The current discourse over corruption and civil society is, appreciatively, provoking more and more minds. The issue is no longer a straightforward schism between anarchy and democracy. Rather, matters ontological have started percolating into more thoughtful articulations. All questions of politics, ultimately, are better probed through philosophical methods and, therefore, judging the dynamics of civil society against a larger canvas can surely supply more dependable answers.
The life divine, as envisaged by Sri Aurobindo, can be said to be the most perfect paradigm of a civil society. A republic or a democracy etc. are all various steps in that glorious direction. Such an evolutionary arrow, however, is comfortable with a non-linear trajectory – a disclosure which somewhat disappoints. But playing back and forth as in hermeneutics is perhaps a necessary means for pushing the envelope.
Fed on free mother’s milk, it takes a long span of time for man to distinguish corruption. Some prefer to play blind and consider everything as their own, thus transcending subtle ethical demarcations. They love to presume that others perpetrate corruption, just as accidents are meant for others. The Guna canons and Varna distinctions also somehow condone such personal foibles by assigning causal or genealogical imperatives. Overlooking such fundamental insights would imperil the outcome of the present impatience. [TNM]