We Are Still Not Living in a Democracy: We Are No Different from People 1,000 Years Ago

 We Are Still Not Living in a Democracy: We Are No Different from People 1,000 Years Ago

---

The recent horror story from the Mastala Temple in Karnataka, India, is not an isolated scandal. It is a mirror. It shows that, despite smartphones, elections, and “modern” institutions, we are still living under the same old systems of power, fear, and silence that ruled people 1,000 years ago. The only difference is the packaging: today’s kings wear suits and titles, not crowns and swords.

In this case, a former temple cleaner came forward after decades of forced complicity. From 1995 to 2014, he says he was made to burn hundreds of bodies—mostly women and children, many of them sexually assaulted, some as young as infants. He watched girls arrive with torn clothes, bodies marked by violence, and then watched them disappear in flames, along with any evidence. For years he stayed silent, not because he agreed, but because he was threatened: if he spoke, his family would be “cut into pieces.” That is not a metaphor; that is the language of feudal terror.

When his own female relative was sexually harassed by temple authorities, he finally fled with his family and lived in hiding for ten years before daring to report. This is not the behavior of citizens in a functioning democracy. In a real democracy, people do not need to run, hide, or fear for their lives when they expose crimes. They can walk into a police station, file a complaint, and trust that the law will protect them, not the powerful.

Yet here, the accused are linked to the Heggade family, a religious and political dynasty whose influence reaches deep into local institutions. Despite repeated reports of missing persons near the temple, the police did little. Even now, with such grave accusations and a detailed confession, the real decision‑makers at the temple have not been formally named as suspects. This is not justice; this is the old pattern of impunity, where the powerful decide who gets punished and who gets protected.

What this reveals is that democracy, for most ordinary people, remains a ritual rather than a reality. We vote, but the real power still lies with dynasties, religious elites, and local strongmen who control land, faith, and fear. The temple is not just a place of worship; it is a center of unchecked authority, where crimes can be hidden under the cloak of tradition and divine legitimacy. The cleaner’s story is the story of the serf, the peasant, the voiceless—someone who witnesses evil every day but is forced to serve it or be destroyed.

We like to believe that we are “modern” and “progressive,” but the structures around us are medieval. Power is still concentrated in the hands of a few; dissent is still punished; truth is still buried. The only real difference between us and people 1,000 years ago is that today we have cameras, internet, and hashtags—but even those are often controlled, censored, or drowned out by propaganda and fear.

If we are serious about democracy, we must stop pretending that elections alone are enough. Democracy means that no one is above the law, that no institution is untouchable, and that the weakest person in society can speak without fear and be believed. Until that happens, we are not living in a democracy. We are living in the same old world of kings, temples, and terror—just with better lighting and worse excuses.

---

Open Societies vs. Closed Societies: A Fundamental Divide

 

Open Societies vs. Closed Societies: A Fundamental Divide

In an increasingly interconnected world, nations often present a façade of modernity through impressive infrastructure and technological advancements. Yet, beneath this surface, lie profound differences in societal structures that dictate the freedoms and opportunities available to their citizens and interactions with the global community. The distinction between "open societies" and "closed societies" serves as a crucial lens through which to understand these disparities, with Western democracies typically embodying the former and China representing a prominent example of the latter.

Western democracies, often termed open societies, are fundamentally built upon a set of universal principles designed to foster individual liberty and societal progress. These include the rule of law, ensuring that everyone, including those in power, is subject to the same legal framework; robust human rights, protecting freedoms of speech, assembly, and belief; the separation of church and state, guaranteeing religious neutrality and preventing religious interference in governance; and a commitment to democracy, empowering citizens through participation in their government.

Crucially, open societies thrive on the free flow of information. Information is not centrally controlled but circulates freely through independent media, academic discourse, and open internet access, allowing citizens to form informed opinions and hold their leaders accountable. Similarly, there is a free flow of people, with citizens generally possessing the right to travel internationally, and visitors experiencing fewer restrictions on movement within the country. The free flow of capital also underpins economic dynamism, with relatively unrestricted movement of investments and currency across borders, fostering global trade and integration. These interconnected freedoms create a vibrant, dynamic environment conducive to innovation, criticism, and adaptation.

China, while undeniably a modern country boasting breathtaking infrastructure—high-speed rail networks, extensive highways, and towering skyscrapers that rival any in the world—operates on a fundamentally different paradigm, best described as a closed society. Despite its outward appearance of modernity and technological prowess, the underlying societal controls are extensive and pervasive.

One of the most defining characteristics of China's closed society is the severe restriction on the free flow of information.The "Great Firewall" is a sophisticated censorship and surveillance system designed to block access to vast swathes of the global internet, including international news outlets, social media platforms, and websites deemed politically sensitive.Domestic media is tightly controlled, and dissent is routinely suppressed, ensuring that the information citizens receive is largely curated by the state. This lack of unrestricted information profoundly limits public discourse and critical thought.

Furthermore, there are significant limitations on the free flow of people. While Chinese citizens can travel abroad, the issuance of passports and overseas travel is often subject to state approval, and the ability to emigrate is not a readily exercised right for all. For foreign tourists, access to certain regions within China can be restricted, and movements are often monitored. This control over physical movement reflects a broader governmental desire to manage societal interactions.

The free flow of capital is also highly regulated in China. Strict capital controls are in place to manage the inflow and outflow of currency, impacting foreign investment, repatriation of profits, and individual financial transfers abroad. While these controls are often justified for economic stability, they fundamentally limit the autonomy of individuals and businesses in managing their financial assets globally.

In essence, while China has mastered the hardware of modernity, its software—the operating system of its society—is built on principles of centralized control rather than individual liberty and openness. This fundamental difference in the flow of information, people, and capital is what truly distinguishes an open society from a closed one, irrespective of superficial technological achievements.