Human Rights” in Bharatiya perspective

We hear a lot of talk today of how the human rights situation today in India is very bad , and how we need to improve the situation of human rights in India . However it is apparent that we have in the nearly 60 years after formulating the Constitution and after giving “ourselves” fundamental rights have not been able to fulfill all the mighty objectives which we laid out in the Constitution . The question is , is it our fault ? or , is it the fault of the idea itself …… that is , can the fault not be with us ,but with the concept of human rights itself ? In other words are “we” different and do we as a society have different methods of governance than the conception of “rights” which we have tried to use as the basis of our legal system from the time of the British and subsequently enshrined as “fundamental rights” from the time the Constitution was framed .

We know it is often argued that Human Rights are universal and if not universal , then they show universal values , which were there in every culture , including ours , but as all of us are aware , human rights is a relatively a new invention from the 17th –18th century Western Europe . To those whom this sounds shocking I would ask them to try to find a true and absolute alternative to the word “human rights” in any Indian language and I am sure they will know what I mean . Neither does the word “Adhikar” nor the word “Haq” , which are the most often used to denote the word “Rights” , correctly denotes the word . This is not only our realization but the realization of various different cultures from across the world including the Japanese , Chinese , Russian , Buddhist , African and Middle Eastern .

The Buddhist thinkers from South East Asia have been aggressively stating that the conception of “Human Rights should be replaced by the conception of Dharma” .

The famous half Spanish- half Indian , Raimundo Panikkar founder of the very conservative Christian Opus Dei sect , who subsequently famously declared that Jesus was only one of the ways to salvation and was condemned by the Pope to silence for that, wrote in his famous article “ Is the notion of Human Rights a Western Concept ?” 120 Diogenes 75 , “Dharma ( dhamma) is perhaps the most fundamental word in the Indian tradition which could lead us to the discovery of a possible homeomorphic symbol corresponding to the Western notion of “Human Rights”.”

However Mahatma Gandhi had come to this realization long time ago and in his only political treatise and his political manifesto “Hind Swaraj” , Gandhiji had spoken about the dangers of confirming to “Modern Civilisation” and spoke about the need to define governance and predicate rights upon performance of duties in an unique manner.

Subsequently , Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya in his treatise “ Intergral Humanism” had formulated the conception of integral humanism , which rejected , all the “isms” of the west . He tried to formulate an unique formulation of social governance which was uniquely Indian and based on Dharmic principles .

In Bharat our system of governance has always been based on “Dharma” and not on a conception of “Rights” as in the West.
It is essential to note that in actuality dharmic jurisprudence functions very differently from the legalistic entitlement-based, rights jurisprudence that we conceptualise as law.
Dharma is both a personal and a universal norm, based on both personal and universal duty (here the word duty is an approximation).
Dharma itself is neither a norm nor a duty but an eternal order of things. Therefore any dharmic jurisprudence merely indicates a course of action. Justice is a methodology, that which is the most appropriate to balance and realize. The attempt to classify dharma and dharmic jurisprudence into paradigms of duties is tempting but misleading. Justice is based on philosophy and its interest is to preserve order in the world and law is a mere facilitator of the process. In essence law is never a creation of mankind, mankind is a mere participant in the higher order of Rta.The corollary is that human beings do not have any actual entitlements in the legal system. Upholding dharma becomes every entity's dharma. Dharma as a result is not composed of absolute injunctions but is relative to every entity in every circumstance.It relates to whatever is needed to protect the true order, which in other words means that every man has his own law to follow. The object of the Rajan is to use danda to ensure that every person follows their own dharma and nobody falls into adharma.
The Indian Supreme Court has in Narayan Dikshitilu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996 (9) SCC 548 , clearly enunciated that the basis of our modern legal system is our culture rooted in dharma . In the judgment the Hon’ble Court has gone into great detail as to what is the actual meaning of dharma and how that can be used as a means of social governance. The Supreme Court has in a number of judgments further indirectly relied on the fact of Dharma being the bedrock of our civilization to formulate and strengthen it’s logic. In Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Officers Welfare Association v. State of U.P. 1997 (1) SCC 701 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held forth as to why Dharma should be the basis of governance.


However , the question which arises is , is it presently possible to have a legal system based on Indian thought ? or is it too utopian and therefore unworkable , in the present world ? The answer to that is that yes , it is workable and a system outside the human rights / fundamental rights and any other system of rights can be framed and worked , and anyway what is the worth of dismissing something outright without even considering it let alone try it out .

The next question is how ? The answer is two fold .

(a) The first is the radical option of trying to frame and formulate a system of laws which brings this unique social governance model into effect . We need to look at the laws in South East Asia , like Thailand and Cambodia , as to how the system would work , in the present day , if indeed we are to look forward to formulating an alternate system . We also need to explore as to how the models of Vijayanagar and Rajput kingdoms handled the resolution disputes , and what are the models which we still have which reflect our culture and our values , and how these institutions can be replicated at a national level for governance.
(b) The second , is that we are already moving towards the same at least in the rulings on Constitutional jurisprudence , which form the governing system of the country and the examples are many . Professor Werner Menski of the School of Oriental and African Studies , has noted that the Indian Courts have by expanding the right to life , by diluting the conception of locus standii and by initiating the concept of public interest litigation , have indeed gone back to it’s roots . Interestingly the Supreme Courts views of “Secularism” to mean “ Sarva Dharma Samabhava” is another example of this logic . Many would also say that this explains the Courts views on a number of issues including “Supremacy of Judiciary” and “terrorism”. Some would also say the legislatures actions regarding the “Panchayati amendments” , “Fundamental Duties amendments” and “Directive Principles amendments – wherein it was attempted to make DPSP’s superior to Fundamental Rights” , were examples of this national tendency. However , the actions of the legislature has been influenced by mean and short term political considerations and not by any genuine intention to formulate alternate models of governance for India.

It is apparent that large sections of the country are getting disillusioned with the entire legal system and governmental structure , the problem is clearly not of the structures but the fact that the culture of the structures and the culture of the governed do not match each other , and they never will , since it is not possible for us to become Western Europeans , however much some of us may try to be . It is therefore crucial now , more than ever that we try to formulate Bharatiya models of social governance , otherwise the people will use force to change the structures that are foreign to them , witness what happened to the Mughals and the British . It is time for us to make the change……as lawyers it is imperative that we become the change we want to bring and we are the best positioned to make the change …..

Dharma and Economics

Shishya : India is economically one of the fastest growing countries in the world and Indian society seems to be much better off today than it was twenty years back yet Indians are not involved in the present “ liberalized” economy . Why do you think that is so?

Guru : This is because Bharatiyas ( those who are residents of Bharatvarsha or what is roughly the modern Indian state ) have been involved in the process of trade and business for thousands of years from the beginning of Bharatiya civilization . The spread of Dharmic Bharatiya civilization whether that be in the Purva of Bharatvarsha, i.e. Cambodia, Champa (Vietnam) , Java or Bali or the Prachya of Bharatvarsha , i.e. Central Asia , China , the Persian empire , the Greeks , the Egyptians and the Romans, has largely been helped by trade and business enterprise . The economic structure of any Dharmic society has always been based on freedom of trade and property coupled with individual enlightened self-restraint. Yet the arguments made for a free economic model has been till date completely Western European – American in rhetoric and content. The problem is that in Western Europe / America the entire debate is framed in terms of the “ Liberal Economic Model” and the “ Controlled Economy Model” which is alien to the Dharmic Bharatiya worldview . The Bharatiyas can understand the process of free trade since it has been integral to the Dharmic Bharatiya worldview from the dawn of their civilization but they cannot understand the arguments , the rhetoric , and as indeed some of the so called “rules of the game” since these arguments , rhetoric and rules are far removed from their understanding of the world .

Shishya : Why did you chose the Bhagavad Gita and not other texts as symptomatic of Bharatiya Dharmic society ?

Guru : The Bhagavad Gita is the basis of the present Sanatan Dharmic society to which most Bharatiyas belong today . The Dhammapada , the Guru Granth Sahib and the Jaina Sutras and other texts though are integral for a holistic understanding of the Dharmic society , the present piece is in the context of the Bharatiya society. The Bharatiya society is overwhelmingly Sanatan Dharmic and the Bhagavad Gita is the most widely accepted scriptural text in Sanatan Dharma . However it must be conceded that a complete understanding of the vision of the Sanatan Dharmic society is not possible without a look at some look at the teachings of alternate Dharmic viewpoints of Bhagwan Buddha , the Khalsa Gurus and the Jinas amongst others. These interpretations of Dharma and their view points about economics can in themselves be the subject of further discussion but for brevity the present piece is only restricted to the Bhagavad Gita.

Shishya : Why do you say that the Bhagavad Gita advocates “Free Market Economy or Liberal Economic ” values ?

Guru : The Bhagavad Gita enunciates that every person acting in accordance with dharma must therefore try to predominate all his actions by sattvika ( purity ) . Since for every atman ( spirit ) to function in the world , it continuously acts under the influences of three gunas ( forces ) namely , sattvika ( that which is pure ) , rajasika ( that which is kingly ) and tamasika ( that which is dark ) . Though it is acceptable that every person in every situation will act in consonance with all the above forces , though predominated by one of the above mentioned choices . The Bhagavad Gita enunciates that every entity must in the interests of moksha / nirvana ( the escape from the eternal circle of birth and death ) try to predominate it’s actions with the sattvika guna , then the rajasika guna and then the tamasika guna in that order . This is the eternal dharma for every entity in the world .
The Bhagavad Gita then goes on to list out what are the actions arising out of each of the above mentioned forces . The list is large , but it is sufficient that we list some of the relevant ones below to indicate what is being spoken about ( in the canto xviii , slokas ( stanzas ) 29 – 35 :
i) sattvika , is the mind that knows what should be done and what should not be , the difference between right and wrong , bondage and liberation , fear and fearlessness .

rajasika , is the mind that is muddled on the meaning of dharma and adharma .

tamasika , is the mind that thinks vice is virtue , adharma is dharma

ii) sattvika , is the discipline that organizes the mind ,the life breath , and the senses

rajasika , is the discipline that leads to wealth , success , and honour

tamasika , is the discipline that breeds sloth , fear , grief , worry , and conceit


The objective of the Bhagavad Gita is therefore not to restrict any action , nor to bar any choice , it just demands from it’s actors ( as indeed every person is an actor in the web of dharma ) to exercise their choices in an enlightened manner in the interests of the preservation of one’s own dharma as well as the dharma of the entire world , an exercise of enlightened encapsulation of the values of “ freedom of choice” , if there ever was one.


Shishya : What then is the conception of Karma Yoga and unattached action and why do you say that this is the basis of “ free economy ” values on Bharatiya society ?

Guru: The Bhagavad Gita endorses the ideal of unattached work in canto iii on the subject of Karma Yoga (Yoga of work ) ,but it however cautions every person from being attached to the fruits of one’s work / action / labour . This seems to be a radical departure from the experience of western Europe , which mandates that there cannot be economic free market without the exercise of the right of a person to the fruits of his labour , but in the Indic as indeed in the experience of the non western way of life , such an approach is indeed acceptable and deemed to be an honorable thing to do . It must be noted here that the Bhagavad Gita is clearly emphatic that it is better to work than not to work , since inaction will not keep even the body together ( canto iii stanza 8 ) .The Bhagavad Gita says that work is the dharma of every person .The Bhagavad Gita illustrates the point by saying that a wise man must work , even like a work obsessed fool , but he should shed selfishness , and pursue knowledge in the course of his work . The Bhagavad Gita warns every person against anger and greed as the motivators of their work since greed destroys judgment , and fools the wise and is an inherent part of every person’s mind , intellect and senses . The Bhagavad Gita further repeats it’s oft quoted extract that it is always better to perform one’s own dharma however imperfect , than the dharma of another however perfect . Death in one’s own dharma is preferable than another’s dharma , which is treacherous . The intention of the Bhagavad Gita is clearly an indication that work is better for the normal person in every day society than renunciation which may be acceptable for a certain section who have renounced the world but which is very dangerous indeed for those with obligations to others and the society , that is every other ordinary person .
The Bhagavad Gita therefore clearly endorses the individuals right to work in accordance with what the person is in a position to do , infact the Bhagavad Gita directs that the dharma of any person is not to renounce work but to work , but the Bhagavad Gita also discusses that such work must be performed without attachment for the objects and unalloyed by desire . In other words , the Bhagavad Gita speaks about a voluntary and enlightened self restraint by the wise from working for the sake of reward or for the sake of merely work itself .

Shishya : Why do you say that the conception “ Svadharma” allows choices for oneself in accordance with social interests ?

Guru : Every person has a certain individual Dharma in the world , that is their inherent nature which is their Svadharma (Own Dharma) .Every person by following their Svadharma confirms to the larger path of Dharma of the society as indeed the universe and the world . These actions are not imposed on any individual and the Bhagavad Gita clearly says that they are merely prescriptive for those inclined to follow the path of Dharma and the individual does not follow these prescriptions at their own peril of committing Adharma ( a fall from Dharma ) . The choices are left on the individual and never imposed .The Bhagavad Gita suggests and prescribes only certain courses of actions for individuals but never attempts to regulate the course of life ( unlike the common misconception perpetuated by a large number of “secular” scholars of the Bhagavad Gita ) of that individual person .
Svadharma arises from the place of the person in the world , and is dependant on the Varna-Ashrama ( Position and Age ) of the person . The Bhagavad Gita says that the dharma of every Varna is different , whether they be the Brahman ( the intellectual ) , the Kshatriya ( the imperial ) , the Vaisya ( the commoner ) or the Shudra ( who serve ) . The Bhagavad Gita also clearly states that the position of the person in this hierarchy is dependant on one’s own Karma (actions committed in the present world ) and inclination and not on any position attained by the virtue of one’s birth .
The Bhagavad Gita endorses the conception therefore of unfettered individual action made in accordance with the interests of the society and social order which is the root of Dharma of the world . The Bhagavad Gita asks the person making choices in the world to remember his position and his obligations to the society while making his decisions .The Bhagavad Gita clearly enunciates that it is not incumbent on the society to impose it’s values on individuals but it is the obligation of individuals to chose the best path keeping in mind the interests of the world and society exemplified in Dharma .
The Bhagavad Gita says that one’s own Dharma , however imperfect , is a safer guide than another’s Dharma however perfect and it is one’s own conscience which decides on which is the best dharma to be exercised ( canto xviii , stanza 47 ) . The Bhagavad Gita says that there are no dictated choices , but merely paths which are surer and it is safer to follow one’s inherent inclination dictated by one’s own inherent capabilities than following another’s which may be relevant for someone else . The conception of Svadharma or the right to choose one’s path based on the inherent capabilities and inclinations of each person is which makes values of the Bhagavad Gita closely resemble those of a “ free economy ” .


Shishya : Is there an inherent obligation to be “self restrained” in action and where does “ rights” fit into all this ?

Guru : The Dharmic society works on an inherent coda which is built in it’s social system . It is built on unfettered action, where the ruler does not interfere in the lives of the people, but where self regulation promoted by social sanction is the key to social governance . The idea of self regulation is an inherent part of the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita .The Bhagavad Gita stresses time and again that self restraint is the only way to achieve detachment from the material world without removing oneself from it . The Bhagavad Gita says that while it is important for men to work in the world ( since otherwise chaos would engulf the world and all beings will perish ) - an example which Bhagwan Sri Krishna gives is of himself - though he is a manifestation of the “Supreme” he still works since not working would set a bad example for the rest of the world ( canto iii stanza 24 ) - such work should be governed by detachment from the fruits of action and self regulation so as not to be a slave to the idea of work itself ( canto iii stanza 25 ) and the person’s ego and greed .
The Dharmic does not see the world in terms of entitlements and rights , he sees the world in terms of Dharma , a mixture of the spiritual and temporal system as explained above .The formation of the classical Bharatiya conception of “ an economic model ” is therefore not articulated through the rights paradigm but through a completely different paradigm of social governance . This method is uniquely Dharmic , and it’s vision of the world envisages an order of “ free choices ” , that includes the entertainment of different ideas of pathways to the “Supreme” and a system of governance which governs the least but exercises moral authority over it’s people . The economics of a Bharatiya government which follows Dharma , or a Bharatiya Dharma Rajya would have a vision resembling a “free market economic” model , but which would use dharma or the inherent moral understanding of every constituent to regulate those who get overtaken by greed and work and are unable to regulate themselves . The power of regulation is therefore the exercise of the Raj Dharma ( the ruler’s Dharma ) to assist it’s people to follow their own dharma . The Bhagavad Gita clearly endorses the idea of minimal interference by the ruler in the lives of the people , coupled with the responsibility to all the members of the society to act in accordance with social good and the obligation of the ruler to assist every individual to act for social good if need by punishment ( Danda) .


Shishya : What then should be the basis of the fiscal and financial management of the projected Dharma Rajya ?

Guru : The conception of any decision in Sanatan Dharmic thought is based on the conception of a triad which forms the basis of any person’s actions in the world . This triad are the eternal options for actions dictated by Dharma ( that which protects the eternal order ) , Artha ( that which is profitable ) and Kama ( that which is pleasurable ) . To enunciate the Dharma and the ideal choices , there were the Dharmashastras ( the texts on Dharma ) , for Artha ,there were the Arthashstras ( the text on Artha ) and for Kama , there was the Kamashastras ( the texts on Kama of which the now famous Kamasutra bases it’s ideology on ) . Each and every one of the above mentioned paths had deep philosophical reasoning for the choices that they brought along with them , and in each category the nature of the texts differ , in Dharmashastras the rules are prescriptive , since they are idealized , in Arthashstras, they are binding on the authorities who run the government and in Kamashastras, they are justificatory of the choices which every person makes in their lifetime .
There is great dispute as to which one of the paths are the best but the large consensus seems to be a combination of all three , or at least two and never one in disregard of the other two .
It is therefore the Kamasutra of Vatsayana, which justifies most vociferously the idea of social freedom of choice and “ free market” as a philosophy , even though it never proposes an unfettered socially liberal state in a classical sense .
It is the Arthashstra of Kautilya which indicates clearly the nature of actual political economy of the Bharatiya state. The Arthashstra of Kautilya itself while not endorsing the right of social liberalism per se , espouses the benefits of a “ free market” economy .
The Arthashstra of Kautilya stresses on community and people participation in state projects in order to ensure that the projects are successfully executed. It enjoins on the ruler to ensure protection of trade routes and to free such routes from harassment by courtiers , state officials and frontier guards amongst others.
The Arthashstra of Kautilya puts the responsibility of the protection of trade clearly on the government officials and casts an obligation on them to protect trade traffic being carried under their auspices .The failure in their duties brings in very strict punishment including total compensation to the traders for the value of the goods lost in the area of the government official
The Arthashstra of Kautilya also encourages exports for profit and for strategic reasons (as well as imports since it helps the economy of the country .
The Arthashstra of Kautilya even suggests methods to protect the consumer in the free market in a very detailed and elaborate manner, as also fair trading practices and the right of private property and the rulers obligation to protect it, and , contractual and labour rights.
The Arthashstra of Kautilya actively encourages charity and asks that the ruler to do the same in order to increase people participation in the government of the state .
The Arthashstra of Kautilya therefore in compliance with Bharatiya philosophy of governance and life also clearly espouses a regulatory government ,where the government is ideologically oriented towards the protection of the market and freedom of trade but a state which also keeps a keen and strict eye towards the misuse of the freedoms given above . The method by which the Arthashstra of Kautilya regulates such economic freedom is through a very detailed and specific list of fines and punishment . It almost seems that the Arthashstra of Kautilya also talks about an ideal Rajya ( territory ) which is governed by a “ free market” tempered by inherent self restraint . This self restraint does not arise out of state control per se but from the obligation on every person to act in the interests of the society .The ideal role of the state i.e. Raj Dharma is to merely to facilitate , regulate and assist the process through both rewards and penalizations through the use of Danda a conception which is more fully described in the Dharmashastra of Manu and the Kural of Thiru Valluvar.



Shishya : What should the Raj Dharma be in the relation to “taxation”?

Guru : The Dharma Rajya should not at any point of time overtax it’s people . Taxation which is fundamental to govern economic relations between the state and the people should be used in a judicious manner . The Dharma of the state is to ensure that both the state and the man who does the work is benefited according to the Dharmashastra of Manu and Bhishma’s teachings in the Shantiparva in the Mahabharata and the governing criteria should be limited taxation. The Arthashastra of Kautilya however states that in exigencies exceptions can be made to the above mentioned rule and alternate methods of taxation can be used to gather wealth, which seems to be supported by the Kural of Thiruvalluvar. The over all objective of the state however should be to maximize wealth and help in the generation of wealth as per the Kural of Thiruvalluvar .

Shishya : What should be the Raj Dharma in relation to the very controversial investment and trade by foreigners ?

Guru : Naturally neither the Bhagavad Gita nor the Dharmashastras have any comment on the said issue since the above decision has very little to do with Raj Dharma and more to do with Artha niti of the state .The Arthashastra of Kautliya promotes and encourages vigorous foreign trade and imports but prohibits the import of goods which are either harmful to the country or those goods that are useless for the country .

Shishya : People say that creation of wealth and Dharma are opposed to each other since Dharma encourages renunciation and poverty . What is the relationship of Dharma to individual wealth and poverty ?

Guru : Poverty is something which is not considered in Dharma to be per se a bad thing. However it must be understood that renunciation and poverty is not the same thing . Alternate Dharmic literature whether they be the Dhammapada , Akaranga Sutra or the Guru Granth concentrate on extolling the virtue on non attachment and even deliberate poverty as a way to avoid the bondage of attachment and spiritual realization . Even the Bhagavad Gita promotes non attachment to wealth as indeed to everything since attachment results in the failing of a person to act in terms of his dharma . The Dhammapada however clearly states that spiritual realization does not mean poverty itself and it is possible for the wealthy to achieve spiritual realization as long as the person does not injure others in the process. The Dhammapada also stresses on generosity and says that generosity is a laudable thing and should be praised and those that are stingy do not go to the world of the gods. Guru Nanak Devji in Jupji in the Guru Granth also says that hunger cannot be satiated by mere piling of worldly goods …and charity brings merit however insignificant ….but that mere self imposed poverty does not make a person a true believer , the mark of the faithful is that they are bound to Dharma but in Siree Raag he clearly says that wealth is not bad per se but the object of every individual should be a higher purpose and not mere collection of wealth . The Bhagavad Gita speaks little about wealth but it clearly states that creation of wealth is not bad for those inclined to do so as part of their own material nature in accordance with the varna-ashrama- dharma as long as they fulfill their duties diligently ( Canto xviii , sloka 41-46 ) . The lessons of Bhishma of the Shantiparva of the Mahabharata however clearly states that Dharma , Artha and Kama can only exist side by side when a man amasses wealth always caring to walk in the path of Dharma . Bhishma further states in the Shantiparva in the Mahabharata that wealth arises out of virtue and pleasure is the fruit of wealth but puts a caveat that the object of acquiring of wealth should be to be spent without any desire for the fruits of the wealth.


Shishya : Would this sort of thinking not lead to widening the divide between the rich and the poor . How would the society take into account the interests of the millions of poor in India who exist in India on the present day ?

Guru : This is the most important problem which faces Bharatiya society today is the division between the rich and poor. There is a danger in a mindless application of Dharmic norms or the norms of the Bhagavad Gita leading to an anarchic economic laissez faire state , which would not be a correct interpretation of Raj Dharma . Swami Vivekananda in his Karma Yoga wrote that a duty of a house holder is to acquire wealth and a householder who does not struggle to acquire wealth is immoral . Swami Vivekananda says that the worship of a householder is to acquire and spend wealth nobly and this act of acquiring and distribution of wealth is on the same level as that of an anchorite praying in his cell . Swami Vivekananda specifically states that the householder by digging tanks , planting trees , by establishing rent houses for men and animals , by making roads and building bridges moves to the same goal as the highest yogi .Swami Vivekananda in his speech at the Rameshwaram Temple on the 27th January , 1897 said that he who wants to serve Shiva must serve His children – must serve all creatures in this world first .Mahatma Gandhi in his treatise Hind Swaraj discusses the problem of British Rule in great detail but does not ever condemn the creators of wealth in the country. He however enjoins the wealthy to be righteous and charitable .It is essential to note that in subsequent articles and works ( as will be discussed later ), Mahatma Gandhi dealt with the question of wealth and it’s creation in greater depth. Mahatma Gandhi on clarifying what Swaraj meant said that Swaraj comes from Vedic word meaning self rule and self restraint. Subsequently clarifying what he meant by Swaraj , he said that ideally Swaraj would ensure that the common people would share the same necessaries and amenities as those of moneyed men .Mahatma Gandhi envisaged a country where there would be full employment and rich would not indulge in unnecessary expenditure but would use their riches wisely and usefully and since there would be no usurpation there would be no need to remove usurpers by force . In other words both Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi stressed on the creation of wealth but effectively laid the onus on the wealthy to act for the benefit of the poor and create circumstances for their development and be involved in the development of the Indian society. They also spoke about wealth as a responsibility to make the life of all other members of the society better and not merely a tool to enjoy a better life. It is surprising that the generators of wealth in India are not involved in the alleviation of poverty in India and the Government of India attempts to do the work of dealing with physical poverty without involving the creators and the generators of wealth . By the said attempts of poverty alleviation independent of the creators and generators of wealth, the Indian state is failing in it’s Raj Dharma to oversee that the creators and generators of wealth fulfill their obligations to the rest of the society in accordance with their own Dharma and their unique position in society..

Shishya : What is the ideal Bharatiya model of a system reflecting Dharma-Artha-Kama for the present day Bharatiya society ?

Guru : The ideology of any Bharatiya Dharmic Rajya has to be one of enlightened restraint in consonance with the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita and the Dharma , Artha , Kama triad of life . The Bharatiya ideal does not proscribe any action but it prescribes a certain path for the society and depends on the individual to voluntarily follow the prescriptions in the interests of maintaining Dharma . There may be other ways to achieve welfare for the people all over the world but there seems to be at present only two ways which deal and grapple with the economic dilemma which the Bharatiya society faces in the world today. Sadly , both these pathways have been much abused and much misrepresented to be of economic control rather than of economic freedom tempered with enlightened self restraint . The two pathways are the ways of Mahatma Gandhi and of the original Constitution of India of 1950 .
The Mahatma was proudly and deeply influenced by the Bhagavad Gita in his life and in his social , political and economic ideology. The Mahatma himself wrote his own commentary on the Bhagavad Gita wherein in it’s introduction he acknowledged that his economic philosophy was reflected in the Bhagavad Gita and that there was clearly no conflict with mercantile activities and the “ religion “ of the Bhagavad Gita. The Mahatma clearly derived his economic ideology from the “religion” which he practiced and knew ,and which was essentially guided by the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita . In his ideal society the Mahatma enunciated in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita that while all men are born equal and deserve equal opportunity , all do not have the same capacity . He stressed in an article in the newspaper Young India that therefore those with talent will have to naturally earn more than the rest , and that such inequality is good for the society as it encourages talent . He was emphatic in his newspaper the Harijan that he rejected equality for all as it would create a “ dead equality” wherein people would be restricted from living up to their full potential as humans. The Mahatma realized however the problems such a theory can have for the social system in India , and therefore he propounded the “trusteeship” theory , or the conception that it was to be left to the wealthy to realize that they were trustees of the wealth of the poor , a form of enlightened self restraint . He also spoke about the concept of “ bread labour” that is every person must work so as to earn his bread so as to avoid a class of the idle rich , this the Mahatma seemed to say in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita was embodied in the Bhagavad Gita in the discourse on Karma Yoga of Bhagavan Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita , which preached work with detachment from the fruits of the labour .Needless to say that this portions of have been variously interpreted in isolation by socialists and communists both to interpret the Mahatma as a crypto- socialist thinker and the Bhagavad Gita as a crypto socialist text .The socialist interpretation seems to completely miss the point that the entire conception of detached work as exemplified by Karma Yoga in the text of the Bhagavad Gita and the works of the Mahatma is to promote work and deprecate pure and simple intellectualization and / or idleness . The Mahatma in an article in the Modern Review, was emphatically against state sponsored violently imposed socialism in all it’s forms , going so far as to say that the state represents violence in the most concentrated and organized form and that violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the state .He stressed that moneyed men must be allowed to earn their money but in a manner so as to fulfill social goals – through enlightened self regulation .
The Indian Constitution of the 1950 on the other hand did not have the Bhagavad Gita as it’s guiding philosophy as India consciously opted for a secularised model of government influenced by socialist thought , though more than 80 % of it’s inhabitants were and still are Bharatiyas in the conception of their world. The Bharatiya ethos was embodied in the Constitution in the principles that it enshrined ( it is another matter that the entire spirit of the Constitution was mangled by the unsuccessful attempt of the legislature of the 1970’s to turn India into a “Socialist” and “Secular” state) without them ever being mentioned specifically as Bharatiya .Yet it is most important to note that the original Indian Constitution of the 1950 did not have the words “socialist and secular” in it’s preamble and included the right to property as a fundamental right ( Article 19 (f) ). It is another matter that these were amended during the infamous emergency and the amended versions still exist in the Indian Constitution as a reminder of the ghosts of the past. The paradigm suggested by the original constitution is however very interesting .The Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution ( better known as Part III of the Indian Constitution ) enumerated a large code of elaborate fundamental rights including the right to property and the right to trade and profession ( which is still present in the constitution in it’s original format ) which were enforceable in law .This was balanced by the Directive Principles of State Policy ( better known as Part IV of the Constitution ) which amongst it’s various objectives of the state also espoused that the state should direct it’s policy to secure , that the ownership and the material resources of the community are to be so distributed so as to subserve the common good , and , that the operation of the economic system did not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment (Article 39 (b) and(c). Interestingly, the first part of the article is Gandhian and the next Socialist and therefore obviously contradictory to each other!! The state was also directed in the same Chapter to strive to promote a social order in which justice social ,economic and political , shall inform the institutions of national life (Article 38 ) .The Directive Principles were non binding and subservient to the Fundamental Rights until even that balance was also overturned during the emergency of the 1970’s. In other words the conception of the original constitution inspite of some contradictions, as enacted in 1950 was to ensure a state which was based on a “ free market” system , yet governed by the conception of self restraint exercised in the interests of the society –the ideal Bharatiya balance of economic interests in a society .
Though these are both valid paths and interpretations of the same conception of economic governance , the former needless to say is more Bharatiya in it’s understanding of the world and therefore much more consistently in accordance with the Bhagavad Gita and Dharma-Artha- Kama .

Shishya : Do you think that there is a need of any radical step needed for the new Dharmic agenda for Bharatvarsha in the near future ?

Guru : I think that the first step to evolve a true Dharma Rajya is to ensure wholesale property law reform . For generation of wealth , the first step is to designate what constitutes wealth and property . In the present Indian society because of the fact that Dharmic conceptions of property have not been applied for nearly more than a thousand years , the present rules for recognition and designation of what is wealth and what is property has been inherited from Islamic and British norms .The first step in the formation of a truly Dharmic society based on the Dharma-Artha- Kama model would be to reformulate the norms for recognition of property and wealth. This would automatically result in the redistribution of the real wealth acquired in modern history in accordance with the formerly Islamic and subsequently Western European legal regime to reflect the actual wealth in accordance with Dharmic law .The method and the details are not being explained in the present piece as that would detract from the focus of the present paper. It is sufficient to say for the present , that it is very important in the Dharmic model to recognize jointly held wealth and / or property as well as access to commonly held wealth and / or property for the purpose of recognizing and designating what is property and wealth , which in turn would open up further avenues of generating further wealth / property for those who may be designated as poor in the present legal system but would be wealthy in the Dharmic system. This would also result in breaking down the monopoly of wealth which has been inherited from the artificial and feudal system of the former British and Islamic regimes and ensure that every member of the society would have a chance to effectively participate in the creation of wealth which should be one of the primary objectives of every member of the society according to the Kural of Thiruvalluvar and the Dharmashastra of Manu, wealth itself being a synonym of Artha in Sanskrit . This type of wealth reform has been variously endorsed and advocated by free market economists to ensure that there is no lopsided growth and no formation of cartels in the process of transformation of a feudal economy to a free and efficient free market economy.

Shishya : In conclusion don’t you think that the entire exercise is semantic and irrelevant since why should it matter to Indians as to whether the economic system is Dharmic or not as long as they benefit from it ?
Guru : On the other hand it is the most important debate in the near future in Bharatiya society for many reasons amongst which I will indicate three :
(i) To get broader support for the process of “ destatification” of the “Indian economy” , it is important that Bharatiyas understand that system resembling free market values is Dharmic and not a result of a foreign ideology , so that the conceptions of free markets can receive broad support from within Bharatiya society without being burdened with a sense of guilt . It is important that people are informed that it is not un- Bharatiya to be rich contradicting the received wisdom of nearly two hundred years that the Bharatiya were “spiritual” and not “material” people . It is also crucial that it be known that Dharma does not look down on wealth and glorify poverty but on the other hand it recognizes that generation of wealth is the cornerstone of society .
(ii) To give lie to the argument that “free market” system automatically entails a westernization of society and a free market economy is impossible without westernization and it is therefore in the interests of Bharatiyas to become more westernized if they intend to become more economically successful.
(iii) So that a genuine enlightened Bharatiya economic model along with a genuine Bharatiya economic legal regime can be given shape reflecting Bharatiya concerns and Dharmic and Bharatiya values in contradistinction to the hedonistic “ greed is good” free market model or the utilitarian “ greatest good for the greatest number” planned / controlled economy model pushed by the institutions of Prachya as universal arguments and universal arrangements. After all as the Bhagavad Gita says :
“ One’s own dharma , however imperfect , is a safer guide
than the dharma of another , however perfect”
( Canto xviii , sloka 47 )

Dharma Rajya : The Rule of Dharma

Dharma is the central precept of social governance in Bharatiya / Indic thinking . It is the basis on which the entire Indic social structure is conceived and based . It bridges all Indic thinking, whatever be it’s western classification , Buddhist ( Baudh), Hindu (Sanatana Vedic ) , Jain ( Jaina ) or Sikh ( Khalsa ) , as the golden line on which the entire society is based and on which every person is supposed to function . Dharma Rajya or as Mahatma Gandhi was wont to call it “ Ram Rajya” is an idealized state which is governed in accordance with the norms of Dharma .

What is Dharma and the Dharmic ideal ?

The conception of Dharma is integrally linked to the conception of the Indic world . The origins of Dharma can be traced to the concept of Rta in the Vedas which is used interchangeably with knowledge in Sanatana philosophy . Rta is the golden thread which runs through all creation , as indeed the hidden bond which ties all creation together . Dharma is the application of Rta in the physical world , in other words the crystallization of Rta ( though interestingly Sakyamuni ( the Buddha ) used Dharma/Dhamma ( in Pali ) to include the conception of Rta as well , possibly due to his aversion to the then dominant Vedic system.
There is no simile to the word or the conception of Dharma in Anglo-European thought and therefore it is very difficult to provide a single line definition for the word .Dharma comes from the Bhasha (Sanskrit) root “Dhr” which means that which sustains . Dharma is that which sustains the world and nourishes it and is related to the word “ Dharanat” which in Bhasha translates into that which protects . In other words Dharma is as Robert Lingat in his treatise “The Classical Law of India” says is “ what is firm and durable , what sustains and maintains , what hinders fainting and falling” . Dharma is the nature of things and the gods are only it’s guardians (though notably the Sakyamuni’s original interpretation excluded the bit about the gods ) . Dharma is conceived as the course of action which if followed by any person would lead to both physical and spiritual gain in this world and the next and the failure to follow which would result in “Adharma” or a spiritual fall and therefore a person was obligated to follow the norms of Dharma ( therefore the tendency to equate Dharma incorrectly with duty / obligation to the exclusion of all else ) . The Dharma is therefore an ideal which is to be followed for physical and spiritual benefit of each person and every society through it’s entire life cycle under various circumstances .
Dharma is however not the only reason for the living of one’s life and for the actions one undertakes .Dharma itself is one of the angles of the Dharma-Artha-Kama triangle which guides one’s life . Dharma stands for the ideal , while Artha for that which is profitable and Kama for that which is pleasurable . Even Manu accepts that man seldom acts on account of Dharma alone , and that there is great debate which course should be given primacy in the deciding what is the correct course of action . Needless to say Swayambhu Manu says Dharma is supreme , whereas Chanakya Kautilya says Artha , and Rishi Vatsayana says all three are equal in almost all cases.


The Role of “ Danda” in Dharma .

“ Danda” is the methodology whereby a sovereign inculcates Dharma in his subject/s and assists them in the path of Dharma by exercising their self control. Danda means “scepter / mace” that is pure force to be used to keep persons on the path of Dharma through a method of assisted self control. In other words it assists the sovereign to discharge his Dharma to keep his subjects on the path of Dharma . Needless to say that Danda if applied properly protects the sovereign and if applied unjustly turns against him . This is more so since the sovereign is necessarily subject to Dharma and injustice would be a failure of the sovereign to follow it’s Dharma .

The subjectivity of Dharma : Svadharma.

The Dharmic system is predicated on a world view of the “Varna-Ashrama” system which decides the Dharma of every person that is each person’s “Svadharma”.
The entire Dharmic society is divided into the chatur varna ( approximately four colors) system consisting of, the brahmana (approximately the intellectuals) , the kshatriya ( approximately the rulers ) , the vaisya ( approximately the commoners ) and the shudra ( approximately the servers ) based on karma ( approximately their actions ) . Every person is situated somewhere in the above matrix and therefore has a specific dharma dependant upon the position which he holds in the varna matrix .Therefore the Khsatriya commits “Adharma” by not fighting a “Dharmayuddha” ( a war for Dharma ) while a Vaisya and Shudra does not .
The life of a person in a Dharmic society is also divided into four stages , the first is the “Brahmacharya” ( approximately the student ) , the second is the “ Grihasta” ( approximately the householder ) , the third is the “Vanaprastha” ( approximately the forest dweller )and the fourth is the “Sanyas” ( approximately the world renouncer ). The Dharma of a person in every stage is different and what is the Dharma for one is not the Dharma for the other .
The interaction of these matrices and webs create the Dharma of the individual within society , his “Svadharma” . The Svadharma is the basis of each person’s Dharmic ideal in society . Raimundo Panikkar in his famous article “ Is the notion of Human Rights a Western concept ?” , says Svadharma is the Indic “homeomorphic equivalent” of the Human Right of the western society .

Dharma and societal norms and the social web.

Dharma is sometimes compared to the Graeco-Roman conception of “Natural Law” though in conception they are fundamentally different. Dharma though universal is established through customary and societal practice and reiterated by the Dharmashastras ( the treatises on Dharma ) and therefore Dharma is completely unlike an objective black letter code of law ( such as the Code of Justinian ) in that it represents an idealized compendium of tradition and sadacara ( good customs ) and sila ( established conduct )which must be tested on the touchstone of ‘prudence’ . The Dharmashastras are more guidebooks and definitely not codes of law .
Dharma is clearly an evolving system of norms , changing all the time yet retaining it’s essence permanently .
Each person’s unique Svadharma further interacts and interplays with various other Dharmas which continuously act on a person like his Jatidharma ( the Dharma in relation to his Jati, not “caste”) , Janapadadharma ( the Dharma towards his Janapada , approximately the “state” ) and Kuladharma ( the Dharma towards his “family” ).
Justice in Dharmic terms therefore lies in finding the ideal Svadharma amongst the web of Dharmas surrounding each person at every course of action .

The British and the Dharma “illusion”

The British were the ones who in the name of noninterference with customary law damaged and interfered with the concept of Dharmic law the most . The western conception of law necessarily believes that any justice system must be based on a system of definite rules. The Islamic rule for eight hundred years in India had completely superimposed the Sharia on the criminal justice system , but had not interfered with the “Hindu” dispute resolution systems in civil matters .The British in the attempt of disbursing equal justice instituted British judges to judge on Indian matters of civil dispute , assisted by Quadis or Pandits .Inspite of various dissenting voices within the British administration , the attempt of the British judges was to codify the Dharmic codes and treat them as exhaustive and then interpret them through the methodology of ‘starre decicis’ something completely against the grain of Dharmic justice . This was because the British judge operated completely outside the social milieu which was the most crucial component for dispensing Dharmic justice ,and therefore it was not possible for him to either interpret the Dharmic norms or to decide the svadharma of any person . In the process the British created a justice system which was completely alien to the Dharmic system. The British ended up creating a peculiar system of justice called the Anglo-Hindu law , which was neither Anglo nor Hindu and the worst of both .

Dharma , the Indian Constitution and Indian law today.

The Indian law and the Indian Constitution is in itself a peculiar continuation of the strange world of Anglo-Hindu law ,that is of trying to make sense in a “modern” western way of the very ancient Dharmic society . The Indian Constitution tries to address the problems of “jati” through westernized system of economic reservations not realizing that it would in effect entrench the system further. The Indian Constitution attempts to establish a “secular” state yet , defines “Hindus” in the fundamental rights chapter , provides the people the right to propagate their religion and allows functionaries to take oaths in the name of God and makes special contributions to “Devaswom” ( Hindu religious trusts) funds from the Consolidated Fund of India . The dilemma of the Indian state is exemplified by the debate over the hierarchy within it’s Directive Principles of State Policy , whether to protect cows ( under the guise of it being a “Gandhian” value , as if Dharmic views and Gandhian views are separable ) or to devise an uniform civil code ( strangely pitting the conservatives on the side of the liberals and the liberals on the side of conservatives ).
Though the Indian fundamental rights chapter is western in its formulation , the Supreme Court of India is being more often made to take choices which are decidedly Dharmic without terming it as such in order to solve Indian problems .
Here are a few examples amongst the many evolving all the time :
The first example is the evolution of the Indian conception of “Sarva Dharma Samabhava” as “ Equal Treatment of all Religions” different from the anti-God westernized secularism . In India the Supreme Court has finally come around to it’s original point of view , after a few attempts to impose western style secularism, that there is no wall between the church and the state , but an injunction that all religions in India should be treated equally based on Upanashidic/ Vedic principles.
The second is the expansion of the right to life from the restricted and limited right in the Constitution to an all encompassing right beyond “mere animal existence” read along with the rights of liberty and the right to equality , in order to do complete justice to every person . This formulation of the Right to Life is very much unlike the black letter law based justice which is the hallmark of the “Rule of Law” and much like Dharmic justice which sees life beyond the merely material / physical existence .
The third is the nuanced view on jati which the Court is slowly coming to hold under the right to equality after it’s initial disastrous interpretations of the provisions in western terms .
The fourth is the expansion of the right to legal remedy , by first making it a fundamental right and then a basic structure of the Constitution ( remember Dharma is supreme ) and then going beyond the court based system by taking into account letters / postcards and evolving remedy to suit every circumstances in order to do complete justice such as laying down detailed guidelines for sexual harassment and for environmental protection of various areas like the city of Delhi and the Taj Mahal . No one line conclusions for an yes / no proposition as is the case for western courts , in India the Courts attempt to solve the problem instead of deciding on issues very much like the Dharmic system .
The fifth some would say is the unique ‘basic structure’ doctrine evolved by the Court , which is based on the unique premise that though the Constitution is ever changing yet in it’s essence is ever permanent. If that is not a formulation of Dharma , what is ?
Lastly , in India , the judiciary is very respected and is uniquely powerful . Some say it is the most powerful judiciary in the world . It can only happen in a country where the culture holds the interpreters of laws to be even higher than the formulators of laws and those that execute them. Dharma in India still reigns supreme , though sadly as Werner Menski says in his monograph “ The Indian Legal system past and present” , the Indian judiciary is extremely averse to formulate governance in terms of Dharma , though surprisingly even that may be slowly changing , ironically by the Indian Supreme Court directing Chief Ministers to uphold their “Raj Dharma” or Dharma of Governance .

Suggestions regarding the formation of a workable paradigm for Local Self Governance

Indeed we have failed Gandhiji . We have been unable to bring Panchayati Raj in a meaningful manner and make it workable success . Our local self governance institutions which we have named “Panchayats” and “ Nagarpalikas” under the Constitution , were doomed from the start since they did not take into account our indigenous models of governance . Indeed they have been spectacular failures.
The present need is to formalize a workable paradigm in local self governance which is not merely Bharatiya in name , but Bharatiya in thought as well . However it is also important that the said local self government are not relics of the past since past is history but should also be able to deal with problems of the future and should be flexible to be able to deal with the challenges that we are bound to face in the future .
The following are suggestions as to a possible paradigm for more effective model of local self governance keeping in mind the Bharatiya ethos :
(1) Depoliticisation of the Panchayats and Nagarpalikas . It is important to ensure that the local self governance representatives are not linked to political parties at all whether Government or in Opposition . This seems to make them much less effective and unable to stand up to pressure from the state level leaders from either side . The Nagarpalikas and the Panchayats should be completely insulated from State politics . The local bodies should have as little linkages with the state government and legislature as possible . This is the most important keystone to good local self governance.
(2) Make the local self governance bodies autonomous . Though the said local self governance bodies are today setup at the instance of the Constitution of India , yet the said representatives and the bodies whether they be of the Panchayat or the Nagarpalika , are at the mercy of the State Government . It is therefore important that the power of the state government to dissolve the said bodies be taken away . Offcourse the state government should have the power to take over administration of locality for a limited period of time , in an emergency , but it should not be able to dissolve or supersede the said local authority under any circumstance whatsoever . In any case since law and order does not fall within the jurisdiction of the local bodies there should be very little scope for interference of the State .
(3) The local authorities should also be given wider power to gather taxes under various heads . The local authority should be answerable for any defalcation of moneys gathered by taxation . Defalcation of funds should be criminalized . The local authorities should also be given the power to use the said taxes for the purpose of development and their own priorities . The state government including the State Finance Commission should interfere as little as possible.
(4) There should not be imposition of any scheme on the local bodies. Money should be given to them to spend on their own priorities . Though there should be a strict method of accounting for the money and exemplary action taken against defalcation. Any person held responsible for defalcation should be disqualified from ever holding any position whatsoever at any level.
(5) There should not be Panchayat or Nagarplaika level agencies and authorities for the purpose of development . Money should be allocated to the local bodies who should be free to spend it in terms of their priorities . Though the accountability of expenditure should be strictly enforced.
(6) The Government can set up agencies to help the local authorities at every level to plan their work and to advise the local authorities how to implement their policies . The Government of the State and the Union should keep away from forcing their opinions on the people.
(7) The work of the Zilla / District Planning Committee and the Nagarpalika/ Metropolitan Planning Committee should be to that extent altered and should work under their respective District / Zilla Parishad and the Nagarpalika . There should be exploration as to whether similar bodies can be formed even at the Block / Taluka level and at the village level .
(8) The representatives should be subject to recall .
(9) There should be provisions for all the people to put up a proposition with a sufficient number of proposers in relation to policies of the local government , and the people should have the right to vote on the said propositions .
(10) The composition of the Panchayats and Nagarpalikas should be elected on occupational basis , that is if the percentage of population in a village is 50 % agriculturists , 20 % artisans , 15 % herders , 10 % traders , 5 % service holders , and the elected representatives of the village are 20 in number ,the representatives should be distributed in the same percentage , that is 10 should be elected from among the farmers , 4 from artisans , 3 from herders , 2 from traders and 1 from service holders , and the Pradhan should be elected directly from all the members of the village . Similarly for Nagarpalikas , that is if the entire city has 60 % engaged in the service sector , 20 % in trade , 20 % in industry , the election of representatives should be in that proportion . There can be further subdivisions based on further groups like IT , Government Service etc . etc . Undoubtedly there can be an overlap , but as with Bar Associations and even territorial constituencies, the person can have the right to vote in two places , but the person will have to chose the constituency which he wants to vote for . There will be only one man one vote. There should be the provision of sufficient people getting together and petitioning for recognition of new groups, and after due verification in the next census , such groups should be recognized . There should be an elected Mayor in the Nagarpalika .
(11) The governance should be carried out by a group of technocrats / capable people nominated by the Pradhan / Mayor at the will of the entire body of the Nagarpalika / Panchayat representatives .
(12) The local self governance bodies should clearly have the power to constitute one or more tribunals to adjudicate disputes including those relating to property and family law, appeal from which could be made to the High Court , which would any way be the case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
(13) Some criminal adjudicatory power can also be moved to the local bodies , from which appeals can be made to a Judicial Magistrate .
(14) Police powers can also be given to the local bodies, though the state will remain overall incharge of law and order and will retain the right to impose law and order incase the local bodies fail to maintain law and order.
(15) The present three tier system can be replaced by another system , with all the Pradhans of the villages forming the assembly at the Taluka /Block Level and all Taluka / Block Pradhans forming the assembly at the Zilla / District level. The Pradhans for the Blocks and the Zilla Pradhans can be on a rotating basis so that every Taluka / Block or District / Zilla has a chance to head the assembly.
(16 ) No mega project and acquisition of land should be allowed without conducting a referendum of the locals regarding the mega project , fixing a percentage for the proposition being allowed . May be 70 to 30 . The state should not acquire lands for private parties , though it can acquire property for infrastructure projects or defence . Incase the state does not use the said land then it should be returned back to the land holders subject to repayment of the money paid for acquisition . Similarly for excess land . The state should not be a middleman in land deals of any sort whatsoever . The local authorities should only be restricted to ensuring a peaceful referendum and nothing more . The local bodies should be kept away from having any role in acquiring and or buying and selling land .
(17) In every village where there are traditional bodies , the people should be given the choice as to whether they want to follow the traditional method of selection of Pradhans or the new method by referendum . They should also have the right to switch from one to the other after a process of gathering a minimum amount of proponents and then putting the said proposition to vote by referendum . As for Autonomous Councils and such like , their powers should be read subject to the powers of the Panchayats / Nagarpalikas . In case of V and VI Schedule areas under the Constitution , there should be flexibility to demarcate what constitutes a “village” for the purpose of Panchayat , including the ability to demarcate entire tribal units together or separately as Panchayats .
(18) The State therefore should have a strong and very effective body to ensure free and fair elections / referendums can be conducted at all levels.
(19) There should be a very effective and completely independent accountability Directorate which shall investigate and prosecute defalcation at all levels and there should be Courts/ Tribunals constituted for such issues having criminal jurisdiction , having appeal only to the High Court , to ensure that defalcation of moneys does not take place.
(20) There should be a very conscientious and effective census / statistical directorate which will continuously and rigorously update and collate all data in relation to all villages and urban agglomerations for future elections and for the purposes of keeping record .

It is therefore very important that we look towards reformulating the entire scheme of the Panchayati Raj system to reflect our Bharatiya values and to make the system more accessible to those who are yet to benefit from the system.