Tragedy of Political Correctness

One of the major offshoots in USA from the recent shooting incident involving a Muslim Major in an American base is the raging debate on political correctness. If we analyse the incident and the issue involved we will be surprised about the lack of such a debate in India where such terrorist incidents are of far greater dimensions and that too when it has been happening for so many decades now. Except for the last few months, it was becoming far more easy to predict serial bomb blasts in India that kills hundreds of innocent people than making weather predictions. At one point of time many of us even believed that Today’s Terrorist Toll (TTT) will become an integral part of all news bulletins like Exchange Rates and Gold Prices. But Indians have become far more disposed to pain and sufferings than our American brothers thanks to our inclusiveness and the special brand of secularism (aptly termed pseudo-secularism) that we have developed in modern India.

In a democracy, being politically correct is far more important for politicians to attract votes in elections. Each and every politician is important in a democracy and capturing power to rule is the foremost goal of political parties. Each political party has a declared objective, but it is hardly of any use when it comes to electoral battles. Hypocrisy is the hallmark of parties and politicians in any democracy and political correctness is the height of hypocrisy. For example, no Indian politician will dare say candidly that religious conversion is nothing but silent terrorism. He or she knows for sure that electoral victory is lost forever if it is said so. The highly powerful organized religious outfits will ensure that such a honest politician never sees the state assembly or central parliament. Thus political correctness is such a treacherous and harmful attribute that runs in all democracies. To reflect its negative quality more markedly it should have been termed as political ‘corruptness’ rather than political correctness.

Political Corruptness

Most of the politicians and autocratic rulers are ultimately concerned only about their own seats. Getting more support than their equally adharmic competitors, capturing and clinging on to power by any means have become the sole intention of those who come to rule. Irrespective of the size and scale, this is the actual situation in any country where elections are held. They always tend to side with their support available enbloc just like the organized religious minorities in India and America irrespective of whatever misdeeds they indulge in. Be it miniscule groups planting bombs and killing innocents under the name of Jihad or religious poachers attempting subversion by demographic conversions, the rulers always tend to side with them because of the solid support base they can command. Politicians in a democracy always forget the fact that enbloc votes are assured from such groups only because of the lack of democracy within them. But only those who can appear politically correct can be assured of victory in today’s elections, especially in democracies having universal adult franchise.

Anything truly correct must pass the acid test of being fair, just and sustainable. This is exactly what is covered under the term of dharma in Sanatana Dharma. Being dharmic is to be associated only with fair, just and sustainable deeds and words. If we can accept such a correct definition for correctness, the correct stand in politics must always be one in support of dharma. Repeating untruth in order not to offend the few who are always offending us and not taking stands that can nurture the positive elements in a society are definitely not part of dharma or correctness. Politicians who go on to become rulers in a democracy must be siding with dharmic forces if their ultimate intention is betterment of society, nation and the whole world. Unfortunately that is not always the case. The real tragedy in all democracies is that political correctness has become an unavoidable pre-requisite for attaining leadership.

Dharmic Politics

Unquestioned political correctness is the single most reason for the fast degeneration of democracy into a not-so-preferred option for governance. If the essence of democracy is rule according to majority will it must support and nurture the dharmic aspirations of the majority. This should always be the case, irrespective of whether it is to the like or dislike of those in minority. Present day phenomena of majority will always yielding to the more organized unjust demands of those in minority may be political correctness but morally adharmic. Electoral systems in most functioning democracies are failing to come up with ideas to defeat the organized might of those in minority wanting to impose their unreasonable demands. Instead of ensuring a rule according to majority will, democracies have become majority rule according to minority will. Practicing dharma in politics is the only way to bring back the losing legitimacy for democratic governments.

Beauty of dharma lies in its applicability in each and every aspect of our life. If something is dharmic it means it is the best option. In politics too it is the best option to rekindle the spirit of democracy that is inbuilt in every human being. Being dharmic in political activities means the words and deeds are for the betterment of society. Those which are required are sustained and those which are blocking our dharmic progress are to be destroyed. This principle of dharma is equally applicable in the case of concepts and individuals. Kauravas and their organized unjust activities were equally adharmic for the betterment of human society at that time and both were eliminated without any other consideration. It is time for considering the same option in the case of democracy and politics as it is practiced today.

India and USA are considered as the biggest and strongest democracies in the world. No wonder that the tragedy of political correctness has taken its biggest toll in these two countries. If it is difficult in USA to get Congress approval for send more troops to crush Jihadi terrorism, it is far more difficult in India to get any law passed in Indian parliament for a complete ban on religious conversion by coercion or a uniform civil code. Both the issues are destroying the very basis of these secular nations, but the will of the majority is unable to do anything because of the pressure on elected representatives to appear politically correct to those holding minority opinion. A totally wrong notion is preventing the duly elected and authorized setup from doing what it is supposed to do. The only way for genuine democracy to flourish is by arranging a deep burial for the abhorrent concept of political correctness.

MYTH OF COMPASSIONATE GOD

Concept of God is the very basis of every religion but it differs vastly between religions. As an integral part of our journey towards salvation, the different religions have defined God to be of different type and kind. There must be a concept of God in every religion and without it, everything about its beliefs and rituals would be meaningless. In all religions God is omnipotent and omnipresent. The difference lies in its other features. In some religions it is feminine and in some others it is masculine. In some it resembles humans and in some others it is quite unlike. In some it is of a particular form and in some others it is formless. And more interestingly, and of more consequence, God has definite characteristics in some that contradicts completely with those in others.

In today’s world, if one is religious it means that one is a follower of an existing established religion. And to be irreligious means that one does not believe in any of the existing religions. But this is not correct. Each one of those who are termed as irreligious may still have their own versions about God, unless of course one is an atheist. An ideal atheist must be one like Bertrand Russell who did not see any reason to believe in any form of God at any stage in his adult life (at least he said so). In a way atheism must also be considered a religion just like zero being considered a number. Perhaps Indian is the only civilization in the whole world which also accommodates true atheism as one of the means to realize God i.e. about its non-existence.

Proactive God

In many of the organized religions of the world, the concept of God is a proactive one. This is very clear from the well known expressions in everyday use among its followers. Most Compassionate God and Most Merciful God obviously refer to someone like us but with unlimited compassion and mercy towards the followers. And that our actions are always under the surveillance of God. Our goodness is rewarded and wrongness punished. But the questionable feature lies in the possibility of compassion or mercy for those who look for it following their ill deeds. To err is human but to look for an escape without any punishment is also equally human. It is this unfairness of humans that is most effectively and efficiently (mis)used by the designers of organised religions. And most people fall for such attractive gimmicks even when it relates to God.

In organized religions, God is considered an ever vigilant and efficient monitoring agency. Any form of monitoring leads to control and it is this remote control that is believed to keep Man in the right path. But what can happen if the control mechanism accommodates failures and adjusts for mistakes? The system will ultimately fail. The analogy of God with a vigilant but accommodative control system is an apt one. An ideal control system should severely punish deviations and reward compliance. And it should never allow any compromise with detected deviations lest wrong models become possible and wrong precedents would get set. The whole mechanism would collapse one day under the weight of accumulated wrongness. Unfortunately this is what happens in the case of followers of such wrong concepts of God.

Reactive God

In sharp contrast to the concept of a proactive God is the one with reactive features. This clearly means that either a reward or a punishment follows each one of our actions. A reactive God is normally dormant and becomes active only when an action takes place. It does not act of its own initiative but will only react to our actions. The concept of a reactive God fits in well with those of an independent fate or destiny. Each and every object in this universe has a purpose and follows a course of action. In the case of the animate we call this course as fate or destiny which they are born with. A reactive God will not have much role in the current status of any being but will only monitor and control the incremental effect negatively or positively based on the value of their actions.

The most rational way to explain fate and destiny as something we are born with is the theory of rebirths. Fate and destiny of anything animate at any point of time is on account of its accumulated karma from its earlier lives and deeds so far in the current life. The clear advantage in this concept of a reactive God is its unambiguous positive encouragement for anything good and punishment for any wrongdoings. If we can easily get away with our misdeeds by fooling an omnipotent & omnipresent God by playing on its compassion, it may be better not to have any God at all. God must be an all knowing and powerful yet impartial judge for all our doings at each and every moment in our lives. Eye for an eye must form the basis of natural justice dispensed by God.

As a rational being I consider it the solemn duty of each human being to think his or her own way through the concepts of God available in front of us. The concept of a compassionate or merciful God looks abhorrent to me personally. If I knowingly make a mistake I must be prepared for its punishment too. Those who think that the most benevolent, most merciful and most compassionate God would pardon or lower the punishment just because they are smart enough to repent in time and offer a confession are too ridiculous and cruel. Such a God could not have sustained life for so long in this world of struggle and competition. A purely reactive form of God that is tough, fair and just is the best one that appeals to me. Sinning must never go unpunished and if it is possible to escape the consequences of sin, then there is no God at all.