Democracy vs Theocracy

[biswa]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Let us conduct a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that India for a moment renounces its claim to be the world's largest democracy and instead converts itself to become the world's largest theocracy. For convenience of experimentation let us assume that all the minorities somehow disappear (Actually this is not completely implausible if you look at the demographic situation in Pakistan/Bangladesh). Hindus and Hinduism are the only entities left.

There is no more of this secular nonsense, pandering to various minority groups, corrupt politicians, rigged elections. Instead we have religious heads and an order of religious monks and officers whose ideals and conducts are beyond reproach administering the whole country. In other words, we become an expanded version of the Catholic Vatican or Ramakrishna Math or Sringeri Mutt with a Pope or Swamiji or a Shankaracharya ruling over us all.

After all, this is the classical view of Hinduism and we could hark back to the golden ages of the Gupta Empire or the Chola Kingdoms where there was a common unifying thread of religion. What do the members think? Will we be better off?

 

[prasad1]

Let us conduct a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that India for a moment renounces its claim to be the world's largest democracy and instead converts itself to become the world's largest theocracy. For convenience of experimentation let us assume that all the minorities somehow disappear (Actually this is not completely implausible if you look at the demographic situation in Pakistan/Bangladesh). Hindus and Hinduism are the only entities left.

There is no more of this secular nonsense, pandering to various minority groups, corrupt politicians, rigged elections. Instead we have religious heads and an order of religious monks and officers whose ideals and conducts are beyond reproach administering the whole country. In other words, we become an expanded version of the Catholic Vatican or Ramakrishna Math or Sringeri Mutt with a Pope or Swamiji or a Shankaracharya ruling over us all.

After all, this is the classical view of Hinduism and we could hark back to the golden ages of the Gupta Empire or the Chola Kingdoms where there was a common unifying thread of religion. What do the members think? Will we be better off?

Democracy has its failings, but I still like it over any other form of government. I am Hindu, but of my own kind. I would not like others to tell me how to lead my life. I am always weary of organized religion. I have problem with giving up freedom.
Fortunately I am in a country where personal liberty is valued more than anything else, and I have a bill of rights.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Biswa, Greetings.

For convenience of experimentation let us assume that all the minorities somehow disappear (Actually this is not completely implausible if you look at the demographic situation in Pakistan/Bangladesh).

It is really disheartening to see you mentioning Pakistan/Bangladesh to say 'minorities somehow disapper'. The minorities in those countries were forced to disapper by means of forced conversion, killing and moving away. Hindus are not barbaric like that. Although you just assumed, I like to say Hindus are not barbaric.

I don't remember India was under theocracy at anytime. Hinduism doesn't support theocracy. The mutts essentially doesn't interfere with the social fabric. Actually, that was the problem from the very beginning. All the high and nice sounding philosophies stayed in the discussions in the mutts, never trickled down to the laypersons of the society. But in Abrahamic religions, more so with Islam, central religious authority interferes with all aspects of individual lives.

A democracy can very easily turn into theocracy. Example is Iran. It turned from monarchy to democracy and overnight became a theocracy. Next on the making is Iraq. Afghanistan was the same. Egypt is going on that same track. Libya is no different.

But that may not happen with Hindus. Hindus fundementally have the policy of 'live and let live' for everyone including competing religions.

Cheers!

 

[sarang]

Hindus alone have respected, tolerated and lived in harmony with other faints. See what is happening to christians, who have more backup power and support than hindus, in muslim majority countries.

Close to 900,000 Arab Jews were expelled from Arab Muslim countries and
countless murdered. Today, Christians are suffering the very same fate
with the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians in Muslim countries.

- In Egypt, 100,000 Christians have left since the "Arab Spring" began.

- Bethlehem and Ramallah are no longer Christian majority cities.

- In Syria, Muslims have gone door-to-door telling Christian homeowners to
leave immediately or be shot. 50,000 men, women and children have been
forced to flee empty-handed as Muslims appropriated their property and
possessions.

- In Sudan,where shariah is being enforced, 600,000 Christians have been
told to leave the country or be treated like foreigners.

- In 2003, Iraq's Christian population stood at 1.4 million. Today, there
are only 300,000 Christians remaining...................

​

Christians Facing Genocide in Muslim World :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

​

 

[prasad1]

But that may not happen with Hindus. Hindus fundementally have the policy of 'live and let live' for everyone including competing religions.

I hope you are right, and I do believe it, but please read the thread "satyam ave jayathe" the opinions expressed are not far from what Mr. Biswa was expressing, or the post #4 in this thread.
Just because other religions or countries are practicing aberrant behavior, do we need to emulate it? Why cant India set a shining example.

 

[biswa]

Let me first say that I am actually quite heartened by the responses to my "disheartening" post. Why I bring this up is because periodically there seems to be a lament for the bygone days of the Ram Rajya and the lack of respect shown towards the Sanatana Dharma.

So let us ask ourselves were things much better in ancient India where there were no other religions, both the forward and the backward castes were happy with their place in society, where the king and the rest of the population bowed unquestionably before rishis and holy men. Was India really the land of milk and honey and now we do consider ourselves corrupted by Western secular ideals and the concept of one man, one vote?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

The title given for this thread "Democracy vs Theocracy" creates an impression that they are diametrically opposite to each other and are mutually exclusive forms of governance. Clearly this is not true as exemplified by Raghy. A democracy can also be a theocracy if the majority wants it. We have modern day examples - from Iran to Pakistan.

Obviously there are several topics to discuss, but what do people think is the fundamental difference between democracy and theocracy? Prasad talked about "keeping his freedom". What freedom? Isn't it true that in a democracy, the dominant group can trample away the freedom of non-dominant groups. (Here I am only talking about groups in general. Not necessarily religious groups). We do not have to look that far. We all witness what happened (is happening) in Sri Lanka!

What difference does it make to the affected party if their rights are usurped in the name of religion or the will of the majority?!

 

[biswa]

Good point. In fact democracy has been called the dictatorship of the fools! I am glad that you have brought up Iran. Hinduism is too fragmented, but just hypothetically, how would it be if we had a Hindu version of the Ayatollah?

By definition, what the Ayatollah or the Pope said would be fair and just and would be for the good of the nation.

 

[biswa]

Fortunately I am in a country where personal liberty is valued more than anything else, and I have a bill of rights.

But don't you think in every country the system is corrupted by money and politics? Even in the country you reside? What if a theocracy was incorruptible?

 

[prasad1]

But don't you think in every country the system is corrupted by money and politics? Even in the country you reside? What if a theocracy was incorruptible?

Humans are corruptible. They are incorrigible. There is no system that is beyond corruption.

 

[sarang]

There never was nor will ever be a pope-ayatolla equivalent in sanatana dharma.

Ayatolla's and pope's religions, culture, tradition and training demand of them conversion or elimination of infidels or harvesting of human sheep, by fair or foul means. No muslim, educated or not, will question a word of quran or will help non muslims when religious issues are involved.

how would it be if we had a Hindu version of the Ayatollah?

By definition, what the Ayatollah or the Pope said would be fair and just and would be for the good of the nation.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Democracy

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,

whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty or democracy? - Mahatma Gandhi.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
​

 

[prasad1]

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,

whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty or democracy? - Mahatma Gandhi.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
​

Your post is a voice of reason, thanks.