The arcane slut ' Indian Democracy'
Indian democracy has terribly lost its character. It miserably behaved-- or was made to do so-- as a young teen slithering from the socialite hands of Pandit Nehru and then slowly, by and by, there came a serial contemptuous polity that rendered it to the status used (shamelessly) in the masthead. There was something that prompted me to write like that.
In what way do the people of India understand the overly complex 'Democracy'? Many a people would shrug off merely hinting it as a loose sobriquet for the State or Parliament or Political Culture. (The last bit could have come half-way cross to its actual connotation but the user is insightful about it.) And to the elite, educated and counted, it is too meaningful that it would be a misery and vacuity to confine it to the definition originated from one (or a few) heads because every school of thought (because elites have schools of thought). As such, it is still searching for an honorable name but still--as it is seen almost everyday on news channels galore--that politicians, opinion makers, panelists at pseudo-intellectual debates would use it as a petty cave to slide in when asked of questions about the political culture they are seeked to rinse in.
Most of these excuses are made not to overtly take a stance while, to put in contrast, the codes of Democracy not only allows but facilitates one to take a stand. One wonderful definition that my professor recounted to me when I plied with him over the lack of it was: Democracy is the collective ethics of Political Culture of a nation. Thus it is the moral politics that underpins the body of Democracy. So why the likes of politicians would throw the word here and there, as if in discard while at the same time slobbering over it, ducking the question put to them. Congressmen have gone a bit ahead who would pontificate when asked about the right of author (Salman Rushdie) to retreat to his nation of birth, in saying that in a pressing democracy the voices of dissent should also be heeded and respected. Not to mention that in order to appease a mass taking the guise of or giving a burka to Democracy, there themselves with abashing give up their right to choose right. Here is where the degradation starts because as a political party in power in Indian Democracy they ought to have their way direction clear to not only point toward but also to guide others. This lack of thought and merely hiding under the cloak of cliche bickering of appeasement of certain mass of people will not do, should not do.
It is therefore--now, coming to the point--that politicians must own up Democracy. And the best way is to practice it. Not to merely call it along with all its trappings and equipage, like a wealthy hotelier would call for an escort agency to send in the best slut on the board because a client with deep pockets has to be appeased.
In what way do the people of India understand the overly complex 'Democracy'? Many a people would shrug off merely hinting it as a loose sobriquet for the State or Parliament or Political Culture. (The last bit could have come half-way cross to its actual connotation but the user is insightful about it.) And to the elite, educated and counted, it is too meaningful that it would be a misery and vacuity to confine it to the definition originated from one (or a few) heads because every school of thought (because elites have schools of thought). As such, it is still searching for an honorable name but still--as it is seen almost everyday on news channels galore--that politicians, opinion makers, panelists at pseudo-intellectual debates would use it as a petty cave to slide in when asked of questions about the political culture they are seeked to rinse in.
Most of these excuses are made not to overtly take a stance while, to put in contrast, the codes of Democracy not only allows but facilitates one to take a stand. One wonderful definition that my professor recounted to me when I plied with him over the lack of it was: Democracy is the collective ethics of Political Culture of a nation. Thus it is the moral politics that underpins the body of Democracy. So why the likes of politicians would throw the word here and there, as if in discard while at the same time slobbering over it, ducking the question put to them. Congressmen have gone a bit ahead who would pontificate when asked about the right of author (Salman Rushdie) to retreat to his nation of birth, in saying that in a pressing democracy the voices of dissent should also be heeded and respected. Not to mention that in order to appease a mass taking the guise of or giving a burka to Democracy, there themselves with abashing give up their right to choose right. Here is where the degradation starts because as a political party in power in Indian Democracy they ought to have their way direction clear to not only point toward but also to guide others. This lack of thought and merely hiding under the cloak of cliche bickering of appeasement of certain mass of people will not do, should not do.
It is therefore--now, coming to the point--that politicians must own up Democracy. And the best way is to practice it. Not to merely call it along with all its trappings and equipage, like a wealthy hotelier would call for an escort agency to send in the best slut on the board because a client with deep pockets has to be appeased.
No comments:
Post a Comment