India is now in the hot bed of experimentation as to whether it can contain Democracy and Secularism (in the context as the politicians try to teach people). The word %u2018democracy%u2019 should always mean to be the peoples%u2019 rule. We find a lot of caricatures in the present world. Dictators and autocrats seize power and still are successful to propagate of themselves as champions of democracy! That is a different aspect. Other than requiring freedom of speech and equal access to ballot, subject to stipulations of respective laws, the notion of democracy sets no limits on what the people may do in their sovereign capacity. No ruler has the right to ask a citizen as to why he is %u2018thinking%u2019 or %u2018doing%u2019 any better thing for his state. This is not possible in autocratic states. For doing so, he needs the ruler%u2019s permit. As religions are the major force of human drives we may stray in to another area. Is religion compatible with liberal democracy? Has any religion of the world envisaged and worked out of %u2018democracy%u2019 or its adjustment with it? This is a moot question. In order to find an answer we must primarily address to two other questions first. One: Are managers of religion capable of recognizing democracy in democratic spirit? Two: Do democratic statesmen realize religion theologically? Mere use of words can not save a democracy. Even we have seen gross perversions. Hitler was %u2018elected%u2019 to power in 1933. In Hindu sets in Independent India, in religion we may find a galaxy of illustrious persons like Dayananda Saraswati, Shibananda, Chinmayananda, Nigamananda, Anukulchandra etc., but they are more regarded as religious philosophers; never as mendicant priests. But when religion had the increasing necessity to assimilate more with such mendicant priesthood, the above illustrious persons were branded as religious philosophers. Is it not a decent substitute to express rejection? Operating religion perhaps could not rightly hold them on. That means, they were rejected from the operating religion. To address to the other question, we have two ideal examples in Indian politics. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Their appearance in political cauldrons is a case-study. As do they unbeatably fit to other higher ethical and intellectual standards %u2013 experience suggests that politics became unfamiliar territory to them. Such political caginess suggests that the most respected Radhakrishnan or Kalam does not fit to our ever-growing democratic aspirations. People must realize about the future of the country, no matter how politicians behave. Yours sincerely, Rabi Kanungo Intellectual Forum
