Saturday, August 22, 2009

Organized leadership and ministerial building after elections- The way forward for India?

This post was meant for Independence day. However, owing to some amount of thought that had to go into it to make it possible and shortage of time, it has come several days late.

Before going forward with the topic, I'd like to explain the obvious benefits of an organization to do something, rather than its rules being loose and enforced by a single authority at the top.

A single authority at the top of any institution, who might/might not have any expertise in the service is in most cases a loss to the institution. (By institution, I mean something that provides service to the public for e.g.: police, fire station, etc.) Top-down administration of any institution with full authority vested in the top, even authority to change the laws of an institution means that administration is subject to whims and fancies of the person. If the man at the helm is of high dignity and a responsible person, the system will run well. On the contrary, if he is not so, the system will languish.

An organization on the other hand, has a set of rules and regulations. People once recruited follow these rules and regulations, governed by seniors who are talented persons in that particular field, or who are products of that organization itself. In an ideal organization, with no interference of vested interests and if recruits are only possible at the lower ranks, and if people who have just the right amounts of talent and intellect are recruited, than the organization runs like a mineral refining factory. Raw ingredients in the recruits are made available at the bottom, when people are not found to have prerequisites in them, they are thrown out or stagnate at one particular level, and the people who come to the topmost level of the organization would be the best (well, best at least in that particular organization). A person who has been thus prepared is fit enough to rule the organization. He knows from the very first day of his job how the institution should be run and what it lacks. Thus, there is no on the job training, and complete order in the institution.

Taking this analogy to politics, one can argue that this is the basic difference between a monarchy and a democracy. A monarchy in most cases has been the rule of a family over a people (One exception is the first Indian state established by Raja Bharata after the dasrajana (battle of ten kings) wherein the King chose his successor depending on his fitness). An amendment of the difficulty of family rule of a person not being talented enough to rule can be done by the king having many sons and imparting them training, with the best son being chosen to rule the people. But still, training some person to do something often needs harsh lessons to be imparted. This is not often done in families, since people tend to go soft on their own when they would be harsh on the others for same mistakes committed in training programs. Thus, a system of a chosen one to lead organizations thrives only on luck, in some cases it might work, in some cases it might fail. And such failures can sometimes be catastrophic for the nation, as often seen in the past.

The training to do a task, is best imparted in organizations and not in families. A system of government that is based on an organization rather than family rule is more likely to thrive. Thus, totalitarian (party rule) and democracy usually tend to do better than monarchies which might sometimes last very long, or sometimes last very short. The drawback of an organized method of rule is that a certain dogma gets attached to the system. It gets difficult to change, since change can only happen by taking a certain majority into confidence. This difficulty is absent in a monarchy when all powers are vested in the king. However the benefit is that total buffoons are weeded out at intermediate ranks in an organization, hence chances of a complete catastrophical failure in an organization is lesser than that in monarchies. One can say, that the scales get evenly balanced.

The next step after building an organization is that it should take into account the interests of all the members of the society. A fire station cannot neglect a fire in its own street while sending vehicles to extinguish fire in a far-off place. A police station cannot neglect grievances of a particular class of people. Similarly, a government must take into account the grievances of all the people in order for it to be successful. In it, a possibility lies for the failure of totalitarian type governments when it roots for the betterment of only government apparatchiks, causes organized (i.e. ordered from the top and executed at the fundamental levels to please the apparatchiks) and not organic (make incentives for progress) progress of the people it is meant to serve.

A democracy is thus far, the most progressive form of government. The basic tenet of democracy is that the people decide the leaders. The leaders then move on to form the laws and legislature. They get to rule for a limited span of time, after which they have to go back to the people for a vote. If the people are satisfied with the government, they vote it back. If not, they will vote another political party to power.

On the face of it, it all sounds a very good proposal. However, there is one fatal flaw, the over-dependence of the system on the people. Now, the onus is on the people to be aware of happenings around them in order to operate the system efficiently. Moreover, it is also needed that they be able to see through the malicious plans of the leaders and stop them in their tracks. They need to realize that in order to have long term gains, the nation has to sacrifice some short term comforts. All of the people are needed to realize Kautilya's axiom for the training disciple from the Arthashastra.

"The training disciple is the one whose intellect has the qualities of desire to learn, listening, retention, thorough understanding, reflection, rejection of false views and intentness on truth and not on any other person." Ch. 1.5.5 [1]


In summary, they need to be equipped with cutting edge awareness, think long term and place the importance of the nation above their selfish interests.

This is no mean goal. No people can be readied for the challenges of democracy at short notice. The system gets even worse when corrupt people reach the higher rungs of power. Just one jab at power by vested interests can allow them to divide the people, favoring one section over the other. People, if not sufficiently aware of this game can fall for it and vote those that particularly favor their section of the society. This effect is called vote bank politics. A non-intellectual people will not understand learned men and get thugs voted to the higher echelons of power. The thugs will in turn start a positive feedback cycle and by vote bank politics get more thugs voted to power who will shirk their responsibilities and enter politics only to enjoy the spoils of power. This cycle would continue until: 1) People revolt en masse. 2) The country is destroyed by such shenanigans.

So, if all three forms have flaws, what is the way out?

A possible solution is that leaders, after getting elected should be made to attend an organization that hones their leadership skills. It should acquaint them with the basics of human relations, interactions with industry heads, time management, planning and other similar skills that are required for efficient rule of the nation. People who are not genuine leaders will fall short of these skills and must not proceed to becoming MPs of their elected regions.

It would then be essential that instead of the top, the top few M.P.s of a region need to attend the institution, just in case the winning M.P. fails at the organization. Now, this would undoubtedly lead to some situations wherein a member of a losing party from a region gets through the organization. This could be allowed if the member is indeed a genuine ruler. Or perhaps the party based political system can be suspended so as to avoid such chaos. As of now, it really doesn't matter which party our people vote to power since alliances between the parties are decided by the 'leaders' and not the people. The people might then have to see those people as ministers of some portfolio who belong to the parties they voted out of power!

Another possible problem may erupt as in such an organization may become biased and allow politicians of a particular school of thought up the ladder.

But note that such an organization is at least better than a completely unregulated process of allowing anybody to come to power after being voted by the people.

Lastly, we need to ensure that only the Prime Minister (P.M.) is from the people, while all the ministries should be turned into organizations run identical to PSUs with the leader of the organization heading the ministry rather than some elected person who has little knowledge of operating the field of which he might become the minister.

The ministerial organization must be made to have interactions with leaders in respective fields to allow for suitable acquisition of knowledge from the outside world in order to make decisions effectively. They should be given certain form of autonomy that the members of the parliament apart from the Prime Minister himself do not interfere in their operations. The ministerial organizations need to be subservient to the P.M. building organization so that the P.M. can affect changes in other ministries much easily and lobbyists for certain interests are avoided to come to helm in the ministries.

This way, current ministries can be kept out politics and function independently. As of now, while people can elect their P.M. to power, they do not elect the ministers. The former cherry-picks them to his liking and sometimes to the liking of coalition members of the winning coalition. Newer ministries are created to suit the interests of coalition members. Where is the will of the people in all of this anyway? Such chaos can also be avoided by having pre-established ministerial organizations. It would be less difficult to setup ministerial portfolios in such a situation.

Could a temporary implementation of such a system, a combination of people's will and organized political schools of thought be a solution to our decrepit democracy? Note I mention temporary because maintaining such organizations might be a huge strain on our economy if they acquire high complexity. And it would not be justified to have a permanent system in which the people's will is overruled by them, since the ultimate purpose of any government is to remain aligned with the people. But as long as the people are poor, not sufficiently literate and myopic, a temporary crutches of the kind mentioned above might just be what is needed.

To summarize pictorially, an ideal parliamentary kind of government with lesser number of political parties and in which there is no dabbling of parties into the administration would look something like the pyramid below.


Fig. 1 Ideal type of parliamentary government

When the number of political parties get too many, imagine spheres of varying sizes intersecting with levels 2 and 3 first. The system gets worse when there is a winning coalition instead of a winning party and the spheres start intersecting even at levels 4 and barely touching level 5 meaning that they get much more room to meddle at the lower levels and at least cause some chaos in the functioning of level 5. It gets unstable and might even collapse.

What I propose is that there be another stage between levels one and two that can serve to train the politicians before going further.. so as to refine the quality of politicians going ahead and dislodge the previous level 4 and create level A such that it has no connection to the legislature or any parties, and instead recruits people from professional organizations. This way, we can not only permanently (i.e. as long as the program is deemed necessary) cut off interference from the rising number of parties, but also fine tune the raucous lot from the parties that gets elected at the primary level.


Fig. 2: New kind of democracy


Note: A lot more of the detail may be needed to be developed in the above post. Need some help with the above thesis.

References:
[1] P. Radhakrishnan; Management fundamentals in Kautilya's Arthashastra- II; 2005; 16-22

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The four debts of life

Rishi Kindamb explains the three debts of life, with the fourth debt explained by his wife at the end of episode 8. Buffer up to 35:00 to 38:50.


The session starts with Rishi Kindamb and Raja Pandu, Kunti and Madri.
Rishi: Life is both thirst and its quenching. Truth and falseness are the banks of the river of life. In its water is a mixture of both. But a knowing person is he who draws only righteous action from the water and doesn't allow falseness in his life.

Raja Pandu: So is this all life is? After filtering falseness in the filters of knowledge and experience, what does a person do about the truth? Does he return it to the same river?

Rishi: Oh king, I need not tell you anything. You know that after drawing truth from life, it doesn't need to be returned back. After truth is in ones hands, then a man should realize that he is a debtor. That he must fulfill his debts before dying. These are:

1) Dev rin (Money debt) 2) Rishi rin (Knowledge debt) 3) Pitru rin (Parental debt)

A man must fulfill these three debts before leaving his mortal self. And if somebody does so, life has been disrespected.

Raja Pandu: So what if somebody's fate does not allow him to fulfill these debts?

Rishi:
Your adherence to duties should be more than your fear of fate, oh king. It is not as if man has never changed his fortune. To fulfill these debts, if you have to change your fortune, then a try must be made. This is because these debts are extraordinary.

1) Rishi rin: This belongs to Lord Shiva.

2) Dev rin: This belongs to Lord Vishnu.

3) Pitra rin: This belongs to Lord Brahma.

A man cannot escape from Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma.

Madri:
So what are these debts?

Rishi:
The first of these is Dev rin. This is fulfilled by donations. The second, Rishi rin is fulfilled by acquiring knowledge and spreading it. The third debt is Pitra rin. This is fulfilled by getting heirs/heiresses and continuing the family.

Kunti: What is the duty of a woman?

Rishi: Woman, or in other words, awareness, encouragement and joy is the earth. All the seeds of life are within her. She is the soul of married life. And this soul is born in the form of a child.

"यत्र नारियेस्तु पूजयन्ते, रमन्ते तत्र देवता"

Which means that wherever a woman is prayed to, the Gods are happy. Whoever disrespects a woman, is not a human. To protect a woman is the duty of a man.

(Session ends, all the four depart)

This part starts at 43: 33 and is said by the Rishi's wife.

"The earth is the mother of all living beings. When I think of this, I get sad that I haven't fulfilled the fourth debt, the debt of mother nature."

Epilogue: With turmoils aplenty in today's life, I found this section most appropriate to solve many problems in today's day and age. Hindu society today falls short of at least three of the above four parameters, donations of wealth, knowledge, getting children and caring for nature. With substantial amounts of all the four, we might just succeed in putting our nation on the right track.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Book Excerpt: "Hindu Dharma"

Stumbled upon this while reading the comments under a post by Sandeep on his blog. It's an excerpt from the forward by P.S. Mishra, former judge of the High Court of Madras of the book "Hindu Dharma" which is the English translation of two volumes of the Tamil book "Deivatthin Kural" by Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Mahaswamiji. Very profound I must say, and has most of the answers to the questions I raised in this post.

"Man is no different from animals," says Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada in his Sutrabhasya. "Pasvadibhiscavisesat".

Texts tell us: "Human beings and animals have the same urges. They eat and sleep and copulate and besides, the feelings of fear are common to both. What, then, is the difference between the two? It is adherence to Dharma that distinguishes human beings from animals. Without Dharma to guide him man would be no better than an animal."

"Aharanidrabhayamaithunam ca samanyametat pasubhirnaranam

Dharmo hi tesamadhiko visesah dharmena hina pasubhissamanah"

The Lord says in Bhagavad Gita: "When a man thinks of the objects of sense, attachment to them is born; from attachment arises desire; and from desire arises anger. Anger causes delusion and from delusion springs loss of memory; loss of memory leads to the destruction of the sense of discrimination; and because of the destruction of his sense of discrimination man perishes."

Dhyayato visayan pumsah sangastesu pajayate

Sangat samjayate kamah kamat krodho bhijayate

Krodhad bhavati sammohah sammohat smrtivibhramah

Smrtibhramsad buddhinaso buddhinasat pranasyati

Commenting on these two slokas of the Gita, Swami Chinmayananda says that evil develops from our wrong thinking or false imagination like a tree developing from the seed. Thought has the power to create as well as to destroy. Rightly harnessed, it can be used for constructive purposes; if misused it will be the cause of our utter destruction. When our mind constantly dwells on a "sense-object" an attachment is created for that object. When we keep thinking of this object with increasing intensity, our attachment to it becomes crystallized as burning desire for the same. But as obstacles arise to the fulfilment of this desire, the force that at first caused the desire now turns into anger.

Swami Chinmayananda further observes that anyone whose intellect is in the grip of anger becomes deluded and loses his sense of discrimination since he is also deprived of his memory. A man who is the victim of anger is capable of doing anything, forgetful of himself and his relationship with other people. Sri Sankaracharaya observes in this connection that a deluded fool will fight even with revered persons like his own parents and preceptors, forgetting his indebtedness to them.

Says Socrates: "The noblest of all investigations... is what man should be and what he should pursue". And Samuel Taylor Coleridge observes: "If man is not rising upward to be an angel, he is sinking downward to be a devil. He cannot stop at the beast."

It is perhaps because of his understanding of the instincts of man and the need for human actions to be inspired by dharma that the famous poet Nilakantha Diksita said: "If, even after being born a man, one does not have any sense of discrimination, it would be better for such a one to be born an animal since animals are not subject to the law that controls the senses."

Our rishis knew that "all except God will perish". Man with his capacity for discrimination must be able to grasp the truth that the Atman is not different from the Bhraman. The Atman has neither a beginning nor an end. Every individual goes through a succession of births and, determined by his karma, either sinks further and further down or rises further and further up. But in life after life the Atman remains untainted.

There is a difference of opinion even among the learned as to the meaning of the word "dharma". The word is derived from "dhr" to uphold, sustain or nourish. The seers often use it in close association with "rta" and "satya". Sri Vidyaranya defines rta as the mental perception and realization of God. The Taithriya Upanishad also uses it with "satya" and "dharma". It exhorts students to speak the truth and practise dharma ("Satya vada"; "Dharmam chara"). According to Sankara Bhagavatpada, satya means speaking the truth and dharma means translating it (Satya) into action.

"Satyamiti yathasastrarthata sa eva anusthiyamanah dharmanama bhavati."

In this connection, the explanation given by Sri.K.Balasubramania Aiyar is relevant:: "An analysis of the significance of these three words (rta, satya and dharma) brings out clearly to us the fundamental basis of dharma as the ideal for an individual. While rta denotes the mental perception and realization of truth and satya denotes the exact true expression in words of the truth as perceived by the mind, dharma is the observance, in the conduct of life, of truth. In fact, dharma is the way of life which translates into action the truth perceived by the man of insight as expressed by him truly. In short, rta is truth in thought, satya is truth in words and dhrama is truth in deed."

To right-thinking people "dharma" and "satya" are interchangeable words and their goal is --- as it has always been --- to rise higher so as to realize Him who alone is the Truth. For them there is no pursuit higher than that of practising truth in thought, word and deed.

"Bhutahitam" is Sri Sankarcharya's answer to the question ( that he himself raise), "Kim Satyam ?" It means that truth (or truthfulness) is what is spoken for the well-being of all living beings. To the question,"Ko dharmah?", his answer is "Abhimato yah sistanam nija kulinam". It means that dharma is that which is determined by the elders and by learned people.

Of the four purusharthas or aims of life, dharma is always mentioned first, artha second, karma third and moksha last. The four stanzas of the Mahabharata that together go by the name of "Bharata-Savitri" contain these profound truths: Dharma is eternal but neither happiness nor sorrow is eternal; the Atman is everlasting but not that which embodies it; and from dharma arise artha and kama. They also contain Vedavyasa's lamentation: "With uplifted arms I cry but no one listens to me, 'From dharma spring artha and kama. Why is dharma then not practised?' "

Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada observes that even the wise and the learned, even men who have a vision of the exceeding subtle Atman, are overpowered by tamas and do not understand it even though clearly explained in various texts.

The Reality is perceived by one who has sraddha or faith which, according to the saints, is acceptance of the truth as proclaimed by the scriptures and as taught by the guru. By following the reasoning of the sastras and the path shown by the guru the bonds of avidya are broken and one becomes aware of the Atman. One's own experience obtained through one-pointed meditation of the Truth is another means to achieve the same goal. These moments are indeed blessed, the moments during which the Truth dawns on us as we receive instruction from our guru and as we gain wisdom that is supported by the authority of the scriptures. Yes, these indeed are moments of bliss when the senses are quietened and the mind is firmly fixed on the Atman. Thus dharma, to be precise Veda Dharma, has been and is essential for man to become a real man.

According to Sri Chandarsekharendra Saraswati, the Mahaswami, dharma is our only protection. In this book, the Great Acharya recounts all that we need to know about dharma and presents in an integrated form the various systems of thought that have flourished in this country. "The Vedas", Sri Mahaswami affirms, "represent the lofty principle that it is the one Truth that is envisaged as all that we perceive."

The discourses that make up this book are remarkable for their simple and enchanting style. The most complex of ideas are explained with such lucidity as to make them comprehensible to the ordinary reader. Sri Mahaswami deals not only with the wisdom of the Samhita part of Vedas and with other scriptural matters, he takes in his stride even modern scientific concepts like those of time and space. It is all at once so wide-ranging and so profound that we bow our heads in reverence to the Great Master of our time, the Sage of Kamakoti Pitha. His approach shows that he has no doubts in his mind, no hesitation in affirming the truths in the Vedas and sastras.


Thursday, August 6, 2009

Raj Dharma

Buffer upto 27:50 and watch till end.



Some lines on Dharma from Bhishma's address to Yudhisthir in the 94th episode of Mahabharata by B.R. Chopra.

".. Oh warrior, oh king, I am a defeated warrior and a defeated citizen. And from me, you should learn what a good warrior and citizen should not do. Vidur told me many times, that I should not honor the throne of Hastinapur. Instead, I should remain dutiful to Hastinapur. For if Hastinapur is not around, there will be no throne. Nothing is larger than the nation. No father, no son, no promise. My promises took me away from the interests of the nation. Yet, I kept them, and allowed the nation to go waste. My devotion to my promises made me a traitor. You are now seeing a traitor on this bed of arrows. I am the reason for the division of Hastinapur, the wax house accident, Draupadi's vastra haran and my beloved Arjun has thus nailed me to the ground for my sins. Every arrow is telling me, every wound is telling me, to recognize this land. You forgot it to see an image of your father?

Oh son, I am that Kshatriya who lived as a slave of my promises. With me, this chapter of disrespect for my motherland will also cease to exist. Oh son, on these white clothes of mine, there will be the blot of my pride. And this blot is so strong, that no penance from me will wash that. So son, do not ever make a promise that separates you from your nation. And if you did that, you will end up on a similar bed of arrows. Because when a Devavrata blocks the path of the nation, there will be an Arjun to slay him. This is the core essence of politics. Oh son, there is no interest of a king that is bigger than the interests of the nation. And if you think there is such an interest, then you too have trodded away from the path of Raj Dharma.

The country is not for the king, the king is for the country. And that king is never lucky for the nation, that blames his past for his nation's economic and social handicaps. If history has given you a weak socio-economic structure, then improve it! Change it! Because the past itself hasn't stood up to the challenges of the present. Because if the past were healthy, and if it had the strength to take the nation on the path of progress, then there would have been no change.
And listen to this carefully oh son, the challenge of a nation's agility is that womankind is respected. The nation's borders are as respectful as a mother's clothes. Protect them with all vigor.

Vasudeva: Tell them something about Dharma and Rajdharma too Pitamah.

.. Dharma is not confined to rites and rituals. It is a balance of your duties and others' rights. Thus, you must follow Dharma. Raj Dharma (Dharma towards your nation) is the same. But a king's duties are more than that of a citizen's. If a situation calls for the partition of a nation, then call for war, but never partition the nation. Can you five brothers cut your mother into five and distribute amongst yourselves? If not, then how can you divide the motherland? I have committed this sin. Which is why I'm telling this. To delay war, I even agreed to the partition of the nation. Do not fall for this move Yudhisthir. Now I'm tired Vasudeva and won't say anything more..."