Democracy has no definition in particular but in general there are basically two principles that act as the yardstick for democracy
1)All citizens are equal before the law and have equal access to power.
2)All citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are protected by constitution.
The idea to write on post struck me when I read the blog of Celina Jaitley, this Independence day.
There are a number of cases that I had observed before writing this post,lets start by analyzing some.
Case1: All of you, must have seen the blockbuster hit "Ran de Basanti", we were really carried away by the way the film tried to portray the resemblance of modern Indian youth energy with the energy that was once possessed by our great krantikaris. However, I still want to ask all of you some questions: Are Indian youths properly been represented ? I know most of us enjoy the way in which Amir and his gang enjoyed but still there were groups that were untouched by this bug of X-factor. Secondly, the way they confessed their crimes in media gathering public sympathy. was that correct?
The film enjoyed its full democratic rights to express the views and sentiments, the energy and agony of the present generation, but the film in the process forgot the impact of it on democracy.
See how,now a days, the criminals come before media to confess. In the most recent struggle between Naxals and paramillitary forces in Lalgarh, the leader of Naxals came to bargain with Government with the help of media.
If democracy is by the people and of the people then it is also for the people.
Case 2: Now do you remember Arushi Talwar murder case of Noida and the subsecuent media coverage. Media all of a sudden came forward to express its right to free journalism and covered the incident in detail, they even went to the extent of encouraging debates on the lost values of Indian Society. But do anyone of you remember Santi Rani? You must be thinking who is she? She is a girl of the age of Arushi Talwar ,who died the very next day of Arushi's death, in one of the remote villages and the same media reported the incident as yet another dowry death and that too for half a second. Congratulations!!!! The media used its freedom to show that the rights of a girl leaving in citites values more than that of a village girl and ironically when the same debate on the issue I just pointed out took place, one of the members of journalist family said "it is their right to decide what to cover and how much". Sure sir, you are right............
Case 3: Article 377 of constitution, the present verdict of Delhi high court gathered such a market for democracy, that it crossed all the trp ratings. The whole scenario is being painted in a way as the homosexuals won their freedom battle. While the court verdict was just a constitutional reform, many actors, public faces stepped in to pour their inexperience comments and verdicts in supprt of the gay community. I do not mean to harm anyone's sentiments but I want to state a clip from a research report: "The risks faced by gay community range from social discrimination and societal and domestic voilence to health care risks both psychological and physical" the enitre report supporting the claim is available in the internet but our actors and actresses do not have the time to spare from their make up schedule to have a look at the finidings and then present their ideas instead madam Jaitley claiming herself to be 4th generation army servant came forward in support of the gays. Madam if you are really interested in something good for society then be a part of Goverment's NREGA, you will surely gain less publicity. Alas!! its your freedom to choose which I shouldnot interfere.
The cases I have stated are just some but not all, we market Democracy to sale our products, as the recent reality TV show saga on Saach ka Samna. We all preach the ideology of democracy and try to search for a hide and democracy do provide us the protection.
As I conclude, I must say Democracy as a concept is itself confused and realization of democracy leads to bias and there is enough scope to misuse it.
As I understood democracy, from its two princliples : All are equal in the eyes of law and it is everyone's responsibility to fight for equality and freedom but those equality and freedom should be legitimate in the eyes of Penal code and constitution which in turn are nothing but the reflection of the consencous of majority of the society and in agreement with laws of nature. But in the end, majority is not always right and laws are formed by us.
In the end it all comes to morality, even a dictatorial regime with a dictator having good moral values can be better than the democracy which is confused and biased.
