Is india a Democracy

[arvindc]

.. second the indian public is not ready to elect such people.
... Khera stood for election as an independent (politician candidate from the South Delhi parliamentary constituency in the 2004 General Elections, but got only 1% of the votes polled.

So why did such a popular and respectable person 'Shiv Khera' got only 1% of the votes, that too in an educated constituency like South Delhi? It's because people were 'unable' to elect such people and not that they were not ready. It's absurd to say that people do not want improvement.

police officers specially in delhi are advised not to behave politely as nobody is going to listen them aur sab shir pe chad gayge coz in delhi everybody knows someone.

So are 'people' the problem or is it the 'someone'? What it implies is that people are choosing 'problem' for themselves. Do people really want to choose problem?

Therefore, before blaming the rulers alone we should think twice as we cannot absolve ourselves of our civic duties. I think we really need an introspection and retrospection to ascertain how civilized and duty-bound we the people are who choose the system of governance as well as the rulers in the present format. " So the public attitude has to change before we expect the govt. officials & ministers to change.

When the government pardoned the loans of those farmers who did not pay it, what attitude would the farmer learn who had worked hard and repaid the loan? Would any farmer taking loan now consider his civic-duty to repay it?

These arguments are often given by powerful and rich to keep the oppressed weak and poor, poor.

 

[sunillathwal]

Yes, Indian elections, from the looks of it, may seem democratic just like the auctions of 'daru ke dhekye' and Government bids and real estate auctions. Just like elections, any one looking at the auctions would see them faire as people would seem free to bid. Sitting at the auction place, one can not see the guns pointed at the heads, the money power and bureaucratic processes that lets only a select few to participate.


I do not believe that criminals and corrupts are people's choice. So you tell me that how these people become popular person? The result of the so called 'democratic' process itself proves that, at ground level, elections are not about people's power to choose a candidate but about candidate's power to 'make' people choose him/her.

Again, you are harping on the same thing. I already wrote somewhere about the philosophical debates of 'freedom of thought' and 'freedom of speech' issue; it is very difficult to debate against your assertion regarding the people's choice or candidate's powers to "make" people choose.

A rich and powerful candidate can only 'arrange' a mob to show in "rallies". He can NOT force you or me to attend his rally/her. People "choose" to go in these rallies for whatever reasons.
Candidates can distribute the free-daru but once inside the booth, it is people's choice whom to choose!!

I have voted thrice, nobody put a gun on my head.. nobody dictated my hand to press a particular button on the voting machine. It was ME and MY conscience alone.

Yes, people CHOOSE criminals!! Criminals can NOT make pepole choose them (though I agree that there have been issues of booth-capturing but these incidents are becoming rare and these were limited to few states/stations anyway).

If you are convinced that all elections are rigged and every result is predetermined. No one can help you in changing your perception.

You gave example of JNU.. I am quite familiar with the DU and JNU student elections. Let me give another example:
Here @ Indian Institute of Science (IISc Bangalore) during student council election, there are good debate and discussions. All the candidates gave speech about their goals and their plans for the student community. The field all sort of questions from fellow students during soapbox. Sounds good, no? democratic way!!

What happens next is (5 yrs of personal experience): Generally, the candidate who did not speak well during soapbox, who was 'pathetic' in his/her speech is selected. No no.. IIScian don't like 'pathetics' per se But they do give a overwhelming high weightage to candidates's ethnicity!!
Effectively, respective numbers of Tamils, Gults, Mallu and Bongs determine who will get highest votes. If Tamils had maximum strength (in numbers) president will be a Tamilian.

Important thing to note here is that voters in IISc are very-well-educated and supposedly with good IQ and all. But even here, more than the candidate's skill what dominates the voters' judgement is the ethnicity and mother-tongue of the candidate. You can extrapolate this analogy to other domains (LS and state LA) with further complexities of irrational party-loyalties and caste biases.

Similarly, if the voters in South-Delhi did not choose the 'good' candidate but opted for a not-so-good candidate, this does NOT mean democratic process is flawed, it simply means people are petty.

Majority of us have caste, regional and religion biases which dictate more than anything else whom we vote. You say people don't have choices, people don't want to choose criminals.... you are wrong. In Hydrabad, M Azharuddin (a match fixer and desh-drohi) is MP from a muslim dominated constituency. There were 10+ other names on the voting machines, people CHOOSE to ignore them and voted for Azharuddin. They CHOOSE to overlook the integrity attribute. I do not believe that he put a gun on each of thousands of voters' head !!

Rich people also have a right to contest elections. Being rich is not a crime. Who stops you to contest state or national election? Convince people (if you can) that voting for you is good for them; you have the same rights as anyone else and thats democracy. You can not moan that only rich people are voted for. It is aam-janta's wish and they CHOOSE. If common man ignore the 10 odd name who do not belong to a major party he/she has his own reasons (or biases), he/she believes that candidate form a major party would be in a better position to help him/her than xyz.

Bottom line is- If you believe that common man is not free inside the election booth or that the whole election process is a sham, this whole discussion is a moot point. But if you agree that every one is free to vote whom he/she wants (subjected to the voter's own biases: caste, creed, region, religion, party loyalty, etc.) to vote then your assertions in the last post are absurd!!

Regarding Singapore elections: don't want to further indulge in seemingly pointless discussion but please go through the whole process & conditions for the candidature for Singaporean assembly elections! You may find it better but it certainly is not according to universally accepted democratic principals.

 

[singhvp]

वैसे अन्य साथियों के विश्लेषण और खास कर सुनील लठवाल की आखरी पोस्ट के बाद इस विषय पर लिखने को कुछ बचा नहीं है, परन्तु थोडा फुर्सत में हूँ सो थोडा सा लिख डालता हूँ.

सदियों की दासता ने ऐसी मानसिकता को जन्म दिया कि अधिकांश लोग मानवीय स्वतंत्रता एवं आत्मसम्मान के नैसर्गिक अधिकार को जताना एक अपराध या द्रोह सा मानने लग गए और यही मानसिकता पीढ़ी दर पीढ़ी संकर्मित होती चली गयी. इसी के चलते आम आदमी को बड़ा अटपटा सा लगता है कि उन जैसा ही कोई व्यक्ति जो कल तक उनके साथ चौपाल में बैठ कर हुक्का बीडी पीता था, गाय भैंस और खेती बाड़ी के वार्तालाप में लिप्त होता था वही आज राजनैतिक दंगल में उनसे ऊंचा होने के सपने देख रहा है. यह बात उस व्यकित के अधिकांश साथियों के गले नहीं उतरती और यहीं पर प्रजातंत्र के बहुमूल्य सिधांत बीमार होने शुरू हो जाते हैं. यह दोष प्रजातंत्र का या उसके जन्मदाताओं का नहीं हमारा अपना है. पुरानी आदतें बड़ी देर से जाती हैं I उदाहरणआर्थ बाजरे की रोटी लाल मिर्च की चटनी के साथ खाने वालों को pizza का स्वाद develop करने में वक्त लगता है I इसी प्रकार लोकतंत्र की महत्ता को समझने में आम आदमी को काफी और समय लगेगा.

क्या यह प्रमाण काफी नहीं है हमारे देश में लोकतंत्र के होने का कि अधिकांश प्रधान मंत्री बिना किसी dyastic प्रष्ठभूमि और शाही परिवारों से थे मसलन सर्व श्री चरण सिंह, मनमोहन सिंह, देव गौड़ा, चन्द्र शेखर, इंद्रकुमार गुजराल, अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी I क्या किसी तानाशाही या राजशाही में ये लोग कभी राजनीति के इस मुकाम पर पहुँच सकते थे ? क्या इस प्रजातंत्र ने मायावती, ममता बनर्जी, लालू , फूलन देवी और नीतीश कुमार सरीखे सामान्य पारिवारिक प्रष्ठभूमि के व्यक्तियों को उचित अवसर प्रदान नहीं किये अपना कद ऊंचा करने का I

बात जहाँ तक खेडा साहब के नई दिल्ली से चुनाव हारने की है तो इसमें लोकतंत्र को दोषी नहीं ठहराया जा सकता बल्कि लोकत्रंत्र का आभारी होना चाहिए कि खेडा जैसे आम आदमी को एक अवसर दिया परन्तु मतदाताओं ने अपने पूर्वाग्रहों के चलते इसका फायदा नहीं उठाया I याद रहे यह वह देश है जहाँ घर का भेदी लंका ढाए की कहावत सबसे ज्यादा चरितार्च होती है . अगर चुनावी मैदान में एक तरफ चौधरी रामप्रकाश घोटाला का बेटा राजकुमार संजय सिंह मैदान में है और एक तरफ बेचारा रामफल या घासी राम जो काफी शिक्षित और ईमानदार तो है पर एक साधारण झोंपड़ी वाले परिवार से है और उसके पास राजकुमार संजय की तरह चुनाव प्रचार के लिए Hummer या कोई और SUV नहीं है आज के दौर में तो वो निशित तौर पर धूल चाटेगा हम लोगों की सोच की वजह से न कि प्रजातंत्र की वजह से. Katrina कैफ, अक्षय कुमार या कोई खान बंधु अगर चुनाव लडे तो उनकी जीत निश्चित है बेशक उनका कोई राजनैतिक अनुभव नहीं . हमारे नौजवानों की राजनैतिक विचारधारा इतनी अपरिपक्व है के Katrina अगर शीला की जवानी वाला एक ठुमका लगा दे रातों रात MP चुनाव के समीकरण बदल सकती है . इसी प्रकार किसी फ़िल्मी hunk की एक अदा लाखों नवयुवतियों की राजनैतिक विचारधारा रातों रत बदल सकती है हमारे देश में.

हमें अपनी सोच बदलने की आवश्यकता है ना की लोकतान्त्रिक प्रणाली की . चालक बदलो गाडी तो ठीक है .

 

[arvindc]

Again, you are harping on the same thing. I already wrote somewhere about the philosophical debates of 'freedom of thought' and 'freedom of speech' issue; it is very difficult to debate against your assertion regarding the people's choice or candidate's powers to "make" people choose.

Freedom of thought is more important then freedom of speech. If the thought is not free then the speech would also be not free and so would be the decision of pressing choosing ballot box's button.

A rich and powerful candidate can only 'arrange' a mob to show in "rallies". He can NOT force you or me to attend his rally/her. People "choose" to go in these rallies for whatever reasons.
Candidates can distribute the free-daru but once inside the booth, it is people's choice whom to choose!!

I have voted thrice, nobody put a gun on my head.. nobody dictated my hand to press a particular button on the voting machine. It was ME and MY conscience alone.

Yes, people CHOOSE criminals!! Criminals can NOT make pepole choose them (though I agree that there have been issues of booth-capturing but these incidents are becoming rare and these were limited to few states/stations anyway).

If you are convinced that all elections are rigged and every result is predetermined. No one can help you in changing your perception.

For democracy, a holistic view has to be taken. The filling nomination papers and pressing of ballot box's button is not sufficient. It is just a small part of whole complex system of governance.

In a simplistic form, the correctness and effectiveness of any process can be determined by considering the whole process as a black box and then evaluating the outputs based on the inputs.

The input here is an opportunity for the people's to choose their leader (MP/MLA) (not the vote). The output is a the elected MP/MLA.The evaluation criterion is whether the elected MP/MLA is the choice of majority of the people.

To check the result, the output can be compared with known choices of the majority of the public. One of the formost of which, in this context, is people do not want a corrupt, criminal or an ineffective person as their leader. (This has been obtained by other procedures like mass opinion survey at community, national levels. People can also cross check such results, if they doubt, at individual level by aggregating the opinions of his/her friends relatives, co-workers etc. It can be reasoned that such opinions would be honest as the result of opinion is not impacting the participant in any way.)

Obviously, If the result of applying the black box procedure is an MP/MLA who has either one or more of the characteristics of corrupt, criminal or an ineffective, then the black box procedure has failed.

....Important thing to note here is that voters in IISc are very-well-educated and supposedly with good IQ and all. But even here, more than the candidate's skill what dominates the voters' judgement is the ethnicity and mother-tongue of the candidate. You can extrapolate this analogy to other domains (LS and state LA) with further complexities of irrational party-loyalties and caste biases.

Considering that the above happens, the question is why do people have such biases?

The important thing to note here is that biases of caste, religion, region, party-loyalty, etc comes from taught behaviour and not hereditary behaviour.

Similarly, if the voters in South-Delhi did not choose the 'good' candidate but opted for a not-so-good candidate, this does NOT mean democratic process is flawed, it simply means people are petty.

People always choose what they thing as "good" unless, they are compelled to compromise.

... They CHOOSE to overlook the integrity attribute. I do not believe that he put a gun on each of thousands of voters' head !!
...
Bottom line is- If you believe that common man is not free inside the election booth or that the whole election process is a sham, this whole discussion is a moot point. But if you agree that every one is free to vote whom he/she wants (subjected to the voter's own biases: caste, creed, region, religion, party loyalty, etc.) to vote then your assertions in the last post are absurd!! ...

The term "putting a gun on head" was used not only for it's literal meaning .

Again, what happens inside the election booth, does not make a nation's government as democratic. Democracy has much wider meaning. It has to be viewed in much wider context.

There is a lot of social engineering that's being applied which, I believe was not accounted in the 'democracy ratings'.

To give a small example, look at any elections, 'Gram Panchayat, 'Civic Body', MP/MLA, people would know who has voted for whom. Though it's only you who know's which button you have pressed in the election booth, still people find out which button you have pressed. It's also a common knowledge that this vote data is aggregated, based on region, cast, religion, profession, etc which ultimately forms the 'agenda' of real governance. The agenda of whom to give punishment postings and whom the reward posting, which region has to be developed, who all are to given preferential treatment etc. etc. Even the, police, judiciary and public departments/agencies like Income Tax, CBI etc falls into the same category, they are not free from government intervention. That's why creating a candidate's 'hawa' (will win image) is important. People fall for this 'Hawa' to avoid being seen in the wrong side. Do you see the complexity and interlinking of the multiple process?

Haven't you seen many people changing their behaviour ones they enter a foreign country? Have you ever wondered why this change in behaviour happens at two different places, when the person and personality still remains the same? Doesn't governance play a big role here in people's decision?

 

[arvindc]

...
हमें अपनी सोच बदलने की आवश्यकता है ना की लोकतान्त्रिक प्रणाली की . चालक बदलो गाडी तो ठीक है .

बात तो सही लगेती है, लेकिन लोग सोच बदलें कैसे? सोच बदलते समय उनको लठ आता दिखाए पड़ता है, आप लठ रोक लीजिये, लोगों की सोच खुद ब खुद बदल जाएगी!

PS: जाट उस लठ से कम डरते हैं! That's why the social engineering efforts by corruption nexus, which included paid news and likes, were not much successful in the last elections.

 

[kapdal]

Freedom of thought is more important then freedom of speech. If the thought is not free then the speech would also be not free and so would be the decision of pressing choosing ballot box's button.



For democracy, a holistic view has to be taken. The filling nomination papers and pressing of ballot box's button is not sufficient. It is just a small part of whole complex system of governance.

In a simplistic form, the correctness and effectiveness of any process can be determined by considering the whole process as a black box and then evaluating the outputs based on the inputs.

The input here is an opportunity for the people's to choose their leader (MP/MLA) (not the vote). The output is a the elected MP/MLA.The evaluation criterion is whether the elected MP/MLA is the choice of majority of the people.

To check the result, the output can be compared with known choices of the majority of the public. One of the formost of which, in this context, is people do not want a corrupt, criminal or an ineffective person as their leader. (This has been obtained by other procedures like mass opinion survey at community, national levels. People can also cross check such results, if they doubt, at individual level by aggregating the opinions of his/her friends relatives, co-workers etc. It can be reasoned that such opinions would be honest as the result of opinion is not impacting the participant in any way.)

Obviously, If the result of applying the black box procedure is an MP/MLA who has either one or more of the characteristics of corrupt, criminal or an ineffective, then the black box procedure has failed.



Considering that the above happens, the question is why do people have such biases?

The important thing to note here is that biases of caste, religion, region, party-loyalty, etc comes from taught behaviour and not hereditary behaviour.



People always choose what they thing as "good" unless, they are compelled to compromise.



The term "putting a gun on head" was used not only for it's literal meaning .

Again, what happens inside the election booth, does not make a nation's government as democratic. Democracy has much wider meaning. It has to be viewed in much wider context.

There is a lot of social engineering that's being applied which, I believe was not accounted in the 'democracy ratings'.

To give a small example, look at any elections, 'Gram Panchayat, 'Civic Body', MP/MLA, people would know who has voted for whom. Though it's only you who know's which button you have pressed in the election booth, still people find out which button you have pressed. It's also a common knowledge that this vote data is aggregated, based on region, cast, religion, profession, etc which ultimately forms the 'agenda' of real governance. The agenda of whom to give punishment postings and whom the reward posting, which region has to be developed, who all are to given preferential treatment etc. etc. Even the, police, judiciary and public departments/agencies like Income Tax, CBI etc falls into the same category, they are not free from government intervention. That's why creating a candidate's 'hawa' (will win image) is important. People fall for this 'Hawa' to avoid being seen in the wrong side. Do you see the complexity and interlinking of the multiple process?

Haven't you seen many people changing their behaviour ones they enter a foreign country? Have you ever wondered why this change in behaviour happens at two different places, when the person and personality still remains the same? Doesn't governance play a big role here in people's decision?

Again, what are we discussing here? Is India a democracy? Is India a very good democracy? Is India a Utopia?

Who is saying that issues are not there? There are lots of issues with Indian democracy- role of money, role of muscle power, casteist/communal politics, etc. But presence of issues doesn't mean absence of democratic character. A democracy is not equivalent to Utopia.

And you are talking of people (vis-a-vis freedom of thought, taught behavior, guns on their heads, etc.) as if they are infants. Are people going to take any responsibility? Everyone wants to give a good lecture on corruption, morals and ethical behavior. But the truth is that there is wide-spread acceptance and practise of corruption amongst the masses. Given a choice, most people cut corners for their selfish ends. How many people actually register a property for its true worth? Or pay a Rs.1000 fine when one can get away by paying 100 to the policeman? The politicians come from the same people, not from Mars. Agreed, there is dynasty, there is money- but what have those who have risen from nowhere done? Are they any different?

Everyone will say in a survey that they want politicians with clean records. Do you expect people to say no, I want a corrupt and criminal politician? But when the day of reckoning comes, everyone thinks "Okay, what will this guy mean for me?", or "What caste/religion/region he is from". How many educated, well-informed and well-meaning folks here would vote for a SC or a Muslim candidate with a totally clean record over a Jat candiate?

The example Sunil gave of IISc was pertinent for the same reason. Education and pedigree doesn't change the basic character/nature of people. And it reflects in the choices they make in elections. I was closely involved in student politics at IIT and IIM. In neither of the places, there are any political parties or any involvement of money. It is a very small electorate and there is literal door to door campaigning for every "floating" vote. You can't get a better democracy than that. Yet, instead of bothering to choose the "best", many people are pre-disposed (favorably or against) to a candidate because of their good/average/bad relations with him. As for the undecided, some are charmed by the mess secy who gives them "free mess coupons" or the sports secy, who lets them keep the hostel equipment. Others just decide based on the region/language/category (general or reserved) of the candidates. I have even heard a reason like "X always smiles and says hello to me; but Y has never done that". Yeah, there are a few who actually look at the "work" done by the candidates, their extra-curricular records, their agenda and character. But they are a precious few. So if these people, who are best placed to exercise freedom of thought don't do so, then who would?

 

[sunillathwal]

Crux of your argument is:

Considering that the above happens, the question is why do people have such biases?

The important thing to note here is that biases of caste, religion, region, party-loyalty, etc comes from taught behaviour and not hereditary behaviour.

Your argument is related with the 'social awareness' which I believe has little to do with the democracy, nevertheless, let me put my final thoughts:

If government starts intruding in people's personal spaces/freedom or starts behavior-modification-in-grand-ways; it is called dictatorship!! China can force 1 child-policy, Indian Govt can NOT.

Not many countries (democratic or not) discriminate on the basis of caste (SC candidate gets a job despite being lower in ranking than general candidate), you implement the same rule in India (i.e., abolish caste-based-reservation or govt-sanctioned-caste-system, in a way)-- there will be total anarchy!

'Shah Bhano case' happened in India (however adverse it might be to the rights of women) because the Muslim at large in India wanted their personal lives to be a guided by their religion. Apparently Indian muslims rallied for this!!

Indian Govt (or democracy) does NOT preach marriages only in "same-caste", our parents do!! Govt had legalize inter-caste marriages decades ago, how many parents are comfortable with such marriages even today? Govt can, at best, provide the legal protection to couple who fear for their lives from their parents.
Govt already did what it could i.e., to tell people that "inter-caste marriage are OK, republic children. Please go ahead with these."
What else you think that govt should do to eliminate the caste-biases prevailing in our society??

Govt can only advertise 'Save the Girl Child' to create awareness among people BUT can it go to every house to check if "gender equality" principle is adhered in totality by all parents? No, it can not.. it is impossible.
It can facilitates the awareness up to some extent beyond that any major social change HAS to come from within the society.
----

Reg your question of behavior modification while abroad:

First of all, numbers of people going abroad is very very less (i.e., it is bad sample -size and -choice). I have been to Singapore and have also spent a considerable amount of time in Europe (Barcelona to be specific). I did NOT change my behavior in Barcelona or in Singapore in any significant way. I was as "free" in Barcelona as I am in Bangalore.
I think you'r observations are reg the Singapore's rule of 'littering' things around, smoking in public places and probably the yellow line rule (while road-crossing). [It is more of question of the resources at the govt disposal.]
Well, I don't throw trash on the road in Bangalore either; I always use dust-bins;
So, as a corollary question : Why didn't the bad-governance-system-in-India encourage (!) or modify my behavior to throw trash around?? Is it hereditary?

BTW, stark behavior modification (!) while abroad is seen among the people who travel to middle-east countries (pious Islamic nations)!! and Lo! most of them are not even democracy?

----
Another counter argument I can think of: Sometime back there were news of honor killings in NRIs (in UK). Well, the governance is same for the NRIs and Britons; why do then some NRIs have "these" biases?? (If these are indeed taught or result from the bad- governance)

I am not able to find it but sometime back I read one article with the statistics of inter-racial marriages in UK. Even the 2nd and 3rd generation Indian (most South Asians for that matter) migrants do not prefer inter racial marriages!! Most importantly, a white girl is more likely to get married to a black dude as compared to chances of brown girl being married to a black dude.

Kindly explain since when UK govt started teaching such biases/ prejudices?
(Anyway I don't see how it is related with the concept of democracy!)


Let me put it again: Social changes always manifest in bottom-to-top approach/manner. If govts try social change in a top-to-bottom approach: either it fails OR people change the govt and then it FAILs.

 

[arvindc]

Again, what are we discussing here? Is India a democracy? Is India a very good democracy? Is India a Utopia?

Who is saying that issues are not there? There are lots of issues with Indian democracy- role of money, role of muscle power, casteist/communal politics, etc. But presence of issues doesn't mean absence of democratic character. A democracy is not equivalent to Utopia.

And you are talking of people (vis-a-vis freedom of thought, taught behavior, guns on their heads, etc.) as if they are infants. Are people going to take any responsibility? Everyone wants to give a good lecture on corruption, morals and ethical behavior. But the truth is that there is wide-spread acceptance and practise of corruption amongst the masses. Given a choice, most people cut corners for their selfish ends. How many people actually register a property for its true worth? Or pay a Rs.1000 fine when one can get away by paying 100 to the policeman? The politicians come from the same people, not from Mars. Agreed, there is dynasty, there is money- but what have those who have risen from nowhere done? Are they any different?

Everyone will say in a survey that they want politicians with clean records. Do you expect people to say no, I want a corrupt and criminal politician? But when the day of reckoning comes, everyone thinks "Okay, what will this guy mean for me?", or "What caste/religion/region he is from". How many educated, well-informed and well-meaning folks here would vote for a SC or a Muslim candidate with a totally clean record over a Jat candiate?

The example Sunil gave of IISc was pertinent for the same reason. Education and pedigree doesn't change the basic character/nature of people. And it reflects in the choices they make in elections. I was closely involved in student politics at IIT and IIM. In neither of the places, there are any political parties or any involvement of money. It is a very small electorate and there is literal door to door campaigning for every "floating" vote. You can't get a better democracy than that. Yet, instead of bothering to choose the "best", many people are pre-disposed (favorably or against) to a candidate because of their good/average/bad relations with him. As for the undecided, some are charmed by the mess secy who gives them "free mess coupons" or the sports secy, who lets them keep the hostel equipment. Others just decide based on the region/language/category (general or reserved) of the candidates. I have even heard a reason like "X always smiles and says hello to me; but Y has never done that". Yeah, there are a few who actually look at the "work" done by the candidates, their extra-curricular records, their agenda and character. But they are a precious few. So if these people, who are best placed to exercise freedom of thought don't do so, then who would?

What has been discussed here is the real (and not apparent) Indian democracy at ground level (and not on 7th Haven). I am not sure from where the doubts have come from?

The wide-spread acceptance and practise of corruption amongst the masses has come from only one place, 'bad governance'. That's another example of learned (taught) behaviour. And the flaws in the system (the so called democratic system) are responsible for it, and not the people. There is too much of power concentrated in the hands of PM, ministers and parliament which is responsible for this. The important departments and institutions like CBI, taxation, Judiciary are so much in control of ministries that they are rendered incapable of performing checks and balances.

The person offering 100 Rs for a 1000 Rs fine would not do so 'twice' in UK even if he knows 'someone' there, and that's only because the departments there function much more independently then in India.

The basic nature of people is same, irrespective of the nationality. Even a person in UK/Singapore would have a tendency to cut corners, however, they do not even try those methods because a system with good governance does not allow them.

I would not look at IIT/IIM/IISc for lessons on democracy and governance, they are too involved in the rat race to think of anything else. JNU is a way far apart from these.

 

[sjakhars]

2nd standard me padhne wale bache se poochhoge to wo bhi yahi kahega bhi bharat ek loktantrik desh hai, halanki use ye bhi pata nahi hota ki loktantrik ka matlab kya hota hai.
isi sawal ka jawab yahan par PhDs, Masters in something and professionals de rahe hain aur wahi jawab de rahe hain. Doesn't that tell you something?

Apologies in advance if I hurt someone.

 

[arvindc]

..
Your argument is related with the 'social awareness' which I believe has little to do with the democracy, nevertheless, let me put my final thoughts:

If government starts intruding in people's personal spaces/freedom or starts behavior-modification-in-grand-ways; it is called dictatorship!! China can force 1 child-policy, Indian Govt can NOT.

Not many countries (democratic or not) discriminate on the basis of caste (SC candidate gets a job despite being lower in ranking than general candidate), you implement the same rule in India (i.e., abolish caste-based-reservation or govt-sanctioned-caste-system, in a way)-- there will be total anarchy!
.....

An example from where the taught (learned) behaviour has come was already mentioned in the post. It's not at all related to awareness, cultural values, religious beliefs or gender bias, but with governance and the governing system.

Examples and encouragement of good governance follows from top-down not from bottom-up. An example it was shown by former CEC T.N. Seshan.

 

[arvindc]

2nd standard me padhne wale bache se poochhoge to wo bhi yahi kahega bhi bharat ek loktantrik desh hai, halanki use ye bhi pata nahi hota ki loktantrik ka matlab kya hota hai.
isi sawal ka jawab yahan par PhDs, Masters in something and professionals de rahe hain aur wahi jawab de rahe hain. Doesn't that tell you something?

Apologies in advance if I hurt someone.

The real meaning of 'loktantrik' doesn't lie in its definition, it rather lies in it's implementation and practice.

 

[sjakhars]

Absolutely, the question is not at all theoretical but the practical. Definitions are for theory only.
Thanks for putting it in words, I left it to the members to take out from my post.

My another question to members was, doesn't that tell you something?
Lets see, how the discussion goes on from here.

The real meaning of 'loktantrik' doesn't lie in its definition, it rather lies in it's implementation and practice.

 

[kapdal]

What has been discussed here is the real (and not apparent) Indian democracy at ground level (and not on 7th Haven). I am not sure from where the doubts have come from?

The wide-spread acceptance and practise of corruption amongst the masses has come from only one place, 'bad governance'. That's another example of learned (taught) behaviour. And the flaws in the system (the so called democratic system) are responsible for it, and not the people. There is too much of power concentrated in the hands of PM, ministers and parliament which is responsible for this. The important departments and institutions like CBI, taxation, Judiciary are so much in control of ministries that they are rendered incapable of performing checks and balances.

The person offering 100 Rs for a 1000 Rs fine would not do so 'twice' in UK even if he knows 'someone' there, and that's only because the departments there function much more independently then in India.

The basic nature of people is same, irrespective of the nationality. Even a person in UK/Singapore would have a tendency to cut corners, however, they do not even try those methods because a system with good governance does not allow them.

I would not look at IIT/IIM/IISc for lessons on democracy and governance, they are too involved in the rat race to think of anything else. JNU is a way far apart from these.

Yes, I have no issues with all the issues you are pointing out. Indian system has problems, it encourages corruption. For sure, that is right. In no way, I (or anyone else on this thread calling India a democracy) is saying we have a very good system. However, to absolve people of all responsibility is a cute little trick that is obviously popular. It is more like a vicious circle where people have increasingly low ethical standards and the corrupt system acts as a multiplying force.

But that doesn't mean it is NOT a democracy. Why do a deliberate mis-diagnosis by equating governance deficit to "lack of democracy"? The governance deficit can be there in any system- Monarchy, democracy, Communism, Dictatorship, etc. etc. And thank god, it is a democracy. Otherwise, you and I won't even be discussing this. We'd have been much worse had it been any other system. Democracy is our only hope. Only professional dissenters, those who are anti-everything by default would cite corruption and other issues as problems created because of democracy!

I definitely didn't tell you to look at IITs/IIMs/IISc for lessons on democracy. Nor was I comparing bicep sizes between these institutes and JNU (I think I actually painted them in a -ve light on this point!). Their example was just to drive home the point that these people don't have political party interferrence in their student politics, the electorate is small, well educated and well-informed. There is no thought control of the type you had written about. Yet, these people are not able to rise above their biases. It is a rather interesting phenomenon for anyone connecting dots between education and democracy. Oh well, but only if there is an open mind.

And as for "JNU is a way far apart from these", really? I have lived in JNU for 10 years of my life and seen the administrators/students/faculty from very close quarters (just to add, I am very fond of the place, the campus, the parthasarthy rocks, the nursery, the jamun trees, the cafetaria, the aravalis, the school and what not- Just trying to pre-empt being terms as anti-JNU conspirator!). There are not only students of social sciences there, there are also students of computer sciences, life sciences, biotech- pretty much in the same rat race as any other student from any other professional institute (hope that is not news to you). The difference is that a mixture of long hostel life (no secret many political types lodge themselves in the hostels for an eternity), presence of extreme right and left wing politics and political parties and location in the political capital of country has made the institute highly political- probably much more than an academic institute should be. I have seen pro and anti-Mandal mobs of students exchanging blows with each other. I don't think that sort of "involvement" makes JNU an ideal example of good democracy. But yes, democracy is there in JNU too!

 

[kapdal]

2nd standard me padhne wale bache se poochhoge to wo bhi yahi kahega bhi bharat ek loktantrik desh hai, halanki use ye bhi pata nahi hota ki loktantrik ka matlab kya hota hai.
isi sawal ka jawab yahan par PhDs, Masters in something and professionals de rahe hain aur wahi jawab de rahe hain. Doesn't that tell you something?

Apologies in advance if I hurt someone.

Sir, waise to maine yeh 6th main padha tha. Par 1st or 2nd standard main jo padha tha, woh Masters karte time badal nahin jaata. Alphabet fir bhi A se hi start hota hai, D se nahin. Definitions bhi zaroori hain strong base ke liye. Agar base kamzor ho to achhe bade bade log, bahut basic mistakes karr dete hain. Aur base clear ho toh mushkil se mushkil gutthi bhi suljhaayi ja sakti hai.

And you shouldn't apologise if you are actually trying to hurt someone.... Just saying..

 

[sjakhars]

I knew its coming but my apologies are genuine, not trying. Apologies are made for this purpose only.

The starter of this also knows that India is a Democratic republic then why did he ask this question? I am sure he is not that illiterate.

Rinku Ji, aap hi bata dijiye aapko ye pata tha ya nahi?
Agar pata tha (wo to hai hi) to kyun sab logon ka time aur urja vyarth me jaya ki.

Sir, waise to maine yeh 6th main padha tha. Par 1st or 2nd standard main jo padha tha, woh Masters karte time badal nahin jaata. Alphabet fir bhi A se hi start hota hai, D se nahin. Definitions bhi zaroori hain strong base ke liye. Agar base kamzor ho to achhe bade bade log, bahut basic mistakes karr dete hain. Aur base clear ho toh mushkil se mushkil gutthi bhi suljhaayi ja sakti hai.

And you shouldn't apologise if you are actually trying to hurt someone.... Just saying..

 

[upendersingh]

भारत निःसंदेह एक लोकतंत्र है. कभी-कभी तो मैं यह भी सोचता हूं कि क्या भारत से भी ज्यादा लोकतांत्रिक देश कोई और होगा इस दुनिया में भला? जिस तरह
की स्वतंत्रता भारतीयों को हासिल है, वो अलग ही है. भारत के लोकतंत्र होने का सबसे बड़ा सबूत तो यही है कि किसी भी भारतीय को यह नहीं लगता कि उस पर कोई तानाशाह शासन कर रहा है या इस देश की शासन प्रणाली में उसका कुछ भी हस्तक्षेप नहीं है.
यहां कोई अरुंधति रॉय खुलेआम देशविरोधी बयान दे देती है और इसके बावजूद उसकी बातों को 'विचार अभिव्यक्त करने की स्वतंत्रता' के नाम पर दरकिनार कर दिया जाता है. सबको पता होता है कि बाटला हाउस में आतंकवादी मारे गए हैं, इसके बावजूद कोई अमर सिंह सरेआम यह बयान दे देता है कि पुलिस ने निर्दोष मुसलमानों को मारा है. यहां भले ही डी. पी. यादव की औलाद हो या पप्पू यादव जैसा कोई तथाकथित बाहुबली नेता, यदि सबूत और गवाह होते हैं तो फिर इस तरह के लोग पक्का जेल में सड़ते हैं.
प्रेस को भी यहां पूरी आजादी है. सभी मिल-जुलकर चल रहे हैं. फिलहाल तो सबकुछ ठीक जा रहा है.

 

[virj]

The word democracy just mean it derives power/ruling people from the public. And as I said in post # 2 China is democratic too as per definition. They choose their own leaders to lead the country. They just have one party system where as we have west minister system. So on paper if someone ask: Do we have democracy (politically) there can be only one answer, Yes we have. Today, Pakistan has democracy too (its a diff matter than there democracy is short lived), soon Afghan will have too. There is no point arguing on that.

There are different types of democracy which are measured on different scale. How democratic, how much Liberty, both economically and politically and does it get Implemented.

Earlier we didn’t have liberal democracy (economically). Now we are opening up here and due to this we have seen positive change. Politically we are more liberal then America. Even a rapist can fight election here and any XYZ can form a party as long as he/she can meet minimum criteria. But there are a lot of things apart from democracy which need improvement. I wrote somewhere earlier on political front that this west minister system need to be get rid of. There need to be only 2 or may be max 3 parties on national level on state level we still need regional parties with regional agendas. Anyway that’s a different matter.

Other than that the problem is the governance and constitution. Our constitution was set up by Britishers and we haven't changed a lot of laws since then. They set up these rules equal on paper. But in practise they have two rules one for white other for black. Now the whites are replaced by black angrez. These black angrez who are MP, MLA, Movie Star etc are treated differently. We never stood up because we were used to it since Britishers time. Since then we were getting this double standard treatment and unfavourable law. Like the current land acquisition law. Britishers trained our police like that you can do 'lathicharge' at will on black and even today they do that on us unless you are black angrez. Police still shoot the agitated farmers. Many of these black angrez attended Dawood's daughter's marriage. Britishers started the appeasement policies and we can see they are still followed by all parties. The judges in British time were corrupt and the same tradition continued, A person, known to me, charged for murder in Delhi kept on getting dates after dates till he get the 'known' judge. Paid him 1 crore and he was out of the case. We don't have favourable laws for the farmers and the poor. We cannot control the taxes to be paid by the rich and now all this is amassed in foreign banks. Even though we are democratic and our system is set up on other developed countries' model unless these laws are implemented equally for all there are just a good read for law students. We do have rules but not for all. A poor villager's daughter if raped by an SP, can get justice? I don’t think so unless its an exceptional case. Babus still feel good when they speak in 'broken English'. English still determine the 'class' of a person. We are still stuck in this system. We are still slave of this and only we have to break this.

Democracy, jamhoriyat, parjatanter in essence mean 'people's rule'. A common man rule where a common man have their say. Where minority rights' are protected too. Unfortunately we don’t have that. And there is no easy solution. Till majority realise this nothing will change and we will just keep changing ruling parties. 65-70% votes come from villages and they are the people who need to realise this. All need to stand up together. Only awareness among these 70% people can bring the change we like to see. Sometime media try to impose some particular views on us as some of the media is controlled by these black angrez class.

We may be a free country but our mind is still a slave. ये गुलामी जो हमारे जहन में हे हमें इस से छुटकारा पाना होगा नहीं चाहे कोई सा law आ जाये कुछ नहीं बदलने वाला.

For a change, a few people are questioning this and may be our future generation will see a change. Till then, we can just feel good when the west says that we are the largest democracy in the world. More, later ---

 

[malikdeepak1]

१. किसे भी जगह थूक सके सै |
२. किसे भी जगह मूत सकै सै |
३. किसे भी जगह पोस्टर चेप सकै सै | (चाहे "Stick No Bills" क्यों ना लिख राख्या हो !)
४. किसे पोलिटिशियन के जूती मार सके सा एर बच भी सकै सै |
५. कितने ऐ रपिये खा सकै सै | पकडे जाओ तो थोड़े भोत रपिये फेंक के बच भी सकै सै |
६. जे जुगाड़ हो तो किसे की घिट्टी में गुट्ठा दे ल्यो कोए कुछ कहनिया नहीं |
७. एर किसे के बारे में कीमे भी कह लो, कोए कुछ बिगाड्निया नहीं | मीडिया ईग्जाम्प्ल सै इस बात का |
८. पुलस एर चोर दोनु कट्ठे रह सके सै | कोए पुन्झड पाड्निया नहीं|

जे किसे ने इब भी शक हो डेमोक्रेसी सै के नहीं तो आड़े कितने ऐ पन्ने काले भांड ल्यो | या तो न्यू इ रहनी सै |
एर किसे के और बत्ती खाज हो सुधारण की तो पहलम अपने गाम ने सुधारो | देश भी सुधर जागा |






PS : आर किसे ने कोए बात भुंडी लागे तो बेशक बुरा मान जइयो | मै ग़ोल ना करया करू इस्सी इस्सी बाता पे|:tamatar

 

[vicky84]

The word democracy just mean it derives power/ruling people from the public. And as I said in post # 2 China is democratic too as per definition.

You mean China has democracy?

 

[vicky84]

१. किसे भी जगह थूक सके सै |
२. किसे भी जगह मूत सकै सै |
३. किसे भी जगह पोस्टर चेप सकै सै | (चाहे "Stick No Bills" क्यों ना लिख राख्या हो !)
४. किसे पोलिटिशियन के जूती मार सके सा एर बच भी सकै सै |
५. कितने ऐ रपिये खा सकै सै | पकडे जाओ तो थोड़े भोत रपिये फेंक के बच भी सकै सै |
६. जे जुगाड़ हो तो किसे की घिट्टी में गुट्ठा दे ल्यो कोए कुछ कहनिया नहीं |
७. एर किसे के बारे में कीमे भी कह लो, कोए कुछ बिगाड्निया नहीं | मीडिया ईग्जाम्प्ल सै इस बात का |

जे किसे ने इब भी शक हो डेमोक्रेसी सै के नहीं तो आड़े कितने ऐ पन्ने काले भांड ल्यो | या तो न्यू इ रहनी सै |
एर किसे के और बत्ती खाज हो सुधारण की तो पहलम अपने गाम ने सुधारो | देश भी सुधर जागा |




PS : आर किसे ने कोए बात भुंडी लागे तो बेशक बुरा मान जइयो | मै ग़ोल ना करया करू इस्सी इस्सी बाता पे|:tamatar

hahahahaha...ek number ki baat ..