Over-simplicisation is dangerous too. There has to be gap between the "khaas" and the "aam"
We might require a comprehensive theory on what should be "aam" (simpli-cised, general) and what should be "khaas" (special). After all, this too is a Dystopian behaviour where sweets will value the same price as the vegetables . As the famous Hindi language proverb says "Andher nagari chaupat raja, jis bhav bhaaji, us bhaav khaaja." Excessive equality is as much inferior on the intellectual test, as is the vast inequality.
Inequality is the secret driving engine of nature. Something like the Gravity gradient, which causes the potential energy be created and stored away. Or the voltage difference which causes the electricity to flow. But do remember that a large difference, a representation of the inequality, results into an Avalanche breakdown, or a short-circuit in the electricity.
A politician when he becomes a statesman, should or should not be treated as "khass", we shall seek to examine. In Hindu beliefs, the understanding about the 'Bhagwaan' says that a person who has achieved all six qualities which define the Opulance (the six qualities being - beauty, wealth, knowledge, fame, strength and power) the grandiosity, when he achieves the seventh quality of renunciation, he becomes a Bhagwaan. Bhagwaan, as a nature of the society goes, is a "Khaas" person, no more the "aam" person, which the other mortal humans are. Renunciation is the quality which is the last and the ultimate parameter of judging a 'Bhagwaan'.
Lord Manu says that a person who has taken on himself the task of bringing change in the society for its betterment, who does the task of educating, awakening the conscience of the people, one who has sacrificed his personal comforts for the welfare of the society - is the most reverend Brahmin. For him, Manu says, the earth belongs to him, and he owns the earth in his reverence self. Because, it be the duty of every other man to respect such a person, who as attained the Brahmin.
In modern times, a statesman is different from the other citizens in that whereas the common has a legal, constitutional and a human right to demand privacy, a statesman is required to voluntarily sacrifice his privacy, to adopt transparency about his wealth, finance, his beliefs and his private life-- all for securing the public faith. It is now that a statesman becomes a "khaas", it should be a burden on the State to ensure to him the comforts and security which be due.
The challenge, as always, is about judging the determinant for what is due. The practical challenge of the modern times is that 'politicians' (truely the realpolitik gainers) *demand* , instead of justifying *what is due*. There is an inter-twining of the compulsiveness of a feudalistic mentality, with the free-will of a democracy. This makes the task challenging to determine who should be "aam" and who should be "khaas".
It is in a reaction to this challenge that the people often take to crying for "aam" status for everyone. The idea is to remove the inequality of all forms, the valid and invalid, to completely shut out the problem itself. But than, this severe Equality is as much against the force of nature as is the large Inequality.
Inequality is the secret driving engine of nature. Something like the Gravity gradient, which causes the potential energy be created and stored away. Or the voltage difference which causes the electricity to flow. But do remember that a large difference, a representation of the inequality, results into an Avalanche breakdown, or a short-circuit in the electricity.
A politician when he becomes a statesman, should or should not be treated as "khass", we shall seek to examine. In Hindu beliefs, the understanding about the 'Bhagwaan' says that a person who has achieved all six qualities which define the Opulance (the six qualities being - beauty, wealth, knowledge, fame, strength and power) the grandiosity, when he achieves the seventh quality of renunciation, he becomes a Bhagwaan. Bhagwaan, as a nature of the society goes, is a "Khaas" person, no more the "aam" person, which the other mortal humans are. Renunciation is the quality which is the last and the ultimate parameter of judging a 'Bhagwaan'.
Lord Manu says that a person who has taken on himself the task of bringing change in the society for its betterment, who does the task of educating, awakening the conscience of the people, one who has sacrificed his personal comforts for the welfare of the society - is the most reverend Brahmin. For him, Manu says, the earth belongs to him, and he owns the earth in his reverence self. Because, it be the duty of every other man to respect such a person, who as attained the Brahmin.
In modern times, a statesman is different from the other citizens in that whereas the common has a legal, constitutional and a human right to demand privacy, a statesman is required to voluntarily sacrifice his privacy, to adopt transparency about his wealth, finance, his beliefs and his private life-- all for securing the public faith. It is now that a statesman becomes a "khaas", it should be a burden on the State to ensure to him the comforts and security which be due.
The challenge, as always, is about judging the determinant for what is due. The practical challenge of the modern times is that 'politicians' (truely the realpolitik gainers) *demand* , instead of justifying *what is due*. There is an inter-twining of the compulsiveness of a feudalistic mentality, with the free-will of a democracy. This makes the task challenging to determine who should be "aam" and who should be "khaas".
It is in a reaction to this challenge that the people often take to crying for "aam" status for everyone. The idea is to remove the inequality of all forms, the valid and invalid, to completely shut out the problem itself. But than, this severe Equality is as much against the force of nature as is the large Inequality.
Comments
Post a Comment