Under Ram Rajya, the ruler derives the moral authority to rule from the consent of the subjects. This sounds wonderful, but people fail to realise that legitimacy is derived from adherence to the truth, and not from popular support.
Ram Rajya meant that the vocal disapproval of a single washerman led to Ram abandoning Sita, without bothering to examine the truth or the facts.
Today, the vocal disapproval of Prakash Karat has led to the government abandoning the nuclear deal, despite the obvious benefits. We have finally achieved Ram Rajya. Manmohan Singh has accomplished what the BJP failed to do.
this reminds me of the knights in shining armour- chivalry may have originated then as a concept- but they were more infamous for raping maidens in countrysides, looting & pillaging, Hagar the Horrible style.
so “truth” is independent of popular opinion?
Hawkeye,
yes.
Nupur,
these days of course rape and pillage is more associated with Kodhi and Skimpy than knights in shining armour.
has something become a “truth” independent of/not as a direct consequence of/ prior to somebody expressing his/her opinion on it?
2+2=4, even if someone is of the opinion that 2+2=5.
aadishtan,
you are answering the wrong question.
long before 2 + 2 = 4 was comon sense and part of basic mathematics. in fact long before mathematics was a field in any form/language ->
There was this guy who had an opinion that number system should be in place. So he invented ‘2’. And then came the guy who had an opinion that things within the number systems should be aggregatable. So he invented ‘+’ and that guy said 2 + 2 = 4. Many people then wondered about his opinions and concepts. Slowly many other people expressed opinions that this made sense. So then a lot of guys who mattered expressed an opinion favoring the idea. And so over centuries and centuries of such opinions and more opinions based on it -> 2 + 2 = 4 became a ‘truth’.
to illustrate my point; in C++ under the concept of “operator overloading” you can modify ‘+’ to mean something else -> 2 + 2 can = 5 and can still be considered as ‘truth’. your computer works on such truths. truth is perspective. a very very popular opinion.
‘truth’ follows opinion.
since i’ve time to kill.
‘+’ is very symbolic and represents particular kind of aggregation. it popularly represents the simple ‘addition’ but need not represent that as a rule. You yourself may have defined f(+) = arbit_things in your 11th std math and used ‘+’ to mean funny things. those are not false.
to move from abstract to specific
/*Ram Rajya meant that the vocal disapproval of a single washerman led to Ram abandoning Sita, without bothering to examine the truth or the facts. */
I suspect by ‘truth’ you mean the answer to “did ravana molest sita?”. lats call that ‘truth A’. While Tulsi and Valiki have differing view points on it, that is unfortunately the irrelevant truth.
If my interpretation of Ramayana is correct, whatever it does or does not do, it shows Rama to at least be a rigorous/consistent/proactive interpreter of the Ksathriya Dharma (a derivative of Manu Shastra). i.e if he had to wipe out Dasaratha/lakshmana/bharatha/kausalya to uphold dharma, he will do it. What did the washerman say? He said ” every body is saying Sita was molested. they are just afraid to say it to Rama “. Rama then calls Lakshmana to inquire if everybody is indeed saying this. Lakshmana unwillingly accepts the ‘truth’ that people do talk about it. Rama knows the ‘truth A’ you are referring to. He has a signed notarized document by Mr. Agni attesting to ‘truth A’.
But Manu’s code bases truth on people’s popular opinion. If people opined that a woman has been “touched” by someone other than her husband then she is banished (truth B). Rama proactive ensured the code was followed even if the people’s opinion existed in subtance and not in very vocal form. Once he ensured truth B existed, sita was banished. regardless of whether you agree/disagree with the code, the pertinent question is ‘was the code implemented faithfully?’
Manu’s opinion on truth maybe different from the opinion of people who framed IPC/constitution. but finally its someone’s opinion that determines the truth.
i dont follow politics but i suspect prakash karat is the washerman letting manmohan know that he may fail a potential no-confidence motion.
truth follows popular opinion.