GLOBAL MEET OF ALL MARGIIS TO FURTHER THE AGENDA OF ONE UNITED AM (Response sheet no.3)
Dear brothers and sisters,
In response to the above circular we have received following response from the following.
With brotherly regards,
S S Goenka
----- Original Message -----
From: Anonymous
To: sgoenka@gogoindia.com
Sent: 07 February, 2008 4:25 PM
Subject: [ANANDA MARGA - SSG CIRCULAR] New comment on GLOBAL MEET OF ALL MARGIIS TO FURTHER THE AGENDA O....
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "GLOBAL MEET OF ALL MARGIIS TO FURTHER THE AGENDA O...":
In Ananda Marga (AM) we have seen various groupist attitudes, by a few making some amount of noise, arise. One group are those who promote what is called the four step plan (4SP). It makes all sorts of wild claims, such as leadership wanting to stay in power at all costs.
However, to assert that there is a leadership in AM that seeks to stay in power at any cost is merely a negative sentimental throw-away line and a form of cheap propaganda. It is a fundamentally false statement because in AM there is an election process at the central level for the Central Committee (CC) and the Central Purodha Board (CPB), and there is an appointment (selection) process for the Central Executive Committee (CEC) whereby the President (usually the Purodha Pramukha) appoints the CEC as per that person’s own choice. Currently, elections are held in a 5 year cycle. After an election, appointments are made to the CEC and there may be revocations and new appointments made subsequently.
A central tenet of 4SP is to promote discriminatory practices. 4SP cherishes discriminatory distinctions based on its notion (a false notion) of so-called ethnicity or groupifications. It should be abundantly clear that its 3 groupifications have nothing to do with any scientific approach to ethnicity. It asserts that there exist Bengali, Non-Bengali Indians and Non-Indians in Ananda Marga culture and the samgha. This is pseudo-science. Of course this has nothing to do with ethnic basis, but is a cheap form of political classification. To say Ananda Marga is based on ‘ethnic’ similarities in 3 such groups is plainly and blatantly false. The cherishment of these distinctions of 4SP while indulging in propaganda about universalism is complete hypocrisy by the proponent(s) of 4SP.
4SP tries to claim its two main goals are unity and universalism. This is slight of hand, as these are common goals of all Ananda Margiis. There is no need for 4SP proponents to try to portray to the margii community that these are the goals of 4SP and its own club of followers. Rather, everyone already knows these are common goals and that no group or groupists can lay claim to them.
Typically you will find in the 4SP propaganda that they will try to give an impression that they represent a broad number of persons. The worst form of indulgence in which they do this is to apply a label called NIM (non-Indian margii) and pretend that there is a movement called NIM that represents every single Ananda Margii outside of India. This is plainly misleading and a deception. And it is this misleading and deceptive style that you will find in the 4SP propaganda. In truth, there is no such movement that can lay claim to representing all those Ananda Margiiis outside India. The use of label NIM is sheer and gross dishonesty. The persons behind this so-called NIM are so miniscule in number, that the dishonesty of the label is abundantly apparent.
What 4SP intends to do is entrench racist and communalist (that is, discriminatory) attitudes in the structure of AM organisations, particularly at the central level. On the one hand it claims the structure of AM is rife with racism and communalism, but on the other hand it wants to entrench it by its formula system. This is called double-standards.
When you look closely at this you can see that 4SP is placing every purodha under blame, because it is all the purodhas who elect from among themselves the members of the Central Committee (CC). Therefore, 4SP vilifies every purodha because it is those purodhas who decide who goes onto the CC. As 4SP claim that the central structure is rife with racism and communalism, we should first analyse how the CC comes into being, and as pointed out by election of all the purodhas. Tracing back, we can see the 4SP implies that all the purodhas deliberately put onto the CC those who promote racism and communalism. We can see how absurd the 4SP theory is now. 4SP propaganda and booming is simply a vilification strategy – that is all. Of course we know that all the purodhas are entitled to decide (by election) this matter of the CC. How can any sensible person think that the electors are all promoting racism and communalism and how can any sensible person fall prey to this vilification strategy that 4SP promotes.
Worse still, in terms of the 4SP propaganda, it effectively says that because the President, usually the Purodha Pramukha (PP), of the Central Committee constitutes the Central Executive Committee (CEC) as per the President’s choice, that the President is responsible for racism and communalism in the structure of this CEC. After all, you see, 4SP asserts that the central structure of AM is rife with racism and communalism, but we know that one part of the structure, the CEC, is appointed by the President and so if 4SP makes its assertion, and also if the appointments rest solely with the President, then the 4SP is clearly targeting, and being completely disrespectful to the President of AMPS and to the Purodha Pramukha. In effect, 4SP asserts that the President is racist, communalist, and so on in making appointment. This is the style of propaganda we get from 4SP. It is a lowly quality and margiis should not tolerate it.
Posted by Anonymous to ANANDA MARGA - SSG CIRCULAR at February 7, 2008 4:25 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: Anonymous
To: sgoenka@gogoindia.com
Sent: 09 February, 2008 6:58 AM
Subject: [ANANDA MARGA - SSG CIRCULAR] New comment on GLOBAL MEET OF ALL MARGIIS TO FURTHER THE AGENDA O....
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "GLOBAL MEET OF ALL MARGIIS TO FURTHER THE AGENDA O...":
Reaction to Discrimination language
"There cannot be any complex in the spiritual level or existential sphere. In spirituality there is no complex because every person has contact with Parama Purus'a on a purely personal level. There is no third existence between them. There are only two -- the spiritualist and the Parama Pita' [Cosmic Father]. Spiritualists move towards the Cosmic Father and sit on His lap. To do this is every one's birthright.
"Dogmatists only will create false sentiments, like in below, and so drew a swift condemnation from benevolently minded persons:
Re: [Margii-Collective] Dogma Beware!
Dear Sister Gayattri NamaskarI
have an honest question.
you say
>"i and others have talked about Bengal being chosen by Supreme Entity as the model for the world."
the question is- show me please where in Baba's writing he endorse Bengalis/Indians or any people above others.
to the best of my little knowledge of HIS philosophy -We are ALL his children.our relationship to HIM is based on our individual sadhana/conduct/samskara not on any collective"ISM" ( like Bengal-ISM) and that the base of Neo Humanism is one Human society. where all are one and there is no place for any national/ social/religous/etc- "ISM"So please sister Gayattri- a quotation from Baba to give a base to your words.
---
On 11/4/07, Garda Ghista wrote:
namaskar, those of us who know what HE did from 1978 to 1990 would have to consider it a true statement. those who deny or try to deny what HE did from 1978 to 1990 are unable to accept the statement below. gayattri
i---
Dear all, Namaskar,Gayatrii wrote:>"i and others have talked about Bengal being chosen by Supreme Entity as themodel for the world.
"Whatever Baba promoted for Bengal through his songs & teachings, I truly &deeply fear this statement. It is defective and leads to dogma of "chosen ones".This very dogma is destroying us even as we speak. Such sentiments among ourleaders has brought us to our present organizational crisis. ("Indians are morespiritual than everyone else"; "Bengalees are the true inheritors of AM and musthold the reins of power.")And, sorry please, but on this point I must agree with Bro. DD. Simply using theterms "Supreme Entity" and "chosen model" in the same breath undoubtedly isracial superiority complex."Supreme Entity"I find it hard to believe that Parama Purusa, the Lord of the Universe, who hasdomain from unseen atoms to unseen galaxies would single out any part of hiscreation, any one country or people, as "chosen".
"Chosen" = "Racism" is what the world concluded in 1945.Christians, Muslims, Jews, Nazis, and some Americans, to name a just few groups,have used this "chosen" dogma to lead the world into tremendous global sufferingfor centuries."Model"Model of what? Model of social advancement & economics? Of morality andspirituality?Are we then to wait around for Bengalees and the state of Bengal to attain this"model-hood" (either econ'ly or spirit'ly) before we move ahead ourselves? Afterall, "model" implies it'll be there first (not last!) so that the rest of us canfollow suit.Besides, there are some of us who would put a different spin on Baba's emphasisof Bengal. (e.g. that Bengal sorely needs the models given it by the rest ofthe world)from Developing Proto-Spiritualistic Mentality, Liberation of Intellect"Next comes socio-sentiment, which promotes the interest of one's ownsociety at the expense of other societies. Based on this sentiment aremany other sentiments, such as socio-patriotism, socio-religion,socio-economics, socio-art, -architecture, -literature, and so on."A social group's own deity "says" to the people, "Your God is the trueGod: all other gods are false. You are the chosen people in thisuniverse: all others are cursed!" These are the preachings of socio-religion."
===from Human Society Part1"Almost every religion has claimed that only its followers are God'schosen people and that the rest of humanity is cursed and bound by thechains of Satan. One religion has declared, "Our prophet is the onlysaviour. There is no escape from mundane sufferings except by takingrefuge in him." Another religion has declared, "I am the last prophet.Prayers must be said before God a specific number of times in acertain manner each day. Special animals must be sacrificed onparticular days. These are the wishes of merciful God. Those whofollow these injunctions will attain heaven on the Day of Judgement."Yet another religion says, "Know ye, my son, thy God is the only God.All other gods are false gods." Just imagine, all these religionspreach universal fraternity, and yet this universal fraternity is keptwithin the confines of their own community.* Humanity gasps for breathat such preposterous claims of universal fraternity."
----- Original Message -----
From: jiivan dev
To: margiicollective@yahoogroups.com ; ananda_marga_srs@yahoogroups.com ; anandamarg@googlegroups.com ; ec-anandamarga@googlegroups.com
Sent: 09 February, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: [ananda_marga_srs] Amazing Grace
. The idea is for margiis to take a stand for AM as One. We as margiis must and should work to stitch the two halves together. i know in all my naivety that i'm not alone. And i do believe that if we push for it from both sides it will happen. i don't say this as a whimsical wish of mine but for the above foresaid. Like the modern American poet said: "There's a battle outside, and it's raging. It soon shake your windows and rattle your walls". And, oh yes, it will. It already has. Within our little fortress. This little problem will not go away by itself, it will definitely bite us in the behind, if we leave it unattended. One way or the other, thru the intolerance of our own ideology or thru the dictums of the economy or thru the disasterous change of the climate, it will bite in the butt. in Him,jiivan dev
posted by S GOENKA @ 2:21 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Namaskar
We noticed this post & shows folly of 4SP. One more rebel group failing away.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dharmadeva
To: 'margiimail@googlegroups.com'
Subject: Why the confusion about seat reservation?
Namaskar
We know that Prout is for the happiness and all-round welfare of everyone. In various discourses Baba talks about how democracy can be improved, noting that there are many defects in democracy that human beings have already started to rectify. One defect that is singled out is that of seat reservation, particularly in parliamentary democracies.
Seat reservation
----------------
Baba states in 'Problems of the Day':
"Although the system of seat reservation* is against democratic principles, temporary arrangements for seat reservation, if desired, may be permitted for backward communities.** But generally it is found that among the representatives of backward communities, the number of competent persons is very few. Hence the right to contest reserved seats should not be limited to those belonging to a particular community. At the time of the primary election of the candidates for the reserved seat, however, only those belonging to the community for which the seat has been reserved will enjoy the right to vote. That is, two people will be nominated for the one seat in the primary election. Later, either of the two will be finally elected by the vote of the general public. If, in the primary election, only one candidate is nominated that is, there is no other contestant in that case his or her popularity must be tested before the general public. Only if a backward or minority community clearly demands seat reservation will it be adopted, otherwise not."
The translators also noted:
* Seat reservation is the practice whereby parliamentary seats (and also administrative posts) are reserved for particular sections of society, usually less-advanced communities or minorities. Trans.
** "Backward communities" refers to those communities which have not had access to social services and education. Generally only the members of such communities have the right to contest reserved seats. (Backward communities should receive preferential treatment from the government until poverty has been eliminated.) Trans.
In summary, to establish a proper system of reserved seats for backward communities:
1. Any competent representatives may contest a reserved seat
(ie this is not limited to persons belonging to the backward community);
2a. A primary election of candidates for a reserved seat must first be held; 2b. but, only persons in the backward community for a reserved seat can vote at the primary election
(note often primary elections are also referred to as nominations for a seat);
3a. Once the candidates become known from the results of the primary election, there will be a final election; 3b. and, all persons in the general public can vote at the final election.
In addition:
4. If, in the primary election, only one candidate is nominated, the final election by the general public will still be held to test the popularity of the candidate for a reserved seat;
5. Only if a backward community clearly demands seat reservation will it be adopted, otherwise not;
6. Backward community also means a minority community.
This means, in relation to a reserved seat:
- Any competent person can be a representative;
- Only the backward community votes in a primary election to nominate candidates;
- The general public votes in a final general election choosing from amongst the nominated candidates.
So, in respect of reserved seats:
- Potential representatives from the general body;
- Nomination / Primary election of candidates by the backward community/minority;
- Final election by the general body.
Even when one takes a brief view of Indian constitutional law history, you can immediately see that Baba is driving at the deficiencies in seat reservation policy and law in the case of India specifically and also on seat reservation generally. Looking at that constitutional law history of India we find a raft of Supreme Court cases and amendments to laws regarding seat reservation over the last 50 years, including in relation to the 'Creamy Layer' (ie those better off but who fall within backward communities). This history arises because of, and reflects, the initially deficient policy in relation to seat reservation in India (which was supposedly to last for only 10 years). Baba being aware of this, and its future contentious impact, then clarified what is the proper approach for a temporary scheme for seat reservation (see above). Had the legislatures followed this in India, there would undoubtedly have been better outcomes all round.
Some of us may occasionally come across a scheme called 4SP. This scheme tries to rely on and assert what it calls seat reservation by picking up on what Baba said above. However, it presents a fundamentally wrong view on seat reservation. Quoting from political tracts (usually called a FAQ) of the 4SP it states: "must have a reserved percentage of seats, and each groupification will elect its own representatives".
Assuming (on the surface) that 'groupification' refers to backward community or minority, we can see what is wrong in the statement. The context shows that the statement relates to a final election, and in that it is saying only the particular community elects representatives for the reserved seat. But this is wrong because in Prout's (temporary) system of seat reservation the whole electorate actually votes in a final election for the candidates contesting a reserved seat. The particular backward or minority community only has the exclusive right to vote in the primary election which is for nominating candidates who will contest the final general election. In that final election the whole electorate is entitled to vote, even for reserved seats.
Most of us would be aware of the difference between a primary election and final general election, as there is much media publicity these days on the 'primaries' being held in the USA for certain candidates to contest the final general election for the next President of the USA. The 4SP scheme, and presumably its proponents, simply disregard what Baba states about the necessity for both a primary election and a general election when it comes to reserved seats for backward and/or minority communities. Further, it muddles up who has the respective voting rights. Accordingly, this is not consistent with Prout discourses. It is clear that the entire electorate has the right to vote for a final representative for a reserved seat, not just the backward community which benefits from the reserved seat.
Incidentally Baba states about the UK and USA political systems that:
"If I am to express my views impartially, so far as the parliamentary form of government is concerned, Great Britain is in the position of champion. No country has surpassed them. So far as the presidential form of government is concerned, the USA is far ahead of the USSR."
Neither of these countries have seat reservation. Arguably, both countries have minorities of some sort, whose range includes indigenous communities, certain immigrant communities, less-advanced communities, and communities suffering a lack of access to social services and education.
We can see from the above discourse on Prout that ultimately it is the general public or the whole electorate who must have the final vote on who the sitting representatives will be in the governing legislature that adopts a system of seat reservation. Anything short of this is bound to be deficient and seriously impact of proper governance overall. Indeed, any suggestion that a backward and/or minority community (in 4SP tract language a groupification) will elect its own representatives in any system determining the outcome for a reserved percentage of seats, is incorrect.
For AMPS, the correct approach is simply stated in Caryacarya itself as:
"The purodha's of Ananda Marga will elect the members of the Central Committee (CC) from among themselves."
That is, every purodha (and therefore all the purodhas, each one of them - rightly qualified, of course) has a right of election in relation to every and all the members of the CC. Is it not straightforward? They can exercise their election rights as if they are considering who gets on the CC as a whole, not as if they are considering the CC as having groups, ie by who gets on the CC via a group voting process representing 3 groups in the CC. As shown from Baba's Prout discourse (above), this latter (4SP) approach is also deficient in terms of Prout.
4SP claims that groups of purodhas have the right to elect representatives of their group onto the CC. We can immediately see how artificial the 4SP concept is, and yet how natural the words of Caryacarya are. And how obviously awkward the 4SP is when compared to the words in Caryacarya. The 4SP brings in an unwanted 'gloss' or distortion to organisation and Caryacarya.
Job reservation
---------------
Regarding administrative postings, ie to the Central Executive Committee (CEC), Caryacarya states:
"The purodha' pramukha will be the ex-officio president of the Central Committee, and he will constitute the Central Executive Committee according to his choice."
Essentially, this gives the President a complete discretion, and the President is not fettered or confined by any formula or systemic constraints. In exercising the discretion, the President may develop some procedures and may change these as required, if anything like that is even required (as that is what choice and discretion is about), but that is entirely up to the President (and of course, the President can take advice from whoever considered necessary). In no way, is any formula approach to be set in concrete in this regard.
In terms of Prout, Baba states:
"In some countries of the world such as India, job reservation has been introduced to provide employment to backward classes and ensure their economic advancement. However, job reservation is not in tune with the ideology of PROUT. That is, when PROUT is established, nobody will feel the necessity of job reservation because everybody's progress is guaranteed in PROUT. In the Proutistic system people will not seek jobs -- jobs will seek people."
In the ideal of Prout implementation, there is not job reservation or, one part of which, we might call administrative post reservation.
Baba goes on to give some temporary measures to help move from disparity to parity, and states:
"In the present socio-economic environment, however, if the following preferential system is adopted as a temporary measure, then the suffering of the people may be alleviated. First, poor people coming from backward families should get first preference in the fields of services and education, irrespective of their birth affiliation. Second preference should go to the poor people coming from non-backward families. Third preference should go to the non-poor people coming from backward families. Last preference should go to the non-poor people coming from non-backward families. Here, "backward" means families who did not get any services or education in the past. Such families should continue to get these facilities until there is no poverty in the country -- that is, until the minimum requirements are guaranteed."
The priorities are:
1. Poor and backward;
2. Poor and non-backward;
3. Non-poor and backward;
4. Non-poor and non-backward.
It is obvious here that it is the economic condition that is important, NOT birth affiliation (or in 4SP tract language groupification). This is made clear when Baba states:
"Thus, the criteria for receiving preferential services and education should not be birth affiliation but a person's economic condition. A so-called low caste shoe repair man may be economically well-off, thus the advantage of job reservation is superfluous for him and misleading for society. There is no need of job reservation in these circumstances. On the other hand, there may be a Maethil Brahmin who comes from a so-called high caste family but is economically very poor. Job reservation is essential for him, and would increase the economic standard of the entire society."
It is the economic standard that is relevant to any temporary system of job reservation, and birth affiliation is not a factor. Similarly, a formula that tries to cement birth affiliation (or groupification in 4SP tract language) into administrative posts as an 'organisational feature' is incorrect when it comes to looking at the matter from a Prout perspective. In terms of Caryacarya, constituting the CEC is a matter at the choice/discretion of the President when it comes to administrative postings on the CEC.
Indeed, where it otherwise, the 'Creamy Layer' of backward communities or minorities could benefit unnecessarily, and this Baba indicates is misleading for society. It would appear that Baba is rightfully disregarding the 'Creamy Layer' in the above extract, as well. The danger of 4SP is that it promotes birth affiliation and also has the same potential problems that arise in relation to the 'Creamy Layer'- which is one of the matters that has caused a fair bit of confusion in Indian constitutional law history.
Baba recognised the potential conflict between backward and forward classes and gave clear direction in relation to both legislative and administrative positions. Baba states (in relation to both undeveloped and developed countries):
"Many undeveloped and developing countries are struggling to elevate their backward classes. For example, Bihar is at war over the question of backward and forward classes. If the above system is followed, it would certainly end all possibility of struggle among backward and forward classes in India and other countries of the world. At the same time, it would automatically provide people with the opportunity for social justice and economic self-sufficiency. Without giving any consideration to caste, creed, religion, race, language or sex, governments would be able to create a suitable environment for the all-round and quick development of all local people, providing them with food, clothing, housing, education and medical treatment. This would eliminate any feeling of inferiority from their minds, and all would have the opportunity of earning their livelihood on the basis of their capabilities."
Baba foresaw the problems that a deficient policy, or one not well based on first principles, gives rise to when it comes to backward communities. In all this, race and language, as well as birth affiliation, are not factors to consider as indicated above. Any scheme that has these attributes in the forefront is an incorrect approach in terms of Prout.
Weightage or preferential treatment
-----------------------------------
In another discourse, Baba states:
"4) Question: What is the difference between a minority and a strong minority? And what does the term "weightage" mean in politics?
Answer: A minority is less than 40% of the population. A strong minority is between 40% and 50% of the population. Weightage is the preferential allocation of parliamentary seats to a minority over and above what it is logically entitled to. For example, suppose in a country 38% of the population belong to one community and 62% of the population belong to another community. In a house of representatives of 100 members, the former community should have a representation of only 38 seats. If more than 38 seats are allocated to it to appease any sense of social insecurity it may have, these additional seats are considered as weightage. The weightage system does not occur in the case of strong minorities.
In the past, in the Bengal parliament, there were 250 seats. Representatives were elected to 200 seats and nominated to 50 seats. That is, 50 seats were reserved for minorities and outstanding people from different fields. At that time 45% of the population belonged to one community and 55% of the population belonged to another community. To appease the former community, 120 out of the 200 seats were reserved for it, leaving only 80 seats for the latter community. This was not the correct approach because the former community were not a minority, but a strong minority."
Accordingly, proportional representation to satisfy minorities should be in proper proportion (eg 38% population means 38 out of 100 seats). Weightage or preferential allocation of seats, though is essentially a disproportional representation. There should be no weightage for strong minorities. There should be proper proportionality generally.
Baba clarified also that division by an numbers game in representative institutions (ie legislature) based on communal consciousness is unnatural. Such mental divisions is uncalled for. As below:
"As an example of the communal approach of the Government of India, take the case of Bengal. At that time reservation in the Bengal assembly was for 250 seats. 250 seats were created as part of provincial autonomy. Of these 250 seats, 120 were for Muslims, 80 were for non-Muslims, 25 were for British merchants -- for the British businessmen of Calcutta to contest elections -- a few were for Zaminders, a few were for universities, and a few were for labour leaders. The total: 250. In Bengal at that time, 45% of the population was Muslim and 55% was non-Muslim. That is, the land of Bengal was not only physically divided but also mentally divided, as a result of which Bengal was divided on the basis of communal consciousness, which is unnatural. Communalism is unnatural. Again today, the foolish leaders, the political leaders, are encouraging this very sentiment. And I fear that if it is not controlled in the proper time -- it is the most opportune moment to control it -- if it is not controlled in the proper time, the country will face further disintegration."
So the preferred approach when it comes to representation in a legislature, or certain parts of a legislature, that adopts a system of proportional representation is to have the proportions that reflect the actual numbers in the electorate(s) - of course, relative changes in population will not always get the exact numbers, but these differences are numbers on the margins and so are not immediately critical.
Say in an electorate where there are 900 persons of community A, 300 persons of community B and 150 persons of community C, the proportions are 6:2:1. Say also, that the candidates eligible for election come to 10% in each community, ie 90 for A, 30 for B and 15 of C. Then say that the number of seats available on the representative body are 27. This means by proportional representation, community A gets 18, B gets 6 and C gets 3. These proportion represents the simple facts of that electorate, the clear empirical approach.
Now say someone advocates that the proportion should be 2:2:1. Obviously, this would result in a disproportion all round. The numbers would come out approximately as 10.8:10.8:5.4 (or 11:11:5 when rounded) and result in what is called a gerrymander in favour of community C. A gerrymander being a political advantage by way of redistribution. Obviously that is politically untenable.
Let us say the population varies a bit to A=1000, B=300, C=200 with eligible candidates now being A=100, B=30 and C=20. Say that same advocate proposes that the ratio still sits at 2:2:1. What a disfigurement this would be because the true ratio is 10:3:2 or 5 : 1.5 : 1. We can see that community C is well out of proportion (favourably) in terms of their preferential allocations compared to community A if the ratio where to be 2:2:1. That is 2:1 compared to 5:1 and so community C consider themselves to be far more favoured than community A - this creates superiority and inferiority complex. This is ill-advised politics and inconsistent with the guidance provided in the Prout discourses. Remarkably 4SP advocates something similar in disproportionality and openly admits that a community such as C would be significantly advantaged, ie the "short-term effect of the current percentages would be ... a significant increase in power".
The approach of 4SP creates disparity not parity, and Baba says elsewhere that inferiority and superiority complexes, and social conditions that create them, are contrary to establishing parity. Throughout history, such complexes have been at the root of denial of human rights. The are contrary to the principle of social equality.
Conclusion
----------
The 4SP approach is inconsistent with Prout discourses in relation to political representation - both elected and administrative. It is plainly inconsistent when it comes to organisational governance in AMPS to suggest that the 4SP system or formula be introduced. The framework for AMPS organisational governance is already clearly set out in Caryacarya Part 1. One can, from the start, resort to 2 basic sentences in this regard:
"The purodha's of Ananda Marga will elect the members of the Central Committee from among themselves.
The purodha' pramukha will be the ex-officio president of the Central Committee, and he will constitute the Central Executive Committee according to his choice."
These sentences apply to AMPS and when carefully examined can be considered consistent with the Prout literature. Not that one can necessarily cent per cent equate governance structures advocated in Prout for general public politics with governance structures in AMPS for organisational purposes, but conceptually one can say they would have some similarity. Importantly, the governance structures above-mentioned in relation to Prout relate to general social politics while the governance structure for AMPS relate to organisational governance, and the better approach when making comparisons is to rely on the Prout discourses to do with Sadvipra Boards, not necessarily only on Prout discourses to do with general social politics.
We can see that 4SP does not attain the consistency. Rather it creates divergences in terms of seat reservation, job reservation and proportionality. When it comes to considering the neo-humanist decision making matrix, it is not beneficial (conducive to human welfare), ie it is non-blissful. It may be auxiliary to an extent but to harness some points it raises requires proper cultivation, ie it needs work for proper alignment with Prout and organisational concepts of governance.
Of course, for proper organisational development, we already have the core tenets in our AM organisational system and structure and that is what we should all turn our minds to, rather than unnecessary schemes and glosses popping up and then disappearing, whether they be so-called 'administrations' (curiously 4SP gives so much credence to these false administrations, stemming from NGB and EC, by accepting them under the name of 'administration', but then denounces them - again it present a confusing and inconsistent approach), GAC, or 4SP.
Dharmadeva
4SP flushed away - finished before it could get started due to defective outlook & misinterpretation of Baba's works.
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:24:32 -0400
From: Donald_G
To: am-global@earthlink.net
Subject: The Glass Menagerie
== THE GLASS MENAGERIE: RACIST QUOTAS ==
Namaskar,
Currently one faction, albeit a flailing faction, is filling the sky
with their silly menagerie and dreaming that dividing the Marga along
racist lines will lead to the formation of a united AM and one human
society. They think their racist quota system is the ticket to heaven--
the be-all and end-all.
Believe it or not, still 1 or 2 folks-- along with their leader-- are
foolishly clinging onto this hopeless, if not dangerous, agenda: The
racist quota system. All so that one aged factional leader can get some
power. For this reason he dreamed up his quota concoction.
However, the broad-minded teachings of Ananda Marga are something
totally different. Baba guides us that we are to employ the universal
outlook of neo-humanism to form that unified humanity, not a dogmatic
quota.
In that case what is the need to pull the mundane, racist, and outdated
quota system from the general society into our Marga. This will only
create tension and ill-feeling.
BABA'S SYNTHETIC APPROACH IS THE BEST
In our Marga, Baba has brought the feeling of unity between one Ananda
Margii and another by instilling high ideals and sentient practices. In
AM we have one Ista, one ideology, one code of dharma, and one system of
sadhana. These are all part and parcel of Baba's synthetic approach.
And the outcome of this is that everyone in AM is an Ananda Margii.
We do not distinguish between whether one is Korean or Venezuelan or
Haitian or Russian. None of these superficial differences do we
recognise-- none at all. Rather anyone who follows the golden precepts
of AM is an Ananda Margii. This is the practical outcome and sweet
result which we have all experienced first-hand.
By this way all Ananda Margiis share so much in common: From our belief
system to our way of eating, from our bath mantra to our Kiirtan, from
our 16 Points to our Yama & Niyama. By following all Baba's divine
teachings, then naturally a deep sense of unity is formed between all
Ananda Margiis and no one differentiates between one margii and another
on the basis of superficial differences like race or birth. Because we
are all one-- due to the great teachings of Ananda Marga.
And that is why before 1990 there was no such thing as a quota system in
AM.
ONLY THE NIA GROUP OPENLY SUPPORTS THE QUOTA
But now one groupist NIA chieftain is trying to drag that crude quota
system into our Marga. Of course B, H, and EC have their crude agendas
and racial tendencies but none of these factions will openly proclaim
that they actively support a racist quota agenda. This much smartness
they have. What they do behind the curtain is another matter. So it is
only NIA that is so foolish to publicly condone the racist quota policy.
That is why no margiis are attracted to the NIA platform. Before
investigating this fully let us see why and how the quota system is used
among the masses.
THE TOOL OF THE COMMON SOCIETY: QUOTA SYSTEM
Devoid of any higher ideal and without any sentient life practices, the
general society had to grab onto something to make their band-aid type
of "unity". And what did they grab onto?-- The Quota System.
By that way when employing people in an office or when accepting people
into a university the leaders cry out:
"Give me 3 whites, 2 Asians, 4 Blacks, 1 Native American,
2 Hispanics, 4 Arabs, and 3 South Pacific Islanders" etc, etc
Such a quota system is the crude way of bringing people together in the
mundane society.
This is done because the common public does not have any higher ideal.
Just they employ their crude quota system where everyone maintains their
own separate identities-- thus causing all kinds of problems and
difficulties like strained social relations, cultural tension, and
hatred between one race and another. This we see day in and day out in
the general society where race riots, racially motivated killings, and
bigoted name-calling are everyday events.
So the quota system is not something high or rational; rather it is just
one mundane mechanism for mixing people together and creating a false
show of oneness. All done because they do not have any higher ideal in
mind.
BABA'S WARNING AGAINST SEPARATIST POLICIES
LIKE THE QUOTA SYSTEM
From start to finish Baba is totally against the quota system. Because
it completely undermines the fabric of society and inhibits our
abilities to from one human society.
Baba says, "We cannot build a strong society if we discriminate against
a section of humanity by drawing imaginary lines of distinction." (HS-1,
'Social Justice')
So Baba does not at all condone the dividing or naming of people in AM
based on superficial differences like skin color etc. Thus when NIA has
created their own racist dictionary and is dividing the Marga society
along racial lines like H, B, NIA, NBIA, NIM, NITA, etc, then which
rational margii can appreciate such things.
And here again in straightforward and clear-cut language Baba condemns
the idea of separating people on the basis of language etc.
Baba says, "Clubs that are set up on linguistic consideration may not be
supported wholly on moral grounds." (HS-1, '87 Edn, p.39)
Thus Baba has zero tolerance for dividing humanity by making crude
distinctions on the basis of language, skin color, or origin of birth
etc. None of these things are acceptable in our Marga.
NEGATIVE WAYS OF THE NIA
Yet that is exactly what the NIA chieftain is doing. He has one grand
dream of dragging the crude quota system into our Marga and using that
to label and divide our AM society. This is his crude tactic.
Because in black and white language the NIA law-makers proclaim:
"Give me 3 NBIA'S, 5 NIA'S, 3 H's, 6 NITA's, 4 B's, and 2 NIM's..."
This is how the NIA chief wants to make the next batch of Purodhas: By
labeling and differentiating using their racist quota formula. In that
case how is the NIA agenda different from the ways of the crude general
society which has no higher ideal.
Once again here is a sampling of how things work in the crude, general
society:
"Give me 3 whites, 2 Asians, 4 Blacks, 1 Native American,
2 Hispanics, 4 Arabs, and 3 South Pacific Islanders" etc, etc
So NIA's grand master plan is nothing but a re-hash of the low-minded
strategies already in vogue in the general society. As if in AM we have
nothing better to do than to copy racist strategies. This is the NIA
leader's crude machination-- his dream of the quota system
NIA: NO DIFFERENT FROM DEFECTIVE WAYS OF THE PAST
When reviewing the defective philosophies of old, Baba points out their
demerits and failings.
Baba says, "Some of these philosophies pertaining to the physical realm
sounded very fine indeed, but they were not in perfect tune with the
hard realities of the objective world. Those philosophies were quite
satisfactory in the dreamland of theory, but they had no connection
whatsoever with the practicalities of the earth." (NH-LOI: Disc 1)
Thus the NIA's quota system falls into this same defective category.
Because already we know that the quota system is not working well in the
general society. It cannot stand up to the hard crust of the earth.
Rather this quota system is the cause of extreme racial hatred in so
many avenues in the general society. Even then the NIA chief paints the
glories of his quota system and insists on using it to promote his own
NIA agenda.
And here again when talking of the crude philosophies of old Baba points
out how such tinsel types of agendas went against the spirit of humanity.
Baba says, "Sometimes the superficial display of these theories has
dazzled the eyes of the onlooker, but actually they contained no
dynamism...In the end they have only flung humanity into the quagmire of
dogmatism, the breeding ground of innumerable mosquitoes. They did not
contribute to the welfare of any human being." (NH-LOI: Disc 1)
Likewise the quota system advocated by the NIA heads falls into this
same dark abyss of dogma and confusion. On the outside the leader tries
his best to make it sound alluring and he tries to make it sparkle but
the truth remains that the 4-Step plan is just one harmful and racist
approach drowned in the defects of the quota system.
BABA'S NEO-HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLE
By following the same sadhana and the same Ista and seeing one and all
as brother and sister, all Ananda Margiis are naturally drawn together.
Baba says, "People must develop closer and closer links with each other.
One heart must gain a warm and deep understanding of another heart." (HS-1)
Thus Baba's approach to forming unity is completely unique and universal
where there are no superficial distinctions on the basis of race etc.
There are no false groupings based on crude quotas. Rather everyone is
linked together as one.
BABA'S BLESSING
By Baba's grace the oneness of all will be established in our AM society
and then throughout the entire globe and planetary world.
Baba says, "The newly awakened humanity of today is anxious to herald
the advent of one universal society under the vast blue sky. The noble
and righteous persons of all countries, bound by fraternal ties, are
eager to assert in one voice, with one mind, and in the same tune that
human society is one and indivisible." (AFPS-2)
Namaskar,
Divyajyoti
Note 1: DEFECTS OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES
Perhaps nowhere else in the general society is the quota system used as
much as it is used on university campuses, especially in the US.
See here the recent US Supreme Court decision of June 23, 2003 which
upholds the quota system:
"The Supreme Court (5-4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's
policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by
colleges when selecting their students."
(www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline...)
And see the effect that such quota policies have. It goes not engender
feelings of unity--rather the opposite:
"A new study shows large numbers of female and minority faculty
experience a particularly challenging and sometimes hostile campus
climate, even as universities across the United States..." (12/18/2003)
And that negative environment does not just exist for faculty but for
students as well.
"Racism that Blacks and other minority students experience are racist
comments, graffiti with racial slurs and different treatment in the
classroom." ("Racism on U.S. college campuses')
So all along the way, we can see that by labeling and separating people
into racial camps does not lead to a wholesome sense of unity-- rather
it creates racial tension and backlash. At the same time in the general
society they may have no other recourse than to adopt the quota system.
Because in the present era they are entirely lacking any type of
neo-humanistic outlook. But in AM we have our higher ideal; then what is
the need to copy the crude quota system from the debased general society.
Note 2: GIFT OF NIA: THE RACIST DICTIONARY
Out of the desire to create a crude quota system and make himself a
Purodha, the NIA chieftain made-up his own racist dictionary that
harshly divides our Marga society. Whose ears can tolerate such
terminology.
NIA= Non-Indian Avadhuta/tika; NITA= Non-Indian Tattvika / Acarya;
NIM= Non-Indian Margii; IO= Indian Office; NI= Non-Indians; NBIO=
Non-Bengali Indian Office;
...And here are more communal terms which the NIA founder created:
IA= Indian avadhutas/ikas; NIB= Non-Indian brahmacariis; BI= Bengali
Indian; NBI= Non-Bengali Indian; B= Bengali; NB= Non-Bengali; BMPS=
Bengali Marga Pracaraka Samgha; HMPS= Hindi Marga Pracaraka Samgha, etc.
NBIA= Non-Bengali Indian Avadhuta
Plus NB-NBIA, NB-NBMPS, NB-NBI/EC, NB-NBI, etc, etc, and on and on he
goes...
All the above divisions came into the gray matter of the NIA founder.
With his own brain he created all this racist terminology. This can only
be due to a lack of sadhana and a lack of neo-humanistic feeling--
otherwise what can be the cause of such racist tendencies.
Note 3: THREE-STEP PLAN BECAME FOUR STEP PLAN
Who can forget the history that when the NIA chieftain first formulated
his racist strategy it was called the "Three-Step Plan". But when he
realised that the "Three-Step Plan" was totally broken and defective
then he invented the "Four-Step Plan". This is their crazy planning and
way of working. They invented their own selfish theories and crooked
policies based on their lust to become Purodhas. And then change their
theories based on their own whim and side by side they hope that no one
will notice.
Better these NIA heads should clean their minds with the force of
sadhana and follow the path of neo-humanism. If they can do that then
that will really be great. Then they will become the real seers of
society. Until that time however, so long as they remain wedded to their
racist polices and divisive Four-Step quota theories, the NIA factional
head will go down in history as just one more dogmatic theorist, like so
many before him. Because with sparkling eyes the new humanity will
easily recognise what is what and who is who.
Note 4: CREATING UNITY IN OUR MARGA
Here Baba has given the key how to create lasting unity in our Marga.
Baba says, "The entire society of A'nanda Ma'rga is founded on a common
ideal, the goal of becoming one with Brahma...the unity in a society
founded on the ideal of Brahma will be everlasting." (PNS-3)
********************************************
Right Type of Inspiration
Baba says, "Inspiration comes from inside. [Sometimes] we need
inspiration from outside; but that inspiration is not lasting. It is
momentary. But in order to inspire yourself you have got to know
yourself; by knowing yourself you are inspired always. Inspiration from
inside will stand for all time; it will inspire you for all time. That
alone is going to help you. And by inspiring yourself you are inspiring
others. So be an example. Be a true aspirant by becoming yourself what
you are; [and by becoming what you are,] you show others what they have
to be. So in order to know everything you know one thing. That one thing
is dharma. That one thing is the supreme truth, and that truth is hiding
in your heart. You have got to know that truth inside yourself. That is
why sa'dhana' has to be performed." (AV-31, p.100)
Note: Everyone desires inspiration; this is a universal quality of human
beings. And as Baba is describing above when a sadhaka receives praise
from someone for something they did, then that praise does not produce a
long-lasting effect. Such external inspiration cannot fuel someone for a
long time. Rather it will dry up quickly. In contrast when a strong
vibration comes in sadhana and one is filled with inspiration from
within, then that inspiration is permanent. It goes on and on. Certainly
each and every sadhaka has experienced this. That is why it is commonly
thought that external praise has little or no value in comparison to the
internal inspiration derived from our spiritual practices.
********************************************
posted by Paresh at 7:52 PM on Jan 4, 2008
We noticed this and 4SP is flushed away again.
-----Original Message-----
From: margiimail@googlegroups.com [mailto:margiimail@googlegroups.comSubject: m-mail Re: Political Weightage [Was: Why the confusion about seat reservation?]
Namaskar
Let us look at the passages.
Baba states:
"4) Question: What is the difference between a minority and a strong minority? And what does the term "weightage" mean in politics?
Answer: A minority is less than 40% of the population. A strong minority is between 40% and 50% of the population. Weightage is the preferential allocation of parliamentary seats to a minority over and above what it is logically entitled to. For example, suppose in a country 38% of the population belong to one community and 62% of the population belong to another community. In a house of representatives of 100 members, the former community should have a representation of only 38 seats. If more than 38 seats are allocated to it to appease any sense of social insecurity it may have, these additional seats are considered as weightage. The weightage system does not occur in the case of strong minorities." - Baba
An 'example' means it is a thing that is taken to show the character of the whole. That is, something to be imitated, a pattern or model. It is an instance illustrating a rule or method. Obviously it is there to set a good example. These are ordinary meanings of the word 'example' which you can find in English dictionaries. An example sets a precedent or a parallel
case. This is the basic logic behind giving examples.
An example shows the operation of the thing, be it policy, principle, provision or matter under discussion or that is referred to. While examples are obviously not exhaustive, they still cannot be interpreted inconsistently with the matter or context referred to. Nor can other constructions be brought in that go against the example which is explaining the matter it refers to. To do so is illogical.
The 38% and 62% example in relation to 100 seats (38 and 62 seats
respectively) is an example of logical entitlement. As an example it sets the precedent that is to be adopted. Another parallel example would be 30 and 70 seats (out of 100) respectively where the populations are 30% and 70% respectively in the 2 communities. That sort of example is consistent with the other example, or consistent with the precedent. Another consistent precedent or example would be 10, 30, 60 seats for populations of 3 communities of 10%, 30% and 60% respectively.
An illogical construction that goes against the example or precedent is one that asserts, say, where the population is A=1000, B=300, C=200 with eligible candidates now being A=100, B=30 and C=20, that the ratio of representation should be 2:2:1, when the true ratio is 10:3:2 or 5 : 1.5 : 1. Such a construction goes against the example or precedent referred to in the matter being discussed. Such an construction does not amount to another example at all consistent with the discourse, rather it is a distortion. It cannot be regarded as consistent with the precedent given.
It is clear that the desired example to follow is proper proportionality.
That is why the example concludes with the words "should have a representation of only" when it talks about the 38/62 seats in the 38/62 population percentages. This is logical entitlement. The word 'should'
expresses obligation and while it may also express the probable outcome, the word 'only' makes it clear what the emphatic intention is. Actually the words 'should' and 'shall' generally also denote emphatic intention a well, and with the addition of the word 'only' in the sentence the emphatic intention is very clear, because the word 'only' means solely, merely, exclusively, and nothing more, and that is all. We can clearly see that an example has been given and the purpose of a precedent or example is to follow it in analogous manner.
What the passage then does is contrast and compare this logical entitlement to weightage or preferential allocation. No example or precedent is given to follow weightage. The example set in the Prout question and answer is that of proper proportionality in the manner set out. This is the desired precedent.
We should bear in mind also that seat reservation is fundamentally against democratic principles. This is the essential background.
Furthermore, when a community considers itself more important than another community, this gives rise to communalism. This can result in physical and mental division. This is unnatural. Prout and neo-humanism do not support some kind of communalist system. Weightage has all the possibility of extra importance to one community compared to another.
Indeed it is clear in the purport to the fifth principle of Prout (also regularly cited) that sentiments based on narrow nationalism, regionalism, ancestral pride, etc (ie etc meaning and the rest and so on) tend to keep people away from the fundamental principle and simple truth about proper use. In this regard, as mentioned above, an example in the question and answer discourse is there to set the desired precedent to be followed. The fifth principle promotes progressive ideas and progress. It is not just any outdated idea that can be made to fall into principle 5.
If say community C is a weak minority, what it needs to do is build up its
numbers and influence. Eg, this can be done through promoting proper
organisational development and not defective ideas. The progressive literature I have looked at recently on election systems indicate that in a multi-diverse-cultural world problems are not solved by number of votes or weightage or gerrymanders, but are solved through constituitional guarantees, especially of basic necessities and rest on socio-economic well being not political voting by way of preferential allocations. Some temporary short term measures may be useful, but are not solutions by themselves.
Now having looked at the basic use of English (above), we find some commentators on this matter using paranoic words like 'attack' against a particular proposal. They take themselves far too seriously, as we are only debating against or for an idea. They also use rather silly things like having to go back to primary school and even more silly things like references to grand juries and lying. This has nothing to do with the debate about various passages and ideas. They serve no purpose.
Regards
Dharmadeva
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Baba Nam Kevalam
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home