arnab wrote:brihaspati wrote:
"[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy."[2]
"If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery."[3] Here goes the claim of Indian gratitude for the Brit model of "good governance".
"It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority."[4] Here goes Brit model of governance by majority decision.
"Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."[5] Here goes the claim of Brit model state that power reside in the admin once elections are over and the state itself is sort of a self-perpetuating machine over and above that of the people - that people simply decide who is going to control that machine for a while.
Discussing the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, "In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor."[6]
For MKG, every individual had to take steps towards self-rule in their lives; only then India would naturally move towards self-rule as a nation. He insisted, "Everyone will have to take [swaraj] for himself."[7]
Thus MKG's definition of swaraj ultimately leads to a grassroots, bottom-up, community of self-ruling communities. In 1946, Gandhi explained this vision:
Separate dining rooms as far as I know is not just only in RBI but extends to other important wings of the rashtra. The problem with "high handedness" before pre-colonial era is a debatable one, and if we go sufficiently backward, there are at least textual claims of severe penalties for over-stepping limits by law-enforcement officials coming from the pre-Islamic period.
However, the crucial debate in the modern period is that in the colonial regime, the police were serving the Brit crown and were basically and technically servants of HM's government in India. As such they were not accountable to the Indian people because there was no effective democratic representation of the Indian commons in the Brit Parliament which had some degree of control over admin. Post independence there can be no excuse for such unaccountability. As is evident in growing numbers of cases , police arbitrariness can only be subject to penalizing action if initiatives are taken by the "centre" and by current culture only if the arbitrariness has taken place on "politically correct" victims.
Ok I get it MKG repudiated the british model of governance. He wanted a 'back to the village' grass root level bottom-up development. He opposed nuclear weapons, industrialisation, arms acquisition etc. So I'm puzzled - Do you support MKG's economic vision of India? or his vision to deal with agression? So do you think his views about governance (or anarchy) would be applicable or practical today to run a country like India?
This what you had originally written :
"
I think we are creating a mountain out of a mole hill. The indian independence movement was all about 'swaraj' (self rule). This was articulated by Tilak and even MKG when he said to the brits to go even if it meant leaving leaving India to the mercy of the gods. MMS's argument is about not entirely rejecting Brit's claim to 'good governance'. ....
All these provided a glue which kept the country administratively unified after independence(rather than empty slogans). These are the good governance factors that MMS is refering to."
You claimed that "i"ndian independence movement was all about "swaraj" as articulated by MKG and your implication was that "swaraj" was not really about rejection of British claims of good governance but merely appropriation of that system by Indians. You reduced MKG's concept of "swaraj" to a twisted shape beyond anything the MKG ever mentioned as. Using that you justified MMS's claim. So I pointed out what MKG really meant as "swaraj", and how far he thought of the British parliament based ruling system as worth "copying". MKG's actual statements completely contradict the way you tried to use his words.
Whether his concepts are worth using or impractiable is a different debate - but then his words cannot be used to justify and support things he never supported. That was what I was objecting to. Then of course those "other good government factors" - which again turns out to be debatable. The first and foremost sign of good governance is the socio-economic prosperity of the people - if that came down so drastically, all claims of good governance is a sham. Supporting it from those originating from the receiving end population, is an act that in the colonial case can only come from comprador professionals and entrepreneurs who benefit from the special relationship they have with their colonial masters. Supporting and justifying it when the colonial power, at least officially is gone, is treason to the sufferings and sacrifices of countless millions if not formally a treason by the existing code of law.
So MMS is merely articulating that outside of the well known aspects that have denounced british rule, running a government requires one to look beyond slogans and involves the the hard and unglamourous task of providing legislative frameworks, legal structures and administrative coverage to a country. This initial framework is what the Brits provided and which is what we still largely use and it is a reality (just as the brit made famine of 1942 was a reality as shown by Amartya Sen).
Again, this is entirely MMS's take and I objected to his claims of representing "all" Indian opinion on this - just as I objected to his claim that "we" - implying all Indians accepted his claim of "good governance" on the part of the Brits. I object to his passing off his personal fantasies as that of the nation - both historically as well as that of now. I quoted MKG explicitly to show that MKG himself did not think the MMS way, and MKG openly acknowledged that there were multiple strands of opinions an dpositions within Indian nationalism that moved against the British - it was no homogeneous "we". This is what the intact passing over of the colonial state machinery has done - it has perpetuated mental slavery to the Raj in those whom the system filters in to allow to have state power over the long term.
Re 'textual claims' about severe punishment for high handedness in the past - I'm afraid it proves nothing. I'm sure you will find textual claims of punishments associated with corruption and high handedness of the police in today's IPC. So maybe in 1000 years time someone will come to the conclusion of the excellence of law enforcement officials in the 20th century India. (Wasn't this why the concept of subaltern studies became popular? Rather than focus on history written by kings and courtiers?)
The fact that police were a servant of the crown in the colonial era (and a servant of the king in pre-colonial time) really has no bearing on their behaviour today IMO.
Sure, we can trawl through "subaltern studies" and I guess if you really do it instead of just using the "keyword" you will find plenty of examples where there is evidence of self-correcting mechanisms at the decentralized village and township level, especially in the "south" which coincides with an eventual erosion of democratic grassroots admin in the north under the Sultanate and Mughal policy of imposing qazis to try and punish all according to the sharia.
I did not go into the debate proper about ancient period and simply said it was not a foregone conclusion. But what my main point was that in the modern post colonial period, the police cannot have a continuation of the colonial police attitude that they served a master who is unaccountable to the "natives" and therefore they themselves were not accountable to the "natives". But the continuation of this attitude is a direct consequence of adopting the colonial state machinery lock, stock and barrel - and obviously it was done to use the repressive effeiciency of the system towards political opposition or protest to the ruling regime. That sort of use is what marks similarity and continuity with the colonial regime.
.
, "I think you should say what you think, and be frank and clear. "It's not acceptable that there are still terrorist groups working in Pakistan. We need to work with the government there to shut them down. There is action being taken, but we need to see more."
. Now, these folks although hard working, rich and well settled they tend to vote Labor for some inexplicable reasons. 