What is an ideal form of society and government?

I believe that an ideal political and social system should allow people the liberty of thought and action to the extent that others' liberty is not violated.  A government has no business to tell people what they eat, what they dress and so on. The government only needs to provide facilities for smooth functioning of  citizen's activities. It should be object of government to create condition of full or near full employment, ensure best use of natural and human resources. 

I think both people and the Government work together with great Hormony and understanding to achieve the desired results.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

I believe that an ideal political and social system should allow people the liberty of thought and action to the extent that others' liberty is not violated.  A government has no business to tell people what they eat, what they dress and so on. The government only needs to provide facilities for smooth functioning of  citizen's activities. It should be object of government to create condition of full or near full employment, ensure best use of natural and human resources. 

I would go with those views too..

However in a multi cultural and multi religious society that has no uniform civil code, is it easy to function since any step taken for the betterment of the society would probably become unacceptable to some ..

rambabu wrote:

I think both people and the Government work together with great Hormony and understanding to achieve the desired results.

Please stop posting  responses that mean nothing ..better stay away rather than come up with such nonsensical posts !

 First-of-all interdependency will always remain among people for just sake of benefit. Government's role in society is to help them and manage their needs according to them. A government can't snatch human rights from people or their right to raise their own voice. Between democratic governance, every particular person had full right to enjoy or live his life in his own way. 

Unless there is dictatorship or communism most other forms of government run on more or less the same principles. Socialism is better than Communism but Democracy comes with its own set of problems it is not easy ..

usha manohar wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

I believe that an ideal political and social system should allow people the liberty of thought and action to the extent that others' liberty is not violated.  A government has no business to tell people what they eat, what they dress and so on. The government only needs to provide facilities for smooth functioning of  citizen's activities. It should be object of government to create condition of full or near full employment, ensure best use of natural and human resources. 

I would go with those views too..

However in a multi cultural and multi religious society that has no uniform civil code, is it easy to function since any step taken for the betterment of the society would probably become unacceptable to some ..

Live and let live - should be motto in multi religious and multi cultural society. It implies that there should be little or no interference in internal matters of any community.. Every community should be itself responsible for any social reforms necessary. The British followed this norm of non interference and this proved a good policy for governance. The British Indian government interfered with customs of any community only when there was strong initiative from within a community.  For example, Sati system was abolished only when initiative was taken by Hindu community leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy.    

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

I believe that an ideal political and social system should allow people the liberty of thought and action to the extent that others' liberty is not violated.  A government has no business to tell people what they eat, what they dress and so on. The government only needs to provide facilities for smooth functioning of  citizen's activities. It should be object of government to create condition of full or near full employment, ensure best use of natural and human resources. 

I would go with those views too..

However in a multi cultural and multi religious society that has no uniform civil code, is it easy to function since any step taken for the betterment of the society would probably become unacceptable to some ..

Live and let live - should be motto in multi religious and multi cultural society. It implies that there should be little or no interference in internal matters of any community.. Every community should be itself responsible for any social reforms necessary. The British followed this norm of non interference and this proved a good policy for governance. The British Indian government interfered with customs of any community only when there was strong initiative from within a community.  For example, Sati system was abolished only when initiative was taken by Hindu community leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy.    

True , like it is being done now to abolish triple talaq which has absolutely no religious implications since it is being practiced only in India and many of the Muslim women groups  have given full support to the government to put an end to it ,  with the Supreme Court too questioning this very barbaric practice ..

A nation, a society or even a family constitutes by the people in it and if they are deprived of their basic rights then a nation or whatever loses harmony. Thus, a government has to take care of the harmony first. It's true all cannot be satisfied but certainly, a middle path has to be etched to satisfy the maximum number of people. No distinction should be made on any basis or else there will be dissatisfaction which will lead to protest and violence at one point in time that is definitely, not a good governance.   

Most harmonious and peace loving nations have  very strictly followed  civil laws which does not distinguish between religion,class or creed. Like for example most European nations follow this form of governance and were very peaceful until they began to accept refugees..Then we all know what has been happening ! A nation that caters to every whim and fancy will never have peace nor can it give happiness and safety to its citizens because discipline is very essential . The major problem with India's case is its rudderless system which is democracy but so far has been extremely communal..This form of governance can only lead to unrest and communal tension as we all can see ..

The selection of the Presidential candidate by the NDA is on non caste basis. How many would agree. So where is idealism?

Candidate for Presential elections, Ramnadh, is a Dalit. Is it not Idealism ?

What s needed is a president who is accepted by the majority, not a show of so called idealism. 

Yes, PM - Shah proposed , Ramnadh Kovind for president post  is being accepted by almost all the Political Parties. There is every likelihood  Ramnadh Kovind will be new President of India.

Honestly speaking, I believe that a President should be of such a stature who is respected not only among his own circle but also by every citizen of this country. Thus, the person has to be a popular figure and for that reason, caste or creed cannot be a criterion. Take the names of Jail Singh and Pratibha Patil, were they fit to be the President of India? The President Pranab Mukherjee should be replaced by a man who is an equally well-known figure which the present candidate is not and that is not a very sound choice. 

Ramnadh Kovind is a very popular Dalit Leader, and being supported by all cross sections of the Society and Political parties.

Kovind is equally popular as Zail Singh or Pratibha Patil.

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

Honestly speaking, I believe that a President should be of such a stature who is respected not only among his own circle but also by every citizen of this country. Thus, the person has to be a popular figure and for that reason, caste or creed cannot be a criterion. Take the names of Jail Singh and Pratibha Patil, were they fit to be the President of India? The President Pranab Mukherjee should be replaced by a man who is an equally well-known figure which the present candidate is not and that is not a very sound choice. 

First of all Shampa you can read Rambabus response especially the last sentence and have a hearty laugh , what else?

I agree that Pratibha Patil was nothing but a blot on such a high office , Zail Singh was no better either. So , there is absolutely no comparison to the new presidential candidate whatsoever. He seems well read , a lawyer , two time rajya sabha  MP and now governor of Bihar , so knows what is required f him..

usha manohar wrote:

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

Honestly speaking, I believe that a President should be of such a stature who is respected not only among his own circle but also by every citizen of this country. Thus, the person has to be a popular figure and for that reason, caste or creed cannot be a criterion. Take the names of Jail Singh and Pratibha Patil, were they fit to be the President of India? The President Pranab Mukherjee should be replaced by a man who is an equally well-known figure which the present candidate is not and that is not a very sound choice. 

First of all Shampa you can read Rambabus response especially the last sentence and have a hearty laugh , what else?

I agree that Pratibha Patil was nothing but a blot on such a high office , Zail Singh was no better either. So , there is absolutely no comparison to the new presidential candidate whatsoever. He seems well read , a lawyer , two time rajya sabha  MP and now governor of Bihar , so knows what is required f him..

Rambabu

Ramnadh Kovind is a very popular Dalit Leader, and being supported by all cross sections of the Society and Political parties.

Kovind is equally popular as Zail Singh or Pratibha Patil.

It should have been, " Kovind is more popular than Pratibha Patil or Zail Singh,"

Definitely my mistake.

I have no issues regarding Kovind.  What I was highlighting was that his main consideration is that he is a dalit and this is being exploited. Your post is for ideal form of government. So I was highlighting that here is cast being officially highlighted. So will cast go away so that only merit is basis. It is not whether Kovind is good for the post.