"Business cannot be done without using unfair means". This the self-image and convictions of the business houses in the Eastern Philosophy. Just as the purpose of Business is understood to be Profit by various philosophers, the business communities/houses take it that Profit and Profiteering are their birth-rights. Therefore, In the business related to goods, tax-evasions, secretive violations of the Statutory laws, consumer abuses - are done with the conviction of ''doing a business, because that's what the business is all about". In the business related to services, the exploitation is the equivalent of unfair means of Business , and executed with the same conviction. The 'business'-minded officials of the Governments facilitate this business environment.
Since unfairness cannot be brought about with having some rule to put the other in the queue, the 'right' method doing business is to support the rules and legislations which make all the competitors to stand along the queue at the Governments Office, and then use the nexus of Government Babus and Politicians to secretly by-pass the queue. It is all what is best described in the dialogue of Amitabh Bachchan in his movie "Kalia", "sab line mein khade ho jao, aur line wahan se shuru hogi jahan hum khade hain."
Hypocrisy, therefore , the truest culture of India. The spirituality, the morality, the legality - all cater to this grand Hypocrisy.
How to break this chain? Even as I read the news of Google entering the Medical Industry, exploration of new undiscovered business arena might be our best hopes. The old arena is already files with those same junk business houses who are only exploiting the natural resources of India through the Businesses-Political-legislative-bureaucratic-judiciary Grand nexus. After all, profit and Profiteering is their birth-right, that is how they think, and there is no means to secure their birth-right, but by using the unfair means.
It is not that India is a eternally quenched state which has fulfilled the needs of its citizens. But then all the business competitions are only in those arena where the profits are quickest. The checkboard presently lays set, through all the legislative and execautionary beliefs, to profit everyone in this grand nexus. This the corruption culture of India.
Rethinking : Discretion versus Decision-making
(refer previous blog: Difference between Discretion and Decision-making)
On a re-thinking about Discretion -Versus- Decision-making, Discretion is something which allows space for person taste of the leader to play bigger role in the proceeding. In dictionary, Discretion is described as "Good Judgments". However , in management/administrative theories the area of interest of 'Good Judgements' grows outward to enquire the "how?" , the methodology of making a 'Good Judgements'. Management/administrative theories therefore proceed to create distinctions between Decision-making and Discretion. Discretion, here, is differed by a factor of 'personal taste' from Decision-making. Decision-making is about picking the best choice from various options being explored; Discretion is about acting solely by 'Personal Taste'. Therefore the term 'Discretionary Power' stands separate from the ordinary power of decision-making which is an elementary ingredient of every executive machinery.
'Discretionary Powers' now stand to define an unchallenged, immunized from investigation, power to act purely by 'personal taste' , ofcourse presumably as 'good Judgement' in the interest of the organisation. However the exercise of Discretionary Power absolves the person from the gains or loss suffered in consequences of the exercise of this power. The clear purpose of this power is to expedite the action if it is required to be taken urgently and in limited, insufficient information climate. It is expected that the exercise of this power will be meant to prevent the following of a decision which is very deeply immersed in doubts. It is hoped that Discretionary Power will not be meant to adopt another course of action which has not yet been evaluated.
Therefore, Discretionary Power, in a balance understanding, should reserve itself to a decision of "to proceed , or to not to proceed" with the likely emerging choice. This will minimize the consequences of damage which could have been suffered in the following of that decision, Without aggravating the damage cost by putting the organisation on higher damages route which has not been evaluated.
On a re-thinking about Discretion -Versus- Decision-making, Discretion is something which allows space for person taste of the leader to play bigger role in the proceeding. In dictionary, Discretion is described as "Good Judgments". However , in management/administrative theories the area of interest of 'Good Judgements' grows outward to enquire the "how?" , the methodology of making a 'Good Judgements'. Management/administrative theories therefore proceed to create distinctions between Decision-making and Discretion. Discretion, here, is differed by a factor of 'personal taste' from Decision-making. Decision-making is about picking the best choice from various options being explored; Discretion is about acting solely by 'Personal Taste'. Therefore the term 'Discretionary Power' stands separate from the ordinary power of decision-making which is an elementary ingredient of every executive machinery.
'Discretionary Powers' now stand to define an unchallenged, immunized from investigation, power to act purely by 'personal taste' , ofcourse presumably as 'good Judgement' in the interest of the organisation. However the exercise of Discretionary Power absolves the person from the gains or loss suffered in consequences of the exercise of this power. The clear purpose of this power is to expedite the action if it is required to be taken urgently and in limited, insufficient information climate. It is expected that the exercise of this power will be meant to prevent the following of a decision which is very deeply immersed in doubts. It is hoped that Discretionary Power will not be meant to adopt another course of action which has not yet been evaluated.
Therefore, Discretionary Power, in a balance understanding, should reserve itself to a decision of "to proceed , or to not to proceed" with the likely emerging choice. This will minimize the consequences of damage which could have been suffered in the following of that decision, Without aggravating the damage cost by putting the organisation on higher damages route which has not been evaluated.
Bad Governance-Versus-Juvenile Justice -- a moral dilemma of India
Why was the age of attainment of majority/ deliverance of minority adopted in the theories of law?
Is a person born a criminal by birth?
The old times cinema, the young juvenile caught stealing a loaf of bread so to feed his hungry brother, cried his soul to the Judge, ''Nobody is born a their, sir. It's the hunger, poverty and atrocities done by the rich and powerful when they crush a poor man under the wheels of their posh cars when a thief, robber or criminal is born. But the True criminal is not me, it is these people , this society, this system''.
those were the superhit movies of their times , which had the 'Robinhood' feelings, the 'prince of thieves' whom the people loved from the bottom of their hearts. That is what paved the way to democracy, the people's leadership in polity, the abolishing of Feudalism.
That nobody is born a criminal is a universal truth. The nation, it's political and administrative system, the society have to take charge every time a child is being abused anywhere. This was a universally held agreement. Until a certain age all humans will be given protection by all means .
Then, how did we turn around to talk of 'DETTERANCE' as the means of delivering the protection. The modern Indian generation is an 'English Vocabulary crazy' generation. It likes to learn English Words each day through the newspaper, and likes to put it to an extensive use so to properly memorise the word. DETERRENCE, it appears, was their catch-word in the Delhi Gang Rape case.
While so much and so hard is being spoken about this thing called DETERRENCE And JUVENILE, did we ever turn back to see the Mentally unstable father, and a daily waged mother of the ''man'' who is in the center of this anger of our society.
The Neuroscience of our times has taken much advanced scientific developments. It informs us of the ''Prefrontal Cortex'' region of human brain, which they say is the area connected with the function of social and just behaviours in the human species. This is the area which is often found to have less of neural pathway connections in criminals and psychopaths. The neural connections intensity, the volume , the EEG light markers are often seen to be less among those people who have been cultured deprived of compassion in their childhood. The Anti-social Personality Disorders, and other social behaviour are controlled in the Prefrontal Cortex. The scientists inform us how the evolving primates brains shows immense increase in the volume and neural connections, as they formed complex society which created and preserved knowledge and information over generations of species members. The so called ''Intelligence'' of Human beings is a gift of our social existence, by which we conquered and we now control all other life forms on this planet. A life of poverty is a life filled with extreme pathos and deprivation. There is no room for compassion and empathy , for emotions only aggravate the sufferings of those who survive back after the poverty and destitute-ness takes toll of the fellow human. A life of poverty is life of reactionary survival where the cultured emotions , even from childhood, are meant to prepare a fight against the odds. There is no humanity, no love , no compassion.
What should we construe from the background of those people who have had nothing human in their own critical years. While asserting our claims that ''Old enough to mistreatment a women , but not for the justice to meet'', did we ever account the total of all those political , legislative, administrative , and social , religious failures that we together failed in. What punishment, what DETERRENCE did we choose for ourselves and our governance systems which did all those injustice to this ''man''.
Notwithstanding the public anger , and whatever the law courts finally deliver, I continue to wonder as to what are we doing about the root-cause treatment of these evils. I wonder how much collective face we have to demand on reducing the age of majority, when we do not demand hard enough the reforms of governance whose failures create this moral dilemma.
The old times cinema, the young juvenile caught stealing a loaf of bread so to feed his hungry brother, cried his soul to the Judge, ''Nobody is born a their, sir. It's the hunger, poverty and atrocities done by the rich and powerful when they crush a poor man under the wheels of their posh cars when a thief, robber or criminal is born. But the True criminal is not me, it is these people , this society, this system''.
those were the superhit movies of their times , which had the 'Robinhood' feelings, the 'prince of thieves' whom the people loved from the bottom of their hearts. That is what paved the way to democracy, the people's leadership in polity, the abolishing of Feudalism.
That nobody is born a criminal is a universal truth. The nation, it's political and administrative system, the society have to take charge every time a child is being abused anywhere. This was a universally held agreement. Until a certain age all humans will be given protection by all means .
Then, how did we turn around to talk of 'DETTERANCE' as the means of delivering the protection. The modern Indian generation is an 'English Vocabulary crazy' generation. It likes to learn English Words each day through the newspaper, and likes to put it to an extensive use so to properly memorise the word. DETERRENCE, it appears, was their catch-word in the Delhi Gang Rape case.
While so much and so hard is being spoken about this thing called DETERRENCE And JUVENILE, did we ever turn back to see the Mentally unstable father, and a daily waged mother of the ''man'' who is in the center of this anger of our society.
The Neuroscience of our times has taken much advanced scientific developments. It informs us of the ''Prefrontal Cortex'' region of human brain, which they say is the area connected with the function of social and just behaviours in the human species. This is the area which is often found to have less of neural pathway connections in criminals and psychopaths. The neural connections intensity, the volume , the EEG light markers are often seen to be less among those people who have been cultured deprived of compassion in their childhood. The Anti-social Personality Disorders, and other social behaviour are controlled in the Prefrontal Cortex. The scientists inform us how the evolving primates brains shows immense increase in the volume and neural connections, as they formed complex society which created and preserved knowledge and information over generations of species members. The so called ''Intelligence'' of Human beings is a gift of our social existence, by which we conquered and we now control all other life forms on this planet. A life of poverty is a life filled with extreme pathos and deprivation. There is no room for compassion and empathy , for emotions only aggravate the sufferings of those who survive back after the poverty and destitute-ness takes toll of the fellow human. A life of poverty is life of reactionary survival where the cultured emotions , even from childhood, are meant to prepare a fight against the odds. There is no humanity, no love , no compassion.
What should we construe from the background of those people who have had nothing human in their own critical years. While asserting our claims that ''Old enough to mistreatment a women , but not for the justice to meet'', did we ever account the total of all those political , legislative, administrative , and social , religious failures that we together failed in. What punishment, what DETERRENCE did we choose for ourselves and our governance systems which did all those injustice to this ''man''.
Notwithstanding the public anger , and whatever the law courts finally deliver, I continue to wonder as to what are we doing about the root-cause treatment of these evils. I wonder how much collective face we have to demand on reducing the age of majority, when we do not demand hard enough the reforms of governance whose failures create this moral dilemma.
The brain development chart
Rational Thinking is a development of mind above the Reasoning-ability. It is that stage of development of brain when a person starts evaluating which one among so many reasons is the appropriate one for circumstances which are in the question. To a simple question, ''why should we keep on the left side of the road, when driving'' , the number of reasons (such as ''Because there is a law'', ''because to give way to the opposite traffic'', ''because the steering wheel is on right side of car'', etc) , Rational Thinking is the development stage of brain when it begins to Judge which is applicable reasoning for the circumstances which are in question.
The basic ability of human brain , if it is born 'normal'(without any birth defects) is called Cognitive Abilities. a small child can be seen displaying the development of Cognitive Abilities as he grows from infancy to toddler to child stage. From the cognitive Abilities , the brain launches into Mental abilities when it is able to think little more advanced - using the skill of Imagination, Time scale, and more .
From Mental Abilities , the Brain builts up the Reasoning Abilities when it starts looking for the underlying theories for the events happening around him.
Rational Thinking arrives when the Brain starts to Judge which of the so many reasoning is accurate, appropriate and which is not.
The progress of brain is not a granted event. Which means, it cannot be stated that it is going to happen so in every person who is born with a normal brain. The cultural factors play a role, affect the Judging abilities of person when a person fails to detach himself from the world in order to take a bird eye view of the circumstances around. He , then , fails to reach the Reasoning Abilities, when he starts accepting the Reasoning ''because there is a law'' as the sole explanations for events happening around him. He avoids to question the rational of the law itself . reading and writing skills become a necessary tool to reach to the stage of Rational Thinking. To discuss the numerous reasoning , and then to choose the appropriate ones is no easy guess work. It requires a more laborious work to making evaluation of each of these reasonings.
where should we place the Intellectualism in the Brain Abilities development chart?
In my opinion, Intellectualism is an ability parallel to Reasoning Ability. The difference being that Reasoning Ability is for measurable things (quantitative) and Intellectualism is for abstract things (qualitative). Making evaluation of abstract things such as Beauty, Emotions, Likeness /fondness, hotness, coolness, et al - will require brain to develop a different neural pathway. These parameters are severely connected with the environment around each individual. While one may not disagree so much about what is the minimal standard for beautiful-ness, the higher side of evaluation "who is more beautiful/ most beautiful" is immensely different.
The lower side of judgement has been worked by a broader parameter, while the higher standard of judgments is affected by very narrow , personalized factors.
Intellectualism is the search of quality. Reasoning Ability is working with the quantifiable things. A piece of literature, a book, a poem - cannot be judged with the help of Reason. As is done with the quantifiable things, for the abstract things of Intellectualism the judgments of person improve as he undertakes the Criticism. Intellectual judgments improve if a person exposes himself to someone else's criticism. 'Criticism', in the Brain abilities of Intellectualism , is synonymous to "Data Analysis."
The higher brain capacities of judgement cannot be built unless these lower foundation abilities are improved or mastered.
तर्कों को उलट फेर कर देने वाली एक संस्कृति
महान वैज्ञानिक अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन ने अपने एक कथन में गाँधी जी की मूढ़ता की हद्दों तक जाने वाली शांतिवादी (=अहिंसा ) विचारधारा के बारे में अपना अविश्वास व्यक्त करते हुए कहाँ था की "आने वाली पीड़ियाँ यह शायद ही विश्वास कर सकेंगी की कभी कोई हाड़-मांस का बना ऐसा शख्स इस धरती पर विचरण किया करता था । "
खैर , हमारे आत्म-पूजन , आत्म-भक्ति वाले देश भारत ने अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के इस कथन को अपने ही तरह से उच्चारित किया है । अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन जर्मनी में पैदा हुए और अमेरिका में शरणार्थी बन कर आये उन कुछ लागों में थे जिन्होंने तत्कालीन अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति को चिट्टी लिख कर एटम बम्ब बनाने के तरीकों पर आगे बढ़ने को कहा था । बहोत बाद में अमेरिका ने जापान पर एटम बम्ब का प्रयोग भी किया ।
एक कल्पना की उड़ान लेकर देखें तब हंसी आयेगी की जैसे अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन ने गाँधी जी पर अपना अचम्भा व्यक्त किया था , अगर आइंस्टीन भारत में पैदा हुए होते तब उनकी दिमाग को सम्पूर्ण पलट-फेर कर देने वाली 'सापेक्षता के विशेष सिद्धांत' और बाद में आये 'सापेक्षता के आम सिद्धांत' पर शायद हम भारतियों की भी यही अचम्भे वाली प्रतिक्रिया होती की "क्या-क्या कहता रहता है यह आदमी । एक दम फालतू । " आज भी हम में से कई उन सिद्धांतों को अनजाने में पढ़ कर यही सोचते होंगे की ,"इसे तो कभी भी नोबेल पुरुस्कार नहीं मिलना चाहिए । नोबेल पुरुस्कारों में ज़रूर कोई घपला, कोई राजनीती होती होगी । "
भारत में पैदा हुए आइंस्टीन शायद पागल करार दे दिए गए होते और किसी रेलवे के पुल के पास नशेड़ी बन कर मर चुके होते । नोबेल का तो सपना भी बेकार होता । आजकल के दिनों में अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के द्वारा दी गयी खोजें और पैमानों को तोड़ देने वाली नयी खोजें बहोत सी मिल रहीं हैं । पश्चिम में अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के दिए गए पैमानों के टूटने के बाद भी उनकी इज्जत बिलकुल कम नहीं हुयी है । मगर शायद हम इन्ह नयी खोजें से अपने 'सही होने' का प्रमाण तैयार कर लें की "अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के बारे में तो हमारी राय पहले से ही सही थी (:-P )। "
खैर , हमारे आत्म-पूजन , आत्म-भक्ति वाले देश भारत ने अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के इस कथन को अपने ही तरह से उच्चारित किया है । अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन जर्मनी में पैदा हुए और अमेरिका में शरणार्थी बन कर आये उन कुछ लागों में थे जिन्होंने तत्कालीन अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति को चिट्टी लिख कर एटम बम्ब बनाने के तरीकों पर आगे बढ़ने को कहा था । बहोत बाद में अमेरिका ने जापान पर एटम बम्ब का प्रयोग भी किया ।
एक कल्पना की उड़ान लेकर देखें तब हंसी आयेगी की जैसे अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन ने गाँधी जी पर अपना अचम्भा व्यक्त किया था , अगर आइंस्टीन भारत में पैदा हुए होते तब उनकी दिमाग को सम्पूर्ण पलट-फेर कर देने वाली 'सापेक्षता के विशेष सिद्धांत' और बाद में आये 'सापेक्षता के आम सिद्धांत' पर शायद हम भारतियों की भी यही अचम्भे वाली प्रतिक्रिया होती की "क्या-क्या कहता रहता है यह आदमी । एक दम फालतू । " आज भी हम में से कई उन सिद्धांतों को अनजाने में पढ़ कर यही सोचते होंगे की ,"इसे तो कभी भी नोबेल पुरुस्कार नहीं मिलना चाहिए । नोबेल पुरुस्कारों में ज़रूर कोई घपला, कोई राजनीती होती होगी । "
भारत में पैदा हुए आइंस्टीन शायद पागल करार दे दिए गए होते और किसी रेलवे के पुल के पास नशेड़ी बन कर मर चुके होते । नोबेल का तो सपना भी बेकार होता । आजकल के दिनों में अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के द्वारा दी गयी खोजें और पैमानों को तोड़ देने वाली नयी खोजें बहोत सी मिल रहीं हैं । पश्चिम में अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के दिए गए पैमानों के टूटने के बाद भी उनकी इज्जत बिलकुल कम नहीं हुयी है । मगर शायद हम इन्ह नयी खोजें से अपने 'सही होने' का प्रमाण तैयार कर लें की "अल्बर्ट आइंस्टीन के बारे में तो हमारी राय पहले से ही सही थी (:-P )। "
Group Dynamics in the higher order societies
Societies of higher intellect sustain and thrive because of their abilities to work along the Facts , not the beliefs. Societies which are capable of handling evidence and search the truth are able to make the Right Decisions better. This attitude , then , contributes to keep the adherence force between the members of the group and that in turn helps them to survive and prosper.
Low Intelligence societies have a trouble of lacking specialization , which forces them to resolve issues too many times, by use of Voting. Absence of knowledge of Physics can, as a matter of fact, make the low Intelligence societies to resolve the tangle of "which is easier- Pulling or Pushing?" also to be put to election vote. Imagine the condition of low-intelligent societies where there is absence of knowledge of Law, medicine, literature, arts, philosophy and so many.
''Not everything can be resolved by logic'' is the attitude of the low Intelligence societies.
''Not everything must be resolved by voting'' is the attitude of the higher intelligence societies.
To work with a large group comprising of people from different background, Reason and Logic are the best tools. Working with the help of "Mutual Trust"(=Beliefs) will cause interpersonal troubles. Low Intelligence societies see the existence of different background as a natural , insurmountable barrier and therefore see Voting and Majoritarianism as the only way out. The logical correctness of the minorities doesn't matter , as these societies are Mentally not capable of handling of handling Logic and Reasoning. Thus the Majoritarian view is the only path going ahead. As it happens in nature, Majoritarian views need not necessarily lead to progress , but also to fanaticism and other personality disorder ills.
The higher intelligence societies look to sustain the path of Reason and Logic in their decisions. They are able to contain the Majoritarian views by the Reasoning abilities of the minorities. They know that the Reasoning people are far less in number wherever they are, than the plain plebeians. Therefore , they make it a point to sustain the Reasoning and truth , no matter if it is minority. This presses on the majority to keep correcting itself to avoid becoming the Fanatics. This way, the higher intelligence group/society sustain longer and therefore they progress.
_________________________________________________________________________
Groups should be able to create a level platform for type categorization of the information. A question of "is 2+2= 4" (logic questions) cannot be put to Public voting. In question of higher management sciences, such logic question exist which the common people are not aware of. People should be trained to figure out the logic points, the flow of logic - decide accordingly.
In case of jurisprudence, one cannot put to voting the question of ''should a rapist be given death sentence'', or that ''should a juvenile of say 13 years, be treated as adult for this case''. The logical tangle in each of the two examples is from the stream of Jurisprudence. Since people are not aware of those logical issue, it doesn't mean these questions are subjective which should be decide by voting trends.
This is the problem of low intelligent societies. The specialization is not sufficient, which forces them to repeatedly seek solution into Elections. At one point these societies develop a 'logical brain unto itself'' to believe that majoritarian way is the only way to progress. They are defeated and decline because of their own inferior brain skills. The higher brain skills are always on the lookout to find the reasonable and technical fine prints even into the subjective issues. The development of sciences and technology is seeded in this behaviour difference. They settle disputes between themselves better and sustain longer and more harmonious.
Low Intelligence societies have a trouble of lacking specialization , which forces them to resolve issues too many times, by use of Voting. Absence of knowledge of Physics can, as a matter of fact, make the low Intelligence societies to resolve the tangle of "which is easier- Pulling or Pushing?" also to be put to election vote. Imagine the condition of low-intelligent societies where there is absence of knowledge of Law, medicine, literature, arts, philosophy and so many.
''Not everything can be resolved by logic'' is the attitude of the low Intelligence societies.
''Not everything must be resolved by voting'' is the attitude of the higher intelligence societies.
To work with a large group comprising of people from different background, Reason and Logic are the best tools. Working with the help of "Mutual Trust"(=Beliefs) will cause interpersonal troubles. Low Intelligence societies see the existence of different background as a natural , insurmountable barrier and therefore see Voting and Majoritarianism as the only way out. The logical correctness of the minorities doesn't matter , as these societies are Mentally not capable of handling of handling Logic and Reasoning. Thus the Majoritarian view is the only path going ahead. As it happens in nature, Majoritarian views need not necessarily lead to progress , but also to fanaticism and other personality disorder ills.
The higher intelligence societies look to sustain the path of Reason and Logic in their decisions. They are able to contain the Majoritarian views by the Reasoning abilities of the minorities. They know that the Reasoning people are far less in number wherever they are, than the plain plebeians. Therefore , they make it a point to sustain the Reasoning and truth , no matter if it is minority. This presses on the majority to keep correcting itself to avoid becoming the Fanatics. This way, the higher intelligence group/society sustain longer and therefore they progress.
_________________________________________________________________________
Groups should be able to create a level platform for type categorization of the information. A question of "is 2+2= 4" (logic questions) cannot be put to Public voting. In question of higher management sciences, such logic question exist which the common people are not aware of. People should be trained to figure out the logic points, the flow of logic - decide accordingly.
In case of jurisprudence, one cannot put to voting the question of ''should a rapist be given death sentence'', or that ''should a juvenile of say 13 years, be treated as adult for this case''. The logical tangle in each of the two examples is from the stream of Jurisprudence. Since people are not aware of those logical issue, it doesn't mean these questions are subjective which should be decide by voting trends.
This is the problem of low intelligent societies. The specialization is not sufficient, which forces them to repeatedly seek solution into Elections. At one point these societies develop a 'logical brain unto itself'' to believe that majoritarian way is the only way to progress. They are defeated and decline because of their own inferior brain skills. The higher brain skills are always on the lookout to find the reasonable and technical fine prints even into the subjective issues. The development of sciences and technology is seeded in this behaviour difference. They settle disputes between themselves better and sustain longer and more harmonious.
On the recent verdicts of Supreme Court on criminal and corrupts to contest elections
looks like the Indians have been tricked by the cunning politicians once more. Although the media is presently projecting this news as a victory of the common man, when i read the views of the rights groups on this issue, i figure out that the cunning politicians have stolen away a victory by taking an allowance through the Court process to have those people who are already Chargesheeted to contest the elections, even upto those who have been convicted "although less than 2 years". If someone can apply the mind, after reading the views of the rights groups, the government has tricked away the entire population of india by stealing away this allowance. instead of working down to improve the Police Investigation, the forensics and the Judicial system of India, the Government has managed to use that as an excuse to make a small win of today by taking victory in having convicted people to contest the elections !!!
We have been duly fooled !!
______________________________________________________________________________
I have a suspicion and a strongest belief that actually the court verdict is heavily in favour of criminality and criminalisation of politics while the ruling political party, "the government", has managed to fool the 1.2 billion population of India by a trickful presentation of the verdict. The media has projected the news as a defeat of the cunning politicians and the criminal politicians, but technically the news has brought a victory to them and their designs. They have stolen away, through a proper law process obtained from the Highest court of India, the Supreme Court, a victory and allowance to have convicted people to contest elections. The cunning politicians have even dared to "request the court to re-look into the verdict", thereby got the court to re-affirm the verdict that "yes, people who have convicted BUT for less than 2 years CAN contest elections". Inside, the politicians must be jeering this verdict , while the Common Man will stand a fool enjoying the 'verdict in his ways',after hearing the news from the mouth of the foolish news-media that the Court has "rejected people convicted over 2 years to contest elections". !
Various rights groups must immediately re-look into this case as to how the court could allow even to those people who have been duly charge-sheeted by the police to contest elections . I believe the case have worked by the lawyer-turned-politicians in a very smart way so to steal a victory at that unethical and unlawful issue without giving a whiff of who is actually the winner in the court case.
______________________________________________________________________________
It is a part of the Declaration of Human Rights that every citizen on planet Earth is given protection to his political rights and therefore the state must be checked from abusing its power to deny political rights to any of its citizens. Such a right , as with all other human Rights, have a contribution in maintaining peace and law and order on our only home in the universe, the Earth.
A state can abuse its power by falsely implicating a citizen, thereby debarring him from either contesting a democratic election process, or refraining him from voting.
The Supreme Court verdict on Criminal and Convicted citizens have come in two orders.
the SC has ordered that a person who is in prevention detention, withered chargesheeted or not , since has his voting rights suspensed under the law on Representation of People Act, therefore cannot contest election too.
The other order of Supreme Court is that a person who is chargesheeted, or has already undergone a conviction but of less than two years, can contest election, because there are fears of miscarriage of justice which must not be let in way of the rights of a citizen.
It is very difficult to attain the combination of the above three wants together, which is about preventing the criminal and corruption practises and yet not violating the Human Rights call on prevention of abuse of the powers of the state.
The Human Rights group inform us that unless we strive to achieve the necessary reforms in our Investigations, Forensics and the Justice system, we will have to suffer from both the ills- a criminalisation of politics, and/or the abuse of powers of state against the citizens. Indeed , the two orders of the Supreme court will now afford to us the two most undesired thing together. Not only will the criminal and corrupt people will be having a lawful freedom to contest elections, once they come to power they will also have the freedom to abuse state power of preventive detention against citizens who are out of their pleasure.
The causation of such a verdict of the Supreme court is that the Supreme court has unintelligently participated and approved the desire of the government to not to reform its investigation, forensic and the judicial system.
The coming era in India now runs the fear of even more aggravated criminalisation of politics while the man in the street will be harassed to fall in line of the state orders.
We have been duly fooled !!
______________________________________________________________________________
I have a suspicion and a strongest belief that actually the court verdict is heavily in favour of criminality and criminalisation of politics while the ruling political party, "the government", has managed to fool the 1.2 billion population of India by a trickful presentation of the verdict. The media has projected the news as a defeat of the cunning politicians and the criminal politicians, but technically the news has brought a victory to them and their designs. They have stolen away, through a proper law process obtained from the Highest court of India, the Supreme Court, a victory and allowance to have convicted people to contest elections. The cunning politicians have even dared to "request the court to re-look into the verdict", thereby got the court to re-affirm the verdict that "yes, people who have convicted BUT for less than 2 years CAN contest elections". Inside, the politicians must be jeering this verdict , while the Common Man will stand a fool enjoying the 'verdict in his ways',after hearing the news from the mouth of the foolish news-media that the Court has "rejected people convicted over 2 years to contest elections". !
Various rights groups must immediately re-look into this case as to how the court could allow even to those people who have been duly charge-sheeted by the police to contest elections . I believe the case have worked by the lawyer-turned-politicians in a very smart way so to steal a victory at that unethical and unlawful issue without giving a whiff of who is actually the winner in the court case.
______________________________________________________________________________
It is a part of the Declaration of Human Rights that every citizen on planet Earth is given protection to his political rights and therefore the state must be checked from abusing its power to deny political rights to any of its citizens. Such a right , as with all other human Rights, have a contribution in maintaining peace and law and order on our only home in the universe, the Earth.
A state can abuse its power by falsely implicating a citizen, thereby debarring him from either contesting a democratic election process, or refraining him from voting.
The Supreme Court verdict on Criminal and Convicted citizens have come in two orders.
the SC has ordered that a person who is in prevention detention, withered chargesheeted or not , since has his voting rights suspensed under the law on Representation of People Act, therefore cannot contest election too.
The other order of Supreme Court is that a person who is chargesheeted, or has already undergone a conviction but of less than two years, can contest election, because there are fears of miscarriage of justice which must not be let in way of the rights of a citizen.
It is very difficult to attain the combination of the above three wants together, which is about preventing the criminal and corruption practises and yet not violating the Human Rights call on prevention of abuse of the powers of the state.
The Human Rights group inform us that unless we strive to achieve the necessary reforms in our Investigations, Forensics and the Justice system, we will have to suffer from both the ills- a criminalisation of politics, and/or the abuse of powers of state against the citizens. Indeed , the two orders of the Supreme court will now afford to us the two most undesired thing together. Not only will the criminal and corrupt people will be having a lawful freedom to contest elections, once they come to power they will also have the freedom to abuse state power of preventive detention against citizens who are out of their pleasure.
The causation of such a verdict of the Supreme court is that the Supreme court has unintelligently participated and approved the desire of the government to not to reform its investigation, forensic and the judicial system.
The coming era in India now runs the fear of even more aggravated criminalisation of politics while the man in the street will be harassed to fall in line of the state orders.
Is India likely to change the Good Governance and principles of civil society at the world stage if elevated higher?
The International Olympics Committee (the IOC) has rejected the Indian Olympics Association (the IOA) proposal to allow people 'convicted for more than 2 years' to allow to be the president of the IOA , and therefore be nominated for the IOC. The IOC has rejected this proposal.
Isn't the proposal same as what the political parties in India had argued in the Supreme Court regarding permissions to the 'convicted criminals for more than two years' to contest elections. Interestingly the political parties have won there argument in the Supreme Court of India. Their main argument which the SC upheld , was that a blanket ban on the incarcerated people will result into abuse by the political parties to eliminate out their rivals through falsely fabricated cases!
The second contention of the political parties is to ask of the Supreme Court to allow people to contest elections even from the prison.
Various interested rights organisations have contested that the first verdict of the Supreme Court about allowing allowing people who have been incarcerated less than 2 years, is no less dangerous in changing the face of bureaucracy, the civil administration, and businesses in India. Instead of overhauling the justice system in India, the court has allowed the defects of the Judicial systems to become an excuse to open the doors of the convicted (and thereof the genuinely anti-social and criminal mentality people ) to formally enter the Polity. They can thereafter change the Justice against them by influencing the investigations and by affecting the legislation process. The Judicial system are already premised on the 'presumption of innocence' as the chief tenets. To bring to justice a 'suspect' criminal is already a difficult task in India. Further, considering the scientific skill of the police investigators, which mostly is about extracting the confession statement through brute force, the influences a law court judge can undergo, and all that, the Indian Judicial process is already too heavily in favor of the criminals as against the victim plaintiffs. Hence, this verdict is likely to bear very dangerous consequences on the politics, civil administration and the face of trade, business and industries in India. We have first broken the Judicial process and then used that as an excuse to break the legislations and civil administration too.
We a a future Somalia or a future Nigeria to be.
Isn't the proposal same as what the political parties in India had argued in the Supreme Court regarding permissions to the 'convicted criminals for more than two years' to contest elections. Interestingly the political parties have won there argument in the Supreme Court of India. Their main argument which the SC upheld , was that a blanket ban on the incarcerated people will result into abuse by the political parties to eliminate out their rivals through falsely fabricated cases!
The second contention of the political parties is to ask of the Supreme Court to allow people to contest elections even from the prison.
Various interested rights organisations have contested that the first verdict of the Supreme Court about allowing allowing people who have been incarcerated less than 2 years, is no less dangerous in changing the face of bureaucracy, the civil administration, and businesses in India. Instead of overhauling the justice system in India, the court has allowed the defects of the Judicial systems to become an excuse to open the doors of the convicted (and thereof the genuinely anti-social and criminal mentality people ) to formally enter the Polity. They can thereafter change the Justice against them by influencing the investigations and by affecting the legislation process. The Judicial system are already premised on the 'presumption of innocence' as the chief tenets. To bring to justice a 'suspect' criminal is already a difficult task in India. Further, considering the scientific skill of the police investigators, which mostly is about extracting the confession statement through brute force, the influences a law court judge can undergo, and all that, the Indian Judicial process is already too heavily in favor of the criminals as against the victim plaintiffs. Hence, this verdict is likely to bear very dangerous consequences on the politics, civil administration and the face of trade, business and industries in India. We have first broken the Judicial process and then used that as an excuse to break the legislations and civil administration too.
We a a future Somalia or a future Nigeria to be.
How should an MLA or an MP be ideally attending to his constituency?
How should an MLA or an MP be ideally attending to his constituency?
The conventional perception of ''who is a good man'', surprisingly has been a very relativistic view, over here in India. The general answer, which most of us Indians , unconscietiously bear in our mind, is that '' a good person is someone who is sitting on a dharna , a candle light vigil, or protest about something which is perceived to be bad''. There is perhaps no standard and idealistic answer which while conforming to the need of moderns times, help us identify the 'due process' man from an dissenter man.
In the absence of the ideal gauge, the convention of stating who is a good legislator is that ''jo apke saare kaam kara de''. When asked to elaborate on 'kaun se kaam (which all works)', the quick answer our minds thoughtlessly work back is, ''roads, bridges, flyovers, footpath and railings- banwa de''. Sometimes this answer might stretch to include the fountain on the traffic junction, or the construction and maintenance of public park, installing of statue of your favourite public figure, and the working status of the street lights in your neighbourhood.
The unspoken extensions of the response, ''kaun kaun se kaam'', are about ''freeing a convicted person from the police custody'' (where police is traditionally perceived to be mighty, stubborn, and all-powerful entity), admissions to 'posh' school where the selection process filters out certain candidates over others, ('' the principal behaves irrational'', as the selection process is interpreted by the disappointed people), and where appointment to meet a doctor a long days off.
The power, might and working success of a legislature is measured from the 'successes' of these activities. But are these parameters ideally suited to judge the legislature? are they, if you think so, any contributors to the violations of laws, the lawlessness of your neighbourhood, which have duly come into existence by our own mis-actions? What, then, should be the ideal way for a legislature to attend to the needs of his constituency?
The conventional perception of ''who is a good man'', surprisingly has been a very relativistic view, over here in India. The general answer, which most of us Indians , unconscietiously bear in our mind, is that '' a good person is someone who is sitting on a dharna , a candle light vigil, or protest about something which is perceived to be bad''. There is perhaps no standard and idealistic answer which while conforming to the need of moderns times, help us identify the 'due process' man from an dissenter man.
In the absence of the ideal gauge, the convention of stating who is a good legislator is that ''jo apke saare kaam kara de''. When asked to elaborate on 'kaun se kaam (which all works)', the quick answer our minds thoughtlessly work back is, ''roads, bridges, flyovers, footpath and railings- banwa de''. Sometimes this answer might stretch to include the fountain on the traffic junction, or the construction and maintenance of public park, installing of statue of your favourite public figure, and the working status of the street lights in your neighbourhood.
The unspoken extensions of the response, ''kaun kaun se kaam'', are about ''freeing a convicted person from the police custody'' (where police is traditionally perceived to be mighty, stubborn, and all-powerful entity), admissions to 'posh' school where the selection process filters out certain candidates over others, ('' the principal behaves irrational'', as the selection process is interpreted by the disappointed people), and where appointment to meet a doctor a long days off.
The power, might and working success of a legislature is measured from the 'successes' of these activities. But are these parameters ideally suited to judge the legislature? are they, if you think so, any contributors to the violations of laws, the lawlessness of your neighbourhood, which have duly come into existence by our own mis-actions? What, then, should be the ideal way for a legislature to attend to the needs of his constituency?
आस्तिक इंसानों का मुर्ख राष्ट्र
आस्तिक इंसानों में समझ की यह समस्या अक्सर होती है की वह 'पॉवर' को एक-सत्ता(absoluteness) की दृष्टि में देखना और समझना पसंद करते हैं । वह " पॉवर के संतुलन " के व्यक्तव्य को समझ सकने में थोडा मानसिक तौर से मंद होते हैं ।
आस्तिक इंसानों का यह नजरिया और मंद-मस्तिष्क उनकी आस्तिक विश्वासों की ही उपज होती है । यह लोग अधिकार (राइट्स) और शक्ति (पॉवर) के बीच में अंतर नहीं कर सकते हैं। वह दुनिया को किसी अदभुत ताकत के द्वारा रचित एक करिश्मा के रूप में देखते हैं,जिसे वह भगवान् अथवा इश्वर बुलाते हैं । भगवान् मनुष्य की समझ के परे होते हैं और इस लिए भगवान की शक्तियों से सम्बंधित आगे कोई भी तलाश, जिज्ञासा , प्रशन को वह एक व्यर्थ कार्य, व्यर्थ मेहनत समझते हैं । वह स्वयं ही उस शक्ति के आगे विनम्र और नतमस्तक , यानि दूसरे शब्दों में - विवश, हो जाते हैं । अपने इस त्रुटिपूर्ण नज़रिए की छाप वह अपने राजनैतिक ज्ञान में भी झलकाते हैं । जन-प्रशासन और राजनैतिक विज्ञानं से उपजे कुछ सिद्धांतों (theories ) को त्रुटीपूर्ण तरीके से प्रथक- मनोभाव (isolation ) से देख बैठते हैं , जबकि वह 'पॉवर के संतुलन' (balance of power ) की समझ में किसी परस्परता में रचे गए होते है ।
शायद यही वह त्रुटी वाली मानसिकता है जिसमे हमारे देश में दो बेहद मुर्खता से भरी बहस हुयी है । एक बहस की "राष्ट्रपति का पद संविधान के अनुसार एक उपाधि मात्र है (title head of state ), जिसको कोई ख़ास अधिकार नहीं दिए गए हैं "। और दूसरी बहस की "संसद और आम आदमी में कौन सर्वोच्च है , कौन प्रधान है ? (who is supreme - Parliament or Common man ?)"
इतिहास के पन्नों में यदि झाँक कर हम संसद के उद्गम , और राष्ट्रपति के उद्गम के कारणों को समझे तब पता चलेगा की प्रजातान्त्रिक व्यवस्था में संसद और राष्ट्रपति एक दूसरे के परस्पर, "पॉवर के सन्तुल"(balance of power ), की समझ से विक्सित किये गए थे , और राष्ट्रपति को इसलिए एक उपाधि-मात्र पद में तब्दील कर दिया गया था क्योंकि उनकी सारी शक्तियों को संसद से दिशा-नियंत्रित करने की मंशा थी । संसद को राष्ट्रपति से अधिक शक्तिवान बनाया गया था क्योंकि वह आम आदमी का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है ।
हमारी सामूहिक राष्ट्रीय 'बुद्धिमता'(=मुर्खता) का आलम यह है की आज हम उन असली और ऐतिहासिक तर्कों को भुला चुके हैं और राष्ट्रपति के पद को संसद व्यवस्था के बेगेर ही एक उपाधि-मात्र पद समझते है । और फिर अपनी इस अशुद्ध समझ में एक और कदम आगे चल कर यह बहस भी चालू कर ली है की 'संसद बनाम आम-आदमी' में कौन सर्वोच्च है । जन-प्रशासन नीतियों में कहीं भी कोई भी सर्वोच्च शक्तिमान नहीं बनाया गया होता है । सभी शक्तियों को कहीं न कहीं किसी दूसरी शक्ति के विरूद्ध रख कर "शक्ति का संतुलन " अनिवार्यता से प्राप्त करा गया होता है । इस सिद्धांत के पीछे की समझ यह रखी गयी है की- जैसे अच्छाई और बुराई के बीच लड़ाई में जीत हमेशा अच्छाई की ही हुयी है , वैसे ही जब दो "बराबर" की शक्तियां आपस में टकराएंगी तब दोनों में से जो अच्छाई का प्रतिनिधत्व कर रहा होगा उसकी जीत स्वयं ही होगी । किसी भी शक्ति को एक-सत्ता में नहीं छोड़ा गया है , उसके बराबर में कोई न कोई दूसरी शक्ति ज़रूर खड़ी करी गयी है जिससे उनमे आपस में मुकाबला हो और फिर दुनिया में अच्छाई बची रहे।
अब अगर हमारे देश में आज अच्छाई का दमन होने लगा है तब स्वाभाविक तौर पर हमारे कुछ त्रुटीपूर्ण मानसिकता ने ही हमारी जन-प्रशासन नीतियों की भंगित कर दिया है और कहीं कुछ अनियंत्रित शक्तियां उभरने लग गयी है जिनको संतुलित करने के लिए कोई भी नहीं बचा है ।
तब यह अचरज का विषय है की जब देश के न्यायालयों ने सभी राजनैतिक पार्टियों को "सूचना के अधिकार" के अंतर्गत आने का न्याय दे दिया है , जब अपराधियों को चुनाव लड़ने से वंचित करने का न्याय हो चूका है , तब यह - आज का संसद - एक विधेयक के द्वारा एक अच्छाई , एक तर्क-संगत तरीके से प्राप्त न्याय को पलटने की कोशिश कर रहा है । वह ऐसा करने में लगभग सफल भी हो चूका है , अब जब सिर्फ राष्ट्रपति के हस्ताक्षर एकमात्र बाँधा रह गए हैं । मगर वह भी कोई बाँधा है , जब हमारी सामूहिक राष्ट्रीय 'बुद्धिमता'(=मुर्खता) ने हमे यह पहले ही सिखा दिया है की राष्ट्रपति तो एक उपाधि-मात्र पद होता है ।
'संसद-बनाम-आम आदमी ' की बहस में तो संसद में बैठे कुछ बीमारू राज्यों से चुने हुए जन-प्रतिनिधि , जिनकी मानसिकता भी संभवतः उनके राज्य की आर्थिक स्थिति के समान ही बीमारू है , ने अपनी खास देहाती भाषा और अंदाज़ में यह भाषण भी दिए है की "सरकार हम चलते है , हमे मालूम है की शासन कैसे किया जाता है । यह सड़क का आदमी हमे क्या बताएगा की सरकार चलाने के लिए क्या-क्या करना पड़ता है । "
--ऐसे जैसे अपने बीमारू राज्य को उन्होंने बहोत बखूबी से चलाया था , और उनके अलवा बाकि सब लोग जन प्रशासन की कला-विज्ञान में बेकार हैं ।
आस्तिकों के देश में *अंतःकरण (Conscience )* की आवाज़ के लिए कोई जगह नहीं होती है । आस्तिक अपने विश्वासों में अपने इश्वर को दूंड चुके होते हैं , इसलिए वह अपने विश्वास के सूत्र-चालक (पंडित जी , भविष्य बताने वालों,इत्यादि) के कथनों के *अनुपालन (Compliance )* में ही इश्वर को देखने और समझने लगते हैं । हालाँकि आस्तिकों को उनके सूत्र-चालक यह बताते हैं की ईश्वर ने मनुष्य को एक अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ से सुसजित किया है जिससे की हर मनुष्य स्वयम से सही-और-गलत , न्याय-और-अन्याय में अंतर कर के अपने कर्म करे , अपने इश्वर का साथ वह अपनी अन्तश्चेतना से निभाय , अधिकाँश आस्तिक मनुष्य किसी सूत्र-चालक के कथन को इश्वर का कथन मानते हैं और उसी कथन के अनुपालन में ही अपने इश्वर की भक्ति समझते है ।
अस्तिको की यही दुविधा है की वह शायद इश्वर को कभी भी प्राप्त नहीं कर पाते हैं । हाल ही आई एक सिनेमा, oh my god , में यह विचार प्रस्तुत किया गया है की इश्वर नास्तिक को ही मिलते हैं आस्तिक को नहीं । ऐसा इसलिए क्योंकि नास्तिक इश्वर को नहीं मानते हैं , इसलिए वह हमेशा उसकी तलाश में रहते हैं , जबकि आस्तिक किसी सूत्र-चालक में इश्वर के होने का विश्वास कर लेते हैं और तलाश ही बंद कर बैठते हैं । शायद यह अन्तःकारण की आवाज़ ही इश्वर है जो शायद हर मनुष्य में विद्यमान होता है। बस उसे सुनना और अनसुना करने मात्र का अंतर होता है किसी नास्तिक और आस्तिक में ।
राजनैतिक विचार में अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ को अवैज्ञानिक या अन्यायिक प्रसंग नहीं रह गया है । इतिहास में संसद बनाम राष्ट्रपति का पद इसी अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ के आधार पर ही निर्मित हुआ था । आज भी राष्ट्रपति के पद पर यह उत्तरदायित्व बना हुआ है की वह अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ के अनुसार ही संसद द्वारा पारित किसी विधेयक को हस्ताक्षरित करे अथवा नहीं । विकीपेडिया के लेख (Conscience ) में कोई भी व्यक्ति अन्तःकरण द्वारा प्रेरित दुनिया भर में और कई सारे नियमों के बारे में पढ़ सकता है ।
Nuremberg Trials भी अन्तः करण की आवाज़ को प्रधानता देते हैं की- कहीं भी , कोई भी व्यक्ति कभी यह नहीं कहने का हक़दार होगा की उसे कोई गलत काम अपने बॉस के आदेशों के अनुपालन में हुआ था । बॉस के आदेश के अनुपालन से बड़ा उसके अन्तःकरण को माना जायेगा , और वह गलत काम उसी के कर्म माने जायेंगे , जिसने उन्हें अंजाम दिया होगा ।
हमारे देश में आस्तिकों की राजनीतिक समझ के यह हालत हैं की यह लोग धर्मनिरपेक्षता के नाम पर भी साम्प्रदायिकता को ही मानते हैं और देश की राजनीति की सम्प्रदायिता का बंधक बना लिया है । नास्तिकता को तो यह 'अन्तःकरण की आवाज़' से जुदा कर के देखते हैं । बलकि शायद अन्तः करण की आवाज़ के होने में ही विश्वास नहीं करते ,जबकि कई सारे संविधानिक अनुछेद और संसद-बनाम-राष्ट्रपति का पद भी 'अन्तः करण की आवाज़' के अस्तित्व पर ही निर्मित हुए हैं । सच है , आस्तिकों की दुनिया विखंडित , अव्यवस्थित और अवैज्ञानिक होती है जहाँ सिर्फ मुर्खता ही राज करती है । यहाँ तर्कवान, व्यवस्थित और वैज्ञानिक सोच को हमेशा परास्त होना पड़ता है ।
वर्तमान का भारत वर्ष एक ऐसे ही आस्तिकों की दुनिया और प्राकृतिक तर्कों के परास्त कर देने वाला , कुतर्की त्रासदी बन चुका है ।
आस्तिक इंसानों का यह नजरिया और मंद-मस्तिष्क उनकी आस्तिक विश्वासों की ही उपज होती है । यह लोग अधिकार (राइट्स) और शक्ति (पॉवर) के बीच में अंतर नहीं कर सकते हैं। वह दुनिया को किसी अदभुत ताकत के द्वारा रचित एक करिश्मा के रूप में देखते हैं,जिसे वह भगवान् अथवा इश्वर बुलाते हैं । भगवान् मनुष्य की समझ के परे होते हैं और इस लिए भगवान की शक्तियों से सम्बंधित आगे कोई भी तलाश, जिज्ञासा , प्रशन को वह एक व्यर्थ कार्य, व्यर्थ मेहनत समझते हैं । वह स्वयं ही उस शक्ति के आगे विनम्र और नतमस्तक , यानि दूसरे शब्दों में - विवश, हो जाते हैं । अपने इस त्रुटिपूर्ण नज़रिए की छाप वह अपने राजनैतिक ज्ञान में भी झलकाते हैं । जन-प्रशासन और राजनैतिक विज्ञानं से उपजे कुछ सिद्धांतों (theories ) को त्रुटीपूर्ण तरीके से प्रथक- मनोभाव (isolation ) से देख बैठते हैं , जबकि वह 'पॉवर के संतुलन' (balance of power ) की समझ में किसी परस्परता में रचे गए होते है ।
शायद यही वह त्रुटी वाली मानसिकता है जिसमे हमारे देश में दो बेहद मुर्खता से भरी बहस हुयी है । एक बहस की "राष्ट्रपति का पद संविधान के अनुसार एक उपाधि मात्र है (title head of state ), जिसको कोई ख़ास अधिकार नहीं दिए गए हैं "। और दूसरी बहस की "संसद और आम आदमी में कौन सर्वोच्च है , कौन प्रधान है ? (who is supreme - Parliament or Common man ?)"
इतिहास के पन्नों में यदि झाँक कर हम संसद के उद्गम , और राष्ट्रपति के उद्गम के कारणों को समझे तब पता चलेगा की प्रजातान्त्रिक व्यवस्था में संसद और राष्ट्रपति एक दूसरे के परस्पर, "पॉवर के सन्तुल"(balance of power ), की समझ से विक्सित किये गए थे , और राष्ट्रपति को इसलिए एक उपाधि-मात्र पद में तब्दील कर दिया गया था क्योंकि उनकी सारी शक्तियों को संसद से दिशा-नियंत्रित करने की मंशा थी । संसद को राष्ट्रपति से अधिक शक्तिवान बनाया गया था क्योंकि वह आम आदमी का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है ।
हमारी सामूहिक राष्ट्रीय 'बुद्धिमता'(=मुर्खता) का आलम यह है की आज हम उन असली और ऐतिहासिक तर्कों को भुला चुके हैं और राष्ट्रपति के पद को संसद व्यवस्था के बेगेर ही एक उपाधि-मात्र पद समझते है । और फिर अपनी इस अशुद्ध समझ में एक और कदम आगे चल कर यह बहस भी चालू कर ली है की 'संसद बनाम आम-आदमी' में कौन सर्वोच्च है । जन-प्रशासन नीतियों में कहीं भी कोई भी सर्वोच्च शक्तिमान नहीं बनाया गया होता है । सभी शक्तियों को कहीं न कहीं किसी दूसरी शक्ति के विरूद्ध रख कर "शक्ति का संतुलन " अनिवार्यता से प्राप्त करा गया होता है । इस सिद्धांत के पीछे की समझ यह रखी गयी है की- जैसे अच्छाई और बुराई के बीच लड़ाई में जीत हमेशा अच्छाई की ही हुयी है , वैसे ही जब दो "बराबर" की शक्तियां आपस में टकराएंगी तब दोनों में से जो अच्छाई का प्रतिनिधत्व कर रहा होगा उसकी जीत स्वयं ही होगी । किसी भी शक्ति को एक-सत्ता में नहीं छोड़ा गया है , उसके बराबर में कोई न कोई दूसरी शक्ति ज़रूर खड़ी करी गयी है जिससे उनमे आपस में मुकाबला हो और फिर दुनिया में अच्छाई बची रहे।
अब अगर हमारे देश में आज अच्छाई का दमन होने लगा है तब स्वाभाविक तौर पर हमारे कुछ त्रुटीपूर्ण मानसिकता ने ही हमारी जन-प्रशासन नीतियों की भंगित कर दिया है और कहीं कुछ अनियंत्रित शक्तियां उभरने लग गयी है जिनको संतुलित करने के लिए कोई भी नहीं बचा है ।
तब यह अचरज का विषय है की जब देश के न्यायालयों ने सभी राजनैतिक पार्टियों को "सूचना के अधिकार" के अंतर्गत आने का न्याय दे दिया है , जब अपराधियों को चुनाव लड़ने से वंचित करने का न्याय हो चूका है , तब यह - आज का संसद - एक विधेयक के द्वारा एक अच्छाई , एक तर्क-संगत तरीके से प्राप्त न्याय को पलटने की कोशिश कर रहा है । वह ऐसा करने में लगभग सफल भी हो चूका है , अब जब सिर्फ राष्ट्रपति के हस्ताक्षर एकमात्र बाँधा रह गए हैं । मगर वह भी कोई बाँधा है , जब हमारी सामूहिक राष्ट्रीय 'बुद्धिमता'(=मुर्खता) ने हमे यह पहले ही सिखा दिया है की राष्ट्रपति तो एक उपाधि-मात्र पद होता है ।
'संसद-बनाम-आम आदमी ' की बहस में तो संसद में बैठे कुछ बीमारू राज्यों से चुने हुए जन-प्रतिनिधि , जिनकी मानसिकता भी संभवतः उनके राज्य की आर्थिक स्थिति के समान ही बीमारू है , ने अपनी खास देहाती भाषा और अंदाज़ में यह भाषण भी दिए है की "सरकार हम चलते है , हमे मालूम है की शासन कैसे किया जाता है । यह सड़क का आदमी हमे क्या बताएगा की सरकार चलाने के लिए क्या-क्या करना पड़ता है । "
--ऐसे जैसे अपने बीमारू राज्य को उन्होंने बहोत बखूबी से चलाया था , और उनके अलवा बाकि सब लोग जन प्रशासन की कला-विज्ञान में बेकार हैं ।
आस्तिकों के देश में *अंतःकरण (Conscience )* की आवाज़ के लिए कोई जगह नहीं होती है । आस्तिक अपने विश्वासों में अपने इश्वर को दूंड चुके होते हैं , इसलिए वह अपने विश्वास के सूत्र-चालक (पंडित जी , भविष्य बताने वालों,इत्यादि) के कथनों के *अनुपालन (Compliance )* में ही इश्वर को देखने और समझने लगते हैं । हालाँकि आस्तिकों को उनके सूत्र-चालक यह बताते हैं की ईश्वर ने मनुष्य को एक अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ से सुसजित किया है जिससे की हर मनुष्य स्वयम से सही-और-गलत , न्याय-और-अन्याय में अंतर कर के अपने कर्म करे , अपने इश्वर का साथ वह अपनी अन्तश्चेतना से निभाय , अधिकाँश आस्तिक मनुष्य किसी सूत्र-चालक के कथन को इश्वर का कथन मानते हैं और उसी कथन के अनुपालन में ही अपने इश्वर की भक्ति समझते है ।
अस्तिको की यही दुविधा है की वह शायद इश्वर को कभी भी प्राप्त नहीं कर पाते हैं । हाल ही आई एक सिनेमा, oh my god , में यह विचार प्रस्तुत किया गया है की इश्वर नास्तिक को ही मिलते हैं आस्तिक को नहीं । ऐसा इसलिए क्योंकि नास्तिक इश्वर को नहीं मानते हैं , इसलिए वह हमेशा उसकी तलाश में रहते हैं , जबकि आस्तिक किसी सूत्र-चालक में इश्वर के होने का विश्वास कर लेते हैं और तलाश ही बंद कर बैठते हैं । शायद यह अन्तःकारण की आवाज़ ही इश्वर है जो शायद हर मनुष्य में विद्यमान होता है। बस उसे सुनना और अनसुना करने मात्र का अंतर होता है किसी नास्तिक और आस्तिक में ।
राजनैतिक विचार में अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ को अवैज्ञानिक या अन्यायिक प्रसंग नहीं रह गया है । इतिहास में संसद बनाम राष्ट्रपति का पद इसी अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ के आधार पर ही निर्मित हुआ था । आज भी राष्ट्रपति के पद पर यह उत्तरदायित्व बना हुआ है की वह अन्तःकरण की आवाज़ के अनुसार ही संसद द्वारा पारित किसी विधेयक को हस्ताक्षरित करे अथवा नहीं । विकीपेडिया के लेख (Conscience ) में कोई भी व्यक्ति अन्तःकरण द्वारा प्रेरित दुनिया भर में और कई सारे नियमों के बारे में पढ़ सकता है ।
Nuremberg Trials भी अन्तः करण की आवाज़ को प्रधानता देते हैं की- कहीं भी , कोई भी व्यक्ति कभी यह नहीं कहने का हक़दार होगा की उसे कोई गलत काम अपने बॉस के आदेशों के अनुपालन में हुआ था । बॉस के आदेश के अनुपालन से बड़ा उसके अन्तःकरण को माना जायेगा , और वह गलत काम उसी के कर्म माने जायेंगे , जिसने उन्हें अंजाम दिया होगा ।
हमारे देश में आस्तिकों की राजनीतिक समझ के यह हालत हैं की यह लोग धर्मनिरपेक्षता के नाम पर भी साम्प्रदायिकता को ही मानते हैं और देश की राजनीति की सम्प्रदायिता का बंधक बना लिया है । नास्तिकता को तो यह 'अन्तःकरण की आवाज़' से जुदा कर के देखते हैं । बलकि शायद अन्तः करण की आवाज़ के होने में ही विश्वास नहीं करते ,जबकि कई सारे संविधानिक अनुछेद और संसद-बनाम-राष्ट्रपति का पद भी 'अन्तः करण की आवाज़' के अस्तित्व पर ही निर्मित हुए हैं । सच है , आस्तिकों की दुनिया विखंडित , अव्यवस्थित और अवैज्ञानिक होती है जहाँ सिर्फ मुर्खता ही राज करती है । यहाँ तर्कवान, व्यवस्थित और वैज्ञानिक सोच को हमेशा परास्त होना पड़ता है ।
वर्तमान का भारत वर्ष एक ऐसे ही आस्तिकों की दुनिया और प्राकृतिक तर्कों के परास्त कर देने वाला , कुतर्की त्रासदी बन चुका है ।
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)