Too much trust in processes is also not such as “good trust” idea. One look at the current scandals in the British Parliament on MPs’ allowances and the Speaker’s expenses and it is patently clear that unless structures prevent poachers and gamekeepers to be the same people, processes and rules are as impotent as Shikhandi!

We need to move on from the days of the 1950’s when everyone was expected to have the highest moral standards and think for the greater good. People-and politicians are people after all-are selfish. Deal with it!

In India, the government is still called Sarkaar. In the minds of the common man, Sarkaar has to work for his improvement and he is powerless to do anything without its help. It is this attitude that needs to change. People must feel empowered to demand a better standard of living and not live in fear of demanding their due from their own elected leaders. Today people EXPECT good leadership but don’t DEMAND it!

Another issue here is education. For a whole bunch of politicians, it is quite beneficial to have an illiterate and uneducated populace because then they can fight on petty issues like caste and religion rather than real issues. I think with the times and the growing reach of all forms of media, the common man will realize his potential and his rights to good governance.

What is needed is a fundamental re-think about the system…In that context, some of you will find this post engaging and thought-provoking… It underlines the magnitude of challenge that we face:

http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/01/09/freedom-team-for-india/

Regarding, the relationship with West, I never said 0 be their slaves. I just said we need not have alienated West. There is a big difference between two. Currently India has great relationships with all major power poles - Israel & Iran, US & Russia, Japan & China, Europe & Africa, apart from ASEAN and Latin America, by not siding with any major power too closely. That is diplomacy. Whereas in Nehru’s period India became a stooge of USSR rather than being really non-aligned. Almost all our defense deals were with with the Soveiets, KGB was given a free run and we still manage to get our pilots run their flying coffins. While, Indian media fancies a lot of ideas about USSR, most non-Indian media recognized India’s hypocrisy. In this respect, China kept far better distance between the two powers without calling itself non-aligned.

I never said Nehru’s job was easy. But, just that there were better people at that time who could have led India better. Regarding Nehru, almost any major non-Indian author note the deficiencies in governance. The celebrated “Freedom at Midnight” gives pretty objective views on this. I have so far not come across a single objective International expert on Indian history who consdiers a good governer. If you come across, let me know.

I agree with you the Nehru didn’t go far enough. One does have to keep in mind that India was not politically cohesive with anti-Hindi agitations in the South, secessionist movements of varying degrees in the North East and even Kashmir and many Princelings still looking for opportunities to retain their powers. The India he got was a basketcase - with its capital almost completely stolen and a people who had been colonized for centuries. But you are correct that he didn’t use his unassailable political strength to push for radical changes. He promised land reforms - a key policy that was implemented in Taiwan, South Korea, China and even Japan (in this case an earlier phase) before they embarked on their industrialization. He promised but backtracked fearing enormous opposition and perhaps a loss of power. Perhaps political matters were seen as a priority compared to economic ones.

India had and still has no business in interfering in Tibet just as Pakistan has no business in interfering in Kashmir.

While he did commendable effort for pioneering IITs and the great dams, he did scant work to establish the roots - primary education and rural irrigation/agricultural development. We now have the IITs and the dams and the steel plants, but do our people have literacy and basic ameneites that Mao led China has? If we had given suitable thrust to our basic things in the formative years of the nation, and concentrated on improving agricultre, by now we would be at the driver’s seat. Agricultural revolution would have given way to Industrail revolution absorbing labor surplus that would have naturally evolve to the current service revoltion given that India’s historic strengthen in Finance, Math and Engineering. Given that he had 17 long years to rule and no credible opposition he could have taken risks to change the ground factors, but he chose to build castles in the air. And organizations like NAM served India little besides alienating the West and we chose our friendships and policies on a wrong foot.

I wish Balaji was a little more respectful to Nehru. Nehru spent time in jail as part of our freedom struggle. Without sacrifices like his, we wouldn’t be enjoying the freedom we do today. Definitely not as soon as 1947. You can refer to the attempts of the British to keep Malaysia, Kenya and Rhodesia under their thumb with their rule lasting as late as 1980. In Kenya, it ran a series of concentration camps in direct contravention of Human Rights conventions spelt out after World War II.

Narasimha Rao did spark the current spurt of growth. There is no doubt about it. But he wouldn’t have been able to do any of that if he was handed a dilapidated unindustrialized nation. Nehru had the vision to invest in infrastructure and higher education (against the advice of the likes of Milton Friedman). Indira Gandhi democratized the previously caste-based banking and heavy industries providing opportunities to people from non-trading castes to try their hand in industrial and financial management. The Janata Party coalition broke any notion of continuous political power in the hands of one group. Rajiv Gandhi started with small reforms and borrowed a lot of capital for investment. Of course, I have listed the good sides of all these people. There were the other bad sides too. But without their work Narasimha Rao wouldn’t have been able to do anything.

As pointed out earlier, the army in India does not interfere in the government. Its not only that but the Indian defence forces are completely under civilian command and India has remained stable throughout. I think India is the only country in the world with such a situation. Also, we do not have jingoistic celebration of military power with people strutting about in military uniforms. This is something we can be proud of.

Edsa, even the Japanese were known for imitations. I think Indian political institutions are quite tailored for local needs, both by design and evolution.

PS: Is TCS daily really a credible source?

India needs its own type of democracy, not the European type; its own community-based legal system, its own educational system. The pity is India hasn’t the intellectual capacity to innovate and adapt these imports.

But unfortunately, its third rate universities have failed to generate the needed intellectual base for creativity and invention. India invents nothing, it just copies others. Sadly there are no think-tanks to suggest strategies or solutions. Look at the Bolly lot desperately trying for Cannes or Oscar awards and failing every time. They don’t even realise their films are silly and puerile, loud and garish, not subtle and understated. (Contrast the Korean and Chinese products for a change.)

The politicians are intellectual zeros, coarse and corrupt. Even criminals can be MPs in India.
They have no skills for rational debate and argument. Most look old and tired, with no style,no charisma, wearing those wooden and vacuous expressions. Has Manmohan Singh said anything clever to attract international attention? He operates like a zombie, bowing to George Bush and with no intelligent proposals. Has he any sense of wit & humour?
All in all, India is in dire straits. The way forward is to upgrade its higher institutions - especially the universities.