These thekedaars of this country would only be amusing that they are the chosen few among the vast pool of downtrodden Indians who have managed to travel out.

Shame on us that we elect and select the kind of people we have to manage us.

I do not even know if there is anyone reading this site anymore for I myself have not been able to get back here for a long time may be more than 6 months. I wonder if there is anything in the world more slipery than time. It goes past us even before we could realise and by the time we do it is already a lot of time gone by.

I had been caught up in lot of travelling and will still have to travel a lot yet I think now I’ll be able to post regularly. Keep watching the space.

Ritesh

I finally decided to give way and finally visited the website. I was seriously impressed if i took the activities at the literature value. Though the anti-Congress beacon shines bright and quite understandably! The party surely seems to be re-inventing itself. This is probably the new face of BJP or probably Indian politics as a whole is maturing.

All the thoughts process apart, i doubt if they will be able to move away from their current image unless they shed their saffron colors!

But that’s my dime worth of thought!

Clausewitz defined “strategy as the use of engagements for the object of the war, whereas tactics is the use of armed forces in engagements”. According to Clausewitz war is a continuation of politics, a form of political intercourse in which we fight battles instead of writing notes.1 In other words, strategy is the bridge that connects the threat and use of force with policy or politics. Strategy inherently requires understanding the terms of the two-way relationship between military power and political purpose. In addition, strategy requires understanding of how very different kinds of armed forces can generate the effectiveness that will yield politically useful consequences. It is ultimately the tactical and operational levels of war which implement strategy. The tactical and operational behavior has strategic effect, that is to say that strategic performance can only rest upon tactical performance.2 In fact, Clausewitz compared war with trade and saw in victorious battle as analogous to successful exchange.

Hence, the first strategic question which a statesman faces is to determine the nature of war - the form of war - which cannot be decided unless one has policy guidance. Policy is the Real, the object; whereas war or military actions are only manifestation or the appearance of the Real, the means by which we obtain the object, and the means must always keep the end in view.3 ‘Thus wars vary according to the nature of the end and the intensity of the desire to attain it. This is the cardinal principle of war.

The political theory of war provides us with two broad and well-marked classification of war. The first broad classification depends upon whether the political object of war is positive or negative. It is positive, if one’s aim is to wrest something from the enemy. In such cases wars in general will be offensive. If, on the other hand, one’s aim is negative, then one simply seeks to prevent the enemy wresting some advantage to one’s detriment. In this case the war in its general direction will be defensive. But nonetheless, defense is not a passive attitude, for that is the negation of war. Defense is a condition of restrained activity - not a mere condition of rest, but if unduly prolonged it tends to deaden the spirit of offense.4

A second classification of wars, Clausewitz makes, is that of ‘Limited’ and ‘Unlimited’ wars. A limited war’ is one in which the objective of belligerent is merely to assert one’s claim over the possession of a territory and in which the enemy’s stake is minimal. On the other hand, ‘unlimited war’ is the war of attrition, in which the main strategic offensive is directed against the armed forces of the enemy. To satisfy the full conception of a limited object, one of the two conditions is essential: firstly, it must not be merely limited in area, but of really limited political importance; and secondly, it must be so situated as to be strategically isolated or to be capable of being quarantined by strategical operations.5

Wars between contiguous continental states, in which the object is the conquest of territory’ on either of their frontiers, provide no real generic difference between limited and unlimited war. It becomes a difference of degree rather than of kind. On the contrary, if we extend our view to wars between worldwide empires, the distinction at once becomes organic. For a true limited object we must have not only the power of isolation but also the power by a secure home defense of barring an unlimited counter stroke.6 Limited war is made possible by command of the sea because the control of the sea enables one to select a theatre in effect truly limited. The beauty of limited war is that it can enable a weak military power to attain success against a stronger one by the quirk of fate.

To conclude, one can say that the relationship between the means and the ends is the domain of strategy. And holistic approach to strategy operates vertically and horizontally both. Vertically viewed, strategy encompasses all aspects of peace with security, from political vision down to tactical military performance. Horizontally considered, strategy includes land, sea, air, and space power, together with nuclear forces. Thus strategy is a dual-axes concept.7

Indian Diplomacy:

From 1945 onwards, as we have seen, it was the period of pure realism in politics among the nation-states and blocs which competed with each other for the maximization of power and pelf. The world was divided into two camps, capitalist and communists. India could not go with the capitalist world because it represented imperialism and it would have amounted to relapsing back to a colonial state of relations. Neither could India go with the communist world lock, stock and barrel, precisely because India emerged as the champion of freedom, whereas the communist world was “Orweilian”.

In the heyday of the cold war, when pure realist logic was the guiding principles of the big powers, Nehru, and hence India pursued a policy called non-alignment. Non-alignment basically meant not joining any alliance system NATO or WTO. By bringing all the Afro-Asian and Latin American countries under one banner of non-alignment, a new structure of world conflict was created, apart from East-West conflict. This new-structure of world conflict was called North-South conflict or conflict between the developed world and the developing world or soi-dissant third world. In order that one does not get embroiled in the ‘high politics’ of the two blocs, non-alignment became the ‘Grand Strategy’ of foreign policy for the whole of the underdeveloped, decolonized world.

Thus, diplomacy during the cold war was determined, channeled and constrained by the parameters of the conflict of the two blocs. ‘Third world’ endeavour to remain non-aligned remained a fata morgana in the face of concrete realities of an anarchical world. China, despite being communist, would have liked to become the leader of the third world, but its own ideological compulsions, strategic and economic interests led it into the lap of the Soviets. In such an anarchical world in which a power like China too had to join an alliance, Nehru wanted a ‘non-aligned’ India to align with the aligned China - China aligned to the leader of the WTO, Soviet Union. This was Nehruvian version of non-alignment before it could get formalized in Bandung (1955) and Belgrade (1961). De facto, non-alignment meant alignment with one power or the other, as an ally outside the formal alliance system. Having failed in its alignment with China, India directly entered into an alignment with the Soviet Union by 1971. Pakistan and many other countries remained satellite states of NATO under security umbrellas like CENTO, SEATO, and ANZUS and many others went to the WTO camp.

The policy of non-alignment was not based on secure and sound foundations which were evident from the very beginning itself. After all third world was not a homogeneous category and the regional interests of each player varied. In the event of a conflict within the non-aligned league, there was no method and mechanism to resolve the conflict. Moreover, by 1973, third world as such came to be dissolved by a solvent called oil producing and exporting countries (OPEC). OPEC emerged as capital surplus, and therefore ceased to be part of the ‘Third World’ which by definition is a capital deficient ouekomenie. Moreover, the graduation of Asian tigers - Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand - in the rank of developed world further corroded the homogeneity of the third world. That is how, history kept delivering one verdict after another against the substantiality, materiality of the concept of ‘non-alignment’.

The voidness of Nehru’s non-alignment is evident from the fact that even after gaining political freedom, the umbilical cord with the British was not severed. India was totally dependent on UK, an ally of NATO, for not only the supply of armaments but also naval personals. The trajectory of Indian naval expansion plan was determined by the needs of British security rather than Indian; it was in pursuance of this policy that Britain refused to sell submarines and rather admonished to buy surface frigates for coastal vigilance and develop anti submarine warfare capabilities.8

Non-development of submarine arm of the navy till 1968 was in pursuance of British objectives in the Indian Ocean rather than India’s security needs. How could the purest form of non-alignment be pursued when one’s navy was more meant to serve the objectives of the British than India?

Next to follow is:

THE DEEP STRUCTURE OF INDIAN STRATEGY AND TACTICAL OPERATIONS

Reference

1. See, Corbett, Julian, S., ‘Some Principles of Maritime Strategy’, in Jablonsky, David (ed.): ‘Roots of Strategy’, Book Four, Stackpole Books, USA, 1999, p. 173.
2. Gray, Colins. ‘Explorations in Strategy’, Greenwood Press, Westport, USA, 1996, pp. 8-10. 6J.
3. Corbett, Some Principles ofMaritime Strategy’ p. 179.
4. Ibid, pp 182.-186
5. Ibid., pp. 202 - 203.
6. Ibid, p. 204.
7. Gray, “Explorations*, p: T.  .

Naidu, G. V. C, ‘The. Indian Navy smd South East Asia’, Knowledge. World: in. Association with Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Delhi, 2000, p. 38. 69.

Why are we affording such representatives? He is supposedly a future PM. Can we tolerate such a PM?

Why do we allow Dharavi’s to exist? Why do we allow our children to depend on a game show to make money? Can we not enable India to be seen via films in all the right ways? Taj Mahal is the best name India offers to the world but those of you having visited the site would know how ridiculous the whole surrounding is. Why have we not been able to make Agra the best tourist destination India can offer?

Should we be rejoicing the slumdogs success or shall we be ashamed of ourselves to present our civilization in such uncivilized light?

Do we want change?

Can we come forward to enable change?

Should we afford more than 50% of the Government of India’s revenues to be spent on less than 10% of the Indian Population- the so called government employees?  

If the few thousand officers of the oil producing companies be organized to go on a strike to raise their salaries even after earning 100,000 Rs a month (trainee officers) to 300,000 Rs a month (mid level officers) what should the 77% of Indians be doing for not being able to earn even 20 Rs a day or 600 Rs a month? 

How is India or majority Indian Population benefiting from this majority expenditure on minority population? 

Should we be allowing the trade unions to exist as they are only disrupting the economy and their sole aim is to leverage their power of coercion to strengthen already strong position of incapable and over paid government employees? 

If the government is spending majority on a minority then what will happen to the 77% of the Indian population which earns less than 20 Rs a day? 

Can India become a developed country with its majority remaining in such miserable situation? 

Please read an article posted in “Our Present section”

Can we do without effective governance and responsible politics? 

Who does our governments represent, common masses, or special interest groups or themselves? 

Should the performance of the governments be evaluated or not? 

Should we discuss such questions or not?

Please read the review of the book “The future of India” by Bimal Jalan Ex Governor RBI, in the “Opinion Builder section to have a glimpse of how Bimal is asking questions as above. Also, check “Public finance in India” in the “Governance in post Independent India”

We the Electorates; 

Assembly elections have just concluded in some states and there is hardly anytime left for Lok Sabha elections. There are three groups to be found distinctly. First, the group which is enjoying power and will throw their gut out convincing all and sundry how marvelous a job they have done during their tenure and on that basis would attempt to return back to power. Second, the group which has been out of the power and would leave no stone unturned to prove the incapacity of the incumbent government to replace them in the seat of power. The third is we the “People”, the majority, which completes the process of elections by exercising their right to vote. A lot of credit should go to the people turning out from the hinterland of our country walking miles to elect those people who have the power and it is their duty to provide infrastructure and other facilities to their electorates and what an irony the same people are so reluctant doing their duty. People have seen change of face in the seat of power but they are yet to see change in their own state of the affairs. The change is there, as some would suggest, but the pace is so slow that it seems as if nothing changed at all. 

Every time the elections are around, the question emerges who to vote for? What have we got in lieu of our votes? What ought we get?

There is a difference between State and Government. Governments change but the state remains; it is A priori. A States’ chief concern and prime responsibility is to secure its subjects and their property from all the threats irrespective whether they emerge externally or internally. Governments are formed to ensure that the States objectives are met and that citizens are provisioned with the primary facilities with utmost priority. There can be various methods to choose a government but I personally believe that there could be none better than what we already have. Ideally, democracy should provide the best government and I do not think we should delve into the debate whether we should have democracy or something else (surprisingly people have, in some quarters, started talking against democracy and they wish dictatorship were present here for a short period of time). I indeed feel that it is time we should evaluate whether the governments have carried out their roles and responsibilities in the desired way or not. The moment we embark upon evaluating we would eventually get to know whether we have utilized our votes or we have squandered them away. An ideal government does not discriminate between its citizens. Citizen is the best resource a nation has and the government is made capable to ensure the security of its subjects by giving it the sole right of exercising  violence so that all and sundry do not hack and kill as per their whims and fancies. If the citizen and the property is not secured then it simply infers that the governments have been ineffective. After independence if we attempt to find the status of the fear factor in our country then it should not be difficult to acknowledge that the fear factor has grown inappropriately decade after decade in India infact the masses have never been as terrified in their own country before as they are today. In the name of Religion, Language, caste or region the masses have been butchered and burnt consistently and the beneficiary has only been the selfish politician. India would not have lost as many lives during war as she has lost during peace in the name of garnering votes. In the normal conversation today the word political leader does not invoke the feeling of respect rather it connotates as abuse. The word Government inspires fear and the masses attempts ways to not to get in touch with government in any of its forms. People find it easier to live with injustice than knock on the doors of the court. 

The basic premise of society and nations existence is the surety that the people will enjoy the fruits of materialistic developments and will be involved in spiritual (not necessarily religious) activities. Man is different from other species because it has used its spiritual equipments to develop materialistic equipments so that it can withstand the natural difficulties. A nation and a society could be considered as developed and powerful if the citizens have sufficient means to not to be worried about the natural requirements such as hunger, cold and rains and are hence able to invest their energies in consolidating and enhancing their spiritual gains. Political and social structures should be so robust that every citizen avails the opportunity to enhance his skills as per his her choice. If Paucity of food leads to indifference towards education and sharpening of skills then it infers that the society is insensitive and the government is incapable. Mid day meal is the biggest scar on our face. It suggests that our adult is capable only to produce children but is not productive enough to feed them while they attend the school. Unfortunate becomes the situation when political leaders call policies like mid day meal as their achievement and even more unfortunate is the fact that the administrative partyies eat away the meal themselves in the evening. 

What did we get in lieu of our votes? We have gotten struggle between one language over the other. The propagators of vernacular languages can hardly read in a language and writing is beyond their mettle. He forces others to stay away from English and other foreign languages but his own family members receive education in the lingua franca within or outside the country. The world is shrinking because of technology and it is imperative that we learn and master English and other foreign languages lest we should remain in the superstitious darkness forever. In such a situation we find our leaders propagating animosity between Hindi, Marathi, Tamil and other linguistic groups. We have received a bunch of selfish brats in the name of political leaders in lieu of our votes. At times it feels as if we have been subjected to a political conspiracy. As if the subsequent governments were never interested in allowing the masses of this country to grow beyond their ignorance and superstitious state of mind. Why is it that the government schools start English from the class sixth and the private schools would have made their students comfortable in the same language by that time? Government functionaries have initiated such policies and their own children have been attending private schools. Why such double standards? Government schools would use vernacular medium but the university and colleges would have English as the medium of instructions. Is this because only a minority could gain the world class education so that they can subjugate the common masses? Why should we not infer that the political families in connivance with the bureaucratic class have never allowed the masses to enhance their skills and get involved in the world market rather they have forced them to struggle day in and out in merely managing a meal a day so that they and their future generations could remain ignorant of their own subjugation. Isn’t it a simple formula; keep them illiterate and divide them in the name of language, caste, religion and region and be in power forever? We have received conspiracy in exchange for our votes. The conspiracy of the last 6 decades suggests that the governments in India have given the minimum development to its people so that they could be fooled, robbed and beaten as and when required and the robbers and gundas will reign them. 

Who do we caste our vote for? Do we see a single political party or a single leader we can rely upon? India is suffering from the acutest drought ever in her history as today there seems to be no leadership coming out from the pool of billion plus people. What do we do in such a situation? There are two ways. First and the easier option is to let things remain the way they are and wait for the gloomy future of our country go darker. The second is to get out of our complacence and go beyond just discussing the plight of our country over swigs of whisky. There is nothing left to discuss and prove. It is time to act. She, our country, is eagerly waiting for those rational but fearless, liberal but strong and honest but passionate people to come forth and take charge. It will not happen overnight but we do not have much time as well. Now is the time to make history or else we will go down in history as cowards who allowed a Wonder that is India to degenerate into a hell where there is no India. 

Shashi Tharoor has asked the middle class of our country to enter into politics in one of his articles published in the Sunday times recently. He laments as follows in one of his books ““….we believe religion should not determine public policy or individual opportunity. And, in Indian politics, we are pretty much irrelevant. We don’t get a look in. We don’t enter the fray because we can’t win. We tell ourselves ruefully that we are able, but not electable. We don’t have the votes: there are too few of us, and we don’t speak the idiom of massess. Instead we have learned to talk about the political issues without the expectation that we will be able to do anything about them” pg-43, “India From Midnight to the Millenium and beyond”, Shashi Tharoor

This shows the frustration of a learned man of Shashi’s stature. Similar are the feelings of stalwarts like Bimal Jalan and other good Indians. Are we all similarly frustrated? If yes then it is the time to work on it. We, the people, neither have the capital to back us nor do we have the muscle power to pull us in power and last we are sporadically distributed. We still can rise against the odds. We have the power of our frustration. We have the power to elect. We only need to choose the best ones. We only need 554 capable people, one from every constituency. We need to make a chain. We can start with one person per state then one per district then one per village and we will see the new dawn laced in the colour of our desire. Let’s unite before we perish.

==================================================================

Soft or selfish and stupid state?

Two generations ago government of India pledged for free and compulsory education (quality notwithstanding though and is open and deserves to be debated) to all and still it tolerates 38 crore people out of 110 crore as illiterate.

Why does government of India tolerates such high levels of illiteracy?

25% of teachers in India are not more than 12^th pass and 50% do not go to the school to teach. Why should government be tolerating such ill-treatment to the future of India?

Majority of children born in India are born in houses since they do not have access to basic medical facilities. No wonder 63 out of 1000 children born in India never awaken to consciousness. Why is government of India tolerating this?

80 crores of Indians do not have access to clean drinking water and hence they are exposed to water borne diseases and specifically when we have so thin medical facilities

Epidemic is inevitable. There has been a report submitted to the parliament to make it compulsory for the builders to have the facility of rain water harvesting. Why is the government not implementing it? Water will be the reason for the biggest civil war in India in the future. What is the government waiting for?

Electricity is distributed free as vote gathering mechanism. Majority of Indian farmers do not have access to more than 1 acre of land thus they totally depend on rains for irrigation. Only minority rich farmers can use electricity to pump water from the ground which they excessively especially when they know they do not need to pay for the electricity. Consequence is that the ground water level has gone down drastically making it even more difficult for the poor farmers to even think of installing pump sets. Why is the government not thinking about the majority of the farmers? Is the government pro poor or pro rich? The constituents of the government do not seem to be pro any one except themselves. Why is the government of India working against Indian people?

After 6 decades of Independence why only 2% roads in India are highways and 12% are 2 lane roads. Poor roads lead to more fuel consumption, delay in transportation leading to higher costs in inventory management etc. More than 50% of the agricultural produce are perished because it could not be transported to the consumers in time leading to costlier product for the consumer and less income for the Farmers. Lack of roads restrict the farmers from growing cash crops such as vegetables. Why is government of India allowing such a mismanagement?

Government of India spends most on it’s own security and leaves very little for the security of its people.

Why are we tolerating such a government? Can we expect any party forming the government in India in the coming Lok Sabha elections will do anything substantial to help the people and country? This year the situation would be even more grim. None of the political organisations seems to be getting more than 150 parliamentary seats which means coalitions of warring factions and the majority of the governments time would be spent in ensuring that the government exists thus where will they find the strength to do any good for the people?

American president elect Obama has committed $850 billion to ensure computers are placed in every classrooms, rebuild the already world class highways, invest in high speed internet and make the public buildings more energy efficient. Compare it to ours which concentrates only on reducing the excise duties and increase in plan expenditure. We depend on FBI to give proof to Pakistan of their hand in the terrorist act committed on our soil but we do not take no cue from the Americans resolve to take care of their people at all costs. 5-6 Americans died in Bombay mishap and FBI reached Qusab’s village in Pakistan to investigate. It is still not clear what concrete the government of India is doing?

People abstaining from voting and no clear mandate suggest that the people of the country are awaiting an alternative which currently is eluding us. Lets unite to replace the morally dead government in India.