To put it simply, can we make an assessment about the society of the United States of America after taking a view of the inherent personal traits of President Donald Trump? Is it possible to surmise that the society of India stands for those ideals and objectives for which Prime Minister Narendra Modi is known for? Does the person in Prime Minister Boris Johnson in England stand for the average of the thoughts and actions of the people of England? Does President Emmanuel Macron in France personify the people who have elected him as their representative?
The 1946 born Donald Trump, born as the grandson of a German immigrant, had passed through the careers of a real estate developer and a television artist before becoming the oldest first time president of the United States of America in 2016. He had married and divorced twice before marrying the current spouse, the first lady Melania Trump in 2005. During his time in politics, he was accused of lying about his educational qualifications and pursuing policies interpreted as racist in nature. Islamophobia and increasing hatred against all kinds of migrants became hallmark during the administration of President Trump in America. Now the question is that whether America stands for the inherent traits of Trump administration which stands opposed to the hitherto acclaimed American fundamentals of open society and free thought.
When it comes to India, Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi was mired in various controversies which still surround him. The controversies begin with his educational qualifications, which many of his opponents believe, came through an unholy sale-purchase format which was rampant in post British India at the back door of many universities. His supposed involvement in the Gujarat riots of 2002 was increasingly talked by his opponents until he was once for all acquitted by the Supreme Court later. His model of development in Gujarat was widely criticized as a whitewash program which failed to improve the socioeconomic parameters of all sections of society. He was accused of using the tactics of majority politics through polarization in society unaccountable to the norms of democratic politics. As a young man he involved a woman in marriage relationship which he neither owned nor disowned until he became Prime Minister in 2014. Now the question is that whether it can be taken for granted that by inducting the example of Prime Minister's marriage relation, can we assume that the woman in India are highly vulnerable and are unable protect themselves legally or otherwise in the social milieu? Can we assess that the majority of the Indians are increasingly becoming intolerant towards the beliefs and faiths of other people? Is it true that all the economic and political policies in India are designed to hoodwink the masses and propitiate the upper sections of the society?
In France Emmanuel Macron,
who became the youngest president of the country at the age of 40, had almost a meteoric rise to his position which he accessed by means of a promise of economic reforms. However his relations with many business houses and media houses, which his opponents claimed, became a fundamental force for his advancement against other candidates in what could be called a quid-pro-quo arrangement. In his personal life, he carried out an extreme oddity that he married his school teacher who was 25 years elder to him and whose eldest child in a previous marriage relation was elder to her newly wed husband. Now the question is that whether the French society that lavished its affection on its President stands for the same trait that the person of Emmanuel Micron has outlined? Can we assess fact that the wisdom of French society has become defensive against the tirade of media glare, high profile business and upper class opportunism?
In England Boris Johnson, who is known for his elitist charms and conservative moorings, had imbibed the ongoing trends of politics through journalism, before entering into politics. As a journalist, he earned notoriety for using foul language and for showing disproportionate favouritism towards issues favourable to his intentions. He engineered the exit of Britain from European Union and awarded the conservatives with a thumping victory in elections, In his personal life, he had married and divorced twice legally before marrying the current spouse. He also admitted that he had a child in an extra marital relation. He was also accused of having another child in a second extra marital relation. Going by the nature of Boris Johnson, can we assume that the society of England is pursuing the processes of exclusivism and isolation? Can the chaos in his personal life be taken as examples to state that the family life in Britain is in turmoil?
The second oldest language in the world, Sanskrit, is credited with a saying that can throw some light on our assumptions. "Yadha raja tatha praja" which means that, "as is the king, so are the subjects". However this statement fixes the whole onus on the king by stating that it is the character of the king that ultimately decides the character of the people. Sadly, it underestimates the responsibility of the people in making their king. Especially in a democracy, the character of the people delivers an ultimate imprint on the decision as to who must be chosen as their leader. It is due to this reason that the most capable of the men fails to make it into the top leadership even in many avowed democracies. A leader can try to change the people according to his imagination, but if he fails to do it, he will find himself in a situation that warrants his exit from his role as a leader.
When it comes to India, Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi was mired in various controversies which still surround him. The controversies begin with his educational qualifications, which many of his opponents believe, came through an unholy sale-purchase format which was rampant in post British India at the back door of many universities. His supposed involvement in the Gujarat riots of 2002 was increasingly talked by his opponents until he was once for all acquitted by the Supreme Court later. His model of development in Gujarat was widely criticized as a whitewash program which failed to improve the socioeconomic parameters of all sections of society. He was accused of using the tactics of majority politics through polarization in society unaccountable to the norms of democratic politics. As a young man he involved a woman in marriage relationship which he neither owned nor disowned until he became Prime Minister in 2014. Now the question is that whether it can be taken for granted that by inducting the example of Prime Minister's marriage relation, can we assume that the woman in India are highly vulnerable and are unable protect themselves legally or otherwise in the social milieu? Can we assess that the majority of the Indians are increasingly becoming intolerant towards the beliefs and faiths of other people? Is it true that all the economic and political policies in India are designed to hoodwink the masses and propitiate the upper sections of the society?
who became the youngest president of the country at the age of 40, had almost a meteoric rise to his position which he accessed by means of a promise of economic reforms. However his relations with many business houses and media houses, which his opponents claimed, became a fundamental force for his advancement against other candidates in what could be called a quid-pro-quo arrangement. In his personal life, he carried out an extreme oddity that he married his school teacher who was 25 years elder to him and whose eldest child in a previous marriage relation was elder to her newly wed husband. Now the question is that whether the French society that lavished its affection on its President stands for the same trait that the person of Emmanuel Micron has outlined? Can we assess fact that the wisdom of French society has become defensive against the tirade of media glare, high profile business and upper class opportunism?
In England Boris Johnson, who is known for his elitist charms and conservative moorings, had imbibed the ongoing trends of politics through journalism, before entering into politics. As a journalist, he earned notoriety for using foul language and for showing disproportionate favouritism towards issues favourable to his intentions. He engineered the exit of Britain from European Union and awarded the conservatives with a thumping victory in elections, In his personal life, he had married and divorced twice legally before marrying the current spouse. He also admitted that he had a child in an extra marital relation. He was also accused of having another child in a second extra marital relation. Going by the nature of Boris Johnson, can we assume that the society of England is pursuing the processes of exclusivism and isolation? Can the chaos in his personal life be taken as examples to state that the family life in Britain is in turmoil?
The second oldest language in the world, Sanskrit, is credited with a saying that can throw some light on our assumptions. "Yadha raja tatha praja" which means that, "as is the king, so are the subjects". However this statement fixes the whole onus on the king by stating that it is the character of the king that ultimately decides the character of the people. Sadly, it underestimates the responsibility of the people in making their king. Especially in a democracy, the character of the people delivers an ultimate imprint on the decision as to who must be chosen as their leader. It is due to this reason that the most capable of the men fails to make it into the top leadership even in many avowed democracies. A leader can try to change the people according to his imagination, but if he fails to do it, he will find himself in a situation that warrants his exit from his role as a leader.
Comments
Post a Comment