Hinduism and democracy

It differs from place to place but the democratic set up is there otherwise being Hindu majority it would not have succeeded in India. 

@M.G.Singh

More and more I read your posts on this subject, I really feel how important it is to have the attributes of scholastic rigor, impartial and unbiased analysis and logical evaluation of it. I personally like to be free from dogma and obstinacy produced from self-opinionatedness. I shall come back with a rejoinder to your post directed at me  later. May be a little more digression!

During the days of Ramayan the RamRajya is considered the best form of democracy where people's voice is supreme. So there is deeper link between Hinudism and democracy. 

Rama Rajya was a good governance but certainly not a democratic form of government.

How does anyone really know what Ram rajya was. It is a elastic concept and was autocratic with the king the supreme power. Even in Ram rajya the ills of Hindu society like varna system were not eradicated

MG Singh wrote:

How does anyone really know what Ram rajya was. It is a elastic concept and was autocratic with the king the supreme power. Even in Ram rajya the ills of Hindu society like varna system were not eradicated

Rama was king of ayodhya so far as the Ramayana epic goes. He was a Hindu king and supposed to rule on advice of Raj Purohit and Samant who belonged to Brahmin caste. Varna system is part of Hindu system and as king, Rama was to safeguard and not dismantle.the tyrannical varna system and other features of Hindu system.  

All the food democracies suffice on the concept of strong central leadership which many sees at autocratic in nature, otherwise with a weak leadership democracy would be falling like ten pins, we have experienced this aspect before, that is why Ram Rajya is a good form of democracy where, when people does not accept Sita then Ram sent her into exile looking at the wishes and whims of people.

mohan manohar wrote:

All the food democracies suffice on the concept of strong central leadership which many sees at autocratic in nature, otherwise with a weak leadership democracy would be falling like ten pins, we have experienced this aspect before, that is why Ram Rajya is a good form of democracy where, when people does not accept Sita then Ram sent her into exile looking at the wishes and whims of people.

 

And the same Rama executed a Dalit because he dared to study holy scriptures.

That was the norm of that times, so he did it, these are not the norms of present times so that is not happening.

If it was the norm, how you can say Ramarajya is an example of Democracy according to present norms of Democracy?

mohan manohar wrote:

That was the norm of that times, so he did it, these are not the norms of present times so that is not happening.

 

Hinduism consists of such norms. This goes to show that Hinduism with its anti lower caste bias and inherent gender bias is not democratic. We should not club Hinduism with democracy. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

mohan manohar wrote:

That was the norm of that times, so he did it, these are not the norms of present times so that is not happening.

 

Hinduism consists of such norms. This goes to show that Hinduism with its anti lower caste bias and inherent gender bias is not democratic. We should not club Hinduism with democracy. 

 

I agree, we should not equate Hinduism with democracy as the very concept of universal law and sufferage is non existent in Hinduism.

 

mohan manohar wrote:

That was the norm of that times, so he did it, these are not the norms of present times so that is not happening.

This is the problem. This "norm " continued for 4000 years under the aegis of laws of Manu, till the English put an end to it with the IPC.Hinduism and democracy? No way

If that is true what Ram Babu mentioned as I never knew about that trend even those times, if that is correct as I never read Ramayan, just hear some stories from my maternal grand mother, but I never heard about that but if that is true in accordance with opinion of Rambabu even during those times people supported it and who am I to negate that trend, as I could speak of what is turning right now, and am sure it is not English, it is father of nation who removes these trend.

Pandit Nehru mentioned this in his Discovery Of India.

I never ever able to cut the logic thrown to me by @Gulshan Kumar Ajmani . You are right and the same thing is being time and again said in this thread by @rambabu  but am not convinced still that time. But one thing this aspect of casteism is not there at this height in my state as it is in probably north and south. Being related to inner priest of Lord Jagannath temple by birth, I saw for eleven months my relatives tend to worship Lord and for one month during car festival Lord is being worshipped by tribals and clans of mixture of Brahmin father and tribal mother. That is why I am not able to understand that deeper insisting meaning of casteins which is at almost nothing as in my state Lord Jagannth for one month worshipped by them and for rest of us by us.

You know I lived in Odisha for 25 years. If somebody says there is no stringest cast system, I laugh it off.

Living in Odisha is not same as the native of Odisha and then you could understand that casteisms is there but not like the way in north and south, living in place even for 100 years is not the same as natives of that place.

Odisha has become a second home for me. Whatever it may be less or more, caste ism and regionalism is there. So is the case in AP.

 To understand the race and clans better one need to be native of that place, and I know casteisms is at highest place in your state. Odisha is not about bad news about casteisms but about all  such interreligious intolerances.