What is Indian Democracy about ?

What is European and American Democracy understood as? 

Abraham Lincoln had said Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people.



Then what is Indian Democracy about?

Indian Democracy is a government of the Government servants, by the Government servants and for the Government servants.

Human psychology is the headquarters of superstitions

अक्सर मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि अंधविश्वास का विरोध करना कोई समझदारी का काम नही है।
किसी भी तथाकथित अंधविश्वास का विरोध सिर्फ तभी उपयुक्त माना ज सकता है जब वह किसी के मार्ग की बाधा बनता हो, अन्यथा उस अंधविश्वास को छेड़ना कोई समझदारी नही है।
ऐसा सोचने का कारण क्या है?
कारण यह है कि वास्तव में अंधविश्वास या विश्वास (दोनों के मध्य की रेखा बहुत धूमिल होती है इसलिए स्पष्ट पहचान आसान नही है) का वास्तविक केंद्र आसपास बैठा कोई ब्राह्मण या फिर कि धर्म नही होता है, बल्कि खुद इंसान की बुद्धि और उसकी मनोविज्ञानी ज़रूरत ही होती है
The headquarters of the superstitions is not the Brahmin man nearby you, but you own brain and it's psychology.
दुनिया भर में जहां जहां भी मानव सभ्यताएं बसी , वहां किसी ने किसी रूप में विश्वास पनपा ही है। बल्कि बारीकी से देखने पर आप पाएंगे कि बिना विश्वास के तो इंसानी सभ्यता का स्थापना ही असंभव है। और जहां विश्वास स्थापित हुआ है, फिर वहां कुछ न कुछ रीत-रिवाज़ या फिर की "रूड़ी" भी पनपते ही हैं।
अंग्रेजी दर्शन में इंसानी बुद्धि में तर्क को विश्वास से भेद किया जाता है। तर्क वह हैं जो कि तथ्यों पर आधारित होते हैं। तथ्य वह हैं जो कि पांच इन्द्रियों से sense करने मसितष्क के प्रयोग द्वारा सिद्ध माने जाते हैं।
इन तथ्यों का संग्रह जानकारी  कहलाता है। जानकारी का मूल शब्द ज्ञान है, इसलिए इन्हें हम ज्ञान भी बुलाते हैं।
अब दिक्कत यूँ है कि मानव समाज मे ज्ञान हमेशा से ही कम उपलब्ध रहा है। अभी पिछले 200 का इतिहास छोड़ दे, तब तो ज्ञान की हालत और भी खराब थी।
तो फिर इंसान जीता कैसे था? यही अज्ञानता के आवेश में, अपने मन से ही कुछ भी "कारण" को कल्पनाओं से निर्माण करके उसे सत्य मान लेता था और उसके सिद्ध होने के प्रयास छोड़ देता था। यह काल्पनिक कारण ही तो विश्वास है।
ज्ञान आज भी कम ही उपलब्ध है। एक अंग्रेजी विचारक का कहना है कि आज भी इन्सान के पास समूचा ज्ञान इतना निम्म है कि वह किसी समुन्द्र किनारे के बालू के तट पर मात्र एक कण के बराबर ही है।
तो फिर ज्ञान के अभाव में इंसान का जीवन कैसे चलता है?
इसका जवाब वही है :-
विश्वास से ।

विश्वास और अंधविश्वास में क्या अंतर है?
शायद बस यही की वह विश्वास जिन पर अब मानवों ने कुछ ज्ञान तलाश कर चुके हैं, मगर बाकी अन्य इंसानी समूह अभी तक वह तलाश किया हुआ ज्ञान नही पहुँच सकने की वजह से वह अभी तक उस विश्वास को पकड़े बैठे हैं, वह अंधविश्वास बन जाता है।

तो संक्षेप में,
विश्वास - ज्ञान = अंधविश्वास
जब विश्वास को ज्ञान द्वारा गलत सिद्ध किया जा चुका हो, यदि वह विश्वास तब भी कुछ समाजों में बचा रह जाये क्योंकि ज्ञान वहां तक पहुँच नही सका है, तो वह विश्वास ही अंधविश्वास कहलाने लगता है।

What is the confusion about Secularism

For the uninitiated Lawyers, not conversant in the social history of world, a potential source of confusion in regard to context of Secularism is that there is a usage of the word "secular" in the Art 25 (2)(a) of the Constitution, wherein the CoI empowers the state to make any regulating or restricting laws in regard to "secular activities related to the religious practises".

The second usage of the word "secular" happened after the 42nd Amendment when the preamble itself got appended with this word, and now it said that it is desired by the people of India , through the act of the Parliament, to make India a Secular Republic.

The people practising in law , but those many who are not conversant with the social history of world, will tend to think from the above that the Art25  usage indicates that there was a desire right from the beginning among the makers of the CoI , the founding fathers, to " make India a Secular
republic". To the uninitiated Lawyers, the Art 25 usage that empowered the state to make laws pertaining to the secular activities is the same as the desire, expressed through the Preamble, to make Indian society too secular. 

There is one source of confusion.

Shore leave to seafarers and the port authorities

Question
Need legal advice regarding shore leave - If vessel's FLAG and the port of call both have ratified MLC, what options are available if a private terminal in that port refuses shore leave

____X_____X____

Response
U mean, the government of the country where you port of call is situated,
Because otherwise, You contradict by saying that the Port is refusing you the shore leave...
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Port's internal security assessment must reveal to its own Country's government of its inability to conform to the Laws due to security-related issues ...
And once such an assessment has become public, then the Charterers and the Owners of the vessel must charge premium freight for carrying cargo to a high-risk port !!


____X_____X____

 The premium freight, so charged by the charters and the ship owners must then pass the benefit to the ship's crew in the form of allowance for high-risk port duties!
DO YOU ALL AGREE?


____X_____X____

Please,
It is time we don't let Security and the MLC convention to become a mere paper-issue, such that any random port authority may just call out their port to be high-risk by MERE DECLARATION without doing the needful to fulfil their DUTIES arising from the MLC Convention ratification.
The Port is having an easy way out to not to regard the MLC Convention with sincerity BECAUSE there is NO COST for not conforming to it, WHILE there is an easy way of MERE DECLARATION of security-issues to get rid of their duties to conform to the ratified law

____X_____X____

Since the MLC Convention makes the shore leave to seafarers a right, therefore the ShipOwners must be made duty-bound to announce to each seafarer at the time of his signing-on if the ship is making port calls of such ports where Shore leave is prohibited,
So that the seafarers may choose whether they are willing to visit the high-risk ports or NOT,
AND if they volunteer to do so, then, accordingly the Allowance must be paid.
AS A FREE LEGAL ADVICE TO ALL THE SEAFARERS READING THIS,
Let me inform you all that that YOUR RIGHT to WILLINGLY  join a ship which goes to high-risk port/areas
Is RECOGNIZED separately and above the RIGHT to receive compensation for your service in such a high-risk area.
Simply told, It is like LLOYD'S OPEN FORM:-
You first choose whether you want to take-up such a voyage or not
AND THEN, IF you do VOLUNTEER, then you further accrue a RIGHT TO COMPENSATION for your services in such a HIGH-RISK area.


____X_____X____

The ShipOwners play a trick with the legally not-educated seafarers,
Instead of themselves declaring whether their ship is likely to visit the high-risk ports/areas,
They MAKE THE SEAFARERS sign a DECLARATION DOCUMENT that the seafarer is WILLING of his own choice to join the ship and go whichever area/port she goes and to conform to the port regulations !!

The cheating game, u see...

A short summary of Secularism

Secularism, as the western philosophy and the experiences grew, emerged as a *socio-cultural movement.*

It is to be noted that while the West became culturally _Secular_, it established it's own separate church in order to do so.

So it must be drawn as a point by one an all, that SECULARISM does not mean Atheism, nor does it mean that Religion is superflous to the needs of the society .

Secularism, as a socio-cultural movement, came as a result of the fight with the predecessor social and governance conduct , called later by the social scientist as the SACRAMENTALISM.

Sacramentalism is the conduct where the Clergies controlled every aspect of life of the common man, and held powers to approve or disapprove the logic and reason as socially tenable .  This is what the people found unacceptable, and protested against, as it was lacking methodical approach.

Infact , under Secularism, so much is the emphasis on the methods, that a separate Socio-religious cult started under the Church , called as the Methodist.

An example of conduct of the state agency under Sacramentalism is like the current scenario of the EVMs. The logic on whether an electronic device can be created hack-proof and tamper-proof , is being governed by closed body, challenging the publically available knowledge on this matter by the common people. The Election Commission is using farce , untenable arguments , such as that the EVMs are tamper-proof by way various on-spot exhibit-test and by randomisations done in use of the machine. The opposition party , the Indian National Congress, eventually had to criticise the Election Commission for creating ' _Sacred Chamber_ " in deciding and conducting the business.

Secularism, as a social conduct, is opposed to such a behavior by any state agency .

In India, the Secularism was adopted into the Constitution by an amendment. It is , therefore, not an original idea from the founding fathers .

The quirky problem is that there is no legal definition for the socio-cultural concept. But then the Constitution of a country contains the idea which may not be legally defined .

The tricky fact is that even the western countries where the movement originated , do not use the term in the Legal business ! And therefore  there is no legal definition available.

Strangely, as the way the Indian Parliament adopted the Secularism, it did so understanding the meaning of secularism as _DHARM NIRPEKSH_ , intending to  mean that  _state agency not taking side with any religion_.
However the opposition of those times, particularly the one coming from the think-tank of the _Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh_, argued that the hindi translation was inagreeable as it truely means _State is religion free_ , the meaning of the _Dharm_ being Religion. They argued that the hindi translation should be _Panth NIRPEKSH_ , a correct term for intending to mean , _not taking sides with any religion_.

Even more strangely as it may happen , the ruling dispensations of India over the years , applied the idea of Secularism as a one-way ticket , giving quite a benefit to the minority community which emerged in India post the episode of Partition of India in 1947.

But yes, in the meanwhile, the government did hotly follow the line of Scientific Tamper, and did not seem to confuse itself out between what is largely called as the *Pseudo Science* and the *Science*.

Around 2010, the Supreme Court of India refused to provide any definition for the term Secularism.

Post May 2014, the opposition of those times has managed to reach and settle into the ruling governance, and now it is itself getting caught either promoting the *Sacramentalism* , or is confusing out between the creditably separate branches of knowledge described as the *Sciences* and the *Pseudo-Science*.
The government is hotly following the promotion of those branches of learning where the human logic has creditably decided to be lacking in coherent methodical thought-process, and therefore not be seriously taken as the *Sciences*. But the government is doing it under the claim that these branches of learning did not receive adequate backing from the previous government because of which their _Scientific development_ could not come around .

An example of the tricky situation that a sincere adherence to the idea of Secularism may bring to the Indian socio-cultural landscape is that eating (consumption) of flesh of animals such as the cow and the pigs is considered scientifically consistent and therefore it is expected of a SECULAR government to allow them !!! The flesh of certain animals is weighed out as prohibited by certain *secular* countries , such as the flesh of horses and dogs, on the Scientific rationale that they carry germs and decompose faster which may cause health problems to the consumers .

So, overall, the prevailing Scientific theories universally, that is India being spared, is that Cow and Pig can be consumed while Horses and Dogs may not be.

The practising of Secularism , in its truest terms, may therefore give certain outcomes which the prevailing society may not admit even today.

The another important point is that even the so called Secular Countries , such as the Ireland, have shown at times , the practising of non-secularm government policies at times .The Abortion debate is completely an anti-thesis to the notion of Secularism. But then, their Laws, in this particular concept,  do not confuse away between the Socio-cultural concept and the legal definition . Therefore they do not have Secularism as a Constitutional idea, even when theirs is the country  it has originated.

Featured Post

नौकरशाही की चारित्रिक पहचान क्या होती है?

भले ही आप उन्हें सूट ,टाई और चमकते बूटों  में देख कर चंकचौध हो जाते हो, और उनकी प्रवेश परीक्षा की कठिनता के चलते आप पहले से ही उनके प्रति नत...

Other posts