Self or Elf

*************

Self or Elf

“A better world for people like you is as important as a better world for those yet to come.”

Now there are many ways to classify humanity, but the most basic way that can explain any other classification would be; self-centric, or social-centric. The individuals whose actions are motivated by self interests belong to the first group, while those whose acts are motivated by an intention for public welfare belong to the latter group. However, all social workers, politicians, or people claiming to be working for social benefit, do not necessarily belong to the latter category. The test here is the reason for the undertaking an endeavour. Is it because the result affects everyone including the individual for he belongs to the same group, or is it because the outcome will improve the scenario for others like him? The first scenario includes the individual’s own interests, while the second one excludes the individual for the individual is probably required to suffer and sacrifice in order to achieve the outcome.

So people involved in class acts, like supremacy or hate groups at the worst end of the spectrum, Labour organisations at the best end of the spectrum, and business groups or religious organizations somewhere in the middle, etc are all self-centric. The people involved in activities of these groups are motivated by the welfare of their respective groups as they are a part of those groups, and any improvement in the scenario means improvement of their own state, whether psychological or physical. The activities of these groups can only be beneficial to the society when these groups are able to balance their desires, and the outcomes of their actions, in a way that they do not harm the interests of other sections of the society. Of all the self centric groups, it is generally the labour organisations that are able to achieve this balance majority of the time, and that is why their work has indeed benefited the society in general.

On the other hand people involved with social actions like working with underprivileged sections of the society, survivors of catastrophes (natural or otherwise), the ones’ whose work will not change their past, but rather alter the future for those their work is aimed to affect, belong to the latter group. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Aung Suu Kyi set the bar for such people. The Arab Spring is a social centric movement as it involves action by complete societies where sacrifice and suffering have been a recurring theme. The result will neither fix what has happened in the past, nor bring back what has been lost in the heat of the movements, but it will improve the future for their posterities. Yes it is true, the social centric people can often end up being eulogized for their work, but for the amount of suffering they undergo, it is something well deserved.

So next time you decide to join a group for an action, do consider the ultimate aim and objective you want to achieve. If you are going to suffer, make sure it is for the whole society, and not just a fraction of it.

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss “Amanpreet Singh Rai”

*************

A letter to CJ of Supreme Court of South Australia

*************

Dated: 23rd November, 2012




The Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of South Australia,

Adelaide



Subject: Regarding “Evolution of Democracy”, “Cause of Justice”, “State and status of Courts in future”, and a brief contextual reference to an issue I contested in Magistrates Court and resulting implications.



Dear Mr Chris Kourakis,



I am writing this letter for varied reasons that I will explain as I go through the content matter, along with my intentions behind it. Let me start by introducing myself for it is as important as the message contained in this letter. I can assure you, I am not miserly with my words, but I don’t like wasting them either. If what I am going to say will not serve any purpose, I will not say it.



My name is Amanpreet Singh Rai, and I am the founding member of “Always Shine Australia Party” and “Vijayi Veer Vishesh India Party”. Other than being actively engaged in building a Socio-Political legacy to give to this world, I am currently managing two websites, with work on third still to be undertaken. I am an active music producer who’s released eleven songs via online stores like itunes and Amazon, and I have two novels available for purchase on Amazon Kindle, with another almost halfway complete. However, to support myself and to make sure I am a productive member of the society who doesn’t have to go to Centre-link for assistance, I undertake part-time work for three nights (Sunday-Tuesday), driving a cab. For all practical purposes, I was born an ordinary man, but I made myself one promise: “Before I die, I am going to do so much important work for the entire world community that my picture and name will appear in every history book across globe. And I will not rest until I have done that.”



This is going to be a lengthy letter, and much of its’ content will appear to be disconnected and irrelevant, but by the end of it, all the disconnected pieces will fall into their places and present a complete picture of things to come, the reasons why those things are important, and why those things are the only way forward for humanity and world. This letter is going to establish the blueprint for future “Evolution of Democracy”, something that had stagnated midway through the twentieth century. The message of this letter is so important, it cannot be constricted in its’ dissemination. I will be sharing a copy of this letter with intelligentsia of Adelaide, like the University deans, the Commissioner SAPOL, the Bar Council, and I will be displaying it on VVVIP’s website www.vvvip.in via its’ politics page.



For the sake of clarity, I will present the contents of this letter under various headings.



1. Truth about GOD:



After what I am going to say under this heading, there are two things that can happen. Firstly, since my views are in direct conflict with the current politico-business establishments and their financial interests, for I work for the ordinary people, what I say will create a door of opportunity for them to raise concerns about my mental health. Psychiatry is the modern version of the infamous “Dark Ages” witch hunting. But more concerning is the possibility of some religious fanatic taking me out. I will answer both these concerns after I have explained what I intend to here, and why it is important for the future of this world. In fact, this is the most important part of this letter.



All my life I have been a very GOD fearing person, a firm believer. My faith grew firmer as I went through a severe life crisis in the last couple of years, until early this year I received “Restricted Enlightenment”. Now before I detail the contents of the current heading and explain what “Enlightenment” actually is, I would like to address the first of the two concerns noted above.



It might be tempting for my detractors to question my sensibilities, but let’s not forget it was Mosses who claimed that his message was delivered to him by GOD himself, it was Jesus who claimed he was the son of GOD, and it was Prophet who claimed he gets enlightenment from GOD himself. Lord Krishna claimed he was GOD, and various Sages, saints, Gautam Buddha, and Lord Mahavira, have all claimed receiving Enlightenment. Will my detractors be prepared to question the mental state of these great souls, and be prepared to declare them mentally sick? If not, what locus-standee do they have to question my claim? If the answers to these are uncomfortable, then they better swallow their pride now and read on. What I am going to write here will not allow them even that largesse.



The myth about GOD was already deep rooted in human psyche long before Mosses introduced the “Ten Commandments” which form the basis of “Old Testament”. The oldest of all religious texts, the “Vedas” of Hinduism were first constructed around 1800 BCE. One of the best known sages of Hinduism is Maharishi Veda Vyasa, who is credited not only with the segregation of Vedic texts into their modern classification, but who is also the author of one of most important literary works of Hinduism. He was the first to disclose the truth about Universe and creation in his work, the “Mahabharata”. It’s an irony, it took over 3000 years (estimated dates only, for the exact dates of the creation of the epic, or the Sage himself are unknown) for the first Sikh Guru “Guru Nanak” to remind the same message to the world. The message that describes the complete truth about GOD, Universe and Creation, had to travel and evolve through Mosses, Buddha, Jesus, Prophet, and other enlightened souls before it was finally completed by the tenth and the last Sikh Guru “Guru Gobind Singh”. So what exactly is the message, and why it took so many Prophets, Messiahs, Saints, Sages and Gurus, to be finally delivered, not to forget, it’s taken over 300 years since Guru Gobind Singh for me to explain it today?



Maharishi Veda Vyasa clearly told the whole world in unambiguous words in “Geeta”, an important chapter of “Mahabharata”, the following;



“There are no limits to the extent of creation.”



The message was a part of the teachings administered by the central character of Mahabharata “Lord Krishna”, to his disciple, friend and cousin, “Arjuna”. Hinduism believes that Lord Krishna was the human form of the GOD himself, and Veda Vyasa was only recording what he saw and heard. So the words are not attributed to Veda Vyasa in public belief. Irrespective of the fact whether the words were a part of Veda Vyasa’s understanding of Universe and creation that he shared with the world, or whether they were indeed spoken by an exceptional human being whose life and acts Veda Vyasa was privileged to have witnessed and recorded, their meaning summed up the complete truth of creation as we know today.



Before I touch upon the message and importance of work by subsequent Saints, Sages, Prophets and Messiahs, it might be prudent to explain how the Sikh Gurus completed the message, and what the complete truth is about. The rest will then be easy to sum up.



Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru reminded the world the message of Veda Vyasa that had been lost in the sands of time. In his well known religious verses that form the part of a Sikh prayer “Japji Sahib”, Guru Nanak repeated and enlarged the scope of Veda Vyasa’s message. He writes, (the original verse is not in English but I will give its’ complete meaning):



“Paatala paatal, lakh aagasa aagas,

Odak Odak bhal thake veda, kehen ik baat.”



Guru Nanak repeated the message of Veda Vyasa, that there are no limits to the extent of creation. As is popularly held in scientific circles today, Guru Nanak explained that this Universe of ours is neither the beginning of creation, nor the only creation, least of all the culmination of creation. Guru Nanak put into perspective the quest of all the Saints, Sages, Prophets and Messiahs, and the limitation of various texts, both scientific as well as religious, that our knowledge about the extent of creation will never be complete. There is this Universe which exists in a space. That space exists somewhere, and whatever that somewhere itself is, it is itself a part of another something. It is a never ending paradox.



I have myself written many articles that are available on my artist website www.fatalurgecarefreekiss.com where I have tried to dwell upon these questions. The questions that help dispel the myth of GOD are, “Was GOD there first, or space there first? If it was space first, who created the space, and if there was GOD first, where did He himself originate? We all know how the space around us feels, but how will ‘Nothing’ feel and what will ‘Nothing’ be made up of? It is this ‘Nothing’ that GOD would have been required to emerge out of if GOD has created everything. How would have that happened if there was ‘Nothing’?”



The tenth Sikh Guru “Guru Gobind Singh” completed the message first initiated by Veda Vyasa, that there is no GOD. He has given a cryptic reply in one of his religious texts under the name of “Chaupai Sahib”, its’ extended version which is a part of Sikh religious text under the name “Rehras Sahib”. I will quote two of his verses here and explain their true meaning in English.



First verse:



“Main na Ganes prithme manayun.

Kisan bisan kabhu nahin dhyaun.

Kaan sune pehchan na tin so.

Liv lagi mohi pag isno.”



He clearly explained that there is no one at the helm of creation, the one who created everything. He clearly forbids belief in any or many GODs, and goes on to advice us not to pay heed to such misleading words and rather be enlightened about the truth.



Second verse:



“Mahakal rakhvar hamaro.

Maha loh main kinkar tharo.

Apna jaan karo rakhvar.

Banh gahe ki laj bichar.”



He explains that the only truth and our only saviour is our own death, for there is no guarantee whosoever will be born, but whosoever is born will have to die. We are alive only for so long as our death does not come to us. Each one of us is like a tiny fragment of the total life that exists in this Universe, be it plant, animal, microbial or alien, and it is only the acceptance of the truth which saves us from indignity and degradation, moral or otherwise. His message is to seek oneness not with a supernatural power, rather the existence which is interconnected as universal life. It is the life entrapped within the matter that governs the interaction between matter and matter, and accepting yourself to be a part of it improves the quality of such interactions, thus improving our world.



To give an example, the moment we take responsibility for protecting wild life and trees, we straightaway affect the ecological balance positively on a micro level. Many such micro efforts combine to yield a positive macro level outcome by affecting the weather patterns. This ultimately affects our energy consumptions as well as food and fibre productions, thus impacting our economic activities. So how good our world as well as life is, rests in our own hands. This is an example that affects an entire community. At individual level the quality of our lives is determined by the level of honesty and morality we display in our day to day dealings. A morally upright society is good for everyone that resides in it.



Natural selection is not just a concept exclusive to biological evolution. It is very much prevalent in social-evolution as well. It is true that future is based on decisions made by men, and rest becomes history. However it is not men who pick up their situation. Rather it is the situation that selects the best possible man for the job. Nobody could have replaced Mosses for he was the only one capable of rescuing the then society with his foresight and perseverance.



The “Ten Commandments” of Mosses were a judgement call only Mosses amongst the mass he was leading could have made. It is not that Mosses didn’t knew the truth that there is no GOD, but the situation he was faced with made him make a decision in the best interest of the future of the yet to be born society. He was leading a group of ex-slaves who had experienced freedom for the first time, and with no restrictions in place, morality was at its’ lowest ebb. Even if Mosses had succeeded in leading the group all the way to the new land, the lack of morality would have ensured the collapse and demise of the society even before it could have been assembled. The fact that Mosses couldn’t complete the journey, and irrespective of the reasons provided by his followers, show that he was physically fragile and would not have been able to physically enforce his authority. In such a scenario he needed a psychological handle to control the populace and enforce a moral code that would help the new society prosper as a cohesive unit long after he was gone. Using GOD was in the best interest of the society and its’ future, and nobody could have made a better call than Mosses did in the situation. The sufferings he endured to build a new society makes him immortal and worthy of the stature he enjoys.



However, the problem with humanity is that it is inherently corrupt. The message of Mosses is timeless, but shrewd men distorted it too far in their quest to control the masses. Both Jesus and Prophet Mohammad faced a moral-less society all over again. They both knew the truth about GOD, but they both also knew the importance of the “Old Testament”, and that is the reason why neither of the two questioned either Mosses, or his words. The two were forced to create new paths; Christianity and Islam, for the religious practices being followed by the society at that time were plagued with lies and superstition. They were forced to use the same psychological handle, for neither was the society ready to be told the truth, as no one would have believed them (since science was effectively non-existent in its’ social impact), nor would the society have survived without the fear of moral consequences. Both Jesus and Prophet did what was in the best interests of the future of the societies they were leading. They suffered for a better future, and for the sake of the rest of humanity, hence are every bit worthy of their stature.



But humans will be humans. The mess that we see today, be it in any religion, is a direct result of distortion of the messages of such pious souls by their very own followers. To give you two examples, who is not aware of the atrocities committed in the name of GOD by the Church during dark ages? Innocent people were burnt alive after being declared witches. Will any court or society today accept such a verdict? And if we want to look at the way Prophet Mohammad’s message has been distorted, without even going into the details of the “Jehad” associated propaganda, I will simply point out the fact that, no sooner had the Prophet left this earth, his followers divided his very own faith into two groups, the “Shias” and the “Sunnis”, and neither of the two is ready to see the other in the eye.



Similarly, I can blame the Hindu priesthood for dividing GOD into so many forms that the names can’t even be counted on finger tips, but then even us Sikhs have failed to understand the message clearly written in our own revered texts. Sikhism itself has deteriorated into mere symbolism.



So the question is, “If there is no GOD, should we celebrate festivals like Christmas, Diwali, Gurpurab, Id etc?”



The answer is an emphatic “Yes”, for these festivals do not celebrate GOD, rather the people who suffered and sacrificed for the sake of humanity, to create a better world, and secure its’ future. In addition, these festivals help strengthen the moral fabric of both the families, as well as societies. However, what we need is to let go our false beliefs that divide us into secluded groups, for this world belongs not to one race or religion, but everyone. What I am doing today is not going to impact just the Indian Community as I am of Indian origin. What I am doing today is going to impact the lives of ordinary people of all races, faiths and nationalities.



As I share the truth about GOD, I can assure you I had the same questions and situations staring me in the eyes, that Hindu Sages, Saints, Mosses, Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, the Ten Sikh Gurus, and every other enlightened soul that knew the truth about GOD faced. This truth will release the psychological handle that helps majority of the society to act morally. But I am the first enlightened person who had the luxury of both living in a world which consists of a majority of self-righteous people who are actively working for communities globally, without any religious reasons, plus the biggest determining factor that tilts the scales against all the reasons the afore mentioned people faced; “The world we live in today is sitting on a stock pile of weapons of destruction beyond imagination. And with hatred spreading deep and far every day, if I do not expose the truth now, this world will destroy itself.”



The fact that this message comes in the backdrop of the Israeli offensive in Gaza, and the NATO-Iranian standoff over nuclear issues, enhances the importance, relevance and implications of this message beyond reasonable doubts. But this message also puts me at risk of being eliminated by some idiot fanatic, the second of the two concerns I mentioned at the start of this section. Perhaps I might, but then, history was never written by cowards who fear consequences and mingle in the herd. History is written by real men who question the past, fix the present, and create a blueprint for the future they want to see, be the leaders.



This message is an integral part of the “Legacy for the future” that I am going to leave behind for this world. This letter introduces the blueprint of the future I envision, and my words will live on to promote that vision, which happens to be the only vision perfect for a just and free world.



Those who quantize ability, talent and intelligence according to some prejudicial characteristic like race, religion, sexual orientation etc, neither do they have my respect, nor their opinion matters to the work I am doing. This world is not their father’s property, and belongs to everyone equally. Natural disasters, epidemics and catastrophes do not discriminate against any particular demographic, nor do inventions and discoveries originate out of one demographic, or benefit only one demographic. What I am working to achieve will benefit people of all races, religions and demographics, hence, cannot be compromised on account of the excess baggage of humanity. Its’ a shame there is no way to stop prejudiced people from benefitting from the work I will accomplish. This world has lost as much talent due to the attitudes of such people, as much it has lost in great wars. Every time a talented individual is denied their due on account of a prejudice, the progress of humanity is pushed behind by one individual. This progress is not achieved until someone else gets a chance to accomplish what that one individual should already have, thus setting back the evolution of further ideas.



Now before I give more details about the legacy I am claiming to leave behind, let me explain what “Enlightenment” actually is, and why I refer to mine as restricted. The truth is there is no “Complete Enlightenment”. Enlightenment does not make an individual one with the GOD; rather it makes the individual realize, for one; “The truth I always believed about GOD was indeed a lie.” Secondly, the person begins to understand how human psychology works, thus understanding the behaviour patterns of the past and present, and becomes able to predict the behaviour patterns as well as physical conditions of the future, based on the foresight about things to come if the present circumstances continue to develop on expected lines. Still another aspect is the understanding of how various religious, moral and social aspects came into existence, as also the myths about the Universe and all the creation within. This “Enlightenment” is always restricted by two factors; the prevalent scientific understanding of physical creation known to the individual, and the individual’s ability to question the unknown reality in philosophical terms. So the “Enlightenment” that has ever been claimed, including by myself, is nothing but a super-developed commonsense. Is it possible to question the sanity of commonsense?



This brings me to the real context of this letter; “The legacy for future” that I will leave behind. The topics “Evolution of Democracy” and “Future of Courts” derive their origin out of this legacy.



My gift to this world is going to be a blueprint (and possibly, the reality, depending upon how successful my endeavours are) for a free, equal and “borderless” world. The concept of “Global Citizenship” as I envision, is going to originate in the backdrop of this blueprint. However, there are two main concerns that I need to address for this model to succeed; the first one is “Religion” as I have addressed just above, and the second is the current forms of societies, that is Capitalism, Communism, and Dictatorships. Humanity is deeply impacted, and controlled by these two factors. To ensure that a “Borderless” world will be fair and equal to everyone, I needed to reveal the truth of GOD, which I have done so far, and now I need to explain how the democracy needs to evolve further, so that interests of majority of human beings are protected and not overrun by a few individuals, (be it political establishments of Communism, the Corporate houses of Capitalism, or the detached ruling class in a dictatorship).



If I fail in my efforts to unify this world, this world is either bound to be destroyed physically by the hatred, or it will return to “Dark Ages” where the power and freedom will be concentrated amongst a super-influential minority. The majority will be reduced into a working class with big dreams but no resources, with only one right (to vote for candidates put in front of them) and one freedom (which employer to work for, limited by the availability of work). This in all honesty will be the modern version of slavery, where majority will have nominal freedom with limited choices. If, on the other hand, I succeed in my efforts and the world matures into what it should be in better interests of humanity, but it forgets the message of this letter, the same fate as just described, will befall.



Hoping that I have put my work into perspective, its’ time to get on with the next topic of this letter.



2. Evolution of Democracy:



The beauty of Democracy is; it is the only form of society where ordinary people are not ruled by anyone. The Government is neither the ruler of the society, nor the owner of the resources. It is just an employee of people and caretaker of the society’s resources. People use the power vested in them by the instrument called “Vote” and, collectively, hire (or employ) representatives (as opposed to leaders) to work for them for a set contract length (Five years in India, Four in Australia and US). The job of these employees entails, among other things, making decisions for the efficient utilization of a society’s resources, in the best interests of the society. If these employees fail to deliver, they are not re-issued the contract after their earlier contract expires.



Democracy, after its’ initial introduction, evolved rapidly, thanks to the pioneering work put in by socially enlightened souls, like honest Union leaders, rights groups etc. The democratic societies we live in today where everybody has a right to equality and justice, evolved out of such monumental efforts. But is the evolution of democracy complete? In fact a more relevant question is, “Can evolution ever be final?”



Evolution is a natural phenomenon that develops an organism or an entity, to make it fitter and help it survive changing circumstances. Without evolution, the entity is nothing more than a stagnant ripe substrate, and the only thing which can grow on such a substrate is microbes or weeds. Our present democracies are a perfect example of such a rotting substrate.



Individual and class actions evolved the democracies to make them equal societies to a certain extent before the evolution stopped altogether. Ordinary people became complacent and the minority elite, whose interests were severely hampered by the new world democracy, as opposed to the earlier autocratic societies where they were the ruling class by default, they developed ways to work around the democratic ideals and principles of free, equal and just world. Monopoly is unofficially legalized, and globalization is the new form of old world “Imperialism”, which is pro-actively destroying the interests of weaker business communities across the globe. Ordinary people are once again facing the brunt of uncertain futures, rising taxes, diminishing opportunities, and limiting freedoms. Democracies that were established with much fanfare, and hailed globally, have all started to stink.



Indeed, the spread of Democracy to replace other forms of Governance, namely autocracy, dictatorship and ‘Communism without freedom to choose’, is the first part of evolution of Democracy. But an equally important and integral part of the future evolution of democracy has to be the ability to counter anti-democratic systems like Plutocracy, Oligarchy etc. Its’ true, in Dictatorship people have no rights, and in Communism people have no freedom. But in Capitalism, people are fast losing their opportunity. The need for the further evolution of democracy, to strengthen this society in the best interests of the majority, that originally brought about this change through blood filled revolutions and struggles, has never been greater.



The borderless and equal world that I envisage will not be fare if people living in that world do not have equal opportunity and freedom. The current political establishments have all been well documented for working in the greater interests of the minority elite, as proved by global demonstration like the “Occupy Movements”. The next step in evolution of democracy is the spread of the true meaning of democracy as I have summed up in the first paragraph under the current heading. This needs to be brought about by peaceful democratic process of political overhaul. Much detail about this is provided through the political write-ups that are available on my artist website mentioned earlier. I have introduced a new system of Governance under the title “Equalism” for this very end. This system will be the only system capable of achieving an equal society for everyone once a borderless society is created. It will grant protection to the interests of the majority of the population, but at the same time allow talented and enterprising individuals to succeed and top the rest. However, just like “Modern Democracy” which it will be an integral part of, this system will have to be evolved over the time, depending upon the changing needs and situation of the society. I can give a base, but rest of the construction is up to the world community.



A borderless world will not only need to have a common currency, but also a common law code, a common salary structure, and a common “Equalism” (or a similar structure which provides every one equal opportunity) based business model for the entire world. While there should be no restriction on anyone living anywhere, this borderless world cannot be achieved until every part of the world has been equally developed into modern cities, so that the need to leave ones’ home region and settle somewhere else is non-existent. When the salaries will be similar, business models similar, same currency, and there will be same level of development across the cities, such a migration will not be needed. Legal aspects like a common fingerprint and DNA database, plus other databases like medical records etc, will become important. But all these are finer details of the blueprint the Presidents, Prime-Ministers and other administrative heads of nations will have to work out before the actual merger.



It is not a quick solution, but will need a concerted effort spread across decades, much like the “Federation of Australia”. However, much more important to be achieved before the start of this phase will be the development of “Equalism” based set-ups in nations across the globe, and possibly, political refinement if the current leaderships of the nations are not up there with their moral standards and commitments to their societies. Ordinary people need to learn; “Political parties and short term agendas are unimportant. It is the nation which matters.” This understanding by the general public is a part of the “Evolution of Democracy”.



Democracy can only be a truly beautiful system when everyone will not only have equal rights, but equal access to opportunity. What should differentiate better individuals from rest should be their intelligence, diligence and enterprising nature. Protection of opportunity for the next person from the previous success story is important. The systematic wiping out of small business from the market by big corporations, for example, in fields like groceries, furniture, fast food etc, is not a healthy trend, and is a direct result of stagnation of democracy. The impotency of political regimes in controlling monopolisation of markets, intentional or due to lack of foresight, are clear indicators that ordinary people have lost their voice in governance of their societies. This can only be classified as degradation of Democracy. We are slowly moving towards the societies our ancestors had wiped out; the aristocracies. But I realize that courts are not the institutions to fix lacunae in legislature. This is the field of politics, and that is exactly where its’ solution lies. However, evolution of courts and law itself are an integral part of the process of evolution of democracy, hence this build up was necessary.



3. Future of Courts:



Courts in a democratic society, simply put, are the last line of defence available to ordinary people. The importance is further hyphenated when the person seeking justice happens to be from the weakest section of the society, and the one committing a wrong happens to be a powerful organization or individual. But have the courts really evolved to a level where ordinary people feel comfortable approaching it for justice?



From the days of Magna Carta to the modern day Court rooms, no doubt a lot has been revolutionized. If on political front people are not ruled by an arbitrary autocratic dynasty in most of the modern democracies like India and US, and within reasons in UK and Australia, Courts have done away with obsolete requirements like “Forms of action”, and have standardized procedures. Law evolving in Courts is in much better state than that evolving via legislation. But is this evolution still up-to-date? If democracy has stopped evolving, and courts and law are an integral part of evolution of democratic societies, are the legal structures still evolving?



As an ordinary man, I am not comfortable with the thought of going to court for any reason. Going by that yardstick I can safely say that there is something lacking in the evolution process. I will dwell deeper on some specific issues in my next and last part of this letter regarding an issue I recently contested in court. But for now I would concentrate on the future direction and status I foresee for courts, as I strive to provide humanity a better, just and equal society. A change is never welcome, but if it is necessary, it has to be brought.



What I am going to write from here onwards will raise quite a few eyebrows in judicial circles world over, but I am not a joker out to please judiciary. I have an important responsibility on my shoulders. I will not only explain the changes that are necessary to be brought either legislatively or politically, or via the efforts of the courts themselves, but I will also provide specific reasons for each one of them. And I might as well mention here, I do not intend any of this as an insult to the courts globally. I don’t come from a family or educational background that resorts to such pitiful practices. I come from an upper middle class family, top caste in our religion by Indian yardsticks, and I have had the privilege of getting my education from some of the best institutions of my region. My school “General Gurnam Singh Public School, Sangrur” is one of the best known schools in Punjab, the state I come from in India. My college “Dravidian Anglo Vedic College, Chandigarh” is one of the best in India, “State College of Education, Patiala” is one of the best teacher training institues in Punjab, and “Punjabi University, Patiala” where I did my “Masters in Forensic Science” with a University Gold Medal from my batch, is one of the best Universities in North India. In fact, when “University Grants Commission, India” started the process of rating Universities across India, my alma mater was not only awarded a five star rating, but by virtue of me being the highest scoring student from first year of my masters program, I had the opportunity to represent my University Department in front of the UGC team in 2002. As we presented our University’s case for a five star rating, such vociferous was my representation at the meeting that the head of the UGC team had to ask me to let student representatives from other departments speak as well. If the then Dean - Student Affairs, and the UGC team members remember the incident, they will most certainly remember me. So what I am going to say here, the courts world over might have to take it with a pinch of salt, but it is not intended as an insult. The cause is to make justice readily available to ordinary man. The courts may insist to differ from me with my previous statement, but for someone who has been an ordinary man in court, I can assure each and every court in this world, “The reality is different.”



Firstly, the basic principle behind law in a free democratic society, which I am sure every court will agree, is: “A hundred criminals might escape, but a single innocent should not be punished.” Secondly, the majority of the people in society are no more aware of the laws than a superficial knowledge, leave alone being aware of all the precedents the courts tend to rely upon. Every motorist driving a vehicle is not a lawyer, and every dentist is not a judge, least of all, a labourer doing road-works.



Most of the people that end up in court as defendants are contesting a situation they were a part of before they knew all the law their lawyer would have spoon fed them since. As such, threading bare the intricacies of law while deciding the matter is akin to doing a disservice to the cause of justice. Law may or may not be clear, the precedent may or may not be direct, the individuals involved were most likely unaware of all the technicalities created by precedents associated with the law of the situation. The situation being judged happened in a real world which is never perfect. An absolute application of law or precedents is as such unfit for such a situation. Every situation merits a fresh look. When even science cannot claim perfection, how can law or precedents be perfect?



Let me explain this with an example from my contested matter. During the court proceedings I raised a question as to how can a law which is silent on the issue of liability be classified as one of a strict or absolute liability. The court dwelled upon the issue and informed me of a previous judgement, which is supposed to be an authority on the matter. The judgement clearly defined that a law silent about liability is to be construed as that of strict liability. The courts world over may consider this judgement as an authority but as far as democratic principles of law are concerned, irrespective of the details of judgement, if this part of the judgement alone was to be the criterion for rating the judgement on a scale of ten, I will rate the judgement zero, and not without a reason.



This part of the judgement is directly in conflict and contrary to the basic principle of law that I’ve mentioned earlier, that not a single innocent should be punished. By construing a law silent about liability as one of strict liability, the judgement has straightaway denied the defendant most of the defences available. So for an ordinary man who was involved in a situation without any knowledge of the law proper itself, leave alone this precedent, the job of proving his innocence is even more difficult. The law has set in motion a process which will convict one man, possibly innocent, like a criminal. Where is the democratic principle then? This is the reason why law is often accused of creating criminals.



This example illustrates not only the reason why courts need to develop a more practical outlook towards situations of legal significance, but it introduces the first important aspect of evolution of law and courts. The principle of relying upon precedents should be done away with. It is a handicap to the cause of justice. Judges should judge each case on its’ own merits, and not according to precedents.



The second big problem with courts is; there is a tendency among courts to delegate their responsibility to the lawyer community. Every time an unrepresented party appears, courts tend to motivate the party to seek legal advice. The truth however is, the lawyer community has complicated the law to an extent where it is hurting the cause of justice. If the courts need help with knowing precedents and laws involved, then they need to hire lawyers as employees, rather than the appellants or defendants seeking legal help. It is not the courts’ job to make sure that every lawyer makes a living. The courts’ job is to make sure every person living in a free and democratic society has access to justice. Yes I agree it will increase the burden on courts and judges, but then judges were aware of what the job will entail before their joined judiciary.



If job and pay conditions are a concern, no man should join a job he will not be satisfied with. And if the man finds out the truth after he has joined the job, and he won’t be able to live with the situation, then he should either quit the job, or quit complaining. As part of evolution of democracy, in best interests of justice, the practice of lawyers representing parties will have to be done away with. Instead the lawyers will be hired by the future courts to assist in legal work. Both the appellant and defendant will have to appear unrepresented. The burden of collecting evidence for both prosecution and defence will rest on Government agencies like police force as their job is to be neutral, without limiting the rights of the contesting parties to collect evidence on their own as well. This is the only way to even scales for both sides, and it will promote the cause of justice. The increased work load on courts will have to be balanced by opening more courts.



This brings to front the next issue, the legal costs. The matter that I have just contested, I have raised a very pertinent issue about the same every time I had appeared in the court, only to be told that I need to put the question to the trial judge. And when I asked the trial judge, the reply I got is not even worth mentioning. One of the biggest harm that can be done to the cause of justice is to hang the sword of legal costs over defendants. If the defendant happens to be a person belonging to a weaker section of the society, and the litigant happens to be a powerful organization, the fees to hire an attorney is already one big deterrent to seek justice, add to it the risk of being punished even more were the defendant to fail in proving innocence, the thoughts of seeking justice perish. If the issue is a petty matter like something I was forced to contest, it clearly implies, “If injustice has been done to you but it is not by much, just accept the injustice and live with it for the rest of your life, for seeking justice is too risky.” This cannot be the way to promote the cause of justice.



In my personal instance, I will now be filling an appeal against the judgement, not just because I disagree with the judgement as such, but because this is an opportunity for me to take the issue of legal costs to a level where it will have to be answered. I will contest this matter until I make sure justice is more readily available for people with meagre resources. However, my personal experience will serve as a guide post for the next point of evolution of law. For justice to be more readily available to every member of the society, the concept of legal costs will have to be dropped. The litigant is well aware of what is to be taken out of a verdict. If it is not going to be a case of exemplary damages, and money is more important than justice, then the litigant should not bring the matter to the court. If however justice is what is more important, then legal costs should not be a factor. The choice of whether to bring a case to court rests solely with the litigant. The defendant can only choose to defend himself, or accept the allegations without a fight. As such, making defendants cover the legal costs, for deciding to defend their innocence, defeats the cause of justice.



Justice is a right of every individual living in a democratic society, and this right is directly linked with the freedom of choices for people, and responsibility of the Government towards the people, both enshrined in democracy by default. When a person works hard and is a productive member of his beloved homeland’s community, he naturally considers justice to be his birthright. If however the justice is not available to everyone equally, and for free, it defeats the purpose of Democracy for the weaker sections of the society, and the public is left with no choice but to pick up a weapon and get their own justice. Dictatorships at the centre of Arab Spring are a perfect example of societies desperate for justice, for equality and freedom are the two measures of justice. But is this the kind of society the courts would like to promote in democracies?



I am aware that the courts can relieve a lot of court costs if the appellant is not in a position to afford the court costs, but the appellant is required to make an application, and the final decision rests with the court. If courts are really keen on making justice readily available to everyone, why follow this redundant procedure? The only reason to keep such a practice in place would be to impress upon the society, some kind of court superiority, something I don’t believe can have a place in a democracy.



Courts are an integral set up of any society. Every society pays taxes to the government for running of affairs, including courts. The Governments have access to tap a nation’s resources to generate income. The burden of running courts rests entirely on the Government, and not the people. I can understand if this statement finds no takers in the Judicial and executive circles today, but then, this is what the “Evolution” means. These concepts that may sound alien at this moment are exactly what I am looking forward to be made an expected integral part of the future democratic societies.



This brings me to the part of this letter which I do not expect to find any favours with any judicial circles across the globe, for it challenges the traditions that are as out of place in a democracy, as an autocratically elected government. Courts, as noted earlier in this letter, are not places that instil confidence in the hearts of ordinary people when they wish to seek justice. There is a psychological handle of fear that adulterates their confidence, even when they are innocent and in need of justice. The truth is; “It is not the courts that criminals should be afraid of, rather justice”. The thought their actions will be held accountable by a court, and they be punished for their misdeeds is the crux of justice in any society. However, since the days of Kings, Courts have been places not readily accessible to ordinary people. What a shame, even in this day and age, without the help of lawyers, the chances of ordinary people getting justice are slim to non-existent. While I have already explained the next phase of evolution in justice system regarding lawyers, court fees, costs, and a few procedures above, it is time to address the issue of psychological handle of fear of courts.



For a man who knows the truth about GOD, seeks equality for every person, a unified peaceful world, who is actively using his public profile, both as an artist (Singer, music producer and writer) and as a politician (founder of two political parties, author of many letters to heads of various Governments on wide ranging issues, countless youtube videos), to spread socially relevant messages like “Don’t use drugs”, “Develop higher fidelity in relationships”, who actively promotes behaviour that strengthens family ties, bonds of friendship between sections of communities, promotes small businesses and self-dependence, I would like to question the last few remnants of autocratic societies that are still prevalent in courts. The two erring protocols that not only segregate a democratic society into superior and inferior citizens, but are also a big reason why ordinary people feel over-awed by the courts rather than being confident, are the anti-democratic requirements for a free citizen to bow to the court, and to address judiciary with epithets like “Your Honour”. We have come a long way for such practices to be still a part of our societies.



Such practices were a part of old world societies ruled by Kings, where ordinary men were barely more than slaves. Such practices reminded them of their inferior status in hierarchy. Such practices can only be practically expected to be followed in dictatorships today, where people have no, or only nominal rights. It is time the courts moved on from such practices on their own, thus being the pioneers of “Evolution of Democracy”. In a democratic society, everybody is equal and no person or organization is superior to anyone. When even the Government is an employee of the society, I see no reason why Courts should not bring about this positive change on their own. Not only will this make Courts more approachable to ordinary people, but is also a natural process in evolution of consumer service organizations, be it Government, or private. At the end of the day, the courts are Government agencies dealing with public at consumer level. The product courts dispense is justice.



Even if the courts world over, refuse to accept my arguments presented here, simply because it is always hard to step down from a pedestal, it will be an integral part of the “Evolution of Democracy” for future. I personally, as a matter of principle, will no longer bow to any court again in my life, or use any epithets while addressing any member of judiciary in any court. This decision is not meant to insult anyone, but it is an integral part of my democratic beliefs. The question is about what I stand for, and if I won’t be firm about what I speak, I cannot expect anyone else to follow it. I understand that my decision will cause me a lot of problems and trouble in future, but then nothing great has ever been achieved without having to endure some pain and discomfort. What I want to achieve is in the best interests of the whole world, and my sufferings are immaterial.



4. Grave implications a simple judgement can have:



I am sure any court will agree that a simple case can have a far reaching consequence. The only thing worse than living in a society where a Government itself starts abusing its’ laws for petty gains, is a court system which fails to remedy the injustice done. Not only is an ordinary man unaware of the exact text of most laws, and all the related or unrelated precedents, an ordinary man has very limited resources to collect evidence in most cases, more so if his adversary were a powerful organization, and even more if the ordinary person is from a weaker section of the society. No judge should fail to understand these two simple truths about the majority of individuals living in a society. The other (and worst) offence would be for a member of judiciary to be prejudiced against any person for any reason. These are some of the basic professional requirements, which I am sure every judge will agree.



The matter I contested was one without remedy otherwise except court, and even though the matter is a petty and routine issue, which perhaps might be better dealt with a special protocol to deal with such matters, the judgement has far reaching consequences. Were I not to be prepared to question it at any cost, it will become another instance of an ordinary man denied justice and now living with it. Let me explain the gravity of the situation here.



Firstly, not only I believe I have been denied justice, but I have ended up getting punished further. For a man who had clearly proved his defence with evidence that was supported by replies from the prosecution witnesses, now I am either required to pay costs, or suffer more agony by contesting this case in a higher court. The irony is, I should have been the one taking home costs, which in my financial condition, would have been a great help. But the tricky part of the situation is, nothing about my life is private anymore, for I have decided to be a public figure. The details of this case will be no exception as I will not only be sharing the judgement, transcripts and evidence presented in the court with my friends in legal fraternity across the globe for their advice, but also make them available for public information via various websites, for I believe people from weaker sections who cannot afford lawyers, can learn a lot from examples people like myself are willing to make. For the sake of the court however, I sincerely hope the judgement will stand the test of time, or the scrutiny that will ensue will not reflect the court in the right light. I am sorry but I am in the middle of a job that is going to shape the future of this world, and my work cannot be stopped for the comfort of court. As I mentioned, if a change is necessary, it has to be brought, even if unwelcome. Besides, judgements are open for public scrutiny anyway, and anyone could have witnessed the court proceedings. So there should be nothing to hide. I am an honest man, I have nothing to hide.



Secondly, the message this judgement sends to ordinary people is, if the matter involves a loss which is much less compared to the costs fighting for justice will incur, just learn to live with injustice.



Thirdly, this means that organizations with resources can abuse law as long as the person at the receiving end is economically too weak to be able to raise a defence.



Fourth, it means someone needs to do something to fix what has gone wrong with the court system. Here I will mention an important message I wrote in one of my letters to the US President Barack Obama, available for viewing on my artist website.



Whenever one is faced with a situation, “Someone needs to do something,” its’ answer always is “I need to do something”. And the situation that arises immediately post the answer is, “What can I do”. The answer to this situation depends upon the limitations, internal as well as external, one has to contend with, and their abilities.



The situation I face is, “Someone needs to do something to kick-start the ‘Evolution of Democracy’ again”. The answer is as expected.



Nearly six years ago, when I migrated to Australia, leaving behind a bright future as a high school science teacher in a Government school, destined to inherit plenty of property from parents, and entitled to all the benefits and pension after my retirement from work, I would have never thought that one day I will be writing this letter, on the verge of creating a blueprint for the future and being immortal in history. But as I said, men only make decisions. It is the situation which picks up the best candidate for the job, for every man’s decision and choices are pre-determined by virtue of their attitudes, abilities and beliefs.



I hope this letter will motivate the courts world over to retrospect, and fix things I’ve mentioned here, in better interests of the society and justice, and for the sake of “Evolution of Democracy”. Else, the evolution will leave them far behind in history.



Sincerely,



Amanpreet Singh Rai,

President and founding member of:

“Always Shine Australia Party” and “Vijayi Veer Vishesh India Party”,

1/269, Henley Beach Road,

Brooklyn Park, SA 5032

Ph: +61 43 023 5589

Email: fatalurgecarefreekiss@yahoo.com

Artist website: www.fatalurgecarefreekiss.com

VVVIP website: www.vvvip.in

*************

Keeping Time.. Or leaving it..

*************

Keeping Time.. Or leaving it..

“There are five dimensions: x, y, z, time and my will.”

Two biggest myths going around today are: psychiatry is a science, and mathematics proves science. My dear friends, the only part of psychiatry which is scientific is medicine and physiology, the two things which are based on scientific detection of physically or chemically verifiable anomalies, and administration of relevant chemical, physical, or biotic origin treatments. These two functions can be performed by any qualified doctor who has studied the relevant material in course of their study. As far as psychology is concerned, it is nothing more than an applied field of arts, which is based on scientific method, but is not a science. Scientific method itself is not science, but is rather a rational approach a scientist follows while collecting physically verifiable data, to test a hypothesis and deduce inferences. It does not mean the hypothesis, or inferences drawn thereon, are principles of science.

Similarly, mathematics is scientific in nature for it is based on strict principles which enable reproducible results every time same data is computed for same questions, irrespective of the methods and equations used. It can be applied to calculate variables connected by a scientific notion, and the results will always be reproducible no matter who carries out the calculations and where. But this does not mean the scientific principle behind the equation linking the variables is proved or justified. It only means that mathematics is perfect within its’ own principles, and will yield the same result every time it handles the same set of data. But why am I discussing mathematics today?

One of the most confusing aspects of science happens to be time. Physicists world over have been wrestling with “Theory of Relativity” and “Einstein’s Energy Equation” since the time they were introduced. Time travel is a nut which does not seem willing to crack any time in the near future. But the question is, and without questioning the accuracy of “Theory of Relativity” whose basic principle is based more on commonsense than the volume of science behind it, “Are we actually working on the real problem?”

Now if you have read my earlier article about “Time Travel”, you will be aware of how I question the validity of the concept behind time. In this article I will try to delve deeper into my apprehensions. So what do I have to say this time?

For a start, let us hypothesize a situation where we have three observers, one each for the three physical dimensions, and one big watch that shows time in all three directions, and is visible to the observers even if they were to travel to the edge of the universe. Now believers of four dimensions insist that time is the fourth dimension, and everything exists in these four dimensions. Let me give you two simple examples that will blow the myth out of the four dimensions.

Let us say the watch is showing Nine ‘O clock. Now irrespective of where in universe are the three observers situated at that moment, it will be Nine ‘O clock for all of them. Let us say the three observers travel at breathtaking but different speeds, in random and haphazard directions, independent of each other, for exactly one hour. One hour later, the time for each one of them will be Ten ‘O clock. Did they travel in the fourth dimension?

I know what the four dimensional people will say; “Yes they did! They are both one hour older.” Very well then, let us take the second example.

Let us say by some magic all physical, chemical and nuclear activity stops in the entire universe. The gravity has no affect anymore, the chemical and nuclear reactions have all stopped. Let us say this happened at Ten ‘O clock. One hour later, that is Eleven ‘O clock, everything in the universe will still be in the same condition, without having aged a bit. Did anything travel in the fourth direction?

So what am I trying to imply? Simple; “Fourth dimension is a myth.” We are trying to quantize chemical and physical changes using a variable which we can measure. That variable, even though it confirms to all the mathematical principles, and hence works perfectly in all our physical and chemical equations, still does not have a scientific basis of existence. How can one travel in a dimension which does not even exist?

Think!

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss Amanpreet Singh Rai

*************