Before talking about politics I find it essential to define the word politics, there are many definitions of it, however, the one I find the aptest is from this book called "What is politics?: the activity and its study" by Adrian Leftwich.
Adrian Leftwich writes "Politics comprises all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and between societies, whereby people go about organizing the use, production or distribution of human, natural and other resources in the course of the production and reproduction of their biological and social life". However in simpler terms, one can say that politics is essentially all about providing solutions to societal problems. Now, it is a well-established fact that every problem has more than one solution, based on the nature of the solution provided to a particular societal problem, politics is crudely divided into left-wing and right-wing. This division helps reduce complex political ideas (solutions to societal problems) to a dichotomy and also serves the purpose of studying these ideas more effectively and providing consequent scrutiny.
What are the fundamental philosophies of the left and right?
To understand the fundamental philosophies of the left and right. We must know how these terms were first used or in simple words their origin.
Left and right are old labels, dating back to the French Revolution. In 1789, the National Constitutive Assembly met to decide whether under France’s new political regime the king should have veto power. If so, it queried, should this right be absolute or simply suspensive, for a period of time.
When voting, supporters of the absolute veto sat on the president’s right, the noble side. According to Christian tradition, it is an honour to be seated at the right side of God, or to the right of the head of the family at dinner. Those who wanted a highly restricted veto were seated on the left.
Thus, the layout of the room took on political significance: to the right, supporters of a monarchy that sought to preserve many of the king’s powers; to the left, those who wished to reduce them.
Even today, the left and the right exhibit similar thoughts and ideas to that of the French nationals during the constituent assembly.
People leaning to the right tend to be more conventional and conservative in their ideas and solutions, their ideas are more likely to be inspired by the culture or religion which is native to their residence. They are more resistant to any kind of change.
Whereas people leaning to the left tend to be more liberal and progressive in their ideas, their ideas on the other hand are more likely to be inspired by self-proclaimed intellectuals who write literature based on their understanding of society.
For example, The right-wing intelligentsia in America derives most of its ideas on governance from the catholic church, while the left borrows most of its ideas from intellectuals and dictators like Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.
However, Indians make the blunder of dividing Indian politics into a dichotomy, namely the left and the right. The creation of a dichotomy in political ideas in the west might have served them well but is somewhat inconsistent when one takes into account the Indian political scenario.
The Indian left more or less is the same as the global left, since they both hail the same self-proclaimed intellectuals like Karl Marx, Joeseph Stalin and Fredrich Engels, while, The Indian "apparent" right isn't at all similar to the right which exists in the west.
Why is it so? I have one theory about it, the success of such a system can be attributed to the homogeneity of the masses in the west, most of the societies which exist in the west are based on Abrahamism and hence the nature of opinions and solutions to societal problems (political ideas) are more or less the same since they all share the same perspectives, the perspective which arises from a small collection of books which are not even open to constructive criticism or interpretation.
It is essential for one to understand that political ideas are a consequence of the social, political and economic situations prevailing in the region at the time. Ideas like capitalism, socialism and communism originated from the "west" and hence it would never be apt to implement such economic systems in Bharat where the social structure, conditions prevailing and the culture are vastly different.
For example, when one takes a look at capitalism, it emerged as a result of feudalism and mercantilism in Europe. Was, Bharat a prey to failed systems like Feudalism and Mercantilism as practised in Europe?
Of course not, In fact, it led to the most devastating phase of Indian history i.e; the European colonisation of India, which has adversely affected the ethos and culture of Bharat.
One of the most popular ideas which the Right propagates is the idea of Capitalism, if one had to explain the idea of capitalism in brief, it would be apt for one to claim that in such a system (ideally) the means of production is owned by an individual and that the profits reaped would be distributed according to their contribution in the process of production.
One of the by-products of capitalism was the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial Revolution caused the emergence of large factories which produced goods in huge quantities however it was harmful to nature, Nature being the very basis of our being had to be sacrificed at the cost of earning a small profit.
It is however important for one to understand the basis of such mass Industrialization, it is in accordance with the Abrahamic belief of Nature being created by God for the sense gratification of the Human race and hence somewhere deep within, the west felt validated engaging in such mass destruction of nature, it is estimated that in the second half of the 19th century in the U.S that an average of 34 square kilometres of the forest was cleared every single day due to the industrial revolution.
According to Hindu history,
During the ninth day of the Mahabharatha war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, the third yuga had ended and the last yuga - Kali-yuga had started. However, because of the power of Lord Krishna, Kali could not spread all through the earth. After the departure of Shri Krishna, Kali started spreading evil in the minds of people. But Kali could not enter Parikshit's kingdom as he was a kind ruler.
One day, the demon Kali had requested to be permitted to Maharaja Parikshit's kingdom since Kali Yuga had started and that it was inevitable because, the four ages – Satya yuga, Dwapara yuga, Treta yuga and Kali-yuga are a cycle. Parikshit permitted him to enter his kingdom with a condition that he does not hurt innocent people and will not be everywhere. He can only be where there is gambling, drinking of alcohol, prostitution or immoral relationship between man & woman and violence. Kali asked Parikshit for one more place as all these four places are dirty. Then Parkshit permitted him in gold.
One day, Parikshit was searching for his belongings. Out of curiosity, he checked one box left by his grandfather. It was containing a gold crown. Without thinking consequences, he wore the crown. This crown was of Jarasadh. Son of Jarasadh had asked Sehdev to return the crown of his father. But Sehdev was not interested as Bheem brought it forcefully. Hence the crown was unjustifiably acquired. Money or gold acquired unjustifiably brings Kali.
In a capitalist system, eventually, Capital becomes the be-all and end-all, since the ultimate purpose of capitalism is to make profits. Such a system reduces artisans to mere workmen. Individual freedom and benefit become paramount, even if it were to be achieved at the cost of society and nature. Earning immense profits becomes the ideal path to be followed which results in the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. Though freedom is achieved equality takes a back seat.
At a certain point, unhealthy competition and practices are employed to earn more profits, which is incentivised by the system of Capitalism a few examples would be the plundering of mother nature, exploiting workmen, offering bribes, cheating business partners etc, which somehow affects the overall morale of the society which these activities take place in.
The above situation when we look closely is the testament of the story from Mahabharata that is mentioned above.
Socialism which was formulated to be a remedy to capitalism ended up creating more problems for mankind, socialism works on the premise that man is a feeble lifeless cog, who needs to be regulated by rigid rules and that there must be a struggle between classes (the apparent oppressed and the oppressor), it is this ideology which gave way to ruthless dictators who committed genocides leading to millions of deaths and a sense of growing hatred within society. The evils of socialism are far greater than the evils of capitalism, it makes the human society lazy, and incapable of any free-thinking, which is the biggest threat to civilization as we know it. It dreams of a utopian society which can never be achieved.
Today the world has recovered from the economic ideas of socialism, the idea that there must be a struggle between classes has turned many countries into havens of various different Internal conflicts, which has gone on to claim millions of life be it in the form of riots or state-sponsored ethnic or communal cleansing.
It isn't like capitalism and socialism have worked perfectly in the west, they haven't succeeded in solving the problems of man, and hence it is futile to follow the west. Following the west, would be like the blind following the blind.
What's the way forward, what is the solution?
For this, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Ji proposes "Ekatma Manava Darshan" or "Integral Humanism".
Integral Humanism was formulated by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Ji keeping in mind the cultural heritage of this country.
If one observes carefully, both socialism and capitalism fail to take into account the integral Human, Human as a potential divine being. While one considers him to be a mere selfish being hankering after money, having only one law, the law of the jungle in essence the law of fierce competition the other assumes man to be unintelligent and incapable of doing anything unless directed. Both lead to the dehumanisation of man. We want neither capitalism nor socialism. We aim at the progress and happiness of 'Man', the integral man. The protagonists of the two systems fight with Man at the stake.
Both of them do not understand man, nor do they care for his interest.
It is our belief that the body, mind, intelligence and the soul when 'integrated' make up an individual and for the happiness of man one should focus on nurturing all these aspects. The concept of a complete human being and an integrated individual is both the goal and the path to be taken for the betterment of the Human race.
Comments