Ruling is often described as a ‘burden,’ as reflected in the use of the word ‘bhaaram’ (weight) when discussing a king’s dharma in Indian tradition. This conveys the responsibility placed on the government. However, ruling is also seen as a rare privilege, a fact not denied in Indian culture. When privilege and responsibility are intertwined, it is not personal ego but rather ‘moral authority and moral responsibility’ that should guide the actions of those in power.
While watching the statements made by Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal, and Kiran Bedi on the night of August 24th, 2011, after their talks with Finance Minister and Leader of the Lok Sabha Pranab Mukherjee, it became clear that they felt they had returned to the same position they were in back in April. This was after Anna Hazare ended his fast following the government’s assurance to draft a strong Lokpal Bill in consultation with his team. According to their account, Mukherjee had dismissed their demands and left them wondering how to relay this news to Anna. The tension escalated as Anna appealed for non-violence and urged his followers to avoid resisting arrest.
The following morning, August 25th, Mukherjee refuted the team’s claims, asserting that their statements to the media were incorrect. In Parliament, he denied ever saying that the fasting was now ‘Anna’s problem,’ though the opposition rejected his denial with slogans. The question of who is right and who is wrong has occupied my mind since then. Based on past actions, I find myself believing Anna’s team over Mukherjee. Despite his position as a responsible government minister and Leader of the Lok Sabha, he is, first and foremost, a politician—a group that, unfortunately, has lost much of its credibility in India. While there are exceptions, they are few and far between. We know the difference between what politicians say in front of cameras and what they say behind them. On the other hand, Anna’s team has been transparent from the beginning, even demanding that their discussions with the government be broadcast live to the nation.
Mukherjee’s credibility is further questionable because of how he promoted his personal interests, as evidenced by the recent elections in West Bengal. His son, previously unknown in politics, resigned from his job, joined Congress, was given a ticket, won the election, and became a minister in the West Bengal Cabinet—all in a matter of days. Such nepotism is not surprising in a party like Congress, where hierarchy often dictates decisions. What can we expect from a politician like Mukherjee, authorized by the Prime Minister to negotiate with Anna’s team to end the fast? Before the all-party meeting, their tone was conciliatory, and they were ready to accept most of the team’s demands. But after the meeting, Mukherjee’s attitude changed, dismissing the team with the remark, ‘What have you come to take?’
I have no doubt about the Anna team’s credibility, even if one disagrees with their demands or approach to the Jan Lokpal Bill. Their commitment to moral responsibility has been demonstrated repeatedly. In contrast, the government’s credibility, particularly that of Mukherjee, is questionable due to their lack of moral responsibility and the immoral authority they wield in the name of democracy.
Two thousand years ago, in the Sangam Tamil literature of the Puranaanuru, there was advice given to kings: ‘Protect the country and bring it up as one raises a child, keeping away from those who go to hell by indulging in sin, removing grace and love.’ These words remain as relevant today as they were then.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, August 25, 2011.
Moral authority and Moral responsibility
Ruling is a ‘burden’ as the word ‘bhaaram’ (weight) is always attached with it (pubharam in Tamil) when the dharma of a king is discussed. So we understand the burden on the part of the govt. But it is also a rare privilege to rule and this fact is also not denied by Indian tradition. When such privilege and responsibility go hand in hand not personal ego but ‘moral authority and moral responsibility’ should be the guiding principle—at least on the part of those who rule.
But when I was watching the statement made by Sri Prashant Bhushan, Sri Arvind Kejrival and Miss Kiran Bedi last night (August 24th, 2011, in all channel) after coming out from the talk with Sri Pranab Mukarji, our Finance Minister and also the Leader of the Lokshaba (which gives more weight to his position in the govt.) that they now returned back where they started in April (10th after Sri Anna Hazareji ended his fast after the assurance of the govt. to draft a strong Lokpal bill in consultation with Anna’s Team). When they asked what now they can go back and tell Anna, according to their statement Mukarji said that their demands are not accepted and now the fasting and health is Anna’s ‘funeral’ (though they didn’t use this word, I use to express my feeling). Then what all happened in the night is now before the people: Anna appealing not to resist his arrest, not to involve in any kind of violence etc.
But this morning (August 25th) when I was watching the news, Mukarji bluntly refuted Anna Team’s allegation that the matter returned back to the square one and all they said before the media (last) was not correct. Later in the Parliament he denied that he ever said that the fasting is now ‘Anna’s problem’, which the opposition (as usual) refused to accept by raising slogans against him. Well, who is right and who is wrong is now the question that occupies my mind since this morning. Considering the past record, I believe in Anna Team’s statement than Mukarji’s. Because, though he is a responsible govt. minister and Leader of Lok Sabha, first and foremost he is a POLITICIAN, who lost all their credibility now in India. Of course exceptions are there, but unfortunately they are in minority. We know what they speak before the camera and what they say behind it. But from day one Anna Team is transparent and even demanded to broadcast in live all their discussion with Govt. side to the nation.
The credibility of Mukarji is also questionable to me for one more reason. The way, like a typical politician, he promoted his personal interest is exhibited in the recently held election in West Bengal. His son (I don’t know even his name) who was working somewhere in Delhi: on day one resigned, on day two become the member of Congress, on day three was given a ticket to contest election and won and on day four became a minister in West Bengal Cabinet. Of course the way Congress party and its rule run by hierarchy such nepotism is not surprising. So what can we expect from such politician, who is authorized by the P. M. to negotiate with Anna’s Team to end Anna’s fast? Before All party meeting their tone and tune was cordial and in favorable and were ready to accept all their demands except few. But after that Mukarji simply threw them away. According to Bedi, the message that he conveyed to them was, ‘kya lene aayeho’ (you came to take what).
I have no doubt in the statement given by the Anna’s team on 24th night (after 11.30 pm) as their credibility in the past is based on Moral Responsibility was proved many times, however one can disagree with their demand and approach to the Jan Lokpal bill. But the credibility of the govt. in general and Mukarji in particularly is questionable beyond any doubt considering the past records of their lack of Moral responsibility and Immoral authority they have in the name of democracy.
In giving advice to the king Puranaanuru, around two thousand years before said (Sangam Tamil Literature). I don’t want to add any more words than this at present:
(protect the country and bring it up as one brings up the child by keeping away from those who go to hell, indulging in sin by removing grace and love).–A. Manikkam, Sanga Ilakkiyangal (15 vols.), vol. 12, Puranaanuru, first part, Chennai, Vardaman publishers, p. 38 [Song 5, by Nari Veruutthalayar to King Seraman Karuvuur Yeriya Olvaal Kopperunj Cheral Irumporai]
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, August 25, 2011.
Ruling is often described as a ‘burden,’ as reflected in the use of the word ‘bhaaram’ (weight) when discussing a king’s dharma in Indian tradition. This conveys the responsibility placed on the government. However, ruling is also seen as a rare privilege, a fact not denied in Indian culture. When privilege and responsibility are intertwined, it is not personal ego but rather ‘moral authority and moral responsibility’ that should guide the actions of those in power.
While watching the statements made by Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal, and Kiran Bedi on the night of August 24th, 2011, after their talks with Finance Minister and Leader of the Lok Sabha Pranab Mukherjee, it became clear that they felt they had returned to the same position they were in back in April. This was after Anna Hazare ended his fast following the government’s assurance to draft a strong Lokpal Bill in consultation with his team. According to their account, Mukherjee had dismissed their demands and left them wondering how to relay this news to Anna. The tension escalated as Anna appealed for non-violence and urged his followers to avoid resisting arrest.
The following morning, August 25th, Mukherjee refuted the team’s claims, asserting that their statements to the media were incorrect. In Parliament, he denied ever saying that the fasting was now ‘Anna’s problem,’ though the opposition rejected his denial with slogans. The question of who is right and who is wrong has occupied my mind since then. Based on past actions, I find myself believing Anna’s team over Mukherjee. Despite his position as a responsible government minister and Leader of the Lok Sabha, he is, first and foremost, a politician—a group that, unfortunately, has lost much of its credibility in India. While there are exceptions, they are few and far between. We know the difference between what politicians say in front of cameras and what they say behind them. On the other hand, Anna’s team has been transparent from the beginning, even demanding that their discussions with the government be broadcast live to the nation.
Mukherjee’s credibility is further questionable because of how he promoted his personal interests, as evidenced by the recent elections in West Bengal. His son, previously unknown in politics, resigned from his job, joined Congress, was given a ticket, won the election, and became a minister in the West Bengal Cabinet—all in a matter of days. Such nepotism is not surprising in a party like Congress, where hierarchy often dictates decisions. What can we expect from a politician like Mukherjee, authorized by the Prime Minister to negotiate with Anna’s team to end the fast? Before the all-party meeting, their tone was conciliatory, and they were ready to accept most of the team’s demands. But after the meeting, Mukherjee’s attitude changed, dismissing the team with the remark, ‘What have you come to take?’
I have no doubt about the Anna team’s credibility, even if one disagrees with their demands or approach to the Jan Lokpal Bill. Their commitment to moral responsibility has been demonstrated repeatedly. In contrast, the government’s credibility, particularly that of Mukherjee, is questionable due to their lack of moral responsibility and the immoral authority they wield in the name of democracy.
Two thousand years ago, in the Sangam Tamil literature of the Puranaanuru, there was advice given to kings: ‘Protect the country and bring it up as one raises a child, keeping away from those who go to hell by indulging in sin, removing grace and love.’ These words remain as relevant today as they were then.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, August 25, 2011.
Moral authority and Moral responsibility
Ruling is a ‘burden’ as the word ‘bhaaram’ (weight) is always attached with it (pubharam in Tamil) when the dharma of a king is discussed. So we understand the burden on the part of the govt. But it is also a rare privilege to rule and this fact is also not denied by Indian tradition. When such privilege and responsibility go hand in hand not personal ego but ‘moral authority and moral responsibility’ should be the guiding principle—at least on the part of those who rule.
But when I was watching the statement made by Sri Prashant Bhushan, Sri Arvind Kejrival and Miss Kiran Bedi last night (August 24th, 2011, in all channel) after coming out from the talk with Sri Pranab Mukarji, our Finance Minister and also the Leader of the Lokshaba (which gives more weight to his position in the govt.) that they now returned back where they started in April (10th after Sri Anna Hazareji ended his fast after the assurance of the govt. to draft a strong Lokpal bill in consultation with Anna’s Team). When they asked what now they can go back and tell Anna, according to their statement Mukarji said that their demands are not accepted and now the fasting and health is Anna’s ‘funeral’ (though they didn’t use this word, I use to express my feeling). Then what all happened in the night is now before the people: Anna appealing not to resist his arrest, not to involve in any kind of violence etc.
But this morning (August 25th) when I was watching the news, Mukarji bluntly refuted Anna Team’s allegation that the matter returned back to the square one and all they said before the media (last) was not correct. Later in the Parliament he denied that he ever said that the fasting is now ‘Anna’s problem’, which the opposition (as usual) refused to accept by raising slogans against him. Well, who is right and who is wrong is now the question that occupies my mind since this morning. Considering the past record, I believe in Anna Team’s statement than Mukarji’s. Because, though he is a responsible govt. minister and Leader of Lok Sabha, first and foremost he is a POLITICIAN, who lost all their credibility now in India. Of course exceptions are there, but unfortunately they are in minority. We know what they speak before the camera and what they say behind it. But from day one Anna Team is transparent and even demanded to broadcast in live all their discussion with Govt. side to the nation.
The credibility of Mukarji is also questionable to me for one more reason. The way, like a typical politician, he promoted his personal interest is exhibited in the recently held election in West Bengal. His son (I don’t know even his name) who was working somewhere in Delhi: on day one resigned, on day two become the member of Congress, on day three was given a ticket to contest election and won and on day four became a minister in West Bengal Cabinet. Of course the way Congress party and its rule run by hierarchy such nepotism is not surprising. So what can we expect from such politician, who is authorized by the P. M. to negotiate with Anna’s Team to end Anna’s fast? Before All party meeting their tone and tune was cordial and in favorable and were ready to accept all their demands except few. But after that Mukarji simply threw them away. According to Bedi, the message that he conveyed to them was, ‘kya lene aayeho’ (you came to take what).
I have no doubt in the statement given by the Anna’s team on 24th night (after 11.30 pm) as their credibility in the past is based on Moral Responsibility was proved many times, however one can disagree with their demand and approach to the Jan Lokpal bill. But the credibility of the govt. in general and Mukarji in particularly is questionable beyond any doubt considering the past records of their lack of Moral responsibility and Immoral authority they have in the name of democracy.
In giving advice to the king Puranaanuru, around two thousand years before said (Sangam Tamil Literature). I don’t want to add any more words than this at present:
(protect the country and bring it up as one brings up the child by keeping away from those who go to hell, indulging in sin by removing grace and love).–A. Manikkam, Sanga Ilakkiyangal (15 vols.), vol. 12, Puranaanuru, first part, Chennai, Vardaman publishers, p. 38 [Song 5, by Nari Veruutthalayar to King Seraman Karuvuur Yeriya Olvaal Kopperunj Cheral Irumporai]
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, August 25, 2011.
Leave a Reply