Comments on: “World’s Oldest Democracy”: The Myth & The Reality

By: sastry.m

sastry.m — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:50:55 +0000

Once again a concise article with an excellent and thorough presentation of the history of world’s oldest democracy. After all every expressed opinion is subject to acceptance or rejection as well as praise or censure. If we consider these polar opposites we can attribute them to a single entity, namely the human mind. The very title of the article by Mr.Jayaprkash seeking to consider World’s Oldest Democracy as Myth and/or The Reality is in itself subject to scrutiny at a subtle conscious level of Mind along with discussions and comments of polar opposites. Indeed this is the crux of Human Problem wrongly attributed to vicissitudes of human history which is made in agony and distress by progenitors but studied in comfort by progeny to acquire possible qualifications for earning a livelihood. I would like to interpret the disjunction as commented by dj lane between what N.D.J intended to express and what he achieved in doing so as the “Dichotomy” of human nature in relation to the common aspect of human mind rather than any intended consideration itself. The state of a nation is composed of different serving organizations just as the different organs of defined purpose constituting the human body which unitedly serve the human individual. Although we can consider the different body parts as democratically instituted in their individual functions of working, their combined effort is to serve faithfully the human personality through life. But the subtle mind- intellect-intelligence management takes the rational services of physical organs for granted as a matter of fact of reality and never comes to grip of self consideration in state of perfect harmony of health unless diseased due inner or external causes. Is there any scope of consideration between myth and reality in the maintenance of natural human economy? If a drop of honey is really tasted sweetly by the tongue the daily toils of hundreds of honeybees contributing to that drop is the reality of their effort for its sweetness but may appear as a myth to insensible lips of mouth. The human mind which is transcendental in the nature of working is embedded into a rational and clearly definable functional physical human body which in itself is a dichotomy of natural creation. We may surmise many myths and realities in the course of human existence with relativistic considerations of experiences but can never solve the dichotomy with such superficial efforts in this ever changing world between aspiring modernity and discarded obsolescence unless we make a genuine effort to solve the discrepancy for realizing the Never Changing Reality with a study and guidance of holy scriptures. We have to fundamentally accept the fact that Democracy is harmoniously inherent in Nature’s creation instituting a basic conduct of all life including human beings but not as a prerogative of human existence in a transactional manner of self defined advantages. The mind which has surmised a myth may also confound reality adjudged by self related experiences and with a bias for self serving advantages and interests in a contemptuous manner towards the democratic rights of coexistence with fellow human beings polluting all living environment and destroying the harmony of natural creation.

By: Billy G

Billy G — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:22:29 +0000

Very interesting articles, but I am surprised that Mr. Jayaprakash doesn’t mention the millions of US citizens that have been permanently disenfranchised and will never be able to vote, in particular felons and ex-felons who have been sentenced to more than a year in prison and who are disproportionately represented by minorities, the working class, and the poor. The effect of their disenfranchisement on the 2000 presidential election has been well documented.

By: oPL

oPL — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:24:00 +0000

It’s unfortunate for dj lane that his text does not follow American spelling conventions: i.e., it contains the phrase “To put it in the baldest manner possible”, in which the word “baldest” (superlative form of the adjective meaning “lacking a natural or usual covering”) is used in place of the word “boldest” (superlative form of the adjective meaning “fearless before danger”). That the standard spelling conventions of the English language are not faithful to its phonetic nature is, of course, possible, but by then the discussion has already turned from dj lane’s supposed attention to detail towards the sizzle and not the steak. To put it in the ***boldest*** manner possible, not that I necessarily subscribe to the sentiment, but that airing the objection is the best way to head it off. To an educated speaker of English the quality of dj lane’s prose is that of a 14-year-old girl from the San Fernando Valley, not that of a serious criticism of an obviously well informed article. He is, to be sure, not such a person, but that is how his argument will be heard. Now, it’s all well and good to object to such a characterization of his prose–the point is such objections merely harden the opinion. The disjunction between dj lane’s intent (a hardhitting puncture of standards of style in a “province” where English has been spoken for centuries, and has developed its own “provincial” standard) and what he has achieved (a typo) is pathos, due surely to the differences between his own approach to criticism and a serious one. But it seems absurd for dj lane not to understand that those differences exist. It reinforces the notion of him as an uneducated individual, creating a message that isn’t intended. Or so I suppose. dj lane, spelling matters.

By: dj lane

dj lane — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:41:12 +0000

It’s unfortunate for N.D. Jayaprakash that his text does not follow American editing conventions: i.e., it has too many exclamation marks for an American reader. That the convention is unfair is, of course, possible, but by then the discussion has already turned from N.D. Jayaprakash’s thesis towards the sizzle and not the steak. To put it in the baldest manner possible, not that I necessarily subscribe to the sentiment but that airing the objection is the best way to head it off, to an educated American the tone of Mr. Jayaprakash’s prose is that of a 14-year-old girl from the San Fernando Valley, not that of a serious assessment of American democracy. He is, to be sure, not such a person, but that is how his argument will be heard. Now, it’s all well and good to object to such a characterization of his prose–the point is such objections merely harden the opinion. The disjunction between N.D. Jayaprakash’s intent (a hardhitting puncture of American self-descriptions) and what he has achieved (a kind of ethnic comedy) is pathos, due surely to the differences between American and Indian Standard Written English. But it seems absurd for Mr. Jayaprakash not to understand that those differences exist. It reinforces the notion of him as a provincial, creating a message that isn’t intended. Or so I suppose. Mr. Jayaprakash, style matters.

By: danE

danE — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:17:02 +0000

re Monsignor Kenny: So I guess Chattel Slavery and Genocidal Armed Territorial Aggression were “progressive” in 1788, but have since become outdated?

By: Michael Kenny

Michael Kenny — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:22:14 +0000

Did Mr Jayaprakash really need three articles to come to the earth-shaking conclusion that a constitution drafted in 1788, a revolutionary event in its time, reflected the progressive ideology of 1788, namely liberalism (in the European sense)? The draughtsmen of the US Constitution were radical revolutionaries in their own day, but would be regarded in 2009 as being as outdated as the clothes they wore. A constitution drafted today would have much in common with the 1788 document, in regard, in particular, to representative institutions and basic rights, although with differeces in form and content, but would also include a fairly solid chapter on social end economic rights, reflecting thereby the ideas of 2009. But is any of this news to anybody? Times change and ideas change, and what was progressive in 1788 has become reactionary in 2009. What else is new?