We who grew up as Independence approached, midnight’s witnesses, thought it is axiomatic that India would quickly rise as a great power — the country’s size, strategic situation, great civilsational strengths, the talents of our people, all making us stable and prosperous at home, respected and influential abroad, a major force in the shaping of a new, equitable world order. Whatever our achievements, that hasn’t happened. Completing 90, my uppermost thoughts are: Why?

我们与共和国一起成长的这代人，同时也是见证黑暗的一代，都曾毫无疑问地觉得，印度将很快崛起为一个世界大国，因为这个国家拥有庞大的规模体量、优越的战略地位、深厚的文明底蕴、一代代人才辈出，等等等等，所有这些，能让我们国内保持稳定繁荣，在国外得到尊重并获得影响力，成为形塑面目全新、公平公正的世界秩序的一支重要力量。不管我们已取得了多少成就，那样的一种愿景，从未变成现实。在我即将年过90岁之际，我最最想弄清楚的是：为啥子搞成了现在这个样儿？

 

Is the answer in another question: Why did we lose our independence in the first place? No superior force invaded us that time, a few adventurers from oceans away outwitted us — even in intrigue. Instead of blaming conquerors for conquering us, should we not examine where we went wrong? It’s a very different world now — not least, because nobody wants to conquer us. But other threats to national integrity keep increasing, while we lapse as of old. The most decisive weakness remains most ignored: We refused to change with the times, did not learn from new learning and refused to use improved ways to improve ours. We fell to better organisation, better technology and techniques, to sheer professionalism. We keep resisting, if not rejecting, them.

问题的答案，是否存在于另一个问题里：首先为啥子我们失去了民族独立？彼时，没有比我们更强的力量来入侵我们，只不过来自海上的一小撮探险者瞒骗了我们，甚至不惜采用阴谋诡计。我们是不是该好好想想，到底是哪里出了问题，而不要总是谩骂征服者征服我们？现在，世界已然与以往大不相同，特别是，没有谁想要征服我们。不过，随着传统类型的威胁逐渐消失，国家民族所面临的新型威胁却不断增多。最具决定性同时也是最为我们所忽视的一个弱点就是：我们拒绝与时俱进，没能学到新知识，拒绝利用改善了的办法来改进我们自己。我们因组织制度不如人而吃败仗，因技术技艺不如人而吃败仗，因没有专业精神而吃败仗。对于这些东西，到现在，我们依然不是公然拒绝，就是暗地里抵抗。

 

Innately gifted to excel in all these ways, we seemed initially to have learned. Our colonial exploiters brought us the greatest legacy of the Enlightenment — the primacy of reason. They were not more honest, hard-working, decent, or otherwise virtuous or able. They just contrived an aura of impartial, objective and dutiful efficiency; justified or not, that established norms of performance, which appeared to remain. Our subsequent failures, errors, deficiencies are too obvious and numerous to recount, but all stem from discarding those norms. We reverted to nature: Personal is everything, nothing, nobody else matters —or even exists. Personal faults, from sloppiness to greed, have become norms.

我们这个民族，在所有那些方面，也都有与生俱来的能力表现卓越。刚开始，我们貌似也努力学了。殖民剥削我们的那些人，给我们带来了“启蒙运动”最最重要的遗产，即把理性定位一尊。他们并不比我们更诚恳、更努力、更优越，德行或能力也不比我们更高。他们只是创造了一种公正、客观、负责、讲效率的氛围，不管能否得到具体论证，那样的一种氛围，确实促生了系列行为规范、做事原则，且貌似也延续了下来。我们后来的种种失败、错误、无效，都太过显而易见，数量又那么多，以至于无法一一列举，不过，所有的失败、错误、无效，都源于摒弃那些行为规范、做事原则。我们退回到了崇拜自然：个人的，就是一切，其他万事万物，都不再重要，乃至可完全视而不见。由此，个人的毛病，从马虎无序到贪婪索取，也就成为了人们的行为规范和做事原则。

 

It all started on day one. Each leader attracted servitors. We got the court of Sardar Patel, of Maulana Azad, Babus Rajendra Prasad or Jagjivan Ram, and of course, the great court of Panditji; not that they necessarily sought such personal agencies, it was just our way. So too was the circumvention/abandonment of rules. For example, officials had to rotate between Delhi and their states. But no, transferred even to a prize post, as chief secretary of a major state, this gentleman refused to leave Delhi — and succeeded. Little things, but we end up having people’s representatives with no respect for people, behaving like lords while supposed public servants behave like personal servants, more-or-less willingly. Not one institution functions as it should, not one instrument of state. Standards in the private sector are hardly better. Everyone know this, but so what?

从一开始就没什么真正革新。每个领导，都纠集了属于自己的一撮人，帕特尔有自己的“朝廷”，阿扎德、普拉萨德以及拉姆也都有，当然，最大的“朝廷”，莫过于“婆罗门王朝”。不过，并非他们自己努力试图建立属于自己的“朝廷”，而是因为，这种模式，就是我们的做事方式。规则意识淡漠，也是同样道理。比如，地方上有能力的官员，会升迁到首都新德里履职，任期结束后就应该回到原来的老家。但现实却不是这样，官员卸任后甚至会被给予一个肥缺，或者作为地方邦负责人，拒绝离开新德里，而且也往往能够成功。这些还都不算什么事儿，关键是人民选出来的议员代表，对人民却没有应有的尊重，他们以主人的身份对待人民，与此同时，本应成为人民的公仆的官员们，却成为了特定权势人物的私人奴仆，从某种程度上来讲，他们也都很情愿这么做。各套制度机制，也没有发挥它们应有的功能，国家政府的每一套体系，都没能起到应有的作用。公共领域是这样，私有领域也没好到哪里去。所有这些，人尽皆知，但这又于事有补了么？

 

小编注：

1、Sardar Patel：萨达尔·瓦拉巴伊·帕特尔（古吉拉特语：સરદાર વલ્લભભાઈ પટેલ，印地语：सरदार वल्लभभाई पटेल，英语：Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel；1875年－1950年），印度著名政治人物、社会活动家，印度独立运动中发挥主要作用，曾是印度国大党一名领袖，印度共和国的奠基人，也是印度独立后第一任副总理和内政部长。他在印度常被称为“萨达尔”，在印度各主要语言中即首领、领袖之意。帕特尔出生在古吉拉特的一个乡村家庭，深受圣雄甘地影响，积极参与印度独立运动，先后在反对殖民当局镇压的非暴力不合作运动和退出印度运动中发挥领袖作用，成为国大党不可或缺的一员。在成为印度首任副总理和内政部长后，他采取了明确的外交和武力手段，劝说了众多土邦并入印度自治领，为维护印度统一做出了杰出贡献（也因该贡献他被誉为“印度的铁男子”和“印度的俾斯麦”）。

2、Maulana Azad：阿布·卡拉姆·阿扎德（英语：Abul Kalam Azad，阿拉伯语：أبو الكلام آزاد‎．1888年－1958年），生于奥斯曼帝国麦加的伊斯兰学术世家，阿拉伯裔，印度独立运动时期印度国民大会党穆斯林领袖之一，致力调和印度教徒与印度穆斯林联合革命。印度独立后首任内阁教育部长（1947-58），印度教育制度的奠基者。1923-24年任国大党党魁。阿扎德母语阿拉伯语，伊斯兰学术世家自少习波斯语，随后学会英语、乌尔都语、印地语、孟加拉语。两度以乌尔都语办报，亦以乌尔都语写下多本鼓动革命的书籍。

3、Babus Rajendra Prasad：拉金德拉·普拉萨德（ डा॰ राजेन्द्र प्रसाद，1884年－1963年）是印度共和国第一任总统（1950年－1962年）。普拉萨德出生于中等地主家庭，加尔各答法律学院毕业，曾在高等法院当律师。1916年创办《比哈尔法律周报》（Bihar Law Weekly）。1920年参加不合作运动。他用英文在《探照灯》（Searchlight）上撰文，积极宣扬民族主义。

4、Jagjivan Ram：(1908 –1986), known popularly as Babuji, was an Indian independence activist and politician from Bihar. He was instrumental in the foundation of the All-India Depressed Classes League, an organisation dedicated to attaining equality for untouchables, in 1935 and was elected to Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1937, after which he organised the rural labour movement. In 1946, he became the youngest minister in Jawaharlal Nehru's interim government, the first cabinet of India as a Labour Minister and also a member of the Constituent Assembly of India, where he ensured that social justice was enshrined in the Constitution. He went on to serve as a minister with various portfolios for more than forty years as a member of the Indian National Congress (INC). Most importantly, he was the Defence Minister of India during the Indo-Pak war of 1971, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.

5、Panditji：由两部分组成，词根 pandit (Sanskrit: पण्डित, paṇḍita; also spelled pundit, abbreviated as Pt. or Pdt.)，a Brahmin scholar or a teacher of any field of knowledge in Hinduism, particularly the Vedic scriptures, dharma, Hindu philosophy, or secular subjects such as music. 词缀Jī (Hindi: जी, Punjabi: ਜੀ) is a gender-neutral honorific used as a suffix in many languages of South Asia, such as Hindi and Punjabi languages and their dialects prevalent in northern India, north-west and central India. It is also commonly used to show respect to the individual, in formal address, in Nepal. It is similar to the gender-neutral Japanese honorific -san and gender-neutral Filipino Tagalog language honorific po. The gender-neutral Tamil equivalent is sollunga.

 

It’s not just us: Norms are undermined everywhere as electorates change, destructive and ugly forces grow stronger and particular groups seek total dominance for their ideas and ambitions. The “world’s oldest democracy” manifests the most appalling trends; Europe’s once best exemplars barely fend off comparable pressures. All governments find themselves unable to cope with the complexity of peoples’ problems and aspirations. Democracies suffer the added problem that the system itself — the processes and ideals of democracy —are losing both effectiveness and appeal. Where democracy is fragile, needing careful tending, such trends are more worrying.

这种状况不仅印度独有，随着选民状况的变化，破坏性力量、邪恶势力逐渐变强，特定群体试图让自己的观念和意图成为唯一，规范规则在全球范围内都被侵蚀。“世界上最古老的民主体制”所展现出来的变化趋势，最为令人感到震惊，就连曾经是最佳样板的欧洲，也没能扛得住各种压力。各国政府发现，自己没有能力处理人民所面临的问题，满足人民所拥有的期望。让问题变得更加严重的是，民主体制本身，包括民主的程序正义和理想信念，也都正在失去有效性和吸引力。在民主脆弱的地方，在民主需要细心关照的地方，这样的变化趋势更让人担心。

 

Democracy depends on reason, debates between opinions based on reflection, mutual civility. But more and more people now despise reasoned argument — they demonstrate in legislatures or outside them, take violently to the streets. The only “solution” commonly urged is for “strong” government, despite the inevitable risk of its corruption into mindless tyranny, even worse than today’s inane shouting matches. Yeats ( paraphrased) looms : “ When nations are empty up there at the top/When order is weakened and faction is strong/What when there’s nothing left there at the top?/Where be the Captains to govern mankind?”

民主靠的是理性、辩论、争鸣、反思、相互尊重等。但现在越来越多的人置理性讨论于不顾，不是在立法机构中抗议，就是在外面示威，甚至不惜诉诸街头暴力。这样下来，人们急切推动的唯一“解决方案”就是“强大的”政府，即使那样会不可避免地会带来暴政腐败，这甚至比当下街头的疯狂呐喊抗议还要更坏。套用著名诗人叶芝的诗句来说就是：“当国家顶层被掏空/当秩序变成无序、派系逐渐强力/那么，顶层还能留住什么？/人类的领航者，又要何处寻？”

 

小编注：

Yeats：叶芝（William Butler Yeats，1865年－1939年），亦译“叶慈”、“耶茨”，爱尔兰诗人、剧作家，神秘主义者。叶芝是爱尔兰凯尔特复兴运动的领袖，也是艾比剧院的创建者之一。叶芝早年的创作仍然具有浪漫主义的华丽风格，善于营造梦幻般的氛围，进入不惑之年后，在现代主义诗人伊兹拉·庞德等人的影响下，尤其是在其本人参与爱尔兰民族主义政治运动的切身经验的影响下，叶芝的创作风格发生了比较激烈的变化，更加趋近现代主义。叶芝曾于1923年获得诺贝尔文学奖，获奖理由是“以其高度艺术化且洋溢着灵感的诗作表达了整个民族的灵魂”。1934年，他和拉迪亚德·吉卜林共同获得歌德堡诗歌奖。

 

“To govern is to choose,” said the then French premier, Pierre Mendes-France, in 1953. It is also to deliver. When it comes to us, the whole apparatus of governance — the policy-making and implementation machinery — is simply unable to function seriously. The considerations that go into the decision-making, that shapes people’s lives, no longer address the issues involved. It’s all about what’s in it for me clothed in what’s in it for us — our particular caste, religious or regional group. Such inappropriate purposes are accompanied by inappropriate thinking. We talk about strategic autonomy. How is that conceivable if you can’t produce your basic weapons? The world’s largest arms importer denies its forces vital equipment because nobody decides on that matter, or decides wrongly, or because prejudice, or exclusive advantage, prevails over a rational balancing of objective pros and cons. Worst of all, this is due to sheer ignorance — the inability to understand what really matters.

正如法国前总理弗朗斯1953年曾所说过的：“治理，就是在不同选择之间进行抉择”。不过，治理，也要向人民交付他们所需要的结果。具体到我们的国家印度，整个治理体系，包括决策体系以及政策落实体系，显然都没能真正起到应有的功能和作用。能够影响人民切身生活的决策所考虑的问题，都不再是本应涉及的问题。所考虑的，反而全是“我”能从决策之中得到什么，而那个“我”又代表一个个“我们”，特定种姓阶层的“我们”，特定宗教团体的“我们”，特定地区集团的“我们”。这些不应进入决策体系的种种目的，背后都伴随着种种不应进入决策体系的考虑。我们经常谈战略自主性，如果你自己不能生产最基本的武器，那战略自主性怎能成为可能？作为世界上最大的武器进口国，印度却没能让其武装力量配备最有力的装备，原因在于，没人关注这个事儿，或是即使关注了却做出了错误的决策，还可能因各种偏见、小集团私利影响了正反两方之间客观的辩论，从而未能做出理性的均衡决策。最糟糕的就是，所有这些，都是源于彻底的无知，没有能力抓住真正问题的关键所在。

 

小编注：

Pierre Mendes-France：皮埃尔·孟戴斯-弗朗斯（1907年－1982年），法国犹太裔政治家。二战期间被德国监禁但成功逃狱并加入自由法国运动，戴高乐派他出任法属阿尔及利亚的财务总监，处理布雷顿森林会议谈判事宜。战后孟戴斯-弗朗斯当上经济部长，1954年，代表激进党组织政府，担任八个月的法国部长会议主席，任内最优先事项是尽快结束已不受人民支持的中南半岛战事，保护印度支那不落入以胡志明为首的共产党人和越盟运动的手中。

 

Nothing illustrates what holds us back more tellingly than what we have done to Delhi. People are supposed to take pride in their nation’s capital and work to make it more vibrant, attractive, exemplary. Has one street come up which is a pleasure to walk? How many buildings are worth looking at? If aesthetics are too “elitist” a criterion, consider our telephone connectivity, potholed roads and the law-and-order conditions that make us the “rape capital”. All this is where the entire government resides. Our traffic is a nightmare because we people are ultimately to blame: Spreading six-abreast on two lanes, sneaking ahead in left- lane to turn right, blithely occupying no-parking zones, street vendors block already-narrow arteries and religious institutions encroach over pavements (though official-political wrongdoing is more deplorable). These are all correctible offences, but then those who could correct them prefer other considerations to public good.

没有什么能比首都新德里的状况，更能说明到底是什么让我们踟蹰不前。人们本应以国家的首都为荣为傲，努力让首都充满更多活力、更具吸引力、更能引领方向。看看新德里的现状，有哪条街道走上去能让人感到心旷神怡？一栋栋建筑，有哪栋建筑看上去能让人感到眼前一亮？如果说从美学角度讲可能显得太过于“精英主义”，那么，看看挂得满大街都是的电话线网线，坑坑洼洼的一条条街道，法律效力难以落实，秩序到处都是紊乱，还有新德里那“强奸之都”的美名。所有这些，就在政府的眼皮子底下。我们的交通状况，堪比噩梦，而把原因却归根于我们的人民：怨人们在两车道的路上六辆车并行，怨人们从左车道超车然后又右转，怨人们欢欣雀跃地占用非停车区域，怨街头商贩占用已很拥挤的通道，怨宗教团体侵蚀公共通道等等等等，尽管相对来讲，官方的所作所为、政府的决策失误才是更重要的原因。所有这些，全是都能予以纠正的问题，但那些有责任能纠正这些问题的人，却倾向于做其他方面的考虑，而置公共利益于不顾。