Hinduism and democracy

That has been the case world all over until the 19th century when countries began to become independent and leaned towards democracy since that is the most ideal form of governance although it comes with a price. I feel that India is good with democracy and we can never go back now ..

I agree, democracy is not suitable for Indians. Remember the emergency period during 70s, that was the best time for Indian People.

The type of government that suits to any  country, depends on the type of people in that particular country. By nature Indians love Hypocricy and double talk. We are lazy and enjoy idle talk and throwing mud on others. We are experts in passing the buck. In this scenario, the best type of government is "Whiplashing". For India.

Dear Usha, thank you for your comment. However it may please be noted that the west always had a tradition of democracy from the Greek civilization onwards. In England the "magna carta " saw Parliament made supreme in the 17th century and the USA started as a democracy in 1776. India started as a democracy 200 years later, thus  Indians never were  a democracy at any time in history.

Thank you Suni for agreeing with me. Yes, Indian always have obeyed the 'danda'.  Remember Jallianwala bagh. After the action of general Dyer, there was NEVER an agitation in Amritsar ever till the British left. I am not supporting the Jallianwala bagh incident but just quoting an example.

Yes Rambabu, the Indian genius is not supported for a democracy.  The Indians are lazy and indolent and want fruits without working hard. Hence all these agitations and almost 30% of territory lost to Maoists in Central India.

Great nations emerged out after centuries of sweat shedding. Nothing can be achieved by basking in the glory of the past. There is truth in your saying, "We Indians expect results without working.."

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.   

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!

Religion and politics can never be separated and for long time communism consider religion is opium to politics but still most of communist countires prefer to support majority similarly, in democracy religion plays pivotal role. 

mohan manohar wrote:

Religion and politics can never be separated and for long time communism consider religion is opium to politics but still most of communist countries prefer to support majority similarly, in democracy religion plays pivotal role. 

 

Communists are truly secular and would not bring religion in their politics. It is very obvious that religion is a tool in the hand of ruling/ exploiting  classes to  fool the workers and toiling people.  The emphasis is on workers' emancipation and building a socialist society.  Fighting religion is not primary aim.  AS the topic is on democracy, it will be relevant to point out that Communists so far never made any armed revolution against democratic governments. In Russia (later days Soviet Union) and Peoples Republic of China and elsewhere they fought only against undemocratic regimes.  They participate in elections like other political parties where democracy of parliamentary variety exists. 

This is the bane of India ,fruits without working and add to thsi the caste divisions and one shudders what will happen.

There is no perfect political system since we see that socialism and communism have both failed to live upto their expectations. Communism may not believe in religion but there is class difference which is as bad - All are equal but some are more equal ...Democracy with all its shortcomings is still the only solution for a civilised life , we need to trim and fine tune it every now and then ..

@Usha

As I held in my earlier post that there is nothing wrong in the choice of democracy as

a system. Whatever flaws and faults we have been encountering need effective correction. Indian democracy too has been

evolving over the decades. The kind of electoral malpractices that elections in the Hindi heart land used to characterize eariler has been significantly reduced in recent years. What we need is deepening the process of rule law in all spheres of our national life.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

mohan manohar wrote:

Religion and politics can never be separated and for long time communism consider religion is opium to politics but still most of communist countries prefer to support majority similarly, in democracy religion plays pivotal role. 

 

Communists are truly secular and would not bring religion in their politics. It is very obvious that religion is a tool in the hand of ruling/ exploiting  classes to  fool the workers and toiling people.  The emphasis is on workers' emancipation and building a socialist society.  Fighting religion is not primary aim.  AS the topic is on democracy, it will be relevant to point out that Communists so far never made any armed revolution against democratic governments. In Russia (later days Soviet Union) and Peoples Republic of China and elsewhere they fought only against undemocratic regimes.  They participate in elections like other political parties where democracy of parliamentary variety exists. 

 Communists fought against autocratic governments like the Tsar, but as a philosophy communism has lost steam and the basic premise of Marx that man is a cog in a machine proved wrong. No wonder that communism  collapsed all over the world. In India also the communists are a spent force. Communists were against religion  and one should not forget that Marx said " Religion is the opium of the people".this was another reason for the downfall of communism

I do not think communists are secular. In India they tilted towards minority and there are evidences that in most successful communist countries communists supports majority and where they support minority politics they became spent force. 

The dwindling fortune of communism in the world over the last few decades could be attributed to its utter failure to understand and deal with dynamics of human. The proletariat dictatorship which it swears by inevitably lead to capture of power by a few oligarchs and their camp-followers. It had been the tale of USSSR and its satellite states. As it happens in totalitarian regime whose initial burst sees striking progress to be followed by ruthless suppression , repression of basic human rights and establishment of the oppressive order of a stinkingly power-drunk, corrupt coterie of rulers. Unlike the safety-valve that functioning democracies provide in the form of release of popular discontent and fury, the communist czars weave a bubble of illusion and develop hallucinations of their invincibility. And that was how the erstwhile USSSR and its satellites came crashing down like a house of cards! In the context of India I would like to question their credentials as communists. They are hybrid products combining vices of all isms in good measure! 

mohan manohar wrote:

I do not think communists are secular. In India they tilted towards minority and there are evidences that in most successful communist countries communists supports majority and where they support minority politics they became spent force. 

I agree,in India the communists are pro minority. Thats one reason they are wiped out

MG Singh wrote:

mohan manohar wrote:

I do not think communists are secular. In India they tilted towards minority and there are evidences that in most successful communist countries communists supports majority and where they support minority politics they became spent force. 

I agree,in India the communists are pro minority. Thats one reason they are wiped out

 

So far as pro Hindutva fascism elements are concerned, any body who does not support their brand of Hindu fascism is pro minority. Then this is a relative term. In Kerala and West Bengal, Congress/ Trinmool are considered as more pro minority. In Tripura, Communists are considered as more nationalist and  anti separatist.  For the RSS berand fascists, any one opposing country wide ban on cow slaughter is pro minority. Again the issue of removing Article 370 of Constitution relating to status of Kashmir. BJP would consider every one who supported this article as anti nationalist and what not. But now they are biggest compromiser for lust of power. However the communists are also a political party in parliamentary system and they can also compromise with principles like others. However comparatively they are more honest and secular.   .