Most of the literate people themselves wouldn’t be able to differentiate between these two. If the literate themselves do not know the difference, what kind of an informed ‘choice’ are the balance 30% going to make at the time of voting in a Democracy?
Should they know the difference? If the people knew the difference, would their choice be any different? In case it is different, on what count, would it be different? Yes, I guess.
Firstly, through Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the Executive power of the States is defined. This is merely to carve out the areas in which the State could exclusively act, those areas where it has to act along with the Union, and those areas which are outside its scope.
If we read Article 53 of the Constitution, the Executive Power would not be thus circumscribed as the Parliament has the Residual powers, as such the Executive Power cannot be circumscribed or defined, as the Parliament is empowered to act in areas unenvisaged as yet, but provided for a contingent situation.
Therefore, the True meaning of ‘Executive Power’ has to be discovered from Art 162 only. Which is ‘Executive Power is coextensive with the Legislative power within its competency’.
162. Extent of executive power of State.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws:
53. Executive power of the Union.
(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.
I’ve reproduced part of the two Articles for reference and it can be noticed that the Executive Power of the Union is not clearly defined, as the wordings of the Article would have become clumsy if one had to detail the residual powers also.
Therefore, for the understanding of a layman like me, the Executive Power of any authority would be circumscribed by the Legislative Power it has been vested with under the Constitution.
So, what is the difference?
Aristotle said this:
‘It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens’ and upon evolution of this idea through Locke and Dicey we have the Rule of Law.
But Laws have to be made by human beings and that body of Human beings are the Legislators. It is they who are required to be elected in our great Indian democracy. We don’t elect Executives, we elect only Legislators. Or to put it even more lucidly, we elect the Law Makers and not the Ministers.
The Ministers are a body of Legislators who enjoy the majority support of the Legislature, whether it be the Parliament or the Assembly. These Ministers are the ones who perform the Executive functions in the name of the President or the Governors.
Therefore, when we elect, we elect people to do the primary function of making laws. These laws cannot be discriminatory and should have universal applicability with reasonable exceptions carved out as mentioned in the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy or even as exceptions in some of the Fundamental Rights, otherwise those Laws run the risk of being struck down as offending the Constitutional guarantees or even its Basic Structure.
So the Executive has to be a Legislator FIRST, therefore, it is imperative on the part of the electorate to decide the competency of a person as a Legislator before considering any other aspect.
If a Julius Caesar were to use his techniques he employed with the Gauls against the Romans citizens, there would be order and peace for a while but no true Growth.
True growth means even getting to employ the differently abled and the weak into the machinery of the State or the Nation and providing them the wages not according to their productivity but according to the effort put in by them.
I am very impressed with Bharat Petroleum, as they employ persons with limited understanding to just fill gas and note the reading and collect the amount shown in the meter. The effort those young boys put in, to perform those basic functions are no less contributory than the skilled workers. We, as a society have salvaged, a person from getting ghettoised and marginalised from the dungeons of his own house, where he could be seen as a burden. Having been made an earning member, Bharat Petroleum has fulfilled not CSR obligations but a duty as a member of the Society.
We need Legislators who are capable of distinguishing not on grounds of materialism like Productivity alone but providing ways of livelihood for the deprived and the disabled, without compromising on recognising and fostering Merit and the Meritorious.
When we understand this we will not turn to Legislators who make rabble rousing speeches but to those Legislators who are capable of taking other Legislators along on a sane and fair path to make Laws and find ways to implement the same justly.
Voting is a Right in a Democracy, but to vote rightly is merely an option. Don’t waste it.
Archive for April, 2019
Saul, the King of Israel was after David, his son-in-law. David was sore afraid of Saul, as the whole state machinery was put after David to the extent that David tells Saul’s son Jonathan ‘there is but a step between me and death’!
Even David, so wise and skilled couldn’t withstand the onslaught of the machinery that was set upon by Saul that he decided and migrated his family to the land of Moab. Before David found favour with the king of Moab, David landed up at the palace of Achish, the King of Gath, one of the conglomerates of the Philistines. David was mortally stricken when he was presented before Achish that he feigned madness, and found his escape by a disgusted Achish.
David was able to escape because he was assisted by Jonathan, the son of Saul. Had not Jonathan assisted David, in probability, Saul and Abner would have overtaken David.
Saul was so upset that none who belonged to his own tribe of Benjamin, showed him that his own son Jonathan was in league with David.
The following passage reflects the Loser in Saul.
“Then Saul said unto his servants that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundred”.
Saul’s position as the King of Israel had given him the ability to apportion lands and other resources, which Saul had been whimsically apportioning among his own Tribe of Benjamin.
Saul relies on the Benjamites to inform Saul of the doings and affiliations of David. Basically, Saul expected his tribesmen to give him clue of the life of David and Saul feels that the Benjamites has let him down.
Firstly, that Saul as the King by distributing the resources of his kingdom would be able to buy the LOYALTY of people was erroneous.
Secondly, by distributing such largess to his Tribe, they were DUTY BOUND to inform Saul, was downright stupid.
Thirdly, by thinking that since David was from the other Tribe of Judah, people from Benjamin Tribe wouldn’t sympathise with David’s cause, is a loser’s premise.
Fourthly, that the intangibles like Loyalty, Insider information would be forthcoming only from because of tribal affinity is proven wrong immediately after this verse. It is an Edomite called Doeg, who sneaks on David’s meeting with Ahimelech, the priest at Nob.
It is only a person with information who can share it, irrespective of whether he was a Benjamite or not. In this case it happened to be an Edomite.
The loyalty bought with State’s resources neither got Saul the loyalty of his tribesmen nor the intelligence of the whereabouts of David.
It was this attitude of Saul, that he could BUY the loyalty & information by REWARDING HIS OWN TRIBE by distributing the State’s resources is the greatest flaw. His Tribesmen think it is a matter of RIGHT to be given that largesse. In any case, Saul was NOT PAYING anything out of his own sweat or tears or blood, which makes Saul a cheat, who is merely putting his hand into the till of the National Resources and distributing.
The down fall of Saul was immense. He was so interested in the outcome of his wars, that he went to the extent of getting a Necromancer to raise up Samuel to divine for Saul. The ominous prognosis was “to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me:” – what a terrible thing to hear, from the dead Samuel!
To submit to the limitations of a human being is the true crown of a King. To be just in the distribution of the national resources is the sceptre of righteousness. Gathering information somehow, like Saul, from the dead, takes the seeker there.
Kings beware! Power has its limitation only in two ways:
0. in its supply- when it would be cut off -is known to none.
0. One’s own mortality.
Any kid regular to the Sunday School would know who Mordecai was, especially with reference to the Book of Esther of the Old Testament of the Bible.
But who was Memucan?
If there is one person other than Mordecai who should be given credit for raising Esther to that position, it should go to Memucan.
Memucan got that place vacated, which was filled in by Esther. If the vacancy hadn’t risen to start with, all the labour of Mordecai in having raised his Neice Esther, the way she turned out, would have been in vain.
In the third year of the reign of Ahasuerus, the King who ruled from Ethiopia to India, the King had a feast and when his heart was merry with wine on the 7th day of the feast, the king sent his 7 chamberlains to fetch Queen Vashti with the royal crown. Vashti had been throwing parties all these 7 days in her own palace too. When she was called on the 7th day, she refused and Ahasuerus burnt with anger.
He called his 7 princes and asked them to tender their advice for his consideration. The 7th Prince of the 7 Princes was Memucan.
Memucan and the other six of the 7 Princes knew the times and were wise. Memucan’s first advice was that Vashti shouldn’t go ever before the presence of Ahasuerus. The second suggestion was that a new girl/ woman be found for the King as a replacement for Vashti.
What happened thereafter each Bible reading person would know, but this blog is focussed on the issue How Advice of advisors transform into a Law of the Perses and Medes – unchangeable and irrevocable.
Esther enters the trial nuptial bed of Ahasuerus in the 7th year of his reign. Rest is history.
Ahasuerus issues two orders, one is that Vashti is banished from his presence forever and one better be sought as replacement; the other being that every man should bear rule in his own house.
This Memucan, whether he knew Justice or not, I know not, but sure he knew the Times. And this Memucan knew the art of self promotion – he created an opportunity to get rid of an intractable mare Ahasuerus was stuck with and devised a great plan for providing sexual fodder for the King perennially for the next four years. It isn’t a joke that Esther’s turn came in the 7th year of the reign of Ahasuerus. The decree was passed in the third year – Ahasuerus’ search for a Queen ended after four years of relentless nuptial nights, with no repeats, probably‼️
I have no sympathy for Vashti, she owed, if not obedience to the call of Ahasuerus, at least a credible explanation.
Or was she threatened by the presence of those intimidating 7 chamberlains, one of them, Harbonah, who in the latter chapters covers the face of Haman and bundles Haman out of the bed of Esther. Or was Vashti busy enjoying herself in the feast from her own palace ignorant of the ire that her attitude might trigger in Ahasuerus. Or was it a palace intrigue to decimate Vashti for some oblique reason?
But Memucan’s presumption that a Royal decree of the supremacy of a man in his own house, would rein in all intractable behaviour of their respective wives, seems to be not a solution laid on sound foundation. Probably, that kind of application on a mass scale was the only solution, when one makes laws for such a huge country.
If any reader discovers where that Sushan Palace existed, he should share it with me so that we could go thereabouts and look for the grave of Memucan and build a memorial for that male chauvinist – who succeeded in getting such a decree issued under the unchangeable law of the Medes & Perses‼️
They are all great writers from different vocations, but they look at Life from a perspective which is seldom viewed and rarely expressed with such felicity.
They make you Think, they don’t just lead you, if at all they lead, they lead you to review your own prejudices. Leaders are dangerous, whether they lead by example or authority or by deceptive words, because they make you Follow. They don’t even allow you the luxury of deceiving yourself into believing that you are following your own fancy.
There is no more rebirths coming up for me, at least I subscribe to that religious belief, so why waste this one by merely following someone or someone’s ways or ideas, when, I believe, there is boundless God given Liberty?
Rights are inferior to Liberty. Rights seeks equality with someone or something, Liberty knows no bounds – it is our own limitation which circumscribes our limits. Humans build on the knowledge of the previous generations and explore areas beyond what the previous generation was capable of – merely because every succeeding generation does NOT bind itself within the limits of the previous generation.
It is not a single man’s effort like Daedalus’ wings, the limitations of which cannot be conveyed to the Icaruses of the succeeding generation. The human compendium of knowledge in technology is thorough in what it knows and what it assumes and what it doesn’t know. That knowledge is applied and tested through appliances and other products by each generation and built through the touchstone of Efficacy.
Imagination is good for one who Attempts or Does, but for others it is onanism of one’s Time. Better to have a plough to your hand than to have a pillow to your head.
These three lead one to Liberty, they don’t purvey any false hopes and lead you on- they just show that you can dare to think differently.
In the land of the slaves there can be Rights, but no Liberty. Liberty is God ordained – anyone who leads you to that outer space to sniff at Liberty is a greater writer than one who persuades you with authority, or seduces you with rewards, or activates you with hopes of unverifiable and intangible hereafter.