-
Chetan Joshi
- Lobbying
34 Views
0 Comments
Can absolute logic or simple beliefs can solve our social and political problems In context with political funding corruption and our system Dear Kejriwalji and all absolute logic oriented people, salute to your intentions and selfless work. but there is a but. chalo mana aap delhi chunav jeet gaye for example december main 70 me se 70 jeet gaye. aapki sarkar aayi aapne accha kam kiya 5 saal tak. 5 saal ke baad 2018 aap phir se jeet gaye 70 me se 70. now by 2018 all people come to know that your model is succesful so the existing political parties or some new rivals comes with exactly same model as yours or even better by 2023 and they wins, ab main itna toh aapse expect karta hoon ki aap IITian hone ke nate itna accept karenge ki yeh possible hai that a rival will come and grab 40 seats out of 70. itna toh aapko accept karna padega ki aaphi hamesha jeet nahi sakte. ab main aap se puchta hoon. that the 30 people who will loose in 2023. what will be their source of livelyhood. in short main general main aap se yeh sawal puchta hoon that how a person should source his livelyhood when he is not in office. MLA hai tab tak salary milegi accepted uske baad kya yah phir jab tak MLA nahi banata tab tak kya pet kaise palega. holiday tour pe kaise jayega or else he donrsquot deserve to go bacchonki padhaee shadi kaise karega. Aur MLA toh chodo baki partika prachar wagaira karne walonka kya. that means you are expecting only the people who are having lot of wealth or other sources of income like in your case your wife i guess should contest. or the business man should contest. that means you are saying politics is a social service and not a profession by itself which has its own source of income. which means you expect a politician to have divided attention one into his business for source of income which has nothing to do with politics and operation of which should not have any conflict of interest with politics and remaining attention in politics. will he be able to serve honestly and efficiently. or you expect him to be totally dedicated to society. he will always be thinking for the socitey its development and happiness while there will be always question mark on, from where he will source his food .or he should think of public only and his wife will earn for him. is it practical can one serve others when he himself is not happy. or is it practical to get total renunciating natured people and parties in politics, who will only think of society throughout their life not little about them and that too, not just for a period 0f 4-5 years but through out. Because politics is not a temporary business you will require such people constantly coming in to politics. Is it practical ldquobig donations from corporate and wealthyrdquo this is the option.if you are saying then again lobbying is ought to come which is curruption itself. Chote chote donation bologe toh aap jaisi aur partiyan bhi aa jaayengi bolengi we dont appreciate and tolerate lobbying please give donations to us log kis kis ko doanation denge. This is what my question is to you now and i am seeking answer for it. When you say that all parties are currupt. do you have any solution for how a party and all parties that will emerge and exists can fund itself through out in good pure legal unconflicted ways. how a new individual who wants to make career in politics can fund himself and his livelyhood. or is it not a full fledge career. As you always try to talk logically and absolutely I think you will answer above question logically. 1 you say its for people who have other sources of income. which means you are trying to say someone of my age for example age 24 or a just passed out IIM or IITian who dont have any other source of income but interested in getting in to politics and make career out of it will never have chance to do so and then people cry young generation and smart people dont get in to politics how they will enter from where they will earn there meals. family members and parents also then Wont support the idea of getting in to politics. 2i totally agree that what you people are doing is need of the hour but whats the plan for long term. 3for exampe AAP gets full majority in 2014 in loksabha now you formulate the new system what provisions will you make for parties to fund themselves. the point will rise then and it will take you back to the same system which we are right now ull have no option then to do conflict of interest and so i dont see any change happening.if it will happen tell me what provisions you are keeping for political parties to fund themselves its not just funding their campaign but tell how you will fund their lively hood without any conflict of interest. i want you to answer it in more general sense i agree that what you are doing is rquired for timebeing i.e. devoting yourself but what in normal circumstances how to fund the politics. because i think this is the basic reason which took few of the existing parties and candidates whose intentions were not bad to do conflict of interest and corporate funding. 4 basic point is your absolute approach will not help the purpose. which you need to fine tune I think when you will try to answer these questions in 2023. You will end up doing the same thing what other parties whom you are blaming are doing right now. Or by then you will have to formulate a method in which all budding and existing parties and individuals will fund themselves. Ya phir rajaonka zamana wapas lana padega. Let me get little philosophical to convey what I want to say ldquodenying the coexistance of two conflicting truths is like denying the true nature of truthrdquo -- acharanga sutra says quotwhen u say u are correct u are almost always correctquot quotwhen u say u are only correct or u r correct only, u r almost always wrong.quot because yeh only jo hai woh satya nahi hain it is not truth. isliye maine bhi almost istamal kiya sentence main knyu ki yeh duniya bhi ek maya mani jati hai. yeh duniya ek purn satya nahin hain. yeh sentence dusre tarikese bhi hum bol sakte hain. quotjab aap kehte ho sab partiya galat hai.aap almost hamesha sahi ho par aap jab yeh kehte ho ki sabhi partiya sirf galat hai yah galat hi hai toh aap almost humesha galat ho.quot Bhagvad gita As it is mein Prabhupadjine clearli likha hai preacherbrahman has to do what preacher has to do politiciansKshatriya has to do what politician has to do businessmanvaishya has to do what businessman has to do all this peoples act cannot be decided as good or bad from only one point of viewand there cannot exist one single point of view to judge different types of activities whose definition can be written and followed. yes there exist one that is krishna consciousness but its more a concept and cannot be defined or quantified. that is in preachers point of view politicians act may look offensive from politicians point of view preachers act may look foolish and from businessmens point of view the other two may look offensive. ill give an example. 1 dronacharya dint teach archery to eklavya but took gurudakshina from him and that too his thumb. because he knew eklavya will become good archer but he may not become mentally good decision maker to decide when to use his skills and may end up using it for ill purpose. 2 Lord Ram killed bali hiding from across when bali was fighting with sugriva. also he made sita go through agnipariksha though he dint wanted to why because tommorow people should not blame the king for giving freedom for his family members. 3Lord Krishna killed Karna when he dint had shastra in his hand. Bhagwan bhi purn rup se logonke drushtikon me purnataha satya nahi ho paye yeh duniya mein toh aadmi ka kya kahana. so the answer to this given in Bhagvadgita for peoples act to consider correct or not is to check whether they do their act in the consiousness of the benifit of the entire society or not ie they do their work in krishna consciousness or not. if a person does his acts in krishna consciousnessie consciousness of the entire society and beyond then however he may do it, whatever means he may use to do it the krishna conscious work should be considered correct or good. so by this means, then thinking whether a political party is corrupt or not our focus if is made towards thinking whether a party or an individual politician is doing his work for the benefit of entire society or not and that too, to the extent of societies expectationhowever he may do it, whatever means he may use than that would be more positive and correct approach. Prabhupads lsquoBhagvadgita as it isrsquo may explain you more better. In last letter which I wrote to you I had told about two chapters from OSHOrsquos book Sambhog se Samadhi. On difference between a rebel and a revolutionary it majorly stresses on doing actionory things then doing reactionary things because he says in reaction act the soul of the act remains in the x thing for which we are reacting. And thatrsquos why the reactionary actions endup making the x strong or it finishes itself once it finishes the x and a new x is created. He has explained it more nicely. As you are an IITan ill ask you one mathematics question Can we fill the circular areaor a random piece of area with no proper dimensions by squares exactly such that you will cover whole area but will not go out of the boundaries Given we can use any amount of infinitely small and large squares. Maths says we can with limit tending to zero. That means we can do but there is limit. This limit can tend to zero but it will not become zero. Which means there always will remain a limit however we may reduce it, the limit it will always remain . here random area or circle denotes natural laws of society which are random in nature and not absolute in such society of uncertainities we will have to put a sytem denoted by squares. In short on some uncertain random background we have to put a systemlawscan be accomplished only if we accept the limitations of it. If we donrsquot respect the limitations and accept it no system will be possible and only chaos can exist or complexities will exist and no solution. This world is not only logical. You can take example of maths which we consider a pure logic but you must be knowing that this maths has evolved from set of few axioms which cannot be logically proved and they are simply accepted as truths. I think this world may be, is not just a logic and neither just a belief. I think itrsquos a belief coming through logic and logic coming through belief. For example if lokpal is kept as a reportee to prime minister, prime minister will rule. And if prime minister can be investigated and questioned by lokpal The lokpal will rule. So whichever sytem you will select you will be making a choice to believe on the honesty of one out of two unconditionally because. Considering absolute logic, it will always be a logical possibility that the one who is kept on top will exploit his rights for wrong purpose. Which means you have no option then to choose to believewithout any logic that the person you have kept at top in the system will use his powers honestly and ethically. The absolute logical person will try to create a more complex reporting system, however complex he may go there will be some point wherein he will have to believe on the honesty of a person on a position without having any logical reasoning that the person will remain honest in any and all circumstances Maths the biggest logic fails without a point of reference of belief called axioms. Einstien also says that anything in nature the laws of physics are relative in nature. He says that you can propose a law of physics only when you accept something as point of reference, and he says that when you change the point of reference then the law of physics will also change and there will be a new law for this new point of reference. Consciousness is the only solution, no blind beliefs, no absolute logics. Which means we have to mark one position where we should ensure that tested, experienced, and socially conscious person only will be selected and choosen who because of his higher state of consciousness will never be dishonest to the position. And with this reference we should build the remaining system with logic The article is written to understand the dynamics of political funding and showing limitations on how much absolute system oriented we can be . Here Kejriwal and AAP is just taken as an object to do brainstorming to understand the concept.no hard feelings for anyone This are my personal views. Anyones arguments on article which will add up to understanding of concept are most welcome. Chetan Joshi
-
- Social Share
for this Blog
- Social Share
-
Comment
Porfolio And Blogs
Chetan Joshi follows various companies, these companies and employers can view Chetan's resume.
Chetan-Joshi's Blogs/Portfolios
