Economy

Market believes in centralisation of wealth and the philosophy it propagates justifies competition, conflict, crisis and its natural culmination in destruction. Before it reaches the natural culmination, it rewards a mighty person who establishes his authority over the meek. The might always believe in giving commands and it demands others to take in commands. An economically centralised world demands the economically weaker sections to take its commands and to lead a sub servant life to the economically stronger. Naturally, any system that believes in culmination of money cannot believe in co-operation and consensus. The market economy which is founded upon competition and establishment of the economic power over the economically challenged section can never think of democracy, because the basic principles of democracy are consensus, co-existence and co-operation. It is clear that a market economy cannot maintain democracy at political level and equality at social level. In such a setup, we cannot even imagine of a dialogue between the more polarised groups in a society. That is, economic segmentation and resulting polarisation can lead to the formation of island like groups in a society which are totally cut off from all mutual communication links. He who believes that in market economy one would be able to practice democracy is really in the grip of Maya. Such a person cannot enjoy happiness because there will be constant conflict in his inner as well as outer spheres of existence. Therefore, a person who believes in equality at social level, democracy at political level and co-operation at economic level has to experience ‘ananda’. Democracy can be effective only if the subjects are prepared to be regulated by themselves. If individuals refuse to be regulated by themselves, then the practise of democracy becomes a false. Voluntary submission to law can be interpreted as one among the measurable parameters of effective democracy. But if one submits to law because of some sort of external force and if the same person violates law due to internal instincts or in the absence of the presence of that external law enforcement agency, then there would be a contradiction in terms. That is, a person who submits to law due to pressure form external forces and violates law because of the unregulated inner instincts, creates direct conflict between the internal and the external. In such a situation, that person conceals what is real in internal life and projects something that is contradictory to the internal face. The concealment of the real and the projection of the unreal have often been located as the hall marks of maya. This contradiction has been narrated as hypocrisy and hypocrisy has been adjudged as one of the important weaknesses of any democratic practise, because there is no specific system of law to punish a hypocrite. An example that can be sited from the Indian context is the discretion on the basis of caste. External observances of caste discrimination is a crime according to law but the internal practise of caste discrimination cannot be seen dictated by the investigating agencies and convicted by the court of law. This social context which is quite common in almost all Indian states has still been treated as a complicated social problem to be resolved. But unfortunately, the maya ridden social context never permits us neither to resolve the issue nor to adopt a different path of life. A different path of life is essential, but to clean the polluted social context in a democratic set up shall never be an easy one. We have to cleanse the psychic apparatus of each individual. That is why Mahatma has made it clear that politics without spirituality is disastrous. The spirituality to be practised in political life can be attained only by rigorous practise of religious vows such as ‘satya’ (truth) and ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). So, the moment one experiences ‘ananda’ (bliss), he should be able to shed off the crisis, conflict and confusion emerging out of maya. Therefore, it is a political as well as a personal necessity to remove maya as a prelude to the enjoyment of ‘ananda’.