Philosophy of contracts

PHILOSOPHY OF A CONTRACT AND ITS OBLIGATION!

Men of wisdom stated:

Yesterday (as past ) is gone (dead) (as some archive - a tomb like)

Today is  (as real fact) living (as long as you are detined to live today) -Look to;

Tomorrow (is not present today) (some future likely, provided  you are alive) , an Unsure proposition)

In these, circumstances, we live on earth; that means your rule of natural law ought to be within these parameters only ; and you cannot exceed the parameter obviously;

If you do, you fall in a category of sone speculation;

You cannot speculate on unreal future, till the future becomes a present real thing;

But unfortunately , we live on future propositions only, when you actually live only in the present, when so where is the sanctity of your living on ‘future’ propositions?

In Mahabharat: (Gita Upadesh):

Pandavs lived in Indraprastha and did build ‘Maya ‘Palace of ‘unreality’ of future existence;

Duryodana of Kauravs visit the palace, see the palace and presume things as ‘reality’ while in fact, something ‘unreal’; that unreal things capture their ‘mindset’ and influence them to be angry over their cousins - Pandavs;

Results in ‘play of Dice’ Yudhishtra fond of, despite a ‘Darmic minded person” (normally Darmic minded never indulge in Dice play - a contradiction);

This play results him loosing all his brothers including himself in the bets that followed;

When he lost everything, Kaurav counsel Shakuni suggests, he can bet hisQueen- wife ‘Draupathi’ ( after Yudhistra lost earlier himself in the bet) - so Draupathy say Yudhistra has lost his right to bet her as he lost himself earlier in the bet) - all wise men agree there including ‘ Bhishma’ with a rider , that Yudhishtra being a king (but once he lost himself in the bet how he could claim to be the ‘king’ is a question sill raisable) besides Yudhishta being acclaimed as great Law giver, he could deliver his ‘ruling’ on his bet of the Queen (factum is he lost his status of Law giver, just because he cannot be judge on his own cause - like a prosecutor cannot be judge on his own cause);  and h others. He had lost his brothers in the bet before he lost his own person - so by all means he is a dead person, non-person at all per contractual jurisprudence, in regard to jurisprudence of obligations under contracts, as Draupathi rightly knew the constitutional jurisprudence on contracts much better than very Yudhistra that shows even in the early periods of prehistoric India women were indeed more prudential than men counterparts, as men are governed by senses and pleasure but women on meaningful prudential persons, showing obviously women were more learned and wise in their very society itself is obvious;

Here we see the ‘concept’ prevailing on early contracts - what is not presently applicable automatically makes the ‘man as a dead person or a non-person’ disables him to enter into any future contracts, as such - to go in for any contract ... (here ‘of bets’);

Similarly, ‘when you are not present in ‘future’ then you are a non-person, so you  cannot go for contracts at all.

That way the very Constitution of India is also built, as the basic founder of the constitution is very Mahatma Gandhi -  K Gandhi.

Look back again, Constitution of India itself is a contract obligation with the general public of India, not any single community as such;

The question arises how the Art 366 can be in the very constitution is a basic question as per the conventional understanding of contracts as shown in Gita dharma.

Art 366 talks about future; not the present of 1947 when the Constituent assembly sat and contrived the specifics of the Constitution of India, obviously theAssembly cannot venture on future of the said contract, that way the principle of ‘Force theory’ is abandoned; when ‘abandoned’ how a governments formed by parliamentarians appropriate their rights under Art366, is the question that needs to answered.

In fact, art 366 is a dead article  in the constitution, as obligations under Art 13 is always there as the fundamental right under the basic structure of the constitution of india, that way  Kesavananda Bharati v st of Kerala emanated and decided by 13 member constitution court, that reiterated the basic structure doctrine that revived Art 13, by Art 13(2) , that means, a constitution amendment that abridged Art 13  (very heart of the constitution beats, no surgeon cannot stop the heart so long that it cannot revive - a doctrine of commonsense under civil law jurisprudence, as India is a civil law country, for she followed a parliamentary democracy where the UK parliamentary system is to prevail  - in fact, it should be noted there are no constitutional amendments in the UK to the Magna Carta of 1215, or Bills of rights so far in the UK ) (so it is obvious Indian parliament is obviously flouting the basic principle of contracts as also the constitutional principles till date.

Therefore, any wise judge with wisdom would control the defacto parliamentary democracy of India.  

Special article on philosophy of Indian jurisprudence by professor, Guru Balakrishnan