Fitting into system warrants conscience compromising

What do people mean when they tell others that uphold principles to be flexible. By the way, in today's context principles need not necessarily be what appeals to one's moral conscience.

Principles or what is in native parlance 'Prathipaththi' thus has taken a right about turn and is now widely accepted as one's loyalty to his/her political party, club, organization, friend or whatever other one may link up with in this life's boundless emotional baggage carried from a little past the cradle to grave - needless to speak of whatever moral deviance coming off any one or all of the above to which we give not only our most loyal and unstinted support but also sacrifice our treasured moral conscience as well.

Getting back to my point on flexibility - I know for certain such advice is well meant and supportive - yet in that flexibility is a total sell out of the inner self to uphold the unjust system's status quo.

I've come across not too many that are disturbed in the type of work entailing whatever professions - yet do so out of compulsion to keep home fires burning.

Distastefully understandable is the swap - moral sell out for personal gain. Not surprising then Jesus Christ's proclamation - 'man is a sinner'. From dawn to dusk - conscience compromising is his lot as he finds himself in systemic placement.

Lord Buddha's concern was not his next meal as he sought refuge in the jungle denouncing system involvement - his knowledge on its evils being boundless, his concern being public good over private enterprise.

At times some retired persons publicly confess, "well, I knew it was not the done thing, yet I had to do it considering my position at that time."

Many others in service distastefully disclose, "well, what to do that's my job. I've got to carry out orders."

The sinfulness of systemic tasks gained 'moral legitimacy' when the Church proclaimed such work as 'Service to God' - even though systemic work and God are two highly polarized states.

The state/church incompatibility would never merge given the corrupt nature of the socio/political/economic nature within territorial enclaves. Yet, attempts are under way to merge the two. For instance 'May Budungey Deshayayi' is upheld. Let alone Desaya, the Buddha even denied his own physical 'self'. That is the Buddhist philosophy's elegant state.

While the US emphasizes on the state/church dichotomy, some South Asian nation states are into using religion to promote ultra-nationalistic goals. The prostitution of religion then should not surprise us.

Within the democratic framework itself lies the unpardonable crime of majority rule - the quagmire of many contemporary nation states. In delivering such systemic layout is moral incongruence as ethno/religious/political/economic marginalization intensifies following overbearing majority rule.

In refined political entities such as Canada, India, Switzerland and some others, constitutional adjustments into whatever minority grievances needing rectification is apparent whereby not only moral shortfalls are met, but conflict neatly avoided as well which otherwise would drain out millions from respective national coffers.

People's sovereignty should be viewed in terms of equality. Their supremacy and collective will is undermined in an environment of inequity and unequal existence.

Constitutional safeguards against what is unequal and unjust are therefore sine-qua-non to maintain territorial integrity and people's sovereignty.

Territorial integrity is today mistakenly viewed only from the view point of preventing a marauding enemy into national soil. Yet, that it means much more is little knowledge.

The much sacrosanct people's will is in the restricted thinking of some nation states taken to be majority will, falling in line with ultra-nationalistic thinking based on ethnocentricity. The unitary state concept invariably facilitates such belief where territorial integrity is at stake.

Thus it is the sacred duty of constitution architects to be mindful of inequality and inequity when drawing up such governing mechanisms - all part of an uncompromising moral stand. The dangers of being flexible with morality, is at the expense of national loss.

An all inclusive constitution is more a conscience friendly exercise and augurs well for national growth.

On the other hand, for tradition bound societies, constitutional existence is futile. Britain for instance has no written constitution yet upholds relatively good governance. India with its unitary constitution bends backwards and forwards as and when the need arises in meeting its people's aspirations.

Come to think of it, good governance is a matter of conscience over whatever is institutional and technical.

[email protected]