“It looks graceless when people with the power which only their position gives them use it so coarsely – whether it be by slapping a liftman or using the hapless, over worked people under you to look for a missing pet ( for a report on the working conditions of the Delhi Police look here) or raping a woman or through in any of the innumerable ways in which we demonstrate our power, not to lift up the weak but to further crush those who are already trampled.”
“The sad paradigm of power is that the truly powerful seem to be frail of body like broken reeds like Gandhiji or Baba Amte or Nanaji Deshmush or Mother Teresa while their shadows flaunt a caricature of power through golden cages of glitzy cars or the grandeur of Lutyens’ bungalows displaying vain glory in the guise of the emperor’s new clothes as in Hans Christen Anderson.”
Yes. This is sad. But is that all that one can say about it? By what means did those who abuse power get that power? How is it that those who flout moral ideals become powerful while those who practise them consistently remain powerless? If moral ideals are doomed to failure, by what standard are they moral? What is the nature of a moral system that consistently results in punishment for its practioners and reward for its abusers? What is the nature of a moral system that no one has ever succeeded in putting into practice? What is the nature of those who continue to regard these ideals as moral? What is the nature of those that preach these ideals knowing that anyone practising them will be punished?
And finally what is the nature of those who choose not to ask these questions?