BROAD CONTOURS OF INDOCRACY-II

Indocracy envisions India as a composite and yet harmonious society and civilisation that is protected by a state with robust and yet dynamic governance- security apparatus. This is not possible without optimum harmony between state and society, where both empower each other. State must offer optimum all round security and protection to people to evolve and flourish and build upon all human faculties. Such security must not make people complacent or sedate or undermine competition or energy or enterprise. Rather these must get a fillip. Society must throw up powerful ideas and initiatives that build values and norms that enhance productivity and  quality of output of people. Yet we build such cohesion among  them that translates into comprehensive strength of entire state. The beauty of Indocratic form of democratic republicanism, or state-society equilibrium, shall be such that neither state shall oppress society nor society shall seek to subvert. Such perfect equilibrium may be impossible to achieve in entirety but the principal research on Indocracy has  translated such aspiration in to concrete and scientifically achievable course of action. With adequate space for leadership initiative, and a broader culture of integrity-driven leadership, such an arrangement can become not only sustainable but can potentially change the direction of our evolutionary journey.    

It is universally known that states and societies that have advanced faster than others are those where formal-legal governance institutions, laws and rules have been backed by social values and norms. Coercion can never be a source of sustainable excellence in any field. That is what explains demise of authoritarian communism. 

Indocracy proposes building optimal harmony goals of national empowerment and social values and habits of people. It seeks to work not only at the level of formal-legal institutions but also at the level of values and behaviour patterns of people. 

 Many of the existing social values, practices and traditions in India, and other developing nations, are obstructing a robust governance and security apparatus. These cannot be transformed overnight. But with a combined impact of legal and formal institutions as well as right role models and leadership initiatives, it is possible to bring about substantial transformation in these over the next few years. Indocracy has devised several detailed scientific principles and processes create that an energised leadership can use to build a broad consensus for time-bound comprehensive reforms in key sectors, brushing aside resistance from vested interests.   

A healthy and vibrant governance structure requires conducive ecosystem in the form of healthy and harmonious social order. I also believe that Indocracy as an ideal and value, as it existed in ancient India, needed to continuously evolve, which did not happen.  These were rather disrupted and subverted by the emergent elite much before the Mamluk invasions. In fact, there were over 700 major social reform movements on Indian subcontinent, when republics were transitioning to monarchy, amidst serious challenge to political stability and social harmony. 

The so-called intellectual elite of the era must have acted as complicit in the entire process. This is manifest in transition of massive confederation of Republic of Raja Bharat into multiple monarchies, rise of Casteism and distortion of original scriptures, which converted status of rulers from Military Generals and Bureaucratic leaders to incarnations of divinity. 

Consequently, India and Indo-Asia faced extreme decline as a civilisation and common political entity. Even though a few benefited for a few generations before succumbing to the after-effects of a decadent and subverted political order. Hence, Indocracy, despite deriving inspirations from the past and building a common bridge of legacy heritage within Asia, is strictly against going back to the past or intensifying contentious identities or endorsing any form of dynastic succession to leadership roles in any sector. It rather talks of limited tenure at the helm in all political parties at national or even provincial levels. 

Simultaneously, it envisages  meritocratic selection of leaders even in all major private sector organisations, except smaller family run  organisations with a limited outlay. Leaders in every sector need to lead austere life and act as role models for the entire citizenry.    

Since, values are most important aspect of both social life and institutions, as manifest in continuous beliefs and traditions, these need to be refined and harnessed to build Indocratic social, political and economic order. Indocracy emphasises on scientific and innovative way for reconciling conflicting identities. In long run, this will vanquish the very foundation of terrorism, radicalism and all shades of violent and illicit crime in the name of religion.  Indocracy is strictly against exploitation of any religious-ethnic or linguist identity to preach or practice social disharmony or political profiteering or even commercial gains.

In this connection, I have maintained that most of the original Indian texts were secular and scientific in nature. Unlike, Chinese, Egyptian, Arabs and Europeans, the element of magic and superstition or even secret communication with heaven that one comes across Shang and Zhou era of Chinese history, or communion with Sun God by Egyptian dynastic priest turned Pharaohs or pagan ways were not part of original Indian scriptures. Magic and superstition were later day innovations that were opposed by Buddhist and Jain movements. 

Hundreds of philosophies on the Indian subcontinent espoused Dharma in a way that sough to reassert original Indic values and practices that were under assault by emergent political elite and ritualistic practices. These distortions sought to institutionalise exalted status of the emergent elite and secure their preferential access to political power or rather perpetuate their authority. Indocracy has tried to avoid this complicated and emotive trap of history, beyond a certain point, to build a composite and harmonious social and political vision outlook for India and Indo-Asia. 

Indocracy is derived from Rigvedic and Upanishadic principles of ancient India as well as various other principles of Kautilyan and pre-Kautilyan governance and social order. These have been modified with knowledge and scientific approach of post-enlightenment era of |Europe and principles espoused in Universal declaration of Human Rights along with broader underlying Gandhian values. Several other ideas and innovations of Indian subcontinent and Indo-Asia have also been incorporated in devising the futuristic vision and structures of democratic governance. 

Indocracy has been reinforced with Sikhism’s resurrection of bravery, courage, valour and selfless service of mankind, without any discrimination. Islam’s egalitarianism, meritocracy, mandatory charity  and compassionate society as envisioned in original teachings Prophet Muhammad and further refined and practised by Sufi practitioners of Indian subcontinent also finds critical manifestation in the Indocratic social order that propel India as a society and civilisation to newer heights. Buddhism’s noble eight-fold path as well as principles of moderation or optimally harmonious equilibrium in pursuit of optimum peace and excellence, as part of Indian and Indo-Asian values are equally critical ingredient. Christianity’s emphasis on compassionate society, selfless piety and service of mankind along with Jainism’s idea of selfless universal piety and Zoroastrian notion of universal good towards all living being and similar other Indian values and philosophies that have created the unique idea of India. 

Indocracy, however, is strictly against any authority for organised religion and any religious and social organisation interfering in domain of state or attempting to fracture the idea of India. Indocracy subscribes to building a strong criminal justice system and security capacity that can offer deterrent punishment for use of organised religion for financial gains or social and political influence or preaching any hatred or discrimination against adherents of any other identity. 

What lays at the core of Indocracy is not merely some wishful aspirations but concrete, scientific and achievable restructuring of existing governance institutions that shall make realisation of these objectives and aspirations a reality. Indocracy has the potential to resurrect India, and eventually whole of Indo-Asia, as a beacon of hope and aspirations for people of the entire developing world and beyond. It can restore the faith of Maxmuller in inherent strengths of Indian values and Indian social and political order in promoting optimum human excellence and harmony. Indocracy is way beyond appealing words or hollow exhortations. 

Indocracy has also devised a scientific framework for transformation of governance and national security structures, institutions and procedures, essentially for India, which can be replicated by others. These are likely to bolster overall governance and national security capacity of states in the developing world, giving them capacity to detect threats and challenges early to effectively prevent, preempt and deter these. It offers viable ways and means of utilising  human genius and harnessing these towards comprehensive advancement of governance capacities of democracies in the developing world.

Indocracy acknowledges that complete equality is neither possible nor desirable. But universal access to opportunities is indispensable for health and harmony within societies and states. Hence, it offers optimal space for upward mobility through initiatives and enterprise but leadership level roles are  more likely to be open to those who have both the capacity and the intent to lead rather than  profiteer. 

Further, Indocracy threatens none. It talsk about building a collaborative governance order in whole of Indo-Asia and beyond. It is inspired by the idea that India has never ever colonised other people or races or plundered their resources. Freedom and peace-loving people all over the world must have a stake in stability and consolidation of India and resurrection of original Indian values through Indocracy.  An Indocratic India can propel whole of Indo-Asia and Africa to unprecedented levels of material prosperity as well as much higher levels of internal cohesion and external harmony. 

*************** 

PS: A comprehensive and detailed scientific institutional and structural construct on Indocracy is available with the author, which shall soon be in public domain. 

BROAD CONTOURS OF INDOCRACY-I

[INDOCRACY is not about going back to past or building supremacy of India over rest of the world. It is about building a more advanced democratic political structure with exceptional governance capacity  capable of transforming both plight of people as well as comprehensive national security capacity of India in a manner that offers a protective shield to all the democracies in Asia.]

Indocracy envisions a governance model that is driven by original ancient values of the Indian subcontinent and Indo-Asia, that once expanded from Central Asia to Indonesia and beyond, while adopting some of the scientific structures and processes evolved by the West. Natural evolution of this governance model was disrupted due to internal subversion and degeneration, which was followed by external invasions. 

Both democracy and republicanism were critical ingredients of original political systems of Indo-Asia, with monarchy and absolutism being later day distortions, when the institutions were collapsing. Such a political system had driven the entire region to exceptional levels of all round material, scientific and social advancement. Its ability to foster individual excellence in different spheres, and harness these towards collective and comprehensive advancement people, constituted its biggest strength. 

Indocracy envisions a scientific framework of  governance values, goals, structures and processes that can optimise and enhance both individual and collective capacity and output of people in each context rather than creating a distributive arrangement after societies have attained certain level of prosperity. Indocracy is not about individuals fighting for themselves but about a social and political order that reconciles individual liberties and collective well-being in most judicious manner. Details of institutional structures and procedures need to be modified as per requirements and realities in each context. 

Indocracy reasserts comprehensively composite cultural identity of India and Indo-Asia, where members of each identity and faith not merely co-exist and tolerate each other but respect and celebrate. It is a unique mix of Rigvedic values of Raja Bharat era, Kautilyan governance principles and the enlightenment era modern democracy, with Gandhian social values and principles. 

It seeks to channel free debate and discourse as a strength and not as a source of social fissure and potential conflict. Hence, original Indian spirit of Vaad and Samvaad, a dialogue with open and yet critical mind for learning and appreciating issues without prejudice or fear, has to be the foundation of free speech. 

It may not be possible to regulate the quality of political discourse through legal regulations alone. There shall be a need to revamp the structure of both criminal justice system as well as the structures and processes of political parties. A professional, leadership and output driven civil service shall have to be an integral component of an Indocratic political system. So will be dynamic and  competitive corporate sector, driven more by enterprise and leadership and less by profit. Simultaneous restructuring of healthcare, education systems- both in content and deliver, institutions of higher learning and research, civil society groups and media enterprises shall be essential to build and sustain an Indocratic order. 

Indocracy or Bharat Tantra seeks to combine modern democracy with Buddhist and Gandhian values of ethic and integrity. However, criminal justice-system and national security apparatus need to be driven more by Kautilyan principles and practices to prevent, pre-empt and deter all forms of external threat and malicious internal subversion. 

I have repeatedly emphasised in my public talks that welfare state is a critical ingredient of national security and not an act of altruism or charity towards poor citizens. The challenge is not to simply feed people but to make them active partners of social and economic advancement of India. Their overall capacity must be stretched and harnessed towards strengthening the larger economic, social, technological capacity of state and society. 

Indocracy is based on the premise that modern Western democratic values and ideals have descended in the west once these states and societies attained certain levels of prosperity. Whereas, these values and ideals were practised by Indo-Asia much before the West but these were subverted, which lead to decline of eternal Indocracy in Indo-Asia. Today, Western democracy too has been showing early signs of internal subversion and distortions. Amidst rise of opaque and authoritarian as well as radical forces, the whole world is vulnerable to serious threat. 

Under these, circumstances the idea of democracy must transition to the next higher stage before its too late. In their prevailing state, Democratic political systems appear far more vulnerable to subversion and manipulation by powerful internal and external cartels and vested interests, instead of pushing comprehensive and collective well-being of entire citizenry. Most democratic institutions, structures and processes are leading to sub-optimal advancement of people, state and societies. In many contexts, especially in the developing world, these breeding far too much of conflict, economic under-development and deficient governance, nullifying the advantages of open societies. Such vulnerability of democracy is particularly manifest in expanding asymmetry of all round power between a democratic India and authoritarian China, in favour of the latter. 

Inability of Western democratic institutions to optimise collective and individual output and happiness of people, does not mean that these should be discarded. Rather these need to be improved upon. Indocracy, which is the future shape of democracy, should be universal in nature but not necessarily confined to the Western parameters. Elements of transparency and accountability of governance processes and procedures, however, have to stay non-negotiable. 

Western democratic institutions have been created by colonial powers with their own experiences and outlook in their own unique contexts. These institutions are not capable of addressing aspirations of post-colonial societies, and particularly the one like India, which has had a long civilisational history that had faced degeneration and sustained assault on its original values. 

India’s long journey as a civilisation, has been interspersed with strong familiarity with some traditions of of trust-based rule of law, notwithstanding distortions and degeneration. These were distorted by the elite of India and Indo-Asia. India, at this juncture, must take initiative to advance the idea of democracy, by reshaping its governance institutions by its own eternal strengths but without diluting the elements of integrity and transparency devised by the Western format of Democracy. 

(To be continued) 

WHAT INSPIRED INDOCRACY?

I have been using expression Indocracy to describe a more advanced form of democratic political and governance framework that can help transform India from a semi-developed country with modest public infrastructure and military capacity to a fairly prosperous, egalitarian, socially harmonious and cohesive country with far stronger militarily and security capacity. Indocracy envisions further refinement of democracy by resurrecting some of the original and ancient values of the Indian subcontinent. Following write up is reproduced from my page named Indoocracy:

                                                                 (  I )

When Shri Narasimha Rao took the bold political-governance step in 1991 to liberate the Indian economy from shackles of licence-Raj, it was a big move towards unleashing locked up entrepreneurial and economic energy of India. Until then,  state had allowed only few mega industrialists and chosen cronies to retain their stranglehold over aspirations of nearly a billion people. Of course, among them were few conscientious corporate leaders but the club was too tightly closed. Someone like D B Ambani had try ingenious ways to break in, through means that were not considered all that honourable.    

At that time, for a duration of nearly one year until I joined civil service, I used to argue that India needed simultaneous reforms in civil service, political parties, private sector and criminal justice system to bolster its overall governance capacity. We needed to ensure that resultant opportunities for economic competition did not turn into conflict. 

I believed that the prevailing structures of Indian bureaucracy or even political parties and even criminal justice system were incapable of either regulating this competition or absorbing the shock. No one with a bit of sense, at least in my generation, had any doubts about the promise that such a move held for our future. The issue at stake was how to harness and optimise the dividends of economic liberation for the people and the country as a whole.  After three decades of experience, my views have become more entrenched in this direction.  

While competition is critical for excellence and optimal output in any sphere, it must be fair and well-regulated. An unregulated or deficiently regulation competition turns into conflict and retards excellence and output in any institution or society. 

Many intellectuals, media and even my friends in student politics were arguing that the role

of state in economic sphere would decline following this step. I used to argue that the role of state had become far more challenging and complex and there was an urgent need to refine it. Our country needed to follow up reforms in economy with reforms in other sectors. Of course, I was disdainfully dismissed by all concerned. 

Even in civil service examination of 1991, there was a question in political science paper on this issue. I took a similar line rather than writing the standard answer. I had gone to the extent of arguing that there would be faster development for a while, following few initial hiccups and knee jerk reactions following such change, as unleashing of so much of locked up energy was bound to have a positive impact on our all round productivity. But sooner there would be conflict, confusion, contradictions and decline in pace of development, leading to social disorder and multiple other malaise. 

In absence of simultaneous reforms in political, administrative and education sectors, powerful cartels, and enterprising elements with not so sound values, could benefit far more. Some of them could rise to take over major institutions and use the government authority against the interest of Indian state and Indian people. State shall fail to contain abnormal rise in corruption and even sophisticated criminality. These could undermine ability of state to administer rules and laws fairly. 

Existing mega elite could exploit their clout to rig the process of economic competition. Newer criminalised elements who were on the fringes of economy could capture centre-stage, as state would not be able to regulate competition. There could be much larger criminalisation of politics with steep increase in financial clout of such elements. 

Thankfully a visionary T N Sheshan and the same outdated but relatively honest elements in bureaucracy salvaged our electoral process and proved such assessment wrong to some extent but not entirely in my perception. 

I had argued that we needed more specialised, competitive and autonomous civil service to support and regulate competition - both in politics and economy- and not obstruct democracy and development. We also needed more honest and efficient businessmen, which too was a rarity  those days. People who aimed to prosper must contribute to society by providing services and generating jobs. All these would require newer norms, rules and and faster output of criminal-justice system to uphold these. Otherwise,  resultant conflict and chaos could choke the entire productivity and output of people. 

I had insisted that competition could lead to excellence only if competing people  had a higher semblance of equality. There could be no competition in a race between few well-fed well educated people riding helicopters and majority of ill-fed, weak and ill-nourished people running with bare feet on rough and thorny grounds. 

While complete equality  is neither possible nor desirable in any system, some semblance of equality and universal access to economic security are indispensable for competitive economy and politics.  These alone could optimise capacity and productivity of people in democracies. 

This was the first question I had answered and examiner virtually failed me in this paper. Probably I had created an impression that I was simply bluffing and had no clue about the issue as I had not read or memorised information to reproduce it, like other good students. 

Even now, most educated Indian elite of that generation dismiss my views in this direction, on the plea that system permitted lot of upward mobility and we were far better-off today, compared to earlier times. I do believe, we need to think bigger and think differently. 

I have  harnessed my wide exposure, compared to most academics, to real life events and processes in geopolitics, governance, national security, and other spheres,  to articulate a viable and pragmatic vision of transformation of democratic governance institutions and their processes in India and the developing world. These usher in far greater prosperity and security for people in the developing world. I have named it Indocracy. The discussion shall continue. 

(To be contd.....)

( II )

I remember words of one of my esteemed elders and mentor with whom I would have interacted extensively in Calcutta, Delhi and finally at Lucknow. He was Shri Vishnu Kant Shastri, initially a teacher of Hindi and then a politician. He is the one who taught me the concept of Dharma, admitting that he could not answer me more as he had limited knowledge of Sanskrit as he was essentially a teacher of Hindi who had read a little bit of Sanskrit.

Once at his government house in Delhi, probably at Vishambhar Das Marg, he told me: “Beta tum naukri me aa gaye ho, lekin tumhare vichar nahi badle. Aise vicharon ke saath tumhein baahar aana padega nahi to tum baahar Kar diye jaoge. Lekin apne vicharon par tumhein swayam prayas karna hoga.Tum ek naye samaj ki Srijan ki baat Kar rahe Ho. Is ke liye apni Ahuti deni padti hai. Atm-bali hi samaj Srijan ka adhaar hai”. 

(Son, you have joined civil service but your views have not changed. With these views, you will soon have to come out of civil service or you will be thrown out. You will have to pursue these views on your own. You are talking about a new social order and self-sacrifice is the foundation for any creative advancement of this kind)     

Though much later even at Lucknow, once he had presented me a copper-brass statute of Goddess Saraswati, acknowledging my penchant for innovative thinking, and had amusingly asked me "Eis sade hue vyavastha mein aise vicharon ke saath kaise rehte ho tum?" (How do you manage to survive with your views in this rotten system of government service). Fortunately, I was away from mainstream bureaucracy and I never discussed these.   

I continued in my profession and kept trying my level best to be innovative and push frontiers of individual and collective excellence and yet remain a role model for my juniors. My real accomplishments can never come in public domain but I am sure some of my earlier bosses, who have mentored and tutored me during early days of my service, and whom I also opposed on many occasions in a bid to go way beyond what they coached or taught me, would concede my insane levels of professional commitment and integrity. Some of my mentors have indeed been generous to tell me that they had not come across anyone who could make more accurate futuristic projections in matters of geopolitics on a consistent basis, often by taking bold risks.  

I may have committed lot of mistakes in dealing with issues and individuals. But there was never a malice. In my crusade against cronyism, corruption and subversion of institutions,  more harassment I faced - from both visible and invisible quarters- stronger and more determined I became. It is possible even now that I can meet with an accident or suspicious death, which has been tried by a few of my former colleagues and others who have felt threatened by my views and actions. They have already attempted criminality like forgery, manipulation of records, robbery of my personal papers, and conspiracy in collusion with enemies of Indian state among others.  

But this is not going to shake my conviction in Indocracy and dream for a stronger and fairer India and a similar world. I have not been a civil society activist who has only advocated social re-engineering. I have been a member of one of multiple institutions that directly or indirectly protect the country. Even Indian elite would have benefited from enterprise, innovation and insane levels of initiatives that any one attempts in any profession but it would be particularly so in the sphere of national security.

Of course, there have been very very large number of people far more superior to me in intellect and commitment who have made far more serious sacrifices for the country. With all humility, I acknowledge that it is their contribution which has inspired me.

Few days back, a friend told me that it was utterly stupid for any intelligent and innovative person to stay idealist and adhere to such levels of integrity. She went on to argue that this country and society didn’t deserve insane levels of integrity. I urged her to look around. It is unfortunate that elite and people in power, or even others, tend to think in this manner. 

This is the time when we are seeing huge examples of selfless supreme sacrifices by large sections of in far too many sectors in course of the ongoing war against Corona. This has not happened for the first time. It has been part of Indian DNA for ages. Members of our armed forces have always made supreme sacrifice to defend the country and our liberty. So has been the sacrifices of scores of freedom fighters of India. One can only feel humbled and more inspired to try harder if one has the capacity. 

Hence, the quest for Indocracy shall continue as a tribute to all the Indians who have sacrificed themselves for a better India. All Indians who are committed to the eternal idea of India and believe in a stronger India must join our initiative. We may not achieve an Indocratic political, social and economic order in entirety at any point of time. We may not make even substantial progress in this direction in our entire life time. But still we can pursue it as the self-ordained Dharma in pursuit of a real India and a better world. 

This is the best tribute that, probably, I am capable of paying to all the martyrs who have laid down their life through out the history of India to defend India and Indian values. Some of these may be in tatters today. But Indocracy is all about resurrecting those eternal Indian values which have been the strength of India as civilisation, state and society.

(III)

Indocracy is not an alternative to Democracy. It rather incorporates all scientific aspects of the contemporary representative democracy and amalgamates these with original subcontinental values of Kautilyan, Buddhist, and pre-Buddhist era to further streamline structures and processes to minimise conflict and optimise harmony and output of people.

Post-independence India has been the only exception in the entire world, where democracy has thrived and flourished even under most adverse circumstances. This was not entirely due to our association with the West. It was more due to inherent strengths of Indian values. Indocracy is about scientifically refining the idea of Democracy to the next higher stage to bolster governance and national security capacity of a diverse and large country like India.      

I would have developed the core concept of INDOCRACY during my University days in 1980s. Both at Presidency college Kolkata and JNU,  Marxism and Marxian Revisionism were predominant ideas that were being actively discussed by politically conscious students, teachers and activists. There was no confusion about obsolescence of some of the basic premises of Marxism. But the prevailing structures and processes  of representative democracy too appeared incapable of addressing legitimate aspirations or even basic governance expectations of people, at least in the Indian context. 

It was under these circumstances that I came out with what I can say the core idea of Indocracy- the three interdependent levels of harmony: a)  within an individual; b) between individual and society; and c) between man and nature. I had worked out a matrix to show : a) how it could be achieved; and b) how can it potentially push people, societies and states, on course of a continuous and comprehensive empowerment and progressive evolution. Later, I realised that what I was speaking may not be entirely new. Yet, I continued to develop and refine this idea, utilising my experiences and observations. 

When initial discussions on Indocracy started in late 1980s, I was not confident whether the idea was strong and appealing enough and  people would take interest. I gained from experience of writing pamphlets for nearly a year in JNU. I was the only person who was trying to articulate newer ideas on behalf of a centrist political organisation on the campus. I was pitted against a formidable group of Marxist-Leftist campus intellectuals, and their more established opponents- Free Thinkers. All of them were senior to me and luminaries in their own rights, at least within the boundaries of JNU. I had to come out with an original ideological framework that was essentially Indian and yet democratic, unlike the revolutionary Marxist model of the left or radical Maoism of the ultra-left or Trotskyism and the Western liberalism of the rest.  

My JNU days friend Sanjay Sinha and Braj Jha were often hapless victim who had to endure my monologues and yet encourage me. Though I left that centrist organisation within a year, out of disgust over activities of some of their members, but my quest for Indocracy remained. And my friends over three and half decades, Sanjay Sinha and, of late, Braj Jha continue to occasionally call me up and encourage me even now. I am not sure whether they do it out of commitment to me as a friend or they really find my ideas interesting. 

Over the years, I have built a comprehensive and detailed framework of governance and social order that I describe Indocracy. I had also worked out ways and means  to pursue and achieve these. Until recently, it was not in the form of a book. It was rather in the form of a proposal, which must be still available with some of the eminent citizens of India. 

In fact, at one point of time, in late 1980s I wanted to set up  experimental model villages, by adopting few existing villages, as labs to see whether the Indocratic governance model could succeed in transforming plight of people at micro-level. Some people offered to join me in return for some  political enterprise and contributions. Thankfully, I chose to join civil service which helped me build a more comprehensive perspective, incorporating vital elements of national security. I would not have been able to appreciate these, had I joined politics or civil society activism right in the beginning. 

Since those very days, I have consistently nurtured aspiration of giving a concrete shape to the idea of Indocracy. I remember discussing it with Hon’ble late Shri Chandrashekhar, former Prime Minister of India in early 1990s. By this time, he had stepped down as Prime Minister. I had appeared in civil service examination but not joined service as yet. He was too indulgent to me and used to listen to me with amusement during prolonged interaction on few Sundays at his Bharat Yatra Kendra, Buvaneshwari, Gurugram. In fact, the seriousness with which he once took my papers and tried to read, really gave me confidence that what I was talking did make a little bit of sense. 

Subsequently, Chandrashekhar Ji would have urged me on several occasions to quit service and step into public life to translate my vision of Indocracy in to reality. He used to advise that I would never succeed in any big mission if I delayed beyond the age of 30 or maximum 35. Once, while I was travelling with him in his car in 2001, just a day before Holi, he had said in Bhojpuri: “Jitender Ji, sarkar ke nokri mein kuchhu baa naa. Rauwa ke kab se kaha tani, chali aayeen, hamani ke mil ke kucch kail jao. Khali badhiya badhiya baat batiyawala se kuchchu hoi na”.  (Jitendra, there is nothing so attractive in government service. I have been urging you for too long to come out and join me. You are not going to achieve anything by just talking good ideas). He was on way from Gurugram to AIIMS, to see someone from Koirala family of Nepal who had been admitted. Soon after that I fell seriously ill and this discussion could not be followed up and he advised me to focus on my health. After that I did meet him on couple of pleasantry calls where Indocracy was not broached. Finally I met him at Apollo hospital, following my return from a long diplomatic assignment, in December 2006. He was too pleased to see me but was in immense pain. Soon after that he passed away. 

In late 1980s and early 1990s I had become a rolling stone, changing my objectives and associations too frequently. Hence,  in early 1990s, I was looking for some stability and consolidation, with some solid governance and leadership level experiences before I could take the plunge to carry forward the idea of Indocracy. I also remember discussing it with Shri Oscar  Fernandese during late 1980s and early 1990s. He too, like late Shri Vishnukant Shastri,  has been a mentor who has treated me with far more indulgence than his other associates and proteges. Like late Hon’ble Chandrashekhar Ji, he too has shared lot of personal experiences and observations to drive home the challenges of democratic realpolitik and hindrances it poses in building an efficient governance and national security apparatus.

I also exchanged my ideas with Shri Hemant Karkare in April 2000 with whom I had opportunity to interact extensively in informal settings, while undergoing a residential training programme along with him over few weeks. He was an avid reader of Somerset Maugham and often used to listen to me with rapt attention and citing few characters of Maugham in between. He too had told me, I would soon be out of government service if I had such vision and ideas. But the dynamics and fast paced challenges of service, my determination to excel in the same,  along with my health constraints, prevented me from taking the idea of Indocracy beyond thinking, occasional scribbling or academic discussion.  

In early 2012, when I made up my mind to quit service, I had prepared a comprehensive proposal to set up a think tank and handed it over to yet another statesman - Shri Pranab Mukherjee- whom I had first known while I was a student political activist and had the privilege of his indulgent interactions for too long. This was on July  26, 2012, just a day after he had taken oath as the President of India. He always believed that even during informal discussions, I could make highly accurate futuristic assessments in matters of geopolitics, even with limited media inputs. On a few occasions, it had proved useful. 

Since then Hon’ble Shri Mukherjee has been insistent that I meet him at regular intervals, whenever I was in Delhi or even while I was transiting through Delhi. Once his close relation, Shri Rabindranath Bhattacharya @ Mr Robin, a retired IPS officer, emphatically conveyed his appreciation when we ran into each other at Chandigarh in early 2014. 

I had told Hon’ble Shri Mukherjee in July 2012 that the Indian democracy had reached a dead- end and we needed to chart out our own course with a set of comprehensive reforms in political parties, civil service, judiciary and entire criminal justice system, corporate sector, media, healthcare, education system and research institutions. These were outlined in my paper. (It will soon be published on this blog or a new blogs named: www.indocracy.org/www.indocracy.com).  

(IV)

The proposal form of Indocracy was devised following my haunting exposures to certain dimensions of serious subversion of India's governance institutions. I was convinced that it was impossible for India to optimally secure its legitimate national security objectives and goals, given the prevailing state of subversion of democratic institutions by both internal and external forces. 

I was also convinced that if we were able to build some broad consensus on certain issues, India could reach an entirely different level and trajectory of all round advancement. My ideas, in all probability, were viable and yet too ambitious to be tolerated by vested interests who had got addicted to power. It was also not possible for me to carry out preliminary work on these as long as I was in service. 

Hon'ble Shri Mukherjee, as the President of India, had a hectic schedule over the preceding few days when I met him on July 26, 2102. He promised to have a look at my ideas leisurely. It was merely an aspirational  paper, which I intended to pursue only after exiting the government service. I had left Delhi next day and subsequently remained caught up in back breaking professional commitments. 

Soon I started facing  more concerted harassment from a section of clandestine elements in influential positions both in India and abroad. They were clearly afraid of my ideas in general and some were already angered over my diplomatic professional initiatives (and not intelligence as some media reports have attributed) that had exposed the vulgar underbelly of arms kickback, serious global crime, money laundering and their influence on Indian politics. I was convinced that Pakistan (and through them probably China) linked global crime syndicates had acquired considerable clout within the Indian establishments and sections of media and they were subverting and crippling us as a society and state. I had given it in writing to the concerned authorities and subsequently as well and some of these are part of court documents. 

I could not exit service and pursue Indocracy until something unusual happened in January 2018, which again appeared an attempt to prevent me from initiating a campaign for integrity and dynamism in governance institutions of India to bolster our national security capacity. Even after that I was negotiating with Chatham House, London to set up a research cum advisory institution on governance reforms in democracies. I had already carried out a few meetings with them. I was of course challenging the patriarchic mindset where wisdom was expected to descend only from the top and positions of authority. It was once again deliberately sabotaged by a section of Indian media who indulged in malicious reporting under some pressure or enticement. 

There is no way, any genuine or patriotic Indian could be nervous at the prospect of a persuasive campaign for well thought out governance reforms for a better and stronger India.

What my intellectual mentors, guides and associates in this journey, believed that it was not sufficient that India as the oldest civilisation of the world, just some how struggled to preserve a semblance of social harmony, amidst underlying fissures. It was more important that the idea of Western democracy was further evolved in to a strong futuristic vision and architecture of governance and stronger national security capacity. 

We also needed to transform social order and larger values to optimise our cohesion, output and composite strength as a society and state. We needed something more effective than the mechanism of peaceful transfer of political power. We needed instruments and avenues to optimise our capacity and output as a state and society. Peaceful transfer of political power or coexistence of contentious identities were far too modest aspirations in a competitive world. These were likely to make us more vulnerable. 

Hence, following my eventful retirement, as the principal architect of the idea of Indocracy,  I have been writing and arguing on various platforms that why the idea of democracy needed to advance to the next higher stage. There is a write up on this very blog, of October 2018 vintage, describing my interaction with Francis Fukuyama and my insistence at his lecture at British Library London that Democracy needed to advance to the next higher stage. 

In recent years, even some of the powerful established democracies of the West have witnessed severe governance deficiencies. These are manifest in steeper levels of inequality, decline in life expectancy, lack of universal access to healthcare and economic security, mass discontent and anxiety reflected in aggressive parochial nationalism. On the other hand, democracy as a political-governance framework appears to have lost direction in most of the developing countries, notwithstanding advances in the electoral processes. 

As an ideological construct, Indocracy envisages recalling some of the original ancient Indian wisdom, values and practice to fuse these with modern democratic institutions, with suitable modifications in structures and procedures. At the core lays the vision of three-fold interdependent levels of harmony, mentioned above. This is very different from Confucian harmony of conscience of the ruler and obedience of the masses. 

Indian idea of harmony, as derived from the earliest scriptures, envisions harmony as a driver of excellence and comprehensive empowerment of people. These would be possible only by observance of a Dharma driven governance apparatus, which is backed by both values and institutions with good procedures. Optimal harmony within individual, implies strong physical, psychological, social, spiritual, emotional, cognitive and technological capacity of individuals. 

This would be possible only in a comprehensively secure, trust-centric, collaborative social order where individuals and families enjoy optimal harmony between them as well as with the outer world. This includes communities, societies, state and nature. Political institutions need to be geared towards fostering, and not fracturing, this harmony while retaining the freedom and liberties offered by the Western democracy. 

Indocracy envisions a concentric circle of social and group entities where each empowers the other. It is possible by observance of eternal Indian value of Dharma, which will be explained separately. Dharma is not about religious belief and identity but a self - regulation, which is critical for an organised and harmonious social life. Such regulation is a precondition for stronger state and society. 

 The third level of harmony talks about mutually empowering equilibrium between man and nature. Humans must never surrender to vagaries of nature but at the same time, they must not destroy the fundamental ingredients of nature that sustain and nourish all life forms. Consistent expansion of  frontiers of knowledge as well as innovation in development objectives or regulation of day today life and behaviour patterns shall become critical for fostering this harmony. 

Indocracy envisions not merely formal political and legal institutions that could be advanced versions of democracy. It rather aspires to build a conducive ecosystem that can sustain Indocratic political-economic-social order more conveniently and naturally. Equipping individuals with attributes, awareness and capacity to observe Indocratic values and practices, as well as building right role models and social systems, shall be backed by effect and deterrent legal instruments. A scientific construct of institutions and their processes are available separately.  

Probably, ancient India has been observing the three interdependent levels of harmony, as mentioned above, for a long time, at least substantially.  These had driven India on the path of sustained prosperity, social stability and scientific advancement for a long time. The entire order decayed due to lack of regular re-invigoration of political and social values and consistent refinement of institutions. A scientific research of governance and security capacity of ancient India suggests that these had been substantially distorted and subverted much before Mamluk invasions of late 1st millennium AD or little later. We shall discuss broad contours of Indocracy in next section.  

( To be continued...)

INDOCRACY: INAUGURAL EDITION

This is first in the series of talks on Indocracy. Indocracy is not about going back to past but a futuristic vision of of a political governance system. There are  lot of details about the context as I am hardly known among people. None of my accomplishments are in public domain. Hence, some effort has been made to connect with people by explaining who I am and where from I come from to talk about Indocracy.

Historical perspective is very essential but I am also not an admirer of the ideology of 'Hindutva'. Detailed and specific analysis of each and every dimension of Indocracy shall follow in subsequent editions. The talk is in Hindi. Effort is to reach out to most of Indians. But in future, I propose to upload a video every week in both languages. Duration of each shall be around 7-10 minutes.   




https://youtu.be/KknHF8JF9Bc

BORDER STAND-OFF: HANDLE THE CRISES BUT BUILD A STRATEGIC CAPACITY

[Crises like the ongoing stand-off on the border must be handled with all our existing resources. But we would peril security of India as a state and civilisation, if we fail to learn lessons from the past. We need to bolster our national security capacity to handle uniquely formidable challenges imposed on us by  the sheer geopolitics of this region.]

ESCALATION OF TENSION ON BORDER

        Sino-Indian border has once again seen escalation of tension. Chinese troops have transgressed into Indian side of the 'Line of Actual Control'. Displaying quintessential Chinese duality, its media has been using a belligerent language despite words of sanity by the top political leadership. Indian government has approached the issue calmly.  Indian Army Chief has visited his troops on the ground and sent additional reinforcements. Indians have made it clear that such transgression shall be rebuffed and status quo shall be maintained.    

   Over the last few decades, Indian state has handled such conflicts deftly but has avoided strategic preparation to deal with recurrent aggression,  brinkmanship and sustained territorial expansion by China in the region. India's northern neighbour's internal governance accomplishments, especially its economic transformation as well as advances in scientific and technological innovation, are worthy of emulation. But its aspirations for unrestrained territorial expansion and global domination threatens not only India but also others in the region and even the entire world beyond a certain point.

    What is worrying for India is the manner in which the Nepali Prime Minister K P Oli has raked up a fictitious border dispute. He has jeopardised a relationship of mutual trust as well as a longstanding social, cultural, ethnic,  and linguistic  bond. Citing 1815 Sugauli treaty, Oli has suddenly claimed an area that was never shown as Nepali territory even in Nepal's own map. He has not only pushed a legislation through parliament changing the map of the country but also whipped up nationalist passion by several strident anti-India statements.    

      Intriguingly, Kalapani area, on the West side of Kali river, which Nepal has claimed, is located at a height of approximately 20,000  feet close to the tri-junction with the Chinese border. It carries huge strategic importance in eventuality of a conventional Sino-India conflict. Though the Chinese Foreign Ministry has distanced itself from strident anti-Indianism of Oli but the plot is crystal clear to any impartial observer. Other smaller South Asian states have so far remained committed to the India's concerns but the Indian Government has to be cognisant of the fact they are vulnerable to Chinese coercion and enticement.   

      China's has generated border dispute with virtually each of its neighbours as a part of a well-crafted Geo-strategic design, which appears continuation of the policy of territorial expansion of Imperial China.  It entrenches an oppressive regime internally and enhances clout of its incumbents globally. The brazenness with which China has captured the South China Sea and converted it into its own backyard is one of the multiple examples in this direction. As per most estimates, South China sea accounts for nearly 12 to 20 trillion dollar worth of marine resources besides being the second busiest sea lane, accounting for nearly  50% of the world's commodity transportation in terms of tonnage. Simultaneously, China's ambitious belt and road initiative is nothing but yet another aggressive assertion of its global aspirations.

BACKGROUND OF SINO-INDIAN BORDER

    Communist China has perennially criticized the West for imposing a series of unequal and humiliating treaties on them for 100 years  since 1842. But interestingly, it was Great Britain that was complicit to large-scale Chinese territorial expansion for nearly a century from the beginning of 1800s.  It was imperial British that facilitated Chinese entrenchment in both Tibet and Xinjiang or Eastern Turkistan, the two independent civilizations and states that were culturally closer to India than Han China. Tibetans used Dvenagri script and  Hindustani was a popular language even in Kashgar. The British were keen to keep the Russians at bay over their ongoing rivalry with them in Europe and West Asia.

   By 1840, the entire undivided state of Jammu and Kashmir, including areas held by China and Pakistan was already  part of Sikh empire under autonomous rule of Dogras. In 1841 Dogra troops led by Zorawar Singh had initially captured most of West Tibet up to Mayum pass, garrisoned local forts and set up its own administration. It were British who started complaining to Sikh emperor in Lahore against Zorawar Singh, accusing the legendary General of exacting taxes from British suzerains. There are unconfirmed inputs suggesting that some British officers were eyeing share of lucrative Pashmina trade between Tibet and Laddakh, which was disrupted by the new arrangement. Meanwhile, Tibetans marshalled fresh reinforcements and counter attacked Zorawar Singh's troops, taking them by surprise and killing the General, taking advantage of the inclement weather. They re-captured some of the areas and marched up to Leh only to be comprehensively beaten and chased back. It was under these circumstances that the two sides signed the Treaty of Chushul (1842), which acknowledged Dogra-Sikh sovereignty up to Xydullah and East of Mansarovar Lake, way beyond the undivided territory of Jammu and Kashmir shown in map of 1947.  

     In 1865, when surveyor William Johnson demarcated Kashmir-Tibet boundary, he ceded significant territory back to the Tibetans on map citing inaccessibility from Laddakh and hence difficulty to govern it effectively. Later this became Ardagh-Johnson line when British Chief Military Intelligence officer Maj Gen John Ardagh  proposed (1897) it as formal boundary between British India and Tibet. As per this line, entire Karaksh valley and eastern side of Chang Chenmo valley were part of Kashmir. What really transpired subsequently is still not known, as there was no protest either from Tibetans or from nominees of Qing ruler. But in 1899, a section of British officers cited Chinese reluctance to accept the proposed line  claiming that the Chinese had suddenly developed interest in Aksai Chin at the Russian instigation.  Others suggest that the British kept hedging their position on Sino-Indian border depending on their equations with the Russians in other theatres. Further, there was a change in status of Tibet in 1912, when it signed a treaty with Qings to inherit all its territories in Tibet and became an independent country once again.  

      Intriguingly, amidst Anglo-Russian rivalry, British objectives were dictated by its own larger strategic calculations outside the region. Interests and aspiration of indigenous people of Tibet and India were certainly not a priority. Hence, when they brokered a deal during the famous Shimla convention (1913-14), where McMahon line had emerged as the boundary between India and Tibet, they still acceded nominal suzerainty over inner areas of Tibet, only in deference to Anglo-Russian convention of 1907 which had demarcated the respective spheres of influences of the two sides in Iran, Afghanistan and Tibet. As per provisions of this agreement, the British were obliged to enter into any negotiation with Tibet only in consultation with China. Logically, this clause should have become defunct after independence of Tibet in 1912.  

    This was the time, when China was used both by the British and the Russians to offset each other. Hence, even after Tibet had renounced its 192 years of nominal suzerainty to the Chinese, and that too with the concurrence of Qing regime, the British still invited representatives of the Chinese government to Shimla convention in 1914, to demarcate boundaries among British India, Tibet and China only in deference to Anglo-Russian convention of 1907.  Shimla convention acknowledged complete freedom of Lhasa regime in outer Tibet, that shared a boundary with India, but nominal suzerainty to China in the inner Tibet. Even such suzerainty barred any interference by the Peking or Beijing government in day-to-day  affairs of the Tibetan Government in Lhasa. 

     Though Chinese Government is believed to have reneged on the agreement reached out in Shimla, largely at the instigation of Russians, it still had no locus-standi to talk about the border between Tibet and British India, over which it had lost even nominal sovereignty.  However, there was no confusion even on the Chinese side about the exact border dividing India and Tibet. A map published by Peking University in 1928 had acknowledged Aksai-Chin and large parts of other territories currently disputed by the China, as part of India.     

        It is interesting that in 1950s, even Maoist China did not change imperial outlook notwithstanding its proclamation of communism as state ideology. It not merely captured Tibet but also denounced Shimla convention on the plea that Tibet was not an independent country in 1913-14 and hence had no right to negotiate the boundary. Independent India's first generation of leaders being freedom fighters, lacking any strategic exposure, acquiesced to the Chinese position, in deference to neighbourly bonhomie,ignoring Tibet's longstanding social and cultural linkages with India as well as India's own strategic interests. 

     In 1950s, Chinese quietly built a road through Aksai Chin, nearly 100 kms inside the Indian territory because that was the only route through which an all-weather road could connect Tibet and Xinjiang.  China went to war in 1962 with an an unprepared India that failed to acknowledge the Guerrilla Commander in Mao, who had deftly secured his victories through an element of surprise and deception, catching the adversary unguarded. Chinese occupied nearly 39,000 sq km (approx) of territory and subsequently in 1963 Pakistan ceded another 15000 sqkm (approx). Diplomat magazine reported in 2019 that China had managed to acquire another 640 sq km of Indian territory by constantly pushing the line of actual control. None of the two sides have confirmed it though.

AN INSIGHT INTO CHINESE BRINKMANSHIP

It is well known that the China has been disputing the entire McMahon line, claiming large parts of Indian territory - where people speak Indian languages and follow Buddhist practices and have nothing common with Han China- as their own. Such an approach of China is not restricted to India alone. It has been expanding its territory and domain of influence in all directions. It is nearly impossible, in the prevailing context, for the Chinese political leadership to appreciate Indian perspective, or respect any other power or civilization. This is especially given their habit of enjoying unrestrained access to absolute power and belief in infallibility  of their own wisdom and innate superiority of Han race.

 Even the Confucian morality, or the Confucian concept of harmony, that has become the guiding principle of Chinese state philosophy envisages eternal superiority and authority of the more powerful entity and obedience of the rest to it. The superior power, which in this case being the Chinese state, is restrained only by the moral principles, whereas the rest are expected to obey or at least not defy. 

Communist China has consistently played up the gross historical wrongs inflicted by the Western powers on Han people. They also seem to perceive communist China's spectacular  success as vindication of such a belief. While, they have been dealing with the west but their distrust towards the West and the Western ways has been more than obvious. India's perceived proximity to the West or its adoption of the so-called Western democratic model of governance has remained a permanent cause of their annoyance with India. They have also been discomforted with efforts to put India and China in the same bracket and have made conscious efforts to equate India with other minor powers in the region.           

On the other hand, India has ignored the growing asymmetry of all round power with China for far too long. With five times economic strength and significant edge in technological excellence and innovation, Chinese state may find it more tempting to exert pressure on India in retaliation to growing world-wide pressure over their concealment of Covid-19 spread.

ROAD TO FUTURE

While  India should be able to ward off such brinkmanship for the time being but there is no confusion that the world’s biggest democracy requires serious restructuring of its governance institutions. India shall have to find an endurable solution to the irregular and diffused war with Pakistan.  Conventional military techniques and surgical strikes may provide limited and temporary deterrents but these have appeared inadequate towards finding a permanent solution or obtaining a comprehensive victory. 

Smart diplomacy and deft geopolitical manoeuvrings cannot substitute strong national security architecture with equally powerful strategies that need stronger comprehensive national power to sustain. We have to appreciate that only an economically powerful state, and not a large number of billionaires amidst an ocean of poverty, with high quality human resource, strong technological capacity, robust governance institutions and high level of social cohesion can sustain a powerful national security architecture. 

Ironically, over the past few decades, far too many self-seeking cartels have become so powerful in India that they would be the first to obstruct, or even crush, any idea or initiative towards optimising the collective strengths and capacities of the country. All key stakeholders of India shall have to realise that the unique geopolitics of South Asia has saddled us with formidable national security challenges. As a large state,  we have no liberty to comfortably ignore these to psychologically nestle under perceived protective ambit of some invisible or divine force.

 Exigencies like the ongoing stand-off on the border must be handled with all our existing resources. But we would once again peril security of India as a state and civilisation, if we fail to learn lessons from the past. A strong national security capacity needs a powerful and yet a dynamic vision with a clear road map and commensurate efforts to pursue these. National Security in today's world cannot be a stand alone and isolated proposition. Institution of governance and society need to be increasingly harmonised, and not oppressed, for optimising their output and level of excellence.