Introduction: The
Issue which triggered the thoughts:
In the
recent times there was an issue in metro city Mumbai when a state owned
corporate body was hell bent for a Metro train development project even if
close to three thousand trees are to be cut on a sensitive forest area which is
said to be lungs of the already polluted city. General people had divided and
highly politicised opinions and a couple of NGOs working for sustainable
development and environment were opposing cutting of trees for that project.
Things went in court and the Judiciary at different levels, Green tribunal and
Experts committee on environment formed by Municipality had to intervene. The
High court ruled in favour of tree cutting. Even before the petitioner could
appeal to the Supreme court, the trees were cut in the middle of night and the
place was cleared. The State chiefs and head of that Corporate body
implementing the project declared publically that they have won the ‘war’ for
the people. However, many felt that the justice was not done to the local
people and environment. Their opinion was not even considered or valued. The
smaller, poor and tribal communities depending on that forest area and the bio
system were disturbed critically by the whole issue. How somebody sitting in
the capital can sign a paper and destroy their life? The answer was because he
is representative of the people. In what way? Because it is democracy and he is
voted to power. But the vote share of his party is mere 25-30 % and it is
because only 50% population voted and also because opposition could not get
even this much individually …so the least dirty won!!
This is a
case in Mumbai recently but similar things are happening all over India or all
over the world. What happened to the communities in Amazon forest, what
happened to original people in America or in European colonies, what is root of
insurgency in Northeast India, in Naxal belts of India…the issues of local
livelihood, protection of nature and pressure to Develop the communities to
catch the already ‘Developed’ western world is apparent in every corner of the
world. The glaring gap between rulers and subjects and unrest is same
irrespective of Communist, Socialist or Capitalist model. The case is equally
applicable to businesses and corporate entities, especially to large scale,
multi national corporations. What is the optimum solution to this gap and
unrest, what can be the alternate model of management and governanace? Whether
the 5000 plus years consistently thriving culture of India can give us some
clue about it ?
We believe
that She can and She will.
They say
people get the king they deserve. They also say that in democracy we count
number of heads but nothing inside it!! Now the people in the affected area
have not even voted this centralised government but they have to suffer the
decisions taken by them due to a peculiar governance and democratic model we
have adapted. How a corporate head can say she has won the war in this case?
For their only motto is meeting deadlines, showing results, and satisfying
customers which in this case is government and not local people. They could
pump lot of money and run an aggressive campaign with government help about how
all this is done to help citizens, how tree cutting will be hugely compensated
by plantation, and moreover they said those who pretend to protect the
environment are actually having vested interests, have links with naxals , anti
state and even anti nationals and how such disruptors are paid by foreign
powers to stall every welfare project for the ‘Development’ of state and the
common people. Add to all this the social media which today is free for
expression and devoid of minimum reason and courtesy for opposite opinions.
Well!! There is truth in both the sides and both have good as well as bad
intentioned people. So such issues we cannot take side easily.
The role
and limitation of a State authority, a sovereign, rights and responsibilities
of population, were debated. The roles of corporate entity and especially the
person leading it, a State head, environmental body, local government or
municipality, block officers, forest authorities and activists and then the
traditional culturally linked tribal and forest or village level bodies to give
rules and judgements for the forest people were under scanner. Many were
involved in a highly emotive and even violent eruption in this process.
However,
the larger issue is whether such large state machineries and centralized rule
as well organizations and corporates which are highly centralized are really
the solution to such complex issues? Why do we say that there is democracy?
–people’s rule? How their respective heads and ministers or corporators,
CEOs and Managers are different from ancient centralised monarchs who enjoyed
vast influence and power over people about whom they need not be concerned and could take decisions with least
knowledge, insight and even few of them can manage to be irresponsible and
unscrupulous to the core? Are they really serving the population for better
life or we need a different model for Government as well as corporates? So many
such questions surfaced for a while in the process.
As the time
passed, the issue and the debate is now forgotten, but we intend to go deeper
in it and find the alternate solution or model of governance and management bot
as a corporate entity and as a state.
For that we are
taking the insights from The Renaissance in India and other essays (
earlier Foundations of Indian Culture,) by Sri Aurobindo, especially from
chapters on Indian Polity.
All the bullet
points are from this source, the original text in paragraph is
classified, titled and put in bullet points format and Questions and answers
style to facilitate the understanding of the issue:
The main function
of Head of the aggregate i.e. organization/ kingdom or corporate:
This means function of the political
sovereign, the king and council and the other ruling members of the body
politic, (or in a corporate world, it is top management, CEO, VP or Board of
Directors) is
·
“to serve and assist the maintenance of the sound law of life of the
society / and of corporate
·
the sovereign was the guardian and administrator of the Dharma. “
Here Dharma is much above duty and is
linked to ordained duty as per the rule of righteousness and adherence to
values, do’s and don’ts that are self-imposed in alignment with the vision and
mission, role, position and responsibility of the self , of the family and the
group or clan and guild.
The function of
the aggregate, praja or society or employees and customers is
·
“The right satisfaction of the vital, economic and other needs of the human
being
·
Satisfaction of his hedonistic claim to pleasure and enjoyment,
·
However, to do so according to their right law and measure of satisfaction
and subject and subordinated
·
And by adherence to the ethical, social and religious dharma. “
How the Dharma,
duty, abiding values and do’s or don’ts are decided for all the
members and groups of the socio-political body or industry or organization?
“It was decided by
their
·
innate nature, Swabhava
·
their position,
·
their relation-to the whole body”
And still there
was enough care taken that it won’t be just imposed mechanically from top. Rather
following were duties of the sovereign to ensure this freedom within the bonds:
o
“To assure all and facilitate as well as maintain the free and right
exercise of each one’s duty or dharma,
o
To facilitate freedom to their own natural and self-determined functioning
within their own bounds,
o
To restrain and control from any transgression, encroachment or deviation
from their right working and true limits.”
That was the
office of the supreme political authority, the sovereign in his Council aided
by the public assemblies. This is also the role of top management in an
organization or corporate along with the help of regional or functional GMs or
administrators, CMs and state assemblies or satraps.
What is over
administering / over governing/ or over managing?
Or what is
not the role of a King, Sovereign or top Management?
The king or
Chakravarty or head office or Board authority or top management should not
interfere with or encroach upon the free functioning of the smaller aggregates like
- “Shreni, guild, caste, religious community,
village, township, region, ancillary units, regional offices as far as
possible.
- This will continue till some need is pointed by
them or emergency is seen or security is threatened or general customers
or public or praja complains on serious basis.
- They will never muddle or interfere or drastically
alter the organic customs and systems of the region or province or
ancillaries
- or try to abrogate their rights, for these were
inherent and organically evolved from the roots of that
community or aggregate.”
All this is
because it is necessary to the sound exercise of the social Dharma.
All that the King
or any such top authorities mentioned above are called upon to do
was to
o
“Coordinate the activities and outputs of each smaller unit or
aggregate,
o
to exercise a general and supreme control,
o
to defend the life of the community against external attack or internal
disruption,
- to repress crime and disorder,
- to assist, promote and regulate, in its larger lines
the economic and industrial welfare,
- to see to the provision of facilities, and to use
for these purposes the powers that passed
- beyond the scope of the others.”
Governanace
/Mangement or Organizing is a very complex communal freedom and
self-determination,
- “own natural existence
- autonomous administering its own life and business,
but administering within its own
proper
limits,
- A natural demarcation of its field and limits from
the others,
- And yet the whole connected to each and each to each
other by well-understood relations,
- each a partner with the others in the powers and
duties and yet not interfering with their
work,
and not allowing any interference in executing its own laws and rules,
- joining with the others in the discussion and
the regulation of matters of a mutual or
common
interest
- represented in some way and to the degree of its
importance in the general assemblies
of
the kingdom or empire. “
The central authority
and the linkages between city based aggregates and village based
subunits:
Any government,
corporate or organization of a notable size has to deal with urban as well as
village population and there has to be some linkage between these two.
- “The Paura or metropolitan civic assembly takes care of city units and
their management and governance.
- They sat constantly in the capital town of the kingdom or empire or
the corporate entity.
- under the imperial system there were also many similar but lesser
bodies in the chief towns of the provinces, one can say ward wise,
suburban wise in the main urban body, also district wise repetition of
this pattern.
- There can be cases where an assembly of urban aggregate is existing
even though the city or UT were themselves capitals of independent
kingdoms or nations. “
A special
indigenous system of Shreni or Guild:
- “These urban bodies are in turn subordinated by regional and semi
regional local autonomous units. The most notable in them was Shreni or
Guild.
- Guild at aggregate level would constitute of representatives of the
city guilds and the various caste bodies belonging to all the orders of
the society
- The guilds and caste bodies were themselves organic self-governing
constituents with specialized skills, occupations, many times a clear
economic and social existence in the community.
- This was true at all levels from national to regional to city and the
supreme assembly of the citizens
- It is important to note here that these units were not an artificial
but an organic representation of the collective totality of the whole
organism
- It was vested with powers to govern all the life of
the city, and could be acting directly. (Page-403)
- Alternately through subordinate lesser assemblies
and administrative boards or committees of five, ten or more members, the
guilds were bound to obey by direct administration,
- They controlled and supervised the commercial,
industrial, financial and municipal affairs of the civic community.
- In addition, it was a power that had to be consulted
and could take action in the wider affairs of the kingdom, sometimes
separately and sometimes in cooperation with the general assembly,
- and its constant presence and functioning at the
capital made it a force that had always to be reckoned with by the king
and his ministers and their council.
- The guilds were counted in the political and
administrative functioning of the kingdom.
- The guilds equally were self-functioning mercantile
and industrial communal units, assembled for the discussion and
administration of their affairs and had besides their united assemblies
which seem at one time to have been the governing urban bodies.
- These guild governments, if they may so be called, —
for they were more than municipalities, —disappeared afterwards into the
more general urban body which represented an organic unity of both the
guilds and the caste assemblies of all the orders. The castes as such were
not directly represented in the general assembly of the kingdom, but they
had their place .m the administration of local affairs. (Page 407)
- The administration of these urban governments
included all works contributing to the material or other welfare of the
citizens, police, judicial cases, public works and the charge of sacred
and public places, registration, the collection of municipal taxes and all
matters relating to trade, industry and commerce.
- If the village community can be described as a
little village republic, the constitution of the township can equally be
described as a larger urban republic.
- It is significant that the Naigama and Paura
assemblies, — the guild governments and the metropolitan bodies, — had the
privilege of striking coins of their own, a power
otherwise exercised only by the monarchical heads of States and the
republics.”
(Page 408)
The system in its
ascending curve and success:
- “At the height of its evolution and in the great
days of Indian civilisation we find an admirable political system
efficient in the highest degree and very perfectly combining communal
self-government with stability and order.
- The State carried on its work administrative,
judicial, financial and protective without destroying or encroaching on
the rights and free activities of the people and its constituent bodies in
the same departments.
- The royal courts in capital and country were the
supreme judicial authority coordinating the administration of justice
throughout the kingdom, but they did not unduly interfere with the
judicial powers entrusted to their own courts by the village and urban
communes and, even, the regal system associated with itself the guild, caste
and family courts, working as an ample means of arbitration and only
insisted on its own exclusive control of the more serious criminal
offences. (Page-412)
- A similar respect was shown to the administrative
and financial powers of the village and urban communes. The king’s
governors and officials in town and country existed side by side with the
civic governors and officials and the communal heads and officers
appointed by the people and its assemblies.
- The State did not interfere with the religious
liberty or the established economic and social life of the nation it
confined itself to the maintenance of social order and the provision of a
needed supervision, support, coordination and facilities for the rich and
powerful functioning of all the national activities.
- It understood too always and magnificently fulfilled
its opportunities as a source of splendid and munificent stimulation to
the architecture, art, culture, scholarship, literature already created by
the communal mind of India.
- In the person of the monarch it was the dignified
and powerful head and in the system of his administration the supreme
instrument—neither an arbitrary autocracy or bureaucracy, nor a machine
oppressing or replacing life—of a great and stable civilisation and a free
and living people.” (p 413)
The inevitable
descend and failures, the reasons and lessons for us today:
- “That endeavour, dictated by the pressure of an
immediate and external necessity, failed to achieve a complete success in
spite of its greatness and splendour.
- It could not do so because it followed a trend that
was not eventually compatible with the’ true turn of the Indian
spirit.
- It has been seen that the underlying principle of
the Indian politico-social system was a synthesis of communal autonomies,
the autonomy of the village, of the town and capital city, of the caste,
guild, family, kula, religious community, regional
unit.
- The state or kingdom or confederated republic was a
means of holding together and synthetizing in a free and living organic
system these autonomies.
- The imperial problem was to synthetize again these
states, peoples, nations, effecting their unity but respecting their
autonomy, into a larger free and living organism.
- A system had to be found that would maintain peace
and oneness among its members, secure safety against external attack and
totalise the free play and evolution, in its unity and diversity, in the
uncoerced and active life of all its constituent communal and regional
units, of the soul and body of Indian civilisation and culture, the
functioning on a grand and total scale of the Dharma.
- This was the sense in which the earlier mind of
India understood the problem. The administrative empire of later times
accepted it only partially, but its trend was, very slowly and almost
subconsciously, what the centralising tendency must always be, if not
actively to destroy, still to wear down and weaken the vigour of the
subordinated autonomies. “
The
consequence was that “whenever the central authority was weak, the persistent
principle of regional autonomy essential to the life of India reasserted itself
to the detriment of the artificial unity established and not, as it should have
done, for the harmonious intensification and freer but still united functioning
of the total life.” (Page-422)
Reference:
The Renaissance in
India and the other essays by Sri Aurobindo, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry:
Chapters on Indian Polity ( all bullet points are quoted from the chapters on
Indian Polity by Sri Aurobindo )
The Third Way by
D.B. Thengadi,
The Turning Point
by Fritjof Capra
Sri
Aurobindo and the Ideal of Human Unity’ by Sri Kireet Joshi, from “Philosophy and Yoga of Sri Aurobindo and Other Essays”, 2003, pp. 111-135
Sri
Aurobindo, The Life Divine,
Sri Aurobindo: The Human Cycle, Centenary Edition, Volume 15,
Sri Aurobindo: The Life Divine,
Sri
Aurobindo: The Ideal of Human Unity, Centenary Edition, Volume 15,
Sri Aurobindo , The Renaissance in India and other essays,(The Foundations of
Indian Culture ) Nolini Kanta
Gupta, The March of Civilizations, The Nation Soul, The Creative soul and other
essays.
Cornelissen, R. M. Matthijs (2004). Sri Aurobindo's
Evolutionary Ontology of Consciousness. Sri Aurobindo, The
Mother,
No comments:
Post a Comment