imperialism

I’ve been watching the BBC documentry, Story of India, and I’m feeling...well, I guess “imperialistic” would be the right word. Like everything in the world will work out if you can just get the right formula, and twiddle a few knobs here and there. And to be the person behind those knobs...well , that’s the dream.
Like, the minute the documentary shows a ramshackle, 150-year-old house in Patna, the capital of Chandragupta Maurya’s empire – I’m immediately thinking, what kind of insurances can we provide to these people if the thing collapses? Even better, how can we interest architects to take up their reconstruction while creatively preserving them at the same time? How do we finance and capacitate such a project, without driving the whole country into financial ruin? And most important, can we get any other positive externality out of this exercise? I believe that if you look hard enough, there has to be an answer to every question; no matter how impossible it might seem at first.
However, large-scale strategic planning is something which, I’ve found, exceeds the brain capacity most people. (Not to crib), but to tell me that you can “see the overlapping interests” but not the “existence of resulting synergy” is just not a good enough answer. It is our job to make synergy possible – it is never pre-existing, whereas interests are – and we need to be the bridge between interests and synergy. What we should be evaluating is not security of investment; but potential of growth and impact.
On the same line of thought, the documentary poses another alluring picture: “How often we make our history the story of great conquerors...But here’s one man, who sits under a tree, thinking.” And changes the world – the Buddha. Its’ alluring on two or three levels, actually, and you can pick the answer you like. First, the standard answer, is the power of thought. How intellectual rather than physical superiority is utilitarian to society, non-violent. Or you could accept my “critical studies” version, which I think is its’ implicit corollary: the intellectual dominance of one man, and the sway he gains over the masses, all without getting up from his seat beneath a tree.
The second aspect of allure is the more “egalitarian” answer. One man doesn’t need resources of any kind, over and above the inherent capacity of his brain, and a little bit of guts to give up other material comforts. So, the critical, class-based, subjugationist and cynical answer is somewhat negated by this one. (An interesting fact, the whole of the intellectual property protection regime today is inspired by this very idea.)
And the last answer, my favourite. You don’t have to move an inch to control the world – this is imperialism for the lazy! :-) no offence meant, though...I genuinely think this is the toughest, and most productive method of changing the world, After all, I've practiced it all my life!!!