Daniel Duomai at 18 months!

Democracy: Government off the People, fool the People and buy the People?

The write up is to be situated in the context of the election that was held in Manipur, a north eastern state of India, on 28th January 2012. The election was probably the most corrupt eonein the history of Manipur's democracy. There would have been not a single candidate that did not use unfair means to get votes. At then end it was the Congress that emerged victorious. And the reasons are many, but one key reason was that no one else could match the money power of the Congress party.

It has become a kind of a set pattern to buy voters. There were candidates who did not visit their constituency due to threats to their life. ( I am not going to get into that now.) But even such candidates got elected. How was that possible? They sent in their workers to the constituency with bundles of money. And voters were purchased. All candidates used money power to purchase voters. And buying voters likewise is illegal. And it is immoral too. It is immoral because election are supposed to be fought on the basis of candidates' merits. And distributing money distorts the very definition of democratic election. Candidates who purchased voters , therefore, are using unfair means to get elected. Period. 

The voters who took money in exchange for her vote too is wrong. Even if the money was distributed, the voter need not take it. So the voter too was a party to the malpractice. And I appreciate those voters who were able to say NO to money. And this refusal to take money in exchange for vote is something we all need to copy.

I would further say that even if money has been taken by a voter from a candidate, there is no valid reason to be obligated to vote for the candidate. As of now if voters have taken money from Mr. A, they are obligated to vote for Mr. A. So the the one who offers more money will get more votes! But such obligation will perpetuate the ongoing corrupt practice. And if we have to blunt the power of money to purchase voter, we have to do away with the obligation. Therefore, to achieve an end which is good i.e making the power of money to buy voter redundant, I believe it is okay not to be obligated to vote for the person from whom one has taken money. 

This is not to say "take money, but don't vote for the who gave you the money". It is rather saying "don't take money; but even if you take money you don't have to feel obligated to vote for the one who gave you money".  So the actual emphasis is on "don't give money & don't take money". The third punchline is to provide additional cushion to fight unfair way of using money power during election.

India Should Vote in Favour of the Resolution on Sri Lanka

LTTE used terror among its own people and also against others in its quest for Tamil Eelam. But now LTTE is dead! The Government of Sri Lanka has defeated the Tamil Tigers. Whether Tamils in Sri Lanka deserve an Eelam or not, I have no idea. What I learnt, however, is that Sri Lankan army violated human right in all sorts of ways to end the bloody conflict. And that I cannot endorse. All sorts of human rights violation, whether by state or non-state actors, I condemn.

It is for this reason that I believe India should vote in favour of the resolution on Sri Lanka at United Nations Human Right Council. Whether DMK/AIADMK put pressure on the Government of India or not, my view is that India should vote in favour of the resolution. If a team to investigate on the human right violation is formed, and after impartial investigation if Sri Lankan government officials are found to be guilty, proper sentence should be given to those who are guilty. Such an example would prove successful in serving as a deterring factor even in future for other nation-states that may violate human right.

Loving One's Neighbour

“Love thy neighbour as thyself” is an important commandment in the Bible. “Neighbour” here does not primarily  or necessarily mean spatial neighbour, but refers to someone who needs to be loved and cared. Christian care, therefore, is to be extended to all people who needs it. It can be extended even to someone who is to be born in future. This is about loving one's neighbour in time. For example, practical application of loving one's neighbour in time can take the form of caring for the planet so that the future generation will not inherit a fully exploited earth.

The Bible, however, puts it this way: Therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone—especially to those in the family of faith (Gal 6.10). The notion of caring specially for those within the Christian community is an exhortation and practice that is found in the Bible. And this is to be lived out globally. Christians thus take care -- or should take care, of "its own family members".  To find beggars or homeless Christians is a scandal within the church. Yet this love and attitude must go beyond the Christian community and include people of all nations. 

 

This command to love one's neighbour is deeply rooted in the scriptural injunction. For some to love the weak and the needy is not a virtuous activity. For others it could be a virtuous activity but it is something that is done when one has some 'extra' time or money. For Christians loving one's neighbour is about responding to the call of Christ; about being obedient to the Master. 

Resolving Euthyphro Dilemma

The Euthyphro dillemma is found in the Plato's diologue with Euthyphro. In the dialogue Socrates asked Euthyphro " Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Or if I may put it differently "Is the good act loved by gods because it is good or is it good because god so ordained it?" 

God is intrinsically good and holy. And God is the source of all that is good and pure. And since God is intrinsically good, he can never will (or love) what is wicked or evil. Just as God cannot non-exist, divine fiat cannot include wicked act. God's omnipotence does not mean that God can do logically impossible feats. Just as God cannot exist now and non-exist later, God cannot pronounce necessary moral truth now which is according to his nature, and later pronounce exactly opposite to his divine nature. So, is the good good because God so pronounced it according to his nature? Yes...and God cannot but pronounce it so because to pronounce otherwise is logically impossible.

But what moral reason is there to obey God's command?

We are to obey God's command because he is the giver of life. He brings me forth into existence. We are also to obey God's command because it is good. God will not issue command arbitrarily; rather he issues command according to his divine nature.

Of course, this assumes that God is necessarily good and so he will issue fiats only that which is good. The Abraham-Isaac story will nullify the assumption had Isaac really been sacrificed. But a believer will respond that because God is necessarily good, he will not issue command which will be truly wicked . A command may appear to be wicked, but in the grand scheme of things any command of God will result in the well being of the person if obediently carried out. But to see and experience that faith is required!