SHOULD INDIA HAVE A 'SAMRAAT' ?

We, in India for the longest time in history had a SAMRAAT/SHAHENSHAH/KING to rule the country.

Have we replaced the time-tested efficient rule by ROYALTY to the flawed, yet modern PARLIAMENTARY MODEL?

Is there a scope for us to go back to where we belong?

FIRST KNOW THE DIFFERENCE

Monarchy is a form of government where a state is headed by a monarch (King or Queen) while Democracy is a government headed by elected representatives(By the people-For the People-Of the People)

Power and position is passed through heritage and bloodline in Monarchy while Democracy is based on free and fair elections by the people.

In Monarchy, the supreme power is given to an individual while in Democracy, the power to govern is directly or indirectly carried out by the people.

In Democracy, all is equal before the law while in Monarchy, the monarch is the law.

• You can have a Monarchy presiding over a Democracy (UK, Spain, Norway, Denmark etc.)
• OR…A Monarchy presiding over an Autocracy (pre-Revolutionary France/Russia, Brunei, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates)
• OR…A Presidency presiding over a Democracy (Republic of Ireland, France, USA, Austria, Germany, Switzerland)
• OR…A Presidency presiding over an Autocracy (North Korea, Nazi Germany*)

MONARCHY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP

WHY WOULD WE DO WELL WITH A MONARCH (SAMRAAT)?

A Monarchy is long-term thinking and Democracy is short-term and myopic in thoughts and aim.

Monarchy means that the national infrastructure has an ‘owner’. 

The monarch has a personal interest in maintaining the country in good order so that he is loved by the people and passes on the national infrastructure to his heirs.

It is unthinkable, that a monarch would consciously get his country into a state where the sovereign debt is such that the economy would not sustain; or put the country in the middle of useless and draining wars and military conflicts; or destroy the currency; or compromise with the National image and honour; or fail to protect the citizens who are permanently your ‘subjects’—all these things democracies do routinely. 

Of course, history knows isolated incidents when one monarchy or another got itself in trouble; but the democratic government makes these errors all the time and almost routinely. 

In fact, democratic governments rarely does not falter for each generation of its citizens at least once.

THE REASON IS SIMPLE:

A democratic government is run by politicians who need to get re-elected periodically. 

They, therefore, do not own anything; they merely rent an area(position) for sometime.

They may be good or bad, dumb or clever, patriotic or otherwise, BUT ALWAYS INSECURE!

So, their self-interest is to maximise the short term victory in elections- I.e. if they win the popular vote. The winner will spend the time ensuring that he retains the hard fought ‘victory’ by every rule and trick in the book (and out of it, too!)

And, if they lose the electoral battle, the time period till the next polls is spent pulling, nagging, discrediting the man in power to prepare the ground for victory in the next polls.

In this push and pull, one element is conspicuous by its absence-The Welfare of the People!

On the contrary, even an evil monarch has the innate interest to think about the long-term benefit of the nation.

CONCLUSION

A good government, we must conclude, should have a Monarch who can dismiss the elected government if things get off the rails too far and begin to harm the people. 

The monarch should generally treat the elected government as a useful tool of communication with the nation and encourage democratic expression of the popular will. 

This certainly prevents corruption, encourages development, justice and generally protects the people from their government.

At the cost of attracting unrequited attention, do I have anyone in my mind for the position of a Monarch for India?

Friends, for decades before and after today, you won’t have a better choice than Narendra Modi.

?I'll reserve my reasons for the suggestion, lest this article be read in a political colour, which it certainly Is Not!

ADV.SIDHARTH JAISINGH ARORA