��
Both of my beliefs, as much as they are intensely personal, are rooted in history as well.
The obsession with being a power-based state can be traced to the works of Niccolò Machiavelli, the 15th Century Italian historian, diplomat, humanist and writer. Machiavelli’s fundamental thesis was based on his observations of the very brutal methods Cesare Borgia and his father Pope Alexander VI used to build a state. I don’t intend to get into the specifics, except that Borgia was a failure because he had accumulated power on the back of his father’s influence and under the guise of protecting the interests of the Church. After his father’s death, he was arrested by Pope Julius II and that was the end of Machiavelli’s hero.
But for whatever reasons, when Machiavelli wrote his treatise The Prince, on power and how it ought to be exercised, he chose to ignore Borgia’s failures. Instead, he focussed on Borgia’s life where he had accumulated power. The fallacy in looking only at this part is that you ignore the fact that when power is acquired through all available means, credibility is overlooked. And when credibility is given the pass, as Borgia discovered, you have to cede ground.
Unfortunately, contemporary history is filled with instances of rulers, nations and businesses that subscribe to the Machiavellian school. Without exception, over time, all failed. Be it the Roman, the French or the British empires, all of them have been liquidated. As for the American empire, it is now teetering on the brink of collapse. What is common to all of them is a veneer of arrogance.
Much the same thing can be said of corporate behaviour. Take some of the Indian companies operating in Africa. There are many that have made a mark exporting agricultural produce in collusion with local politicians. They get free water, land at subsidised prices and the labour they employ work in inhuman conditions. What is common to all of them is that they work with corrupt regimes, dictatorships, or both.
In the long run, the model is unsustainable because corrupt regimes and dictatorships collapse and take the business models they support with them.
The idea terrifies me. As I look around, there seems an almost uniform consensus on building a nation that wants to be feared and respected. India is now part of the G20. What the government wanted was a place on the G10 table, comprising what used to be the G8 with China and India now included. We thump our chests with pride each time a new weapon is added to our military arsenal. We high-five when an Indian business acquires assets in another part of the world. But how does an “Incredible India” matter if it isn’t a “Credible India” we’re building?
Of the almost 600 districts in India, 200 are infested with Naxalites. How many people, of their own free will, without being coerced, will support Naxalism? Nobody. Because Naxalism, like every insurgent movement supported by terror, is suicidal. Terrorists I’ve met with know if you kill, you will eventually get killed. To that extent, anybody who participates in terrorism is participating in suicide.
Which brings me to the next question: Why would anybody participate in suicide? Surely, it ought to be desperation. Consider, for instance, the following.
Read more: http://forbesindia.com/article/independence-special-2012/credible-india/33618/1#ixzz24rSBN3hT
A GREAT DIVIDE Political leaders enjoy disproportionate importance in India. This is evident everytime a leader travels葉raffic is diverted and roads are cleared to make way for the cavalcade of official vehicles, inconveniencing citizens greatly. In this picture, students are seen walking during a mock security drill ahead of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Jammu in November 2004
|
Stone me for saying this. But say, I must. The great Indian obsession with wanting to be a great power is utterly impractical, completely undesirable and totally nonsensical. What I would like India to be instead is a great nation. I refuse to be a part of “Incredible India”. What I want is to be part of “Credible India”. This, for two reasons:
- Great powers destroy, great nations nurture. Destruction demands cruelty. Nurturing demands compassion. I believe in compassion.
- Great powers are built by rulers. Great nations are built by citizens who have as much a chance to take a stab at greatness as their leaders. I believe in equality.
Both of my beliefs, as much as they are intensely personal, are rooted in history as well.
The obsession with being a power-based state can be traced to the works of Niccolò Machiavelli, the 15th Century Italian historian, diplomat, humanist and writer. Machiavelli’s fundamental thesis was based on his observations of the very brutal methods Cesare Borgia and his father Pope Alexander VI used to build a state. I don’t intend to get into the specifics, except that Borgia was a failure because he had accumulated power on the back of his father’s influence and under the guise of protecting the interests of the Church. After his father’s death, he was arrested by Pope Julius II and that was the end of Machiavelli’s hero.
But for whatever reasons, when Machiavelli wrote his treatise The Prince, on power and how it ought to be exercised, he chose to ignore Borgia’s failures. Instead, he focussed on Borgia’s life where he had accumulated power. The fallacy in looking only at this part is that you ignore the fact that when power is acquired through all available means, credibility is overlooked. And when credibility is given the pass, as Borgia discovered, you have to cede ground.
Unfortunately, contemporary history is filled with instances of rulers, nations and businesses that subscribe to the Machiavellian school. Without exception, over time, all failed. Be it the Roman, the French or the British empires, all of them have been liquidated. As for the American empire, it is now teetering on the brink of collapse. What is common to all of them is a veneer of arrogance.
Much the same thing can be said of corporate behaviour. Take some of the Indian companies operating in Africa. There are many that have made a mark exporting agricultural produce in collusion with local politicians. They get free water, land at subsidised prices and the labour they employ work in inhuman conditions. What is common to all of them is that they work with corrupt regimes, dictatorships, or both.
In the long run, the model is unsustainable because corrupt regimes and dictatorships collapse and take the business models they support with them.
The idea terrifies me. As I look around, there seems an almost uniform consensus on building a nation that wants to be feared and respected. India is now part of the G20. What the government wanted was a place on the G10 table, comprising what used to be the G8 with China and India now included. We thump our chests with pride each time a new weapon is added to our military arsenal. We high-five when an Indian business acquires assets in another part of the world. But how does an “Incredible India” matter if it isn’t a “Credible India” we’re building?
Of the almost 600 districts in India, 200 are infested with Naxalites. How many people, of their own free will, without being coerced, will support Naxalism? Nobody. Because Naxalism, like every insurgent movement supported by terror, is suicidal. Terrorists I’ve met with know if you kill, you will eventually get killed. To that extent, anybody who participates in terrorism is participating in suicide.
Which brings me to the next question: Why would anybody participate in suicide? Surely, it ought to be desperation. Consider, for instance, the following.
- Twenty years ago, the average productivity of a cow or a buffalo in both India and China was in the region of 1,000-2,000 litres of milk each year. An Indian buffalo continues to deliver the same yields, while an animal bred in China delivers five times as much. Why? What is it about the Indian dairy farmer that holds him back?
- India is a rain-dependent nation. But on average, only 38 percent of arable land is irrigated. Solutions like drip irrigation are available to redress the problem. But only a meagre 5 percent of available land has seen this solution. Why don’t Indian farmers demand drip irrigation?
- There are roughly 450 million people in India that make up our work force. Of these, 90 percent haven’t completed school education. Why? Because, of the 630,000 villages in India, over 500,000 don’t have schools that can provide education above Class VII. Without a doubt, labour productivity is linked to education. Why does the Indian labourer not demand education?
Read more: http://forbesindia.com/article/independence-special-2012/credible-india/33618/1#ixzz24rSBN3hT
No comments:
Post a Comment