IESM and Internal Democracy II

Dear  Col RP Chaturvedi,

I have serious doubts about your understanding of  the import of issue I raised about the internal democracy and freedom of expression of the members and officials of a Society of retired veterans. As veterans, we are as much concerned about the society and its ability to influence  events. It is in fitness of things that I raise some uncomfortable questions.

I raised a number of issues here:  http://indianmilitarynotes.blogspot.com/2010/12/iesm-and-internal-democracy.html

The following are facts/questions I raised:

1. A couple of ESM members including office bearers and founders of IESM were dismissed from IESM.
2. They were dismissed for "disobeying  the decisions of the Governing Body".
3. So, the governing body is empowered to issue  "official commands" to you, the member.
4. What does it mean? Is it a "Registered society" or a mafia expecting its members to abide by its decisions ? Unconditional obedience is the hallmark of mafias and not  "societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, or for charitable purposes" for which you can form registered societies.
5. Why should a Registered society demand unconditional obedience from its members beats me unless it functions  worse than even a  mafia.
6. If  "command and obedience" are terms by which we define ourselves and shape our  behavior in a "society", there is a serious problem there. Demanding unconditional obedience to the decisions of the governing body itself is a problematic clause. I do not want to surrender my freedoms to a "Society". A "Society" can not impose its will over me as a free citizen. Not even a nation, the government of the time can demand that from a citizen. If it it does, it will be human rights violation.
7. Next is the code of silence! Some one urged such code of silence on the matter of dismissal of 4  members(one of them a General Secretary!) This can also be traced to a mafia practice: Omertà: the code of silence.
8. What if the society asks me to return my medals and I "disobey" the command, will I be dismissed?
9. To say that the misguided officers were engaged in anti ESM is ridiculous. What is pro ESM and what is anti ESM is a value judgment and the governing body of a society has no monopoly on these judgments.
10. The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival. Noam Chomsky
11. "Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States." Noam Chomsky.
    
12. You never need an argument against the use of violence, autocracy, confinement, dismissal from institutions etc., you need an argument for it.
13. We should be striving for openness, debate, discussion and constant interaction and influencing each other with logic and reasoning and not demand Code of Silence.

Instead of addressing the issues, you are dismissing the claims arbitrarily saying "We are all sufficiently heard, and take decision by consensus.". Are you suggesting that you have arrived at the consensus with those officials who were dismissed? It would be foolhardy to make such a claim.

Sir, you are not required to rebut the arguments and you are at perfect liberty to ignore the points. But don't make a farce of the rebuttal. It exhibits intellectual dishonesty .

Sir, no one needs  advises such as :

1. Please get out of history, and get current.
2. I suggest you step out of it.

I reject such exhortations as condescending and lacking in maturity.
If you suffer from serious deficit to counter  valid  arguments, you will do well to keep quiet and leave matters for other more gifted members of the tribe to rebut the arguments.

You ask: Are YOU clear what YOUR objectives hereon are?
Yes, sir, of course, I am. It is stated in no uncertain terms under serial 13 above. Sir, please go back and read it again.

Here it is once again: We should be striving for openness, debate, discussion and constant interaction and influencing each other with logic and reasoning and not demand Code of Silence.

Even after all these arguments, all you have to say is:"We are like that only!", I have nothing more to say.

With Warm Regards,
Nath

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi <rpc4826@hotmail.com> wrote:
While Freedom of Speech is a right enshrined in our constitution, I am afraid in exercising it you are out of context. Your narration has nothing to do with IESM. It does not lead to the conclusion you arrived at, in declaring it 'non democratic'. We are all sufficiently heard, and take decision by consensus. If some move out, its since their ambitions dictate/ guide them that way. Or else, unable to convince their compatriots here, they feel they must move since they hear a 'different drummer' whose tune matches with their melody. It happens everywhere, in all corporate, political parties and even sports teams. Nothing unique about IESM in this.

We are here to do a job and are at it. Everyone of us, including you, may have partaken the benefits/ pleasures the Services provided us. It is not important now. What is, is what we are doing now, to do what our wisdom now dictates. All of us are clear of that, and fortunately succeeding. Are YOU clear what YOUR objectives hereon are? 

Please get out of history, and get current. Thanks.

With Warm Regards,

Col RP Chaturvedi,
A-35 Sector 36,
Noida 201303.
Mob: +919891279035.