Pride is Concerned with Who is Right, Humility is Concerned with What is Right - Ezra Taft Benson
One of the characteristics in Christ's approach to decision-making can be better understood by reading the above proverb, and reflecting on the same. Whenever he handled a situation, he never looked at who is involved in the matter, but rather at what the matter entailed. And so we find many Samaritans / Gentiles and even sinners justified in His presence, while those in the self-righteous system of 'status quo is better' category find themselves at the receiving end of His rile. Even the top apostles including Peter, John, James, Thomas, etc. also are not spared from His straight talking Ways. And rightfully so, since this was always meant to help them rise up higher than to undermine them, or deceive them into living a life of blissful ignorance.
On the other hand, modern times have almost altogether obliterated this Servant Leadership that Christ embodied throughout His Life. In its place what we find today is a Mai-Baap culture / system that demands the oppressed class (read, common man) to actually look up to an ethically compromised system with awe. Promises are made by much of the politicians simply to break them, without much seriousness or intent towards fulfilment. In fact, much of them have become masters in only thinking of what good (mostly votes, of course) they can extract from others, instead of thinking about what they can do for others. On my part, while I have been silently optimistic about the Congress being different at least at the top, I am not one who can remain endlessly patient with politicians. For, the poor lady whom the AAP helped lately can well be a case in point on the kinds of treatment meted out on the common man. Here is the link.
In fact, as stated in my previous message, there is a need for the common man to closely examine the speeches of political figures in order to avoid falling into pitfalls. Having examined the US President's speech earlier, this time our Indian President's speech made on the eve of Republic Day appears to be in order. Here is the same for ready reference.
To start with, while the BJP President welcomed the above speech of the Indian President, I am of the view that there were plenty of reasons to raise the red flag on matters that he brought up - including the point on "populist anarchy" to describe AAP. In fact, one got the impression that his speech has only managed to undermine the dignity of the Constitutional position to which he has assumed office. For, he sounded more like being the President of yet another political party who is out to score a few points.
Anyway, specific to the "populist anarchy" point, the red flag is appropriate because the Delhi CM is correct in mentioning that the Indian Constitution does not bar the CM from protesting on any issue that he might consider worth protesting. Further, there cannot be any denying that the very basis of the AAP is that it closely relates with issues that affect the aam aadmi. And thus the AAP has only remained relevant to the image upon which it has swept to power in Delhi. From a Christian standpoint, the concept of Servant Leadership would have demanded AAP to do something when the common man approaches it with issues. How far this Servant Leadership approach remains relevant is of course another question. After all, can there be any doubt about the relatively poor standards of policing across the nation when it comes to meeting the needs of the common man?
Further, tucked away towards the end of the speech was another point worth quoting - "Mavericks who question the integrity of our armed services are irresponsible and should find no place in public life." Frankly this has made me wonder whether my concerns which I had recently brought to the attention of his office (again) as well was what prompted him to use the word "maverick". As such, the question is - can self-defense against organized stalking and electronic harassment be termed as being irresponsible? If non-lethal weapons such as neurophone, etc. are being used even by the armed services, and such weapons are part of the electronic harassment, is that the fault of the survivor / victim? Is fighting for basic privacy rights and Freedom of Thought irresponsible, Mr. President? Is expecting discontinuation of brain-to-brain links with the intent of spoiling relationships of the targeted individual with others something which borders on irresponsibility? By the way, the mind control technology has the ability to mimic a person's voice - which means that unscrupulous operators among say the National Security Agency (NSA) doing a psyops on a targeted individual could mimic this individual's voice and use, say, foul language to spoil the victim's relationship with others. And so, in the process both the victim and all those to whom his voice / thoughts are broadcasted gets targeted. Is fighting against such a situation being irresponsible?
Given the above, I think our President needs to know what irresponsibility means. It is being the Commander-In-Chief of the armed services (including intelligence apparatus) and not knowing what harm dual use non-lethal technology can do to the basic human rights of citizens of India. Irresponsibility is not worrying about putting in place ample checks and balances for such technology with adequate oversight and governance audits. Irresponsibility is not using strong diplomatic means to restrain countries like the US from harassing Indians - but instead, conveniently choosing to look the other way. By the way, from a Christian standpoint, the victims (of Satan) in the story of the Good Samaritan are the Priest and Levite; not the wounded man. And mind well that these two people are symbolic of a heartless system that many of our politicians speak so fondly of now.
Talking of USA, there are states in USA like the State of Michigan which have laws banning electronic harassment which is Act number 256 of Public Acts for the year 2003. In fact, one will get the details from the official website of the State of Michigan by entering the Act Number and Year in the following link.
The question is - when states within USA are banning electronic harassment by enacting laws against such targeting, shouldn't the President of India be equally keen on ensuring that such a law is in place within our far more conservative nation, thus safeguarding the young and productive minds of our nation? In addition to this, I would also like to point out that organized stalking is also outlawed in USA and the Crime Statistics within USA bears out this fact. Here are a few links from official US sites to substantiate my point.
One could even download the PDF from the Official Bureau of Justice site of USA which gives details of Stalking Victims in the United States (as of September 2012).
Given the untoward events like the Nirbhaya case among others, it must be stated that the power of public office is not to reprimand / punish the innocent and weak, but to protect and safeguard them. Further, while mention is made about the "integrity of our armed services", one wonders whether sufficient thought was given to the various scam-related developments in India so far. As such, here is a list of some scams that specifically pertain to the armed forces in whose defense our constitutional figures have sprung up on the eve of Republic Day. Surely the Defence Minister will prove helpful in updating it as well.
After going through the above list, one wonders whether our President would like to continue holding on to the view about the ‘impeccable integrity’ of the armed services - who incidentally also have a duty to defend the airwaves within the territories of our nation? Also, it will be interesting to know whether there are any more defence-related scams that are yet to come to the discerning public's notice. By the way, one wonders whether that is the reason why there is a preference among some to keep "mavericks" out of public life? Insofar as a true Christian believer is concerned, the Holy Bible (in St. John 15: 18-19) states that the world hates us because we do not belong to this world. In that sense, wouldn’t a true believer need to be a maverick to depend on the Ways of Christ for guidance about what is right, and not on the ways of this world? As regards those questioning the integrity of those in the armed services, there are plenty of Constitutional authorities too who have censured it as well - such as our Supreme Court for one.
Lastly thus, many will agree that our nation is better off with sinful mavericks who promote the concept of 'What is Right' over that of 'Who is Right' - as many of those in the existing self-righteous political system might prefer. This is where eventually Public Opinion comes to the aid of the common man and promotes the common good of society, and international community at large.
Yours in Christ!