When I looked up at the clock, It was already past 12 so I decided to sleep instead of posting a blog entry in drowsy state of mind like the day before.
was reading about death of Lee Kuan Yew, the father of Singapore. He gave vision of Asian values and 5C's namely cash, condo, car, credit card, country club. He was credited with creation of first world oasis among the third world countries. He was considered a benevolent dictator, a rare species on the planet earth because power has a corrupting influence over mindset. May his soul rest in peace.
Anyway, my concern here is different. I read about his disappointment with India. He considered India as nation of unfulfilled aspirations and greatness. He described India as unit of 32 nations lying around British Railways.
I am anguished over his poor understanding of India as a nation. He did not account for the idea of Indianness, cultural unity in diversity and spirit of peace, non-violence and tolerance ingrained so deeply in our lifestyle. No doubt, India has not achieved its true potential, but defining India as unit of 32 nations being together due to colonial rule shows the shallow understanding of Indian history. Be it Ashoka or Gupta or Khilji and Moughal rule, a rudimentary territorial integrity comprising plain, plateau, desert and deltaic region has always existed.
A nation needs four basic ingredients namely, territory, population, army, culture. Singapore does not fulfill these criteria. I think it has outsourced its defense setup. India however is strong exception to traditional understanding which views culture as linguistic homogenity. The cultural unity for us is visible at deeper abstract level of values of peace, tolerance etc. A simple litmus test of strength and resilience of a nation could be answer to the question " whether the nation could be won over by outside army or outside culture"? In both cases, India would maintain its fabric. History stands witness to this fact. Be it Kushanas or Indo-greeks or mongols or moughal, Invaders were Indianized rather other way around. Some examples like last kushana king was named Vasudeva(Hindu name). How many times do we see a foreigner giving a local name to their kids? Definitely, it requires a deeper cultural affinity to name your kid that way.
Coming to the economic model, I believe application of Singapore model to India would be a huge mistake of misapplication. There is difference of size and agree or not size does matter. In India, we need to look at political economic and social repercussions of Singaporean dictator model. Singapore economic progress was not a threat to any one but India's economic progress ignites jealosy from neighbor Pakistan and his Pak's big brother China who carry a deceptive semblance towards India.
Anyway. Enough. There are many other reasons and argument but small screen of my phone is somewhat stress inducing. So done for the day. Will be careful to put the entry before night 12 but can not commit because some times it break the flow of work.
Xoxoxo
was reading about death of Lee Kuan Yew, the father of Singapore. He gave vision of Asian values and 5C's namely cash, condo, car, credit card, country club. He was credited with creation of first world oasis among the third world countries. He was considered a benevolent dictator, a rare species on the planet earth because power has a corrupting influence over mindset. May his soul rest in peace.
Anyway, my concern here is different. I read about his disappointment with India. He considered India as nation of unfulfilled aspirations and greatness. He described India as unit of 32 nations lying around British Railways.
I am anguished over his poor understanding of India as a nation. He did not account for the idea of Indianness, cultural unity in diversity and spirit of peace, non-violence and tolerance ingrained so deeply in our lifestyle. No doubt, India has not achieved its true potential, but defining India as unit of 32 nations being together due to colonial rule shows the shallow understanding of Indian history. Be it Ashoka or Gupta or Khilji and Moughal rule, a rudimentary territorial integrity comprising plain, plateau, desert and deltaic region has always existed.
A nation needs four basic ingredients namely, territory, population, army, culture. Singapore does not fulfill these criteria. I think it has outsourced its defense setup. India however is strong exception to traditional understanding which views culture as linguistic homogenity. The cultural unity for us is visible at deeper abstract level of values of peace, tolerance etc. A simple litmus test of strength and resilience of a nation could be answer to the question " whether the nation could be won over by outside army or outside culture"? In both cases, India would maintain its fabric. History stands witness to this fact. Be it Kushanas or Indo-greeks or mongols or moughal, Invaders were Indianized rather other way around. Some examples like last kushana king was named Vasudeva(Hindu name). How many times do we see a foreigner giving a local name to their kids? Definitely, it requires a deeper cultural affinity to name your kid that way.
Coming to the economic model, I believe application of Singapore model to India would be a huge mistake of misapplication. There is difference of size and agree or not size does matter. In India, we need to look at political economic and social repercussions of Singaporean dictator model. Singapore economic progress was not a threat to any one but India's economic progress ignites jealosy from neighbor Pakistan and his Pak's big brother China who carry a deceptive semblance towards India.
Anyway. Enough. There are many other reasons and argument but small screen of my phone is somewhat stress inducing. So done for the day. Will be careful to put the entry before night 12 but can not commit because some times it break the flow of work.
Xoxoxo
Great comparative analysis...the case of India is made stronger by delving into the depths of history and the longstanding Indian culture.....Nice work...
ReplyDelete