“If there is a country on earth which can justly claim the honour of having been the cradle of the human race or at least the scene of primitive civilisation, the successive developments of which carried into all parts of the ancient world and even beyond, the blessings of knowledge which is the second life of man, that country is assuredly India (read Bharat)” — quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica
The problem of Indian democracy is that the ethos and values of 19th/20th century social behaviour of Western civilisation were being applied in the 21st century democracy and judicial system of Bharat. There is a huge difference in understanding the concepts of democracy/Loktantra (Janpradas) in ancient Bharat and what was being practised in present-day India. The socio-politico- religious conflict will continue till India becomes Bharat. The problem lay in learning ‘Bhartiya Itihas’ as interpreted and taught to Bhartiyas (Indians) by colonial masters and their ‘brown clones’ in modern-day Bharat, or what they call India. Bharat thus is held to ransom by hooligans on the pretext of democracy, freedom and liberty.
Judges of the Supreme Court/High Courts have to take into consideration the threat to national security and law and order, besides blindly following Western legal books. Mobocracy cannot be allowed. Today, the CJP mob/Congress are asking for the CEC’s resignation; tomorrow they will demand the resignation of the CJI/judges, followed by the Prime Minister and President. Again, they want to swarm Jantar Mantar now — tomorrow the Supreme Court and then Parliament and the President’s residence.
The problem lay in learning ‘Bhartiya Itihas’ as interpreted and taught to Bhartiyas (Indians) by colonial masters and their ‘brown clones’ in modern-day Bharat, or what they call India. Bharat thus is held to ransom by hooligans on the pretext of democracy, freedom and liberty
Democracy does not run on the likes and dislikes of 100% of people. A consensus or majority is enough. The current Government is elected by a majority. Decisions of the ECI are also either by simple majority or by unanimous decision of all members — if not, then there is no decision. Personal views of a member on a minute sheet to arrive at a decision have no value if the majority has taken a decision contrary to his views. SC judges have to understand this.
The judiciary cannot allow fear of authority to be compromised just because of freedom and liberty in a democracy — they are not open-ended. They come with restrictions on citizens with their duties and responsibilities. It cannot be one-way traffic. The judiciary must not make a mockery of the nation.
The judiciary is blinded by its 19th/20th century law books of Western legal jurisprudence written by British legal luminaries — it is out of sync with the Indian socio-politico-religious
Greeks did not have the ‘H’ sound in their lexicon, and ancient Persians could not pronounce Sindhu (River) with ‘S’ and used ‘H’ instead. So, Sindhu became Hindu for Persians (ancient Iran) and Hindu became Indu, Indie and Indus for Greeks. For the first time, the word Hindu finds itself in written form in 518 BC on a tablet of King Darius I of Persia, who described Hindu as a geographical region and not a religion.
Mobocracy cannot be allowed. Today CJP mob/Congress are asking for the CEC’s resignation; tomorrow they will demand the resignation of the CJI/judges, followed by the Prime Minister and President. Again, they want to swarm Jantar Mantar now — tomorrow the Supreme Court and then Parliament and the President’s residence
To him, everyone living on the east side of the river ‘Hindu’ (Sindhu) was a Hindu, whether his temporal belief was Shamanism or Vaishnavism and even Buddhism and Jainism. John Keay, a British Indologist, in his book, ‘Into India’, notes that as late as the 19th century, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were called Hindus. Even Muslims, mostly converted, owed their ancestry to this ‘Sanatan culture’ of the region and very few of them belonged to the ‘Abrahamic Culture’ of the Middle East.
Unfortunately, the Britishers and the ‘Brown Sahibs’ excluded this version of Bharat’s history from its educational curriculum. Educated and bred in Lord Macaulay’s and Brown Sahib’s educational system (we faujis were no exception), neither the judiciary nor politicians have any idea of Bharatiyata. Bharat’s Judicial, Political and Education systems cry for a total overhaul to fend off the foreigners’ game plans, supported by internal enemies, as was warned by great sage Chanakya or Kautilya.
There are four dangers, including External Threat, Internal Threat, External Threat Abetted by Fifth Columnists, and Internal Threat Abetted by the Foreign Conspirators. Of the four, the last one, according to Chanakya, was the most dangerous.
It is in this context, current Bhartiya political quagmire has to be understood. They say little knowledge is dangerous — it is the same as an over-ambition of an incompetent and foolish leader. What is more dangerous when ‘fools multiply’. In a socio-political context, it is the same thing as Gresham’s Law of Economics — when Bad Money Drives out the Good Money. Bharat faces this problem today.
The judiciary cannot allow fear of authority to be compromised just because of freedom and liberty in a democracy — they are not open-ended. They come with restrictions on citizens with their duties and responsibilities. It cannot be one-way traffic. The judiciary must not make a mockery of the nation
India got independence in 1947 but not Bharat. It is still being ruled by an adulterated version of ‘white skin’ — called ‘Brown Sahibs’ — who judge everything with a Western eye. This is the problem of Bharatiya Loktantra —applying rules/values of the West to typical local issues.
One does understand that Bharat must enmesh itself into the emerging global system — but without losing its identity of Bhartiyata. Yes! A question might arise as to what was Bharatiyata? It is not to ignore its own civilisational values and history in the transforming global system.
Well! China has leapfrogged because it developed its own system — it was not a copycat of the Westminster Abbey system. One does understand that the Communist system cannot be imposed on a diverse socio-politico-religious system. But Bharat must follow its own ancient system of democracy — where Miri and Piri (Ruler and Religious head) went hand in hand — tolerance and peaceful co-existence were in-built — there was no need to harp about the Western concept of secularism — which is the very antithesis of Miri and Piri — their separation leads to such nonsense as Two-Nation Theory — which led to triple partition of Bharat.
India got independence in 1947 but not Bharat. It is still being ruled by an adulterated version of ‘white skin’ — called ‘Brown Sahibs’ — who judge everything with a Western eye. This is the problem of Bharatiya Loktantra —applying rules/values of the West to typical local issues
It was Sanatan philosophy of Bharat which once went far and wide — its key feature was Vasudhaiva Kutumbakum (VK) — what is being known as Globalisation today. But VK has tolerance and peaceful coexistence inbuilt — which is a MIXTURE but globalisation seeks to become a compound where others lose their identities — what Huntington called “Clash of Civilisations”.
Unfortunately, misled, uninformed and Westernised minds attack Sanatan culture today within Bharat — nay, India. Sanatan does not prohibit people from their own Temporal practices and procedures. In fact, it binds them together as different flowers in a garland. Sanatan’s much maligned and misinterpreted modern version called Hinduism is not a religion but Sanatan way of living a life, in peace and harmony with others. The words Hindu and India were the same thing, but colonial masters made them “Exclusive of all and Inclusive of all” definitions, respectively.
Therefore, the ongoing unrest is a tussle between Bharat and India — representing inclusivity and exclusivity, respectively; Bharat representing the Sanatan way of life and India defining the Western way of life. It is also between two concepts of whether “India, as a Union of States” or “Bharat, as a Civilisational Entity”. Who will win — my bet goes with Bharat. But Bharat has a long way to go.
-An ex-NDA and Wellington Staff College graduate, Col Rajinder Singh is a renowned author and security analyst. He has authored four books, two individually and two in collaboration. His best-selling books are Kashmir – A Different Perspective and The ULFA Insurgency. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
