Lets know about our past…
It is the first step of basic principles of what my teacher already
told. Without Indian history, we cannot identify primary loopholes. But we know
about some secondary loopholes like unemployment, inter-state conflict, caste
system, etc. However, we do not know about primary loopholes. Without knowing
primary loopholes, secondary loopholes cannot be erased. So, we are imagining
our history.
India, which is known as Bharat, in ancient times included Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and some parts of Afghanistan. When the world was in the Stone Age,
some places were already well civilized. In those places, India was one of
them.
So, what is civilization? In my context, it means a society or group of
people working together without harming anyone or anything to build a city with
well-structured water management, granaries, trade systems, and production of
essential commodities. That is called civilization. India had such a civilized
society in ancient times. The Indus Valley Civilization, also known as the
Harappan Civilization, is an example.
In the Indus Valley Civilization, city planning shows that people had
advanced knowledge, especially in drainage management systems. Currently, India
does not have such a well-structured drainage system. The Indus Valley
Civilization did not depend on others. They cultivated paddy, cotton, and many
other agricultural commodities. They traded only when production exceeded their
needs through a barter system. A barter system is a method of exchange without
using money. If we consider the barter system, one advantage is that people
produce only what they need.
So then, why did the Indus Valley Civilization decline? Here we find the
first loophole in the system: “lack of foresight.” I will explain it clearly.
When experts study the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization, they
present different opinions, such as floods, droughts, wars, infectious
diseases, and earthquakes. However, in my view, it may have happened through
cultural dominance because some logical gaps exist in these explanations.
First, floods may not be the cause of the decline. If floods occurred,
people would likely have built new cities in nearby safer areas because they
already knew how to build cities, but there is no strong evidence of such
relocation.
Second, drought: if drought was the reason, people would have migrated
elsewhere and continued their skills such as city building, seal making, and
production techniques. However, there is no evidence of the same seals or
systems continuing after the decline.
Third, war between Aryans and Indus people: wars happen between
organized armies. However, there is no strong archaeological evidence of
weapons, mass destruction, or military structures in the Indus Valley
Civilization.
Fourth, disease and earthquake: the same question applies. If people
migrated, their skills and cultural artifacts would likely continue elsewhere,
but there is no consistent evidence of this.
Thus, I propose another possibility: cultural and political dominance.
For example, if City A has a king, army, and believes the king is divine, while
City B has no army and follows different beliefs, then City A could dominate
City B without resistance. City B people would adopt City A’s system,
abandoning their own beliefs, technologies, and traditions.
This is not traditional war, because war happens between armies. In this
case, it is cultural and political dominance. Therefore, I identify the first
primary loophole of India’s system as “lack of foresight.” If Indus Valley
people had anticipated such dominance, they might have developed military
power, since they already had resources and trade networks.
After the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization, another civilization
emerged in India: The Vedic society. It brought a more spiritual influence to
the land. People considered cattle a symbol of wealth and began building
societies based on wealth and armies.
On studying Vedic society, I found a systematic political structure
called the four varnas (classes/groups) based on work. These are: workers,
traders, administrators, and teachers/scholars. At that time, there was no
strong concept of money; they used a barter system.
A question arises: did the varna system cause the caste system with
hierarchy? This leads to my second identified loophole: “fake narrative for
power.” So, what was the original structure of the four varnas?
The worker group formed the foundation. They worked in agriculture,
constructed houses and cities, built ports, and produced essential commodities.
They supported all other groups because everyone depended on them for food and
basic resources.
The trader group handled external trade beyond the territory. They acted
as middlemen, exchanging surplus goods for resources not available locally,
such as raw materials, weapons, or seasonal fruits.
The administrator group-maintained security and order. They protected
territories, managed conflicts, maintained borders, and organized defense. They
received resources from workers and traders.
The teacher or scholar group spread knowledge, performed rituals, and
studied various fields such as astronomy, military strategy, and philosophy.
They shared knowledge with society and guided other groups.
One important observation is that every role was chosen based on
interest, not birth.
For example, scholars studied astronomy and advised farmers about
suitable crops. Workers cultivated crops and distributed surplus goods to
traders. Traders exchanged goods for resources such as weapons. Administrators
used those resources for protection.
All four groups were equally important. Without any one of them, the
system would collapse. This leads to the second loophole: “fake narrative for
power.”
If we look at this system, it is circular rather than hierarchical.
However, some people represent it as a pyramid or triangle, which reflects
population distribution rather than superiority.
Workers were the largest group, so they appear at the bottom. Traders
were fewer than workers but more than administrators. Administrators were fewer
because most soldiers also worked as farmers or part-time defenders. Scholars
were the smallest group because knowledge required long learning and fewer
people could specialize in it.
In the Rigveda, the four varnas are compared to parts of the human body:
workers as feet, traders as stomach, administrators as chest, and scholars as
head. This shows that all are necessary for survival.
However, fake narratives emerged when groups began blaming each other.
Farmers blamed scholars when crops failed. Traders blamed administrators when
trade failed. Administrators blamed others when wars were lost. Over time, each
group began believing they were superior and that others were unnecessary.
This created conflict among the four varnas. Administrators gained
control using military power, traders-controlled exchange systems,
scholars-controlled knowledge, and workers reduced cooperation out of fear.
Eventually, this system shifted from a circular structure to a
hierarchical one based on power. It also led to the development of tax and
money systems, where taxes were a form of commodity distribution and money
represented rare materials such as gold, silver, and copper.
This is how social division and economic systems evolved during the
Vedic period.
After the Vedic period, India saw many political changes such as larger
armies, new tax systems, new types of money, and unique trade systems. However,
these changes did not remove the “fake narrative of power” in the four varnas
system. Indian rulers also started fighting wars against each other.
India witnessed many “E” in every kingdom: Establish, Emerge, and
Eliminate. During the Gupta Era, India reached around 40% of the world economy.
The Indian economy was growing, but politics remained uncertain because many
kingdoms ruled in smaller parts of India.
Here I find another loophole: lack of unity. This means Indian rulers
fought against other kingdoms, but during foreign invasions, they were also not
united. There are two reasons for this. First, they considered others as
enemies, so they thought, “Why should I help him?” Second, overconfidence in
their own strength.
For example, Muhammad of Ghor, Mahmud of Ghazni, and many other invaders
raided India more than twenty times, but Indian rulers did not form a single
united army. However, invaders were cruel; they not only looted Indian wealth
but also harassed women and children, destroyed temples, burned universities,
and imposed cultural and religious dominance.
Some people say invaders were cruel, which is true. But Indian kings
also fought wars in similar ways. However, except for some kings, there were
ethical rules in warfare, such as not fighting after sunset, not killing
unarmed enemies, not harming religions, and respecting centers of knowledge.
Despite this, many invaders destroyed universities and cultural symbols. India
needed a unified army during foreign invasions.
Many centuries later, Indian foreign trade boomed after Constantinople
was blocked for European access to Indian goods. As a result, Europeans tried
to reach India by sea routes. In the European context, they discovered new sea
routes to India. This is correct from their perspective because they needed
Indian goods, so they searched for alternative routes.
However, in the Indian context, it was not a “discovery” because Indians
were already trading with Arabs and West Asia through sea routes. For example,
the Vijayanagar Empire purchased horses from Arabs through maritime trade.
Therefore, one man’s discovery is another man’s earlier experience if it
already existed.
Europeans came to India as traders. Over time, those who came for trade
changed their roles into military and political advisors, and later into
rulers. Their ultimate goal was to rule India.
This was not easy to achieve, so they identified two more loopholes:
Indians’ belief in the wrong people and lack of patriotism. These factors made
it easier for Europeans to win wars against Indian rulers.
For example, in the Battle of Plassey, the Nawab’s army had
approximately 50,000 soldiers, 18,000 cavalry, and 50 cannons. But the British
East India Company had only about 3,000 soldiers and 8 cannons. However, the
British East India Company won because of lack of patriotism among some Indian
soldiers and the betrayal of Mir Jafar, who was a commander in the Nawab’s
army. He shifted his support to the British East India Company before the
battle in exchange for becoming ruler.
One more important point is that out of the 3,000 soldiers in the
British army, approximately 2,200 were Indians who lacked loyalty to their
rulers. Only about 800 were British. This pattern was not limited to Bengal;
many Indian rulers faced similar problems, including betrayal and lack of
loyalty.
After sacrificing the blood and lives of many freedom fighters, India
gained independence from foreign rule. However, the Indian subcontinent was
divided into two new countries: India and Pakistan.
After independence, the new Indian government began integrating princely
states into one nation under a single constitution. In this process, we must
remember people like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, V. P. Menon, and Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar and their teams for their significant contributions.
These leaders understood major Indian loopholes and worked to build a
united India through the Constitution. The Constitution of India is one of the
best in the world. It was designed to prevent concentration of power by
distributing political authority among the judiciary, states, union
territories, panchayats, and even citizens.
However, it did not completely eliminate all primary loopholes. Even
today, problems persist. If India has one of the world’s best constitutions,
why do these problems still exist?
The reason is that the major five loopholes created many secondary
loopholes in different forms, and they are interconnected. If we want to remove
these loopholes, we must address them as a whole system, not one by one.
Without
knowing secondary loopholes, we cannot address anything directly. We need to
understand the structure of loopholes.
1. Lack of foresight: It creates many secondary loopholes such as
a. Dependency on foreign nations
b. Unemployment
c. Corruption
2. Fake narrative for power:
a. Corruption
b. Caste system
c. Unemployment
d. Interstate conflict
e. State and central conflict
3. Lack of unity:
a. Interstate conflict
b. State and central conflict
c. Caste system
d. Unemployment
e. Corruption
4. Indians believe in the wrong person:
a. Caste system
b. Corruption
c. Unemployment
d. Dependence on foreign nations
5. Lack of patriotism:
a. Low civic sense
b. Interstate conflict
c. Corruption
d. Unemployment
e. State and central conflict
This shows
how primary loopholes are interconnected with each other. Some people think
these are Indian problems, not loopholes. Right? That is wrong. India is
suffering from loopholes, not just problems.
I will
explain with an example: a fort has a single water management system with a
1,000-liter capacity, and it comes from outside the fort. If an invader or
someone stops the water supply from outside, that is a real problem. But if the
water management system is working properly and still some people inside take
control of it, or most of the water is used by private groups, or there are
alternative wells and ponds inside the fort but the water resources are
polluted, then this is called a loophole. It can be controlled.
The Indian
Constitution runs on three structures: the legislature, the executive, and the
judiciary. They depend on each other. However, Indian
loopholes try to manipulate this system of governance, so we need to close
these loopholes. Without closing them, India’s economy may collapse, and
India’s superpower dream will remain only a dream.
There are
many methods to close these loopholes in India. However, I suggest solutions in
the context of the economy and becoming a superpower.
No comments:
Post a Comment