Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Understanding the protest of a political cartoonist

The protest of political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi presents a ponder-able situation to political thinkers of India. Thinkers from the West would have adorned a matter-of-fact look, were they asked to ponder on this situation. It is because they had already considered such a proposition even when they were documenting their laws. Against this, the Indians gave grand umbrella coverage to all protest involving Symbols surrounding the concept of Nation, thereby avoiding the need to deeply investigate and make distinctions in these situations.
Thus, Indians today have been met with the challenge they avoided long ago in their law-making. Challenges whose solutions, they felt, were not confirming to their Cultural ethos. "Laws should be a product of logic or a product of belief, however cultural " , is a question we have to ask.

National Symbols...what are they? have we ever questioned to ourselves what is Symbolism and what function does Symbolism serve? Symbolism is a means of functioning of Intellectualism. An idea , a thought, created is etched into permanence by creation of a symbol. There is no 'thing', a commodity, called Nation; there is no object called 'Respect'. 'Nation', 'respect', are the abstract things created by Human Intellectualism in its endeavor to achieve what it wanted to.
To what degree can the concept of "Nation", "National Duty" or "respecting national symbols" be applied on a free man. 'Free' does not confine its meaning to 'being politically free', Free means emancipated, liberated from all his fears and all his boundations . Free from the personal, social, cultural, religious and all other kinds obligations. Do not ask me if there can ever be such a man, or if such a man can ever be alive, or that any man can so much be emancipated except by his death,-- for the endeavor of human kind is to march towards such a perfection which we otherwise cannot achieve. the spiritual purpose of our existence is chosen by our own decision. It is individual to each of us, the lack of freedom binds us to seek happiness in whatever boundations we each have been subjected to. Boundation can not apply what the happiness has to mean to us, and then ask of us to "learn to stay happy within those boundations". Task of human collaboration is not to further bind a man, but to help each man in the collaboration to liberate away himself from the rest of his boundations and eventually from the collaboration too.
This is in the same tone as the spirit of Love. Love is 'when he returns back to you when you set him free'. love is not when you keep him bound by fear to losing love if he attempts to free himself from the obligations of love.

Indian constitution did not have the concept of duties of a citizen in its original form.
Originally, the Constitution of India did not contain these duties. The Forty Second Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 has incorporated ten Fundamental Duties in Article 51(A) of the constitution of India. The Eighty-Six Constitution Amendment Act, 2002 has added one more Fundamental Duty in Article 51(A) of the constitution of India. As a result, there are now 11 Fundamental Duties of the citizen of India.

An analysis of the above duties reveals that they are applicable only to citizens and not to the aliens. It is expected that a citizen of India. While enjoying fundamental rights, should also perform these duties. Although there is no provision in the constitution for direct enforcement of any of these duties, yet. the courts are guided by these duties while interpreting various laws. These duties have Sanctity as these are included in the Directive Principles of State policy.

The object of creating the constitution was not to create some obligations , some duties , so to speak, on the citizens, object was to grant freedom and to form the framework towards resolution of conflict areas when one's freedom will conflict with another. The "duties" or "responsibilities" of a citizen were created naturally, they were carved from such a mutual contract. They were , therefore, in the form of "responsibilities" than in the form of "duties" -- in the vein of serving somebody or someone. 'To serve' is antithesis to the idea of Freedom. 'To be responsible' is more aligning with the idea of Freedom -- making distinction from freedom due to madness and psychometric troubled state of a man - that , "you can do whatever you feel like".

But the balance of human mind is suspended on a thin tight rope. Therefore, to solidify any of the symbolic duties created from the object of Constitution is also kind of madness and psychometric troubled state of a man -- that ,"if you are not doing these duties, it means you are not giving respect to our nation". The cause- and-effect relationship is uni-directional proposition, it cannot be reverse applied.