UPA rule -- it is meant to support the whims of the Great Ones in delhi. no surprise that local initiatives are far better for locals than some diktat from the imperial capital.
The more I think about it – the more self-evident it becomes that the Hindu way of managing “commons” through a highly decentralized, temple-ownership structure is unmatched.
The critics of this old establishment (notably the Marxists) contend that temple-based ownership is really the privileging of one caste (the Brahmins) over others. In their narrative – nothing is owned by the temple, but everything is exploited by the Brahmins for their own benefit. Since a republican democracy guarantees everyone a vote, the institutions of the state are more representative than the temple. Hence, they say that the state (and not the temple) should be the owner of commons.
But this is a very superficial analysis. Look deeper at Kerala and West Bengal – and you will realize that state ownership only gives rise to a new exploiter class. This is the party cadre or the thuggish ‘leader’ in-charge of the state at that time (think Samuel Reddy). This exploiter (the new establishment) is a thousand times more rapacious than the bogey ‘Brahmin caste’. It has more coercive power compared to the old establishment – with none of the moral obligations. Its sole purpose is to exploit and horde in Swiss banks. Finally – voting does not give power to a community – it enslaves them to the state. The old establishment was structured around evolving consensus (though it was not always possible). Dissenting communities therefore had a greater say in everyday life. The new establishment is based on maximizing competition through vote banks (always and in every way). Dissenting communities are simply shut-out once the ‘voting’ is done. In fact, any temple-like body that takes up voting-based representation soon becomes a tyranny. The Sikh SGPC is a good case in point. Decentralized consensus is the way to go.
It always amuses me to see left-anarchists like Susan Arundhati grumble about Hinduism – when Hindu institutions are in fact actually the closest to their own professed ideal than anything they have to offer!
Is the right to personal property better than the temple-based way to manage commons? A subject of legitimate intellectual inquiry.
1 comment:
The more I think about it – the more self-evident it becomes that the Hindu way of managing “commons” through a highly decentralized, temple-ownership structure is unmatched.
The critics of this old establishment (notably the Marxists) contend that temple-based ownership is really the privileging of one caste (the Brahmins) over others. In their narrative – nothing is owned by the temple, but everything is exploited by the Brahmins for their own benefit. Since a republican democracy guarantees everyone a vote, the institutions of the state are more representative than the temple. Hence, they say that the state (and not the temple) should be the owner of commons.
But this is a very superficial analysis. Look deeper at Kerala and West Bengal – and you will realize that state ownership only gives rise to a new exploiter class. This is the party cadre or the thuggish ‘leader’ in-charge of the state at that time (think Samuel Reddy). This exploiter (the new establishment) is a thousand times more rapacious than the bogey ‘Brahmin caste’. It has more coercive power compared to the old establishment – with none of the moral obligations. Its sole purpose is to exploit and horde in Swiss banks. Finally – voting does not give power to a community – it enslaves them to the state. The old establishment was structured around evolving consensus (though it was not always possible). Dissenting communities therefore had a greater say in everyday life. The new establishment is based on maximizing competition through vote banks (always and in every way). Dissenting communities are simply shut-out once the ‘voting’ is done. In fact, any temple-like body that takes up voting-based representation soon becomes a tyranny. The Sikh SGPC is a good case in point. Decentralized consensus is the way to go.
It always amuses me to see left-anarchists like Susan Arundhati grumble about Hinduism – when Hindu institutions are in fact actually the closest to their own professed ideal than anything they have to offer!
Is the right to personal property better than the temple-based way to manage commons? A subject of legitimate intellectual inquiry.
Post a Comment