An unremarkable story

Many years ago, in a relative’s house, their dog was in a very cantankerous mood. No one could confront it physically, for it would attack with a terrible ferociousness. Some of the household members tired force, and manhandling. The dog was better at that. Until another person from the same house came and used voice commands. The voice commands literally bound up the dog into obedience. This man explained the situation thus: If we compete with the dog at its level of activity, that is, at the physical level, it will have the upper hand. At our level, that is, at the level of voice command, it is literally our subordinate.

It may seem an insipid story, with a non-existent moral. Yet, I do discern a grave understanding here. Maybe the American’s would find a lesson in this as they go about spreading the nonsense called ‘democracy’ in nations, where the social designs can only allow it to exist in a most contorted form.

Lessons from British Colonial experiences

For understanding more, there may be need to seek the ways and means of the British colonial empire. I do not want to discuss the compulsions that made the Colonial empire expand without any concrete planning to pave its way. What I can enlighten upon is the why it was won. And maybe there might be lessons to be understood on why it was lost. Not lost in any battle, but in the spiritual level; wherein it became intellectually correct to leave.

Even though there were many battles that were fought, the British Colonial Empire was not created by the march of the British army. Only rarely did the British Crown troops get involved. In most cases, the colonial expansion was aided by the local populace. The troops were mostly the locals. And there was real love and trust in British leadership. To simply say that this was due to the subservience felt by non-white populations towards Whites is to insult all, both the non-Whites as well as the Whites. For, more or less, the same intangible admiration for British systems was there even in France, during those times. Voltaire being a suitable example.

The British was seen as a liberating force. And it really was so. Only the traditional superiors felt lost, and a sense of impotence. It was a historically first experience of liberation for the majority population.

When change of guards is imminent

The second thing to note was that the feeling was there that the British systems were there to stay. The people fell in line. Once a hierarchy is established, in nations like India, people try best to get embedded to a particular level, and position. It is a very secure thing to do.

Limitations of remote sense

Now what went wrong was the British leadership in India’s understanding of India was very much different from the understandings that the British leadership in England had. In Britain, there policymaker were simply going to false understandings; for they had no sample social system to study at close hand. The laying of the communication cable between India and England, more of less, initiated the demise of the British superior aura in India. For, decisions were made in England, and enforced in India.

The first hand understandings, prompt reactions to spontaneously emerging eventualities, which at times required pre-emptive actions, all become compromised, by the minute by minute interference from far placed, meagrely understanding officials in England.

The officials in England did not understand that what was being in held up in India by many means, including the sword, was an aura of love and admiration.

Installing a caricature

Then came the decision to install democracy and intake of Indians into the higher bureaucracy. It was a right decision, yet, required deeper understandings. For, India had Indian officialdom for thousands of years, with the common man being at the butt-end of it. So, the British-Indian officialdom should be starkly different from it. Otherwise, the newly formed British-Indian officialdom was to bring back the repulsiveness of the ancient Indian officialdom. Here again, there was careless in the formation of the Indian bureaucracy. Even though, the British Indian officialdom was remarkably better than the old Indian version, it simply progressively started the path down to decline.

Power in fiendish hands

Power in the hands of Indian language speaking officials simply meant that again the bureaucracy was to reflect not British social moods, which were loved, but unbearable feudal snubbing and self-cantered attitudes of the traditional officialdom. With remarkable un-intelligence, the British were simply rubbing off their own sublime aura, in the mistaken belief that they were catering to such noble ideals as democracy, self-rule, universal franchise and such other themes, that can exist only in English and similar languages.

Being British and un-British

Here what has to be emphasised is that the British won the hearts of the Indians by being British, and playing at their own levels. They lost the hearts by playing at the level of the feudal levels of India, and by lending legitimacy to its practitioners.

Relocating to new grooves

When it was seen that it was only a matter of time before the British left, the opportunists immediately started shifting their loyalty. For, it was known that once the British left, the new systems would be as per the designs of the feudal leadership that emerges from India. It was only being practical in re-locating one’s position to the best possible in the future social system.

Connecting to Iraq

Now, let me connect this theme to the American situation in Iraq. Win the hearts of the Iraqi people. There are many ways. Yet, in most ways, there are at least two different approaches.

Redefining

Anything defined in English when taken to the Iraqi understanding, needs careful re-study. There is this British General who said that the disbanding of the Iraqi Armed forces was stupid. Yes, it could have been used to continue the social command structure.

Command structure falling into line

For, like in Japan, the surrender of the King, and then his continuation, more or less, made the command structure intact. Yet, disbandment was good, if the aim was for complete restructuring of the Iraqi social structure. For, it may be understood that there are deeply embedded social designs and communication lines that more or less, come back into position, as soon as the English armies hand over each level of social and administrative functioning back to the Iraqis.

It is like in India. When the British were ruling, the social system was redesigning to accommodate a totally different structure. Yet, the moment it became known that they were leaving, it un-winded back to the previous state.

There is a danger in such an eventuality. It lies in the fact that later on demagogues will take over the emotions and moods of the population. Then history will be rewritten, and all social problems will be seen to have started with American intervention.

Meagre understanding of other social systems

One of the major problems with modern English scholarship is that they have very meagre understanding of Asian and similar social functioning and its reasons. Without such understanding, intervening with altruistic aims is dangerous.

‘After me, the deluge’For, in these nations, the individual going-philosophy is similar to that of the Louis King of France: ‘After me, the deluge’. In that, if one can’t have one’s own leadership and prominence; or after one’s demise: let everything go to hell. No one enjoys a beautiful scenario which others can enjoy. All enjoyment is to be confined to one’s own household and family members.

This can be understood by the nonchalant enjoyment of luxury in superb living areas (by the rich), which actually exist in the midst of immense misery and privation. In most Asian, African, and South American nations, it is an easy thing. And it is good to remember that even in France (so near to England), this was a reality.

Seek the delinquencies

In Iraq, do not play the game of the mean-minds. Understand what the social design is. It sure has delinquencies. For, it has made good leaders do evil things. What creates leadership over there? How is it maintained? I must say that these things do have definite aspects, and can be studied.

Packing and delivering the concepts

Then how to convey the concept of modern English social intelligence. It is easy to spread a very malicious version. What are the means and who can do it. There are machineries and also suitable inputs to be delivered. Otherwise such simpletons like a Gandhi can take over the imagination of the people.

Diligent creators versus cunning besiegers

When I say Gandhi, this should come out. I have seen the precision and diligence that has gone to make the immensity of systems that the British created in India. The various rules, regulations, and procedures that gave sense and security to the Indian social, commercial and administrative functioning. I have discerned the solid level of concern for the individual that lies embedded in the words and lines. (I am sure these things easily get unnoticed by many persons.) Yet, a person called Gandhi, who had nothing tangible to contribute, in education, dressing style, manners, English language spread, or anything else, simply could spread the feeling that he is the saviour of the people. Why the English lost in this simple competition for the people’s imagination?

It is because the English themselves did not have any idea as to what is their contribution, being as it is burdened by their feelings of guilt over the ‘supposed’ enslaving of a nation.

There is a lesson to be learnt in conveying what is the greatness that is being lent.

False grandeur

One of the greatest deficiencies of the American nation is that it simply has no idea why it is so powerful and where its greatness is embedded in. It really is connected to English and its British heritage, and nothing else. Even though many persons, including my own relatives in US, married to locals, do repeat such things as Italian contributions, Irish heritage, Jewish intelligence, Indian IT personnel and much else.

When America try to intervene in other nations, there is need to understand that these nations are places where English is not the system of practise. Simply chanting ‘democracy’ and such nonsense simply makes them look idiotic. Without this understanding, America’s definition of Saddam Hussein goes entirely wrong. For, Saddam was playing the game as per different rules. Judging without information is a most immoral thing. See what happened when he was handed over to the Iraqis; his hanging was done in a despicable setting. Yet, if he had stayed alive with them for a few more days, it is more or less sure that he would have been beaten to a pulp. He was a leader to a system, where the rules were different. He surrendered to the American army. He wouldn’t dare surrender to an Iraqi armed group.

America has erred in many areas. Whereas the British came as saviour to the downtrodden groups in most nations; America, in its endeavour, to forestall Communism, has acted alongside with the suppressive ruling groups in many nations; be it in India, Japan or in South America.

When such persons as Che Guevara stood and died with sincere efforts at dismantling diabolic social systems, America could have at least stood aside with an attitude of non-intervention. Which American would like the social systems in South American nations? Then why takes sides? The best they could have done was to displace the Communist from their stance of saviours and come in as the saviours. Not as the companions of tormentors.

(Actually South American nations are bound to remain in miserable states even when there is economic boom. The languages there need examination. Poverty is not entirely connected to national economic status.)

Rubbing with negativity

The other thing about intervention is that the negativity rubs on English nations. It is like the British colonialism. The negativity that has entered England through close interaction with social systems which are the absolute inverse of English systems is of the nth degree.

Compromising English systems

Beyond that, soft English systems get mighty compromised when confronting irresponsible systems. For example, when America fights in Iraq and elsewhere, even for the sake of high principles, it has to take care of not just winning the battle, but also has to see that the fight is contained in the narrow corridors of modern war conventions. Any transgression will be punished by the American courts, themselves. At the same time, the enemy is not bound by any such limitations.

If the battle endures, the English sides will feel the heat from both sides; the enemy as well as the statutes at home.

Being fair and unfair

Then come the issue of extracting information from the enemy. Information on enemy intentions are one of the greatest weapons one should posses in a battle. Yet, to extract vital information in critical situations, becomes impossible as use of force becomes criminal action. At the same time, the enemy has no such compulsions. They fight with the historical principle of ‘everything is fair in war’. Within no time the English sides have to ponder on using torture and other third degree methods. It means that the negativity is infecting the English sides.

Isolation as a healthy principle

As a very invincible principle, I think the code of Isolation from strange social systems is the most healthy one for English nations. It can save immense lives inside the nation. Conserve immense national resources, which can be used for many other nation building activities.

What get bruised?

What gives courage and pride to English soldiery to fight in far off nations is the quiet faith that there remains a place, a nation where there is appreciation. Yet, when this very nation gets changed beyond recognition due to the swarming of non-English social systems, the essential qualities get worn off. It is like the case of the Soviet cosmonaut who got stuck in the space, when Soviet Union broke up.

Create little Englands everywhere

It is good to understand that many persons in all nations where English nations intervene shall endeavour to cross over to English nations. To support and facilitate such ambitions is not good for English nations. If people in these nations like to live in English nations, the best thing that can be done is to encourage them to create English systems in the very places where they live. It may sound difficult. Yet, it is possible. It is in this that the English nations should pour in their resources. Not in paying for an exodus.

Winning in Iraq.

To conclude: In the current condition, the war in Iraq has to be won at two levels. It is not weapon superiority that has to do the job. But the other things, that led Britain to world leadership. It requires detailed writing.