Sunday, 23 August 2015

Are our institutions really sacrosanct?

Ever since we are small toddlers plodding to the school every single day with huge tomes on our backs, we have been taught to literally revere and exalt a few institutions. The list of these institutions starts with a handful including the very school as a tangible institution, followed by the more intangible institutions of discipline, prayer, the education system, and when we're capable enough to be fed with it, we're inundated with praise and eulogy for the all encompassing institutions enshrined by the constitution. So this includes the more manifested and visible ones like the parliament, the positions, the courts and the civilian institutions enforced by the former. And it also includes the more inhered elements like rights and duties. Hence essentially, we are made replete in terms of our basic allegiance and subservience to all such institutions which we're never even allowed to question the veracity of. Instead, we are being told that they are the gospel truth; completely indispensable and so hallowed that one who doesn't feel their aura, is deemed to be doomed! So after having lived a substantial portion of my life with these beliefs, I suddenly felt a satyriasis to question these institutions, at least in my own mental mausoleum. 

Consider the school and its various tenets. While knowledge and wisdom are all too powerful to even preclude a discourse on whether an institution propounding them could ever be questioned, but are our schools really doing what's expected out of them? The schools do it right in terms of informing the pupils about the glorious past of the country and individuals who really changed the course of history. However, heralding contributions of some individuals as prolific and slandering that of others as heinous is not warranted! That is the job of the pupil, who if he/she is nurtured with proper education to finally possess the quality of objectively viewing any historical information with a valid pretext, substantiated with accurate and unfettered sources of authentic and accurate information, shall be able to form his/her own mental picture. The purpose of our schools is to cultivate a tradition of allowing students to develop an independent thought process and intellect. What our schools end up doing instead, is to force students to gormandize historical facts topped with opinions of a person who penned down the content, with his/her own mental whims and fancies dictating what is being finally said about an event or a person. 


This is in complete disregard of the purpose of schools to promote thought. The schools in fact deter any development of a thought process that may have otherwise bloomed to some extent without schooling if the student was allowed an open atmosphere to breathe, think and contemplate, which schools leave them bereft of. What's worth noting is that this is rather deliberate. Education is under the direct suzerainty and reign of the parliament, which is another institution, the most supreme and apex! And hence it's prudent to look at our education as just an element of sleight, legerdemain, deception and force feeding used by the forerunners of the parliament to protect the validity of their own institution. Because the day the youth of the country is allowed to form an independent opinion on their own, maybe the current parliament would find it a little too difficult to prevent the toppling of it's bulwark - the errant education system that produces minnows and lackeys. 

Now consider the institution of prayer. While praying in schools is all about pleading to the gods for ensconcing and imbibing honesty, virtue and other principles while the student wades through the school and the formative years. This concept in itself fallacious because it demands a default driveling in front of someone, which is once again force feeding the basic concept imbued through all major religions. Hence schools in essence are making pupils ready to accept their own religions subsequently, as opposed to them being provided with that mental acumen to question a faith before adopting it, which otherwise would have been the case when major world religions would have been new.


However, with time major world religions gained prominence and every country went on to have a cornerstone religion, whose maxims and adages became sacrosanct. And as parliaments of these countries became represented largely by members of major religious sects, all having obsequious and unflinching regard for the almighty as one core principle, prayers in the school, became a premise and a necessary precondition for prayers to be carried out in shrines later on. And the latter was absolutely essential for the common people - the proletariat, to believe that their religion is being protected by their own nobles in the parliament, and this made everyone feel sanguine. If the parliament were to pass a decree tomorrow saying no school shall have any prayers in any form, most countries shall find themselves on the brink of the most massive anti incumbency rampage. Hence in reality, the institution of prayer is largely expounded by the institution of parliament, so that the latter can continue to protect it's balustrade. 

Before this post becomes a litany in itself, let's consider the institution of the parliament itself. While we may abhor or aggrandize a particular parliament and a particular cabinet of ministers, we are told to venerate and literally fondle the idea of the institution of the parliament. The parliament in essence decimates the concept of aristocratic hegemony and vexing filial supremacy and even plutocracy, and in that regard the parliament is undoubtedly egalitarian. However, the parliament as an institution in itself is not infallible and all powerful enough not to be viewed as being apocryphal. While the courts can bring sub-judice the conduct of any particular parliament, however even they have to bow and stoop in front of the parliament as an institution. So in essence, the parliament is at the zenith of all institutions, which also directs, decrees and monitors the creation, existence and extirpation of all other institutions. All of this insinuates absolute certitude of the parliament being the all powerful, and a stolid manifestation of the almighty on the planet earth. I find it rather ridiculous. 

The parliament from the very beginning is an esoteric phenomenon full of caveats that allow for the most incendiary hara-kari. So unless someone has the magic wand which ensures that every member elected to the parliament is an able statesman, the parliament is the biggest contradiction which exists. On one hand, majority is mandated for legislation to be passed, and on the other hand, people are expected to elect a parliament that has an apt and just representation which denudes any party the kind of thumping majority that can make everything possible. So this party shall now seek coalition, crookedness and connivance in the same order, till it finally gets its legislation passed. Hence an able and adroit statesman who has one helluva bill in mind has to stoop and grovel first in front of his own party, and then in front of the house, which is largely comprised of similar minions who wouldn't accept any rational view of this bill and provision, because they themselves would have, or would envisage their own bill failing to pass in the house, owing to lack of support from others. 


Hence the parliament as an institution might be full of supposed rectitude, but lacks the fecundity of intellect and rationale which might allow the better provisions to be passed. On the other hand, a powerful and influential crackpot may find himself in a position wherein he can ingratiate the members of the house and get even a phony bill passed. And at the end of the day, the dire and repugnant repercussions of that legislation cannot be attributed to this one single assailant because the house passes the bill. Hence responsibility and accountability have gone for a toss already. So in essence, if the nation is not capable, aware, privy and powerful enough to send the right representatives to the parliament, the house becomes no more than a motley of lunatics and cretins suppressing a handful of zealots, in what becomes a menagerie, a mockery of the very idea of democracy. 

Now while all these institutions have had their place in where the human race is today, we might have as well been many centuries ahead if some of them were not there. It's not about holding grudges against these institutions in particular, but about being allowed to question them from time to time. The premise of the institution being above the individual is absolutely right, but just because an institution was once established does not allude that it will stand the test of time. Man devises institutions and very well possesses the power to decimate and annihilate them. And it's worthy to note that various institutions as are present today were once considered abominable by the opponents who were a larger kindred stock. But sooner than later, opinions polarized and the institutions came into place. So no institution should ever be considered in a rather indispensable light. Any institution can have anomalies which might surface decades and centuries later. By suppressing and castigating any opposition for the institution, we prevent the institution from getting rid of that aberration, causing the rage, anxiety and the final carnage which ruthlessly bring down the institution and produce a cataclysm with the absence of any substitute. While if we had allowed the institution to be questioned, we might have probably got our faith in the same reaffirmed. But alas! Any institution has to be impregnable, unfettered and unsullied, by default, with none expect for a handful of the originators knowing that it may not have been an institution to begin with!