After the people's movement brought the government and the parliament to its knees, the parliament was forced to convene. Please don't believe for even a second that this was only due to the idiot box orchestrating a fashionable movement (as the clown Sharad wanted every fool to believe and understandably most parliamentarians obliged), or that the government wanted to save the life of a seventy four year old man called Anna Hazare. The government, and the parliament realized that the people would rise in revolt and the government's God-mother's Baap (father) the Uncle-Sam (Not samalochaka silly, The United States) will take notice, and so they started pretending that they were worried about Anna's deteriorating health and so on.
And then they started an ugly display of their equally vulgar thoughts. We examine some of the fake arguments presented by them.
1. One and all of them emphasized the Supremacy of the Parliament and their reverence for the Constitution, and described Anna as un-democratic and the path taken by Anna as unilateralism, a dangerous trend in democracy.
Firstly, we clarify that we are Hindu-civilizationists and we do owe greater allegiance to Sanatana Dharma (which is a Truth Based Civilization) than to some system of governance.
However, even if we take democracy as a given, then what is democracy if not the supremacy of the people? Was our constitution created through a democratic process? NO. The committee were appointees of Jawahar as much as Team-Anna are appointees of Anna. While we have criticized Anna for his hypocricy, there is no reason to believe that Anna is any inferior to Jawahar or rather Jawahar has any superiority over Anna. Empirically speaking, Jawaharian policies brought India to an economic distaster and we were rescued only after we, even though partially, abrogated those Jawaharian imbecilities. On the other hand, Anna has transformed Ralegaon Siddhi to a better place than it was.
Our parliamentary system is a legacy of only that constitution. It has no sanctity other than the fact that it was thought that it would work great wonders for India. And until now it has indeed worked great wonders, except that they have been disastrous wonders! We have mentioned earlier that our system has failed miserably. Our politicians give a fake answer to this problem. And that is, we have a great constitution and great laws but our implementation of them is erroneous. Even if we grant that putative greatness assumption, the question remains that if we have been unable to implement them correctly and effectively for nearly sixty five years, then may be the constitution and its laws are not correctly and effectively implementable. More over, if we examine with just a dash of skepticism, we might perceive that they most probably are as wrong as the assumptions and vision of Fabian Socialism of Jawahar was.
So an important question is: How do we evaluate our constitution? Either we must have a way of showing it to be a self-evident truth, or we must judge it empirically. On both counts we have negative results. And another question is how long do we subscribe to and suffer owing to these platitudes regarding constitution before we start questioning? After nearly two thirds of a century has passed, after a close shave with economic doom, after having lost crores of rupees and thousands of lives to the Muslim and Mao problem, after suffering long agonies of an unresponsive governing system, are we still supposed to sing glories of Socialism, Secularism, and Parliamentary system? It is high time that we realized and acknowledged that these have failed. Unfortunately, Anna too owes allegiance to the same constitution. Anna's movement suffers from the same heart-head paradox (heart right but the head confused) as many other noble intentioned movements face.
We have expressed earlier that we feel we need a new constitution.
2. Non participation of Socio-economic downtrodden and Muslims:
Lalu and Sharad Yadav in the parliament and Mayawati out side the parliament voiced concerns about Dalits, Socially deprived and the Muslims. It is high time that we called the bluff on these stupid theories of affirmative action. So many decades of affirmative action and we need more of it and for longer time? We need to realize the falsity behind affirmative action.
3. Many parliamentarians felt that the civil society does not represent the will of the people, and only a handful of middle class people are behind the movement. With low voter turn out and more often than not a triangular contest, a candidate wins with even about ten percent of votes in a constituency. If we take the total number of voters and votes polled and add the votes obtained by the winning candidates, the number may not be much more than say about five crores. Thus in a country of 120 crore people and about 40 crore voters, a group which has collectively obtained about 3 crore votes, claims to represent all the people. If such is the case (more research needs to be done on this to make the argument more accurate), then Anna can surely claim to represent a substantial population of India. However, that is not the point. The point is that the parliamentarians believe that once they have won an election, they have a carte-blanch for five years! This has to go.
Thus it turned out that it was a case of 543 jokers who were trying to congratulate each other while condemning a peoples' movement.
And then they started an ugly display of their equally vulgar thoughts. We examine some of the fake arguments presented by them.
1. One and all of them emphasized the Supremacy of the Parliament and their reverence for the Constitution, and described Anna as un-democratic and the path taken by Anna as unilateralism, a dangerous trend in democracy.
Firstly, we clarify that we are Hindu-civilizationists and we do owe greater allegiance to Sanatana Dharma (which is a Truth Based Civilization) than to some system of governance.
However, even if we take democracy as a given, then what is democracy if not the supremacy of the people? Was our constitution created through a democratic process? NO. The committee were appointees of Jawahar as much as Team-Anna are appointees of Anna. While we have criticized Anna for his hypocricy, there is no reason to believe that Anna is any inferior to Jawahar or rather Jawahar has any superiority over Anna. Empirically speaking, Jawaharian policies brought India to an economic distaster and we were rescued only after we, even though partially, abrogated those Jawaharian imbecilities. On the other hand, Anna has transformed Ralegaon Siddhi to a better place than it was.
Our parliamentary system is a legacy of only that constitution. It has no sanctity other than the fact that it was thought that it would work great wonders for India. And until now it has indeed worked great wonders, except that they have been disastrous wonders! We have mentioned earlier that our system has failed miserably. Our politicians give a fake answer to this problem. And that is, we have a great constitution and great laws but our implementation of them is erroneous. Even if we grant that putative greatness assumption, the question remains that if we have been unable to implement them correctly and effectively for nearly sixty five years, then may be the constitution and its laws are not correctly and effectively implementable. More over, if we examine with just a dash of skepticism, we might perceive that they most probably are as wrong as the assumptions and vision of Fabian Socialism of Jawahar was.
So an important question is: How do we evaluate our constitution? Either we must have a way of showing it to be a self-evident truth, or we must judge it empirically. On both counts we have negative results. And another question is how long do we subscribe to and suffer owing to these platitudes regarding constitution before we start questioning? After nearly two thirds of a century has passed, after a close shave with economic doom, after having lost crores of rupees and thousands of lives to the Muslim and Mao problem, after suffering long agonies of an unresponsive governing system, are we still supposed to sing glories of Socialism, Secularism, and Parliamentary system? It is high time that we realized and acknowledged that these have failed. Unfortunately, Anna too owes allegiance to the same constitution. Anna's movement suffers from the same heart-head paradox (heart right but the head confused) as many other noble intentioned movements face.
We have expressed earlier that we feel we need a new constitution.
2. Non participation of Socio-economic downtrodden and Muslims:
Lalu and Sharad Yadav in the parliament and Mayawati out side the parliament voiced concerns about Dalits, Socially deprived and the Muslims. It is high time that we called the bluff on these stupid theories of affirmative action. So many decades of affirmative action and we need more of it and for longer time? We need to realize the falsity behind affirmative action.
3. Many parliamentarians felt that the civil society does not represent the will of the people, and only a handful of middle class people are behind the movement. With low voter turn out and more often than not a triangular contest, a candidate wins with even about ten percent of votes in a constituency. If we take the total number of voters and votes polled and add the votes obtained by the winning candidates, the number may not be much more than say about five crores. Thus in a country of 120 crore people and about 40 crore voters, a group which has collectively obtained about 3 crore votes, claims to represent all the people. If such is the case (more research needs to be done on this to make the argument more accurate), then Anna can surely claim to represent a substantial population of India. However, that is not the point. The point is that the parliamentarians believe that once they have won an election, they have a carte-blanch for five years! This has to go.
Thus it turned out that it was a case of 543 jokers who were trying to congratulate each other while condemning a peoples' movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.
This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.
While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.
There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.