Democracy vs. Rajtantra 2
In West such checks and balances were not elaborate. The king in the middle ages in Europe was often in cohort with the church which interefered extensively with the state affairs,and the nobility, who had their own vested interests. Thus Rajtantra in West was often of an inferior form and therefore people suffered a lot, whereas in India we hardly find any notable instance of people suffering for long under a corrupt regime, except during the period right after Shashanka in Bengal (known as Matsyanyaya) when there was no strong king at the helm and when the lawlessness reigned supreme. That state of affairs was discontinued when a strong monarch came to power (in case of Bengal the Pals ascended to the throne of Gauda).
However when we come back to the flawed democracy that we’ve inherited we find that much of Swami Vivekananda’s apprehensions have come to be true. There is a heartless bureaucracy at the centre of affairs which is also largely corrupt and which has largely retained the colonial legacies, viz. the notorious legacies of looking down upon general populace as inferior to them, and of being subservient to the interests of their political masters. The politicians have exploited these defects to perpetuate their own vested interests and they have created a vast bureaucracy to help them mismanage every affair except their own. Politics have also fuelled divide and rule, much like the colonial masters who perfected the art. This last thing would have been unheard of in a Rajtantra. A king would not like to divide his subjects as that would undermine the interest and safety of the state (imagine a divided army protecting the borders), but instead would try to divide his enemies.
A democracy in its present form also hinders sound decision making, because multiple entities are involved. Wherever there are multiple entities there are chances of conflict of interests and opinions and stalemates are likely. Thus the people continue to suffer under an indecisive Government. A Rajtantra on the other hand would have only the best interest of the state in mind and all decisions would come from a final decisive authority who would be advised by a wise council, who would take a holistic view of the state of affairs and would not be driven by narrow, selfish motives.
However when we come back to the flawed democracy that we’ve inherited we find that much of Swami Vivekananda’s apprehensions have come to be true. There is a heartless bureaucracy at the centre of affairs which is also largely corrupt and which has largely retained the colonial legacies, viz. the notorious legacies of looking down upon general populace as inferior to them, and of being subservient to the interests of their political masters. The politicians have exploited these defects to perpetuate their own vested interests and they have created a vast bureaucracy to help them mismanage every affair except their own. Politics have also fuelled divide and rule, much like the colonial masters who perfected the art. This last thing would have been unheard of in a Rajtantra. A king would not like to divide his subjects as that would undermine the interest and safety of the state (imagine a divided army protecting the borders), but instead would try to divide his enemies.
A democracy in its present form also hinders sound decision making, because multiple entities are involved. Wherever there are multiple entities there are chances of conflict of interests and opinions and stalemates are likely. Thus the people continue to suffer under an indecisive Government. A Rajtantra on the other hand would have only the best interest of the state in mind and all decisions would come from a final decisive authority who would be advised by a wise council, who would take a holistic view of the state of affairs and would not be driven by narrow, selfish motives.
Comments
Post a Comment
Here you can post your own opinions, no spam however will be tolerated and no hateful comments will be posted.