The DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE, derives from the COMMON LAW of England, where any person holding an office in the service of the crown, would hold such post till the CROWN was pleased with his services. Which means when the Crown of England ceased to be pleased with the services of the Official in His Majesty’s service, his services could be TERMINATED, REDUCED IN RANK or REMOVED. This whole thing was arbitrary and most of the times there were no reasons given for such reduction in rank, removal or termination in service.
With the dawn of DEMOCRACY, this PLEASURE doctrine was subjected to certain procedures so that the INDIVIDUAL is safeguarded against the ARBITRARY action of the Crown, which was mostly carried out by the STAFF (alias the kitchen cabinet) of the CROWN. It was with great travail that this pleasure doctrine was altered by the parliament and the CONSTITUTION of India (hereinafter referred to as COI) had adopted the PLEASURE DOCTRINE with certain procedural safeguards (Article 311- in respect of the Union and State civil servants).
These safeguards have been secured after seeing the plight of many civil servants who had been the victim of the conspiracies and political expediencies in the Administration in India by the British. The constituent assembly debates during the deliberations on this topic would bear me out. In the COI, there are constitutional posts which go beyond the PLEASURE PRINCIPLE, such as the Supreme Court and High Court Justices (Arts. 124 & 148(2) respectively), Chief Election Commissioner(Art.324), Chairman & Members of the Public Service Commissions(Art.317). They do not labour under the PLEASURE PRINCIPLE as they are required to discharge their constitutional obligations without fear or favour and also to afford them the security of tenure so that they do not fear the then powers, however they could be IMPEACHED by the parliament.
FEUDALISM as defined by WIKIPEDIA is not merely succinct, but extremely precise and i cannot think of a better way to explain it than reproduce it:-
The PLEASURE DOCTRINE has been refined to ensure that an Individual and his LIBERTIES are not strapped through removal from service without reasonable grounds. But FEUDALISM, survives because a weak MONARCHY has to make an attempt to control the REALM THROUGH RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH REGIONAL LEADERS!!
So, when we CLONE both these concepts, we revert back to IMPERIALISM. The type from which, through conscious effort we have rescued a NATION and have secured the LIBERTY to the MAN as an INDIVIDUAL, giving him the RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION, enshrined in our COI as a Fundamental Right.
We have the minister of state Mr. Sashi Tharoor, who in response to a tweet, responds in a way which is likely to be interpreted as offensive to the travelers of the ECONOMY CLASS in the various Airlines of India. Now did he not have the liberty to reply to a pointed query, which is merely visible to the TWITTERING public? YES HE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. A funny question demands a funny response, and in my opinion he had responded APTLY.
But as a minister of the Government, should he have moderated his reply? NO, he has rightly exercised his option as an Individual and taken full liberty to not only express an Idea, but also his FEELINGS. I am sure that he had responded knowing fully well that a TWITTER in English is open only to the English KNOWING masses. But when half-baked pundits in English translate it into the various REGIONAL LANGUAGES and the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE of the Union, it could sound different. In the CATTLE CLASS comment, the statement becomes derogatory if the passengers are called thus, but if the interpretation is about the airlines which treat its Economy class passengers as herds, it is an indictment on the AIRLINES.
Why do we have to take the FIRST interpretation and not the SECOND? BECAUSE WE HATE THE TRUTH. SECONDLY, WE AS A PEOPLE APPREHEND THAT OTHERS ARE ALL MAKING MOCKERY OF US!!
The irony of it all is that instead of diverting the attention of the public and giving the benefit of doubt to the Minister, the spokespersons have concreted the FIRST interpretation, to be the meaning of the tweet! Alas, it is the same party which had GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS to give unimaginably fantastic interpretations when it comes to the gaffes of their first family and make those gaffes as inane comments that were said in utter INNOCENCE. But why in this case, have the spokespersons not risen to the occasion? Simple, Sashi Tharoor is not a political heavy weight. He comes from a state that merely returns 20 Lok Sabha seats and he himself after trailing mostly, won the seat by a thin margin of 50k votes. If Karunakaran could be treated the way he has been- who is Sashi Tharoor?
The Prime Minister has given the best interpretation and calling the CATTLE CLASS comment of Sashi Tharoor as having been said in a JOKING TONE. And he is right. It needs a mature person to understand the context and the person to whom the statement is uttered. NOT EVERYTHING HEARD BY US ( EVEN IF IT WERE TO BE ABOUT US), IF IT IS NOT ADDRESSED TO US, CAN BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF, THAT IS CULTURE.
TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, THE FEUDAL LORD OF RAJASTHAN, INSTEAD OF EDUCATING THE POPULATION OF HIS STATE IN ENGLISH, SAYS THAT IT IS BUT NATURAL FOR THE MINISTER TO RESIGN!! WHAT GUMPTION!! AND IT IS SECONDED BY THE PARTY’S SPOKESPERSON-LOL.
IT IS HERE WE ARE STILL LABOURING UNDER THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE OF FEUDALISM. How could we control the other regions without heeding to their “reciprocal arrangements” reached by the party with the “regional leaders” who send 25 MPs to the Lok Sabha? So when Ghelot says that Sashi Tharoor has to quit, the side singers give a drawl in tune with that regional leader.
After all 25 is more than 20? Ain’t it INDIANS?
IT IS TIME WE STOOD UP TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES, IF NOT TO THE INALIENABLE HUMAN LIBERTIES GRANTED BY GOD.