[twinaircant]

A wise person once said that India is not a democracy - it is anarchy that works.

Now how far is democracy itself from anarchy?

American democracy has been working for it has been a powerful country throughout the so called golden period of democracy.

Europe, the other model of democracy, has a queen or a king in nearly every significant country.

While exercising its powers in the Gulf region the so called democratic world focuses on its own economic and military interests - if democracy suits that fine. If not fine again.

India might not be the corruption capital of the world but it certainly close to that.
Is that a gift of democracy or it is an independent phenomena?
Whatever be the case the fact remains that this bright idea called democracy has not tackled the corruption problem in India.

In spite of the fact that many people have patted India on its back for its democracy some painful truths are too obvious.

Indira Gandhi was scared that General Sam Manekshaw might make a coup.

She herself declared emergency in mid seventies of last century.

Yesterday some military units were conducting routine military exercise. People started fearing that military might be making a move towards a coup.

This is happening in India and now.

Of course no routine work gets done in India unless you use some democratic means - like demonstrations.
So is it any different from anarchy?
In anarchy there is no rule of law.
Hence every one is a law into himself or herself.
In democracy you have to do every thing yourself.