Feudalism? No, This Is "Roving Banditry"

Of all the Sunday columns, the one that caught my interest is this by Tavleen Singh, commenting on our democracy, titled "We live in neo-feudal times." Do read the comments too.

My fundamental objection is this: We err when we do not appreciate all that was good about feudalism - not only in Europe, but also here. Our rajas, maharajas and nawabs were certainly better than our current socialist democrats. It was the CONgress that convinced the nation, when taking over all the "princely states," that these were "feudal," and that the CONgress would be "modern." I have written a post contrasting these princely states to our modern democracy just the other day. Today, let me take the arguments further.

Tavleen Singh talks about all the "political parties" we have today - except the CONgress. This is unfortunate - and even biased - because it is the CONgress that set the trend, and this is a hereditary party. The question I would like to raise today is: What are all these "political parties" all about? In the good old days, political parties were differentiated by their political philosophies. There were fundamental philosophical differences between the Whigs and the Tories, for example. Today, we live in a world where, even in western democracies, there is very little that distinguishes one political party from another - as in the case of the Republicans and Democrats in the USSA. But what about our multitude of parties? Is there any fundamental philosophical difference between one and the other - or are they just "factions" vying for power? Many commentators write in favour of "multi-party democracy" - and we have just that. Yet, their rivalry is NOT "political" in the sense of philosophy. It really doesn't matter which party takes over, or which combination of them, for in the end, we get the same old shit.

So let us get back to feudalism. Mancur Olson wrote a very perceptive paper once, in which he contrasted "roving bandits" with "stationary bandits." Roving bandits were like Hagar the Horrible, conducting raids on other lands and scooting back with the loot. Stationary bandits were those who stayed back to rule - and taxed the people instead. Olson wrote that great good has come from stationary banditry - that they were "sheepdogs, not wolves." They were not "predatory." This is the essential difference between a Babur and a Nadir Shah. This is why Sher Shah Suri built the Grand Truck Road - so he could encourage trade, and thereby increase his revenue.

In our "modern" socialist, multi-party democracy, all we have are "factions" of roving bandits. Modern ideas are sometimes very wrong and dangerous. There is all-round predation - plus taxation. This is a rare form of tyranny, never equalled by even the worst forms of "Oriental despotism." And, we must never forget, there are no roads.

As for feudalism - it reached its highest form in the West, because it was there that the people stumbled upon the idea of the "Rule of Law." There, it was said that "there is no King where will rules and not the Law." It was said that "the King is under God and the Law." It was here that the "majesty" lay in the Law - and civilization flowered as never before. Even here, today, Legislation rules, and not Law. The law has become a laughing-stock, and has lost all its majesty. Everyone breaks the law every day - and I once bought some ganja on the streets of London, a short distance away from the headquarters of Scotland Yard. Rizla is headquartered in Great Britain.

We in India must realize that there is something seriously wrong with our modern, multi-party socialist democracy. We must think of another way - and all that can guide us is the Philosophy of Freedom. We must discover this philosophy - and learn that we can well manage without the State. This predatory centralized State. This State has destroyed our civilization, and is destroying our lives.