Acharya Tulsi
'There is day and darkness prevails’— the contradiction that this statement carries is the same as that of the presence of increasing violence and democracy. The edifice of the cattle of democracy is fearlessness. Where there is fear in the mind of people the edifice of democracy has not been built yet. Fear is born in the presence of dictatorship, because there is extremity. In extreme situations freedom and sympathy get shrieked.
The factors that keep democracy alive are— fearlessness, equality, freedom and sympathy. Indians must deeply analyse whether they have got such traits in them. If they carry such traits then they are truly a citizen of democracy. It they lack such traits then can India be truly called a democratic nation?
I feel that now Indians have assigned democracy an intellectual value. They have not yet got identified with it. I call it substitution or imposition. The weight of an imposed pitcher over one’s head is felt. A swimmer swimming in the ocean gets identified with the water. That’s why even delving deeper into the ocean one doesn’t feel the weight. A thin branch also carries big fruits. It is not possible in the absence of identification.
In every country there are some people who are wise. The responsibility of running the nation falls over their shoulder. The strategies of rule that they prefer become prevalent eventually. The leaders of India preferred democracy. That’s why India became a democratic nation. This is the consequence of leaders’ preference, not the feeling of identification of public. In the initial days of independence the people would get identified with the leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru. These leaders were identified with democracy. That’s why even if not directly but indirectly the people also got identified with democracy. Now there is not a single powerful leader with whom the public may get identified. The party, in the hands of which the reign of nation is present, even that ruling party never tried to establish identification of democracy with the public. That’s why the violence is increasing. There is destruction of property and the incidents of shooting are being repeated.
There was an approved sutra of ' monarchy—'राजा कालस्य कारणम्'. The good and bad aspects of time are under the subjugation of a monarch. If the strategy of the monarch is good then the time is good and if the strategy of the king is bad then the time is also bad.
There was a king who was roaming around in disguise. He reached a sugarcane field. The old woman welcomed him. After talking at length he expressed his desire of having sugarcane juice. The old woman crushed a sugarcane and filled the glass with its juice. The king drank the juice of sugarcane and thought in his mind, ‘the sugarcane is quite sweet but the tax imposed over it is very less. I would go and increase the tax today. The king then asked for another glass. She again extracted the juice from sugarcane but the glass did not get filled. The king asked, ‘Old lady? Why had the glass not filled?’ The old woman said, ‘Brother! The king’s motive might have got ulterior it seems, that’s why the glass was not filled.’ This incident left a deep impression on the king’s mind. He again asked for another glass while thinking of reducing the tax in his mind. When the old woman started extracting the juice from the sugarcane the glass got filled with the quarter of its size. The king asked the old woman quite surprisingly, ‘Old lady! How on earth did the glass get filled with quarter of the size of the sugarcane?’ The old woman replied, ‘Brother! It seems the motive and intentions of our king have become even better than before’. The king returned quite flabbergasted.
Do the leaders of today’s democracy feel responsible for the ill- consequences? Do the positive and negative strategies of a leader have an impact on nature? What conclusion can I draw? All that I can say in this context is that the day when—'नेता कालस्य कारणम्' — this sutra would be implemented by the public, that very day democracy would shine.'यथा राजा तथा प्रजा' (a king is followed by his subjects) this sutra had also been quite noted. Gita also approves of this Sutra—'यद् यदाचरते श्रेष्ठ: लोकस्तदनुवर्तते'— the way a great man behaves is followed and imitated by the common mans. Is this sutra not a challenge to the leaders? By avoiding the positive traits like restrain, decency, religion, simplicity and discipline can leaders expect public to carry such positive qualities‘? An entrepreneur cannot possibly have the guts to advise people on contentment. The members of parliament who fight to come in power cannot preach discipline to the public. Those who hold a responsible position lead a restrained life. It is an ancient most value of life. But, has its importance ceased for being an ancient most virtue? In my view this value is as much important today as it was some thousand years ago.
In monarchy the chances of the development of non-violence were less but still some positive factors were developed. In democracy there is maximum possibility of development of non-violence. If the righteous values aare not developed even in democracy then what would be more surprising than this? Would preaching non-violence be thought about to remove this crisis. Would religious authority and state authority come forward to play an active role in it? Would universities approve non-violence as a separate branch of studies? I fervently, believe that the chariot of democracy would go ahead only if it falls in the deft hands of non-violent chariot riders.
