ALL ABOUT ME

A need for introspection

2013-12-01T10:31:00.001-08:00

Quite often we find ourselves as students clamoring about how we are mistreated by the lecturer. It has been nearly two and half years since i entered UG, as per my observation, we as students will be treated as we treat or approach the professors.

It not a surprise to see ourselves cursing or accusing a teacher of being overly strict. Here we need a bit of introspection. We always complain that a lecturer shouldn't shout and discipline us like a primary school as we are not small kids. Have we even thought that if we had kept our mouth shut there was no need for the lecturers to screech their throats? In a class the need for discipline arises only when there is disturbance, why should we make the class a chaos? Only when we ourselves breach the discipline there is need to sharpen the tongue. It is always better to make sure we do not have a stain on our own cloth before accusing others of being dirty.

We can expect the faculty to heed our pestering only if we respect and honor the position of a professor. Apart from teaching and other arbitrary duties of the college, a professor is not charged with any duty of bearing with our tantrums. We may go on and on with our criticisms for not doing their job, anything outside the syllabus is no more than a favor we get from them. I am not denying that there may be genuine reason for the criticism but we as students should be more circumspect. We get to point fingers only when we are at a higher ground, morally. It is disappointing to say that we hardly make use of those initiatives by the faculty and accuse them of showing no interest in our welfare. We get to accuse people only if we have done our bit. As students we need to capitalize on every inch of opportunity we get, on the contrary it is very shameful to admit we slack over chances which could have enhanced our abilities.

I strongly believe in filling the pot holes as we go on building a road towards greater wisdom. It is a sign of inefficiency to let the doubts go unanswered. The doubts are very natural when we learn anything new. A lot of students shy away from interaction with the professors thinking that if they question they may end up antagonizing the professor. We need to be were careful about our tone and language especially in an open class. Language holds the key to a healthy interaction, we should be mindful of the words we are using. We cannot expect anybody to be polite if the sentences are what we use are full of slangs or even if it is a direct question on the person’s ability. We need to restrict the question only towards a particular intrigue. Even in our case, can we imagine being polite to a classmate who questions our ability, it is very human to have ego, there is no reason why we should overstep and hurt somebody especially in an open class where the center of gravity is around the lecturer. In my experience a valid question has never gone unanswered while the audacious and uncouth ones have attracted the wrath. The most preferred form of sentence is interrogative sentence which is constrained only to ambit of a particular subject.

I am not in any way suggesting the faculty is perfect, there may be shortcoming on their part too. The point here is that we need to be accountable for our words. It is very irresponsible on our part if we are oblivious of our inherent duties and always point fingers at the other side. It is nothing more than passing the buck on. It calls for some maturity to understand the constraints of a lecturer. We can’t expect them to treat us like peers. We are not their peers. There has to be a greater degree of respect.

When we on our part are courteous and well mannered, we get that moral right to point fingers and say this is not done. But when we lose the sense of manners and civility, there is no reason why the faculty should heed to our inquisitions.

Whoever the lecturer is civility and manners come first. We are going to venture out into a professional world where it is not easy to get a second chance. It is always better to learn while we are in college itself as we step out we will not have that cushion like in college where we are dismissed saying we are immature.

The best way is to be on top of what we are supposed to do rather than whine for about the ire what we are bound to attract for slacking.

The Paradox of our Academic phase of life..

2012-12-21T13:17:00.001-08:00

College is known to be the place where we learn to develop ourselves, our behavior, our character and our personality as a whole. This is the phase where we should get matured in our thinking, look at things with an open mind instead of filling ourselves with negativity and block ourselves with a narrow thought process.

Being in the college we need to learn to see things in a broader context. Just because something is very controversial and is deemed obscene doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. We are supposed to be matured adults, instead of just disapproving the very expression of the so called provocative issue.

We are supposed to develop a reasoning ability, through which we can critically and rationally analyze any subject. Just by getting emotional because of sentimental factors will not take us anywhere. Before criticizing any issue we need to understand and analyze what is being spoken about. Usage of a few inflammatory words should not make us go berserk. When all the importance is given to these words instead of comprehending the statement and its context shows how immature and narrow minded we are.

Being in a college, self expression is very important aspect of an individual's personality, how are we going to evolve ourselves when we are bound by the phrase 'sentiments will get hurt', why should a student be silenced merely because of the sentiments of the few who do not want to evolve themselves rationally.
If a student is denied the permission to put forth his / her opinion on an issue which is deemed notorious, then when are we going to learn to tackle far more unsettling junctures in our future as responsible citizens? We need to setup and learn to deal with sensitive issues. Shying away from a demanding situation is beneficial to nobody, an issue controversial or not should be dealt with one or the other day, suppressing and restraining a student wont help matter. Just by shying away from issues like homosexuality wont help or solve anything.
Students should be encouraged to speak their mind without any frills as this will give them confidence to air their opinion with confidence especially in a democratic setup and make others at least think about the matter. The way of expression is also very important which should be nourished at this level as these so called controversial topics should be aesthetically put forth without giving any room for unnecessary conflicts due to ambiguous statements . The students should also be instilled to respect ones opinion and if they have any objections it should be done in a logical and rational manner instead of just taunting in a crowd. The level of maturity in an individual can be enriched only when he or she tries to objectively interpret the point of contention through the mode of reasoning. rather than getting agitated because of gregarious factors, which shows how emotionally motivated we are and being in a phase where we are being shaped to be the future of the society, they have to evolve beyond the emotional factors otherwise they are going to continue the same manner in the society in which they will play a major role.
Mob mentality is something which plagues our educational environment, a man when in a mob loses the thinking capability and is bound to lose his individual opinion. People in a mob tend to blind themselves when the mob flares up because of a few appealing words. Being in an academic environment the students should brace themselves to have their own firm opinion unlike an unruly mob in a political rally where they shout the slogans without even knowing its meaning. Due to this mob mentality, the actual message or an opinion of an individual gets lost as he / she is not allowed justify their stand. In a class room where the mob gets excited and starts blabbing and clapping, how can we expect a rational understanding as they don't want to try and listen to the reasoning? When a mob derides an individual, the key message and opinion is lost in the mockery. This extremely deters an individual's confidence to speak out. Indian parliament is very good example for mob mentality where the members of opposition start taunting a minister before he / she completes a sentence the speech. Only when a person is allowed to complete the address, we will be able to know the actual message. But a mob is such that it is too excited to listen to the viewpoints of the speaker. When a mob doesn't even listen where is the question of comprehending and analyzing the matter.
When they flare up solely by hearing a few provocative terms instead of grasping the context then the chances are that they are going continue the same way even when they go out into the society. As we all know today's young are the future of our society. If they do not develop their skills of critical and rational analysis, what is the point of their so called education? Education is supposed to develop our personality as a whole, but when in the phase where we are supposed to shape ourselves, we are leashed, our expression and comprehending capacities are curtailed, how can we expect our youngster to bring about a new energy and thought process in the society?
As responsible citizens when we see everything in a narrow and sentimental color, especially in a democracy where we make the key decisions, we are bound to be entrapped and misused by a few people who know to play with the mob sentiments for their own interests. It becomes very easy to manipulate people when they are extremely sentimental. To avoid such hazardous mousetraps we have to hold on to our opinions with a rational analysis at an individual level instead of piggy backing on the crowd.

Revolutions V/s Evolution

2011-12-04T20:15:00.001-08:00

In the world when the change happens, it happens through two ways,

Revolution and Evolution

Revolution is a abrupt or a sudden change in a stagnant system which has remained unchanged over a long period of time.

Evolution is a process of evolving, things change over the period of time, its a long process and continuous process.

When the process of evolving stops in a system or a society it starts making people long for a change. The long urge for a change leads people to take extreme step to change things in one go. Though the revolution is a short term process it has its own repercussions. Sudden and fast changes in a stagnant system may sound lucrative but when changes happen suddenly there is an issue of adaptability. Sudden changes always makes people unsettled. When there is a change there are always new idea in the system, just because people wanted change doesn't mean they will tolerate the new entrants in the system. So people's reaction to the sudden changes may not necessarily be positive. People take their own time to adapt to the new changes. Sometimes people's reaction may be against the new change. This negative reaction leads to the instability in the system. In a system where there is an unstable phase, there is always a section of people who want to make use of instability to serve their own interests. If we see the three major revolutions in the history, this has been the case, it may be French Revolution where France ended up being taken over by Napoleon or Russian Revolution where Lenin took over Russia or Industrial Revolution where the rich became richer while the poor had to pay the price. Revolution comes with a cost, to be specific an immediate cost. Even in the most recent revolution in Egypt, after the overthrowing of Hosni Mubarak, the military rule was imposed now the people are agitating against one more tyrant in the form of military.Unless the people are ready to handle this instability the revolution is more of a bane than a boon.

Evolution on the other hand is a very slow process over a long period of time. Here the changes may not happen suddenly but its a process of evolving, as the time passes the system evolves itself. Evolution happens across several generations. In the process of evolution no one is left behind as in the process of evolution people evolve with the system. So the chances of instability is very thin in the case of evolution. People are better prepared for the changes in evolution. If we see First war of Indian Independence in 1857 and The freedom movement in 1940s, we can notice the difference as in 1857 India was not ready for such a movement as there was no unity among the Indian states so it actually backfired but led to the evolution of a far more united India and a stronger freedom movement in 1940s. It took nearly 100 years for a stronger freedom movement to evolve but it was far more fruitful when compared to 1857. Just like the Charles Darwin's theory of evolution of species where the human species has got its present state after evolution over a long period of time. For example if a monkey had lost its tail over night it might have found it hard to adapt to its environment as the tail had its own use, but now since the tail has disappeared overnight it will be in a conflict with environment. As the theory says the monkey has lost its tail to become human by a process of evolution over a long period of time. Evolution is a continual process and the stagnation in which leads to a revolution.

Evolution may be kick started with a revolution, revolution takes place due to the stagnation in the process of evolution.

It is up to the people how they want their society to be shaped up by, either by a revolution or by a process evolution.

People have to decide for themselves whether they are ready for total change. For a revolution of any sort people have to be well prepared to a sea change.

Montek Singh Ahluwalia's Response

2011-10-05T10:15:00.000-07:00

Lately there has been a lot of noise about the poverty line and Montek Singh Ahluwalia has become the punching bag for everybody from our lecturers to my dentist, Lets have a look at his response in his interview.

A mould to achieve economic ends

2011-10-05T09:48:00.000-07:00

When I say economic ends that doesn't mean only mediocre economic want, i am pointing out the superlative economic benefits.
The mould  or a pattern here mentioned is of the mass appeal, and this mass appeal is gained through various ways like politics, entertainment, religious preaching etc.

The most obnoxious of these all is the so called religious preaching, Karl Marx once remarked Religion is the opium of the masses. It has been proved right time and again.
People are ready to do anything to gain favor from the so called god and this makes it a cake walk to those who want manipulate people and meet their economic ends.
Religion or a faith works as a opium on people, just like a drug which gives relief when there is a pain. so when people are distressed and confused mentally they turn to faith. The so called god men exploit this situation which is perfect for them. When people are distressed they are very vulnerable and are ready to accept anything superficial.
It also acts as an instrument to unite people against a common detractor. Whenever there is a threat from outside people try to use it as uniting instruments, as gregariousness is a nature of man. They try to use religion as a common factor among them. This is when the so called preachers com into picture. They try to exploit this aggression against the detractor and bring people together. But their motives are always beyond unity, even after the people are successful in getting rid of the detractor they continue to hold a great deal of influence on people. To fight this external threat people need something to unit and something to push them together thats when the preachers take advantage of it.
This has been proved time and again, every time there is a conflict involving a muslim dominated country suddenly it becomes the so called jihad, they all turn to religion, just like in Afghanistan, when the soviet's pushed down south to Afghanistan, suddenly everything  became religious and the fight against the soviets was called a jihad, but it was no more than an assertive action taken by the soviets as part of the cold war suspecting that Afghanistan is being taken over by the US as then it was a buffer state between the two blocs. They just wanted to use Afghanistan as a base to spread their influence in the Persian gulf for oil . But it was made into a religious war by making soviets into the enemies of the Islam which is questionable as they were against the very concept of religion. This gave a platform for taliban to come up, the people are divided, they are distressed by war, they are poor and they are thirsty for a common faith. So taliban used these factor to gain ground and exploited the vulnerable people to control the vast natural resource and most importantly the opium and the trade routes, apparently this was their chief motive.
It happened again in South africa as well, when the black Africans were becoming aware of their rights, the white predominantly dutch ruling community made apartheid a part of bible, they started preaching apartheid as part of Christianity. Again when the people saw a threat they turned to preachers.

This happened in USA also, after the defeat in the civil war, various groups like KKK( kuk klux klan) came into existence, only to protect the interests of the white community using the same old tried and tested method of religious preaching. It became so popular that even the celebrated president Woodrow Wilson was alleged to be a member of theses groups.

Its the same in India also, in fact our constitution itself has given such freedom in its article 27. At the time of freedom we have seen people like Jinnah, Iqbal, Sawarkar, Madan Mohan Malaviya capitalizing on religious sentiment to unite people but at the end it can proved that their motives were beyond unity or independence. If we go back a little bit, Shivaji also used the same sentiment to strengthen his influence on the people but at the same time what he wanted was the political autonomy to reach the rich Deccan. He had pledged not to make a pact with any muslim kingdom but he had to shake hands with the nizam when the emperor at Delhi lost his cool. That shows the religion means nothing but an instrument to their other motives.

This is true in present day also, if we see the present political situation in Karnataka, the mutts are like the driving force behind the political parties, they serve as the vote banks for the political parties because of the kind of influence they have on the people. Since this is the mechanical era, when the people get tired of their mechanical lives they turn to these so called spiritual ways of dealing with their stress. This vulnerability is exploited by the so called spiritual gurus, indirectly controlling the people minds and their pockets.
One question to these mutts is that what is their business in politics, as they play a very big role as they have a very deep influence on people either in the name of caste or religion. People should be aware of the hidden agendas before they get carried away by the so called swamis.
The classic example in the present day is the young and dashing Nityananda, clearly his motives were beyond preaching spirituality or yoga,the possession of huge property itself says it all, he exploited the vulnerability of the people. People who went to him were those who were distressed but had a fat pockets.

People shouldn't go weak on their knees just because of the spiritual, they have to keep their conscience alive.

Article 27 of Indian Constitution

2011-10-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

Article 27 of Indian constitution states

Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religions denomination.

Article 27 has its root in the article 26 but what it actually mean in reality is
The so called spiritual and religious institutions do have to pay taxes for the donation they get.
They dont have to declare their wealth annually.
They dont have to pay taxes for the business they do.
They dont have to have an audit and they dont have to disclose the results of the audit they have internally.
They dont come under the authority of CAG.
Since they dont disclose their balance sheet no body know what they do with all the money.

The super rich swamis or mutts are nothing but the reflections of this article which gives them the freedom of not answering to any authority when it comes to financial matters.
How justifies is it to give the so called religious institutions such superlative freedom. Here i am not questioning their integrity if some people get offended just by a few simple questions, but i am just pointing out the need for accountability. I am just asking why should there be no transparency. Once anybody gets this kind of freedom, they tend to loose their focus. not to mention money has that power to make men dance to its tunes.
I am not saying they are misusing their wealth, they may be doing a lot of social work in the form of school, hospitals old age homes etc butt here my point is they have to show their balance sheet after doing all the sacred work. I mean, if the get 100 rupees as a donation and they do some good work like building a temple out of, they have to give a total balance sheet of what percent f this 100 rupees did they spend and from where exactly did they get this 100 rupees and if they spend all of it how are they maintaining their administrative machinery. Not only do they get hefty donations they do fussiness worth crores but neither do they pay any tax nor do they give a quarterly financial report like all other companies who publish the quarterly financial report and send hem to their share holders. In the same way isnt it a moral obligation of these institutions to give the balance sheets to at least the donors, which includes every other person who put a coin into the box kept in front of every other temple, on other words every other person who visits a temple!!! the only difference between the donor and the share holder is that the donors dont expect year bonuses like the shareholders.
When it comes to donors, it is very important to know the source from where they get such kind of money to just give it away. these institutions have became like home grown tax havens like Switzerland. When the question comes from where these institutions get such mammoth amount of wealth they will just say donations but from where do these donors get such money when our country is not exactly filled with billionaires. Since these institutions are free from taxes they have become like the bank pvt banks who keep money for the rich 'donor' who want to just evade tax in the name of charity. And they dont mind give a piece of this wealth to the watch dog in the from of so called sacred religious institutions who have saved a major amount of their wealth from the tax dogs.
Since these institutions are tax free and are already billionaires why the govts are funding them. I am not saying they dont do any humanitarian work, if they are doing good work what is their problem in publicly declaring their assets and producing a quarterly financial report like all other companies do.
How fair is it to leave these billionaire institutions to go tax free while half of the country starves and when the whole country is full scams these so called religious and sacred institutions who are perceived to serving the people go with out a open audit.

Isn't there a need amend this article??

Did we really ‘achieve’ Independence?

2011-09-04T05:24:00.000-07:00

Did we really ‘achieve’ Independence?

We have been taught that India 'achieved ' independence in 1947 from a very peaceful and nonviolent struggle led by Gandhi himself. Can this be questioned? Were there other major factors which influenced the British Empire to grant the independence? Let us go through a series of events which in my view led to the independence of India.

The State of the British empire--

On the 22nd of January 1901, with the death of Queen Victoria came to an end an era of British expansionism and which was called 'Victorian Era'. It was in this era the British Empire was called an empire where the sun never set. Their control extended from Canada to Australia. Victoria was the icon of this majestic empire and with her death the empire started losing its sheen. She has been credited to have influenced the govt policies in a positive manner though officially the power of the British monarch are limited. In fact she was the longest reigning British monarch. The British Empire was at its height when the highly revered and iconic Queen died, even her anniversaries were celebrated as if they were the national festivals. With her death the empire sort of lost a driving force. The name Victoria itself was synonymous to supremacy. But the British Empire no longer had such a driving force.

King Edward VII

King George V

After the death of the Queen Victoria, the British throne was succeeded by her son Edward VII. He was said to be an able diplomat and an administrator. It was in his time the erstwhile colonies of Australia and Canada got their dominion status. Though he could have been an able king, he dint live long, his reign came to an end by 1910 due to his ill health he died on 6th of May 1910.King Edward had a vision of a united Europe and had formed very strong relationship with France and other major European power though his relation with his own cousin, Kaiser William II of Germany was not a cordial one. At the turn of the century when the queen died the world was getting ready for a dozen new things starting with ideas like communism and socialism to the modernization of the military. King Edward even from the days when he used to be the Prince of Wales and used to be representative of the queen had very good relations with the American nations of Canada and USA though Canada was its own colony it had rose in importance.

After the death of the King Edward his son King George V succeeded to the throne of British Empire. After the end of his father’s short lived reign he looked to expand his kingdom rigorously. His period saw the rise of socialism, communism, fascism, Irish republicanism, and the Indian independence movement and most importantly the First World War took place in his period. The bitter relation with the German king Kaiser William II continued in his reign . George had inherited the throne in very turbulent times. As he inherited an empire which spanned from India to Canada he to had get a grip of this mammoth empire very fast as the world was changing with every second. But he was said to be suffering from ill health and his last days were not very peaceful.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

First World War

First World War started in 1914, due to the murder of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria on the streets of Skopje. To take revenge Austria declared was against Serbia, since Serbia was supported by Turkey, Turkey got involved in the war and this triggered a chain of declaration of war by major powers of Europe against their respective emeries to help their respective friends. The same way British Empire got involved by declaring war against Germany which had declared war on France. This is how the British Empire got embroiled in the First World War.

The war ended in 1918; of course the British Empire was one of the victors as they were one of the allied powers. If you see the events of the war in detail it’s the US forces which saved the day for British as the British army had lost its steam in Europe. In the later part of the war the Germans did a suicidal act by attacking the US merchant ships which compelled Woodrow Wilson to declare war on Germany and enter the war on the side of triple alliance. The triple alliance was strengthened further with the support of the powerful USA.

The war of course ended with the victory of Triple alliance but it had taken a heavy toll on all the countries in the war including the victors. Britain’s army was wiped out and it was rescued by the Americans. The war had a devastating effect on the economies of the all the countries. It took several years for them to recover from the slum.

The war also saw the collapse of 4 of the most prominent imperialist monarchy of Europe, the German empire was broken up and distributed piece by piece among the victors, the Austro-Hungarian empire which was very powerful and influential in the beginning of the war was broken up into two states- Austria and Hungary, Russian monarchy lost out to the communists before the end of the war in 1917 and they withdrew from the war, Turkey did no better and it transformed into a republic. So after war the most powerful monarchies of Europe seized to exist and became republics. So England was the lone powerful imperialistic monarchy in Europe. This added pressure had its impact on diminishing popularity of the British monarch.

During the time of war the empire was desperate for recruits and it left no stone unturned to get them, seeing this the Indian nationalists thought of taking advantage of this desperate situation. They thought by supporting the empire they are going to the some concession from the British parliament as a reward for the wartime help. The British parliament vowed a lot to Indian princes for their contribution in fact a major part of the British army was from the Indian subcontinent. On the other hand the Indian nationalist wanted to capitalize on the situation and put more pressure on the British parliament. The British parliament was very quick to notice a storm brewing so to ease the tension in the subcontinent they passed government of India act. This act was valid for only 10 years until 1929. It expanded the participation of Indians in the working of the government. That means a diarchy system of government where Indians were allowed to control some aspect of the state; they called this as the transferred list as the power to control these was transferred to Indians at the provincial level. But still most of the provinces where they had a direct rule were under the viceroy. This was a major dent to the imperialism of the British Empire as it was giving away half of the rule to the Indian hands. This clearly showed that the British dint wants direct face off after the dreadful war so they were ready to compromise and rebuild their economy which was swept of its feet by the war.

The great depression

The great depression in the early 1930s saw the economic downturn of the western economies. In this period UK suffered a lot, it brought the people to the streets due to the job loss. The government was dumbfounded. It took nearly a decade to recover from the downturn. UK definitely couldn’t afford to face one a large scale revolt so the British parliament passes the Government of India act of 1935. Under this act the parliament abolished the diarchy system and. It gave British India a large amount of autonomy and formed federation of India but uniting the princely states and the other provinces. This showed clearly that the British parliament reduce the administrative burden of India due to the economic conditions back home. It slowly started handing over the administration to the native hands and remains involved only for the taxes which could help its economic situation. On the other hand the wanted to cool the Indian nationalists by giving them something to snack on.

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini

The blitz - World War II, London

The fall of Singapore to the Japanese-1942

The Second World War

The Second World War started with Hitler declaring war on Poland and invading it. It dint take the other countries to declare war on each other. The same way they had dome in the First World War. In the beginning of the war the axis power had all the advantage and they seem to be winning the war. On 7^th Sept. 1940 Germany started the strategic bombing of Brittan. This went on nearly for a year. In these raids London the power center of the empire upon which sun never set, was now burning, the entire population of London went underground and took shelter in the underground train station and tunnels. Though the raids didn’t achieve their purpose and was a failure on part of the Germans, it showed that the Empire had lost its sheen. This showed that the so called British Empire was no longer supreme or undefeatable. Later the Germans bought brought on their own downfall by invading Russia that too in the winter. At the same time the empire was losing its grip over its eastern strongholds too. It lost Singapore and Hong Kong to the Japan. The fall of Singapore showed that it was the dusk of the British supremacy in the east. Japan committed one more blunder by bombing pearl harbor which brought in USA on the side of the allied power, which went on to prove suicidal as the axis power had almost won the war until the USA joined the allied forces. Of course the allied powers won the war but it was USA which saved the day for them and in fact it’s the USA which retook the Europe for the allies powers, the army of the British empire was reduces to less than half. In this situation it clearly showed that the empire was not capable of managing the far off colonies so after the Second World War one by one most the overseas colonies declared independence. India was one of the colonies.

Gandhi's arrest led to Quit India movement in 1942

The British Empire owed a lot to India and the Indian princely states for their support in the desperate times of war. The British Empire was reduced to ashes. The empire was no longer supreme. After the war the world order changing and the colonization was being antagonized. They had set up a world governing body called United Nations with the objective of the securing the rights of downtrodden countries. Meanwhile in India the quit India movement had shook the viceroy, they knew they couldn’t take any more of the pressure from the Nationalist that too when the empire itself was burning. So they had no choice but to grant the Independence.

Now how fair is it to say that we as Indians achieved the independence from the British Empire which was on its knees, its economy was in turmoil, its capital burning and had to be rescued by one of its former colonies?

Operation Blue Star

2011-08-10T11:15:00.000-07:00

In 1984, Indra Gandhi ordered the military to flush out the Khalisthan terrorists from the golden temple at Amritsar. This operation was followed by a long debate on whether the operation was inevitable or was there a chance for negotiation with the terrorists as the operation left a large number of civilians dead.
There is a difference of opinion about the operation but let us listen to the commander who led operation, General Kuldip Singh Brar.

Part 1

Part 2

How practical was Panchasheel policy

2011-07-29T11:59:00.000-07:00

Panchsheel was the name of the foreign policy adopted by India soon after the independence. It was actually a brain child of the First Prime Minister of India Pandith Jawaharlal Nehru. Later It was the base of Sino Indian treaty of 1954 and also became the core ideology behind the Non alignment movement.

Panchasheel is a foreign policy formed by 5 main ideals. Its main aim was to abstain from the then ongoing cold war between the two blocs and to be maintain a friendly neighboorhood. But as it turned out the policy was a bit idealistic. The following are the five ideals

Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty,

Mutual non-aggression,

Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs,

Equality and mutual benefit, and

Peaceful co-existence.

If we examine all the of the points carefully, we will find that they are not exactly realistic

When it says respect for each other's territorial integrity its hard to imagine such a situation as it takes generations to resolve disputes between nations. If these disputes take generation to resolve then it will take equally long time to establish a truat without which the respect cant be imagined.

If there is a dispute there is obviously a aggression. There is no way that there is a dispute and there wont be an aggression. The nations will try every thing to settle dispute in their own favor, then why will they not be aggressive.

When two nations have a dispute or a rivalry, they will do anything to serve their purpose. They can go to any extent to see their rival disintegrate as it will be in their interest. So to meet these goals they will never abstain from fueling each other's internal problems.

The best term which can be closely associated with idealism is equality, in the real world two nations can never be equal as their resources are not equally distributed which is natural. So almost all countries bargain hard for their own benefit why will the nation pitch for mutual benefit when they have their own interests.

The peaceful co existence is nothing but a dream as there can never be peace between countries when there are disputes, and every nation tries to use what means they could to get a maximum out of the dispute. So in this case how can nations function peacefully.

When it comes to serving their interests nations cant stick to a laid plan, they have to act according as the situations demands. IF a nation tries to stick to a policy and not act according to the change in situation then it will end up nowhere.

Credit crisis

2011-01-14T11:28:00.000-08:00

Check out this very well presented video on Credit Crisis

Part 1

Part 2

Is India really poor

2010-12-10T10:27:00.000-08:00

We often keep hearing that India is still a developing country and the people are very poor ........etc...
At the same time we also see the so called spiritual and religious Muthas building temple of crores of rupees,
governments granting money to these institution like flowing water.
Cant the government use this money in a better way. For an instance, there will be a magnificent temple being built but even the road which leads to this temple will be unbearable. Ho is that a temple is more important than a so called sacred temple.
On this these so called sacred Muthas are exempted from all sorts of taxes. That means it is obvious that these mathas will be the save haven for all the unaccounted money of big political Honchos.
The role of these mathas in politics, which is evident in the present state of govt, is totally unjustified and of no relevance. What does so called spiritual gurus have to do in the dirty game of politics?
Muthas were established mainly to dispense education and serve the people but today they have become the safety locker for all the corrupt politicians.
This money which is concentrated in mathas can really matter a lot to the life of the people and a boast to the Indian economic infrastructure. Why should it be used for some good looking infrastructure which doesn't matter an inch to the ground level economic development of India?

Dont you think these Muthas are the first place to be raided and audited, they may be even doing something for the local populace by free food distribution but how much of these so called sacred activities account in all the money garnered from the rich and corrupt politicians. This muthas gives the politician a safe locked for all the misdeeds they commit when they come to power.

In my opinion officers like the Lokayukta should raid these Muthas first.

Is India right in talking against racial discrimination

2010-11-21T11:07:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of media hype about the racial attacks on Indians mainly in Australia. Media blew up the issue saying Australian are racially motivated. But we as Indian, are we right in even complaining against the discrimination when there is so much of discrimination among ourselves interns of castes and religion.
It is a known fact that Indian has a long tradition of caste discrimination. The discrimination is to such an extent that so called dalit are not even allowed to step into the colonies of the so called upper castes. The very problem of naxalism is dogging India just because of this discrimination. When we have such a big problem on our lap, is it right to talk about the discrimination to a rich brat abroad who faced the heat for some reason which is not even clear.
When it comes to actually racism India is no better. So i would like to say this there is no point in talking against something which India has been practicing for centuries. If the caste-ism is not racism then why people are denied houses for rent just because they are of different caste. When ever there is a communal problem these dalits are made scapegoats by training them to attack others and if you see the death tool of dalits and other castes in these kind of violences, the no of deaths in the so called upper classes are almost nil when compared to Dalits. They are even offered water in the coconut shells. That is the extent so discrimination we have. Isn't this racism?
Not only the casteism but also the discriminating and contempt towards the people of different region is very distressing to see. When the tourist come from the west and other countries people wont think of anything other than robing them.
So we have to acknowledge that racism is present even in India also and there is no point in complaining about the discrimination we face outside as we will be getting the same treatment what we have netted out to our own people. .....

Kashmir, too far on a wrong track

2010-11-01T12:14:00.000-07:00

Let me just remind you the times when Hindi was declared the national language and there were riots in states of Tamil nadu and Kerala. The situation was so tense that they were even ready to ask for a different nation but they recovered their sanity and looked in the future, now Tamil nadu is on of the most industrialized state and Chennai is one os the worlds fastest growing cities.
The reason why i mentioned this is to point out the similarities between the two regions and situations. the root cause of the Kashmir situation is similar to that of the problems which were faced by Tamil nadu. I wanted o point out the equal amount of potential in both the regions. So why should they spoil their future by creating such nuisance and listening to the meaningless calls of Pakistan for so called Azad Kashmir. In my point of view they should aim to exploit their potential in the fields tourism through which they can become economically stronger like the states of Goa which wholly depends upon tourism and has a strong economy too. By organizing strikes or bundhs they are loosing out on their own business and they are the who is losing out on their jobs. Instead of being mislead by the likes of LeT or Pakistan they should use their use their conscience.
I strongly believe that they should keep aside the pointless things like religion and culture and look for a better and economically stronger future as at the end of the day thats what matter, it really doesn't matter whether the majority of the population is Hindu or Muslim.
My only question is that can Pakistan or Kashmir's independent govt give better administration and economic development? Because thats what really matters.

Forced abortions in China

2010-10-26T12:19:00.000-07:00

Having a strong policy is good but when the ideology turn fanatic then it becomes very dangerous.
I agree that China has a very serious problem of population and they have adopted certain strong policies like birth control, one child per couple etc.. But to follow those policies they have have have gone to an extent of torturing the pregnant women and forcefully aborting their babies. There should be a limit to their action , if they was so hard bent on following those policies then they should have taken precautionary steps like keeping track of those who have already had a child. and reminding time to time.
This is a clear human rights violation, what is the use of such big economy why the people are harassed by such authoritative policies. How can people live in such a country where police torture and kill the infant babies day in and day out? At the same time the responsible citizens of such great countries should realize the problem and act responsibly as the the repurcussion lead to such merciless acts.
The news reports of these indents are very disturbing, How can people even think of such actions.
If hey are so concerned about the population rise they should have equally strong preventive measure rather than such heinous acts.

Ceasefires, Boon or a bane

2010-10-25T04:05:00.000-07:00

Ceasefires are the peace calls when there is a conflict between two parties either by the third party or by one of the parties.
When there is a conflict between two or more state, third party like UN intervenes and calls for a cease fire. Here the conflict comes to halt and temporary settlement for peace. Most of the time things will be left unsettle and it leads to prolonged problems and conflicts between the state.
What is the use of the such ceasefire like that in Kashmir which has left the whole issue unsettled. If the issue was settled one and for all though it was violent. It would have been better than having insurgency problem for almost a century. What is the use of such ceasefire which brings temporary halt to the war and creates bigger and unsettle tussle between two state which will rip the economies of both the countries for a longer period of time.

What i mean to say is, it may be Israel or Kashmir, things have to be solved once and for all other wise they are bound to bring lot of prolonged conflicts which are worse than a violent face off between the countries.

Taliban, a real menace

2010-10-16T22:20:00.000-07:00

I think this a major impact of US bombing that Taliban has got so many new recruits, when the US bombs villages the no of innocent people killed will the double that of the terrorists killed. The young teenage boys who have lost their parents in these kind of bombing become very easy targets for taliban as they have nowhere to go when they have lost everything they had. Taliban lure them into their circle by promising them revenge and brain washes them.
They also have no choice as it is better to join taliban than die hungry.
The US have to understand that bombing is not a solution for this menace but in turn it acts as patrol on a burning fire.

When it comes to handling taliban, i strongly belove that it has to be the afghans themselves, they have to realize if they want a better future for their country they have to get rid of this menace. If there is an external element acting against taliban then ii will give them a major advantage to lure more recruits by claiming to fight against the foreign power in their land.
The afghans have to unite and fight this menace instead of fight amongst themselves like thee have done for centuries which has resulted in nothing but chaos in the country.

CWG pride or a shame

2010-10-13T12:15:00.000-07:00

Common wealth games are almost coming to a close now. It started nearly two weeks back, the so called sporing extravaganza. Common wealth games is sporting even which is participated only the countries which are former colonies of the British empire.
The very fact that it is participated only by the former colonies of the so called great empire where the sun never setis a big mark of age old slavery. Even Ireland was in the empire formerly but they withdrew from the Commonwealth. I dont see the very need to be in commonwealth.
The so called prestigious Games was really a big unnecessary burden on the Indian economy. Money was poured like water to build those huge and filthy stadiums at Delhi. Even though they poured so much they couldnt manage to finish things in time and the all those big structures were nothing more than very badly build blocks of brick. And not to mention the unmeasurable corruption and swallowing of funds from top to bottom. The so called grand games village was a major embarrassment to the Indian govt and the a very gentle lady of substance was made a scape goat out of all the mess happened, the chief minister of Delhi, Sheila Dixit.
The point is when these people knew that India is not yet ready for such a big event why should they even accept such responsibilities. There are a hundred things which could be done with all the money put into the meaningless infrastructure. It was said that it was India's pride to host such a prestigious games but it should be realized that before taking any such step they should take stock of things. A country which has no proper roads puors money like water on something which is nothing but show off that too with an embarrassing mess with all sorts of irregularities like prepaid contract works.

I would say the whole affair was disaster and was nothing but a big opportunity for the top people to steam up their bank accounts. They night be employment created for nearly thousands of them by that was not a stable one as it was only for a few months and they spent so disproportionately and after all it was all tax payers money,

Ayodhya Verdict

2010-09-30T13:26:00.000-07:00

After 18 years of investigation the Allahabad high court has delivered its verdict on the so called Ram Janmabhoomi. According to the verdict they have decided to divide the plot into three parts with all three parties( Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara.) getting their share. They have also cleared the way for the construction of Ram temple at the site in the Hindu part.
Here they have actually acted wise with out making a one sided decision and dividing the site equally between the three parties. Even then the Hindu outfit and the Wakf committee have already announced that they are going to take the matter to Supreme Court. But cant they close the matter here itself as there is a limit for everything when you go past that then it is nothing but madness as fighting for some which happened 500 yrs ago and on that nobody know what exactly happened so its better to leave the matter here and move on. If they further pursue the issue they it make create unnecessary mess just like it did in 1992.

India's impressive stance in Pakistan and J and K

2010-09-29T08:41:00.000-07:00

External affairs Minister S M Krishna recently asked pakistan to think of its own survival than cracking their head on J&K. This is the second time that Extremal affair minister has impressed with its direct language. I completely support the stance taken by India towards this issue as Pakistan has got nothing to do with J and K as their own country is ravaged by floods and increasing influence of Taliban.

What does Pakistan have to do with Kashmir?

2010-09-21T12:04:00.000-07:00

For the first time i was impressed with external ministry's stand on Pakistan poking its nose into the Kashmir issue.
I feel the major problems between is that including the World war happened because of third party involvement. When Balkan states had problem with Islamic empire of Turkey the Austria intervened and with Austria, Russia and Germany also got involved and they were joined by their allies. So one problem gave birth to many reasons for other countries to fight amongst themselves.
Kashmir is an internal issue of India and Pakistan has no business there what so ever and the very cause of Kashmir independence is questionable. I dont understand on what basis they are asking for their freedom. If i see in India every state is very different from each other, in this basis they cant say they are culturally and traditionally very different from India as every other state is different.
Politically they are were not left behind even at the time of creation of Union of India and Pakistan like all other princely states they were also asked to choose to join either of the unions but their Maharaja Hari Singh delayed his decision. Meanwhile there was a pretty serious matter of infiltration and riots across the State at this moment The Maharaja had to sign the treaty of accession with India as it was an open secret that the infiltration of tribes from Pakistan was funded by the Pakistani army. At this point of time India had to send in the army as par of the treaty to check the advancing tribes. The tribes claimed that Maharaja had no right to decide for the people of Kashmir as he was a Hindu and majority of the population was Muslim so they said Kashmir was the part of Pakistan because of the Muslim majority and some wanted to be independent. The Indian army had checked the infiltration but it was too late for them as the tribes had reached the outskirts of Srinagar and they had almost half of the Kashmir. The Indian Army had no chance to recapture the occupied part as a ceasefire was called by the UN and the same cease has taken hundreds of lives and it has divided the very state of Kashmir. If they had recaptured the occupied part there was no problem a all, once it is integral part of India then there is no chance of anybody occupying it and there would be no question of free state as it would have been a part of India as all other states. Here the problem is mainly because the issue was left unsettled the people are made to believe even now that they will be free by false promises by so called patriot who have been doing things like bomb blasts which has taken innumerable lives.
The people of Kashmir have been blinded with a belief of their so called state hood but the it has hit the livelihoods of thousands if people as who have nothing to do but agitate.

The whole problem of Kashmir has only one solution and that is they should look at economic development through tourism and other means. The only way that the region can be peaceful is by this when the people get engaged in their work they will not have time to things like state hood which has no meaning without economic development. They should follow the example of Kerala and Himachal Pradesh where they have created a peaceful atmosphere though they are distinct from other regions of India. They have to manage themselves to see that elements like Pakistan shouldnt distract from their goals. When there is no economic development then what is the meaning of a free state even if it become independent its going to sabotaged by Pakistan as half of the Kashmir is literally controlled by it which is very poor economically though it is a hills station has a very high potential for tourism like Manali or Massuri.

Its only the Kashmiris who can save their land by committing themselves to the constructive work and not getting distracted by the ideas like statehood propagated by the anti national elements.

Is Ayodhya geting more attention than required.

2010-09-12T04:06:00.000-07:00

In 1993 a mosque was demolished in Ayodhya. The mosque was Babri masjid which was 500 years old and as claimed by the Hindu radical elements it was built by Mir Baqi, the general of the mughal emperor Babur, after demolishing the grand temple of Rama which as they claim was at the site of the mosque.
Here my question is why did they take 500 years to demolish the mosque which was on the so called Rama janma bhoomi? What were they doing for 500 years and if they were so devout they could have demolished as soon as it was built, why did they wait for 500 years?
I am raising these question because what followed after the demolition was so brutal and uncalled for and it left a really big black spot on India's secularist image as a whole.
How does it matter in the present day that there was a temple in that spot and some general demolished it and built a mosque 500 years ago? Was it more important than the lives of those thousands of people who were killed in the following riots all over the subcontinent.
The people who demolished it should have thought of the kind of repercussion their actions would have.
Was the protection of so called Rama Janmabhoomi worth so many lives which were lost in those riots?

India not only faced international condemn but also had to deal with the big divide the event had created between the two communities. The worst communal violence took place in Gujarat as the after math of the demolition.
A couch was set on fire at godhra which was full of the Hindu pilgrims who were returning from Ayodhya. The pilgrims were burnt alive and a widespread riot took place almost in all places of Gujarat in which thousands of both Hindus and Muslims were killed and thousands of other people were displaced.
The communal violence was not only in this place but all over India and even in Bangladesh Hindus were prosecuted and so many temples were burnt.

These things are because of the lack of foresightedness of those radical Hindu element who had no concern of the those who did for meaningless radical thought of securing so called Rama janmabhoomi. If they were so devout why did they even let their beloved temple be demolished.

Burning of Koran

2010-09-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457
This is the link to the main article by BBC on the burning of the Koran by a small church in Florida,USA of the anniversary 911.
These are the kind of actions which seriously threaten the harmony between the communities.
I strongly feel that these are the kind of actions which lead to the increase in the radical views.
First of all the 9/11 was the blunder committed by a bunch of hooligans who dint have a slightest idea of the repercussions of their action on the people of their own community living the west. They dint have the slightest idea what the whole Muslim community would face after their senseless act which led to the disturbance of the harmonious relations between Muslim and other communities. Because of this act of terrorism the muslim community in west had to face a very severe social ostracism which was completely uncalled for as they were targeted for somethings they had nothing do with.
Why is that something done by a senseless people of a community is seen as the attack of whole religion or a whole community. These are the result of the extreme, irrational and radical actions of a group which acts without even thinking of the repercussions of their actions.
It is actually a human tendency or in other words stereo typical views which gets formed after coming across two or more similar things of a group or a community and form a opinion that anything similar to what they have some across will the carbon copy of the one they have com across.
This one is also one of those things which they have announced with out even thinking what will be the effect of their action on the Christians. themselves. They are commuting the same mistake as those hooligans from the middle east who had rammed two aeroplanes in to WTO.
I have no apprehensions to say that these idiots are making the things worse for the people across the world again and they threatening the lives of the Christians living the islamic countries just like those hooligans who caries out 9/11.
No body has any kind of right to disrespect any religion followed by million of the people around the world and they are threatening the relation between two biggest communities of the world.
They say they want to teach radical element a lesson but what they are doing is going to hurt the whole muslim community. They had thought when the 9/11 happened the whole muslim community is responsible now they are doing something which will make the muslim community feel the whole Christian community is responsible for the idiotic thing done by a small church.
A church is supposed to spread the message of unity , peace, harmony but not aggravate the already torn relation between two communities.

Indira Gandhi

2010-09-07T09:34:00.000-07:00

I am reading the biography of Indira Gandhi. I seriously have a very deep respect for the great lady.
Especially because if she had not been strong in 1971 and if she hadnt acted as tough as she had acted back then, there would would be no Bangladesh.
The kind of determination she showed is really inspiring and she had the guts to literally confront he President of America who was totally tilted towards Pakistan just because it had acted as a central pivot in their talks with China. I cant believe even in the time of crisis he acted so lame and after the war he ordered his seventh fleet to Bay of Bengal. Every other so called big country was doing nothing but asking India to wait for a peaceful solution to come up just on its own with its increasing refugee problem and they mere description of the situation was heart thumping. That was the time when Indira Gandhi with her General Manekshaw stood strong and moved into east Pakistan and Bangladesh is the result of it.
How can a country with increasing economic problems stand a draining refugee problem.
She was not siting somewhere and talking some non sense but she was out there at the refugee camps to see for herself. I really admire the guts she had to take over the world power and move in with the army. I cant believe that so called great diplomats of those great countries can be so lame and 'wait for the peaceful solution to come'.
The situation in east Pakistan was so pathetic that not even a single lady could be seen as they had all fled to Indian as refugees or they were al put in the trenches and made slaves. Such cruelty in mass was taking place right after the Jewish prosecution by the Hitler and these so called world power dint 'wait' for a peaceful solution to come up back then as of i remember.

Only she could have such guts and act swiftly and she is actually the real Iron Lady of the nation not only for India but also for Bangladesh.