Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Democracy is modern concept. We can't think of 'Hindu democracy'  or for that matter of any theological democracy.  It may be feasible in countries with single religion domination to attempt theological democracy like 'Islamic, Christian etc.  Democracy means also rule of law and justice to all. But Hindu religion is basically caste based in which so called higher castes dominate. Hence, the upper castes may prefer 'Hindu Rashtra'  . But the dalits and minorities would be well with democracy tat allows religious freedom and equality irrespective of caste, creed, religion and gender.   

 

Yes, what you have stated is a fact, but despite democracy, the true spirit is not there where meritocracy is replaced by caste. This may in long run be a disaster.

MG Singh wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Democracy is modern concept. We can't think of 'Hindu democracy'  or for that matter of any theological democracy.  It may be feasible in countries with single religion domination to attempt theological democracy like 'Islamic, Christian etc.  Democracy means also rule of law and justice to all. But Hindu religion is basically caste based in which so called higher castes dominate. Hence, the upper castes may prefer 'Hindu Rashtra'  . But the dalits and minorities would be well with democracy tat allows religious freedom and equality irrespective of caste, creed, religion and gender.   

 

Yes, what you have stated is a fact, but despite democracy, the true spirit is not there where meritocracy is replaced by caste. This may in long run be a disaster.

 Further I will like to add that democracy is not an modern concept as the Greet states like Athens had democracy nearly 2500 years back. Plato wrote about democracy

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

I wonder what could have been a more rational and acceptabe alternative. If we take a world view of it we see more and more countries are embracing it after having experimented with other systems rather disastrously. I am quite shocked that glorification of "danda" could lead one to such an extreme and rather unsustainable position of citing 'Jhanialwala' masscre as Danda's success. The barbaric face of British imperialism burst upon the length and breadth of the world which many feel to have contained the seeds of ultimate demise of British rule. India may have a flawed but not a failed democracy.When we praise emergency we astoundingly forget the fact that the entire exercise was pepetrated on this nation to promote a son to rule this by subverting all constitutional dispensation. Let us keep it in mind while eulogizing 'danda' and whatever it stands for that a 'danda' is as best or worst as is wielded by those who hold it and the same applies to democratic polity!

My example of Jallianwala bagh and Danda are examples and does not mean I endorse them. Secondly as I have written in an article the British rule was not barbaric , for as Nirad Choudhry the famous writer has said the British gave us nationhood and development. Can anyone deny that right from Sati, to army, postal service and judiciary is not a gift of the Raj?

British rule was good for India since we saw the unity of all smaller kingdoms into statehood and India became one nation after they left it..Roads, sea ports, Airports and railways were developed under them and so India was connected regionally. 

It's confusing I am not sure whether we all need ''danda''. There are set of people who need but not all and we can't change things for small percentage of people.

MG Singh wrote:

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

I wonder what could have been a more rational and acceptabe alternative. If we take a world view of it we see more and more countries are embracing it after having experimented with other systems rather disastrously. I am quite shocked that glorification of "danda" could lead one to such an extreme and rather unsustainable position of citing 'Jhanialwala' masscre as Danda's success. The barbaric face of British imperialism burst upon the length and breadth of the world which many feel to have contained the seeds of ultimate demise of British rule. India may have a flawed but not a failed democracy.When we praise emergency we astoundingly forget the fact that the entire exercise was pepetrated on this nation to promote a son to rule this by subverting all constitutional dispensation. Let us keep it in mind while eulogizing 'danda' and whatever it stands for that a 'danda' is as best or worst as is wielded by those who hold it and the same applies to democratic polity!

My example of Jallianwala bagh and Danda are examples and does not mean I endorse them. Secondly as I have written in an article the British rule was not barbaric , for as Nirad Choudhry the famous writer has said the British gave us nationhood and development. Can anyone deny that right from Sati, to army, postal service and judiciary is not a gift of the Raj?

@M.G

Your example in the context of effectiveness of 'Danda'  as a  panacea to our myriad does not find endorsement in citing the said example. So it sounds self-contradictory and I am happy about it! Although I have no article to my credit on this subject,my little knowledge about history tells me that greater credit should go to social reformers like Ram Mohan Roy and others in abolition of Sati. About British Rule you have mentioned N.C.Chowdury who himself was an anglophile  and a very controversial figure. So of all persons to expect him to write an impartial critique on British Rule in India would be a little irrational. The British Rule was never an unmitigated blessing for India and I can cite so many authoritative works in this regard. If the Post-Independence history has been bloodied by communal carnage in India we have to lay it at the doors of their parting kick or gift - division of this country on communal line. What do you have to say on this?

Still, there is no democracy under British regime and ruled by foreigners on ours own land. 

usha manohar wrote:

British rule was good for India since we saw the unity of all smaller kingdoms into statehood and India became one nation after they left it..Roads, sea ports, Airports and railways were developed under them and so India was connected regionally. 

 

We must remember that India was never one single unit. Even the greatest empire of Aurangzeb had left out Assam.  Thus it was only the British who united us  and gave a concept of nationhood and if I say nationalism. Thank you Usha

usha manohar wrote:

British rule was good for India since we saw the unity of all smaller kingdoms into statehood and India became one nation after they left it..Roads, sea ports, Airports and railways were developed under them and so India was connected regionally. 

 

@ Usha

I would not deny even the devil of his rightful dues but overstating the beneficial effects of British Rule is challenging history. The British did not come with any noble intention of civilizing us. If railways facilities or others were created those were incidental to advancement of British interests. Much of our farm sector woes owe their origin to establishment of Zamindari system by Lord Cornowallis. How barbaric British could get would be amplyclear by a serious study of 1943 famine in Bengal. We need to take a balanced view of things.  

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

British rule was good for India since we saw the unity of all smaller kingdoms into statehood and India became one nation after they left it..Roads, sea ports, Airports and railways were developed under them and so India was connected regionally. 

 

@ Usha

I would not deny even the devil of his rightful dues but overstating the beneficial effects of British Rule is challenging history. The British did not come with any noble intention of civilizing us. If railways facilities or others were created those were incidental to advancement of British interests. Much of our farm sector woes owe their origin to establishment of Zamindari system by Lord Cornowallis. How barbaric British could get would be amplyclear by a serious study of 1943 famine in Bengal. We need to take a balanced view of things.  

 

I agree with your views...In fact whatever British did during their rule was to benefit themselves but later after they left it is also a fact that most of the investments in India came from Britain which help us build the nation.They might have had a personal interest in that as well but it helped us as well.While fighting them Indians united and realised that there is strength in unity.