LETTER PUBLISHED ON 17TH SEPTEMBER 2023
When 26 parties come together with a single agenda of defeating the party in power, one wonders at the idea of a multi-party democracy itself. Each party supposedly has a unique approach to improving the lot of the people. Ananda Coomaraswamy called democracy finally a tyranny of the majority, where the defeated are always unhappy. Sri Aurobindo was not in favour of the blindly adopted Westminster model of parliamentary democracy at independence.
Indian traditions had free citizens and more unity across Bharatvarsha under an ‘enlightened monarchy’. The bedrock of Indian polity was the three quartets, according to both Coomaraswamy and Aurobindo: the four varnas, the four ashramas, and the four purusharthas. The duty of the king and the state was to give protection to these quartets. The highest ideal of the nation was moksha, and this was achievable by any person within the duty-bound framework of his or her own varna dharma. Untouchability and other detestable social practices were weeds, typical of any society or culture across the world. These needed removal in the best possible manner, but it does not mandate dismantling the whole structure of Sanatana dharma as some are keen to suggest.
Indian traditions focused on qualities and duties at all levels, from the king to the ordinary citizen, unlike Western ‘rights-based’ traditions. The kinds of wars fought in Europe in mediaeval times were perhaps unusual in the Indian context. Indian wars, by principle, mostly left the agricultural lands and the temples intact. A bond linking rulers and people across kingdoms allowed free movement for pilgrimages and access to knowledge. Shankaracharya could raise the four mathas in four corners of the country. Hence, alternatives to democracy thrived without affecting trade, agriculture, literature, or the sciences across the country.
Indian civilization, at least five thousand years old, apart from a high quotient of personal happiness, had a thriving economy with highly evolved arts, literature, education, sciences, spirituality, architecture, and so on. Our indigenous systems had some worth, as their outcomes certainly attracted thousands from Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.
The antipathy and the failure to look at Indian traditions have been dominant in the ‘modernity’ narratives of academia, the media, and political theorists, where the past is always primitive. Instead of parroting western theories, our social sciences can look at our past to come up with better theories for governance. The proof of traditional models is the immense success and survival of the great Indian civilization. Traditions are not fossilised items, and they have immense flexibility to offer solutions for any period. However, is there any hope for a change as ‘liberal democracy’ has become the norm for all countries despite so many problems?
RANDOM MUSINGS 