The purpose of the conversation is to express and exchange information and ideas with others. This communication may be either spoken or written. It may be an expression of differing opinions to convince another individual or group to narrow down their differences.

The conversation may happen internally within a group, say, for decision-making. This may also be between people, groups, institutions, governments, the media, experts, and others. This includes internal and external communication within and between all sections. It may be a simple exchange or a deep interaction.

When we talk about analytical processes and decision-making, it is to address problems and evolve solutions. The roots of the problems and the collection of information in respect of them may not rest internally and may extend to any part of the system, including the people.

The operation to diagnose, treat, and cure the disease may start with any part, including the root, depending on the urgency, type of ailment, condition of the patient, and expertise of the doctor or surgeon. This includes the equipment and tools that we possess or create.

The conversation includes long-term actions like creating awareness and educating people about all types of problems. The attitudinal, behavioural, cultural, and emotional issues are long-term problems. But the absence of information or internal discussions is more of the short-term type.

All types of conversations can take place simultaneously to address one issue or many issues. It may be between any combination of groups, both as long-term and short-term measures. The conversations will reduce the gaps, leading to better understanding and solutions.

But the conversations are mostly very limited. They are flawed, improper, incomplete, and lack focus. People’s involvement is rare. No one is less important, whether one is inside the governmental structure or outside it. The whole perception and process are flawed.

People include many with abilities and experience. They may volunteer their opinion. Many of them will do it willingly, whether in groups or as individuals, if institutions are receptive and responsive. It may come at a very low cost. Everyone can make suggestions.

All interactions are very valuable. Whether it is between people, institutions, experts, groups, or anyone else, they do bring clarity. They can become more productive if the interactions are in-depth, logical, objective, and focused. Those who control or guide it can ensure it.

We can go on endlessly about flaws in our conversation. There is no need for it, as it is very clear that the scope to improve is immense. One thing that needs to be mentioned is that most of us are not open-minded. The degree may vary, but if we change, it will benefit us.

We are not receptive to new ideas. We hold on to our views as if they were property rights, intellectual or real, with no value. The real value is the commitment to logic, sense, and truth. One’s perception should change if ideas appeal to their conscience, mind, or heart.

We get habituated to holding on to our views firmly without applying our minds or inner voices. Feeling correct means feeling prejudiced against new information. Conversations bring clarity to our minds and thoughts. We should be receptive and responsive in our conversations.

Conversations narrow the space between people with different views and perceptions. This in turn leads to the consolidation of views to limit them within the boundaries of reason, sense, clarity, agreement, accord, and unity. Their energies will then be spent in productive ways.

Few may think that everything is going right. But there is something alarming about the absence of conversation and the proliferation of information. These weaknesses create wide variations in perception, opinion, and decisions. 

We have vast potential that remains highly underutilised. We have the necessary expertise to undertake the systemic analysis. If corrections in approach are possible, we can evolve an appropriate methodology and apply it. It will bring clarity and improve the quality of decisions. For that, the conversations should be open and free-flowing.

We may cite a typical example of wide variations in thought processes and perceptions. The Supreme Court recently stayed an Allahabad High Court order that sought to ascertain if the rape victim was Mangalik. A High Court is seeking astrological help to solve a relationship dispute.

This is the extent to which we expand our thoughts and horizons. It may be said that it is an exceptional case. What kind of exception it is and from where it comes are to be noted. Let us imagine the state of affairs at lower levels, with so many dilutions and views that exist.

This happens mainly because of the following reasons:

• Absence of focused criticism and analysis
• No effective attempt for systemic corrections to stop such errors
• Believing that it is not possible to make corrections
• When unchecked, the continuing proliferation of such views and thoughts

This indicates the enormity of the problems. We try to avoid solving them, fearing the magnitude of the task. We doubt the viability of a solution, as no one in the past or present has attempted it. We leave it for others to do when the scope and conducive atmosphere for such actions open up.

Have we lost our abilities not only to use our power but also to think, apply ideas, or mobilise talents wherever they are available to search for and find solutions? Is it really risky to search for solutions? Do we really know what the cost of analysis or application of mind is?

Why should we succumb to the fear of failure when there is absolutely no risk at all? Why should we dream about the Holocaust and the tsunami when there are several steps before implementation? Can we not assess the viability of a process or conduct a trial to test it?

The problem is that no conversation or discussion that takes place in public space goes in-depth to the root of the problems. They are left to the experts, bureaucrats, executives, researchers, and so on. Perhaps the time and abilities of these specialists are limited, so they do not waste or spend these resources.

Our system itself is so diluted and dilated that everyone is liberal with their views, interpretations, and opinions. It is not easy to check them in a democracy, and when unchecked, they deteriorate with the passage of time. 

Further, we have the freedom of speech and expression to articulate our opinions and ideas without fear. Our thought process widely varies. We still have wide disparities at the educational, social, and cultural levels. So multiple voices of opinion and views exist.

The behavioural and attitudinal problems of individuals add another dimension by damaging communication and thus the decision-making process. Further, they set time targets to force or quicken the process. This dilutes the quality of decisions.

These are a few samples. If cases are analysed, it will open Pandora’s box, as we have many eccentric and quixotic characters who are involved in making inconceivable and questionable decisions. These are not surprising; the process mostly lacks the seriousness it deserves.

In public issues, the decisions impact a large number of people. We can ignore it if it is a small group or family. Every opportunity to improve the system should be explored. We are unaware of the scope for improvement and the vast potential for excellence that remains untapped.

We know the Chinese slogan, “Let a hundred flowers blossom.” It is okay for our democracy if it is 100, if not millions. But we cannot interpret and act in 100 ways and create a free-for-all. We are to analyse and evolve a unified approach from different views to make decisions.

How do dispute-solving mechanisms operate to solve disputes or differences? They collect all the information or evidence on that issue, analyse them for their value, substance, and accuracy, and then come to a conclusion on what is right. The same applies to decision-making.

If the decision-makers cut short the process without analysing all the information and narrowing the differences, then the solutions will end up with errors, failures, disenchantment, disharmony, disputes, and litigation, in addition to the wastage of resources.

Individuals in responsible positions tend to have the inflated view that they are the best and know it all. It need not be so. We will come to know our limitations only when we are receptive and allow criticism. The words of Socrates may help us to understand: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. 

One may have the education and qualifications to occupy responsible positions. Still, such individuals may not be aware of all the nuances of the system, the circumstances, or the people operating it. A university education alone may not be enough. One may need universal education and an open mind to know the realities. 

One may not be vested with prior knowledge but should have the ability to acquire it by mobilising talents and information to make appropriate decisions. Exposure and experience teach more about how the system works.

Everyone wants to come to power and have their views and interpretations work to perpetuate their hold on power. They do not know how to address systemic issues. They impose their ideas or follow their bureaucrats. The ideas do not reside in a few heads. It is everywhere. 

We should know how to mobilise them. We may think we are supreme and can do it. We are always sure about what others do not know, but we are not so sure about what we do not know. Everyone is prone to mistakes. It is necessary to correct them by keeping ourselves receptive to criticism.

Once in power and position, many suddenly become enlightened or honourable. They are not special or extraordinary, and they do not have a halo around their heads. But they tend to set the rules, change directions, and start preaching. They tend to become talkers, not listeners. That way, they become lesser human beings.

I know that all attitude is sheer vanity, pride, bogus claims, and empty rhetoric.

What is the guarantee they will have all the information unless they explore, open up to others, and listen? Their support system may also be faulty in its information, analysis, and solution.

The quality of decisions depends on the decision-makers and the process adopted for decision-making. It is invariably riddled with problems and errors at every step, viz., collection of information, interaction, analysis, and evolution of decision. 

Most of us have the innate ability to understand what is right. But do we get all the information we need while making decisions? It is unlikely, as the flow of information and the process of discussion are invariably faulty. 

Rarely do two people agree totally about every aspect of life. There is scope for acceptance of others’ views if there is a conversation for the exchange of opinions, information, and ideas related to the issue. But it does not go to its full length. It gets short-circuited.

If individuals are receptive and responsive, the conversation may reach its logical end. But egos come into play. They tend to stand firm in their views. The arguments or silences follow. There is no meeting of minds or thoughts to interact and eliminate discord.

There is never a level playing field in discussions. Some adopt or impose a domineering role by virtue of their expertise, exposure, experience, language, power, position, and so on. The others may also have new information or innovative ideas but are denied their comfort zone.

Everyone may not be equal in their strengths or weaknesses. But everyone needs to be heard in whatever way possible. It may be a presentation of their views, thoughts, or ideas either vocally or in writing, or through separately organised meetings in person or in groups.

The free flow of information, ideas, or views on any matter is absolutely essential, as we do not know where the true value lies. This is so even if we presume to be 95% close to perfection on our assessment. Individuals may be experts, but they should have the patience to listen.

This should not block the flow of information and ideas. The communication, sorting of data, and analysis are a lot cheaper than the costly meetings in board rooms and hotels, which eventually may have less meaningful interaction and more publicity. We have to reset our minds and approach.

Loktantra and truth

What does this title ‘People, System and Analysis’ mean? Are we not referring to Lok-Tantra and Truth? 

Tantra is a system or method. Lok denotes people. But do we know the truth? Here we include not only the people but all, including the rulers, leaders, executives, media, opinion-makers, and so on.

This is an ever-changing world, people, and their mindsets. Is it not true that only through search and re-search do we reach the truth, or somewhere near it? 

Is it not true that analysis represents that search? But it has to be comprehensive. It has to be better than research, as research is not always complete. Comprehensive analysis should involve conversation and discussion to reach maximum perfection or near truth to the extent possible.

Rulers do not need analysts and uncomfortable truths

The present-day Rajas, Mantries, or handlers who manage the system think they know the truth and can manage to receive sage advice if needed

They do not want to be breached or preached about the unknown and uncomfortable truth by unsolicited and unwanted analysts. 

It would be better for such analysts to go to a forest and pray to the sages to come back with their troops of sishyas to help, as no one is going to listen to these analysts and their search or research about truth.

Lok-Tantra and Truth become Event Management

Our rulers are event managers. They do not want Loktantra. The Tantra or system they want is to benefit them, not the people. They want people because they have the right to vote under our constitution. 

If the people do not listen, they will manage their votes with the machine. Their machines will become mature and packed with intelligence, including artificial ones, with which they will manipulate and convert all votes. 

If this is a cumbersome process, they will use machines to convert Loktantra to Rajtantra and rule with their version of the system to thrust on people their preset agenda with deceptions, delusions, distortions, and lies.

People, systems, and truth suffer; lies spread

All are busy managing their events. The media channels manage the same materials, with some changes when events, panellists, writers, or participants change. Some stage dramas to reach and catch people. 

The political parties in the opposition are trying to strengthen their parties and making plans with allies to defeat the rulers. The social media and opinion makers are not doing anything significantly different, as their roles are aiding others. 

The changes in perception are due to the failures of the rulers and the unity displayed by the opposition. Otherwise, the condition of the system and its functioning are deteriorating. People are unaware of the truth, while lies are spread everywhere. 

They do not search for the truth behind issues. Whatever comes out is superficial. They do not have the machinery to dig deeper into the system or the truth. 

The rulers do not want the truth to surface, but their lies to spread. The efforts made by media, opposition, opinion makers, social media, and others to bring out the truth before the people are inadequate. 

The net result is that people continue to suffer. It is not due to the failures of the rulers alone. Everyone has failed. That is the truth. That includes rulers, opposition, courts, media, opinion-makers, lawyers, and, of course, the system and its handlers. 

Everyone can talk about the limitations and the circumstances. No one gets a perfect situation on hand before addressing issues or problems. They have not adequately explored the potential to respond to the situation. The fact is, they have not utilised the opportunities and talents they had with them.

A deeper analysis can bring them out. But that requires organised machinery and a support system. There is nothing impossible. We can at least improve upon our approach. But there should be awareness. When we don’t have an open mind and are receptive and responsive, it is difficult.

Do we know what people want?

The opposition may be confident about the widely prevailing perception that there will be a change in the regime for the good of the people. The surveys indicate that people are dissatisfied with the current regime and want change. 

The rulers may say that they know how to rule and roll over the opposition and the country. There is no threat to their regime, as their leader knows how to get their votes.

But do we really know what people want? It may not be just the change or the alternative leader or government. Maybe they want permanent solutions to their problems. They are testing everyone from time to time. Are they fully satisfied with them?

Will the new regime address all issues concerning the people involving all the structures of the government and its institutions, from the village, town, state, and central level? 

The leaders may be changed. Can the new set of leaders change the way the system and those in positions of power function? They may provide relief, not solutions.

Some good leaders may come. But the changes and actions have to take place at the roots, at every level. They have to bring about changes in the system and the way in which they work. 

The system should not be dependent on one or a few individuals. They may improve it, but the system has to be strengthened to protect itself from destructive elements that may be visible or invisible. 

A good regime will deliver some improvements to the people. But we do not know how the negative forces and characters work. If the system is not protected from them, people will not get what they want.

The need to be proactive 

We should not get it wrong here. Good regimes are welcome. But their attempts should be to perpetuate the benefits and welfare of people and their living conditions, not their regimes. That is the best and right way to perpetuate their regime. 

We should understand the present situation. We are not addressing the roots of the problems. The search and analysis have to take place for every issue or problem. Our system is not delivering it. Crisis management and ad hoc measures have become the norm, but they are not permanent relief or solutions. 

When we are not aware of the problems or their depth, how are we going to be aware of our potential to improve? We try to attend to and may try to solve the complaints and demands that come to our attention. What about those that are not allowed to pass through the system to reach our attention? 

There has to be system-based proactive action for analysing problems, errors, and failures. We have to get to the roots of the problems. A comprehensive search and analysis have to take place to address issues and bring permanent relief and solutions. 

We cannot and should not avoid these steps. We have to initiate measures. To the extent we address them, solutions will emerge. People will get what they want.

The indisputable facts, inescapable Actions and targets

(Booklet: The Problems And Potential Of India: An Analysis And A Path)

---

How can the solutions be explained in a few pages for such a big issue bearing this title?

Individuals dominate; the System is in chains

How can we ignore the unimaginable loss for the common people due to systemic failures and unexplored potential?

Let Us Be Aware Of The Inescapable Actions And Targets

1. Analytical processing and systemic corrections have to happen.

2. Conversation, discussion, and awareness among people are absent or low. The truth has to reach them.

3. Ignorance and suffering are all-pervasive. The truth is deceptive, distorted, and invisible. Massive efforts by analytical and research teams are needed to unearth the truth.

4. Individual supremacy, dominance, or arrogance will never end unless suitable measures are adopted to check them.

5. Analytical teams can be private or public. They can undertake analysis and research on all issues. They will bring out the truth and evolve solutions; everyone needs them. 

6. Is it so beneficial? Yes, that is the truth. Sometimes the truth is baffling because we do not try to unearth it. Let us be futuristic and act with foresight.

7. Is it possible? Organising analytical teams is not difficult. No extraordinary skills are needed. 

8. Is it risky? It is not a case of one big issue or project, but a bundle of problems with independent existences and solutions. Most problems are solvable. Risks are nonexistent. 

A Final Note:

This booklet is being uploaded to this website. Seven posts have been published. The contents are presented sequentially as the search and analysis unfold. The other chapters will be uploaded soon. We have circulated the PDF document to a few for their views and comments. We may send it if we have the contact IDs of those interested. Feedback is needed to chart the next course of action.

The booklet has details about the logic and reasons for the approach adopted and the path suggested for solutions. The plans, possibilities, potential, and procedural aspects for the use and deployment of the analytical teams and groups are covered in detail under the headings The Proposal and The Players. 

We have also included an annexure, – The Example, an explanatory and exploratory narration to illustrate how this comprehensive analytical process works and how different angles can be pursued to evolve systemic solutions. It is only presented for the limited purpose of explaining the process. It is only indicative, not exhaustive.

We have vast talent and expertise. Conversations and discussions will open up opportunities for better utilisation of their potential for the good of our people and country.

All comments, opinions, views, and criticism are welcome. They will be sorted, consolidated, and replied to as a continuation of this exercise. Communications online will always be open. 

---

Search

Search

A system is a way of working, organising, or doing something that follows a fixed plan or set of rules. The term system may refer to an organisation, institution, or any group that is organised with a set of rules. It may be a political or democratic system; it may be groups, societies, sets of individuals, or different sections of people with some rules and identities. 

We are now looking into the problems with our political and democratic system, the groups of people operating it, and the sections of groups and people affected by it.

Any system created will have imperfections. The failures may be due to the inadequacies of the system or the people who operate it. When one or a few people fail, it may be due to the errors of the individuals concerned or coincidences. When many fail in the same way, it may be a systemic failure. 

The scope of systemic corrections is to be examined. When operational failures happen repeatedly, we try to set right the inadequacies and imperfections to prevent their recurrence by amending the rules or the system and creating checks. The responsibility for correcting them falls back into the domain of the system’s handlers.

Some individuals, upright characters, or those with special abilities could foresee systemic inadequacies and uphold the spirit and rules of the system. Many others, who may be in the majority, may fail; they may fall below expectations; they may be unable to overcome systemic inadequacies but succumb to them.

The system is to be designed for normal characters, and they should be able to operate it and succeed. One should not need unique characteristics to follow the right path or be good at decision-making. The system should be set right to enable normal individuals, who form the majority, to avert such failures. 

There is another angle to this. Many excessively blame the limitations of circumstances and the system for not taking decisions that fall within their power. This may be their self-imposed limitation. They may have talents. But they try to escape without making an effort. It is a game people play. 

The easygoing lifestyle of society also affects them. It is more convenient to go with the wind and crowd than to stand upright and take risks. Exceptional performance is not essential, while non-performance is not risky. 

It is not that risky to follow the right path. When one stands firm, others will become hesitant and fearful. Many do not lose much by choosing the right path. They may even gain. It is a relative assessment, perception, and choice of the quality of life one wants.

There is a need to analyse all such errors or failures and make necessary checks through the system and also in the supervisory mechanisms. It is not difficult to identify and classify errors or failures. But if we jump to conclusions without analysing them, they go unchecked and get repeated.

Can we change the perception and understanding of everyone, or some if not all, in this corrupted society? Nothing is impossible in this world. The weaknesses slowly creep into the system. The failures and successes are to be thoroughly analysed to update the system.

When failures and mistakes become viruses without efforts to diagnose the root cause, we will stumble and get perplexed. Fixing symptoms will not help. An in-depth analysis to set the process right will bring solutions. This analysis moves in that direction. There are many steps along the way.

When Mahatma Gandhi led India’s freedom struggle, he gave shape and character to it with an uncommon agenda of peaceful Satyagraha and Non-Cooperation. That vision was valuable. Basically, Indians are peace-loving, and we had no chance if we waged war in whatever other way against the British rulers.

In addition to this uncharted path, the contrasting views were discussed, and thought processes were initiated to know what was right. These were part of our culture, rich heritage, and civilization. They were discussing and progressing without modern communication tools.

Perhaps we are more evolved now, and in the process, we have lost some of our civilised behaviour and culture. Many fight for shares of the riches. Some try to perpetuate their hold on power, creating rifts and divisions. The problems of people fighting for survival do not get serious attention.

Let us hope this is an interim slip while we are stuttering as a nascent democracy. But without looking at our failures and mistakes, we are never going to correct them for decades, or maybe centuries. If some people think everything is on the right path, they are in an imaginary world.

We had many leaders in the past who excelled in their jobs. One of them is Seshan, as CEC. He adopted the right path with courage, firmness, and clarity of mind. He did what he was supposed to do. Many became heroes like him because others were hesitant, fearful, or tactful escapists.

The common factor in characters like Seshan is that they are not afraid of speaking the truth or using power without fear of the consequences. They are not afraid of choosing a lonely path that differs from others. They are very much human. But why do we try to make them gods?