The Eastern Horizon

Recently a Russian friend of mine exclaimed “When I came to USA, I didn’t understand what the Democrats and Republicans are fighting about. Both want free market capitalism, both want democracy, so what is the argument.

It took some years for me too, to understand why they call themselves separate parties. But when I got it, I could not help wonder that no matter where you go, it’s the same two currents in society. Like yin and yang, they manifest themselves in different persona.

Democrats are more committed to principles. Republicans are more committed to practicality. Democrats worry about what is fair. Republicans worry about what works. Democrats prefer the type of government that works for poor and desolate. Republicans prefer less interfering government and have more of dog-eat-dog approach.

Democrats are about equality, about challenging the established class, pro-change, diversified party. Republicans are more interested in keeping local culture intact. They are against migration to some extent and take pride in being a patriotic, pro-establishment party. A good old boys club.

Welfare programs , taxation and wealth dissipation are usually characteristic of democratic policy. Focus on national security and overall conservative attitude is usually the main selling points of republican policy.

If I have to find the equivalents in Indian politics, I would say Congress is version of US Democrats whereas several regional parties like Shiv-sena and only one national party , BJP, is version of US Republicans. Congress claims itself to be the sole voice of poor people. It takes pride in being the truly secular party. For the last 50 or so years, Congress has indeed delivered several promises to poor class. In their reign, green revolutions occurred, slum dwellers got their huts registered and reservation quotas were introduced and expanded continuously. Sometimes by going overboard and snubbing middle class, congress has more or less managed to keep its image and keep its voting base. While BJP, in their brief ruling period, expanded India’s nuclear arsenal, built strong relations with USA and decisively won Kargil war.

The roots of USA Republican party lies in the political vision of revolutionaries who fought against British occupation. The same thing could have happened in India in early 20th century and Indian National Congress could have emerged as the voice of established Indian social class, the Republican equivalent.

However, the class struggle in India was far widespread and complicated compared to British occupied USA. The Republican equivalents in Indian Congress failed to address this class struggle issue effectively. They made political independence higher priority over social reforms. B.G. Tilak and Subhashchandra Bose were main proponents of this idea. Whereas the Democrat equivalents gave equal, if not higher priority to social reforms compared to political independence. Gandhi was the main voice of this stream. Thus, as explained in my other post on Gandhi’s strategy, the Democrat equivalent voice prevailed and Republicans went into sort of oblivion.

The leadership of congress changed from idealistic generation (sometimes overly so as in case of Nehru) to highly opportunistic, divided individuals. In the same time the leadership of so-called-Republicans went from freedom-struggle hardened, ideological generation to opportunistic and sometimes clueless individuals.

This Republican current remained splinter, fringe groups and pretty much failed to make a coherent comeback till the last decade of 20th century. But the concern of Islamic fundamentalism suddenly brought some sort of synergy between them.

Many people blame BJP, the most visible equivalent of Republicans, for Babri Masjid demolition and using religion for political purpose. However half the country voted for them and the notion that they converted half the country from seculars to fundamentalists is ridiculous. The single reason for their success was genocide of Kashmiri Hindus. Even though the politicians and media refused to categorize Kashmir violence as ethnic cleansing, the common people saw a vicious pattern of religious fundamentalism against Hinduism. When BJP came out with Ram Mandir yatra and projected themselves as the saviors of Hindu religion, all these folks, who were now suspicious of politicians who proclaimed to be secular, threw their weight behind BJP. It had little to do with Ram Mandir and more to do with this suspicion about secularism.

BJP completely failed to understand these concerns and kept on drumming the same issue. Result? The Ram Mandir strategy failed in next election.

As the danger of Islamic fundamentalism continues to grow, it is likely that the US Republican equivalents in India would gain prominence again.

I have read a lot about the great patriot and freedom fighter Veer Savarkar. I have tremendous respect for him. His literary skills were marvelous. His leadership qualities were exceptional. His courage was monumental.

I have heard a lot of people speculating about what India would be if he had power in his hand. I am sure if he were in the driving seat, India would be a superpower.

And there lies the biggest success of Indian democracy. India in 1960-1970 did not need to be a superpower. India needed to work on poor farmers first. Thus the party that worked with poor farmers got elected. Savarkar was a great leader, but not the right person at that time and place to lead, so he was not elected.

As we lift our masses out of poverty and take stride into 21st century as a confident nation well on it’s way to prosperity, there will be a time to switch. Indian people will need a leader who will assert India’s power, give higher priority to national security and enforce discipline on unruly elements. We will need a Savarkar again.

I hope we will be able to produce one.

A teacher teaching Maths to seven-year-old asked him, “If I give you one apple and one apple and one apple, how many apples will you have?”

Within a few seconds the boy replied confidently, “Four!”

The teacher was disappointed. “Maybe the child did not listen properly,” she thought. She repeated, “Listen carefully. If I give you one apple and one apple and one apple, how many apples will you have?”

The boy hesitatingly replied, “Four…”

The teacher thought for a moment and rephrased the question “If I give you one strawberry and one strawberry and one strawberry, then how many you will have?”

“Three?” Came the reply.
The teacher had a victorious smile. Her approach had succeeded. One last time she asked him, “Now if I give you one apple and one apple and one more apple how many will you have?”

“Four!”, answered the boy.

“Four? How? Why can’t you understand this simple thing? What’s wrong with you? ” she demanded in a little stern and irritated voice.

“Because I already have one apple in my bag.” Replied the young boy.

—–

This came to me as a forwarded email. The story exposes a very interesting insight. Check your assumptions before you start the blame game.

So many times in our life, when things make no sense, we take the easiest way out. Blame others for being irrational, insane or flat out evil.

How many times we take the puzzle as an opportunity to check our own assumptions?

It also reminds me a story of a small boy in our neighborhood. He used to come to play with us when we were kids. But many times, in the middle of the game, he would drop everything and run away to his home. We often made fun of him for that. Sometimes it would irritate us and we used to refuse to let him play.

Much later we learned that he was adopted and that he felt what they call a strong attack of separation anxiety. As a kid, he remembered that one day all of a sudden somebody adopted him. Deep inside he feared that all of a sudden he would be abandoned and would miss all the love and care he got.

We, naturally born kids of our parents, had taken all that love and care for granted. Since we did not know how it feels not to have it. He, on the other hand, remembered not having it and thus knew the true value of having a home. So if there was somebody stupid, it was us, the rest of the kids.

Evil is an instrument created by human mind to avoid introspection. Stupidity is a tool we use to hide our lack of compassion. Insanity is a cover up for our failure to understand alternative reasoning.

Being judgmental is the denial, the refusal to admit all the shortcomings above.

From about 1985 to 1995, for an entire decade, a serial rapist haunted the town of Lafayette, Louisiana. The man broke into houses and raped his victims at gunpoint.

Dr. Rossmo, a well known Geographic profiling expert was called in for help. At first the cops were skeptical about how effective his methods would be in catching a criminal who had hoodwinked the local police force for a decade.

“Look at it this way”. Dr. Rossmo explained his concept. “Imagine a sprinkler watering a garden. Now, even if you know where a sprinkler is, you can’t possibly predict where the next drop of water will fall. However if you have knowledge of sufficiently large number of locations where the water drops fell, you can find where is the most probable location of the sprinkler.”

“So if you are trying to analyze the data available so far and trying to predict where the next crime will happen, it is not going to work. But we know the locations where crime happened, so let’s try to guess the location of the source, the criminal.”

Dr. Rossmo put forward a theory that a criminal who commits a series of crimes does so in a particular pattern. The criminal does not want cops in the vicinity of his residence. So he will choose locations sufficiently far from where he stays. However the criminal also wants to have good knowledge of the crime location for planning the crime well. So the location will not be too far from the residence of the criminal.

Consider the diagram above. Around the serial criminal’s most frequent geographic location, which is normally residence or workplace, there lies a “buffer zone”, a zone within which the criminal does not want trouble. Outside of this buffer zone likes “hot zone”, or “zone of comfort for committing crimes”. Outside this “hot zone” is all “silent zone”, zone which criminal considers too far to do anything. Identifying these zones gives a good sense of the location of the criminal. Using the sprinkler analogy, if the crime locations are the places where water droplets fall, then the location of sprinkler is the location of the criminal.

Based on the data and forensic information, Dr. Rossmo created a mathematical formula to model criminal behavior. Based on this formula, he predicted a small area as hot zone, which was not previously considered as probable area for searching the criminal.

The cops carried out extensive search for a while, which yielded nothing. Finally one day, based on an anonymous tip, cops investigated one of their own, a Sargent, who had recently changed residence, but used to reside in the ‘hot zone’ before. His DNA matched the DNA at crime scenes. The rapist was jailed and the decade long case was finally closed.

This case and the area of criminal investigation overall is the classic example of how the latest information age has capability to transform life and society, how the information is the strategic asset of todays world and how if you are willing and creative, you can push the limits of possibilities beyond imagination.

In our schools in India, we learned one after another mathematical skill, without ever bothering to ask “why learn this”. All I remember thinking that time was how to get best grades in school, so that I can get the best job or admission to the best school for further studies, which will guarantee a happy and secure life.

Perhaps it’s time to ask ourselves some questions.

While India produces 10 times more software engineers and science graduates than Canada, and Indian police force is severely limited in resources compared to Canada, making it a perfect place to apply IT based criminal solutions, when will India have it’s own Dr. Rossmo?

When will our education system break the shackles of centuries old legacy of all-theory-no-application?

When will an enthusiastic teacher in a school in India will enter the mathematics class and declare “In today’s class, we will learn how to catch a serial killer.”

The name Mahatma Gandhi invokes so much respect in peoples’ mind even today. The Nobel prize committee has said their only regret is that Gandhi was not awarded Nobel peace prize in his lifetime. He truly mobilized masses and took freedom struggle to a whole new level. This is my take on why non-violence worked.

When Gandhi slowly moved at the helm of Indian National Congress, he was occupying the place vacated by B.G. Tilak, a Charismatic leader with a multifaceted talent. Tilak was historian, mathematician, a shrewd politician and a journalist. He was the first one to proclaim the intent of complete political freedom. His famous proclamation “Swaraj is my birthright..” had the same effect on Indian freedom struggle as the slogan “No Taxation without representation” on American revolution.

Having Tilak made clear what is the final goal and set the foundation of movement in principle, the challenge for Gandhi was to mobilize the masses in the right direction. This was a difficult challenge.

To understand the difficulty, we have to understand the condition Indian masses were in at the dawn of 20th century. British had got the whole of India under their control. New education systems, universities were being built. Infrastructure was being put in place. Caste system was abolished in official matters. The horrific traditions like “Sati” (burning of the widow) were being outlawed.

For the first time the common person had access to all the knowledge, legal system, water , temples and so on, no matter what was his/her caste or social/economic status.

At the same time tremendous economic exploitation was going on. Indian industry was bleeding to slow death and huge amount of wealth was leaving India on its way to Britain.

British people lost no opportunity to tout the benefits of colonization. This created a moral dilema in common person’s mind. They could not justify a violent struggle against sombody who had done some good things to them (and promised to do more good). This moral dilema severely weakened the resolve of the masses and made unification difficult.

With Gandhi’s principle of non-violence, this moral dilemma was solved. Suddenly there was clarity. People were not attacking British government. They were just protesting to British officers about the things they did not like.

In fact the moral dilemma was now created in British minds. Should they use force against the people who broke the laws they made? That would backfire against their own propaganda of being a beneficent ruler. Or should they refrain and use a soft approach because there was no violent threat? That would only encourage more people to join the struggle.

This dilemma gave rise to a lot of debate in British parliament and British media. British tended to look at themselves are not only militarily and technologically superior, but also morally superior. Their military superiority was unchallenged, but for the first time somebody challenged their moral superiority. For the first time somebody made them look bad in the eyes of the world and possibly in the eyes of themselves. And if the situation was not handled properly, things would go out of control and eventually their control over their ‘Crown Jewel’ India would be challenged.

This giant paradigm shift led to mobilization of masses and deep and wide spread of freedom struggle.

But even though the non violence strategy was critical in taking the struggle to masses, it could not take it beyond a certain level. The final push, the Quit India movement, was mostly active violent struggle. The second world war had crippled the British Raj. Thus Quit India, combined with uprising in Indian Armed forces, delivered the critical knockout punches in the final round and sealed the deal once and for all.

Non violence did not succeed because it was noble. It succeeded because it was smart choice in the given situation.

Typically every argument about India’s progress starts with poverty and ends with corruption. If you ask people to define corruption, most of them they give you a blank stare or run to get a dictionary. Then if you ask people to identify the exact corruption incidents and the rough estimate of monetary costs in their life, most of the time you get that blank stare.

Yet everybody seems to be very sure that corruption is the problem.

Let me tell you one story here. Around 1985, the performance of Bombay Telephone, only telephone company in Bombay, operated by government, was very poor. You had to register to get telephone and it could easily take 4-5 years (from the date you registered) to actually get a telephone connection in your home. It was a well known secret that you could bribe somebody inside to get your name ahead in the queue and get you telephone earlier.

In 1990 the privatization began and several new schemes were introduced. One of the schemes was “Immediate connection”, wherein you could pay a large amount as a deposit and you would get connection immediately. The scheme was nicely packaged as new era customer friendly deal.

What is the difference? In both cases the “deal” so to speak served customers who could afford to pay more for a connection (like traders, businessmen, etc.) and who needed connection a lot sooner. In first case the money went to the individual employee, in second case it went to the organization. So does the first case qualifies as corruption, as second as service?

The reality is tiered service is the need of the time. Demand - Supply is the basis of any economic theory. And if the demand is not being met by system, then it will be met by bypassing the system.

Corruption is not the main problem in most of the cases. The main problem is poorly designed systems.

Indeed there are some cases where corruption is the problem. There was a case before some days when in UP, some people found the medicine bottles in the pharmacy were filled with water. This is not a corruption, this is crime. This is not system bypass, this is atrocity. There is no justification for this.

But for a large range of other cases, we must stop expecting something else. We must stop expecting people to behave differently.

I remember before a few days, we were waiting outside a railway station. It was raining heavily. We were looking for a taxi. A taxi driver stopped next to us and asked for double the fair. My friend got irritated and refused. The taxi driver left.

Since both of us have visited USA, the argument obviously turned to taxi drivers in USA. We talked about how impolite and how corrupt the taxi driver was.

Some time later I was reading in newspaper about the Bandh, and how it stopped the Rikshaw and taxi business that day. I wondered, would anyone go and give some money to the taxi driver to cover him up for this type of days? If not, then what is the option for him other than taxing more money from me when I am in need? That is his way of providing “insurance” for the days he will lose business because of Bandh and Rail Roko and Riots and worst case, auto accidents.

In several countries, there is a system of tip. To all people whose income depends on the time they work everyday, people add about 10-15% extra on the charge for the service. This is precisely to cover them on rainy days.

So if we do not have any voluntarily provided cover for rainy days, it makes sense that the Taxi driver would solicit more fair when he is in stronger position.

The more I think, the more I see basic human dynamics at work. What we need is redesigning “systems”, not redesigning “human nature” to reduce corruption.

In a landmark decision on 11 June 2008, Supreme Court of USA ruled that the USA government is not allowed to hold the prisoners without charging them or allowing them to charge government. The Slashdot discussion is here and BBC Link is here.

The decision was split 5-4, showing how divided the judges were on this issue. One of the judges Mr. Alito was more vocal about failure of his side and declared this judgment to be the worst judgments in the history.

Immediately hell broke loose in the legal and political circles. Some applauded the Supreme court terming this to be the strong reprimand to government that insists on expanding its authority unchecked to all areas of life, trampling the civil liberties guaranteed by the constitution. Others, especially several prominent leaders from the republican party complained that this will limit government’s ability to fight terrorism and thus further endanger American interests.

Both are right and wrong at the same time. How?

It is indeed true that allowing the government, especially the most powerful and technologically sophisticated government on earth, to imprison anybody for any length of time without any legal formalities, is a dangerous idea. However it is also true that current democratic institutions lack the legal framework to fight the kind of guerilla warfare they are facing.

On one hand we have criminals. These are individuals or organizations committing antisocial acts to achieve objectives that are related to their self interests, usually money or power. There are criminal laws in place to deal with them.

One the other hand there are soldiers employed by the governments. They work to achieve the ideological or political interests of their governments. The legal framework put in place by United Nations and Geneva convention is applicable in their case.

What to do about those individuals that carry out criminal acts, but their objectives are ideological or political? You cannot apply your criminal justice system there, because many times they are not even happening on your soil. You cannot apply army’s laws there, because that is not traditional warfare.

Speaking of traditional warfare, the only way a traditional army can be pro-active is by relying on strong intelligence. Criminal justice systems are more of reactive systems, not designed to predict things in advance. To be able to stop “criminals with war-intent”, it is imperative to have strong intelligence. In USA people are highly concerned about privacy, but without sacrificing privacy, it is impossible to get the required intelligence.

There needs to be a third approach, a third system to deal with such individuals, the criminals with war-intent, or the ‘enemy combatants’. The term ‘Enemy combatants’ was coined by US defense establishment for precisely the same reason, to distinguish them from POWs( Prisoners of war) and criminals.

The exact same legal tug-of-war has been happening in India for long time. The terrorists are being tried as criminals. That perhaps stops the individual. But it fails to stop their organizations.

It also kind of creates a paradox. If a terrorist gets capital punishment, he overnight becomes martyr, thus becoming the poster boy for the propaganda team of his organization. If he gets lesser punishment, then it is almost like the terrorist organization get a blank check. A drastically different legal and institutional framework is required to deal with the guerilla warfare as practiced by today’s terrorists.

Most of the human rights organizations who come up for defense of these individuals argue that “No matter how low these people fall, we cannot fall to their level.” However this argument is severely flawed.

Say there is a game (game as in game theory) in progress and all people are abiding by the rules. Now suddenly one of the players start breaking the rules and cheating. If all the other players keep playing by the rules, the cheating player gets huge unfair advantage over others. In that situation, the most rational approach for other players to get down to his level and beat him in his own game.

Any kind of value based approach does not work in long term. Values insist on unchanging pattern of behavior. No matter what others do to you, if you stick to your values, you will always deal with others the same way. It has been shown mathematically that the most successful strategy in long term infinite game is “WSLS”, or win-stay-lose-shift. You can start dealing with a third person by being co-operative. But if your co-operation is not returned, you are better of not co-operating with that person next time, that is you change your strategy if you lose, that is if you fail to achieve your objective.

There are a lot of lessons to learn for India in this affair. Time after time, India is trying to make peace. Yet, decades after decades, terrorist attacks on Indian soil continue to take Indian lives. Apparently peace is not working. Is it time to change the strategy?

There are no values. There are only strategies. The earlier we learn this, the better.

This one is a well known Zen story.

One day one teacher decided to throw a puzzle at his students. When everyone assembled in the lunch room, he took a clay pot and kept in on the table in front of everyone.

“Without using any of the attribute such as color, material, shape, describe to me what is that on the table.” He challenged.

Nobody spoke for a while.

One student demanded more clarification.

“Simply tell me what it is without using any of it’s name.” Said the teacher.

At that point the cook came forward. He pushed the pot from the table. The pot fell on the ground and broke into pieces.

“It was what it is not any more.” Said the cook.

It is so true for so many things in our life. We recognize their existence, their importance only when they are gone. Because human mind is very good in grasping sensation, but not so good in noticing harmony. We can understand things only relative to the change they undergo. We fail to understand those things that are always with us.

When I dig deeper into this, I can see why Alan Watts , in his book “The way of Zen”, says Not only ear makes sound, but sound makes ear too.” Because we have ear, we know that there is something called sound. So ear makes sound. But if there was no sound, we would never know we have an organ called ear that is capable of hearing something called sound. So in a way, collectively, the sounds make ear.

In one of my previous posts, I have done analysis of the Battle of Sinhgad using game theory. Several readers mentioned they would like to read about Shivaji’s slaying of Afzal Khan analyzed in a similar way. Let me take a shot.

I don’t think game theory can be applied there as game theory deals more with choices made by people in critical moment. There was no critical moment as such in Afzal Khan episode.
And that precisely proves Shivaji’s genius.

If the battle of Sinhgad was example of tactical brilliance of a military commander, the Afzal khan slaying and the following battle of Pratapgad was a strategic masterpiece by a visionary leader.

In cricket terms, the battle of Sinhgad is like a match between some team X and team India, where team India seems to be winning, but Sachin Tendulkar is out and suddenly tides turn. But the vice captain, say, Yuvraj Singh, notices a weakness of the bowling side, which he consistently exploits, building small partnerships and evantually turns the tide and brings victory.
The Afzal Khan’s slaying by Shivaji is like a match between team Y and team South Africa, where right from the beginning, South African fielding and bowling is carefully planned for each batsman of team Y. Tight fielding allows only one run instead of two, and two in place of four. Impossible catches are converted to difficult catches, difficult catches to easy ones. The team Y gets knocked out in 70 runs and their bowlers are put under heavy pressure. Then opening batsmen of South Africa just keep the scorecard moving and easily cruise their team to 10 wickets victory. Team Y never has a chance.

History books, movies and novels have romantically emphasized the heroics that happened in the Khan-Shivaji meeting at the base of Pratapgad. However the real success is due to the everyday small victories achieved by Shivaji over a long period of time, small victories so boring in detail that no poet bothered to sing about it.

Let’s try to study the boring things that made Shivaji such an interesting leader.

When Khan landed in Deccan, he could not make a lot of friends. Because Shivaji’s generals Kanhoji Jedhe and Baji Pasalkar worked tirelessly with Jahagirdars and Watandars in the area. Using diplomacy, they made sure people did not switch sides. Khan never gained a strong foothold in the Southern Konkan and Sahyadri mountains. Make friends, win allies , build network is lesson 101 for any venture. Period.

To begin the second point, I have a question for you. Think of three or four kings other than Shivaji. Now tell me the names of their intelligence chiefs. Most probably you are shaking your head now.
Now tell me the name of Shivaji’s intelligence chief. Pretty much all of you will shout “Bahirji Naik”.
Why you know the name of only Shivaji’s intelligence chief? Because in Shivaji’s reign, the intelligence gathering was formal. The chief of intelligence was raised to the rank of Sardar and was given due importance.
Shivaji put in place a formal and extensive intelligence network which was headed by Bahirji. These spies disguised as Sadhus, street musicians, barbers worked in the dark as Shivaji’s eyes and ears. Piece by piece, word by word the information was gathered, passed on and analyzed.
In case of Afzal khan, Maratha generals knew how many soldiers Khan had, how many cannons, how much money, how much ammunition he was bringing. They knew when Khan began his journey. They knew who met Khan. They knew what messages Khan sent to headquarters. They were able to predict his next move. This allowed Shivaji to adapt, to be proactive, to focus his power where it mattered. This strong intelligence pretty much wiped out the numbers advantage Khan had in terms of soldiers, guns and ammunition.
Importance of strong intelligence cannot be overemphasized.

Thirdly, look at the details of Pratapgad and other battles very carefully and you will find something interesting. When Afzal khan was killed, Shivaji rushed on the fort again and fired cannon shots. Remember Baji Prabhu’s battle of Ghod Khind? Baji prabhu let go of the battle when he heard cannon shots. When the battle of Sinhgad ended, the first thing the soldiers did was to light a haystack in fire, which was visible to Shivaji on Shivneri fort.
There seems to be a consistent pattern here. Clear and consistent communication protocols. Seemingly small thing. But it makes a big difference.
When the Maratha army heard the cannon shots fired from Pratap gad, they knew what the signal meant. They knew the outcome of Shivaji- Afzal khan encounter before of Afzal Khan’s army found it out. They had a headstart in executing their action plan.
When Baji prabhu was holding the Horse Pass (Ghod Khind), his mission was clear. Till you hear cannon shots, do whatever it takes to protect the pass. The moment you hear shots, abandon the pass, disperse the soldiers, do not waste a single minute or a single soldier from that point on. No guesswork there. No confusions. No misunderstandings.
No matter what organization , project or relationship you are dealing with. If everybody is on the same page, and if there are no open ends to communication loops, number of mistakes will drastically reduce.

Fourth point, remember letters written by Shivaji to the guards on ammunition warehouse? He gave them clear instruction that the lamps in the warehouse should be guarded manually 24/7 to avoid chances of rats knocking them out causing explosion. This is no different than some actions of General Eisenhower, who several times insisted on making sure clean water is available to soldiers. Why? He was scared that soldiers will fall ill if they drink dirty water.
Shivaji’s had given strict instructions to keep fort doors closed at night, which forced to Hira , the milk vendor woman, to climb down the cliff when she got stranded inside. Shivaji had given orders to people not to ride horse to the Takmak-tok (a cliff called Takmak) on Raigad.
Things like this reduce accidents, reduce nasty surprises, reduce uncertainty in planning. Over a long period of time, you save a lot of soldiers and weapons if you reduce accidents. A soldier saved is a soldier gained. Also such caring attitude builds a sense of confidence in soldiers that their lives are being appreciated and will not be wasted.

Fifth point, choosing the point of escalation.
When Afzal khan entered Maharashtra, first he roamed around on Deccan plateau. He destroyed temples in an attempt to incite Shivaji. Shivaji did not escalate the matters. Khan committed atrocities. Shivaji chose not to respond. Khan attacked and conquered several forts. Shivaji kept quiet. Khan attacked Pune. Shivaji just sucked up that insult.
If there is a man who has killed your brother in the past (Khan had killed Shivaji’s brother Shambhu raje) and who comes back and one by one destroys the things you love and revere, won’t you respond in revenge? You will right? That’s why you are not Shivaji.

In spite of several people urging Shivaji to come out and save “Hindu Dharma”, Shivaji did not take any of Khan’s baits. He waited patiently for the right time. Then he sent several signals to Afzal khan indicating he was scared and is thinking about surrender. He chose the time, he chose the place where they would meet. He got Khan on home pitch of Maratha army. Shivaji did not enter Khan’s trap. He got Khan in his trap. And that point he committed the first act of violence and attack.

The planning that went into executing this escalation was impressive. When Shivaji met Khan, they met at the bottom of Pratapgad, where the geography, which consisted of hills and forests, made Khan’s cannons and elephants almost useless. The roads were few and difficult to travel fast. The Maratha’s had cut several trees partially such that on a moments notice, the trees could be pushed to break and the roads could be blocked.
Shivaji met Khan where Khan’s army was almost ineffective. He requested Khan to leave all but one bodyguards away, thus further reducing Khan’s dominating position. He came covered in armor from head to toe, taking no chances. He carefully chose his weapon. He carefully chose his bodyguard to counter Khan’s bodyguard. He left nothing to chance.
The Maratha generals were instructed to carry out battles in a specific way. They were instructed to carry out more surgical strikes rather than destructive strikes. They were instructed to first take out the generals and commanders in a quick strike to create chaos, then capture the wealth , ammunition and horses. That’s why most of the Khan’s generals were killed pretty much immediately after Khan was killed.
There was a firm plan B in place. Shivaji had left clear instructions with his mother and close insiders about what to do in case of his death. Mother Jijabai was to rule under the name of Shivaji’s son Sambhaji.
Every detail was planned carefully. Every possibility considered and every corner covered.

Same shrewdness was shown by Shivaji when he chose to attack Shahiste-Khan and when he dealt with rebel Chandrarao More from Jawali.

So, there seems to be five part strategy of Shivaji’s military adventures.
1. Build a strong network of allies.
2. Use Formal Intelligence gathering.
3. Clearly defined communication protocols to reduce misunderstandings and confusions at the last minute. (In war, every minute is the last minute.)
4. Set of rules and guidelines to keep the forces ready, safe and alert.
5. Well planned escalations rather than hot headed counter attacks.

By conceiving such brilliant strategies, Shivaji prevailed against forces much larger than him and became a legend. When he became a legend, people sang about his heroics and forgot about the strategies.

World likes a shining knight, riding a white horse, who rescues a princess, a lot more than it likes a king who carefully planned and created a safe world where the princess would not be kidnapped at all.

Two people were waiting on the bank of a river. They were waiting for the ferry to take them to the other side of the river. To kill the time, they started talking.

“I am a lifelong student. I have spent all my life searching for the truth.” The first one said.

“I feel I am about to find it.” He continued. ” I have been told that there is a teacher on the other side of the river who is very knowledgeable and insightful. If I get to meet him, he will help me get enlightened.”

“Very nice.” The second one said. “But are you sure you want to get enlightened? Are you sure that it will end all your problems?”

“Seems to me that you know nothing about enlightenment. It is eternal bliss. It is death of deaths. It is escape from the cycles of life. It is attained by only the most knowledgeable.” The first one replied.

“Indeed. I don’t know enough about enlightenment.” Said the second person. “But let me ask you a simple question. “

“Look at that.” Pointing to a wildflower at some distance , he said ” What color is that flower?”.

“That is a blue wildflower.” Said the first one.

“I wonder what color it will look to you when you are enlightened.” Remarked the second one.

That was the moment of enlightenment for the first person.

—

Substitute “enlightenment” with any other accomplishment you have in your mind, graduation, job, finding love or winning lottery, and you will realize that no matter what you achieve, a blue wildflower will always look blue.

No matter how big accomplishment you achieve or no matter how badly you fail, a big part of your life will remain the same. The color of the sky, taste of water, sensation of hot and cold will be the same. Mountains and rivers will look the same, breeze and sunlight will always feel the same.

So put every accomplishment, every pursuit in right perspective. Do not hold your entire life hostage to your pursuits.

Even the small part that changes as a result of culmination of pursuits is most of the times in our mind. Say you get a million dollars right now. All that changes is how you look at the world. Not the world. A million dollars will save you from some dangers, not all. It will not save you from earthquake.

This disillusionment is the beginning of spiritual journey.

A monk was walking up a mountain when he met a peasant who was also on the same path. To kill the time, they started talking. The monk told the peasant that purpose of his trip was to find truth. The teacher of the monk had told that he would find the truth at the mountain top. The peasant said it was his daily routine to go up that trail and gather firewood.

As they were talking, the monk started teaching the peasant about the philosophy. The peasant was listening. But every once in a while he would pick up a dried wood stick and add it to the bundle on his shoulder. The monk was slightly irritated that peasant was not paying 100% attention to the valuable knowledge he was sharing. But he kept quiet.

When they reached the mountaintop, the monk asked the peasant “So do you understand what I taught you so far?”

The peasant nodded.

“What did you understand?”

The peasant lifted the bundle of firewood on his shoulder and threw it down. The string tying the bundle broke loose and the firewood scattered everywhere.

At that moment,the monk found his truth and he was enlightened.

–

Explaining a Zen story is like explaining a joke Best is one thinks about it himself/herself. But still let me give it a shot.

Basically what the peasant says is “Let go (of your desires, plans, actions, strategies).”

This is one of the Jataka story and the peasant is Bodhisattva in his previous reincarnation.

We all accoustomed to material world find this perplexing. If you fulfill your desires, then you get pleasure. So why should one let go of them? The point is fulfilling a desire conditions our mind to desire more.

Another way to look at it is like this. If you are unhappy because you don’t have something, then according to Zen, you are unhappy not because you don’t have something, but because you have something. Unhappiness is not because of lack of that thing, but it is because of existence of desire of that thing.

When you “externalize” desire like this, and see that it is like an extra tumor developed on your otherwise perfect mind, it is easier to understand how letting go helps.

“But letting go means accepting you are not capable of it. It’s like behaving a loser.”

Is Zen the way of a loser? No. It is the way of those who know that they have already won.