Skip to main content

Sign here, please: Do you do your R&D? (3)

(Topic: Politics)
Read (1)
Read (2)

While the democratic core is vibrant and exploding, it isn't the case of thinking magically becoming law. It's here that ideas form and are influenced, discussed and hopefully tested. Ideas that work on the ground aren't unicorn-like. They are sometimes dumbed down from larger concepts but it's better to have a bigger ideal to start with. They can always be made better over time. Most universally accepted views of how things ought to be are always balanced on one side. They serve one master and make the rest servants. Pick one and it will be easy to see.

A good system serves everyone equally. Some argue, equally at their needs first. Others argue that that's too basic and it should be more competitive so that humans are naturally incentivized to do better, than be complacent. All these and many, many other ideas and sub-ideas are floating till one of them proves to be a better fit for a solution.

All of this converts into law and living reality when we evolve to a view that we find best, vote for someone or a party that promises to make that a reality and hope that they deliver. But these answers are not simple and never have been. Many assumptions we make about best answers are just the ones we are used to seeing or which we have been taught to be so. The ones we have adopted have become our reference points. They aren't necessarily the best ones. We just need to test them till they have the least unwanted consequences, or lesser ones.

Mix and match

Society is like a game of blocks. You can position its many facets in many ways. Each method has its own set of benefits and balance. Since life's got to go on, we can't wait to decide how to structure it. It takes after the easiest structure possible. We are hence born into one without choice and can change the positions of the blocks for the better before we die. With each generation, we get a chance to change this for the better, or worse.

But the crazies don't get this. They are not able to accept a difference in views, or submission to a process that isn't crazy enough for them. Instead, they resort to drastic methods to crush, stop, and quieten voices that are against their ideas. They seem to believe that submitting to the process will subvert the change that they think India needs, and it needs extra intervention. They think that since they are right their ideas will only save the nation, hence the hurry to ensure its success. They have different names in different political environments but they're basically the exact same.

The whole purpose is to gather these ideas, and check, compare, and conclude which should make it to action one day. The way it works is we go through this process, and there needn't be only one conclusion. People can be split on the best verdict. The core throws out this conclusion, in any form, one verdict or multiple verdicts and that's how we can confidently say that this what India indeed thinks. We get it from the horse's mouth.

The freedom in the core is about realistic ideas and unicorn ideas-basically any idea that springs from the reality which an Indian gets up in the morning, every morning, and identifies with. That's the qualifier. It allows everything from the crappy to the brilliant. This allows every individual to remain important, learn and teach, correct themselves and get corrected, and grow. There are no special privileges. There is obviously common sense, reason and wisdom that comes with time and age as well. This sets a few mostly self-understood rules and zones. They define what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

Read (4)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does your politics make you a pig?

Time, despite the inevitable changes, needs a few constants otherwise we lose ourselves, like manners i.e. civility, grace, respect - that age-old value that can seem really old school sometimes. The manners that maketh the man, they say. They also mark the man apart by miles from those people with lesser or, worse, none of this standard. This golden role can be offered no excuse, none at all. The problem, however, arises with the ongoing intense political age where person and politics know no boundaries. Intentional politicking usually involves supporting one side in total, including its bad parts, to avoid the fallouts of the other side(s) in total to achieve the best world possible yet. Depending on how desperate you are for that world, reason starts to fade, irrationality takes its place and you can't make out the difference between the two.  That's when you lose the manners that maketh you. Name-calling, condescending, patronizing and other collectively influenced adverse...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anything but a headless response

When information overwhelms us, oversimplification is the order of the day - or that is the modern state that we have evolved to (if you'd like to call that modern). We are not capable of the patience of taking in, and keeping every detail, while we build a story that's truly worthy of all of them. That is the unfortunate case with how we react when we most need to, like the Nice killing.  Let's look at the information and calculate the oversimplification. We can, then, get a clearer picture and choose an adequate response.  The Information :  The adherents of extremist belief have decided that their belief ranks above humanity, enough to consider another human worthless (and worthy of death) just because they celebrate other values. One set of sacred values directly, and oppositely, clashed with another like they were sworn enemies to begin with - except that they were not.  It's just the wrong place for both to exist together. The...
Post a Comment
Read more

...and then they came for you

Sometimes it takes what seems like the wrong punch to get the right effect by an expected person - like the recent backlash by many Muslim countries about Nupur Sharma's statements on Prophet Mohammed. Just a disclaimer though: their response is not a complete defense of what many Indian Muslims go through in a stated secular country like India - whether it is by the 1976 assertion of "secular" in the Preamble or the claim that Hinduism is anyway secular making the former unnecessary. The international response is on an equal level to how many Muslims are made to face struggles at home in India. The mirror just flipped. It's all show and no substance, just with a different name.  The countries, which registered their opposition, practice a somewhat equal intolerance of beliefs other than theirs, as does the Hindutva brigade that has been on the rise in the past few months, whose words these very countries have raised an issue with. They, both, have the same cultura...
Post a Comment
Read more