, the basic tenets of which still intact largely. It has an envious record of keeping the tradition, culture, castes, gods, language, diversity in life style, bio-diversity everything if not completely intact at least protected to a large extent. Comparatively, large civilizations of couple of millenniums before are non-existent today.  For example, Mayan, Egyptian, Mesopotamian etc., didn’t survive the onslaught of colonization, invasion, trade, religious conversion, state & kingdom expansion etc.,

India’s geographical boundary however has shrunk. The ideological Bharath, which is that of human liberty, dignity, cultural diversity, is also annihilated in those parts which are separated out as separate countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet, Bangladesh, Burma etc., India had invasions almost continuously from 600AD incessantly from Turks, Mangols, Mughals, Europeans etc., It has shaped its destiny so far. Now as an independent India we need to look forward with more confidence, strength & openness.

Democracy:

The subjugation under British was there for 200 years. The concept of democracy is a very good Idea for India they left behind. Although in the society, philosophy, religion, we are rich in democratic tradition, it was not so in the political & administrative system.  Now it is very well implemented in that sphere too. The democracy has allowed change of regime smoothly and successfully so far. Almost in every Indian state, we see a different leadership every decade coming ground up almost from the masses, not restricted to any major dynasty or family. In the center however we still have the remnants of the British Raj in the Nehru-Gandhi family in high influence since Independence for 7 decades. And its influence is also fast depleting now, giving strength to a lot of diverse leadership coming from across the country from the masses. We may have to show patience & resilience.

The participation in the democracy is significantly improving, especially in the last decade. It certainly is due to improving literacy and awareness. For example, in the recent Tripura state elections, it made a record 93% voting. In a hilly state population spread thinly, ensuring voter enumeration, keeping it up-to-date, ensuring booth access within 5KMs of very voting adult, ensuring smooth fearless voting, it requires a whole lot of administration capability, political will, most importantly peoples will to come together.

In the recently held elections in Chattisgarh, MP, etc., we had peaceful 50+% voting in Maoist affected areas. Even in the urban population with rapid changes of urban space and population, we have recorded upwards 70% voting. Our Election commission deserves a Noble peace prize for these impeccable records!

Counterview of Democracy:

Democracy is here to stay for long in India. And Indians are going to protect and honor it.  The drawback is that the elections are costly and long drawn. Even those who are doing good and getting reelected for multiple times need the people endorsement at a large cost to the exchequer. It also costs them personally. Hence a politician who wins an election tries to earn money through illegal means during his ruling tenure. Some make it in a hurry as they are not sure to get re-elected. Thus begin the viscous corruption cycle.

In a country like Bahrain for example, where Monarchy is followed, there is no corruption and 0% income tax for the common man. Because the ruler is monarch and everything is his. So he need not be greedy. But the monarchy is a gamble. The country is lucky till a generation of good ruler exists. Power is a commodity and it corrupts the individual having it. Even if in one generation the ruler is good, in most cases, the next generation gets corrupt, contemptuous of power. A regime change in a Monarchy is bloody, costly, affects the entire nation’s resources, stability, credibility. It is too costly to afford. So in comparison, Democracy well-kept is healthy and right remedy for ruling.

Communist regimes experimentation in the world has almost hit the dust, although the parties and ideologies still exist. But the regime experimentation is almost over.  

The autocracy or dictatorship is never good for any country.

Anarchy is just a fancy term for civil unrest against the regime. It cannot be a regime by itself.

Socialist Republic

At the time of getting independence, India had some 500+ princely states. Yet they belonged to the concept of Bharath in cultural, traditional means. People moved around, traded, lived across these princely states freely with openness & no hindrance. It is a very important idea for peace, prosperity, cooperation, regional independence and self-reliance. Socialist India means, all people are treated equal irrespective of their region, language, caste, religion etc., Socialist India is very much an Idea of India.

People may be from different states but belong to one Republic of India. Republic means, the head of the state is elected by the people. We are bound by one constitution, fundamental rights & duties across India. World recognizes India as one country with geographical boundary well-guarded by a mighty military, responsible, reliable government, thriving economy etc., It is represented by one prime minister, one president who is the constitutional head elected through people of the country.

From our history we learn that we did not have one republican state concept. We had several federal kingdoms. The concept of Bharath was there in whichever kingdom you passed through. Language, & tradition, changed every few Kms, along the length and breadth of Bharath, but that cultural oneness was still there. It is there even now like that. The diversity is not only tolerated but encouraged and appreciated.

But the lack of one state, one army cost us a lot in getting looted, invaded, and ruled for many centuries. The one state concept gives us strength, recognition and makes people work with common goal and develop nationalistic feeling and patriotism amongst the people.

The disadvantage and federal state solution:

The concept of one state wrests lot of power in few hands in the center. Decisions taken at the center by few will impact someone in remote place. The decision making body at the center due to external world pressures and compulsions, looks from one angle only as a country representation for the world at large. The connect with the affected region & people will be lost. A coal mining approval in a forest region, A large industrial zone in a river delta are just examples of decisions taken at center without the consideration of the local stakeholders but in the larger interest of the nation. Some locality sacrifices for some developmental benefit elsewhere. The affected people and region are never benefited. They are impoverished.

That is why large states always incline towards some region development at the cost of some other region. For example, in Karnataka the southern Bangalore-Mysore belt is most developed leaving behind the northern parts. Similarly in Andhra the Hyderabad region is highly developed bringing in business interests of all high & mighty in that region leaving behind other regions in backwardness. Centralized decisioning at state centers like Bangalore, Hyderabad favors development in those regions at the cost of other regions. Decentralized decision making is a far cry.

Going back to ancient India way of having several small states is necessary. Smaller states, smaller districts, taluquas ensure equity of development. When some river dam submerges a large number of human habitations for some other region benefit, it is likely to fall across borders of small states. Then the resistance across federal states ensure people displacement & impoverishment of regions are avoided. It will force indigenous solutions to solve and address their own problems than affecting someone else. Tank development, catchment area protection, and community step well development etc., are indigenous solutions for drinking water and irrigation problems. Thus it creates self-reliant, self-governing regions. Thus it also empowers people to have their say, and governance coming nearer to them.

A central government with wide, region specific people’s representation will be strong. Simple decisions to aid one region at the cost of another region will be debated and thwarted. But when a sacrifice for a national interest like Satellite mission, missile testing is undertaken calling for a region’s sacrifice, the people of the region can be reasoned through for that cause and compensated appropriately. The people of the region will be happy to contribute for such cause showing patriotism.

So the inference is we must be Republic of India, with smaller states and more autonomy for them.

Secular India 

The idea of secular is hazy. Ancient India was secular probably. All tribes respected each other and their traditions. Later castes based on people’s profession came into civilization. It separated people, made them intolerant towards each other. Then came religions that separate people by gods they worship.

Today we are secular according to the constitution. Government by secular means, welcome all castes and religious people into all professions & be neutral to their allegiance & appearance. In fact government provides reservation to enable the underprivileged sections of society to get into most professions which are essential to serve their own needs like Medical, Engineering, Education, Politics etc., But ultimately government is also by the people. So secularity has to be implemented and honored by the people. Laws cannot be made for every step of our life. People have to be religious and open. Religious doesn’t mean only god fearing, but following ‘Manava Dharma’: Respect and dignity for all humans.

Government is also lagging behind in being completely secular. For example, some tenets of Sharia law are applicable for Muslims in our country, like a man can have multiple wives in that community, alimony for divorced wife is lenient etc.,. These undermine the women and their rights. Women are half a population and cannot be left behind like secondary citizens. Uniform civil code is a far cry of this nation. The concept of a nation is primarily: people, their dignity, prosperity & happiness. If that is compromised for any section of our nation then we are no good as a nation.

Series 2: In the next series, we’ll look into the economic ideas of India and for India: The comparison of Capital intensive economy and the Labor intensive economy. The free market economy, building large conglomerates, its pros & cons. The labor oriented economic ideas like Cooperative movement, Cottage industries, its pros & cons.

The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen: A Critical Review

It is a book on Indian History, culture and identity by the Nobel Laureate  Amartya Sen. He is economist attempting history writing. People across the world and India read it, blog it, believe it, write about it, refer it in future books! It has potential disastrous implications as it has many errors and narrow views on Hinduism & its culture presented by the author. The title makes us proud and we expect lot of pride exhibited throughout the book for the argumentative culture ingrained in the Indian culture. And that making our democracy thrive by our inherent nature. Sadly there is whole lot of sheen taken away from the book by the author’s obsession on politics, linking it to Gujarat riots and dedicating much debate on it. Author finds himself very guilty of being Indian origin rather than exhibiting pride and enthusing the youth to embrace the golden culture that we have.

 Aryan Invasion Theory

A quote of a paragraph from the book:

"
Despite its quintessential ‘Indianness’ , there is a general understanding that, in an early form, Sanskrit came to India from abroad in the 2^nd millennium BCE, with the migration of Indo-Europeans, and then it developed further and flourished magnificently in India. It is also interesting to note that the greatest grammarian in Sanskrit, namely Panini, who systematized and transformed Sanskrit grammar and phonetics around the fourth century BCE, was of Afghan origin (he describes his village on the banks of river Kabul). These foreign connections have not diminished the pride of classically minded Indians in that great language, nor in the exceptional achievements of the literature ….
"

Sanskrit came to India? From Europe? That’s a construed writing of history.

Max Mueller, a German Scholar, has done enough damage by his elaborate work in the past dictating that Aryans invaded India from central Asia & Europe. During his later years he himself has casted doubts over this invasion theory. The British historians conveniently ignored those reservations. Their imperial mindset compelled them to keep the invasion theory intact to undermine the Indians self-confidence. In post-independence also we read this invasion theory in our text books. I believe now it is corrected.

Following are some of the objections on this invasion theory:

1.       Author writes elsewhere Ashoka of 3^rd century BCE had his kingdom till today’s Afghanistan. Author shows his ignorance of that of the culture of India was there till Iran on east and Malaya, Indonesia in west. Just because Panini was from today’s Afghanistan, Sanskrit according to the author becomes a foreigner’s language. He deliberately ignores Afghanistan was Gandhara kingdom earlier. And that is also mentioned elsewhere in the same book in some other context. If Sanskrit was in Pataliputra (today’s patna), Kalinga and south of vindhyas and spread all the way upto Hindu Kush mountain ranges in afghanistan, then it means it was centered in India spread wide east and west. If it was European language it would start spreading from there. There is no evidential trace of that in history.

 

2.       All the references in Vedas, Upanishads have relations to the geographical boundary of the Indian subcontinent. The great Ramayana and Mahabharatha are considered as Ithihasa (History). These are written by specific authors Valmiki and Vyasa later than the Vedas. The geographical references in these books are spread all over the Indian subcontinent. Shiva’s abode of Kailasa is well revered by the Hindus, is in the Himalayas. All over India from Himalayas to Lanka, the mountains, rivers, villages, kingdoms, names of the people, local language scripts, poems, prose, books are inspired and derive everything from these rich ancient scriptures. Later the temples are built for the respective gods. One fails to understand where Europeans immigrating or invading India comes in these references. Europeans civilizations also don’t have these geographical references. Nor our scriptures mention Andes, Danube or Volga or anything close to that. The weather, tropical living, flora fauna references found in these scriptures are all related to Indian Subcontinent. If intelligent Europeans migrated here then surely they would write some reference to their previous dwelling. Or did they become suddenly intelligent once they touched Indian soil? No reference to that also. Their culture also differs quite widely. We worship cow as Gomatha. They use it as beef.  

3.       There is a section of historians who write about reference to horses which are aliens to the Indian subcontinent in the Sanskrit scriptures. Amartya Sen also take support of these arguments. These arguments are defeated by the fact that the trade existed across borders.  And horses might have got traded across to India from central Asia. And there is no richness of these language or cultural traditions in those areas equaling the Indus civilization, although the evidences of Greek civilization dates further back. Also the European countries also had to depend upon central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc.,) for fine horses. And then domesticate and grow further.  

4.       Even today, the philosophical depth found in India is unparalleled in the west. There is a vast difference in the culture of assimilation of diversity in India and the separatism & exclusivity expounded by the western cultures. There is no archeological evidence of invasion, nor there any cultural similarities.

Muslim Assimilation In India’s Culture

The author in his desperate attempt to appease the Muslim invaders & settlers in India, ends up criticizing today’s Hindus unnecessarily. Cultural assimilation attempts made by Akbar take great precedence in the book. No problem with that. Because Akbar, being a Muslim ruler and educated in Islam, still makes sincere attempts to assimilate the diversity purely based on reasoning.  No other Muslim ruler comes ever closer to that kind of tolerance for the divergence in the society. Every Muslim ruler either attacked the other religions places of worship or tried to convert the people and places of worship to Islam. In the book here, author says, there were some sporadic incidents like this from some Muslim rulers. Stating Aurangazeb, being the only least tolerant of the Muslim rulers, he takes on the todays Hindu’s discriminating and attacking Muslims.

Firstly, obviously the author has least knowledge or has shown deliberate ignorance about the Indian history and the Muslim rulers of the Moghuls, Bahmani sultanate, Tipu Sultan running a riot of faith conversions and destructions of temples of indigenous cultures.  

Secondly, in today’s India, the intolerance and separatism espoused by the Muslims is only increasing and creating pockets of Pakistan across India. In every riot, the instigators are Muslims. From their own community a prophet or a fakir has to emerge out to preach a sense of love towards other humans, throw their fears, and assimilate in the society. In fact several such fakirs came in their community at least in large numbers in India. Like Santha Shishunala Sharifa in Northern Karnataka came in the late 19^th century CE, and preached Allah and Allama are all same. But he got ousted from the inner learned circles of Islam and mosques. But the people at large across Hindus, Muslims respected and even today he is revered. Same is the case with Shirdi Sai Baba and several other such great saints across India.  

The belief that Mohammed is the last prophet and no one else can be prophet is retrograde. The social change is necessary in every region and every generation. There is constant cycle of evil overtaking good; and good then emerging through, creating a higher influence in the society. But both have a time and region context.

The scriptures guiding the Islam are never allowed to change. There is no debate. There is no reasoning allowed. Akbar himself initiated a religion Din-I-Lahi based on reasoning. But where is it now? The Sufi-ism which gave raise to some of the fine songs, music and love for humanity is out of the doors of the staunch Isalm. There is fatwa on Singing and dancing. Where comes love & tolerance then?

It should be noted that the Akbar’s attempts of assimilation of different cultures was the result of his open mindedness towards India’s diversity and positively influenced by it. And not that Akbar influenced India to be tolerant & argumentative. Similarly, Aurangazeb’s intolerance towards other religions was due to his Isalmic education and not due to his exposure to India’s multi-culture.

We must take pride in our culture creating positive influence on foreign invaders than trying to pacify Muslims by stating their rule was tolerant. It will be a lie.

Instead, we must look critically at why Muslim rule was intolerant and why are they espousing separatism even today. And why our politicians should not keep their culture on sale for votes. And debate it openly involving them amicably and asking for changing their stance for the good of the country, good of humanity. People are people, simple and moldable. The prophets, mullahs are intelligent, powerful influencers on people, should mold them in the right way. Create a tolerant community towards diversity and respect the India’s culture of argumentation and debate based on logic and reasoning. Author here doesn’t even delve this problem and solution area in such an interesting titled book. Honestly the title is such apt for a glorious cultural India. But the content is very disappointing and demoralizing for an Indian.

Obsession with Akbar

Here is another narrow view from the author quoted:

"
For India in particular, the tradition of secularism can be traced to the trend of tolerant and pluralist thinking that had begun to take root well before Akbar, …. But that tradition got its firmest official backing from Emperor Akbar himself. He also practiced as he preached – abolishing discriminatory taxes imposed earlier on non-muslims, …
"

Begun to take root? Firmest official backing? What is official? Is it only if it is from a pan India emperor? Obviously Amartya has only read Akbar and is obsessed with him. If other “official” rulers, kings, maharajas spread across India for many thousand years were not tolerant, plural there wouldn’t have been such a large canvas of culture, language, songs, music, dance forms, architecture, and many other human arts. The major philosophies like Advaitha, Vishishtadwaita, Dwaita flourished through debates, reasoning, interpretations of the vedas. These happened under the patronage of many kings in their courts across India. One simple example: Hoysala raja Bittideva was a Jain king of 11^th century became disciple of Ramanujacharya and became vaishnavaite, not at the point of sword edge, but through reasoning and understanding. He never destroyed Jain temples. Nor his successors did that. His wife, most revered in Karnataka for her dancing grace, Shantala, remained a devout Jain. Later Hoysala kingdom got destroyed and temples attacked by the Foreign Mohammedan invaders.

“abolishing discriminatory taxes imposed earlier on non-muslims”. Before Akbar there were about half a dozen Moghul rulers. That means here Amartya himself admits, that all of them supported imposing taxes on non-Muslims. After him, Aurangazeb brings back the pilgrimage taxation etc., That means Akbar is the only exception to discrimination culture of the Muslim rulers. And not as author keeps repeating that it was sporadic incidents of discrimination by the Muslim rulers. There are several incidents of Akbar being discriminatory against non-Muslims. But still, being a born Muslim and educated in Islam, I must admit he is a brave man to have taken such radical steps away from that religion’s dictate and managing the wrath of his advisors. May be that’s why ultimately he was overthrown by the faithful Islamist Aurangazeb.  

 India - China

India-China is a chapter I liked. Because we have in them, a comparison between a large thriving democracy and a large flexing economic superpower which is non-democratic next door. There are 2 types of statistical data generally studied in economics.

1.       Index of richness of a country are generally GDP, GNP. This will generally be due to the wealth generated and concentrated by few.

2.       Others indicate the disparity between the Haves and Have nots. For example, the literacy rate, women literacy, Life expectancy, Infant mortality rate, Gender ratio etc., because these are overall population literacy & health indicators. The population health and literacy is the real richness of a country. It automatically maintains even ecological richness.

In both these parameters China is ahead of India. But the interesting part is the progress made since economic reforms. The China and most other Asian countries like Taiwan, Korea initiated their reforms in the 80s. India initiated the reforms big time from ‘92 onwards. The improvement in the 2^nd set of parameters above by China during the reforms years is marginal. And in contrast India’s improvement is significant and is catching up overall and in several states better than China’s. And that largely is credited to the participative democracy. And also the author credits India for having No Famine in post Independent India as against China having seen famine in as late as 1960’s in communist china, perishing some 30+ million lives. In British India, we experienced Bengal Famine of 1940’s causing some 2 million deaths due to starvation and diseases.

And during NDA regime, India’s stats in the first indices soared high. But it lost the elections subsequently. Amartya doesn’t leave the opportunity to criticize the NDA regime along with connecting the reason for loss to the Gujarat riots. In any case, it would be good for the country if BJP leaders listen to the Sangh parivar’s socialist economic policy suggestions for the future.

In many South Indian temple sculptures I have visited, the local guides proudly present some of the Chinese visitors sculpted. Fa-Hian and Huen-Tsang are 2 of many such Chinese scholars who visited India during 4^th and 7^th century respectively. Interestingly they studied and held high positions in Nalanda for decade long. And what they carried back to their country apart from the philosophy & science is the implementation methodology of health care services in India.

The first dated printed book is a Chinese book of translation of a Sanskrit treatise. So the invention of printing technology is credited to China. But author argues that, Huen-Tsang carried Buddhist printed books to china from India. The printing technology has played significant role in public communication, literacy and schooling. But unfortunately, India lost many technologies, literature, research during the Nalanda destruction by the foreign invaders. 

I have here tried to put my views on the book taking contradictions within the book itself as much as possible. But history is very large and that too India’s is immense. We expect a lot from a book so aptly titled to describe the debate and argumentation based culture in India. The book in that aspect disappoints big time limiting only to Akbar, Tagore-Gandhi arguments and that’s it. Gandhian Charaka movement is jeered by Amartya in this book. Being an economist, that too an expert on famines, how his views are dismissive of Human Labour Oriented Cottage Industries and appreciative of Productivity based Industries? Is Nobel also rigged? In favor of Productivity based industries & economics?