We are better.
Democracy is the most suitable model for development of India. The person who aspire for kingdom can contest elections and become Minister, CM or PM and rule for 5 years without much of a problem. If his desires not vanished, he can maintain harmony(!) with the party, contest another term and continue. And to run the government for meeting the aspirations of the voters, one need money, and that comes through direct and indirect taxes. Ultimately, power comes through wagging wars with votes. Few seconds peeeee and one become the Master.
But ancient and medieval Kings and Sultans had no other options than to wage wars. One become King through heirship or through betrayal or through victory. A soldier can rise up to General and can become King through conspiracy or victory after waging war. In all options, command over the army was the key for success. The King is big if his army is big. However, bigger armies of Ibrahim Lodhi and Rana Sanga lost wars against the Cannons of Babar.
Apart from personal luxury of palace, ornaments, servants; the major expenditure of the Kingdom was incurred in maintaining the army. The expenditure on salaries of soldiers and ammunition. If one looses the strength, immediately he will be attacked by the neighbouring King. Land revenue was the major source of income, used to be received in kinds (food grains), purchased by baniyas by paying money to the king. The grains were stored and sold during lean season with higher price. And it became economic model of India of economic disparity, making the producers poor and the middle men rich. And the country was disintegrated into many States.
After construction of palace, etc, the Kings were doing welfare acts of making ponds, wells, temples, etc. As one increases expenditure, he has to increase income. One can't tax people more, therefore expanding the territories, or looting other kingdoms or winning another kingdom or put it into subordination to recover indemnity and collecting khandani, etc, were the options to increase income of the State. In all means, the money comes from the exploitation of the people. Therefore, we read Indian History as a history of fighting wars and keeping life of common men in poverty. It was Golden Sparrow for some and misery for many.
When India was under Kings, we had wars but democratic India with ultimate powers in the hands of the people, it is progressing well following principles of liberty, equality and justice. We are better.
Do you agree?
Punamchand
6 April 2015
Democracy is the most suitable model for development of India. The person who aspire for kingdom can contest elections and become Minister, CM or PM and rule for 5 years without much of a problem. If his desires not vanished, he can maintain harmony(!) with the party, contest another term and continue. And to run the government for meeting the aspirations of the voters, one need money, and that comes through direct and indirect taxes. Ultimately, power comes through wagging wars with votes. Few seconds peeeee and one become the Master.
But ancient and medieval Kings and Sultans had no other options than to wage wars. One become King through heirship or through betrayal or through victory. A soldier can rise up to General and can become King through conspiracy or victory after waging war. In all options, command over the army was the key for success. The King is big if his army is big. However, bigger armies of Ibrahim Lodhi and Rana Sanga lost wars against the Cannons of Babar.
Apart from personal luxury of palace, ornaments, servants; the major expenditure of the Kingdom was incurred in maintaining the army. The expenditure on salaries of soldiers and ammunition. If one looses the strength, immediately he will be attacked by the neighbouring King. Land revenue was the major source of income, used to be received in kinds (food grains), purchased by baniyas by paying money to the king. The grains were stored and sold during lean season with higher price. And it became economic model of India of economic disparity, making the producers poor and the middle men rich. And the country was disintegrated into many States.
After construction of palace, etc, the Kings were doing welfare acts of making ponds, wells, temples, etc. As one increases expenditure, he has to increase income. One can't tax people more, therefore expanding the territories, or looting other kingdoms or winning another kingdom or put it into subordination to recover indemnity and collecting khandani, etc, were the options to increase income of the State. In all means, the money comes from the exploitation of the people. Therefore, we read Indian History as a history of fighting wars and keeping life of common men in poverty. It was Golden Sparrow for some and misery for many.
When India was under Kings, we had wars but democratic India with ultimate powers in the hands of the people, it is progressing well following principles of liberty, equality and justice. We are better.
Do you agree?
Punamchand
6 April 2015
0 comments:
Post a Comment