Indian democracy -- A Contest of the negatives
Eventually we Indians have made Democracy and its freedom as a 'contest of the negative'. here, we don't choose between 'the good and the better', or between 'the good and the bad', BUT between 'the bad and the worse'. Has any one of us ever wondered how did to come to such a 'contest of the negative' ? Did we ever think that the bad has a self-sustaining logic to promulgate its existence, the cover of Political Freedom given to the Madness within the Human mind has become its means self-sustenance. And then, like poison cuts the poison, there is more Madness done by the sane ones to beat the madness of the insanes. In this whole fight rises the Dust of Madness which is what we see as the "contest of the negative".
A 'Nation' is concept of Human intellectualism, represented by 'national' symbols, which forms the geographical congregation of the people who have agreed to live harmoniously by means of a common idea and logic to Justice, and who share their common resources. As with all products of Human Intellectualism, the Nation also works though Symbols. Symbols give the desired *permanence* to the abstract products which emerge from intellectualism. The soldier fighting at the border is the defender of this intellectualism in the core, which otherwise he too carries in his mind. Without the abstract idea being preserved in our mind, there is no such thing as "Nation", nor the "national symbols". The dishonor to "national symbols" is message of disharmony with our social living due to disagreements with our common idea of Justice. It is a Dishonour when the symbol is being contorted to protest against the Government, which is the only authorised body of the people of India to use those symbols.
But remember, in democracy, the Government in itself is the political party which is in power. The government is NOT the King Ruler or the Maker of our Destiny, a representation of the 'Shadow of God on earth'. It is a choice of the Majority, with the condition attached the choice of the minority too is not disagreed if the choice is morally right or in agreement with the Spirit of the The Common Agreement of our peace co-existence. The common agreement is what we call the Constitution.
In truth, with Freedom there ARE NO duties of a free man. There are only responsibilities. Those responsibilities which ensure the survival of his ownself and his surroundings. The political thinkers of India often mistake at when the rhetorically enquire "freedom does not mean 'X' " . This is a logical Fallacy. Freedom is absolute, freedom is liberation from basic physiological needs of Maslov's Need hierarchy, freedom is eventually aimed to emancipate human from all his boundations. An emancipated man has NO DUTIES, he is free to do all that he wants. The purpose of political freedoms is to help each man align with the spiritual aim of his existence. The political rights, therefore, are *inalienable*. Such Freedom is curtailed only by what the English philosopher John Stuart Mill calls "the Harm Principle" - you can do whatever you want with your freedom , except those which may harm others.
To enforce the concept of 'national duty' on a person who has otherwise also been promised Freedom is a a form Madness in subtle ways. The Constitution , the common agreement , provides for this freedom to each of us. It is not the 'national duty' which is the purpose of our spiritual existence. 'National Duty' of the nature as 'respecting national symbols' is merely a symbolic act to show a citizen's concurrence to the Common Agreement . Even while not 'respecting the national symbols', one might still be honouring the Common Agreement by ways of discharging those duties which are meant to preserve or enhance this Agreement, such as , by ways of defending the Common Agreement, by ways of enhancing the reach of the Common Agreement. The agreement is meant to provide something to each of us, not to exact something from each of us under some unchallenged condition. The agreement should not and must not used by one group of citizens, all of then party to the agreement, to seize control of the other group of citizens, also a party to the Common agreement, by demanding something like "national duty" formed under the aegis of the Agreement. This will defeat the purpose of Agreement-- the key to our peaceful co-existence.
A 'Nation' is concept of Human intellectualism, represented by 'national' symbols, which forms the geographical congregation of the people who have agreed to live harmoniously by means of a common idea and logic to Justice, and who share their common resources. As with all products of Human Intellectualism, the Nation also works though Symbols. Symbols give the desired *permanence* to the abstract products which emerge from intellectualism. The soldier fighting at the border is the defender of this intellectualism in the core, which otherwise he too carries in his mind. Without the abstract idea being preserved in our mind, there is no such thing as "Nation", nor the "national symbols". The dishonor to "national symbols" is message of disharmony with our social living due to disagreements with our common idea of Justice. It is a Dishonour when the symbol is being contorted to protest against the Government, which is the only authorised body of the people of India to use those symbols.
But remember, in democracy, the Government in itself is the political party which is in power. The government is NOT the King Ruler or the Maker of our Destiny, a representation of the 'Shadow of God on earth'. It is a choice of the Majority, with the condition attached the choice of the minority too is not disagreed if the choice is morally right or in agreement with the Spirit of the The Common Agreement of our peace co-existence. The common agreement is what we call the Constitution.
In truth, with Freedom there ARE NO duties of a free man. There are only responsibilities. Those responsibilities which ensure the survival of his ownself and his surroundings. The political thinkers of India often mistake at when the rhetorically enquire "freedom does not mean 'X' " . This is a logical Fallacy. Freedom is absolute, freedom is liberation from basic physiological needs of Maslov's Need hierarchy, freedom is eventually aimed to emancipate human from all his boundations. An emancipated man has NO DUTIES, he is free to do all that he wants. The purpose of political freedoms is to help each man align with the spiritual aim of his existence. The political rights, therefore, are *inalienable*. Such Freedom is curtailed only by what the English philosopher John Stuart Mill calls "the Harm Principle" - you can do whatever you want with your freedom , except those which may harm others.
To enforce the concept of 'national duty' on a person who has otherwise also been promised Freedom is a a form Madness in subtle ways. The Constitution , the common agreement , provides for this freedom to each of us. It is not the 'national duty' which is the purpose of our spiritual existence. 'National Duty' of the nature as 'respecting national symbols' is merely a symbolic act to show a citizen's concurrence to the Common Agreement . Even while not 'respecting the national symbols', one might still be honouring the Common Agreement by ways of discharging those duties which are meant to preserve or enhance this Agreement, such as , by ways of defending the Common Agreement, by ways of enhancing the reach of the Common Agreement. The agreement is meant to provide something to each of us, not to exact something from each of us under some unchallenged condition. The agreement should not and must not used by one group of citizens, all of then party to the agreement, to seize control of the other group of citizens, also a party to the Common agreement, by demanding something like "national duty" formed under the aegis of the Agreement. This will defeat the purpose of Agreement-- the key to our peaceful co-existence.
Comments
Post a Comment