Dr. Manmohan Singh: Modern Dhritarashtra or Vidur?

Every now & then all opposition parties, individuals, intellectual & countrymen wonder why Dr. Manmohan Singh, an honest man, heads this Government, one of the most corrupt governments this country ever had. Not even a single person in whole country doubts integrity & honesty of Dr. Manmohan Singh. But at the same time, they always wonder on what compulsion he is heading one of the most corrupt governments this country ever had as per different versions from L.K. Advani to every Tom & Herry.  L.K. Advani  Iron Man of BJP, called him weakest PM India ever had. Whenever I watch Lok Sabha proceedings & see PM sitting there weathering all criticism, wailed abuses & different exposes by honorable MPs, I feel pity on him. He is mostly sitting silent & with a face of a saint who has achieved enlightenment. Whether he has achieved enlightenment or it is his habit, I don't know. But off & on I wonder what this man is doing in a system which has & is producing most corrupt society where corrupts, rapist, looters, murderers, people with most criminal adjectives are governing our lives either being part of system or by taking advantage of

weak & corrupt system. Not only ruling party members are indulged in that but opposition party members also have become part & parcel of the system. Bureaucracy has & getting its share more than required. Hardly any session passes when scams worth lacs of crores are not exposed. Heaps of heap evidences are being produced. Some cases have gone in courts for some cases inquiries are on final stage & for some investigations are pending or contemplated. But surprisingly not even a single person has been convicted. All said & done. But how & why this honest man is just looking at it & heading this system. He has no business to be head of it. Is he only honest but fool enough with blind eyes of Dhritarashtra. With all resources available to PM, he can very well know prima facie realty of a man be he a politician, service or businessman. Dr. Manmohan Singh must be knowing everything about not only his party men, their kith & kin but facts about opposition parties too. Still he is not doing anything?? Why..why?? This big question has been explored in this essay.

In the beginning I have compared with Dhritarashtra of Mahabharata. Did I do anything wrong? May be. Let us compare him with Vidur or Bhishma or Dronacharya. If Dhritarashtra as blind in love of their sons then Dr. MM Singh does not have such binding. Not only he is clean but his family is also clean. Then Vidur, Bhism & Dron were men of integrity which even Pandavs believe. What they were doing in Kaurava side. They knew Kaurava were evil but even then they stayed there. Why? I believe there were two reasons to do that.

1.     They believed that by staying Kaurava side they can advise them for good things, indicate where they are going wrong & minimize ill effect of their evil & misrule.

2.     And if they fail in doing so, they can always damage their side by being insider which they did during Mahabharatat War very effectively.

Is Dr. MM Singh playing part of these epic heroes in current scenario? The answer is perhaps Yes. He must be thinking that while he, the most honest PM India can ever had, is PM even then there are hordes of corrupt, murderers, rapists, looters roaming and trying to take maximum advantage of this weak & corrupt system, so what will happen if he quits? Will not these fellows sell this country without batting an eyelid in open market? It may be his thought that by being head of state he is can rein them as much as possible.

If these are his thoughts then we must applaud his efforts & his “never say die” attitude even in most trying circumstances.

Dr. Mammohan Singh, our Prime Minister, if you are carrying on these motivations, please go on doing so as far as possible. At the same time, who think & support PM due to above stated reasons, please go on supporting him till we find a suitable system & PM who is capable of taking strong action against corrupt & evils hordes.

Jai Hind

Secular, Secularism and Secularisation

The founders of Indian constitution ate the bullet of religious hatred & saw unparalleled bloodshed, looting, killing, raping & divide of the most ancient Nation in name of religion. From the very beginning they were determined not to let it repeat again. So they made it made sure that constitution remains neutral to all religion. Agreed; they did not add word “Secular” there but in spirit a very religious neutral constitution was made. Mrs Indira Gandhi got “Secular” word added in constitution later on. Since then, long & endless debate is going on “Secular” & “Secularism”. In fact, our political thoughts too evolved around this word “Secular” & shaped either for or against it, leaving all important agenda, unfortunately just for vote bank. With the advent of Sh. Narendra Modi as BJP PM Candidate, this debate may take more violent turn in future seeing impending Assembly & General Elections, again just for vote bank. In this post we will learn that what "Secular, Secularism and Secularization" mean & how does it affects India & Indian politics.

In older days, religion use to have direct control over executives & state, even used to have control Kings too. There are many examples, when Kings were disposed off when they wanted to go against religious dictum. Few times religion had indirect control with religious principals as it became basis norms of society & justice, like how marriages should take place, some time setting different norms for ladies & gents of the society. In nutshell, some religious laws were mandatory for executives & societies and some laws ware flexible. It happened in India subcontinent where Hindu, Buddhist religion dominant. It happened in Middle East countries where Islamic is/was dominant.

So was the case of western countries where Church used to have considerable control over its rulers & executives. Idea of Secular State took birth in western countries as many Kings, States & executives resented religious control because having power to control without responsibility was costing doom. Churches were not ready to give up power because they were controlling mind of innocent citizen & have laid many ruling as to how state has to be run, as how King & executives have to behave, how important event of a human life is to be governed. But society is not a dead bull. It progress with time, knowledge & technology. It started resenting Church control over its life. The same idea passed to state which also started ignoring church dictum. A revolution, a near war started soon against churches. After much bloodshed over this issue, Churches control was diminished nearly zero. The process stared from England & soon took over France & other western countries. US too got it free from Church power. In this context words “Secular, Secularism & Secularization” took birth. But you can see these “Words” were/are used related to state not related to Society or individual.

Any society has always three types of people 1) Religiously very tolerant, 2) Moderately religious tolerant & 3) Intolerant. Number of each category varies from society to society, time to time. Let us also understand that "Secular or Secularism or Secularization" does not apply on a society or individual as we are given to understand by our Indian Political Parties who are themselves confused about it.

Secular State is not meant as a State which is “Dharm-Nirpeksh” or have “Dharm-Sambhav” or keeps “Nation First” or a “State with no religion” as we are told day in day out. It simple means “A State which does not draw power from any religion” or “A State which is not controlled by Religious Authority’s dictum.” In fact there are many-many nations which have a particular religion as State Religion but they are Secular State in letter & spirit such as UK, France, USA, Canada etc. It is also possible to have A State without religion but not a secular state.

Now let us understand “Secularism & Secularization”.

Although secularism and secularization are closely related, there are real differences because they do not necessarily offer the same answer to the question of role of religion in society. Secularism is a system or ideology based on the principle that there should be a sphere of knowledge, values, and action that is independent of religious authority, but it does not necessarily exclude religion from having any role in political and social affairs.

Secularization, however, is a process which does lead to exclusion. To achieve secularization, all the institution of state & society including political outfits should be removed from religious control.

Whatever the case may be, either those institutions are simply taken away from religious authorities and handed over to political leaders, or competing alternatives are created alongside the religious institutions. The independence of these institutions in turn allow individuals themselves to be more independent of religious authorities- no longer are they required to submit to religious leaders outside of the confines of a church or temple.

Secularization & Religion-State Separation

A practical consequence of secularization is the separation of religion and state. In fact, the two are so closely associated that they are almost interchangeable in practice, with people often using the phrase "separation of religion and state" rather when they mean secularization. There is a difference between the two, though, because secularization is actually a process that occurs across all of society, whereas the separation of religion and state is simply a description of what occurs in the political sphere.

What the separation of religion and state means in the process of secularization is that specifically political institutions - those associated with varying levels of public government and administration - are removed from both direct and indirect religious control. It does not mean that religious organizations cannot have anything to say about public and political issues, but it does mean that those views cannot be imposed upon the public, nor can they be used as the sole basis for public policy. The government must, in effect, be as neutral as possible with respect to divergent and incompatible religious beliefs, neither hindering nor advancing any of them.

Religious Objections to Secularization

Of course, secularism has not always been so neutral in its intent. At no point, is it necessarily anti-religious, but secularism does frequently promote and encourage the process of secularization itself. A person becomes a secularist at the very least because he believes in the need for a secular sphere alongside the religious sphere, but more likely than not he also believes in the superiority of the secular sphere, at least when it comes to certain social issues.

Thus, the difference between secularism and secularization is that secularism is more of a philosophical position about the way things should be, while secularization is the effort to implement that philosophy - even sometimes with force. Religious institutions may continue to voice opinions about public matters, but their actual authority and power are restricted entirely to the private domain: people, who conform their behavior to the values of those religious institutions, do so voluntarily with neither encouragement nor discouragement emanating from the state.

You can see our own Indian Secular, Secularism & Secularization in light of above explanation & draw your own conclusion.