Afzal Guru, Anna Hazare, Democracy, High Court, India, lost in translation, Mahavir, parliament, PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS, Prof Harkant Mankad, Rajiv Gandhi, relevance, Supreme Court, Syādvāda, system, systems, The Buddha, The Doctrine of Postulation
I had written about this earlier, however thought to revisit the same again. What is the meaning of system when it is not solving the required purpose? Let us take the same example again from my previous post Lost in translation. What is the meaning of grammar (System) if the language (Following the system) is not able to communicate the message using the grammer?
To make my point further clear, let me take recent developments in India. In case of Anna Hazare, the Government was shouting about the SYSTEM in place, “THE SUPREME PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS” and therefore was not relenting to the rightful issue of sentiments of the common man of India. What is the use of such process which is not listening to the voices of people, and we call it DEMOCRACY! At the same time, Supreme court of India has kept death sentences (ruled in favor of High Court) for Killer of Mr Rajiv Gandhi and Afzal Guru (involved in parliament attack of 2003), let me repeat – Supreme Court of India. Yet for many years they are in jails of India. Now, the system of respecting the Supreme Court is not followed. What kind of SYSTEMS we are talking about?
A man/woman – actually killer in some sense – is in jail not receiving the fruits of his/her crime, why because we can do away with some systems selectively to suit our benefits. At the same time a man (Anna) – who is fighting for a cause – is given rule-book and all sorts of stories of systems, stating what he is doing is not in favor of democracy. What nonsense! Are not these systems making us handicap rather than helping us? Is the system making us feel – in India, you can get away with murders too?
Reiterating this from my earlier blog – …I am not arguing against systems. I am just trying to say that one has to answer the question – why at first place we designed systems?
1. to facilitate operations of society (in case of religion, culture and laws)
2. to facilitate operations of work (in case of businesses).
Inputs from Prof Mankad on need of system –
3. to facilitate understanding of the present and formulating vision for the future (in case of education)
4. to facilitate orderly day to day living for people, ensure fairness in dealings, security and openness (in case of governance, transparency and judiciousness). At times, systems are inadequate too.
And therefore my stand is no spiritual teacher advocated “create a religion in my name” …and do business on the same. They just showed the path, I recall Mahavir (one of the messengers of Jainism) used ‘Syādvāda’. What I understand about ‘Syādvāda’* is – this is true and that is also true. Everything is based on relativity. Systems are correct if they solve the basic purpose, if they do not – better to change them. Everything of 12th century (or Before Christ) may not be relevant today better abolish some of them, right? So, relevance is important and thus the doctrine of postulation… systems are correct but in context, be it democracy of India. Mahavir said that 500 years BC (Before Christ), we are still not listening/learning, are we?
More on Syādvāda in future blogs.
*Note – it is purely my understanding and please do your research for references