Tolerance for Civilized Coexistence

Sankarshan Acharya
Founder, Pro-Prosperity.Com and Citizens for Development

November 7, 2015

Related: Triumph of Ancient Philosophy over Modern Ethos for Liberty

To: Honorable President of India, Prime Minister, Supreme Court, Leaders of Opposition, Chief Ministers,
Secretary of Sahitya Academi, Chairman of Indian Council of Philosophical Research,
Chief of RSS and All Indians

Cc: Honorable President Barack Obama of USA

            Please feel free to circulate.

Date:   November 7, 2015

Sub:     Unanimously agreeable rational definition of Tolerance necessary for civilized coexistence.

1.  Gandhism is not rationally and unanimously agreeable tolerance

A rational articulation of tolerance should start with the most tolerant human in modern history: Gandhi has been hailed as Mahatma and named father of Indian nation.  Top scientist Albert Einstein talks of Gandhi: "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.” 

Gandhi has called for unity in humanity through personal sacrifice and tolerance.  But he failed to unify people because his call amounted to bondage of enterprising individuals to serve indolent usurpers.  Such call for unity could not be unanimously agreeable. So, it failed. Notwithstanding universal admiration of his persona:

  • Gandhi did not know/discover any unanimously agreeable principle or unifying philosophy of governance.
  • He was parochial and racial for targeting eviction of the British, not of the colluding Indians, from Colonial Raj.  Gandhi did not fight for universal liberty of people.  He pleaded with the British rulers in South Africa that Indians were superior to blacks.[1]  This exhibited his inherent belief that he and fellow Indians were racially superior to deserve better status than black South Africans. 
  • Gandhi was first allied with the British.  Only after failing to achieve equal status with the British, he joined the fight against the British Rule in India.  This indicates that he would have perhaps not joined the struggle for India's independence, had he attained proper status and employment in UK, South Africa or India under British Rule.
  • Why did Gandhi anoint Pandit Nehru as the first prime minister of India by transgressing party democracy that had overwhelmingly elected Sardar Patel to be the PM?[2]  Gandhi's action shows that he was prejudiced towards elitists and against the vast majority of non-elite Indians.
  • Gandhi personally failed to earn sufficient income (through production of goods and services for others) to defray his living expenses in India, UK and South Africa.  He thus failed to financially liberate himself.  This failure perhaps led him to austerity and asceticism to remain self-reliant and to depend on others only for his freedom movement.  Financial dependence from those embedded with the British rule led to a neocolonial India upon independence.  As a result, Gandhi could not liberate the vast majority of non-elite Indians. 
  • Gandhi chose a prime minister (Pandit Nehru) who thoroughly divided India based on language, caste, tribe and social status with parochial satraps appointed to control people within each division. This divisive strategy of administration and control weakened enterprising Indians so badly that they were defeated in the 1962 war with China.

Gandhi cultivated a psyche among people to think of joining politics only after their repeated failures to earn their own livelihood through production of goods and services for others in society.  Many people and their leaders now consider the Gandhian disobedient movement a legitimate strategy to blackmail government institutions with an ulterior motive to usurp indolently the fruits (goods and services) of labor of enterprising individuals.  Enterprising Indians have been thus enslaved by Gandhism bequeathed to India upon independence. Gandhism retarded enterprising individuals' willingness to produce their best.  Many of them emigrated.  India's economic output suffered. 

Gandhism is, therefore, not tolerance.  Neither could Gandhism be the basis for defining tolerance rationally and unanimously agreeably.

2.  Islam and democracy couldn't attain human freedom 

The architect of Islam, Mohammed, and the builder of modern America, Abraham Lincoln, emancipated slaves in their times but could not create a sustainable path towards freedom.  Islam started with proclamation of equality of all humans and became a dominant religious path to freedom.  But monarchs or dictatorial heads running most Islamic countries considered themselves as superior to the Muslims they ruled.  Democracy then ensued by granting equality of every vote to elect rulers. But the current financial bondage of a vast majority of enterprising individuals in the democratic world shows that freedom has eluded humans.

In September 2015, I watched a recently released movie on Prophet Mohammed.  This movie is approved by the Egyptian government as factual.  Mohammed saw how kings in Mecca were claiming to be descendants of god and using their lineage to capture slaves.  He went hiding in the caves to script edicts - known as prophecy of Allah - which he dispatched to the kings practicing slavery. While the kings read the edicts, many slaves mustered courage to escape captivity and embrace Islam.  Kings were thus enervated.  Weakened kings had no option but to accept Islam.  A few kings continued to fight against the followers of Islam even without the slave power, but ultimately saw in Mohammed a selfless individual seeking equality of all humans. 

Mohammed and his Islam could not still unify people because the freed slaves followed scripts (Quoran and Sunnah and Sariat) as sacrosanct and failed to catch up with rising scientific knowledge.  After Mohammed died, kings exploited Islam's popularity to restrict even the enterprising Muslims to the confines of the scripts by keeping them away from rapidly evolving science.  Middle East was one of the frontiers of new knowledge before the advent of Islam.  It has now become one of the most unscientific regions as the freed slaves inspired by Islam did not consider it necessary to learn science to produce goods and services for others.  Most Islamic nations became un-Islamic with kings turning dictatorial to subjugate Islamic masses.  Mogul kings invaded India and Indonesia to do the same thing: enslave by robbing hard earned wealth of enterprising individuals. 

Prophet Mohammed has been rendered redundant by democracy founded on the basic thrust of Islam to grant equal right to everyone.  Could democracy free the humans?  The most revered democratically elected U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, faced this question.  He followed (consciously or subconsciously) the Mohammedan strategy of liberating slaves in USA with his famous emancipation declaration.  But he did not make his will sacrosanct.  He created land-grant universities to offer the best quality education based on latest research to the working class to build what is now known as modern America, contributing to 23% of global GDP. 

But, alas, the American system crashed and the economy collapsed in 2008, which publicly bared how the vast majority of enterprising individuals has been financially enslaved.  Much of the economic growth and size of US GDP has been financially engineered. 

3.  Rise of unanimously agreeable rationale and philosophy of governance 

When I warned the US Congress about the necessity to repeal the system (rules) of unconstitutional robbery, I noticed at the same time (2003) that India did not need rules for similar robbery of private and public wealth.  In 2003, Citizens for Development started rational discourse with Indian leaders on such issues.  The secretary of President Kalam once told me fondly that I was troubling the staff at Rastrapati Bhavan as they had been instructed to submit well-organized files containing CFD memos and all relevant citations downloaded for Dr. Kalam.  Dr. Kalam had invited me in 2003 (when I was in Hong Kong) and some others for a chat over internet to develop India. 

The kinds of actions taken by Vajpayee-Kalam duo and then Kalam-Manmohan duo drew the attention of the U.S. White House with remarks from President Bush like who had organized a meeting between Hindu and Muslim 'fundamentalists' in July 2003 and later from the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman about the irreversible path to greatness of India (championed by CFD) by opening new IITs, IIITs, NICERs and AIIMSs. 

Following my January 2005 memo on Enhancing American Competitiveness[3], the White House held a secret communication (published later in Washington Post) with the State Department to somehow keep India on the side of USA as a friend even by offering nuclear and other restricted technologies.  The offer of Bush Administration to India took Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his delegation (visiting USA in 2006) by so much surprise during a joint Indo-US meeting that the Indian team had to bandy around hand written notes to make their impromptu response on the spot. 

As India progressed with first-best efficient strategies pursued by President Kalam with PMs Vajpayee and Singh, eyebrows were raised by Anglo-American strategists about India rising under the missile man, who had 'taken away' missile technology secrets during his past visits to conferences in USA.   Dr. Kalam could not get a second term as president and Dr. Manmohan Singh had to surrender power thereafter.  How this was orchestrated bemuses me.  But I was certainly targeted after the US Administration was positively swayed by my memos.  For example, my paper on A Unifying Philosophy of Governance[4] reached the Vatican via the White House.  It must have unnerved the Christian establishment in USA to force Google to blank out the link to this paper in Google searches in mid-2006.  I had to write to the president of Google to restore the link in Google searches on unifying philosophy of governance; I argued how this paper offered a universal platform for success of a demand-driven information disseminating giant. 

I was once worried about too many downloads of the paper A Unifying Philosophy of Governance in many middle-eastern countries.  But the Arab Spring followed and the Google head for middle east was found responsible for distributing papers and then arrested.  The Anglo-American establishment seems too frightened to let its embedded media publish the details about the papers distributed in middle-east to trigger Arab Spring.  

Spring in India too dawned.  Recall how Mr. Narendra Modi was ostracized by 'intellectuals' in USA and was even banned to deliver a scheduled video conference speech to the students and faculty at the Wharton School of U Penn.  The ulterior reason for the ban seemed obvious to me: Mr. Modi would somehow continue to follow first-best efficient governance to make India great again and subvert the established Anglo-American system of unconstitutional robbery.  Even my talks on first-best efficient governance and on how I landed in such research - scheduled by some research-minded students and faculty - were cancelled by administrators of the relatively less elite Xavier Institute of Management at Bhubaneswar, Institute of Mathematical Applications in Bhubaneswar and Berhampur University.

I wrote a memo to President Obama on November 4, 2013 entitled "A Sound Basis for USA-India Relation is Emerging:  First-best Efficient Governance."[5]  The US responded promptly. After this memo was circulated, significant events have occurred starting with removal of US ambassador to India:

The above narration is just a very brief glimpse of the efficacy of first-best efficient governance in the wake of vivid failure of Islam, Democracy and Gandhism in liberation of people.  The historical freedom movements failed because they were devoid of any unanimously agreeable rationale or philosophy of governance. The failure has frightened establishment leaders everywhere.

4.  Rational and unanimously agreeable definitions of tolerance

In a RATIONAL comprehensive general model of the economy, I have proved that first-best efficient governance is attainable in equilibrium.[6]  The first-best efficient governance is fundamentally fair.  So, it can be called Fundamentally Fair [Constitutional] Capitalism. Fundamental fairness is unique and unanimously agreeable since (a) no one including the unfairly privileged (e.g., a defeated political leader) prefers unfair treatment (meted, e.g., by the winning leaders), and (b) likewise no one including robbers prefers to be robbed. Constitutional Capitalism is, therefore, a unique unanimously agreeable rationale and philosophy of governance available to mankind.  This is not a dogma or presumption imposed or ordained by the author.  Constitutional Capitalism is attained in equilibrium within a contemporary rational economic model, which means that it is necessary for stability (so that people do not kill each other) and is efficient (so that limited natural resources including environment are not decimated).  Expressed as a simple preamble, Constitutional Capitalism connotes: the state (government of we the people) should not facilitate robbery of public or private wealth, even surreptitiously. This preamble is akin to the ancient philosophy scripted as the thrust of Gita, the message of Krishna articulated in a paper on this philosophy:[7]

The basis of unanimous agreeability is that individuals do not prefer to have their wealth (including life) robbed, even surreptitiously.  This preference is unanimous because even robbers do not want to be robbed.  I argue that unanimously agreeable norms are necessary for civilized co-existence of humans and are consistent with ancient philosophy (Hindutva), which originated in India more than 3000 years BC and scripted in the form of Gita.[8]  Gita is considered by the Supreme Court of India as a philosophical document.  The basic ethos of Gita is explicit and transparent: the state (King Dhristarastra) must not allow anyone (including privileged princes like Duryodhan) to take away others' (Pandavas') property even surreptitiously (through Sakuni's rigged game of Pashakhel).  The modern constitution states its preamble as individual freedom through rights to property, liberty and pursuit for happiness.  The ulterior goal of such constitutional preamble can be attained only if every individual's assets needed for freedom are not taken away.  The preamble of the modern constitution is not scripted as explicitly as the ethos of Gita.  If it were, modern rules facilitating surreptitious robbery of enterprising individuals and economic depressions would have been avoided.  Real world experience shows that widespread or inclusive economic prosperity can be attained only if unanimously agreeable norms form the basis of constitutional preamble and rules of law and by jettisoning the antithetic modern economic philosophy.

A triumphant philosophy originating in India and resurrected by an Indian within contemporary rational research must have induced every nation to befriend India for civilized coexistence under Constitutional Capitalism.  Intolerance and tolerance can be now defined unanimously agreeably and rationally:

Intolerance is transgression, even surreptitiously, of the unanimously agreeable principle and philosophy of governance. Tolerance is strict adherence to the unanimously agreeable principle and philosophy of governance (by letter and spirit) despite personal hardship

The rational implications of unanimously agreeable rational definitions of tolerance and intolerance are very profound:

  • Establishment of a system (rules) of governance-even if it has been enacted democratically-to facilitate fundamentally unfair (unconstitutional) robbery is intolerance.
  • Any direct, tacit or muted approval, consent or demeanor implying favor towards an established system (rules) of governance-even if it has been enacted democratically-to facilitate fundamentally unfair (unconstitutional) robbery is intolerance.
  • Demeaning, insulting or suppressing the author/promoter of fundamentally fair (constitutional) system (rules) of governance is intolerance
  • Personal sacrifice involved in propounding, pursuing and propagating a fundamentally fair system of governance is tolerance.

For example, a favorite Bollywood film hero like Shah Rukh Khan remaining taciturn towards the established system of fundamentally unfair robbery (shielded by democratically enacted laws) is intolerance.  I have once sent some of my memos to this favorite hero of mine.  Did he throw them?  Why is Bollywood reticent about the mega systemic robbery driven by rules of law passed democratically to shield the robbers?  Another favorite Bollywood hero of mine (Amitav Bachhan) has once disclosed his preference in his next life: to speak up everything he wanted to, which meant to me that there was a lot that he wanted speak but was afraid to do.  My dear Amitav Bachhan, speak up, you still have a long vibrant life; you have nothing to fear except your fear. 

Hollywood is not afraid of speaking against mega systemic robbery.  I have watched the trailer of a new movie, Big Short, which is slated to be released on December 11, 2015: When four outsiders saw what the big banks, media and government refused to, the global collapse of the economy, they had an idea: The Big Short. Their bold investment leads them into the dark underbelly of modern banking where they must question everyone and everything. Big Short story is written by Michael Lewis and played by lead actor Brad Pitt.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWr8hbUkG9s

I am not surprised about the logs to my website coming from Beverly Hills in Los Angeles. 

So, my dear Shah Rukh Khan, intolerance is being subdued by the juggernaut of unanimously agreeable principle and philosophy of governance.  You and other Bollywood leaders need to join this bandwagon, or else you lose out to Hollywood! 

5. How intolerance has become systemic

Assuming that no one can rationally disprove the above unanimously agreeable rational definitions of tolerance and intolerance, it is easy to decipher recent instances of intolerance in India and elsewhere:

  • The authors/writers advocating to urinate on Hindu gods like Krishna are intolerant for tacitly demeaning the authors and followers of the principle of unanimously agreeable rationale and philosophy of governance.  Those who killed such intolerant authors/writers have taken a grave risk of being prosecuted and jailed for taking the law into their hands out of desperation that the establishment had surreptitiously facilitated such intolerant writing by not chastising the authors/writers of intolerance.  The killers acted desperately against intolerance engineered by powerful vested interests - like the book publishers controlled by mega robbers that compensate intolerant authors/writers to perpetuate their systemic unconstitutional robbery by suppressing reemergence of any unanimously agreeable rationale and philosophy of governance.  The killers were, however, irrational and inefficient at least for their own sake. 

Incidentally, I have faced enormous intolerance including serious threats of unemployment, raid and arrest for writing against unconstitutional robbery.  I have, however, remained within the current law even if such law has been found by my research to be unconstitutional, inefficient and unstable.  I am determined to have my freedom to pursue and propagate research on constitutional capitalism even though it is antithetic to the unconstitutional system of robbery established by powerful vested interests wishing to have me financially ruined.  I found very early on that the Gandhian civil disobedience of fundamentally unfair laws was inefficient and irrational and that Gandhi had failed to achieve what he longed for, unity and liberty.  The only way to achieve unity and freedom of humanity is to remain steadfastly independent to continue rational research and discovery of unanimously agreeable rules of governance that no vested interests could publicly reject.  Of course, I have always perceived the tacit support of enterprising individuals everywhere who prop even the indolent usurpers.        

  • It is intolerant to incessantly broadcast rationality of intolerant authors and writers using political and academic pundits who are funded and/or famed by the mega robbers who have established and perpetuated the unconstitutional, inefficient and unstable system (rules) of robbery by surreptitiously suppressing publicity of the unanimously agreeable principle and philosophy of governance. 

Lynching death of a person for eating beef is obviously less monumental than disemboweling the wherewithal for survival of the vast majority of enterprising individuals through systemic robbery that depresses and slowly kills a multitude.  Count, e.g., (a) the number of enterprising Indian farmers committing suicide because of usuriously high interest rates on loans they take to produce food for those that charge such rates on usurped money created on the back of such enterprising individuals, (b) the number of deaths due to unseemly high prices of medicines charged for gain of 'paper pushing' hedge funds but produced by moderately compensated enterprising researchers, and (c) the number of unemployed graduates depressed due to massive debt taken for education with a promise for better jobs that do not materialize due to shenanigans of mega robbers. 

6. Defeat of irrational forces of intolerance

Why should a famous publisher (Penguin-Random House) and an author/professor (Wendy Doniger) at a top university (U of Chicago) - who have been painted as rational by the Indian elite and who have been funded surreptitiously by mega robbers - withdraw their case from Indian courts for distributing their 'scholarly' book on painting Krishna as an amoral sexual creature?  Did they think that the Indian courts would deviate from rational judgments?  No.  They know that Indian courts:

  • are driven by fundamental fairness,
  • consider Gita (message of Krishna) as a fundamentally fair philosophical document,
  • know of Krishna as the enunciator of the ancient philosophy of fundamental fairness, and
  • can find that the U of Chicago and the Anglo-American publisher have vested interests:
    1. to peddle their irrational punditry through a 'scholarly' book to establish superiority of their modern philosophy of fundamentally unfair and unanimously disagreeable systemic robbery,
    2. to undo reemergence of the unique unanimously agreeable philosophy of fundamental fairness which is paramount for civilized co-existence of humans within a contemporary comprehensive general equilibrium model of the economy,
    3. to assassinate the character of the original author (Krishna) of unanimously agreeable ancient philosophy of governance, and
    4. to undermine contemporary research on unanimously agreeable, fundamentally fair first-best efficient constitutional and stable governance to decimate its challenge to the modern philosophy of systemic robbery.

The Western media, funded by the fundamentally unfair system of robbery, obviously want to  deface the antithetic ancient philosophy of fundamental fairness. The only reason for why the Indian media and pundits have joined their western counterparts to support the irrational and fundamentally unfair system of robbery is obviously to fetch some pecuniary and non-pecuniary crumbs from robber barons.  But they are exposing their irrational punditry and undoing the government that had supported them so far.  They will now face a public that is increasingly longing for unanimously agreeable and fundamentally fair governance for civilized coexistence.

Existence of unanimously agreeable principle and philosophy of governance will be inevitably publicized despite and the media run by robber barons will be undone. Even the Pope has talked about the necessity of rationality and unanimity during his recent tour of the USA without, of course (!), mentioning the contemporary author of the unique unanimously agreeable system of governance driven by the juggernaut of fundamentally fair preamble: that the state must not allow robbery of private and public wealth, even surreptitiously. 

With best regards,
SankarshanAcharya
Founder, Citizens for Development and Pro-Prosperity.Com
Director, Research Center on Finance and Governance

[1] Desai, Ashwin (September 15, 2015), "Gandhi's Empire," Indian Express.  http://pro-prosperity.com/Gandhi%20allied%20with%20British%20Empire.pdf
[2]“The entire rank and file of the Congress looked at Sardar Patel as the most deserving candidate to be sworn in as independent India’s first Prime Minister, given his proven track record of being an able administrator and a no-nonsense politician. Then what really went wrong?  To find out  the answer, we need to rewind back to 1946…. Gandhi was always impressed with the modern outlook of Nehru. In comparison to Nehru, Sardar Patel was a little orthodox and Gandhi thought India needed a person who was modern in his approach.”. See http://www.indiatvnews.com/print/news/why-gandhi-opted-for-nehru-and-not-sardar-patel-for-pm--6689-4.html
[3]Acharya, S. (2005), "Enhancing American Competitiveness," http://pro-prosperity.com/USPresident013105.html
[4]Acharya, S. (2012), "A Unifying Philosophy of Governance," http://pro-prosperity.com/A-Unifying-Philosophy-of-Governance.html
[5]Acharya, S. (2013), "A Sound Basis for USA-India Relationship is emerging: First-best Efficient Governance," http://pro-prosperity.com/India/USA-India-First-best-Governance.html
[6]Acharya, S. (2012), "Arbitrage Pricing of Total Risk of Assets and First-Best Efficient Governance of Financial Markets," http://pro-prosperity.com/Research/moralhazardliberty.pdf

[7]Acharya, S. (2015), "Triumph of Ancient Philosophy, Unanimously Agreeable Governance, Economic Ethos and Constitution for Civilized Co-existence,"  http://pro-prosperity.com/triumphantphilosophy.pdf

[8]Bhagavat Gita, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

[9]See Acharya, S. (October 2015), "Triumph of Ancient Philosophy, Unanimously Agreeable Governance,
Economic  Ethos and Constitution for Civilized Coexistence," at http://pro-prosperity.com/triumphantphilosophy.pdf