READER: Then from your statements I deduce that the system
of so called democratic countries like England and America is not
worthy of copying by us as well as continuance by them.
EDITOR: You are right. The condition of England, America, and few western as well as few important eastern democratic countries is miserable. Democracy in these countries has taken the shape of demon-cracy (government by Shaitan/Satan). The hunger of its government officials, judiciary and media personal have increased to such an extent that to survive, they need to support the loot of one after the other. It has taken such a shape that stocking and brokering, spoiling and sucking one after the other commodities become necessary in country for their survival. And as such these systems cannot be appreciated for copying rather; it is not even good for them to continue Democracy in this way.
On the similar questions reply of Mr. Gandhi is:
The condition of England:
ANS: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet, of its own accord, done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.
QST: You have said this sarcastically. The term “sterile woman” is not applicable. The Parliament, being elected by the people, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.
ANS: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve without pay and therefore, it must be assumed, only for the public wealth. The electors are considered to be educated and therefore we should assume that they would not generally make mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the spur of petitions or any other pressure. Its work should be so smooth that its effects would be more apparent day by day. But, as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single instance in which finality can be predicted for its work. When the greatest questions are debated, its members have been seen to stretch themselves and to doze. Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the “talking shop of the world” Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade. If the money and the time wasted by Parliament were entrusted to a few good men, the English nation would be occupying today a much higher platform. Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by no means peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them. One of the members of that Parliament recently said that a true Christian could not become a member of it. Another said that it was a baby. And if it has remained a baby after an existence of seven hundred years, when will it out grow its babyhood?
QST: You have set me thinking; you do not expect me to accept at once all you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shall have to digest them. Will you now explain the epithet prostitute”?
ANS: That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you will read the literature on this subject, you will have some idea of it. Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister, its movement is not steady but it is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers are known to have made Parliament do things merely for party advantage. All this is worth thinking over.
QST: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have hitherto considered to be patriotic and honest?
ANS: Yes, that is true; I can have nothing against Prime Ministers, but what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be considered really patriotic. If they are to be considered honest because they do not take what are generally known as bribes, let them be so considered, but they are open to subtler influences. In order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honours. I do not hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor a living conscience.
QST: As you express these views about Parliament, I would like to hear you on the English people, so that I may have your view of their Government.
ANS: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take their cue from their newspapers which are often dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by different newspapers, according to the party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose newspapers are of this type? QST: You shall describe it.
ANS: These people change their views frequently. It is said that they change them every seven years. These views swing like the pendulum of a clock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a powerful orator or a man who gives them parties, receptions, etc. As are the people, so is their Parliament. They have certainly one quality very strongly developed. They will never allow their country to be lost. If any person were to cast an evil eye on it, they would pluck out his eyes. But that does not mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.
QST: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
ANS: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and ruined day by day.
READER: But you will appreciate that India chooses Dharma Nirpeksha parliamentary democracy. What would you like to say on India getting Democratic and the effort of our respected freedom fighters along with Mr. Gandhi?
EDITOR: 1) Bharat the Greatest democracy of the world chose to remain democratic and Dharma Nirpeksha. I salute to the entire fraternity of our respected freedom fighters, and would like to add that many of the basic issues which freedom fighter were raising and Hind Swaraj (1908) raised (but abandoned by Mr. Gandhi himself in 1921) are still relevant. All these issues require fresh outlook and effort to bring around the necessary changes in the way we govern and carry ourselves.
2) Enough has been said against the democracy by Mr. Gandhi e.g.
(A) “Parliament is like a sterile woman and a prime minister is prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case”,
(B) If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined,
(C) Parliaments are really emblems of slavery,
but public and political parties who also show respect to Mr. Gandhi and who seeks votes in the name of Mr. Gandhi does not seem to honour his remarks.
3) Parliament is neither a sterile woman nor prime minister a prostitute. What Mr. Gandhi has described of England democracy is basically not a democracy but a system devised by the kingdom of England to rule and befool public of their country as well as people of other countries. If England is a democratic country then how one will describe the existence/presence and continuance of so called King and Queen, prince and princess.
-Democracy of America is without any royals and can said to be a step ahead from the system of England’s so called democracy –hypocrisy, but in America in place of Royals few riches/corporate houses run the country irrespective of who the president or senate is.
-Democracy of many countries of the world are between England and America and in many countries it is even worse wherein army takes over control of democratic setup and then all the officials dances in the tune of Army generals and all the generals dance to tune of foreign powers, but still they are step ahead from the anarchy to archery to dictatorship to aristocracy to mix of Aristocracy and Democracy.
READER: Below is the part of Hind Swaraj of Mr. Gandhi on Parliamentary democracy:
“The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet, of its own accord, done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour”.
Wherein Mr. Gandhi said: I pray to God that India may never be in that plight.
And in the end of book (Hind Swaraj) -in 1908, Mr. Gandhi said:
In my opinion, we have used the term “Swaraj” without understanding its real significance. I have endeavored to explain it as I understand it, and my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is dedicated to its attainment.
But in the preface of Hind Swaraj (written in1921) Mr. Gandhi has mentioned that.
MR. GANDHI: “The booklet is a severe condemnation of “modern civilization”. It was written in 1908. My conviction is deeper today than ever. I feel that if India will discard “modern civilization”, she can only gain by doing so. But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am today aiming at the Swaraj described therein. I know that India is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to say so, but such is my conviction. I am individually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj, in accordance with the wishes of the people of India.
Do you feel Mr. Gandhi was wrong in the assessment at first place when he was writing the book or he has given up/surrendered to the political colleague of his time?
We feel it is the same like we have in routine - that boys talk ill of money and romance with honey and later say “that I would warn the friends against thinking that I am today aiming at the marrying honey described earlier. I know that family is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to say so, but such is my conviction. I am individually working for the marrying honey pictured earlier. But today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of marriage with money, in accordance with the wishes of the people of family”.
And then in1933 Mr. Gandhi recorded in Hind Swaraj:
To The Reader
I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the dissolution of the flesh. What I am concerned, with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment, and, therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, lie would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject.
M. K. GANDHI, April, 1933,
What do you say on above contradictions?
EDITOR: (1) Whenever anybody uses the term that I am individually working for the attainment of A as I have written but today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of reverse of A, in accordance with the wishes of the people is a clear-cut case of split personality or double faced personality if not hypocrite (Psychologist will be able to tell better).
Generally people follow individual works of great leaders and imitate it but when leader display one trait as a personal trait and organize public to follow him but display reverse trait in closed door meeting citing compulsions of corporate, cheating/ befooling of public at highest level is materialized. Whenever such cheating is materialized not only the person but his offspring suffers as well and happy ending/death (which regarded as seventh happiness in Hindus) is not possible for such.
(2) It is the most basic flaw which Mr. Gandhi and few bigger political party e.g. one on Ayodhya-Ram Mandir issue and another on the issue of Bahujan Samaj versus Sarvajan Samaj, have done.
(3) On the issues where you have made commitment to the task- like Mr. Gandhi: (at the end of Hind Swaraj written in my opinion, we have used the term “Swaraj” without understanding its real significance. I have endeavored to explain it as I understand it, and my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is dedicated to its attainment. ” deserves to be protected with life” (whether the dedication is right or wrong is altogether different question. As judgment is part of Nature and not of individual) and for this we have statement ‘Pran Jaye per Vatchan na jaye (let the life go but not commitment)’. Who so ever violate this norm in public or even private domain is punished severely yet secretly by Nature, whether it is Mr. Gandhi or any political party or any boy who romance with Honey and marry with Money and not only that person concerned suffer but all the members including offspring whosoever tries to get benefitted by the new-found status by marrying Money (curse of the family of those who sacrificed while working for your cause will always follow when you do not honour your commitment or change your priority midway).
(4) These are considered blunders in the underworld, whether it is the underworld of goons or of god, any violation of commitment is definitely an alienation (rejection, ejection and dejection) from the circuit and exit from the underworld if not physically finished.
(5) “I know that India is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction”- while saying this Mr. Gandhi appears to have forgotten that if situation would have ripened then anybody could have done it and there wouldn’t be any greatness attached to it. Further when you compromised with your most basic commitment you lose trust in yourself and generally will not have same courage to stand for another issue or commitment and other people feel that you will compromise and will not hard press for it. This compromise or change of stance is considered as an indication and initiation of bargaining whether it is trade of politics or flesh trade (taking name of the god is an effort to befool others and self).
6) If any father feels that safe sex and change of partner are symbol of sterility and prostitution then he is free to have this opinion, but if tomorrow that father not only accepts safe sex and change of partner for his children but makes it his corporate activity that children should be sterile and prostitute governed citing that it is as per the wishes of family member, than What we will say?
Mr. Gandhi feels that (a) ‘Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute, (b) If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined, (c) Parliaments are really emblems of slavery, and then said ‘today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj, in accordance with the wishes of the people of India.
Further to it he accepted himself to be called as Bapu (father), it indicates that he allowed or rather worked for a system where in his future generation will be governed by those whom he feels ‘sterile woman and a prostitute, emblems of slavery’ than what we will say to Mr. Gandhi?
(7) Such growth (as is conveyed in last Para of your question) is generally not appreciated by the friends, family and even foes. I do not know why and how Mr. Gandhi allowed him to write like ‘when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, lie would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject’ above where in he himself has written:
“What we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and she remains steady. This is her beauty: it is the sheet-anchor of our hope.
Generally it is used strategically but considered as earlier idiocy and future distrust (In banks, government offices and court they say that man is a growing entity and so they accept the last will as final will).
--To me if one is not able to handle the commitment then time being silent(praying and keep trying) is a better option than compromising (if one is not afraid to die which ultimately everybody does), and this indicate that one must be very careful, cautious while dedicating self to any individual or public at large. Instead of committing to the God people commit in the name of God hence the problems.
Speak after screening, stand after speaking. In Nature where everything changes, those who do not change but remain fresh are called Sanatan the Dharma.
READER: Your answer appears to be highly superstitious, feudal contains primitive language with very high degree of emotion. What we see that government, big people and political party never fulfills their commitment, rather they say commitments are for breaking and not for fulfillment and they are idiots who fulfill their commitments.
EDITOR: Not only it appears but it shows that neither you know the working in our ordinary day to day life, in business, nor you are aware of the process of becoming prominent, respectable, dependable, commendable what to say of the trusted. Only those who fulfill their commitment to family, friends and foes are allowed to grow and develop rest perishes or remain in self-created gallows. Situation wherein; government, big people and political party starts saying that commitments are for breaking and not for fulfillment rather they say that those are the idiots who fulfill their commitments and on this paradigm do not fulfills their commitments, cannot be appreciated and civilization so formed cannot be called civilization, rather it can be called dis-civilization or mis-civilization.