YIN and YANG: UNIVERSALISM VS PARTICULARISM

VISHNU RATNA

Before the advent of the parliamentary democracy, mostly absolute monarchs or dictatorial forms of governments existed in the world (they still exist in many parts). The executive and judicial powers were vested in them. Their word was the law. However, there are stories of benevolent kings who would go out in the thick of the night to find out if their subjects had any problem requiring help. Jahangir is most famous for his golden "chain of justice." The chain was setup as a link between his people and Jahangir himself. Standing outside the castle of Agra with sixty bells, anyone was capable of pulling the chain and having a personal hearing from Jahangir himself. With the decline of monarchies, parliamentary democracy evolved as a system of governance. This was based on the will of the majority population. This brought about separation between the executive and the judiciary. The elected governments were authorised to make laws to translate the political will. However, judiciary was authorised to only interpret and apply the law in the name of the state. Judiciary was not authorised to make law, but only to interpret the law. Judicial activism is a term to define judicial decision making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. When India became independent of the British rule in 1947, it was decided to develop a written constitution, which would lay the framework for system of governance. The Indian constitution was finalised in 1949, the preamble of the constitution said: We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, Social, Economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith & worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; And to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSITUTION. The constitution also conferred certain fundamental rights to the citizens in Part III as follows:

1) Right to equality: including equality before law, prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, abolition of untouchability and abolition of titles; 2) Right to freedom: which includes speech and expression, assembly, association or union, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or occupation (some of these rights are subject to security of the State), friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality, right to life and liberty, right to education, protection in respect to conviction in offences and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases; 3) Right against exploitation: prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and traffic in human beings; 4) Right to freedom: of religion, including freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious affairs, freedom from certain taxes and freedom from religious instructions in certain educational institutes; 5) Cultural and Educational rights: preserving Right of any section of citizens to conserve their culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; 6) Right to constitutional remedies: for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, 7) Right to property. These fundamental rights formed the basic structure of the constitution. However, after enactment of the constitution, judiciary gave certain decisions, which were not in line with the political will of the time, though it was in tune with the Fundamental Rights laid down in the constitution. Thus began a rivalry between Judiciary and Legislature. The most important conflict that arose between judiciary and legislature was about the fundamental right relating to the Right to property defined in the constitution. Many cases were decided by the Supreme Court upholding the right to property laid down in the constitution as a fundamental right. This was not in line with the socio-political atmosphere prevailing at the time.

A number of amendments in the constitution had therefore to be passed by the parliament to overrule judicial decisions. The result was that this fundamental right of Right to property was removed after 44th amendment of the constitution by the parliament. The brief history of the development was as below: 1. In the Sankari Prasad case (AIR 1951 SC 458), Supreme Court had unanimously held within a year of the commencement of the Constitution that Parliament had unfettered power to amend the Constitution; 2. This position was reiterated by majority in the Sajjan Singh Case (AIR 1965 SC 845). 15 years later though a minority view doubted the amendability of Fundamental Rights; 3. However, a narrow majority of 6 to 5 reversed the settled law on Parliaments power to amend any part of the Constitution in the 11-judge Bench decision in the Golaknath Case (AIR 1967 SC 1643); 4. Chief Justice Subha Rao ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be abrogated even by an amendment of the Constitution because amendments are also laws within the meaning of Article 13; 5. Judiciary questioned the Basic Structure Doctrine; 6. The basic structure doctrine is the principle that certain features of the constitution of India are beyond the limits of the powers of amendment of the Indian Parliament; 7. Part III of the Indian constitution relates to fundamental rights of the citizens, which forms the basic structure of the constitution; 8. In the Kesavanand Bharati Vs State of Kerala (1973) case Supreme Court first expressed the doctrine that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be tampered with; 9. In the above case, it was ruled that Article 368 does not enable parliament to alter the basic structure of the constitution; 10. The repeated judicial interventions against abolition of zamindari and land reform laws based on inadequacy of compensation under the right to property guarantee created distrust between Parliament and Judiciary, each claiming to interpret constitutional intent in opposing fashion; 11. Parliament ultimately won, though in the process people lost a valuable right originally guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution. (Right to Property (Article 31) deleted from Part III by Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978) Two major amendments in the Indian constitution are cited for Judicial Activism. the Forty- Second and Forty- Forth Amendments. These are

The Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted in 1976, attempted to reduce the power of the Indian Supreme Court and High Courts to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of laws. In the Forty-Second amendment of the constitution, the words SOVERIEGN, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC were replaced by the word: SOVERIEGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

India became a socialist and secular republic. This amendment brought about the most widespread changes to the Constitution until then, and is often called a "mini-Constitution". The full title of the law was the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It was passed by the Indian parliament on 2 November 1976, during the Emergency (1975 - 1977), brought by the Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi. The Janata Party government, which came to power in 1977, brought about the 43rd and 44th Amendments to restore the pre1976 position to some extent. Janata party dissolved the 42nd Amendment in 1977. Social equality in this context meant the absence of discrimination on the grounds only of caste, colour, creed, sex, religion, or language. Under social equality, everyone had equal status and opportunities. Economic equality in this context meant that the government would endeavour to make the distribution of wealth equal and provide a decent standard of living for all. This in effect emphasized a commitment towards the formation of a welfare state. India adopted a socialistic and mixed economy and the government framed many laws to achieve the aim. Secularism implied equality of all religions and religious tolerance. India does not have an official state religion. Every person has the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion they choose. The government would not favour or discriminate against any religion. The socialist pattern of society is clearly visible in the preamble of Indian constitution. Despite this, the word Socialist was incorporated in the preamble by 42nd amendment Act in 1976. The Prime Minister Smt Indira Gandhi explained: We have always said that we have our own brand of socialism. We will nationalise the sectors, wherever we feel the necessity. Just nationalisation is not our type of socialism. As far as the word Secularism is concerned, the term was used in the west towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). India had always been a land of many religions for centuries. There was never any conflict between the state and religion like that in the west where church and the state interfered and had therefore to be separated. Why was the term Secularism added in the Indian constitution, if the state did not have any official religion? India's leaders wanted a secular constitution on the model of the western democracy. However, what resulted was not secularism in the western sense of the word, but rather a 'secular' state with religious laws for its religious groups. After the partition in 1947, which was a separation on the grounds of religion, India faced Communal problems. The word Secular was perhaps added as a political motive in the preamble of the Indian constitution to establish communal harmony. To what extent this has, succeeded in establishing communal harmony is a debatable issue.

The common civil code is not being taken by the all the religious groups. Therefore religion, secularism, communalism are interpreted by different groups to suit their stakes and personal laws are framed in place of common law. In India, most family laws are determined by the religion of the parties concerned. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists come under Hindu law, whereas Muslims and Christians have their own laws. Muslim law is based on the Sharia. The personal laws of other religious communities were codified by an Act of the Indian parliament. Other sets of laws such as criminal laws and civil laws on contract, evidence, transfer of property, taxation were also codified in the forms legislation. The Forty-Fourth amendment (Clause 3) of the constitution read as below: In view of the special position sought to be given to fundamental rights, the right to property, which has been the occasion for more than one amendment of the Constitution, would cease to be a fundamental right and become only a legal right.

Repeatedly the legislature has raised questions whether courts have such a power as part of the judicial review or in its inherent jurisdiction. Can a thin majority of just one judge re-write the constitutional text to make a substantial dent in distribution of powers and erosion of parliamentary authority in legislative business? Lawyers and judges have brought up in the legacy of common law that parliament is only a creature of the constitution and therefore primacy is with the constitution. However, the legislatures have held for long their supremacy to make laws since they are the real elected representatives of the people. Therefore, the basic debate is whether under the Indian governance system it is the constitution that is supreme or the parliament, or the judiciary or the executive. It is therefore a fight between Judicial Activism and Legislative Activism. In this debate, the citizens for whom all the three exist are neglected. All the three pillars of democracy viz legislature, judiciary and executive have become saviours of the people according to their own perceptions. The constitutional amendments to suit the political will by neglecting the judiciary is a matter that is causing a war between the pillars of democracy. It may be pertinent here to recall George Orwells famous satire Animal Farm. Animal Farm is a satire on Stalinism and the Russian revolution.

Orwell wrote it as a parable about the Russian Revolution, as an example of how a revolutionary government could be worse than its monarchist predecessor, but it also could apply to many political organizations, labour unions, and the like. The key lesson is that the organization's bosses often manipulate the organization for their own benefit, and end up being as bad, if not worse, than the real or imaginary evils from which they are protecting their followers. As time passes, the Seven Commandments (Animal Farm's Constitution) undergoes subtle changes as the pigs rewrite it to suit their own agenda. When Boxer the horse (symbolizing blue-collar labor, the "workers,") becomes too old to work, the pigs sell him to the horse butcher, whom they tell the other animals is really the veterinarian. The pigs eventually learn to walk on two legs, thus imitating the animals' original exploiters, and they teach the sheep to bleat, "Four legs good, two legs better!" The Seven Commandments become one: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The pigs rename Animal Farm the Manor Farm- its original name- and invite the neighbouring human farmers, who symbolize the elite class against whom the animals revolted, to admire the results: "...the lower animals on Animal Farm did more work and received less food than any animals in the county." As the story ends, the pigs become indistinguishable from their human visitors.

The Seven Commandments, Animal Farm's original Constitution: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend. No animal shall wear clothes. No animal shall sleep in a bed. No animal shall drink alcohol. No animal shall kill any other animal. All animals are equal.

The Seven Commandments, after the pigs' "revisions": 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. "Four legs good, two legs better!" No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Both the socialistic and communist economies have been working to protect the interest of the common man but have failed to deliver the goods. The division between the Common and Uncommon Man gives a privileged position to the Common Man. In Orwells terminology, it amounts to saying that All men are born equal but some are more equal than others (common man).

The important question that requires consideration is whether a classless society can be achieved through socialism or communism by creating class divisions. Each constitution in the world aims at achieving a just society in terms of economic equality but it has not succeeded. It is pertinent to point out that the Indian Constitution is a borrowed constitution from various countries as given below: 1. British Constitution: Parliamentary form of government, introduction of Speaker and his role, the concept of single citizenship, the Rule of law, procedure of lawmaking, procedure established by Law u/a 13 2. Irish Constitution: Directive principles of state policy 3. United States Constitution: Federal structure of government, due process of law u/a 13, power of Judicial Review and independence of the judiciary, documentation of Fundamental Rights (similar to the United States Bill of Rights), President as supreme commander of armed forces u/a 52, 4. Canadian Constitution: A quasi-federal form of government, where the central government plays prime role in governing the country, the idea of Residual Powers 5. Australian Constitution: Freedom of trade and commerce between different states of the country, Power of the national legislature to make laws for implementing treaties 6. French Constitution: Ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity 7. Japan Constitution: Fundamental Duties u/a 51-A 8. Weimar Constitution: Emergency Provision u/a 356 9. Malaysian Constitution: The concept of the Concurrent list The constitution includes most of the aspects of the Western legal systems and runs on the system of the liberal democracy. Beautiful passages have been collected from every constitution, without knowing that those beautiful passages were alive in a certain context, in THEIR constitution. It seems more like a cut and paste constitution. How could India, which has yet to develop some of their basic laws pertaining to crime and civil matters, produce such a beautiful constitution, which is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world? Some examples of the Indian laws that have remained in the same form, as they existed during the British period (except for some cosmetic changes) are: Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860; Indian Contracts Act 1872; The Fatal Accidents Act 1855; The Indian Evidence Act 1872; The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Societies Registration Act 1860; The Courts Fees Act 1870; The Indian Trusts Act 1882; The Suits Valuation Act 1887; Land Acquisition Act 1894; Transfer of Property Act 1882; The Public Servants Enquiry Act 1850; Bankers Book Evidence Act 1891; Civil Procedure Code 1908 etc.

Indian constitution contains 450 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 95 amendments, for 117,369 words in the English language version. As against this, the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, at 7 articles and 27 amendments. The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles had their origins in the Indian independence movement, which strove to achieve the values of liberty and social welfare as the goals of an independent Indian state. The development of constitutional rights in India was inspired by historical documents such as England's Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of Rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man. Indian Constitution is therefore not a growth, it is simply a combination. There have been many occasions when Indian judiciary have interpreted laws, which are not in tune with the constitution. Parliament in such situations has amended the constitution to silence the judiciary. Constitution should be a living document. If it does not translate the objectives into ground reality then it does not serve the purpose. Judiciary have the important task in assessing whether the objectives defined in the constitution are translated at the grass root level. If we fail to evaluate the performance of our constitution to ensure that it is translated in letter and spirit for the citizens for whom it is documented, then it simply becomes a narration of high ideals and sheer verbosity. There is no mechanism prescribed in our constitution as to which agency is responsible to assess the performance of various pillars of our democracy with regard to the fulfilment of the objectives laid down in the constitution. An independent and strong Judiciary would mean that they should initiate the guidelines for constitutional amendments before it goes to the legislature. Judiciary has to play a proactive role in developing a system to ascertain whether citizens are receiving justice in terms of the constitutional framework. Introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a positive move towards this direction. However, the judiciary should not remain confined merely to deliver judgement based upon laws; it should also inculcate compassion for human suffering and misery. At present, the elected representatives of the legislature consider themselves the champion of the people, without any responsibility to assess citizens satisfaction level. India has been a land of diverse cultures, religions, languages. When India became independent, the constitution was developed which stated equality for all. It seems the basic idea was to develop

a classless society on the pattern of communist philosophy. India wanted to enjoy benefit of both the worlds, that of capitalist and the communist. . Thus, it became a socialist republic. It set upon with the task of satisfying all castes, creeds, religious and linguistic groups. In this kind of divisive society, it is unthinkable to establish a classless society. Governance should be for the humanity and not specially addressed to the common man. Common man is a division based upon economic classes. In terms of communist terminology, it is the proletariat class. However, Politics survives by dividing society into different classes. Common Man forms the base of the pyramid of the vote bank. However, in the Indian context Common Man is not common only on economic grounds, it has also an element of caste, creed, religious and linguistic groups. Therefore, the Common Man in the Indian context is not like the proletariat of the communist. It is much more. It is necessary therefore to understand what kind of governance system has been contemplated in the Indian constitution. The preamble of the Indian constitution reads: We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens; As can be seen from the above, the constitution has been documented by the people of India and not by the Common Man of India. Whenever, a debate has arisen about the amendment of the constitution, it is said to be the prerogative of the elected representative of the parliament. Can people of India also raise their voice to bring a bill? The current debate for Jan Lok Pal Bill is an example. The civil society organisations through public support have been demanding an anti-corruption bill but peoples representatives have been demanding that they should first secure peoples mandate then ask for the bill. A good governance system should not necessarily be only anthropogenic in character but should also account for other forms of life on this planet. The damage to the environment on this planet because of dominance of anthropogenic systems, exploitation of other forms of life needs to be seriously considered. Man is not independent of other forms of life, life is interdependent. Universalism is based upon the concept that man-made laws are universal. It is a rigid system, mechanical, insensitive and inhuman. It does not consider situational factors. Universalism attaches great importance to the observance of rules. It looks things objectively, there are no human considerations. It says once exception is allowed, it could lead to open the door for others.

A law has to be universal if it is a scientific law. If it is a law created by people themselves, by creating a constitution, a legal system then it has nothing to do with science & nothing to do with existence. Then it is applicable only within the society that creates it. It is arbitrary, artificial. You can change it- and laws go on changing. Something that was legal yesterday is illegal today; what is illegal today tomorrow may become legal. These are man made laws and are not universal. There are three kinds of law: 1. Law of cause and effect: This applies to the world of matter. Science is concerned with discovering such laws. There is no coincidence, everything is pre-determined and applies to the world of unconsciousness. There is no choice possible. It is mechanical. 2. Law of Mind & Heart: This applies to man and his consciousness. Man can choose freedom or misery. This is individual. It is a world of choice. 3. Law of Existence: This is law of coincidence, freedom. Everything is possible. Nothing is certain, everything is possible. Life is a flux, illogical. It is unpredictable. It is the universal law of consciousness. The Hindu Society has followed a constitution written thousands of years ago by a Brahmin intellectual Manu. Manusmriti was based upon caste system. It was to divide the society into classes. Manu, Moses or Marx have existed because of divisions in the society. Moses gave the law through Ten Commandments to the Jews, Christians and Islam; Manu gave law to the Hindus, Buddhist, and Jains. Marx gave laws to the proletariat based upon economic division of classes. What is required is not a legal system based entirely upon human mind but a system where heart, love and compassion find integration with the head, a holistic approach. Law is for the society, love is for the individual. Law is how you behave with others; love is how you behave with yourself. Love is from God, law is from the mind. Love is of God, law is of man. Laws are simply rules to live in the society, but laws should not interfere with individual freedom. Legal system is revenge against those that do not fit with the system. Legal mind is always thinking of law, never of love. The legal mind thinks of justice, but never of compassion and a justice that is without compassion can never be just. The legal mind says that God is love. He is just. However, the legal mind cannot know what God is, because God is another name of love. The legal mind always goes on throwing the responsibility on somebody else, the society, the economic structure, the history. Always the other is responsible for the legal mind. Love takes the responsibility on itself. It is I who is always responsible, not you. Crime cannot be stopped; it has not been stopped by punishment. In rich countries, (capitalist) the rule is Even if ninety-nine persons are freed one single innocent person shall not be punished. This is a time-consuming process for that kind of society.

In poor countries, the rule should be Even if ninety nine innocent persons have to be punished, not a single criminal should go out of the reach of law. He should be punished. India is pursuing the system prevalent in a capitalist economy though it is a poor country and a socialist economy. The result is clearly visible in our society with criminals going scot-free. One has to consider situational factors according to the needs of the particular culture and society and not imitate those that are borrowed from other cultures. India needs to therefore seriously deliberate what is required in their context and not use cut and paste methodology in defining their constitution. There are two kinds of thieves in the world: One respectable thief, recognised by the state, licensed by the state- and another unlicensed people doing it on their own. Illegal stealing and legal stealing. The legal ones are respected ones; the illegal ones are of course not respected, because they go against the rules. Those people who are very clever never go against the rules, they find out ways through the rules. However, few people are not so clever. Seeing that if they follow these rules they will never have anything, they drop the rules and they start doing illegal things. If a man succeeds in criminal acts, he becomes respectable. Only if he fails, then he becomes a criminal. The successful robbers become kings, and unsuccessful kings become robbers. It is only a question of who succeeds. Socalled politicians are all robbers. They try to destroy other robbers; they may be against smuggling, they may be against dacoitry. However, deep down they are the greatest smugglers, the greatest dacoits. But, they do things legally; or at least they manage to show that they are doing things legally. And they succeed at least when they are in power. When the power goes, then all those beautiful stories about them simply disappear. Particularism is a flexible system. It takes into account a particular situation. It varies from situation to situation. In this system, circumstances are more important. Every individual is unique. Communism is a system of collective bargaining. It does not allow individual freedom. The capitalist goes on postponing. Even if he sees the poverty he is creating, the beggar he is creating, the starving people he is creating, he goes on thinking that a few reforms will do. A little higher wages, a few more facilities for the poor, for the proletariat. That is what socialism is. Socialism is an invention of the capitalist mind to distract people from communism. Socialism is reformist, not revolutionary. Reforms keep people hoping. Socialism is not the need; the need is for a higher form of communism. A classless society, equally rich with equal opportunities, not dictatorship of the proletariat, with no democracy even but only a meritocracy. People of merit should have the destiny of the country in their hands. Merit cannot be decided by voting.

Capitalism is individualism; it is not a social structure. It is just democracy and freedom. Capitalism gives freedom to be oneself. It is not merely an economic phenomenon. Communist motto is Each according to his need; Capitalist motto is Each according to his work. When too much wealth is created, people will not be greedy; greed arises only because wealth is scarce. The difference between capitalism and communism: In capitalism, man exploits man, in communism it is vice- versa! Socialism divides proletariat, creates barriers for the proletariat. Socialism is just a device to deceive the masses. Democracy is less a political phenomenon than a religious phenomenon. It is far more important than politics. Democracy is a totally new vision of life. It has not happened yet, it has yet to happen. Democracy means each individual has the right to live according to his light; he should not be prevented. Unless he becomes a disturbance or a nuisance to others, he should be allowed every freedom in all aspects of life. At the centre, everybody is the same. We are both individual and universal. We have to be very flexible and fluid between these two. A person should be capable of living on the circumference and at the centre easily. People talk about freedom, but they do not want freedom exactly, they want irresponsibility. They want licence. Freedom is maturity; licence is very childish. The world is not free because people are not mature. If governments disappear, there will simply be anarchy. It will be a worst state than it is now. It will be sheer madness. The police are needed because we are not alert. Otherwise, what is the point of having a policeman at the crossroad? If the people are alert, the policeman can be removed, will have to be removed because it is unnecessary. However, people are not conscious. Freedom means responsibility. The more responsible we become, the more free we become or the more free we become; the more responsible comes on us. Then we have to be alert what we are doing, what we are saying because there is no body to control us. It is not a license, it is tremendous discipline. The word Judicial Universalism is a rigid system of law and is inflexible. Cultural Particularism is a flexible system. A male dominated system is mind oriented, inflexible and rigid. It is based upon the principle of Universalism.

Female energy is heart oriented, a feeling type, closer to nature and is therefore a system based upon principle of Particularism. However, life is dialectical, that is why it is not logical. Man has tried to create a society, which is male, that is why there is so much trouble, the woman has been denied, she has been thrown out. In the past centuries the woman was never to be seen anywhere. She was hidden in the back chambers of the house, and she was not even allowed in the drawing room. The world became lop-sided, all balance was lost. The Taoist vision is based on the complementariness of the opposites. They use two words, yin and yang. They are opposites, male and female. A world, which is male, or a world that is female will be dead. There would not be any life into it. Opposites are needed because opposites are attractive. The Chinese symbol of yin and yang is two fish in one circle, one fish is one-half circle the other fish is the other half circle; but both fish fitting together, making it whole. Yin means feminine; yang means the masculine. This makes a whole, not divided into two. Life needs polar opposites: summer/winter; birth/death; yin/yang; Shiva/ Shakti; positive/negative; light/darkness. Extroversion is the principle of yang; introversion is the principle of yin. Neurosis is an unbalanced state of mind, too much activity and no inactivity at all. Too much masculine and no feminine at all, too much yang and too little yin. Individuality is neither male nor female, it is simply unity. Symmetry is needed. We have called it ARDHNARISHWAR Yang is ambition, yang is aggression, yang is desire and projection, yang is political, yin is religious. Male energy has played a dominant role in shaping economic, political, social system on this planet so far. This has been the main cause of violence, war and economic imbalances. Female energy should find a balance with the male energy to create a harmonious balance. A democratic system is much better compared to monarchies and dictatorial regimes. Democracy means government by the people, of the people, for the people. However, if the people are retarded then such a democracy should better be termed as government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded. Only a government by the people of merit a meritocracy is required not mobocracy.

India should move forward from socialism to communism where there are no class divisions based on religion, caste, creed, sect and sex, a truly classless society where property does not belong to the individuals. That would be justice to all not based upon law but based upon love and compassion. This is possible only if intelligence grows and the governance is in the hands of the intelligent.