Education in the Agricultural Age/Society

In the Agricultural Age, there were 4 groups in society:
1. Scholars
2. Warriors
3. Merchants
4. Farmers
This was true for all civilisations (India, China, Europe, etc).

Knowledge in the Agricultural Age was low. The knowledge required in people for the effective functioning of society was also low. Whatever knowledge existed was required only for the scholars. It was not required for the other groups – ie, warriors, merchants, farmers. So in all civilisations, only the scholars got education. The others (warriors, merchants, farmers) did not get education.

In India, these social groups were nothing but the Varnas:
1. Scholars – Brahmanas
2. Warriors – Kshatriyas
3. Merchants – Vaishyas
4. Farmers – Shudras

Thus in ancient India, only the Brahmanas had education. The others (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras) did not have education.

India's Middle Class: Money, Marriage, Family

India's middle class is obsessed with two things: money and marriage. Why?

An industrial society (US, Europe, Japan) has welfare systems like social security, social welfare, etc. An agricultural society (like India) has no such systems. Because there is no social security, people must rely completely on their savings. Because there is no social welfare system, people must rely completely on their family (ie, wife/husband and children). Therefore people in agricultural societies are obsessed with money and marriage. Obsession with money and marriage is a feature of the agricultural mindset. People with a truly modern/industrial mindset are not obsessed with money and marriage.

As India industrialises and becomes an industrial society – and builds the systems of an industrial society, this obsession will reduce.

1944: Russia's "Year Of Ten Victories"

This year Russia celebrates the 70th anniversary of The Year Of Ten Victories. During World War 2, USSR won 10 major battles against Germany, as the Red Army pushed the Wehrmacht west:

Month	Battle
1. January	Leningrad
2. February/March	Korsun
3. April	Crimea
4. June	Finland
5. June	Belorussia
6. July/August	Ukraine
7. August	Moldavia/Romania
8. September	Estonia/Latvia
9. October	Hungary/Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia
10. November	Norway

At least 2 crore Soviet men, women and children died in World War 2.

Chanakya/Kautilya's Arthashastra

From Chanakya/Kautilya's Arthashastra*:

By following this book one can create and preserve Dharma (good), Artha (wealth) and Kama (happiness) – and also destroy their opposites: evil, poverty and sorrow. [15.1.72]

The four branches of knowledge are philosophy, the Vedas, economics and politics. Philosophy is the lamp that illuminates all sciences; it provides the techniques for all actions; it is the pillar that supports Dharma. We must study philosophy because it helps us to distinguish between Dharma and Adharma in the study of the Vedas, between profit and loss in the study of economics, and between good and bad policies in the study of politics. Studying the other three sciences by the light of philosophy keeps our minds steady in adversity and prosperity, and makes us proficient in thought, speech and action. [1.2.10]

May the wisdom of Chanakya and the strength of Chandragupta be with us always.

*The Arthashastra – L N Rangarajan (1987, Penguin)

India, My India

India, my India
You are my passion, you are my obsession
You are my dream, you are my nightmare
You are my hope, you are my fear
You are my blessing, you are my curse
You are my mission, you are my destiny
You are my mother, you are my goddess
You are the best thing to happen to me
You are the worst thing to happen to me.

I live for you
I work for you
I die for you.

Every breath of my body belongs to you
Every ounce of my strength belongs to you
Every moment of my life belongs to you
My body, my mind, my soul
Everything I have belongs to you.

24 hours are not enough
365 days are not enough
One life is not enough
To serve you.

Two arms are not enough
Two legs are not enough
One head is not enough
One body is not enough
To fight for you.

If I can bring but one smile on your face
I will consider my life fulfilled.
To see you sitting on your throne
Wearing your crown, ruling the world
Would be the greatest joy of my life.
I would give everything, I would do anything.

No cost is too much to bear
No price is too high to pay
No burden is too heavy to carry
No sacrifice is too big to make.

I will walk on thorns for you
I will stand in fire for you
I will burn in hell for you.

Hunger, thirst, heat, cold
Fear, pain, suffering
I will bear anything for you.

What care do I for wealth?
What care do I for luxury?
What care do I for comforts?
What care do I for happiness?

All I care about is you
All I think about is you
All I want is you.

To be born in your womb
To live in your lap
Is the greatest gift of all.
To pour my life at your feet
Is the greatest privilege of all.

My intelligence, my knowledge
My ability, my energy
And my insanity
Are given to me
So I can serve you.

Darkness, loneliness
Fear, frustration
Doubt, depression
And meaninglessness;
One glimpse of your beautiful face
Is enough to drive all demons away
And bring back the shining light.

You are the sun in the day
You are the moon in the night
You are the stars in the sky
You are the lighthouse in the stormy sea
You are my guide
As long as I have you
I cannot stray.

You are my aim, you are my way
You are my ends, you are my means
You are my goal, you are my path
You are my purpose, you are my meaning.

You are the air I breathe
You are the water I drink
You are the earth I stand on.

Every pore of my skin is filled with you
Every cell of my body is filled with you
Every thought of my mind is filled with you
My whole being is filled with you.

You are my father, you are my mother
You are my brother, you are my sister
You are my friend, you are my lover.

What deeds did I do to deserve this boon?
What good did I do to deserve this grace?
What merit did I earn? In which life?
To bathe in the sweet waters of your love
Sinner that I am.

God, give me strength
Turn my body into iron
Turn my mind into metal
Turn my nerves into steel
Turn my heart into stone.

Let me not flinch
Let me not hesitate
Let me not look back.
There is only way to go
That way is forward.

I love you, I hate you
I laugh for you, I cry for you
I wake for you, I sleep for you
I sing for you, I dance for you
I sweat for you, I bleed for you
Everything I do, I do for you.

If I have you I have everything
Without you life is not worth living
India, my India.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Purusharthas

Correspondence between Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Purusharthas:

Maslow's Need	Purushartha
1. Basic/Physical	Kama
2. Security	Kama
3. Emotional	Kama
4. Success	Artha
5. Self-actualisation	Dharma/Moksha

India: Democracy or Feudocracy?

The political system of the Modern Age is democracy. The political system of the medieval period was feudalism.

	Democracy	Feudalism
1. Objective of the system	Good of the people	Good of the rulers
2. Basis of the system	Professional organisations	Feudal lords with their own private wealth and private armies
3. Selection of system workers	Merit	Personal connection with a feudal lord

India's political system looks more like column 2 than like column 1. So India is not a democracy, but a feudocracy.

Revolution/Reform in India

Revolution = rapid change (Latin volvere = 'roll')
Reform = gradual change (Latin forma = 'mould')

In every country gradual change is the norm, and rapid change is the exception. That is – reform is the norm, and revolution is the exception.

India is the world's oldest civilisation (5000 years old). Inertia is proportional to age. So India's inertia is very high. Here no change is the norm, gradual change is the exception, and rapid change is impossible. That is – reform is the exception, and revolution is impossible. The only revolution possible in India is reform. In India, reform itself is a revolution.

* Every revolution begins with one man.

* A revolution is not an event. It is a process.

* The most successful revolution is an invisible revolution.

* The best place and time for a revolution is always here and now.

* Every revolutionary is a wannabe dictator. Every dictator is a former revolutionary.

"A Perfect Life"

Perfection is a static state.
Life is a dynamic process.

So "perfect life" is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing cannot exist. It is logically impossible.

India/Hindus and Israel/Jews: Similarities

Similarities between India/Hindus and Israel/Jews:

Year	INVASIONS
(approx)	India	Israel
700 BC		Assyrians
600 BC		Babylonians
500 BC	Persians	Persians
300 BC	Greeks	Greeks
100 BC	Scythians	Romans
1 AD	Parthians
100 AD	Kushans
500 AD	Huns
600 AD		Arabs
700 AD	Arabs
1000 AD	Turks-1	Seljuk Turks
1200 AD	Turks-2	Mamelukes
1400 AD	Afghans
1500 AD	Mughals	Ottoman Turks
1750 AD	British

Year	WARS
	India	Israel
1948	Pakistan	Arabs
1956		Arabs
1962	China
1965	Pakistan
1967		Arabs
1971	Pakistan
1973		Arabs
1999	Pakistan

"Lincoln" Vs Bollywood: Movies and Idealism

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln has a misleading title. A more accurate title would have been Amendment 13. For that is what the movie is really about – the 13th amendment to America's constitution, that abolished slavery (in 1865). But the central figure is still President Abraham Lincoln, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis' Lincoln is an idealist, a man of lofty ideals. But he is also a realist, a practical man. He realises that to achieve those lofty ideals, it is sometimes necessary to use not-so-lofty means. He is a simple and humble man. But he is also a powerful man – a man who is aware of his power, and is willing to use that power to achieve what he thinks is right. Tommy Lee Jones is superb as the liberal Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who pushes the amendment through the House. The debates in the House are the best scenes of the movie, with some powerful dialogues (written by Tony Kushner). Lincoln is about idealism. It is about freedom, justice and doing what is right. A movie about the President who freed America's blacks – when the country has its first black President. Can it get more poetic?

In a TV program, Bollywood producer/director Karan Johar said that Lincoln was "boring", and he had "fallen asleep" while watching it. Lincoln got 12 Oscar nominations, and won 2 Oscar awards. Spielberg's previous films include Schindler's List, Amistad and Munich. I am sure Johar found them also boring, and slept through them too. He, on the other hand, has given us all-time cinematic masterpieces like Kuch kuch hota hai, Kabhi khushi kabhi gham, Kabhi alvida na kehna, My name is Khan and Student of the year.

The difference in quality between Spielberg and Johar apart, there is a larger point here. For Bollywood, love means only romantic love. Is there no other kind of love? What about love of one's country? For Bollywood, the only thing in the world worth falling in love with is a good-looking woman/man. Is there nothing else? What about ideals like freedom, justice and equality? Are they not worth loving? Are they not worth living for, fighting for and dying for? Every guy tells his girlfriend that he will die for her, but how many have actually done that? On the other hand, history is drenched with the blood of the crores of men and women who gave their lives for their country and their ideals. Yet Bollywood prides itself on churning out boy-meets-girl flicks (with the boy and girl singing and dancing around trees). The pinnacle of this industry's achievement is Salman Khan starrers that gross Rs 100 crore at the box office. As for the smug and pompous Karan Johar, he will earn my respect the day he makes a picture that moves me and inspires me – like Lincoln.

India's Politics = Money + Muscle + Caste

Indian politics is nothing but the politics of money, muscle and caste. How did this come about?

* 30% of India lives in poverty.

* 25% of India is illiterate.

* 70% of India lives in villages.

* 50% of India works in agriculture.

* India had 1000 years of feudalism (under the Turks, Mughals and British).

Having a democracy based on universal adult franchise in such a society automatically leads to the politics of money, muscle and caste. Money, muscle and caste politics is nothing but the logical consequence of opting for adult franchise in 1947.

Liberals staunchly defend universal franchise, and staunchly criticise money, muscle and caste politics. But the latter is a direct result of the former.

See India's Democracy = Corruption + Violence + Casteism

India's Politics: Corruption

Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on corruption:

"An elaborate network of patronage has developed, extending deep into the countryside. Much of this is controlled and directed from levels lower than the state. Availability of new kinds of jobs, distribution of loans and benefits, control of institutions dealing with credit and scarce materials, establishment of new positions of prestige and authority, the penetration of educational institutions and voluntary organisations with new resources, and above all a known and intelligible pattern of influence and corruption – all these have brought life and significance to the governmental machine, endowed it with political meaning, and led to an increasing communication between traditional society and the new structure of institutions."

India's Politics: The Urban Middle Class

Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on how the urban middle class lost power to the rural zamindars:

"Different stages in the social organisation of politics call for somewhat different leadership and organisational skills, and the movement from one stage to another may displace one kind of leadership by another. Consequently, one social group endowed with one type of social skills may be displaced by another endowed with another type of skills.

Thus in the early stage of intellectual awakening and urban-style political organisation, the need was for people able to deal with Western and Westernised administrators, well-versed in fine points of debate and ideological disputation, possessing legal acumen, and capable of founding and sustaining small associations of public-minded persons that would agitate for specific causes. Such men were mainly provided by the Brahminic and traditional administrative classes who not only took to the new education but had also been endowed by a long tradition of scholastic knowledge and formal brilliance.

With the movement into a more diversified and mass-oriented politics, however, not only was there a need for a wider base of support articulation but also for new types of managerial and organisational skills. With this shift in orientation, the Brahminic and administrative castes began to be outnumbered by men from commercial and peasant proprietor occupations, occupations that had always called for a high level of interpersonal skills, a pragmatic and bargaining approach to problems, and an ability to marshal a new type of solidarity among their own castes, often based on a reinterpretation of their traditional status and a populist and anti-elitist ideology. These were the new entrepreneurs, the new innovators, of politics. They were less modern than the elites they replaced, less educated and more rural-based, operated through an idiom that was decidedly more traditional.

There has taken place a growing politicisation of the traditional sub-centres of Indian society. The rural elites have seized the organisation of these sub-centres and have on the basis of a new consolidation – caste federations, cooperative societies, panchayati raj – pushed themselves upward to state and national levels. Utilising the opportunities of cooptation offered by the metropolitan elite, they have occupied crucial positions at higher levels and have generally succeeded in outnumbering and outwitting the modernists."

India's Politicians: The Rural Zamindars

Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on politicians – the rural zamindars:

"In order to make itself secure in office, the ruling groups in the states have increasingly relied on the rural vote, spreading its patronage far and wide controlling local authorities, educational institutions and other developmental agencies, including important voluntary organisations. Concomitantly, institutional power shifted downward and a different set of men emerged who took charge of these networks, captured positions in the party organisation, and slowly acquired considerable strength and power.

The new organisation men that emerged are to be found away from the urban centres of state power in small towns and district capitals, closer to the traditional order, and exhibiting a new style in Indian politics. They are pragmatic men, less oriented to the modernist idiom but modernisers in their own way, men who understand the subtleties and nuances of local society, powerful persons who have taken time in coming up, and who are therefore confident of their own strength. When elections come, the state leaders have to rely increasingly upon these men who happen both to occupy positions of influence in the institutions of planned change and to be in close communication with socially entrenched and economically powerful local elites. Some of them are popular leaders, others ruthless managers, but they control the vote.

Generally coming from the well-to-do class of peasant proprietors, they are men of some means, skilled in the art of managing men and running institutions, and very knowledgeable concerning local conditions.

They have to establish a rapport with the local bullies (muscle) who can intimidate and cajole the people, who normally keep faith, and who in their crude way maintain peace in the locality."

India's Politics: Caste

Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on caste:

"Everyone recognises that the social system in India is organised around caste structures and caste identities. In dealing with the relationship between caste and politics, however, the tendency is to start at the wrong end of the question: Is caste disappearing? In part such an approach comes from a widely held dichotomy between traditional and modern forms of organisation. In reality, however, no social system disappears. A more useful point of departure would be: What form is caste taking under the impact of politics, and what form is politics taking in a caste-oriented society?

Those who complain of 'casteism in politics' in India are really looking for a sort of politics that has no basis in society. They also probably lack any clear conception of either the nature of politics or the nature of the caste system. (Some of them would want to throw out both politics and the caste system) The process of politics is one of identifying and manipulating existing structures in order to mobilise support and consolidate positions. Where the caste structure provides one of the most important organisational clusters in which the population is found to live, politics must strive to organise through such a structure."

"Politics in India": Rajni Kothari

Rajni Kothari's "Politics in India" (1970) is a systematic study of Indian politics.

Contents:

A. Introduction
1. Theoretical background
2. Historical background
3. Political background

B. The Political System
4. Development of the system
5. Political parties

C. The System's Environment
6. Indian/Hindu society
7. Indian/Hindu culture

D. The System's Performance
8. Political performance
9. Economic performance
10. Foreign affairs
11. Future trends

India: Ordinary Men Vs Great Men (Society/Family)

A brilliant psychological analysis* of how the Indian society/family is designed to produce a mass of ordinary men and only a very few great men (like Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi):

"Almost all students of Indian personality have been struck by the extreme indulgence of the Indian child, principally by the mother but also by other members of the family. This gives rise to a sense of omnipotence in the infant, a feeling that is fortified by nursing practices and physical proximity with the mother for an extended period of time.

An important consequence of this is that there develops in the Indian child a strong individual ego. As a result, moral energy does not come from the pressure of guilt feelings arising from a failure to live up to the social ideal, but depends crucially on a self-cultivated individual ideal. Fulfillment of the ideals set for the individual – rather than social obligation – becomes the main drive for moral action.

This creates wide gaps in individual capacities. For the average Indian, as morality has reference to self-directed and introspective perfection, the compulsion to perform is not very great. On the other hand, the culture develops high and universalist ideals with which the creative and power-motivated individuals strongly identify: the theme that the individual itself is the Absolute drives them to ever higher levels of perfection.

This gulf between the drives of ordinary men and those of great men results in abstract concepts of duty and morality, and a personality ideal that is high and remote – realisable only by exceptional men whose authority derives from their capacity to embody virtues that are lacking in ordinary men. Hence the exaggerated role of the guru, the ascetic, the warrior, and indirectly of a hierarchy of roles, and charisma."

*Politics in India – Rajni Kothari (1970)

See Nietzsche's "Superman" Theory

India: Ancient Vs Medieval - Traditional Vs Feudal Politico-Economic Systems

A comparison of the politico-economic systems of ancient and medieval India (traditional vs feudal):

	Traditional (Ancient)	Feudal (Medieval)
		.
1. Nationality of the rulers	Indian	Foreign (Turk, Mughal, British)
		.
2. Objective of the system	Welfare of the people	Welfare of the rulers
		.
3. Basis of the system	Consent	Force
		.
4. Political nature	Freedom	Slavery
		.
5. Economic objective	Creating wealth	Looting wealth
		.
6. Religious agenda	Tolerance	Conversion
		.
7. Legal basis	Dharma (rule of law)	Nil (law of the jungle: might is right)

Materialism, Spirituality and Idealism in India

What is the purpose of life? All human goals can be classified into 4 groups:
1. Kama (desire, pleasure)
2. Artha (wealth, power)
3. Dharma (morality, duty)
4. Moksha (salvation)

Accordingly we have the 3 philosophies of life:
A. Materialism – The pursuit of Kama and Artha
B. Idealism – The pursuit of Dharma
C. Spirituality – The pursuit of Moksha

Materialism does not give us happiness. Worse, it breeds selfishness, dishonesty and corruption – leading to the downfall of the society/nation. Example: Roman Empire.

Spirituality is offered as an alternative to materialism. But spirituality is an other-worldly philosophy. It rejects life in this world. By neglecting society, it also leads to the downfall of a nation. Example: India around 1000 AD.

So what is the solution? Lost between the two extremes of materialism and spirituality is the true answer: idealism – the pursuit of Dharma. If people live by certain simple rules (ie, morality) and do their duty sincerely, it brings both individual happiness and social well-being.

For 4000 years India gave primacy to Dharma – and was the world's richest and most powerful civilisation. Then, for some reason, we started giving primacy to Moksha. The result was we were conquered and ruled by foreigners (Turks, Mughals, British) for 1000 years.

In 1947 AD (Kali Yuga 5049) we finally became free. It was a golden opportunity to restore Dharma as the foundation of our nation. Instead, we confused Dharma with religion and threw it into the dustbin (because we are "secular"). The vacuum was filled by materialism. The results are there for all to see today.

The time has come to rescue India from both materialism and spirituality, and restore idealism (Dharma) as our national philosophy.

See:

1. What is Dharma? – 1

2. What is Dharma? – 2