[/U]
I still fully agree with you, provided if you think in line with me in analysing about the pros&cons of Democracy,as advocated by Plato 2300 years ago, and copied later by Brits, 2000 years later..
We are talking about not what Plato advocated.....he advocated a fully 'educated' electorate. What we have in India is which is a representative 'democracy', where neither the majority of the electorate nor the representatives are 'educated' on all the issues.
Pls hv a re-look in to the underdlined quote.
Inspite of she(J.J) being a Brahmin, she was forced to humiliate Acharyal..Guess why..Inspite of the mass electorate being hindus, why many hindus burst crackers on that day of his arrest?...Why T.N.Seshan quickly made an escapde?... Thats the beauty of democracy..It may hurt some, and give joy to other, but then, the opinion of mass survives. Hope you know why J.J lost the subsequent election...Some may call it as the curse of Kanchi Acharyal, and some may call it as a prize she paid for her Emelda Marcos life.. But fact remains.. Democracy had barred her..
Sir, again, her action which was charecterized by the Supreme Court as having no prima facie evidence to hold the Acharyals is not about democracy. Democracy is not about just acting on the pressure from some vested groups on one issue or the other. It is about the people with proper education on the issues weighing the pros and cons and then voting for what is best for their country. What you have in India is the representation by narrow self interests of various voting blocks, without any thought about proper impact of their decisions on the whole populace. This is called rule by blocks of mobs.
Democracy did not 'bar' her. Her opponent's turn for power (with better briyani and coalition) as it has been happening in TN politics was the reason. I would not attribute her defeat to be connected in any way to the Acharyals issue (except may be some divine ones which I can not fathom).
My jist is.. Democracy answers your feelings, if you are true to it.. Thats why I asked, how a Sikh could be a PM, a Catholic as UPA head and all put under an Moslem President, and their fate is all decided by 90% Hindu M.P's..Thats the beauty of democracy..
Your implied assumptions are not valid:
1. A Sikh who could not win an election became a PM because the ruling power decided so.
2. A catholic foreigner became the head of UPA because of Dynasty politics - nothing to do with true democracy.
3. Selecting a muslim president has precedence. A position with no real power is a symbolic one. Nothing to do with electing that person by the electorate.
As we know in the parliamentary system of India, MPs vote as a block with their parties. Again, nothing to do with democracy - rather something to do with the power politics.
Back to the point, even if you polarise your feelings, the end results of democracy, is something what we call in school days math-statistics, ie, 'Weighted Average". So in my view,casting our votes based on blind polarisation doesnt make any sense.
I agree with you. Again here you seem to say what a real democracy should be rather than what is practiced in India today, which is precisely 'casting votes based on blind polarization (or group interest)'.
