Vijyes
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,978
- Likes
- 1,723
Again, the rulers are voted as temporary kings who can then do whatever they want regardless of poll promise. They have discretion power beyond what they were explicitly permitted by people. So, republic is only a false democracy. It is impossible to elect a person in one elections when the number of issues is in thousands. We need each issue to be properly dealt with rather than one or two basic need issue being dominant while other issues are sacrificed. Also, discretion power wielded is arbitrary and can be used to perpetuate the hold on power by unfair means. Such system is not democracy.India is a democratic republic where we vote for our rulers.
We actually had a group of individuals ruling us until rise of Narendra Modi changed it into a presidential republic. Even he has a huge support from people.
Modi is not one man. He is just a face of RSS as a means of PR campaign and a method to ensure accountability in front of public. One or two men can't run a country. The way Modi goes to all foreign countries, meetings and inauguration but yet does the work of governance is something non credible. There are hundreds of RSS men who are working in backgrounds and doing the job. So, even now, what is being shown in public is not same as what is the reality. This is the drawback of republic system.
I know that republic is not a western concept. I have mentioned about how republic resulted in chaos in ancient Rome leading to dictatorship.Sir, there is no harm in going through some basics of economy and politics which are your favourites to comment on.
Republic is not a rule of a "temporary king".
Republic as translated in Sanskrit / Hindi - Gana-rajya means the highest head of the state will be elected by public or public representatives (gana) rather than by kingship, nomination or heredity. That further signifies that the "sovereignty" of the state ultimately shall lie with the people. Election by people is ether by direct method as in USA or indirect methods as in India.
Gana as in "jan- gana- mana..." means "a flock , troop , multitude , number , tribe , series , class (of animate or inanimate beings) , body of followers or attendants (mornier english dictionary) or selected leaders as in "Ganesh" = gan+ isha.
In cases of India, the highest constitutional authority - the president is elected by an electoral college of the representative of the people - the gana.
The Western idea of Republic flows from Plato's book of the same title - "the Republic" which expounds the idea of an elected "Philosopher King". But Indian ideas of "Gantantra" or "Ganrajya" flows from earliest Rkveda - "Gananam tva Ganapatim ~Havamahe....." where lord Ganesha is the lord of the leaders of Shiva's Army, hence called Ganapati" as also from many earlier Ganrajya in existence in early history of India.
Similarly, in India too, Ganas became corrupt. Ganas like those in which Buddha was born shows how the king (Buddha's father) used his powers to hide reality from Buddha (when he was Siddhartha). This shows blatant misuse of power. Even there, we could see how the ganarajya was hereditary rather than elected.
Republic is a compromise between dictatorship and democracy. But unfortunately, it has the bad parts of both and good part of none. Life requires both - quick decision during distress and stable long teem policies based on laws of average for long term stability. But republic offers slow decision during distress and short sighted policies with the intent on showing immediate results to get re-elected. Both if which are exactly opposite of what is needed.
Unless and until there is a regular feedback system, things don't work. Also, it is mandatory to get the right people on the basis of intent, character and capabilities in order for things to work. People's whims and fancies based on group behaviour is not the right method to be in positions.
So, the right form of governance is theocracy styled in the form of CHURCH but under principle of dharma
Those with high quality people handpicked into being Brahmans and a fierce Brahman at the top to contain rulers from misbehaving is essential. This system was the original system of India with Parashuram acting as the one to slay kings who betray the principle of dharma.
Under Parashuram and high quality merit based Brahmans, the civilisation extended across the world. Did you ever wonder how dharma dharma was the common theme in India from Lanka Ayodhya despite them being separate kingdoms? That is because the ones in charge were not kings but Brahmans.
So, merely saying that republic is right because it existed in India in the past is wrong. History has shown that republic is the worst form of governance ever, even worse than dictatorship in terms of stability.