Xploring Philosophy & Religion

Manipur University: Politics of Globalisation (2026)

2026-06-25T11:04:43.974+05:30

Part A (1x10=10)

1. Who introduced the concept of 'time-space' distanciation?

a. Ulrich Beck b. Anthony Giddens c. Immanuel Wallerstein d. Roland Robertson

2. Globalisation is most closely associated with which economic ideology?

a. Sociolism b. Mercantalilism c. Neoliberalism d. Feudalism

3. The IMF primarily deals with

a. Cultural exchange b. Monetary cooperation c. Environmental Protection d. Military alliance

4. Which organisation promotes global health?

a. WTO b. WHO c. IMF d. World Bank

5. The concept of 'McDonaldisation' is given by

a. George Ritzer b. Francis Fukuyama c. Noam Chomsky d. David Harvey

6. Which term refers to global economic dominance by powerful countries?

a. Imperialism b. Globalisation c. Regionalism d. Federalism

7. Which organisation regulates global trade disputes?

a. IMF b. WHO c. WTO d. ILO

8. 'Network society' is a concept developed by

a. Manuel Castells b. Karl Marx c. Max Weber d. Talcott Parsons

9. Globalisation is driven mainly by

a. Technology and trade b. Agriculture c. Religion d. Climate

10. Which of the following is a criticism of globalisation?

a. Economic growth b. Cultural Exchange c. Increased inequality d. Technological advancement

Part B (2x5=10) Any five

11. What is political globalisation?

12. What is meant by global governance?

13. Mention two features of neoliberal policies.

14. What is free trade?

15. State two impacts of global media.

16. What is meant by transnational corporations?

17. Mention two features of global capitalism.

18. What is migration in the context of globalisation?

Part C (5x5=25) Any five

19. Explain the role of technology in globalisation.

20. Explain the concept of economic liberalisation.

21. Examine the relationship between globalisation and inequality.

22. Explain the concept of global civil society.

23. Explain the concept of cultural homogenisation.

24. Analyse the role of information technology in globalisation.

25. Explain the environmental challenges of globalisation.

26. Discuss the impact of globalisation on national identity.

Part D (10x3=30) Any three

27. Critically analyse the economic impacts of globalisation on developing countries.

28. Discuss the relationship between globalisation and human rights.

29. Analyse the impact of globalisation on sovereignty and governance.

30. Analyse globalisation as a driver of cultural change.

31. Discuss the challenges posed by globalisation to political stability.

NB: BA History (Hons) GEC - 4. NEP.

On Christmas

2026-04-16T17:58:00.004+05:30

Most Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25, but some do on January 6. The former follow the Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII) while the latter follow the Julian calendar (named after Julius Caesar). However, for everyday use, it is the Gregorian calendar that is now used globally. Interestingly, for events before 1582, the convention is to use the Julian calendar; and for events after 1582, it is to use the Gregorian calendar. So when we say Jesus was born in 5 BC or the crucifixion took place on April 3, 33 AD or Alexander the Great invaded India in 326 BC, we are using the Julian calendar. But when we say WW II ended in 1945, we are using the Gregorian calendar. The shift from Julian calendar to Gregorian calendar became necessary as the former no longer synchronized with the true solar year and therefore was getting out of sync with the seasons.

So despite differences in the date of celebration, Christians all over the world believe that Christmas is about God becoming human. Incarnation. But this is a one time event. If Christ was crucified on April 3, 33 AD, his resurrection was on April 5, 33 AD. The next time God returns, he won't do that as a human; he would do that as the glorious and majestic Lord.

But in his first coming, i.e incarnation, he was born in a manger and in a humble family. It was the shepherd that first received audience with the baby Jesus. Even before Jesus was born, Jesus' mother sang a song that looked forward to a future where the humble would be lifted up and the hungry filled (Lk. 1:52-53). And when Jesus reached around thirty, he began his 'work' by announcing that he was going to proclaim recovery of sight for the blind, release of the oppressed.... The point is that Jesus was deeply concerned for the poor and the less privileged.

Given the understanding that Jesus loved the poor and the weak so much, earliest Christians living in the Roman empire used to pick up discarded children from dung heaps who were left to die by their parents who would not raised physically disabled children. From time to time they would also pay to the slave master for the freedom of the slaves. These actions were driven by the conviction that God would want them to do these. Well, over the years, some people or rather many people lost this vision. So there were Christians who even owned slaves. It didn't register to them perhaps that slavery was an assault on human-ness; that human-ness which Jesus himself embraced. At the same time, politician like William Wilberforce, informed by the Bible, toiled for decades to ensure that slave-trading was abolished. And few centuries before this, monk like Telemachus went about preaching that gladiatorial game be banned, paying the price for his message with his own life which also led to the game being banned.

Today when Christians of certain stripes endorse white supremacy, Jesus would be appalled by such attitude. When certain Christians in India practice caste based discrimination, that is nothing short of heresy. The message of Christmas demolishes such discrimination.

Even today there are also many Christians who strive to remain faithful to teaching of Jesus in their own context. These people reach out to the poor with 'bags of rice'; these people reach out to the sick with medicines; these people reach out the underprivileged with education. These are ways of showing love.

Christmas is about God becoming human so that we human may have an "abundant life". And the application for the followers of Jesus is this: Christmas is about us incarnating into the lives of the vulnerable and the needy so that they may have an "abundant life".

Mutual Fund

2024-09-17T16:39:00.002+05:30

This is a good video to learn about Mutual Fund for beginners

Lyrics of Justified by Faith

2023-10-19T13:11:00.000+05:30

Therefore, being justified by faith

We have peace with God,

Through our Lord Jesus Christ

Because the love of God is shed abroad in our heart

By the Holy Ghost

Which is given, which is given

unto us, to us, unto us.

Chuwi Chuwi Chuwi oom baba

Aaya ya ya ya ya ya

la la la la la la

la la unto to us.

(This chorus is based on Romans 5:1 & 5 of Kings James Version)

Chapter 4 of John Rawl's Political Liberalism

2023-02-15T08:43:00.003+05:30

In Chapter 4 of his book "Political Liberalism", John Rawls aims to explore the issue of political stability in a liberal democratic society. Rawls argues that political stability can be achieved in a liberal society by adopting a political conception of justice that is suitable for a pluralistic society.

Rawls suggests that a political conception of justice is necessary in a pluralistic society because it allows people to come to a common understanding of justice, without requiring that they all share the same comprehensive moral or religious doctrines or worldviews. This means that people with different beliefs can still work together to create a just society, as long as they can agree on a set of basic principles that form the basis of justice.

Rawls argues that political stability requires that citizens have a sense of political justice, which can only be achieved if the basic principles of justice are publicly recognized and accepted by all citizens. This requires a public and ongoing dialogue about justice, and a willingness to compromise and make adjustments to the principles of justice as new challenges arise.

Rawls also discusses the role of public reason in a liberal society. He argues that public reason is essential for political stability because it allows citizens to engage in a common public dialogue about justice, and helps to ensure that political decisions are made on the basis of principles that are publicly acceptable.

Overall, Rawls emphasizes the importance of developing a political conception of justice that is suitable for a pluralistic society, and fostering a sense of political justice among citizens through ongoing public dialogue and the use of public reason.

Chapter 3 of Political Liberalism

2023-02-07T09:16:00.004+05:30

Chapter 3 of John Rawls' "Political Liberalism" explores the idea of a "freestanding" political conception of justice. Rawls underscores that this conception should be independent of comprehensive religious, philosophical, or moral doctrines, and should instead be based on a shared political idea of justice that all citizens can reasonably accept. He further underlines that this idea must be formulated in a way that is compatible with a diverse and pluralistic society, and should provide a basis for public reason and political cooperation among citizens. Rawls also asserts that a political conception of justice should include basic liberties and rights, and should be structured in a way that enables citizens to pursue their own goals and values while respecting the rights and liberties of others. Rawls' aim in this chapter is to provide a framework for a just and stable political order that can be acceptable to all citizens, regardless of their comprehensive beliefs or worldviews. One of the concerns of Rawls that can be observed in this chapter is that social and political minorities are not discriminated against by the will and concerns of the majority, and that the minorities have as much liberties and rights as the majority communities do.

Chapter 4 is here.

A Gospel sonnet

2023-02-07T09:10:00.000+05:30

Behold, dear friends, the Word of God above,

Whose grace and mercy doth endure always,

In every trial, every test of love,

He gives us strength to sing His holy praise.

His Word, like shining light in darkness,

leads the lost and wandering souls to righteousness.

With gentle hand, it sows the sacred seeds,

And brings the peace that calmeth all distress.

The Lord, who loved us with a love so true,

bear our sins upon the cross with pain,

And rose again, victories and anew,

That we might share in His eternal reign.

So let us trust in Him and follow still,

And by His grace, our hearts with joy shall fill.

A story about a monkey and a crab

2023-02-05T18:59:00.000+05:30

Once upon a time, there was a mischievous monkey named Max who lived in a lush jungle. One day, as he was swinging from branch to branch, he stumbled upon a crab named Carlos who was scurrying along the ground.

Max couldn’t resist making a prank and quickly snatched Carlos by his shell. Carlos was not amused and demanded to be released at once. Max, with a grin on his face, asked Carlos why he was in such a hurry.

Carlos huffed, “I’m on my way to a fancy dinner party and I’m already running late. If I don’t make it on time, they’ll start the feast without me.”

Max chuckled, “I’m on my way to a fancy dinner party and I’m already running late. If I don’t make it on time, they’ll start the feast without me.

Max chuckled and said, “Well, in that case, let me give you a hand… or a paw.” And with that, Max lifted Carlos up and swung him over to the party.

When they arrived, all the guests were already seated and enjoying the delicious spread. Carlos was mortified to see that he was the last to arrive, but Max wouldn’t let him be embarrassed for long.

Max announced in a loud voice, “Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the guest of honour, the one and only Carlos the Crab!”

Everyone turned to look at Carlos, who was now blushing from head to toe. Max continued, “He may be a little late, but he sure knows how to make an entrance. Carlos, show us your moves!”

To everyone’s surprise, Carlos started to tap dance on the table, causing all the guests to break out into laughter and applause. Max joined in, adding his own monkeys business to the performance.

From that day on, Max and Carlos became the best of friends and the life of every party they attended. They were known throughout the jungle as the dynamic duo who could always be counted on for a good laugh.

And so, the monkey and the crab lived happily ever after, proving that sometimes the greatest friendships are formed from the silliest pranks.

Chapter 2 of Rawls' Political Liberalism

2023-02-05T18:09:00.003+05:30

This is a summarisation of chapter 2 of Rawls' Political Liberalism.

Chapter 2 of John Rawls’ Political Liberalism discusses the concept of a political conception of justice, and how it differs from comprehensive moral doctrine. Rawls argues that a political conception is limited to the basic structure of society and focuses on principles that can be reasonably acceptable to citizens who have different comprehensive views. Given that comprehensive views have scope so large that they extend far beyond the political conception, he avoids using comprehensive moral doctrine. Critics have underlined that in his A Theory of Justice, he had employed a comprehensive moral doctrine. To rectify this point, he was careful to avoid that the political conception that he attempts to arrive at is rather limited one in term of the scope that it covers. He also discusses the idea of an overlapping consensus where citizens can come to agree on certain principles of justice even if they have different comprehensive beliefs. Rawls concludes the chapter by stating that a political conception of justice should aim to ensure basic liberties and equality of basic rights and opportunities, while respecting the diversity of citizens’ comprehensive beliefs.

Chapter 3 is here.

Chapter 1 of John Rawls' Political Liberalism

2023-02-04T18:14:00.005+05:30

Chapter 1 of Rawl's Political Liberalism introduces Rawls' main idea, which is to present a political conception of justice that can serve as a basis for a just and a stable society of free and equal citizens, even in a situation where people of various comprehensive philosophical, religious and moral doctrines live together.

Rawls argues that such a political conception should not rely on any specific comprehensive worldview, but rather should be grounded in a shared public values and principles that can be reasonably justified to all citizens. He also introduces the idea of the original position, a hypothetical political circumstance in which citizens are made to choose principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance, a situation that denies the citizens knowledge of their social, economic and natural traits. The reason for positioning the citizens behind such a veil is to prevent them from being bias in arriving at the principles that would then serve as a guiding 'north star' for their social lives. This hypothetical political circumstance is then employed to derive the two principles of justice that Rawls claimed are most reasonable and just: the first principle of equal basic liberties, and the second principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.

A few sentences about the difference principle.

The difference principle states that, in a society, social and economic inequalities are just if and only if they are arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society as well. In other words, Rawls argues that inequalities in wealth, income, and social status are acceptable only if they are arranged in such a way as to work to the advantage of the people who are worst off. Rawls argues that this principle is necessary to ensure that the basic rights and liberties of all citizens are protected, and to ensure that the least advantaged members of society are not left behind. The difference principle is meant to be combined with the principle of fair equality of opportunity, which states that all citizens should have an equal chance to achieve positions of social and economic advantage, regardless of their background. Rawls argues that these two principles, when combined, provide a framework for a just and equal society.

Chapter 2 is here.

A Prayer on Covid19

2021-09-18T12:18:00.004+05:30

Dear Lord, Covid19 has been creating havoc in the lives of so many people. So many people have lost their near and dear ones; their livelihood have been disrupted. O Lord, we pray for a solution to this disruption. In your wisdom and mercy, O Lord, let people be able to rebuild their lives again. Dear Lord, let healthcare professionals and scientist be given wisdom to find effective measures to contain the germ causing Covid19. Dear Lord, let people be given prudence to prevent spreading of the infection from one person to another. May you bring healing on this earth that you have created. Let people on earth realise their mistakes, and O Lord, in the days to come, let such germs remain where they should be. We pray for the leaders that you grant them wisdom to take political measures to bring healing and to stabilize society broken by Covid19. Dear Lord, in Jesus name we pray that your eyes would look on us favorably and our lives would once more be free of Covid19. Amen.

UGC's Exception Form

2020-12-31T10:29:00.003+05:30

One can take a print out of this or make a form similar to this for use.

NB: This form is used to renew the fellowship when it has lapsed for more than one year due to medical reason or something of that sort. A friend of mine went to the Scholarship Cell to obtain this form, but was told that this form would be available with the UGC. The UGC official said that this form would be available with the nodal officer of the respective university. Both sides did not seem to the have the form. So, for the sake of easy accessibility, I put up the form here. As of 2020, this form is valid. Hopefully, the format may remain the same for years to come. I see no reason why it should change.

When Consensual Actions are Illegal

2020-11-21T20:59:00.003+05:30

In a liberal democracy or any state, actions that are harmful to others are illegal. So killing is illegal; it is a crime because it harms others. So is stealing a crime because it harms others. But what about actions of an agent that do not harm other people?

Many of the actions that are not harmful to others are not considered a crime even if it is harmful to the self. This is because liberty is an important category for a liberal democracy. So many of our actions are not considered illegal even when they may be deemed immoral or unhealthy. For example, smoking is injurious to health. There is no dispute with this fact. Yet, in a liberal democracy, smoking would not be considered a crime. This is so because the person's liberty trumps over the potential injury smoking may cause to the agent. Many people in the society would also consider watching of pornography or consensual sex outside of marriage immoral. But again these won't be consider illegal because the liberty/freedom of the agent trumps over certain other people's idea of morality. However, there are certain actions that may be consensual or is chosen by the agent for herself/himself and yet is illegal or must be considered a crime. What are some of those actions?

Consensual cannibalism is an example when an action is consensual and yet is considered a crime. There is a story of a person who offered himself to be eaten when someone sent out an invitation to eat a human being. The two agree that it was consensual and there is no coercion involved at all. Yet, the cannibal was arrested. You can google or read the story here: Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten | World news | The Guardian.

Pedophilic action is another consensual action that deserves criminalization.

On a slightly different note -- because here it is not about two individuals choices, but an action chosen by an agent for herself -- one may impose some form of punitive measure for driving without helmet or seatbelt. Here, the agent may not harm anyone just by driving on the road without wearing helmet or a seatbelt. Even if there was an accident, it may harm the agent iherelf, not anyone else. Yet, punitive measure for not wearing seatbelt or helmet is fair.

Political Secularism Vs. Social Secularisation

2020-10-01T15:50:00.001+05:30

When we say 'secularism', it is often understood in different ways by different people. For example, in India there is this idea among some people that secularism entails respect of all religions. So some these folks say that no one should say this religion is bad/wrong; people need to accept that all religions are equally valid and no religion is more correct than others. Now this is a wrong understanding of secularism.

In order to remove confusion, we need to differentiate between political secularism and social secularisation. Let me explain what these mean.

Political secularism does have some sense of respect of all religions. But what is meant here is that the state should not discriminate any citizen on the basis of religion; the state should not say people of this religion cannot vote or people of that religion cannot have access to justice in the Court etc. Political secularism implies that the state is not going to discriminate any citizen on the basis of his or her religion. (As an individual I might say this belief of religion A is wrong or that practice of religion B is morally bad. But that's my opinion, not the state's opinion. As part of freedom of conscience that any citizen has, I can have my negative or positive opinion about this religion or that religion. But the state is not going to discriminate religious believers on the basis on his or her religion.) This is an essential aspect of political secularism.

But political secularism also implies separation of religious institution and state. Religious leaders will hold the rein of power in religious institution; while political leaders will hold the rein of power in political institution. This is the second aspect of political secularism.

The third aspect of political secularism is that citizens have freedom of religion. This is closely related to the second point. This says that since the state has no state religion, as religious institution and state are separate, citizens are free to choose this religion or that religion or no religion. The state will not dictate citizens' religious belief.

Social secularisation on the other hand is the transformation or state of society that is devoid of religious values. For example, if the atheists are successful in converting all the citizens into their way of belief, then that society will be a highly secularised society.

If the state is politically secular, won't the society also be a secularised/irreligious one? Not necessarily. Apart from the state, there are other institutions. One is family. The state can't dictate what religion a family must follow. So families can choose to be religious. Also there is civil society, and this includes clubs, churches, NGOs, Gurudwara etc. These civil society need not be irreligious; they can be religious too. Freedom of religion that political secularism offers allows other institutions to be religious within the bound of public order.

Egg Politics in Madhya Pradesh

2020-09-18T12:08:00.000+05:30

Politicising food continues in India. Shivraj Singh Chauhan of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled in Madhya Pradesh (MP) from 2005 to 2018. During the time he had refused to give egg to the school children. The policy was influenced by the fact that Mr. Chauhan believed in vegetarianism. This was driven by his personal religious belief.

In 2019, the Congress led government came to power. And during this brief period, the children were given eggs. The Minister had said that the government was just following the advice of the doctors who had said that egss are good for the children.

In 2020, after a year of being out of power, Shivraj Singh Chauhan's party was able to topple the Congress led government and returned to power. This allows him to reverse the Congress led government's decision to give eggs to the kids. Now it's back to no eggs for the school children. The government said that instead of eggs, milk would be given to the kids.

When it was in power some years back, BJP had also tried to prevent beef consumption in Maharashtra. It had tried to do that by criminalising possession of beef. After all to consume, one has to possess first. So without really criminalising consumption, it tried to criminalise possession. But this was struck down by the Court as unconstitutional. This means that a person can bring in beef from other state and cook and consume it. In this case, since it involves legislation, the Court has struck it down. Unless the Constitution is amended, beef consumption can't be criminalised.

However, when it comes to choices between eggs and milk, BJP has shown its preference for milk because of its religious belief. But a question emerges: is this a fair policy for a secular state?

To answer this, one must also take into consideration these questions: what is the benefit of milk vis-a-vis egg; and how does the cost factor weigh in? If the cost of milk and eggs are same plus the utility factor from medical perspective remains the same, then of course there is no way one can raise meaningful objection. (If we assume that the milk won't be adulterated.) But if egg is more beneficial and cheaper, then it is questionable. However, given that this is not a criminal act, the government would get away with the policy even if it is less beneficial.

But this also raises an important question: is it morally permissible for government in a secular state to implement policies that are less efficient just because the policy is more in line with the religious ideology of those in power?

Christian Ethics vis-a-vis Political Ethics in light of Already & Not-Yet Eschatological Tension

2020-08-03T12:29:00.002+05:30

If one reads the Bible, there is no doubt that the Bible does not condone adultery; it is considered a sin. There is also no doubt that the Bible does not condone fornication, whether it is between individuals of same sex or between individuals of different sexes. There is also no doubt that the Bible does not condone sex between individuals of same sex. Lest, someone says Bible only prohibits, let me also state that the Bible considers marriage (and sex within marriage) as honourable.

Frequently we come across individuals who believe that because the Bible considers these mentioned activities as wrongdoing or sin, these activities must also be criminalised. Meaning, these activities must be banned by the state, which implies that whoever does such things must be caught and appropriate punishment be given (by the state). Is this thinking quite correct? Just because Christians believe certain action to be wrong or sinful, must that action be criminalised? When I eat pork, which the Muslim considers as sin, should I be handed over to the police? When I eat beef, which is anathema for Hindus, should I be handed over to the police? Not really! Well, the point is that we need to differentiate between sin and crime.

In a liberal democratic society, just because one religious community considers an action as sin, the state cannot just come in and take action against the sinner. If the society is an Islamic society, eating pork may be a sin as well as a crime. In such a society what is a crime or not may be defined according to the teaching of the Quran. However, in a liberal democratic society, no religious texts should really define what is a crime or not. There has to be something more. There may be an overlap between a sin and a crime. So raping someone may be a sin as well as a crime; so also may be stealing, killing etc., but not eating pork, eating beef etc. Eating pork or eating beef may be a sin for someone but they should not be criminalised. The state must determine what is a crime depending on the sentiment of one religious community while undermining the sentiment and the liberty of other religious communities. This is an important feature of a liberal democracy. Similarly, for fornication, adultery or homosexual act, just because the Bible is against such activities, we cannot ask the state to criminalise the acts. If we are to seek criminalisation of these activities, we have to be able to provide other reason beside appealing to the teaching of the Bible. If we don't do that, the Hindus will seek to criminalise beef consumption based on their belief; so will Muslims seek to criminalise pork consumption based on their belief. And when they do that, we would have no good reason to argue against their effort.

This kind of reasoning will be appreciated more easily by those who belong to the religious minority in a particular situation. A member of the religious majority may not appreciate this kind of reasoning because they know that they will never bear the brunt of such a policy. This is the reason why many members of the religious majority dislike liberal democracy.

In the past, many countries would write their laws reflecting the religious nature of the majority of the people. Things began to change in the 17th century. There are different reasons for that, which I am not going to get into now in this post. Now with people migrating back and forth, and therefore the religious composition of a state/country having become more diverse, being a Christian/Buddhist/Islamic country is becoming more problematic. We still see many Muslim majority states/countries having Sharia law in place. However, even with these states, the tension will get worse and worse, because as more and more people from these states travel abroad, they learn from others; plus, as more and more people from other countries come to their country, they find that there are many people who have a different way of living. Moreover, with social medias like Facebook and Youtube becoming so common, learning both bad and good things about others began to take place, and they influence our way of living. So today the question is whether these Muslim states will open up gradually and accept multiculturalism or they will close their doors because they found other cultures polluting their way of life.

In the biblical scheme of things, readers realise that though God's kingdom of earth is inaugurated through the dead and risen of Jesus Christ, the consummation of his kingdom is awaited. We are now living in between the tension where the kingdom is already come but not yet fully realised. In this period, people are given the choice to accept or reject Jesus Christ; it is the time when both the wheat and the weed grow together. Therefore, for the Christian to force people not to commit sin through state's legislation is not the right approach to call people to live a life of holiness. God gives choice; and we have no business threatening people with imprisonment if they live an adulterous life. I may persuade a friend or even a stranger not to live an adulterous life; however, it is a different matter if the state criminalises and sends an adulterer to jail. In similar vein, Hindus or Muslims persuading me not to eat pork or beef is okay; but it is a different matter if I were sent to jail for eating pork or beef. Spending much energy and money seeking a legislation that will criminalise activities that I consider as sin, which others don't, is not the way to do public theology for a Christian. The more appropriate approach is to share the message of Jesus Christ to a person who may be living a life that I consider as immoral, and when this persons accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and God, he or she will submit to the ways of Jesus Christ.

NB: While discussing about sexual behaviour, it is important to make a distinction between criminalisation and legalisation. To criminalise an act is to say that if an act is performed, the one performing the act will be imprisoned or treated as an offender in the eyes of the law. When one argues that an act should not be a criminal act, it does not mean the act is praiseworthy or honourable. So when one says that adultery should not be a criminal act, it does not mean that the state should praise or honour adultery. In similar vein, when one argues that homosexual act should not be criminalised, that does not necessarily mean that same sex marriage should be legally accepted. In the post, I argue that sexual behavior like fornication, adultery and homosexual act should not be criminalised; I am not saying that the state should honour these activities. In effect, I am not saying that same sex marriage should be legally accepted.

Dog Meat Ban in Nagaland

2020-07-18T15:44:00.002+05:30

On 3rd July, the Nagaland state cabinet decided to impose a ban on "commercial import and trading of dogs and dog market and also the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked". The ban does not include consumption of dog meat in the state if the meat is bought from other states or if it's given by a neighour. Basically, the ban is about trading and selling of dog and dog meat.

Few years back, when Devendra Fadnavis was the Chief Minister of the state, Maharashtra government also imposed similar ban on beef. Fadnavis went beyond and even banned possession, and thereby consumption, of beef. After all unless one could possess, one could not consume it. But the Court struck it down saying to ban possession (and consumption) is to violate the Constitution. At present, if someone wants to consume beef, one has to bring in from another state.

In Article 48 of the Constitution, the Directive Principe of state policy has a clause that says that the state shall take "steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle." Since the Hindutva brigade cannot appeal to their religious or dharmic sentiment to seek protection for cows, they seek to implement cow protection through appealing to this Directive Principle. Since the saffron/Hindutva brigade has reverence for cow for so long, the Directive Principle itself was framed this way in order to accommodate the sentiment.

At the same time, matter concerning food is also about life. And state itself exists to protect life. Article 21 of the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty...." Now to deprive someone from eating certain item as food which traditionally has been considered as food is to infringe on his right to life. Therefore, the Court could not allow the state to infringe on citizens' right to life. The fine balance, therefore, is to ban trading of beef yet not ban consumption of it.

Given that the RSS/BJP folks have reverence for cow, one can understand why they tried hard to find reason within the Constitutional limit to ban or minimise beef consumption, and thereby protect and preserve cows. But why would Neiphiu Rio and the Cabinet wish to ban trading of dog meat, and thereby limit dog meat consumption? After all if none could sell, consumption is going to come down. Is it because of their love for dog, like the love of RSS/BJP for cow? Not quite. There is this line that says that dog meat consumption is bringing bad name to Nagaland. So basically, it is to stop defaming of the state that dog meat trading is banned; it is to uplift the name of the state that dog meat trading is banned. This is not entirely unreasonable because dogs are considered to be our best friends. However, to ban trading of an item that is traditionally considered as food item does not sound very plausible. A mature democratic society should not ban a food item particularly one that most of its citizens have been relishing for ages. Moreover, being a state located in the eastern region, which is cold, people need fat in their dietary habit. This has been obtained mainly through consumption of meat be it beef, dog, chicken or pork. The state may urge people to shed meat consumption and go for coconut oil, sunflower oil etc. But the way to do this is not by threatening citizens with imprisonment through a legislation or an ordinance, but through other means. If Rio thinks that dog meat consumption is not a civic virtue or it's not a habit of a civilized community, then for the state to ban it is also not the way a (liberal) democratic society should behave. By imposing a ban on dog meat trading, Rio took one step ahead and one step backward.

In an age where states have been curtailing citizens' liberty inch by inch, I wish that Nagaland government had sought to bring glory to its name through other measures!

What is Liberal Democracy?

2020-07-16T17:43:00.000+05:30

A nation-state may be a democracy without being a liberal democracy. For exampla, Iran is a democracy but it is not a liberal democracy. Iran has regular election that is also largely free and fair. So it is fair to call Iran's political system a democracy. But one would hardly call Iran a liberal democracy. This is because the value system in the Constitution does not demonstrate certain features. But what are those features that would make a nation-state a liberal democracy? There are two points that are universally regarded as key features of a liberal democracy.

First, whether one follows a presidential system or a parliamentary system, the power to choose the chief executive must rest with the citizens. This is to be done through election, where the voting right is given to every adult member of the state. Holding free and fair election, therefore, is a basic condition to be a liberal democracy. (This is a feature that Iran also has.)

Second, the power of the government over the lives of the citizens must be limited. Now this is rather complicated because one may ask how limited should the power of the government be. Here, thinkers have differences of opinion. Some voice for a very limited role of the government while certain other voice for little more role of the government. For example, Locke writes about the role of the government in protecting our life, liberty and property. Now, protecting primary goods such as these are agreeable to everyone. But can't government protect more than these three items of primary goods? So, some other may say that they want the government to protect their language too, or/and endangered flora & fauna, or/and way of family structure and so on. So, they will say that the power of the government should not be so limited. But once we add other elements, things get complicated. Some group may further push for government's regulation of market system, implementation of affirmation action policy, blacklisting of certain religious groups and so on. If government begins to introduce laws or formulate policies to accommodate these demands, it risks sliding into an illiberal democracy. But many democracies do not accommodate all these demands; they accommodate only a few of these demands and that's how they retain their status of being a liberal democracy.

It is worth noting few points in underscoring this feature.

a) Government must give freedom of conscience to the citizens. This is translated into saying give religious freedom to the citizens. This is also related to liberty that Locke raised. States like Pakistan finds itself on the illiberal side because of privileging Islam which subsequently renders followers of other religion as second class citizens. For example, its blasphemy law does not sit squarely with how a liberal democracy must be like. This blasphemy law allows religious minorities who violated the law to be penalised, sometimes with a very severe form of punishment. This feature is different from established religion that we find in certain western countries. Having an established religion does not result in punishing religious minorities like blasphemy law allows.

b) Government must ensure freedom of expression (FOE). It should not curtail citizens from criticizing the government, other people's views etc. This freedom cannot entail protecting of hate speech, lies etc. though. Free speech does have boundary. FOE ensures that ideas can be expressed through books, movies, newspaper, TVs, social media etc. and may include defense, proposal, or critique of ideas, whether the idea is scientific, religious, moral, social etc.

c) As people travel more and more, their way of life and ideas travel with them. So today many societies are becoming cosmopolitan. Different food habits, religions, traditions, languages, aspirations etc. are being expressed and witnessed in the same city. X may not like Y eating beef or Z eating pork. L may not like M getting married to someone of the same sex. But all these people live in the same city. So how should they live together? This is the challenge of a modern state. In the past not many people travelled. Even if people travelled, if the king of the land said "this is the way of life", immigrants do not have much choice. But today with kings and queens gone or rendered powerless, and many more people have criss-crossed continents, the challenge has become acute. We may also imagine this scenario. French government may say "this is our way of life" and immigrants may be morally obligated to follow suit. If immigrants refuse, they may be told why they came to this land in the first place. But if there is a difference of opinion within the white French, say, because one group of people have become more educated, open minded, learnt about other things through TV/Internet etc. while a section of the people remained static in their thinking, whose aspirations should the government honour? Or, in the case of India, how must the government accommodate the wishes and aspirations of North east people vis-a-vis North India or the aspirations of Christians vis-a-vis Hindus or the aspirations of Dalits vis-a-vis Brahmins and so on? There is no easy answer. However, liberal democracy offers people FOE to debate and exchange ideas. Liberal democracy has problematic features in accommodating the ways of life of different people; at the same time, without being a liberal democracy, it is difficult to accommodate and resolve differences in our ways of life.

Review: Should Current Generations Make Reparation for Slavery?

2020-06-24T17:44:00.003+05:30

This is a brief summary-review of Janna Thompson's Should Current Generations Make Reparation For Slavery? published by Polity Press, 2018. I bought it from Amazon.in few months back.

This is a monograph and so it's a small book. It has three chapters and a conclusion. The three chapters are titled as:

1. Slavery and Reparation

2. Should Current Generations Make Reparation for Slavery?

3. What is Owed?

In the first chapter, the author briefly discusses about slavery and reparation. Since slavery is something that is known to most of us, she does not discuss it in great length what it is. She instead focusses on the impact of slavery on the slaves and what reparation is. Some might say that the slave traders and owners did not know that it was wrong, but she argued that there were people then who used to say that such things were wrong. So they were not really innocent. She goes on to say that "reparative justice consists in the obligations and entitlements that result from the commission of an injustice". Thus, reparative justice is different from retributive justice and distributive justice. Retributive justice is about giving punishment to the wrongdoer; but reparative justice is about giving "their due" to the victim.

In the second chapter, she presents arguments why reparation is morally required. At the risk of over simplifying it, let me state it: The slave owners made people work without pay, so the slave owners owe something to the slaves. Now one may argue and say that since the slave owners are all dead, there is nothing owed now. She says that the heir of the slave traders and owners have enriched themselves through slavery, and the descendants of these folks have what they have partly because of the enrichment that they inherit, and the descendants of the slaves who are in bad situation today are so partly because of the legacy that they inherit. She also says that slaves who were forcefully taken away from their cultural root felt lost and disconnected in the strange new land and therefore this loss damage their identity. This loss to their identity which is rooted in slavery continues to affect the descendants of these slaves, and therefore reparation must be made.

In the third chapter, she asks what is really owed. She does not work the monetary value, but she gives certain formula or principle for how, say, Haiti may be given in reparation or how the Blacks in the US could be compensated. When Haiti fought and got independence from France in 1802, as a price for recognition of Haiti as an independent state, France asked her to pay "150 million gold francs as reparation to the slave owners who had lost their property-- ten times Haiti's annual revenue at that time". To pay this amount, Haiti took loan from French banks who charged them high interest rate. Haiti paid this reparation till 1947. The author argued that for this kind of money that Haiti was forced to pay, France could provide reparation today.

Overall I find the argument persuasive. Getting to know the damage slavery wrought upon the slaves was a key point. If this factor is understood clearly, and due action taken to mitigate this effect, much damage could be minimised today. I would recommend this book to students of moral and political philosophy or political history or moral theology or those who work on race relations.

Free Speech

2020-02-29T08:57:00.000+05:30

Yesterday Sir Richard Sorabji came to give a lecture at Philosophy Department, Delhi University. The topic was: Should Free Speech be Beneficial Speech? An Indian Tradition from Ashoka to Gandhi. He answered the question in affirmative. He argued that free speech that was available to few group of people in ancient Greek was basically for benefit. He said in 4th CE during the reign of Julian too, free speech was seen that way. In the 17th century as well, there are evidences of free speech being construed that way. Thus, over the ages free speech is seen to have natural boundary. Hence, free speech that frustrates the benefit of free speech is not defensible.

Ashoka's Rock Edict in ancient India underlined the idea that free speech was for benefit. Akbar in 16th too practised free speech that way. Gandhi also used right to free speech for benefits.

Parenting Seminar

2019-07-23T09:38:00.000+05:30

At Khyoubu Baptist Church in 2018 for SFT-I.

Sunday School Children

2019-06-03T20:41:00.001+05:30

My daughter Sophia is the one in the middle with green suit and the boy with white suit in the middle is my son Daniel.

How to Apply for Provisional Certificate for PhD in Delhi University

2018-10-04T14:05:00.004+05:30

I needed provisional PhD certificate to apply for Post-doc. I got things wrong initially. So I am writing this so that those who want provisional certificate do not have to repeat the mistake I made or waste their time trying to find out how to do things.

During the BA days, we would go to the admin counter and pay the fees in cash. Now fee payment is done online. Well, to cut short, to apply for PhD provisional certificate pay the fee here, this is the misc section.

But first you need to get a form from the admin block. Then register yourself in the link provided above. To register, you need a university roll number. This roll number is not the enrolment number. Well, you may ask how come a PhD student has a roll number. Yes, we were not assigned a roll number by the Department. And for that, you would need to go to the Department's office, and ask the official to assign you a roll number. Once you've that, you can register yourself. Then login to pay the fees. Take two print outs of the fee receipt, and go to the admin block of DU to submit the form as well as the fee payment receipt.

This is simple. But if don't know in which page of DU website, you are to register yourself and then pay the fee, you'b be lost. DU website has so many pages where you may pay fees. And getting the right page will save lot of time. Now things may change in the coming years. But for 2018, this is the pattern and I guess this will stay for some years.

Reversing Pre-Diabetes 2

2018-06-18T17:03:00.001+05:30

In the previous post, I shared my experience about the result of the tests for my sugar level. On 18th of June, I went for the test once more. The result for test turned out to be like this:

99 for Glucose Fasting.

89 for Post-Meal.

Normal range for fasting is: 70-100

Normal range for Post-meal is: 70-140.

The figures of 99 and 89 are within the normal range. Of course, Post-meal should normally be higher than that of fasting. However, the good thing is that the figures are within the normal range.

It is after seven months of dieting and exercise that my pre-diabetic status is reversed to the normal range. Three months later I shall check to see if the fasting level will dip further. I want it to come down little more, and also get post-meal figure go up further.

I am adding this section on 5th October 2018. I did not want to put up another post just for this additional piece. But for those doing research on diabetes this may be something to research on.

On 18th August, 2018, I checked my sugar (fasting). It was 100. I did not check for post-meal. I went to the lab to get it checked, just I have been doing on previous occasions. So it's sounds okay.

Around Sept 20th, I checked my sugar level (fasting). This time it was from someone doing it with a test strip. It showed 102. But it was around this time that I began running in the morning. All those days I have been running in the evening. The first two days I began to run in the morning, I felt so tired thought I ran only for around 5 km. On 16th Sept. I had a 15 km race, and so I have trained to be able to run without much difficulty. I could finish it fairly easily. I felt I could have done 21 km as well. The reason I am saying this is that running 5 km is not difficult, but that morning I found it hard. And the reason was because I did it in empty stomach -- my body did not have enough energy. (For evening training, I would eat something before I run).

So after that I started to take a bite before I begin to run. So 1st Oct. I ran 5 km, and also on 3rd Oct. I did 10.5 km. Both in the morning. I had something before I began, and I did not feel so tired. I guess it was because I've eaten something plus my body has got used to drawing energy from the liver. Even when I was running in the evening, it must be drawing from the liver specially when I ran 10.5 km or 12 km. After all running 10.5 would burn more than 1000 calories, as per what the app shows.

On 5th Oct. morning. I went to do workout, not run, because I wanted to run 10.5 km on 6th Oct. These days I am reducing the frequeny of run as I am giving rest to my body; I will begin to train for full marathon a ten days later. But what surprised me was that as I checked my sugar level (fasting) with the test strip, it showed 119. How is this possible?

Is it because my liver is automatically preparing me to do morning run by dumping sugar in my blood? Even when my weight was 87 kg, the sugar (fasting) was 114. Now I am 74.5 kg, and my sugar fasting is showing 119. How is this possible?

It seems to me that the idea of liver dumping sugar in my blood to prepare me for the morning run is a plausible explanation. However, to establish the idea, one would need a bigger sample.

So whether for those whose fasting sugar level is on the borderline, morning run could spike the sugar level or it would not is something that would require further research.

On 2 Feb. 2019, I checked my sugar (fasting), it showed 97. I have continued to run an at average of 5 times a week. And each running duration would average 45 minutes. (Updated on 2nd February, 2019.)

On 21st May, 2019 I checked my HbA1C, which tested the sugar level for the last three months. It showed 5.5. The normal range is 4 to 5.6. So 5.5 is within the normal range. This shows that pre-diabetes is reversible.

Reversing Prediabetes 1

2018-06-06T10:57:00.000+05:30

Before I begin to explain how I brought down my sugar level, let me show the data of the tests that I took during the last six months.

In November, during winter, one night I got up thrice to pee during the night. Getting up two times have been there for sometime, but getting up thrice happened just once. In the morning I told my wife about getting up thrice to pee, so my wife who is a medical doctor, advised me to get my sugar checked. These are the results of the tests that followed:

November 20th, 2017: 114 (Fasting); 94 (Post-breakfast)

January 21st, 2018: 114 (Fasting); 94 (Post-breakfast)

February 21st: 108 (Fasting)

March 21st: 102 (Fasting)

April 21st: 104 (Fasting)

May 24th: 98 (Fasting); 67 (Post-breakfast)

For Fasting, the normal range should be: 70-100; And for post-meal, the normal range should be: 70-140. This is what the lab from which I got the test done says.

Looking at the figure, for fasting it comes down to the normal range (98) only during May, 2018, as it within 70-100. But for same month of May, the post-meal figure at 67 is below the normal range as it outside of 70-140. However, for fasting figure to bring it down from 114 to 98, it took me six months. I was told that post-meal figure at 67 is ok. Let's see how it comes for June.

But I want to share how the figure for fasting comes down to 98 from 114.

As I learnt that my fasting sugar is on the higher side, I started light exercise - running for a kilometre every alternate day. Even before that I used to walk almost every evening for 20 minutes or so. But now I added running to my routine. Yet I did not diet at all. I continued to eat as much red meat as I used to eat before. And what happened is that even two months later, there was no change at all in my sugar level.

From the third week of January, after realising that my sugar level was as high as before, I started an even more rigorous running routine. I increased the distance for my running, which means increasing the amount of time in running. Also I started taking less amount of food, cutting out 2/5 of the quantity of the food. I divide the usual three meals into four small meals, making dinner the smallest meal. That way my sugar level during the night will not spike. Doing these things brought the sugar level for fasting down from 114 to 98.

Today I run around 4-5 kilometres at least 5 times a week.

One of my concerns today is, given that my post-meal sugar is at 67, if I run for, say, 8 kilometre would it reduce the level of sugar in my bloodstream to 60 or even 50? I am told that it's not good for sugar level to good down below 60.

Depending on what result June test shows, I plan to make further changes in my lifestyle.