Role of religion in a society and fault tolerance.

In this day, when people have started regarding science as their, blatant outspokenness is glorified - (whether it be for a better cause or by one woman mobile republics, that remaining of no consequence) and evangelical atheism is on the rise, religion has been relegated to the poor and lower - middle middle class of the society, it might be useful to understand some role of religion in shaping the society, that too from an engineering perspective. But let me first start with Machiavelli's views on how religion is useful in shaping the society.

Reading from the points Machiavelli makes in the chapter "On the religion of Rome" from the discourses on book one of the first ten books of Titus Livy, which are as follows: (it is necessary to make an attempt to generalize the points and not quote verbatim, since Machiavelli talks from an Italian/Roman perspective which many readers might not follow or find boring.)

1. After Romulus's reign in Rome was over, the Senate elected Numa Pompilius as his successor and Numa introduces religion into Rome to discipline civil society so as to put a fear of God into the people.

2. This facilitated easing of policy execution on the part of the leaders.

3. Citizens then stood in far greater fear of breaking an oath than a law, as though they had a greater fear of God's might than for man's.

4. Religion was useful in directing the armies, in animating the people, in keeping men good and in shaming the wicked.

5. Where there is religion, it is easy to introduce military discipline, but where there is no religion, the latter can be introduced only with great difficulty.

6. Without invoking God, intelligent people have many beneficial things which might not be directly acceptable to the people.

7. Thus, religion introduced by Numa into Rome was one of the primary causes of her prosperity, for that was the source of good laws, which in turn, bring good fortune, and from good fortune results all the good from the institutions of the land.

Along with the above, there is one major sector that religion has a role in, that is, designing the society according to the rules of fault tolerance. Now, what does fault tolerance have to do with it? Well, this is what fault tolerance means. (click) The theory here, is that while you can make an excellent system when you delete any mention of God, the sole responsibility of leading such a system depends on good rule by the ruling class and which over a long period of time, decays since the ruling class will invariably get corrupt with concentration of power in the hands of a cliche. Once the ruling class starts manifesting decay, and licentiousness, the society will start crumbling, for there is nothing to fall back onto (Remember the Sanskrit saying, 'yatha raja, tatha praja' really becomes true in this case, since there is no better ideal available for the people to follow. In case of a pre-existing religion, at least some people will try to emulate the Gods of the religion, and rise above their rulers). This is where fault tolerance comes into play, that the system keeps on running at sub-optimal conditions even when the key dominoes of the system have been withdrawn. This is where Machiavelli too realizes the importance of this concept, but of course, he doesn't call it by this name. As per Machiavelli, welfare of a republic or kingdom lies not in ruling it wisely while the ruler lasts, but in organizing it in such a way that the state endures after he has passed away. And the best effect of religion is here.

The obvious corollaries (my points) that emerge from such a religion would be that -
1) The control nodes of such a religion should rest solely within the state. If the control nodes exist outside, they can lead to external manipulation of a people.

2) The structure needs to be kept decentralized with checks and balances on the powers of each control node, otherwise we have to endure with a parallel power centre apart from the Central Government in the same state.

3) Towards the above end, the religion should be divided into different philosophical schools to not only cater to people of different tastes, but also so that there is constant competition between each school, something that would help each school of thought better itself and its followers. Yet, there should be a common meeting ground of each school rooted in Dharma.

4) The end goal of such a religion should be to make people do good during the existence of a good state, even after the good state has passed, and create a legend that enables the people to resurrect the same state, or resist an imperial power.

As usual, followers are invited to add more to this post.

A little bit of Machiavelli for the Hindu mind.

Serving the country at any cost is a vital Hindu thought, and several Hindu sages have spoken of it in different eras. But most of us assume it is about fighting on the day of war, serving the poor and so on. Indeed it is all that, but it is also about pre-planning for existential threats, for which few have any regard for. It is impossible to make a majority of people think in this fashion, because many people would look at the current strength of the Indian state and think that it has bright prospects and will keep going from one strength to another. What we need for the country to effect it into policy, is a critical mass of people having strategic consciousness and the ability to look ahead of their immediate needs. The pre-planning for national security involves among other things, peering into a competitor's mind and read his literature plus understand the foundations of his thought. Here's a post for the security conscious minority, a minority that will always be treated as social outcasts of a particular kind if they dare open their mouth among the majority, by laws that have little empirical basis.

Following is an excerpt from Machiavelli's "The Prince" which is considered one of his best pieces and is widely used in many places to determine foreign policy. It might very well be useful to determine our foreign policy too. I advise reading all of his classics. Most of them are almost free.

(Warning: If you're thinking that the Indian Subcontinent consists of only the Indian State, you can leave the post now. If you're thinking it is still a bunch of states that deserve to be united in favor of the most powerful state, you are my kind.)

From Ch. 3 Mixed Principalities:

-----

Moreover, a prince who occupies a province which, as previously described, differs from his own, must become the leader and defender of the less powerful neighboring states and seek to weaken the more powerful among them. He must also be on guard lest by any chance a foreigner equal to him in power should enter them. Such an event always comes about through the help of discontented inhabitants who willingly admit a foreign power either through excessive ambition or through fear, as was the case with the Etolians, who admitted the Romans into Greece. So, it was also with every province that the Romans entered, they were brought in by the inhabitants themselves. It is in the nature of things that as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a province, all the weaker powers in it will become his allies through envy of those who have been ruling over them. This is so true that, with respect to minor powers, the invader need do nothing at all to win them, for they will all willingly merge in the state which he has acquired. He has but to see to it that they do not gain too much strength and authority. With his own forces and their support, he can very early reduce the stronger powers and then become arbiter of the entire province. Any ruler who does not succeed in doing this will soon loose what he has won, or so long as he does manage to hold it, will have a host of difficulties and annoyances. The Romans very carefully observed this policy in the provinces they conquered. They sent out colonies; they protected the lesser powers without increasing their strength; they reduced those who were strong, and they did not permit powerful foreigners to gain a footing. Their conduct in Greece will suffice as an example: there the Romans protected the Achaeans and the Etolians, reduced the kingdom of the Macedonians, and expelled Antiochus. Nor did they ever reward the Achaeans and the Etolians by allowing them to enlarge their states, or allow Philip to persuade them to become his friends until they had weakened him. Nor did the power of Antiochus ever induce them to permit his keeping any part of Greece. In this instance the Romans did everything that wise princes should do who must have regard not only for existing disorders but for future ones as well, avoiding them with all possible diligence.

-----

If you've been following current trends in India's geopolitics, then as far as the Indian subcontinent is concerned, all the above actors are in place. What was the traditional reach of the Indian subcontinent, comprising of states - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and as some say, even Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and some parts of modern day Iran, are all still splintered as was the case at the end of the Maurya Dynasty. Elsewhere in "The Prince", Machiavelli makes a point that a splintered people will be easy to conquer. A new wave of imperialism awaits us as the pressure applied on the rump state of India increases from all these sides and as the balance of military power shifts steadily from the Indian state onto the regions in its vicinities. We have missed out on the maneuvering phase of the enemy. Luckily, we have a democracy, and what an individual can do is to get informed, get others informed, vote for and give feedback to parties and people that are most security conscious. If there is any absence of such people, you have the opportunity to join the system and bring the change you wish. At the bare minimum, we can wish to enhance the military power of the Indian state, and keep the balance of military in our favor. Uniting with the lost states will happen if they happen to discover their roots at a later time, or the rising un-affordability of raising a modern military makes them fall within our ambit as autonomous states.