Ram and Rationality in Indian society

Two of the most controversial subjects in today’s India are Ram and Rationality.  While Hindu texts impress that both are inclusive, some political groupings adjudge that they are mutually exclusive phenomenon.
The point was brought out today morning when I was in the market trying to bargain with a vegetable vendor.  Nearby were two respected citizens, one of whom I understand is (? used to be ?) an important cog in wheel at the seat of power - which by the way is back at Fort St. George in Chennai and another guy who seemed to have all the right answers.

Their discussion was on 3 heads:

• the Madras High Court stay on the proposed amendment (and postponement) of the ‘samacheer kalvi’ (Uniform School Syllabus Act, 2010) by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and the expected appeal (today) in the Supreme Court against the High Court order.
• the bail plea of Ms. Kanimozhi presently in the Tihar prison for her alleged role in the 2G spectrum scam.
• that the PM did not vote in the 2011 Assembly elections in Assam.

While the discussion was a hotchpotch of these issues which went back and forth, let me try a coherent summary.

• the non voting by the PM in the assembly elections. 
• The wise one took the view that it was almost a crime for the PM not to vote; that he was shirking his electoral duty. 
• To which the smart one countered, that he was not much enamored of many of the actions by this PM, but in his opinion, it would be wrong to suggest that voting in an election is a ‘duty’. 
• He explained that voting in an election is a ‘right’ accorded to every citizen of India and it is just that - a right.  Whether an individual chooses to exercise that right or any other right is to be left to an individual.
• In his view, the voting right can be inferred as implied in the Fundamental Right to Expression, guaranteed by the Constitution and similarly the decision not to vote is also an implied Right to Expression.  Even if voting is considered a duty, ‘Duties’ themselves were not originally envisioned in the Constitution, but are the result of the 42nd amendment in 1972 and even then, (like Directive Principles) are non-justiciable.  The Duties (and Directive Principles) are obligatory, but are not legally enforceable. 
• (The smart one also had the view that this point being overlooked while suits are filed left, right and centre for allegedly demeaning the national symbols or flag is a matter for concern - especially since the Judiciary, the guardians of the Constitution,  have not yet made this difference very clear)
• the expected appeal in the Supreme Court in the matter of Uniform School Syllabus Act (USE) and the bail plea of Ms. Kanimozhi.
• The wise one was perturbed at (his grapevine) news that the Supreme Court, being in summer vacation for a month or so may not post the USE case for hearing soon.  His contention was that while an individual’s (Ms. Kanimozhi’s) plea for bail is due to be taken up by the Court today, it is not correct that a matter of importance to the State Government may not be taken up (again as per his grapevine).
• The smart one countered that this too was due to the lack of understanding the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as stated in the Constitution of India.  The Right to liberty is a Fundamental Right accorded to Ms. Kanimozhi (or anyone else) and the Courts naturally have to accord preference to such a plea.
• He enumerated that the TN Govt. appeal is a subject matter under the Directive Principles and may or may not be accorded preference as per the Court’s discretion.  As explained, the Directive Policies are non-justiciable.
• As the discussion meandered on the wise retorted that Ms. Kanimozhi cannot be termed totally innocent and that her bail plea has been denied earlier by the Delhi High Court stating there are enough legal reasons for keeping her in custody.  His argument was that when the Delhi High Court had already decided on her alleged culpability, she doesn’t have a good leg to stand on in calling or asking for precedence in bail plea.
• This is when I heard the best counter ever in the discussion.  The smart one asked, ‘Hasn’t the Madras High Court given its decision against the TN Govt. on the USE issue?  If Ms. Kanimozhi is expected to adhere to Delhi High Court, why is not the wise one arguing that the TN Govt. should adhere to the Madras High Court?’

By this time, I had no more cause, excuse or bargain to linger over the vegetables and had to reluctantly leave off the eavesdropping and come home - certainly speechless.

It seemed to me that even persons supposedly in the know or stroll along in the corridors of power do not have a clear idea on the Constitution and the rights, duties and directive principles.  Listening to the discussion, I was astounded as to the knowledge of the smart one and the lack thereof of the wise one and how people still make decisions and judgements based on emotion rather than rationality.  No wonder that we have so many problems, actually SNAFUs (Situation Normal All eFfed Up), today.
8-(

BTW if you are wondering what this has to do with Ram (Lord Ram), it was what Mr. M. Karunanidhi, the former CM and father of Ms. Kanimozhi was supposed to have said yesterday ‘It was during 14 years of vanvas that Lord Ram taught a lesson to Demon Tadaka’. 

AFAIK, Ram was supposed to have killed Tadaka as a youngster while out assisting the sage Viswamitra, several years before his vanvas.  Strange that the octogenarian who is known to adhere to rationality said something illogical.

---