13 February 2002, 10:43pm IST
Kailash Vajpeyi.
In pre-mandalised india of the seventies, prof a l basham, the author of the wonder that was india and i were colleagues at ‘el colegio de mexico’. he once observed that despite innumerable divisive factors of caste, creed and language, the fact that democracy was a functional reality in india, made india a living wonder. today, i ask myself, are we truly a democratic country? since 1947, we in india are familiar with the term democracy, a do-it-yourself doctrine. the implicit mea-ning of democracy is choosing for yourself. liberty and equality are its distinctive aims. interestingly, plato disagreed with the idea of equality, because people are not born equal. fraternity is another concept that goes along with liberty and equality. fraternity not only indicates the brotherhood of mankind but also a sense of common responsibility. irrespective of the many ups and downs, it now seems as though only a small group of power-seekers play the chess-like game of politics for their own benefit. according to brian may, the author of the third world calamity, ‘‘in countries where military dictatorships come and go the game is naked enough, although the desire to rule is not always the only factor: in india it has always been masked from the view of some observers by a curiously indigenous form of humbug. but wherever it is played it has little effect on the lives of the majority whose sufferings determined by other factors are as a rule neither increased nor determined by power change’’. a peek into the history of thought reveals a quest for a rational order running through the collective unconscious of all societies. always, there have been at least a few persons who believed in the possibility of a rational social order with maximum security to the most vulnerable segments of human society. plato was perhaps the first thinker who wished a country to be governed by an elite of philosophers, who were of sound and healthy reason. the stoics divided people into two categories — the wise and the stupid, but never ruled out the possibility of changing the stupid into the ethical and the wise through discipline. ‘‘man is a political animal’’, said aristotle. yet, he was slightly sceptical of democracy as it required cent per cent literacy and awareness among the people, irrespective of their station in life. after this, in the history of nations, there is a long period when moral and spiritual values dominated the scene. although religion was at the base, social cohesion received an impetus also from the mythical notions of divine laws. when niccolo machiavelli emphasised the role of violence and gang war in political theory in il principe in 1517, a new chapter of irrationality appeared in the story of civilisation. rousseau added fuel to the fire. his slogan ‘‘back to nature’’ was basically an anarchic despair of a civilised person who had lost faith in man’s capacity to lead an organised or well ordered life. the idea of natural man against established socio-political order appealed to the culturally sick and bored individual of that century which inspired the leaders of the french revolution. in germany, whereas hegel had interpreted history as the sequence of conflicting interests of the people, reflecting the progressive self-realisation of man’s freedom, karl marx applied his theory in terms of economic forces. nietzche, like marx, thought revolution necessary for the ethical health of the people. he advocated the philosophy of superman. his will to power ultimately turned the ambitions of a hitler into a nightmare for entire humanity. the role of power in human life in general is indeed very curious, specially so in politics. the agenda of a typical politician of today is merely self-serving, whereas there exist several examples in our history of people who have willingly sacrificed their personal comforts to serve humanity — as did evolved persons like mahavira, buddha, mahatma gandhi and more recently, mother teresa. today, especially with reference to 9/11, even the definition of suffering has undergone a change. george bush recently said: ‘‘there are things more important than political parties and one of those things more important than political parties is helping to heal the nation’s soul’’. today, politics as a subject has usurped for itself prime space both in the media and in the collective unconscious. before long, with a greater exposure to larger, non- political subjects, this heightened political consciousness could slowly make room for a widening of public interest in matters that are of greater consequence. by transcending what are manifestations of mere power play, one can rise above the inconsequential, thereby gaining a glimpse of the larger picture. what we’re facing is not a crisis of confidence; the problem is that of a crisis of conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment