For this question we should look
into the initial situation that would have led to a formal institution of
administration and politics. At the start of civilisation there must have been
small communities in which people formed families and societies to look after
each other. Need of man to look after each other and in turn being looked after
him at times of crisis or otherwise is the basic tenet of development of
family, society or nation.
Thus I find humanism to be the
basic principle for the development of every aspect of civilisation, may it be
family, society, nation or religion. When people say that some man can be
sacrificed for the greater good of religion or state, I find it outrightly
disastrous. Does this mean that the soldiers who sacrifice themselves in the
name of nation are misled? No. It’s because they are not sacrificed at the will
of others. They have their motivation and they do so because they hold
something, namely nation, very dear to themselves and to defend that
institution, they are willing to even lay their lives.
It would be very convenient if
there were no nation, no state and no army but practically it is not possible
currently because not everyone would think like this and I don’t blame them to
be wrong. All these assumptions taken by me may be wrong or I might be missing
something very important ion this conclusion. However, if this logic is not
flawed then it is logical to conclude that when the population of humans
increased to a large extent and it became impossible to control the “looking
after” process by simple institutions like family and society, villages and
subsequently nations were developed.
In this endeavour humans
increasingly felt the need to appoint someone as their leader to take decisions
on their behalf. They must have felt that this should be done by someone who is
best among themselves. So a leader, especially political ones, should have two
central traits: 1. He should be the best among the population who can take
decisions according to his good sense of justice that benefits the whole
society. 2. He should have an inherent tendency to look after not only his
well-being but of the whole society too.
While finding such a man would
have been a difficult job for initial institutions too but to achieve something
similar at a national level is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, I
think. That is why man experimented with monarchy, bureaucracy, feudalism,
democracy and what not.
Monarchy has its advantages like
swift implementation of action and others but with passing time the rule goes
into the hands of a person that is a son or a relative or a loyal supporter of
the king who himself might not be talented or judicious enough for this immense
task. After much experimentation it seems that democracy is the best option.
Again this is a generalised statement without a formal proof but in the light
of insufficient and limited data I am making this statement. The no nation idea
mentioned earlier should ideally be the best option but the way in which
different civilisations around the world developed is responsible for the
nationalist feelings seen world around today.
Now coming to the main point, in
indian context after the independence, development of nation was envisaged as
india as a nation and then fixing the administration in a way that was best
suitable for this plan. This is an admirable approach but I think that a better
approach could have been keeping the individual at centre of administration.
Nation as an institution may be a subject of pride for the people of that
nation and people shall make every effort for the development of that nation
but ultimately nation shall be there for the benefit of every individual rather
than people for the nation.
If this approach would have been
taken then I think that the development of small villages and bringing
grass-root democracy in india would have been the top most priority of indian
leaders. I am deeply influenced by the views of Mahatma Gandhi in this context
(grass-root village democracy and concept of state not being the best option of
administration). And this is why I hold sympathetic views about the current
movement currently led by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal. People often say that he has socialistic
and uneconomic tendencies and is leading india to a path of disaster.
I do not want to go deep into the
economic aspects lest I tread into an entirely divergent path but at the least
I can say is that socialistic communistic and capitalistic economic sense of
the world has a very fluctuating history and I have not been able yet to hold
one of the economic ideologies better than the other. While uneconomic
activities are bound to fail but way of policy implementation surely can have
various interpretations. I do not have enough information to hold my claim but
I doubt some of his policies and think that only time can tell about their
success or failure.
However this doesn’t rip them off
their most successful experiment of bringing a hope into the current political
scenario of india. I do not understand how those people who are harassed by the
police and administration in the country on a regular basis could not
understand the initiatives taken by him. There can be three reasons: 1. Time is
of essence and looking at the election propaganda by various political parties
(mainly BJP) they are maligned so that they might not cut enough of their votes
and this, according to me, might not be a very bad thing in larger context. 2.
People who have been supporter of a political party earlier can’t leave their
ideologies immediately and this is the inertia that is holding them back and
this group will ultimately come forward in this movement given everything in
this movement goes right. 3. They basically do not like the ideology of the
party and they would be the main opponent for this ideological struggle by this
party or parties like this.
Now, the society in which we are
today is a centralised society which has been culturally and historically
decentralised in units called villages. But the administration developed after
independence, and with such vigour, has established a central administration
with a proper system based on foreign understanding and societal and cultural
values. This is the main fault of administration in india, I think.
But to rectify such a system is
also not an easy task in itself and this would surely require something like a
revolution. The smoother the revolution the better it is for india because a
violent and disruptive revolution has the potential to derail the high speed
economic growth wagon. Ideas of the likes of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal
are praiseworthy but they can take a lesson or two from the high ideals of
Mahatma Gandhi. As pointed out in an opinion in The Hindu, violence is limited
not only in action but also in words and thoughts.
This is where Mr. Arvind Kejriwal
and AAP party fails miserably. With so much swearing and pointing out the
faults of various personalities and parties present in indian political system
they only undermine their own credibility. You can’t remain clean by throwing
stone into the mud. To clean the mud, you have to enter the muddy area that
they have already done and then slowly and steadily clean the mud through
various instruments. The mud that you come into contact in this process is the
inevitable sacrifice you make for the greater purposes. This mud is equivalent
to the degenerate allegations levelled by the corrupt political leaders but
public in general understands these baseless allegations and not much harm can
be done through them. They only have to resist the urge to respond and cry foul
over all these allegations and try to use good and sensitive words when
addressing a public gathering or when talking to the media.
It doesn’t matter whether they
succeed or not because there have been many things in this world that could
have been better or worst but after all you and me as an individual or humanity
as a whole has survived all this and believe me or not there are far more
important things in your life than this if you think clearly. The only thing
that matters is what ideal you are following and whether you are trying enough
to fulfil that ideal or not. You would certainly be a happier person if you
follow the golden words of Mahatma Gandhi – “Be the change you want to see in
the world.”
