Why should citizens of India strengthen India's military to US-level?
What would happen if citizens of India do NOT strengthen our military. To explain, I will need to explain two things :
Rustic's guide to international politics
Rustic's version of history
After explaining the two, I shall answer the question "what may happen to India if India does NOT improve its military to US-level".
The international politics on two, and ONLY two, principles :
The Bihar Principle : Say you are living in Bihar. say you have a palacial house, lot of cash/jewels, lots of books/knowledge and PhDs from best 12 Univs of the world etc but you have no gun. And your neighbor has NOTHING of these things, but he has a gun. Then your neighbor will own the house, cash and jewels. He will also confiscate all the books, and sell them for Rs 2.75/kg. He may spare the PhDs, as they are academic=worthless, but everything else will become his property. This is what I call as the Bihar Principle.
The Fish Principle : In a pond, a very strong fish may spare a strong fish, and instead eat grass, but it will NEVER spare a weak fish. A weak fish, unless it grows strong, is a meal.
[The statement is often worded as "bigger fish will eat smaller fish". I merely re-phrased it as "stronger fish will eat weaker fis" as sometimes, bigger fish may be the weaker one. eg in year 1700-1800, India was a bigger fish, and UK was a smaller fish, but India was weaker and UK was stronger. So UK devored India. Hence, my rephrasing that "stronger fish will devor weaker fish". ]
In a way, the Bihar Principle and the Fish Principle mean the same thing.
More on the Fish Principle
Lets say a pond has 1000 fish. A fish has two options -- it can feed on grass or feed on another fish. Say each fish is equally strong -- 1 unit strong. Since each fish is 1 unit strong, seldom will one fish attack another for food, and all fish will by and large eat grass.
But what if 1-2 fish become 5 unit strong? And some 10-20 fish become 2-3 unit strong? And remaining 980 or so fish remain 1 unit strong? Now blood bath is inevitable. Why?
The 5 unit fish has natural tendency, like ALL other fish, to devor fish. It cant devor 2 unit fish, as the fight with 5 unit fish will make it bleed as well. But 1 unit strong fish is easy meal, no fight.
And the 5 unit fish has one more reason -- it knows that once it eats a 1 unit fish, its strength will increase to say 5.2 to 5.3 units, and after eating and digesting ten such 1 unit fish, it will become 6-7 unit strong and so forth.
Say a 5 unit fish has oppurtunity to eat one 1 unit fish. If it does NOT, there is possibility that another 5 unit strong fish will devor it.
And there is a threat --- say the 5 unit fish spares the 1 unit fish for now. Then later, it may become 2-3 unit fish, and then 5 unit fish will no longer be able to devor it. Worse, what it that fish one day becomes 10-15 unit fish. Then it may come after that 5 unit fish and devor it.
And it has one more threat --- if he does NOT start eating 1 unit fish, the OTHER 5 unit fish does so, and than THAT 5 unit fish will one day become 10-15 unit strong and come after it.
So a 5-unit strong fish has NO option but to start eating 1 unit fish, and become stronger. So what option a 1 unit fish has? Become strong ... unless 1 unit strong fish becomes 2-3-more unit fish, it is a meal ... no mercy ... no exceptions.
Now I would map some entities of fish example to international scene.
A fish is analogous country
There was a time, when almost all countries were "equally" strong, as no country was capable of invading others
The option of eating grass is analogous to sustaining on its own economy, own natural resources and own labor
The option of eating another fish is equivalent to devoring other country's economy, its natural resources and use its slave labor at throw away prices.
More on the Bihar Principle
The Bihar Principle, that a man with gun will own all the wealth of the gunless ones, is no different for the Fish Principle. In Bihar analogy, the situation and dilemma of gun-owner is identical to that of the strong fish.
Say the gun-owner decides NOT to confiscate wealth of the gunless. Then it is quire possible, that some other gun-owner will confiscate the wealth, and he will become stronger, and come after him.
Say the gun-owner passes the oppurtunity, and who knows, next day, the gunless may buy guns, and with his wealth may even buy better guns. And then he will never be able to rob him. IOW, there is "now or never" type pressure on the gun-owner.
Now I would map some entities of Bihar example to international scene.
The countries like US, UK etc are gun-owners
Other countries are basically gunless.
In year 1700, UK had guns, India did not and so India's property became UK's wealth. Today US has gun, Iraq does NOT, Iraq's wealth has become property of US's oil companies. Only names changes, news remain same. And more the names change, more the news remain same.
The way nations interact is as follows Two nations scene
When one nation is much stronger, it will loot the weaker nation as often as it can. eg Ghazani, Nadirshah, Taimur etc looted India several times.
When one nation is far far stronger than other, it will loot the another nation on 24*365 basis by completely enslaving it. eg UK colonialised India and many African nations, and looted them on 24*365 basis for several decades.
When two nations are of nearly same strength, there will be uneasy peace, but few violent conflicts. Over the time, if strengths remain same, due to trade, emigration etc. they will form freindship, and may even merge.
Three nations case
A strong nation will try, and suceed that, 2 or more weak nations always remain busy with infighting. If 2 weak nations ever try to come to peace, it will force the polity, elite and intellegentia of one of them, preferably the weaker of the 2, to create a rukus with another. eg US/UK always force Pak/BD polity/intellegentia to indulge into fight with India.
So if two nations are of similar strengths, and there is NO nation much much stronger than them, the two nations will eventually come to peace. But if two nations are much weaker than a third nation, then the stronger nation will try, and suceed, to see that the 2 weak nations remain enemies.
Multiple nations case
Say there are two strong nations. Then due to fear of one-another, they may restrain their looting. eg UK did NOT loot India to the extent US is now looting Iraq. Why? Becuase UK in 1800-1900 was worried that too much aggresive looting may make Indians (such as Indian prices) side with French, Germans etc. and with that French, Germans etc may manage to dislodge UK.
Due to fear of one-another, two-more strong nations may NOT loot the weak nations so aggresively. But over time, they will realize that they only losing in this competition, and will work out a deal NOT to harm each other and will also devise agreements to split the loot.
IOW, the strong nations will unite, and loot the weak nations more aggressively.
In short, the strong nations will unite, loot the weak, and by brining the polities/intellegentia of the weak nations, will ensure that weak ones never unite. And when a strong nation loots the weak one, using agreements, the strong nations will ensure that no other strong nations helps the weak ones. Even the bones of weak nations will disappear.
Since fish and animals do NOT collude in such a flexible way, we seldom see above situations in ponds or jungle. So in a way, international scenario is far more cruel and ruthless for weak ones than laws of ponds/jungles.
A short course in History from 1200 AD to now
The reader must be familiar with history written by intellectuals, as given in the text class I-XII and collage textbooks. IMO, its all bluff. Here is the REAL history (take it or leave it) as written by myself, a rustic :-
In around 1200 AD, some countries were stronger than others, but none was strong enough that it can completely dominate and enslave the other. Sometimes, a strong country would loot the weaker, but complete domination, like colonialization that we saw in 1700-1950 could NOT happen. So to a considerable extent, all countries, except some incidents of looting, were feeding on their own economies, rather than each other's economy.
But around 1200 AD, political inequalities in UK drastically reduced as it adopted Jury System, and reduced the power of judges. This decrease in political inequality drastically in UK's courts drastically increased its fairness. With improvement of fairness of courts, it was no longer possible for officers to extort bribes and commit atrocities, and it was no longer possible for criminals, with connections with govt officers, to escape punishments. With these two improvements, the UK's trade and economy started improving by leaps and bound. IOW, by year 1200-1300 AD, UK, a 1 unit strong fish was slowly growing stronger.
The process was very slow. But year 1600 AD, UK was challanging all the near by countries like France, Spain, Portugal etc. But these countries too started reducing political inequalities by introducing Jury System and/or other means, started becoming stronger. By year 1700, UK was say 5 unit strong fish, but France, Spain etc were also 2-3 unit strong fish, and UK was NOT in a position to devor them.
But consider other nations in 1700 AD like African countries, India, Arabic countries etc. Due to much higher political inequality, and no other reason, compared to UK etc, India's administration/courts etc were highly unfair, and had stiffled the progress of industry. While UK's industries were growing by leaps and bound, industries in India had stagnated. Eventually, UK became too strong, it saw that India was rich but weak, it devored India.
Like the pond/Bihar scenario, UK too had several pressures. If UK knew that by devoring India, it would become stronger. And if didnt, some other strong fish like France or Spain or Portugal or Italy or Germany would have devored India, and then became stronger, and come after UK. India being a weak fish, was up for grabs; it was impossible for a strong fish to let the oppurtunity pass.
But in 1700, by improving courts/administration and thus improving economy/techonology, India's common men could have improved India's military. And by improving military, it could have become a stronger fish, and saved itself. But India's citizens could NOT, rather DID NOT, think of means of by which it can become strong. And so India got devored.
So as I see it, there are two reasons why India got devored in 1700-1800 AD by UK
UK was a stronger fish as it had better courts/admin, which improved its economy/tech, which improved its military; while India was a weaker fish
the commons of India in 1600-1800 DID NOT do anything to improve the courts, and hence India's technology, economy and hence military could NOT improve
That was about
Reasons why Indian military lags behind US military
How can citizens of India improve Indian military
Trivial.
Steps 1-3: The citizens should force MLAs, MPs and District Panchayat Members to create procedures that would enable citizens to pass laws in District Panchayats, Assemblies and Parliament.
Please read
LM.01
to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in District Panchayats and City Councils. Please read
LM.02
to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Assembly. And please read
LM.03
to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Parliament.
Step 4 : The citizens of India, using LM.03 can enact procedure ID.01. This procedure will create a universal national ID-system, which can used to reduce evasion of income tax.
Step 5 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact procedure ID.04. This procedure will create an ID-system over plots/buildings that can be used to track land/buildings ownerships.
Steps 6-8 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact procedures TX.01-03. These procedures will ensure that GoI gets sufficient income tax, capital gains tax and wealth tax to fund military, courts etc. In addition, procedure TX.03 can also be used by State/District Govts to ensure that they get enough funds for police, courts, basic education etc. TX.03 would make annual filing of ownerships, purchases, sales and alteration-expenses on plots/builings, and other wealth, compulsory. This will reduce evasion of wealth tax and capital gains tax. This will also enable the tax dept to check that additions in wealth is consistent with income reported, and thus will also reduce evasion of income tax.
Step 9 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact procedures TX.04. Then using this procedure TX.04, the citizens, using "review by Jury" can invalidate the clauses in income tax code and wealth tax code using which a large number of wealthy individuals offically get tons of tax exemptions. The removal of these sections will improve collection of income tax, capital gains tax and wealth tax.
These TRIVIAL steps will be sufficient to evasion of income tax, wealth tax and also reduce evasion of capital gains tax. In addition, these procedures will also remove the clauses in income/wealth tax code which give unethical exemptions. With these steps, the citizens of India will be able to create a tax system that can fund creation of robust courts/police and an efficient army.
If you have any other question, please mail it to MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com. Thousand thanks in advance.
