Modernity v/s Traditionalism

It is very interesting to see how people became opinionated about choosing.

The modern outlook tells us the leadership in bygone ages was by succession, power passed from the great-grandfather to grand father, to father to son, to grand son and great grand son and so on. It also tells us that the choice was limited and that few families had a monopoly. Potential people from other families were suppressed, and were not allowed to grow. There was no free speech, no newspapers to judge neutrally. Citizens had no voice; the king was beyond law.

This observation sounds very reasonable and historical .

Modern history also tells us that the present rule is transparent and that democracy gives everyone a chance to rise, from rags to riches, illiterate to educated, citizen to minister. It prides itself on uplifting everyone: men, women and those who belong to the  third sex too.

Again this appears to be a completely logical, fair, and practical model.

The propagators of modernity should give the traditionalists a chance to explain why it functioned the way it functioned. Is it right on the part of modernity to give such a strongly judgmental verdict? It does not constitute scientific logical reasoning.

Moreover modernism has no authority and right to judge traditionalism from its limited perspective.

Modernity itself would never submit to being analyzed. Modernity itself has studied, analyzed and assimilated traditionalisms. Can tradition judge modernity? If not, where is the space for critical analysis and free speech?

The Indian system of leadership was not like the western monarchy. One has to study the methodology depicted in Indian knowledge systems.

We come across a striking illustration of free speech. King Vena was an unjust, tyrannical ruler. His subordinates and educators tried to advise him but he turned a deaf ear to them. When his atrocities become intolerable he was killed by the citizens and new king was selected. 

Sumanthra was Dasarath's chariot driver, but had the power to reprimand Queen Kaikeyi for her insistence on sending Lord Rama to the forest. 

Bhishma himself strongly advocated that a cruel king ought to be removed by the subjects.

Sanjay the ordinary secretary of the powerful Dhrithrasthra would give strongly worded warnings to his king, but he was never harmed or removed from his post.

Dushyanta adopted a qualified person and chose him as a successor over his inefficient sons.

Dhrithrasthra was advised to do so for his new-born son, who gave all indications of being a destructive force. 

Ravana was dislodged from his throne by mighty Rama for his arrogance.

Coming back to our so-called free world,
do our news papers really give fair news? Is there a place for honest speech?

Even if it does exist, will it ever get the same amount of media and sponsors as corrupt speech gets?

One has to be really honest at least within, if not without, to judge and decide for themselves.

Of course, every system has its good and bad sides, but the best system can only be judged by those who are really transparent within and look from Dharma's  perspective which is universal, secular and unbiased. But do we have the eyes, the inner ones to be able to actually 'see'?