Thoughts on the presidency of the United States of America.

I was reading Britannica on the presidency of the United States of America. The deliberation of the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, and on September 1787, makes for very interesting self deliberation. The founding fathers of the Constitution of the United States, did not see the President of the United States as the vanguard of the United States. In fact, the representatives of the states, in the Senate, and in the House of Representatives, were the true collective vanguard of the interests of the United States, and the President of the United States, was the representative of the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The first, and great President of the United States, George Washington, was the unquestioned representative of the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Perhaps, the electoral election of the United States President, after George Washington served his two terms, leads one to believe, that the Senate, and the House of Representatives were initially united as one body, behind the President George Washington, but subsequently, contradictory choices, by the members of the Senate, and the House of Representatives, led to the formation of the Federalist Party, and the Democratic Republican Party. The Federalist Party, waned in fortune, later, as a political force in the United States, and then the Democratic Republican Party, were divided into the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, perhaps. Why could not the electoral college direct the House of Representatives, and the Senators, to vote unanimously, one candidate, among the august gathering, to be the President of the United States? Why should the nation be divided in a conflict of perceived interest? I will add to my thought, on another post.

Opinion on 'Why China May Stumble' by Steve Dunaway.

One can read the piece, 'Why China May Stumble' by Steve Dunaway, on cfr.org , on China's future prospects as an economic power. In my opinion, the reason why China does not have any legitimate copyright and patent laws which can stand scrutiny in the west, is because China's administration, which includes the communist party of China, has no legitimacy in the west, as a viable state, with viable internal state mechanisms. The reason why China is a hazard for patient rights, is because the west is unwilling to engage China as an equal, because her mechanism of government is not seen to be democratic, by the western democracies, which make up the G-7, along with the Asian democracy of Japan. The onus is on the G-7, and not on China, to give the Chinese government a modicum of recognition as a responsible state. Only if China is encouraged as a responsible state, will she cooperate with the other nations, to adapt to the functionings of other nations. I do not see the Chinese Communist Party 'command the heights', of the Chinese economy, for the simple reason, that the government will then get involved in the
day to day running of the Chinese economy, which will complicate matters, perhaps, or perhaps, the Chinese Government will find it easier, when it 'command's the heights of her economy', to be more in tune to the sensibilities of her trading partners. It is impossible for the west to see China as a trading partner, and not responsible, fully, towards her obligations, at the same time. Because the globe consists of many nations, interraction between nations in the matter of trade, makes it essential for nations to sustain themselves economically, through the medium of international trade. In the future, China will have to liberalize her imports, too, so that her internal demands can be met, and her internal demands are not a drain to her resources, or to her economic growth.

Corruption in India.

Why is corruption seen to be an endemic situation in India? Because, the person who is corrupt, perhaps has to be told by his associate, that he is corrupt, otherwise, he will not believe that he is corrupt. Corruption is an ambiguous term. Taking a gift, is not corruption, but the taker of the gift, bestows on himself, the tag of 'corrupt'. There is no act, which can be called corrupt. The perception of the act, in the eyes of others, makes the act corrupt. Any act of conspicuous consumption, is not corruption, for example, the consumption by a very wealthy man in business. Hence, a government official avoids censure, most of the time, if he has aquired wealth in office, unless he is in a comparision with other strata of society. This means, that most of the time, he is open to censure, if he has amassed wealth, at the discretion of the public. How then, can corruption be curtailed, and later eliminated? People who do not indulge in corruption should be encouraged. But, everyone is attracted to conspicuous consumption. A businessman is admired by a politician, for his conspicuous consumption, and a politician may be ridiculed, for not indulging in conspicuous consumption. The admiration that Dr Manmohan Singh commands, may be because he is the prime minister of India, and hence, those who perceive Dr Singh, see him as one who is conspicuous by his post of prime minister. Is corruption only for the rich, and not associated with those who aspire to be rich, when they are not? All are judged, by appearance, and appearance has been the basic virtue, when one admires wealth, or intellect, or beauty. Perhaps, the natural element of an aspirational society is corruption. Perhaps, aspiration makes an individual not part with what he has, but rather accumulate, in all situations. I do not make a fault when I point out the above example. What causes some to aspire a lot, and others to aspire less? Would India be a good place to live in, if all lived for conspicuous consumption? Is there anything to like in a person, who is not conspicuous? Can a person afford to be conspicuous to himself, rather than to other people? Is being self conspicuous a better option, rather than being conspicuous for people who are extraneous influences in life? Would a person be more or less corrupt, if the innate conspicuousness was directed toward the self?

What is the policy of China's engagement with her neighbours?

In my opinion, China does not want to engage in any conflict with her neighbors. But, since the times of Zhou Enlai, Premier of China from 1949-1976, she has deliberately tried to disengage with her neighbors, by being aggressive, and not following her aggression with intent. The People's Republic of China is more concerned, rather very concerned, with her internal security, and her internal integrity. I do not know how influential, the international policies of Mr Zhou Enlai are today, in China, but China seems to be engaging in a milder form of the diplomacy practiced from the days of Zhou Enlai. Perhaps, the genesis of this policy, has to do with the foreign occupation of China, before the advent of the communist regime. If I may quote Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Renowned for his charm and subtlety, Zhou (Enlai) was described as affable, pragmatic, and persuasive." Mr Jawaharlal Nehru, must have been suitably impressed by Mr Enlai, too. Mr Jawaharlal Nehru coined the phrase, "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai", for the benefit of the Hindi speaking masses, which ment, "Indians and Chinese are brothers". However, his sentiment was rended, by the Chinese aggression. What hurt Mr Nehru, perhaps, was his estimation of Mr Enlai.

The India-China Relationship.

India and China need to sort the border dispute, not through give and take, but on the individual merits of the case for the two claimants. The question of Aksai Chin can be discussed with China, after the differences with the nation of Pakistan are sorted out. The Chinese and Indian interests are very much being met, in a substantial manner, but not completely, by the two governments on either side of the border. There can be no bifurcation, either for the Chinese, nor for India, of territory where the claims are reasonable. India must act as a responsible power, as also must The People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China is as much a partner of India, vis a vis trade, as she is a partner of any other nation. There is much to gain in open interaction between the two nations. India will gain from China, and no doubt, China will gain from India. If India and China cannot be friends who trust one another, then the least that can be achieved, is for both the nations to be friends. Indian Government dignitaries, must travel more frequently to China, and China must reciprocate. India has much to gain diplomatically from China, and China has much to gain diplomatically from India. The days, when the neighboring state was an enemy, as was conceptualised by the great Indian philosopher Kautilya, must be brought to an end. Changing times call for changes with the times. I believe, my opinion is efficacious to the well being of relations between India and China. The relation between India and her neighbouring nations is important to India, and her neighbouring nations.

Reflections on Marxist Communism.

In my opinion, Marxism was correct upto a certain point. For example, it is argued in Marxism, that the bourgeois class is the cause of exploitation of the proletariat. If the ultimate tenet of communism is followed, which is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", then does not the existence of the bourgeois class emerge, even long after the establishment of the emancipation of the communist ideal? Perhaps. The reason why Communism did not see the light of day, is because the accumulation of possessions is incidental, and the loss of the accumulation of possessions is also incidental. Are not the proletariat bourgeois in their outlook, when they look at their wants, in terms of their needs? The material manufactured and obtained from the Earth, belong to no one, before the beginning of it's utility. But do not even the proletariat come to call the material possessions their own? How can the proletariat say that they possess no material possessions? Perhaps, in the past, the bourgeois did exploit the masses, but the bourgeois themselves make the lot of the exploited masses better, by the exercise of their own conscience. Living in a society has put certain curbs on the actions and interactions of the individual towards society. Perhaps, even when they do not willingly want to, the individuals put limitations on themselves, on the matter of their interaction with society. It becomes difficult to justify existence of the bourgeois among themselves, as how they do so with the proletariat. This explains the change for the better in society. Human beings want to improve on the difficulties that they face, hence, that are always looking for the immediate and future solution. Society in my opinion, cannot be exclusive, or inclusive. It exists in the interaction of the different people who make up society. A person may choose to live alone, or he may choose to interact with others in the immediate society. When a person perceives another person, the person always chooses to interact with the other person, as he does with his environment. The human being believes in the benign sentiment, in his interaction with other humans, and disbelieves the malignant sentiment.