MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler - A demystification!

24. A wild gesticulating mass screaming all at once in every different key, presided over by a good-natured old uncle who was striving in the sweat of his brow to revive the dignity of the House by violently ringing his bell and alternating gentle reproofs with grave admonitions.

The above-given description could have been of the parliament of India or the assemblies in the various states of India. Or may be of any other feudal language nation. But then what about England? Well, as per the current setting, England is slowly edging towards this very same disastrous scenario.

Actually, England should have understood the glory of its pristine position in the world, and remain unadulterated. It is a nation that should allow zero immigration, unless it is for just temporary purposes or temporary domicile. But then, English intellect does not have any idea about this, having been fooled by the immensity of feudal rich outsiders arriving to teach the English, everything from table manners to sexual morality. And in the process, destroying everything innate in England.

25. The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread.

There is a very crucial claim here. That democracy acts as the cradle for Marxism, which though outwardly a very tall philosophy actually acts as a most crude fooling of the people, displaying promises which they know they don’t have the calibre to deliver. Marxism sprouts on a popular feeling of being a higher level of democracy.

26. What gave me most food for thought was the obvious absence of any responsibility in a single person.

It is a terrific thought. No one is responsible for anything. For instance, in India, the whole officialdom is corrupt. Things work due to the technical capability of the instruments used. Otherwise, efficiency is well-below mark. Yet, if one were to approach any of the higher ranks in the officialdom, one would meet a very meek or gracious individual. He or she cannot be held responsible for the tragic state of things. Then who is responsible? There is no one responsible. Well, it is the error in the system.

It is a system, in which no one has enough authority. Apart from that who is there who can be trusted with such draconian authority that can clear up the mess?

Such a person might be there in India. But then how to find him? Even the greatest current-day leaders who have come up with promises of clearing up the mess are actually sponsored by some huge business house, with or without their own ulterior motives.

I need to quote from TRAVANCORE STATE MANUAL written by V. Nagam Iyya:

QUOTE: When the Dewan’s dismissal was resolved upon, and the question was as to who should succeed him, the Rani wrote that “there was no person in Travancore that she wished to elevate to the office of Dewan and that her own wishes were that the Resident should superintend the affairs of the country as she had a degree of confidence in his justice, judgment and integrity which she could not place in the conduct of any other person”. END OF QUOTE

There is was a hint that the queen of Travancore couldn’t find a single person in whom she could place her trust in, other than the English East India Company’s own Resident Col. Munro.

27. Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be made responsible in any case?

Never. There should be someone to be held responsible.

28. But can an individual directing a government be made practically responsible for actions whose preparation and execution must be set exclusively to the account of the will and inclination of a multitude of men?

Again it is another quandary that democracy faces. A single individual being held responsible for the rank misdemeanour and irresponsibility of a number of people.

29. Or will not the task of a leading statesman be seen, not in the birth of a creative idea or plan as such, but rather in the art of making the brilliance of his projects intelligible to a herd of sheep and blockheads, and subsequently begging for their kind approval?

Is it the criterion of the statesman that he should possess the art of persuasion in as high degree as that of political intelligence in formulating great policies or decisions? Is the incapacity of a leader shown by the fact that he does not succeed in winning for a certain idea the majority of a mob thrown together by more or less savoury accidents?

Indeed, has this mob ever understood an idea before success proclaimed its greatness?

Isn’t every deed of genius in this world a visible protest of genius against the inertia of the mass?

The above lines could be superb thoughts on the basic errors in democracy. Yet, there is always the larger container to be thought of. That is the language.

30. Does anyone believe that the progress of this world springs from the mind of majorities and not from the brains of individuals?

Well, it is a quite a profound thought. In fact, if democracy can be allowed to run nations, why not all economic enterprises also be taken away from their entrepreneurs and given to the workers therein. It is sure that these worker run organisations which can also function effectively. But then, there are other complications to think of. However, those who argue for inserting democracy everywhere-and-anywhere should first try this idea on the various business organisations in this world.

For instance, firms like Microsoft etc. should remove their owners and run the company on democratic elections. It would be a great piece of hilarity to see the mood of festivity swallowing up the workers, and in due course the company also.

31. It is, first and foremost, the cause of the incredible inundation of all political life with the most inferior, and I mean the most inferior, characters of our time.

I do not know how to handle this terrific insinuation about modern political leadership, everywhere. However, I might be able to pick out this bit of information from the point when the English rule departed from a portion of the Indian Subcontinent.

Even though many people are not aware, the fact is that the English rule inside the Indian Subcontinent was confined to only a particular percentage of the geography. The other portions were under the rule of the native kings, who enjoyed the protection to the kingdoms from external aggression.

If this Map of British-India is viewed, this fact will be easily understood. SEE below this paragraph 👉

In areas which were under the English rule, the administrative systems were quite efficient. Local feudal vernacular were not allowed in administration, and hence a sort of equality before the law was prevalent for the people. Corruption was more or less non-existent at the officer levels. Beyond that, in most of the civil offices, the clerks and peons were not allowed to deal with the members of the public.

The members of the public had to meet the officers directly. The officers gave the various papers and files to the clerks for finishing off the work on them. In fact, in these offices, the clerks and peons were just some sort of helpers and never allowed to do any officiating act on their own.

This division of labour inside the government offices do point to a great insight on the part of the English officials. For the clerks and peons were people who did not know English. They knew only their native feudal languages. If the people are made to meet them for any office related work, they would immediately try to taunt them and to harass them to extract out ‘respect’ and obeisance from them. However, in English ruled areas this happened only quite rarely.

However, in the native king ruled kingdoms, the situation was the exact opposite. Administration was a mess, with everyone in the administration, right from the peon and clerk to the ‘officers’ clearly functioning in their feudal vernacular. People would be harassed to the maximum possible, to extract ‘respect’ and also bribes. In fact, Col Munro had placed on record the atrocious quality of the Travancore officials thus, in an elaborate Report submitted to the Madras Government:

QUOTE:

“No description can produce an adequate impression of the tyranny, corruption and abuses of the system, full of activity and energy in everything mischievous, oppressive and infamous, but slow and dilatory to effect any purpose of humanity, mercy and justice.

This body of public officers, united with each other on fixed principles of combination and mutual support, resented a complaint against one of their number, as an attack upon the whole. Their pay was very small, and never issued from the treasury, but supplied from several authorised exactions made by themselves.

They offered, on receiving their appointment, large nuzzers to the Rajah, and had afterwards to make presents, on days of public solemnity, that exceeded the half of their pay. They realised, in the course of two or three years, large sums of money and were generally subjected to a complete confiscation of their property for the benefit of the State.

The Rajah, therefore, imposed no restraint on their rapacity, aware that their plunder would be transferred to his own treasury. Nor does it appear that this consideration had any effect in checking their extortions they calculated upon being able to conceal their property during their lives, and felt little concern as to the mode of its disposal after their death.

On the part of the people, complaint was useless, redress hopeless they had only one remedy, and that was bribery. This practice was universal, and it was one of the melancholy circumstances in the situation of the people, that one of the greatest evils was necessarily resorted to as a good, to mitigate the still more intolerable grievances of injustice and oppression. Innocence was protected, justice obtained, and right secured by bribes. There were also still more efficacious means of injury, and their universal use produced an extraordinary spirit of avarice in the country for every man endeavoured to have a secret hoard of money, as the best protection of his liberty, property and life.”

Appendix to Report from Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company - Political Page 276 END OF QUOTE Source: Travancore State Manual by V. Nagam Iyya.

The above quote describes present-day Indian officialdom, also, quite perfectly.

When the new nation of India was formed, the administrative systems set-up by the English rule in the various parts of British-India were sent into total disarray. As it was the newly emerged politicians who took over administration. They had initially had no experience in administration, other than some low-grade political activity. It must be mentioned that in British-India, native politicians did administer perfunctorily the three Presidencies, viz. Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, using the administrative systems set up by the English rule since 1919. However, these administrative systems worked in sync with English administrative ideas, and not that of the local politicians.

With the amalgamation of erstwhile British-Indian provinces with the local raja kingdoms, the extremely corrupt native-kingdom administrative systems got connected to pristine-pure English set up administrative systems. From my very childhood I have personally seen the affect it created. For, one of my parents was an officer in the Madras Civil Service. Since she hailed from Malabar, she had to opt for Kerala state civil service, when Malabar was amalgamated with the former kingdom areas of Travancore-Cochin kingdoms to form a new state of Kerala. It was a sheer nonsensical amalgamation. Even the local language of Malabar was different from the language of Travancore kingdom. However, the Travancore kingdom’s native language was superimposed as the official language of the new state.

On one side was an incorruptible administrative system, run by English-speaking officers, who had clerks and peons as mere helpers. On the other side was a head-to-bottom corrupt to the core administrative system, in which the officers openly colluded with the peons and clerks to terrorise the people and to extract money. In these areas, the clerks and peons were openly acknowledged as powerful entities by everyone. Even the ‘officers’ were not allowed to enter into the domains of authority taken over by the clerks and peons. It was literally a give-and-take collaboration inside the bureaucracy.

It goes without saying that the high standards maintained by the Malabar officialdom literally got watered down. It went down without a whimper, and vanished. Now, no one knows that such a thing had existed before in Malabar. People read media articles and study school textbooks which are the other side version of history.

Now, the national standard of the Indian bureaucracy is as what had been reported by Col Munro, many years ago.