Editorial

Common men are those who are contributing major proportion of the whole population but devoid of the opulence being enjoyedby higher strata people of a state. We know that “live, act and do something for the lives of common men”, is a call of progressive society. The most vulnerable fact associated with this call is that it seems to be beyond time and era. There will be some ups and downs but overall the call will remain forever.

It is the core issue now that if we believe the situation is prevailing for the longest period, then the better approach to endure with some better options. It is better to say that be abide by the rules of society before it disintegrates. There are many examples in various cultures which indicate that in the name of welfare of common men, law makers become decisive on their needs and pursuits. This is similar to make someone out of bounds. How of two similar being one is conferrer and one is mendicant rather wagerer due to uncertainty? How resulting anecdotes of serving common men are against humanity? How even democratic approach of fulfilling human rights is itself making the best way to violate them? The basic tenets of democracy lie on equality, freedom and justice. The logic seems ridiculous but yet influential that the rarest of the rare case where donor donates for equality and thus true equality is not to achieve by state but to make this call absolute and eternal. Similarly if there is no choice on problem, process and product and something is state driven then what type of freedom it is? Justice without sensitivity is in circle of dubiousness. With all these limitations yet there is nothing better than or even similar to democracy.

The most important fact that disagreement in democracy is the most pious and virtuous practice, if it is carried out with the emotions and bonding of humans. Above all, narrow bonding should be replaced by perceived consequences for the common men. If that disagreement leads to disintegration of the state then no one will believe on discussion and even injustice will be common by not allowing common men. Thus, it is under consideration who will be the true representative of common men.

Finally, conscious state with sensitivity will be the best solution in modern perspective. How ridiculous is the analysis of tears ifin USA, which is believed to be a state of successful democracy, president cries on some issue and one make it mockery. The best way to realize the pain is to live in the imaginary world of common men if not possible to live verbal. Thus call should be for the state “learn how to cry for common men”.