Tag Archives: democracy

Sermon on the Streets

The lefties are in general experts in deception. For one, they use disruption and blackmail as replacements to what is required in a civilized society – most significantly truth and transparency in public discourse, stability of state and society, and respect for institutions processes and their proper functioning. The recent phenomenon of AAP is not really different in this matter. Whether it is moralizing to others without having any morality themselves, assuming a pedestal to escape scrutiny, looking for soft targets, immoral use of public emotions, conflating goals with high sounding and vacuous theories, essentially AAP is through and through commie. Their discourse is best described as ‘Sermon on the Streets’ – something meant to catch following with no clue what the following is for.

Main Problem – Lack of Accountability

What Kejriwal demonstrated inside and outside of government is his absolute lack of accountability. When making false allegations, he is not accountable because his goal is not to ‘prove’ – after all his goal is what matters, not his action, and he is not accountable either to society or to state in any matter! He can go blackmailing the society and state with disruption. And worse, he can do that even as CM of a state when his primary responsibility is to ensure no disruption actually happens.

 Given that Kejriwal’s ascent to power happened without a clear majority, his primary role one would expect is to set things right in Delhi before initiating things that require a bigger mandate. Yet he does things entirely opposite, and without showing any consistency or commitment to his responsibilities resorts to blackmail every now and then. He threatens people that if his proposed bill does not get passed through his insisted unconstitutional method, he would resign. In spite of an assurance of support from both opposition and alliance in case he follows the procedure, he does not. He undermines the protocol and Lt Governor and tries to push things in his usual unruly ways. Finally he resigns after making false allegations against other parties.

The brief story of his ascent and resignation only that of his lack of accountability, untrustworthiness and dishonesty. Five year tenure for a government is not laid down for no reason – it is meant to allow the government function, consistently perform its basic duties while taking time for well thought out reforms as needed. Leaving a position within two months is considered unprofessional and unethical even in small time jobs, unless one can demonstrate and indispensable reason. To quit government in less than two months without any compelling reason like sabotage is unforgivable. Kejriwal must know that legislation is a small part of governance – majority of governance involves execution and implementation of what is already legislated. Can the country afford such unreliable leaders to be voted to power? Forget power, can they be trusted to function responsibly even in opposition? In spite of conducting so irresponsibly if they think they can audaciously compete for lok sabha polls, is it bringing down politics or reforming it?


The real test of someone’s conformance with an open society democracy is the way they deal with dissent and opposition. The congress has a history of suppressing dissent and opposition for want of truth in their favor – right from illegitimately trying to fix opponents into fake cases and character assassination to banning books. Whether it is the targeting of Savarkar and RSS in 1948 or emergency or the recent bogie of Hindu terror, congress leadership in its socialist friendship conducted itself in the most inimical way to an open society democracy. Communist parties always stood one step ahead of congress in this matter. AAP with its cong-naxal background can therefore not be expected to augur well for any open society democracy.

Legislations are meant to be proposed, presented, reviewed, revised, refined until they are found to be in perfect consonance with existing law and implementable. The purpose of dissent is so thoroughly undermined by Kejriwal that he does not fit into any kind of democracy. It is as if he has the right to dissent with out of power and there can be no dissent when he is in power. Such duplicity is not just his individual trait but of his unfit-for-democracy party.

Here is a compilation on mediacrooks of the way in which the AAP leaders respond to criticism and opposition:

ImageCan any democracy or a civilized society allow such unruly, anti-social and rowdy element to lead it?

This being the fact, the party calling itself a common man party is where the real deception lies. Open society democracy is of the people precisely because it is of the common man – there is nothing more inimical to the interests of the common man than being damaging to democracy and democratic methods.


The anti-corruption movement that was initially started by the nationalists threatened the corrupt and congress because its primary agenda included not just prosecuting scamsters but bringing back the black money from abroad. Right from 2G and coal allocation several scams were exposed and brought into public awareness. Bringing back black money stashed abroad was one of the major demands of the anti-corruption agitators like Ramdev Baba.

Anti-Corruption Achievements of AAP

  1. AAP or its gang did not expose any of the scams or corruption – they happen to be exposed by the nationalists. Kejriwal merely repeated some allegations against Robert Vadra, riding on someone else’s work to gain some public space. Prashant Bhushan tried to hog the limelight for 2G expose he did not do – it was exposed by Pioneer.
  2. Black money issue was completely subverted by friends of congress – black money is not just about fiscal corruption, it is anti-social in many ways and AAP hides this more dangerous aspect, vacuously making noise in the name of corruption, trying to equate pickpocketing to treason.
  3. AAP hijacked the original agenda of anti-corruption, fizzled it out of its spirit and word, reduced it to some farce of a law and then finally aligned with the party that has been looting the country for decades.
  4. Kejriwal made false allegations against Nitin Gadkari and retreated when asked for proof. He called Modi corrupt, which even congress did not dare accuse. So essentially he brought down the movement from its roots in truth to the realm of allegations and mudslinging. This is a bigger sabotage of the otherwise sustained anti-corruption activity in the country.
  5. Kejriwal cynically abused and misused the public sentiment against corruption to malign the BJP while carefully covered up congress in multiple steps.
  6. Not surprisingly for skeptics, the moment AAP got to power there is no talk of congress corruption anymore, Sheila Dixit and other scamsters are no more villains. This deception seems to be lost on many, in the vain hope that Kejriwal needs more time to do things right. However Skeptics cannot ignore the possibility of the cynical way in which sample scapegoats are being kept ready to be sacrificed for elections – while the AAP agenda has nothing that can contain or catch the biggest criminals.

It is not an exaggeration to say Kejriwal was brought to render the anti-corruption agitation harmless for the congress – his achievement is precisely that. Many quickly jump to call this a ‘conspiracy theory’, as though conspiracy needs an evidence. But we have not proceeded from allegation to data – we are proceeding from data to deduction and that leaves no scope for calling this a conspiracy theory or a speculation. Now whether his ‘intentions are good’, whether he meant to fizzle down the movement or did it by mistake is for him to demonstrate, because it is his actions in question ultimately.

What’s with corruption, anyway!

Corruption itself, is one of the several problems – being fiscally non-corrupt is a virtue of many commies of Bengal and Kerala, does that save the destruction they did in these regions? And if one were to bear a sense of proportion, both stagnation and growth of a society involve both corrupt and non-corrupt methods. To disorient the public discourse as though corruption is the only issue and suppressing topics of importance, is in itself deception of people. Look at the way issues of foreign funding or anti-nationals like Prashant Bhushan in the party or Kejriwal’s dubious friends like NAC members, convicted criminals like Binayak Sen become non-issues when in reality they are far more serious problems than corruption.

Who does AAP actually threaten?

India in the days of Russian friendship has seen a dangerous consolidation of communists in politics and academics. Naxalite movements, communist parties and communist influence within congress party rose steeply. While their stranglehold on academics remains, the naxalite movements and communist hegemony was controlled to an extent after the fall of USSR. Maoism, a Chinese gift is still being fought.

The prospects of a party like AAP threatens the revival of India in every way –

  1. Economic revival is threatened with its freebie culture and anti-investment climate they are creating.
  2. Development of the country is threatened by its apathy towards infrastructure and job creation.
  3. Both internal and external security is threatened, with the way the likes of AAP try to weaken the morale of security forces and align openly with naxals and jihadis.
  4. Integrity of the nation is threatened by their antagonism to the core identity of the nation.
  5. Social order and harmony are threatened by their anarchist ways.

Save Congress

It threatens the nation more than anyone and anything. That AAP does not threaten congress, that it is meant to protect congress, that its challenge is to BJP and other nationalists should by now be clear to any observant mind. That a vote for AAP is an indirect vote for congress, is already said by some – but it should be realized that a vote for AAP is a vote against the stability and development of the nation, and an invitation of danger to the nation. Outfits like AAP are floated to cynically exploit anti-incumbency, to curtail the strong anti-congress sentiment from expressing itself in the ballot, which is essentially an antithesis of democracy.

While AAP is the most recent example, the trick that congress uses is not new. Here is the algorithm –

  1. Rise credibility for the person by making him shout against congress misdeeds and corruption
  2. Make him look like a personification of ideals and employ media in his favor
  3. Garner votes in his name and divide anti-incumbency vote
  4. Keep the person and outfit as long as it suits, merge him back when it suits.

PRP and TRS of Andhra Pradesh are precursors of AAP in this matter. It is their success that made congress attempt AAP in Delhi. A partial success of AAP in Delhi was sufficient to prevent a good government – and emboldens them for a bigger bait in loksabha. However their actions and intent are both clear by now, and the common man should by now be seeing through those.

AAP is not the only player in this, though. Third front, a prospective stitch of currently pro-congress parties like the SP and JD, is another similar attempt at dividing anti-congress vote and reinstating congress in power through the back door. The fact that a third front conveniently keeps forming and disintegrating, is itself the evidence. Sometimes it is a left front, sometimes third front, sometimes it is AAP. Goal remains the same – preventing a strong nationalist dispensation by fracturing votes. A strong nationalist dispensation hampers the prospects of petty and selfish politicians and remains their biggest enemy. There is no other reason why these savers of congress, be it AAP or JD or SP should hate BJP or RSS so much.

Democracy and Populism

India presents a challenge to most of the well-accepted notions of the modern world. Democracy is not an exception. While regarded as a successful democracy, in fact the largest working democracy, India faces several challenges in terms of the policies and quality of leadership yielded by democracy.

In contrast to the much apprehended majority-ism, Indian democracy ran for decades as a minority-appeasing one. As a matter of fact the notion of minority rights in India did not rise out of evil intentions but out of the apprehension that majority opinion will trump the minority interests. It is a different matter that such opinion in a pluralist and tolerant society like Indians will not give rise to such fears, but from a democratic viewpoint it at least has a rationale.

The consequence of such concept, namely deterioration of “taking care of small group interest” into group pandering, was partly a result of inexperience with democracy and partly result of lack of quality leadership. The effects of minority/group pandering politics in contrast to majority-ism are also quite visible – weak governments, hurdles in policy-making, lack of assertive national identity to mention a few.

On the other hand, a negative alternative of consensus to majority-ism emerged – populism. It turned out easier for leaders to keep manipulating public emotion with populist agenda at the expense of national welfare or long term interest. It appears not only is such populism electorally beneficial, but putting national interests higher than populism is electorally harmful. A classic case of contrast would be economic reforms of PV Narasimha Rao versus today’s food security bill. Even with NDA tenure, genuine work like employment generation or road project or control of interest rates etc did not end up with good electoral benefits. While they did the right things – to put curtail appeasement tendency, taking steps to improve national security, attempts in overcoming backwardness, it did not appeal much to people. On the other hand congress seems to successfully appeal to popular sentiment in various forms – occasional tickling of patriotic sentiment, doles and election freebies, glorifying backwardness (instead of helping it) and propping self-pity in large sections of the society. While the detail in this matter is large, a high level summary is enough to convey the point.

This rises some important questions: is populism at the expense of national interest indispensable to get votes in our democracy? Is populism really an opposite of national interest? Is it possible to reconcile these and create a democracy that is driven by national interests? (Although this may not be the problem of India alone, solving it for India is as good as solving for smaller/simpler democracies).

The answer to Indian problems as usual, is to be found in the Indian knowledge. The contention between what is attractive and what is in the real interests/welfare, the one between preya and sreya, is a concept well explained in tradition, both in the context of individuals and rulers. Understanding raja-dharma as per traditions will help us understand not only what to expect from rulers but also how to address such problems. What kind of ‘political model’ the texts recommend is a bigger topic, but what is relevant to us in this topic is how a democracy can be fixed to yield better results and whether such answers can be found in the long civilizational experience of Hindus.


For that we need to look at some very basic aspects of a ruler:

  1. Good ruler is one who pleases people with his rule – prajA-ranjakatva is the primary nature of a good rule.
  2. Ruler is like the father of people, the controller of land. He puts people in the right side, and punishes those in the wrong side of justice. People follow the king, and thus king is responsible for the conduct of people.

Many think that a democracy defies the basic principles of a kingship, and that it is a lot more evolved system.  But as we can see from these two points above, democracy or kingship or any other form of governance is just a means – the basics of running a country in its good interests do not change. It is because they do not change, that they become part not of a temporal knowledge but of a permanent knowledge.

Whether democracy is used to achieve these two or to evade these selectively or to pretend pitting one of these against the other, determines how healthy a political system is. Is our democracy achieving these?

Six decades after independence, people hardly think cong rule is ‘pleasing’ – on the contrary the expectations have been lowered. From thinking of ourselves as among world’s most prosperous and the most resilient nation just out of colonial rule, to a meek struggling backward one. From expecting a clean and inspiring leadership from Hindu politicians who are supposed to be the world’s greatest statesmen and thinkers, to ‘everyone is bad, choose the better of two evils’. From a nation prospering with its own will to ‘can we ever prosper’ and a nation whose majority is discouraged from inspired hard work. Neither national security nor crime control nor economy looks any ‘pleasing’. In short, the Indian common man is pushed down into a state of tamas where he cannot even expect a happy nation but remains content with doles to give up such expectations.

The second aspect, namely control. As is visible, in six decades crime and corruption, encouragement to opportunism, immoral and illegal conduct flowed down from the top. Are people encouraged to be honest and upright in this country by the governance? Are people encouraged to be self-reliant in the country by the governance? Are people encouraged to be proud patriots in this country? Do the country’s security personnel and bureaucrats who do their duty feel rewarded for their honesty? Do people feel threatened to be on the wrong side of any of these? Thus Indian democracy as it stands today, fails even the second basic aspect of governance.


Any solution requires a correct diagnosis of problem. We need to realize that the seeds of bad rule are not in the deterioration of congress but in its advent. A consequence of Gandhi’s policy and decisions (though not vision or ideology) can only be a Nehru, and a consequence of Nehru can only be today’s congress. It is not in spite of them, but because of them that we see the country in this situation today.

Regardless of Gandhi’s high personal integrity, his ideas and actions contradicted each other in the most fundamental ways, consider three:

  1. his conception Hind swaraj/swadeshi and his choice of Nehru as a successor who was opposed to such concept
  2. his conception of Rama Rajya where people’s interests are primary, versus the appeasement of Muslim movement he did at the expense of national and Hindu interests that he sought to represent
  3. of course, his misuse of veto power against the democratic choices of congress to snub down able leaders and foist choices like Nehru – a complete anti-thesis of Rama rajya

Thus in Gandhi’s life time he laid no strong foundation for a nation that realizes his ideas, but in fact his choices of policies and successors were quite the opposite. Today (as it always was) it is the Hindu nationalists whose policies are rooted in swadeshi, Rama rajya and non-appeasement, while congress is happy with empty symbolisms of khaddar, charkha and iftar parties all the while misappropriating the name of Gandhi.  But which one did Gandhi go with, given all his good intentions (and lack of political acumen)? If a nationalist like Gandhi can go so fundamentally wrong, it is not surprising that the next generation will only get as worse as Nehru showed in his life time – being defensive and ‘non-violent’ in matters of diplomacy and national interests, and aggressive and violent against political opponents.

Thus the two aspects of good ruler we considered are defeated in the very advent of congress, whose result is seen in today’s democracy.


The solution lies in realizing good governance and rulership as the goals and identifying democracy as an instrument to achieve those. Solution lies in replacing culture of negativity-based-consensus (which uses populism, appeals to self-pity, insecurity etc) with a culture of positivity-based-consensus (which uses majority-ism, appeals to national pride, self-reliance and progress). Solution lies in making people proud of their country and thus generating a consensus on matters of national importance.

Of course, to achieve this is easier said than done. Restoring positive sense of popularity as a guiding principle of democracy requires that strong an inspiring leaders emerge from time to time. In fact it is the sidelining of such leaders and their scarcity in recent decades that caused the positive sense of nationalism which prevailed by the time of independence to deteriorate into present day populism.

The one post-independence movement that attempted to turn the tide of self-pity by an assertion of Hindu nationalism is the Ayodhya movement. While it means many things to many people, its role in turning the tide of minority-ism and populism into a positive assertion of Hindu national identity is unquestionable. Even when it gave its positive dividends in many different forms, its political mileage was derived by BJP and Shivasena, but that inspiration did not go very far as the leadership BJP presented to the country was not magnetic and inspiring enough. It was the strength in the cause and not the loftiness in leadership that made people support the BJP. Vajpayee, however committed and patriotic, hardly fit the bill for the required order. For two decades the lack of an assertive leadership kept haunting the BJP. To be fair it is not that BJP leadership is in anyway less assertive or capable than congress leadership – it is any day far better than what congress could ever offer. But it remained short of what would be required to create the necessary positive inspiration.

The other prerequisite in bringing a consensus of positive nature is restoration of common man’s trust in the official system – judiciary or security or executive. Erosion of trust is not very difficult to achieve as congress did, but it is quite difficult to create or restore the trust. The attempt of congress and media over years was in a very easy direction – to show that BJP is imperfect in creating such trust. It is not just their dishonesty or hypocrisy to not look at the positive side, it is their basic policy to harp on the negative. Therefore to create a feeling that corruption is endemic for instance, is sufficient for them since their emphasis is not in a system that minimizes corruption. Same with issues of national security or demographic problems. The fact that there are scams and crimes at the highest level but not many have been convicted, is a moral victory of congress and media over the nationalists. A corrective to this too, comes not from eliminating crime completely, but through the salutary effect that can be achieved through convictions in some important matters. The real necessity after all is not conviction in every crime but the change in the atmosphere and creating fear in the criminals.

Are we anywhere near?

While the congress could set a new low every successive term it came to power, fortunately the improvement in positives on the other side is also encouraging:

  1. BJP to some extent succeeded in bringing both positivity and showed the need to create consensus on a positive note. It created good examples of governance in Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Goa.
  2. Modi is seen as an assertive, forthright and non-apologetic leader, something BJP badly needed for a while. His popularity is not surprising, given the above backdrop.
  3. The Gujarat riot convictions and 2G convictions have gone a long way in restoring public trust in judiciary, at a time when public discourse was full of rhetoric of despair. The fight put up by IB and BJP in the fake encounter cases did put congress in defensive, thereby creating respect for India’s intelligence in people as well as presenting themselves as interested parties and stakeholders in national security.

It remains to be seen how far they work in achieving a democracy of positive consensus.


Political Thoughts in The Vedas

The following is an excerpt from  the book “Political Thoughts in the Vedas”. The book has been translated into English by a team. ( Original in Hindi by Dr.Shiv Acharya, book titled ” Vaidik Parampara me Rajanaitik Tatvachintan); The translation project was guided by Sri Sriram Sathe, the famous historian who felt that it the thoughts presented in the original are very pertinent and should be circulated within the English audience. The book is approx 150 pages and is priced at Rs.100/-. Anybody who is interested can contact me at Ayush.Nadimpalli@gmail.com Or contact Sahitya Niketan @ 040-27563236 ;


The Vedas are like an endless ocean. Only the people who delve into the Vedas with devotion can find proper explanations on its various aspects. In my childhood, my father taught me the Mantras for Pushpanjali of Lord Shiva. One of them is

Sāmrājyam Bhaujyam, Swārājyam Vairājyam, Pārmeştyam Rājyam, Mahārājyam Ådhipatyamayam, Samantaparyāyi syāt Sārvabhaumah, Sarvāyusah āntād ā parārdhat, Prithivyaih Samudraparyantā yāh Ekarāţ iti.

I could not comprehend in my childhood that the Mantra that I was chanting was actually a reflection of the knowledge of political science of my ancestors. This Mantra is from the Aitareya Brahmana ( 8-4-39).  This book is basically restricted to being an explanation of the above Mantra from the Aitareya Brahmana.

Framework of Political Thought in World History

Just after the creation of human race the Almighty had revealed the knowledge of the Vedas through the sacred souls of the seers. In them several issues regarding nation and systems of state have been dealt with minutely. Issues relating to creation of nation, its speciality, inculcating national feeling, nation and statehood have been mentioned. Since I have written a book on national feeling, we will now discuss only about the Political systems alone.

Many eons later, Brahmagranth (Brahmasūtras) and Kalpasūtras came into existence. They  mention about Sāmrājya, Bhaujya, Swārājya, Vairājya, Pārametyarājya, Mahārājya, Ādhipatyamaya, Samantaparyāyi, Sārvabhauma and Jānarājya types of administrative systems. By performing Rājasūya, Vājapeya and As’wamedha yagas, men became emperor, king etc., and used to rule the country based on that system.

After many Yugas and in the 28th Yuga Chakra of Tretā Yuga, Shri Rama became the King of Ayodhya. When Bharata went to bring Sri Rama back from exile, Sri Rama taught him about the anarchy and its ill effects.

About 5,100 years back the Dwāpara yuga came to an end. Sri Krishna the unparalleled strategist and political thinker lived in the Dwāpara Yuga. During the same period, grandsire Bhishma, on his bed of arrows, spoke about Vairājyavād and Rājyotpatti (Evolution of state) in very simple terms. We come to know about the depth of Bhishma’s political ideas and the heights of his scientific temper in this discourse.

In the 3rd Century B.C., Arya Chanakya composed the Artha Shastra. He also gave clear explanations to various aspects and strategies of state administration. Inspite of being the Prime Minister, he lived in a hut. He lived a selfless and service oriented life standing as an ideal to our entire nation.

Time passed on. Political science took shape in the West in the 13th Century A.D.. The Social Contract Theory was considered to be the first Political Ideology by the West. Aquinas says, “The evolution of the State, its Rights and Functioning is based on a compromise.” Protestants and Catholic sections came into existence. Later the Protestants divided themselves into sub-sects like Puritan Presbitarian and Huganis. For 36 years. France witnessed civil war between Catholic fathers and nobles on one side and Hugonis businessmen and nobles on the other. The Catholics used to say that the governance cannot be impartial but is dependent on relationships. In the early half of the 17th century five types of political thoughts came into being.

1.                  The King is answerable to only God and not to the people – thoughts of Stuart and others

2.                  King’s power is limited and both the King and the State are controlled by the Parliament

3.      A group of Visionaries said that Natural laws are supreme and the right to break them cannot be given to anyone.

4. Democrats would say – The King is a result of relationship ( Anubandh). Therefore to oppose relationship would mean that the people would revolt against the State.

5.  Catholics would say that Christianity is supreme and the State should be under its control.

Later, Europe saw the advent of Hobbs, Locke and Rousseau. Hobbs propounded the theory of Sovereign Statehood, Locke about Liberal Statehood and Rousseau about Administration through the free-will of people. Western political systems are based on various systems such as Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy and Democracy. As a result Capitalism raised its head and the world started grappling with a new problem. This was followed by the rise of Marxism and theories like Communism and Socialism sprang forth. During the same period, theories related to Pluralism, Fascism and Anarchy also came into force.

Thus, as Western Political ideas kept springing forth, states were built on these ideas and they collapsed due to weakness of these political theories. We are aware of the futility of the political ideas of the present day too. Western political thinkers are caught among various failing political systems. They are unable to find peace neither in Democracy nor in Communism. They have been unable to present a clear political philosophy and ideology. The vacuum thus created has enabled religious fundamentalist politics to raise its ugly head. Christian and Islamic leaders have turned Europe into a battlefield causing the death of millions. Christian Crusaders and Islamic Jehadis have exterminated races and religious fundamentalism now stands as a challenge to humanity.

The civil war of England was due to differences between five ideologies but at present there are so many ideologies functioning with selfish motives. Across the World, intellectuals who seek peace for mankind are worried and are searching for a way out of these problems. Many of them believe that only Bharat can provide a working solution to evolve a peaceful world order. They not only feel this but have expressed this in many forums as well. We do not need to compete with these selfish ideologies which are the foundation stones of some nations which have an extremely short history as compared to the crores of years of history and heritage of our nation.


People following the western lifestyle afflicted by Selfishness, Conflict, Bloodshed and Jealousy have established the State in the West. Their Social Contract Theory is also based on the same, be it in Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy or Communism.

 However, the situation in Bharat was different. The seers in Bharat first evolved a fulfilling and value based national lifestyle and then evolved Statehood based on Vairājyavād. Since the life of the common man was based on a comprehensive value based system, the political system also ran peacefully for a long period of time. As time passed, the theory of “Big Fish Eats Small Fish” ( Mātsyānyayavād), took shape and the society was afflicted by this.  The leaders who worked towards the establishment of a working peaceful order, studied the changes that had crept in. Keeping in view Human specialities ( Mānava Vaishistya), their aims (Mānava Dhyeya) and their duties (Mānava Dharma), they evolved some beautiful social and state theories. These were called Sāmrājyavād, Bhaujyavād, Swāraajyavād, Pārmetyavād, Rajyavād, Mahārājyavād, Ādhipatyamayavād, Samantaparyāyīvād, Sārvabhaumavād and Jānrajyavād. There is a reason for the evolution of these theories. Let us discuss them.

1.         Who is Man? – Organs of State and Nationalism are for the humans. Therefore the focus of deliberation was Man. We consider that man is a combination of soul, mind, body and intellect and not just body and mind. It is said Ātmanaam Rathinam Viddhi Shareeram Rathameva tu Buddhim tu sārathīm Viddhi manah Pragrahameva ca – Kathopanishath 1/3/3/

Soul is the master, body is the chariot, buddhi is the charioteer and mind is the rein. We describe a human being using these metaphors. The Ātma (Soul) is considered to be the true identity of Man and the various Dharmas (duties) are for the purpose of helping the Ātma to reach higher states of consciousness. When Man becomes perverted, he becomes more body-centred from being soul-centred. Therefore, Veda directs Man to remain Soul Centred and in order to accomplish this and to rid the society of evils, the concept of State was created.

2. Goal of Man ( Mānava Dhyeya)– While discussing the aim of man, he is advised to develop his consciousness towards enlightenment. When the consciousness of the soul increases, then he will be equanimous in happiness and sorrow, profit and loss, victory and defeat and will realize the Truth. On this the Rgveda ( 1/164/20 ) says: Dvā suparnā sayujā sakhāyā samānavruksham, pariṣasvajāte, tayoranya pippalam svadwātti anas’nannanya bhichākas’itih

We will have to deliberate ons this from the political aspects. Man wants to attain the state of “ Tat Tvam Asi” ( That Art Thee) and So’ham ( I am Thee) by climbing the ladders of spiritual progress through his Sadhana ( spiritual practise) in this world. But when the foundation of the land on which he stands is itself unstable, how will he progress. Therefore, Nationalism and Political Science came into being. In such a state Man says,

Rāṣṭraya mahyam badhyatām (Atharva 1/29/4))  – I am controlled for the benefit of the Nation

Aham rāṣtrāsyābhivarge nijah bhūyāsam – I will be one of the best citizens of my country.

Man also describes Nation as a Devata.

Mama dvithā rāṣtram kshatriyasya vis’vāyorvis’ve amṛtā yathā nah – Let the national life here be continuous.  Because of this political science emerged after  Mātsyanyāya (big fish eating small fish ).

3. Duties of Man : (Mānava Dharma )– Dharma is a great word by itself. Intellectuals across the world are unable to find a synonym for Dharma. Therefore, we would like to elucidate and comment on Dharma on our terms.

Paramātma wanted to create and this was called a Yagya. After this, the noble Devās were created and on the lines of the Yagya of the Paramātma, they started performing works for further development. These were also called Yagyas.  The procedure for performing the various acts of the Devas and the rules for the same was also part of what is called Dharma. See Yagyena yagyam ayajanta devāh tāni dharmāṇi prathamānyāsan – Rigved 10/90/4

This became the primary Dharma in the Paramatma’s creation. After sometime, for the sake of individual development,  Vaiśeṣika Darśana ( philosophy) gave a new meaning to Dharma. Yatobhyudaya nih śreyaas siddhih sa dharmah.

That which gives rise to prosperity and well-being and then leads to ultimate salvation, that is Dharma. Maharaja Manu has stated that

Dhruti kṣamādamóstheyam


Dhī vidyā satyamakrodho

Daśakam dharmalakshanam

In this way, words like Gṛhasta Dharma (Dharma for house holders) and Streedharma (Dharma for women) came into being. Our sages visualized that along with Personal Dharma, Rāja Dharma ( Dharma for the kings ) was also needed.

Sarvasya Jīvalokasya rājā dharma parayanah – Mahābharata.

We have been calling Politics as Rājadharma from ancient times. With the help of Raja Dharma, we should make effort to make the World a Land of Spiritual practice which would ultimately result in making mankind realize the state of Soham ( I am Thee). It was for this purpose that Political science and political scientists came into being.

4. Co-ordination of these Thoughts : After the state of Vairājya, some ill practices found their way into social life and Mātsyanyāya ( Big Fish Eats Small Fish Syndrome ) increased. The leaders who worked towards the establishment of a working peaceful order, studied the changes that had crept in. Keeping in view Human specialities ( Mānava Vaiśiṣtya), their aims (Mānava Dhyeya) and their duties (Mānava Dharma), they evolved some beautiful social and state theories.

Present Parlance in Politics

We have adopted the Western political theories in modern India as they are. Clear evidence for this is found in the fact that the political theories currently prevalent in India are basically the translations from English. Some of the examples are as follows.

I.              Independent: This is an antonym of the word ‘Dependent’. The word ‘Independent’ is by itself meaningless because nobody in the world can live Independent of others. We are dependent on our parents, guru(teacher), friends, relatives and the society right from our childhood. “ Svādheen” is also wrongly translated as ‘Independent’. Svādheen means that Man should be under the control of something and that is his ‘Sva’. So what is Sva ? The Sva is the essence of the entire Philosophical treatises prevalent in Bharat . The Upanishads say, “Anoranīyān Mahato Mahīyān”. It is smaller than an atom and greater than greatness itself. A detailed explanation of ‘Sva’ forms the vast storehouse of Darśanas like Sānkhya, Vaiseṣika and Mīmamsa.

Secondly, the word “Independent’ itself has two meanings

a. Creating a system on one’s own and living by that and also making others live unto that system

b.    There is an existing system and that is treated as the base for everything and working as per that system and also making oneself to run accordingly.

Therefore, the political thinkers in Bharat from the Vedic period to Kautilya have never tried to play jugglery with words and did not do a post-mortem of words.

II. Communism: Unlike communism, our concept of equality does not end only at the stomach and body. Our concept of Equality is

“Samāno Mantrah, Samitih Samāni, Samānamastu Vo Mano, Samānā Hṛdayāni vah”.

(Let Our Individual Expression and Collective Decisions Be Similar. Let Our Minds and Hearts Work Similarly).

Compared to our form of equality, Communism is merely a paralytic and materialistic outlook towards equality and does not even address the preliminary aspects of the concept of equality present in Bharatavarsha.

III. Democracy or Lokatantra: The word Lokatantra is used synonymously with Democracy in India. The word Loktantra has many meanings. One of them is running the administration according to the people’s desires. The second meaning is running the administration according to the various customs, tradition and culture of the people of the land. The third meaning is running the administration by taking the advise of the people and striking working compromises. Today, the world considers India as the best democracy in the world. However, on analysis, it is unclear as to what form of democracy we are following. Our ancestors did not use an unclear word like Lokatantra which has multiple meanings, but used a very definitive word, Jānarājya.

Janānān Rājyam Iti Janrājyam, Janrājasya Bhavah Jānarājyam”, meaning the form of administration which reflects the aspirations of the people is Jānarājya.

– Ayush Nadimpalli