General Discussion

Thoughts on the Existence of India, and Indians.

2010-04-22T06:52:00.001-07:00

I am reading a fascinating book written by Ramachandra Guha, called 'India after Gandhi'. He suggests, perhaps unconsciously, in the beginning of the book, that the British propagated the administrative creed of 'divide and rule', in India, because they did not understand India as a nation, when they used the yardstick of the typical western nation. In the west, after the 1857 struggle, there were new nations being carved in Europe, on the basis of common modes of culture. I believe, Romania was formed, when one of the larger European empires was divided, perhaps, and this was before 1857, around 1815(?), or thereabouts. In the west, people need ideas to bind them together. In India, I have never heard of a revolt, apart from the revolt of 1857, against the British Empire. This was because, the British did not want to assimilate into the Indian culture, because the idea of the Indian identity, did not appeal to them. In the west, the poor are rejected by the rich, or are ignored by them, In India, the poor and the rich, live together. In the west, it is thought, that poverty, and the poor, are indecent. In India, a person can be poor, and be respectable. Perhaps, poverty is not seen as indecent, in the present, by the west. But during the times of the Industrial Revolution, it was perhaps a fad, to think that poverty was the refuge of those who were incapable of earning a respectable amount.
The main idea, which comes to mind, is that the Indian is much too individualistic, to think that the larger community is responsible for his good, or bad fortune. If the westerner, does not belong to a larger cause, then he revolts. The Indian ethos, does not allow for this to happen. The Indian is responsible to himself, while the westerner thinks that his existence is linked to common factors with others like him. For example, whatever the government may think in India, the poor people do not think that the government is responsible for their plight. Also, in modern India, in the metropolitan societies, one does not see a culture of feudalism, which may be experienced in some remote areas, and the poor do not revolt, in these metropolitan areas. Now I must express a slight paradox. The Indian, is equally social, and equally individual. The Indian, if he is poor, puts himself in the shoes of the rich, and has the strength to be a part of the larger society, even if he is the disadvantaged part of the society.
Because the west, is dependent on ideas of state, or was dependent, on ideas of state, to exist as a state, they needed mechanisms to assure that the state existed. In India, individual existence, or life, does not depend on the idea of the state. Perhaps, this has to do, with the abundance of that, which sustains life in India, in nature, as compared to the nations of Europe.

General observations on naval warfare.

2010-04-04T03:31:00.000-07:00

I have read a writing on naval warfare a few moments ago. The writing described the strategies, and tactics of pioneers of naval strategy, and thinking. Timing is of the essence, in a naval strike. Also, the old concept of a 'doubled broadside', is important, not because navies' use the broadside, but because the concept of using overwhelming sea power against the enemy ships is decisive. Hence, in present times, what would be the equavalent of a doubled broadside? A combined attack by guided missiles, air power, and submarines, against surface, and submarine vessels of the enemy. If crossing the 'T' was the dream of an admiral who was in control of a sea battle, then in modern times, the isolation of the various arms of the navy of the enemy, and their rapid destruction, is paramount. Naval battles were never won by owerwhelming force, perhaps, because then, The attack on Pearl Harbour, should have won the Japanese Imperial Fleet the supreme advantage during the war. I believe, that the Imperial Japanese Navy, lost the war for Japan, because they could not replenish the number of heavy aircraft carriers they had lost during the Battle of Midway, and the heavy aircraft carriers of the Japanese Fleet, in the Battle of Midway, were only four, compared to three that the United States Navy had assembled for the battle. How could the Japanese Navy have gained an advantage? Perhaps, by researching naval aircraft bombers, which could reach Pearl Harbour, from a considerable distance which was less, than the distance it took the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour. I would also have developed a submarine fleet, in number and technology. In sea warfare, the enemy must not communicate between friendly ports, by sea, or the merchant and naval vessels must not communicate between friendly ports by sea. One must see an inherent advantage, in operation of the national navy, at sea, and exploit it.

How should the government overcome the Naxal movement?

2010-04-03T01:35:00.000-07:00

The government represents the Naxals, also, since the Naxals stay in the territory of India. How has it come to pass, that in the heartland of India, the people have decided that the government does not represent them? If the forests and rivers, which are the sustenance of the tribals, are sold to multi-national companies, then the government represents the interests of the rich, and does not represent the poor of India. Can the government guarantee that the tribals will be rehabilitated? Has the government rehabilitated the many millions of poor people in India? How does Mr Chidambaram stay in a government bungalow, and have the trappings of power, and represent the poor of India? Does he feel as do the poor of India? He makes the excuse, that the trappings of power are the prerequisites of the government. Then what are the prerequisites of the tribals, and the poor of India? Does the government of India, really represent the poor? Why do the poor not care about the government's writ over India, or why does the tribal not care about the writ of the government? Also, Mr Chidambaram is from a mercantile background, before he joined politics. Does he see the matters of governance, from the point of view of commercial development? The rich do not need Mr Chidambaram, and yet he assists the rich, and does not assist the poor. The government will have to take some hard decisions, and may have to rollback on certain policies, which benefit commercialism. Otherwise, the government will find the unenviable position of fighting the poor, who are resisting big corporate houses. Then the government of India, will be fighting India.

The Women Reservation's Bill.

2010-03-09T02:28:00.000-08:00

The first reaction of mine, when I heard that the Women's Reservation Bill was being presented in Parliament yet again, was "Why was India divided, and why was Pakistan formed"? If Mr Nehru had given the Muslims reserved seats in Parliament, then India would not have been divided into India, and Pakistan. Why should ladies, be given the privilege of a seat in Parliament, without going through the ordinary parliamentary procedure?

Perhaps, the time will not come, when Muslim's, Bengali's, Maharashtrian's, will want reservations in Parliament, for their respective groups, but is Ms Sonia Gandhi carrying out the vision of Mr Nehru? What if it is insinuated, that Mr Nehru wanted the independence of India, because he wanted the nation to be obliged to the Congress Party, and he wanted himself to be the first Prime Minister of India, instead of Mohammad Ali Jinnah? Where does the wisdom of our founding fathers stand, on the tabling of this bill? Why should proud parliamentarians like Ms Brinda Karat, be given a seat in the Lok Sabha by default, if by chance, there is no candidate to the Lok Sabha, who is a woman, and also not her equal in caliber? I saw, some female cohorts of some women leaders,(or perhaps they were leaders themselves), acting like hooligans outside Parliament, demanding the implementation of the Women's Reservation Bill. How is the august house of Parliament, to treat some parliamentarians, because all of Parliament is not in concord? The Congress Party would make a martyr of Ms Sonia Gandhi, if she was forcibly ejected out of Parliament, and that is the fate of those, who will be ejected out of parliament before the debate on the bill. The main question of mine is, 'Why Have Reservations In Parliament', if there is no reservation for all the seats in Parliament? Is not the ideology of Mr Raj Thackeray vindicated, by this action of the ruling coalition? Where is Mr Thackeray wrong, when he wants all the people who apply for the Indian Railway job's in Mumbai, to be ethnic Maharashtrians?

General Observations on International Affairs.

2010-03-02T10:59:00.000-08:00

What explains the rather complicated international and domestic policies of China? The leader Deng Xiaoping was not appreciated in the democratic nations, for the suppression of the Tianamen Square uprising. It was, as if, the democracies expected more, from the leader. What was the preoccupation of the Chinese leaders, during the Tianamen Square uprising? This is very simple, the unity, and integrity of The People's Republic of China. The danger then was, that those provinces of China, which did not have the same view as the Chinese Communist Party, would want to have an independent national identity, apart from China. We must remember, that The People's Republic of China, was formed because of the union of many parts of China, under the Chinese Communist Party. What if the Chinese Communist Party were not to exist? Would the provinces of China, then want independence, apart from the People's Republic of China? Does China have an identity which can unite her, apart from the Chinese Communist Party? Patriotism in China, is identified by patriotism to the form and mode of government. Deng Xiaoping knew, that it was easier to bring economic reforms to The People's Republic of China, than to change the identity of the Chinese state.

On another line of thought, what if India, and China were to resolve all differences, and if India were to be very cordial with the United States? Where would Pakistan be, strategically, without any strategic significance? China does not perhaps, see the consequences of such an instance, but the United States does. Pakistan would have no need for the United States, or China, because the United States or China, would not need Pakistan. What, then? Pakistan deliberately plays on the differences between Pakistan and India. She needs to see the differences between the states of Pakistan, and India. As far as I can see, Pakistan, cannot influence the relation between India, and China, presently, except by putting emphasis on her strained relations with India, vis-a-vis the current relation between India and China, which is not to the advantage of Pakistan, and to the disadvantage of India.

The issue of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought.

2010-02-24T07:59:00.000-08:00

I am presently reading a book on India's foreign policy, edited by Mr Sumit Ganguly. The first chapter of the book, on India's relations with Pakistan, is superb, and leaves nothing to the imagination. What made me think, was the second chapter, on India's relations with Bangladesh. I am reading the chapter, and I came across this part, where the writer consciously, or not, made a connection of the rise of the capitalist economic thought in world markets, and the emergence of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought. This immediately caught my attention. How can this be possible, if it is possible? Is Islamic practice against the existence of free trade of goods and services? The Islamic thought encourages minimum interference, perhaps, in the business dealings of the subject, by the state. I emphasize that I have used the word 'perhaps'.

What can the economic thought of the Islamic market be identified as, in the modern world? Can it be, that the Islamic point of view, sees the pursuit of economic interests by the west, as being disassociated with a sense of personal ethics, or something similar?

For example, the west kept cordial relations with both Israel, and the Arab and other Muslim nations, when the west did not necessarily agree with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel. The western economies were very dependent on machines working on oil. Why did not the west make it's differences with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel more open to scrutiny, on it's own part?

Also, the Muslim world had the opportunity to interact with the Soviet Union, in the previous situation where The United States and the Soviet Union were bipolar superpowers of the world. The Soviet Union were not friendly with the Arab's, as well as with Israel. Being friendly with the Soviet Union, was not seen as being unacceptable, before the invasion of Afghanistan. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the situation changed. Both the Soviet Union, and the west, became unacceptable to certain Muslim identities. If one looks from the viewpoint of the ex-Mujahedeen, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, The United States did, what exactly the Soviet Union did. The United States attacked Iraq, which was a front line state in the previous war against Shia Iran, and also was an enemy of Israel. The logic being, for those embittered by Soviet and United States foreign policy, that it was OK for an Arab nation to invade another Arab nation, but not OK for a non-Arab nation to attack an Arab nation. Perhaps, the United States and the west, was interfering in the business of other states, and in radically different manners, in two separate situations in time. Perhaps President George H. W. Bush was very alarmed by Iraq's invasion of her neighbouring state, and perhaps, the unilateral action of the United States and her allies, was the cause of the rise of the al Qaeda.

The idea of this blog post is, that the West is seen to be entirely influenced by material considerations, in it's dealings with other identities, by some Islamic identities.

On second thoughts, the Gulf War, was the beginning of the transition of the world, from a bipolar world, to a unipolar world, where Russia, China, and the United States, all pursued a market economy, and the rest of the world, was also beginning to follow this trend. Perhaps, today, the world is progressing together on the same path of market reform, and the markets of even the Arab nations, are not in conflict with the west.

The issue of price rise of essential commodities.

2010-02-23T06:32:00.000-08:00

Perhaps, measures can be taken, to alleviate or make easier, the burden on the common man, in his day to day business transactions, of buying and selling essential commodities. It is the common man, who is the primary participant in the buying and selling of essential commodities. By the term, 'common man', I describe the man who is responsible for the primary production, distribution, and consumption of essential commodities. I do not refer to those, who are living in poverty, because they have no say, in the production, or distribution, or consumption of essential commodities.

If I may compare the common man, to the not so common, or wealthy man, then what is the difference in the consumption pattern between the two? One does not need neither more nor less of the essential commodities than the other. This is true, of the people who live on, and below the poverty line, too. Then, why do we see the price rise in essential commodities? The reason is very evident to all, which is the unequal remuneration among those who deal in essential commodities. The middle man who sells daal to the shopkeeper, is also a common man, in all but income. What is the issue with the farmer, in his dealings, with the wholesale agent? The farmer cannot bargain with the wholesale agent. Why so? Because, he cannot store his produce. Why was the Amul model, not also experimented with, in respect to farmers? Why do not the farmers, make a common storage facility for their food grain, and act as if the storage facility belongs to them all? After the food grain is sold, then they can distribute the money got from the food grain after selling to the wholesale agent, in proportion to the share of the individual farmer in the produce. Perhaps, the problem, is that the individual farmer acts in his individual capacity, as a dealer of essential commodities. In the same way, all the farmers who grow vegetables in an area, come together, and settle their price, at which they would like to sell to the wholesale dealer, in their individual capacity. It is not as if, the wholesale vendor is at an advantage, if the essential commodities do not reach the consumer, because, then, he will not make a profit, nor have a turnover. Every person in the chain of the business of essential commodities, needs to see, that the essential commodity reaches the common man. otherwise, no one will make a turnover. The farmer is not making a turnover at all, he sells vegetables at a price, where he may not make a profit. This may perhaps be the solution for the farmer.

If these measures work, for the farmer, then who will be responsible for the prohibitive cost of essential commodities if the cost is prohibitive to the consumer? Will the whole sale agent be able to sell his commodities to the retailer, at a very high price? The profits of the retailer will decrease, because he will have to pass the high costs on to the consumer. This will reduce the profits of the wholesale agent, too.

What then of the commonly perceived as uncommon man, or those who live below and on the poverty line? These people must be integrated into the economy, in the most fundamental way, initially. How can they be imparted vocational training, free of cost, in the most fundamental way?

India's diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka.

2010-02-23T03:08:00.000-08:00

The Government of India, cannot afford to take decisions on her cordial relations with Sri Lanka, without taking the opinions of the people and Government of Tamil Nadu with brevity. The Indian Government does not entirely govern India, as much as she represents India. What I find to be a matter of fact, is that all the people of Ceylon are the descendants of Indian ethnicity, as are the ethnic Tamil's living in Sri Lanka. The differences between the Sinhalese people, and the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, are indeed a matter of concern for India. The Tamil people of Sri Lanka have the Tamil's of India, with whom they share a close bond of familiarity, and affinity. The Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, have no such ethnic identity in India, with whom they can share a similar bond of familiarity, and affinity. It might be possible, that the Sinhalese people were ethnic Tamils, before they developed their own identity. The matter which is the business of difference between the Tamil's and Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, is that these two people, live, and go about the functions of life, in what is seen as being different from each other. It would be beneficial for the Sri Lankan government to bring the Tamil speaking minority of Sri Lanka, into the mainstream of that nation. The Indian Government could then have any degree of cordiality with the Sri Lankan Government, unfettered by any other influences, in India. I see no other influence on the Sinhalese people, to better their relations with the Tamils, but by the good offices of the Indian Government, because the Indian Government has a prominent Tamil political party as a part of her national coalition. The Tamil's of Sri Lanka, do not emigrate to other nations on a comparatively large scale, as they might, if there is terrible strife in Sri Lanka, for them.

There are other factors, too, that influence the attitude of the Tamils of India, towards their Sri Lankan Tamil brothers. The Tamils of India, and of Sri Lanka, share a very strong tradition of culture, which is unique in the world, as also do the other cultural identities of India. The Tamil people of India are very mindful of their interests, and are very quick to identify situations, when they feel, that their interests may be compromised. Perhaps, they are more ambivalent about issues, which they see as influencing those influenced by their identity as Tamils. This is a natural reaction, and is particular to the Tamil, in the tenor and tone of their expression.

My views on the history of Israel.

2010-02-15T04:25:00.000-08:00

I have read the history of Israel when reading Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the online edition of the Encyclopaedia. The history of modern Israel has been tragic, not only for the state of Israel, but also for her Arab neighbours. When communicating with israel, the communication of the Arab states among themselves, particularly, and then with Israel, has not been satisfactory, either to their own interests, nor to Israel.
When Jews began to emigrate to the areas which they did, in the Middle East, then which Arab leader had the authority, to disprove of the immigration? Which Arab entity had the authority, or which Arab entities had the authority? Syria, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, and other Arab, and non Arab states protested, but did they have the legitimacy to do so? Was Syria, Egypt, Transjordan, etc, ruling over the areas, which were experiencing immigration? Was there a leader in what is now Israel, who was an Arab, then, and who was supported by all the Arab leaders, of the nations named? The forefathers of are now Israeli's, were hounded and despised because of their religion. Why were Christian Arabs allowed to stay in what is now Israel, in those times? Why was England allowed to have a mandate over Palestine, then, by the Arab entities? And yet, when England allowed the emigration of Jews from various diasporas, and when Arabs were not forced away, or chased away from their property, then why was there resentment, among Arabs, all over the world? Perhaps, the Arabs did not expect to see a free Palestine, over which the British Crown did not have her suzerainty. And yet, when there was a chance to have a united Palestine, with Jew's, Christian's and Muslim's to live together, then the Arab's of Palestine protested about an issue, over which they had no issue to protest.
The Israeli's, are doing to the Arabs of the West Bank, and Gaza, what the Arab's wanted to do to them. This is even more wrong. For example, would it have been acceptable, if the Jew's had exterminated the Nazi's in gas chambers, instead of the Nazi's exterminating Jew's, because the Jew's have been persecuted throughout the tenure of history? Did the God whom Jew's pray to, give them the mandate to exist in disharmony with their neighbours?
No Jewish politician has been a statesman. The jewish politician has been as his Arab foe, because he has lived in proximity, and close proximity, to his Arab foe. The Jewish politician was perhaps, more endowed than his Arab counterpart, but what was expected, was a superman of the Israeli politician. How do the Israeli's hope to keep their nation by making outcastes of their close neighbours?

Encyclopaedia Britannica on China, and Aksai Chin.

2010-02-12T22:43:00.000-08:00

It is said, that Aksai Chin has passes which connect Aksai Chin, to Tibet. It is solely because the Chinese Administration does not understand India's position in full measure, that the issues between the two nations are unresolved. India has no designs on Tibet, and India does not need Tibet as a security measure to deal with China. The people of Tibet have the right to live in peace with their Chinese brothers, as much as the people of China have a right to live in peace with their Tibetan brothers. India does not support ethnic Tibetans from India to foment strife in Tibet, however, she allows Tibetans who would like to stay in India, to do so. 'Allow', is the wrong word. However. If Aksai Chin connects Tibet, to XinXiang, Then what does India, gain or loose by this state of affairs? Even though Tibet was a vassal of China, before Tibet became a part of China, the Tibetans recognised the McMahon Line as the border between India, and Tibet. How can China refute the claims of the administrators of Tibet, before 1950, when Tibet was administrated by them?

The recent developments on Kashmir.

2010-02-12T08:53:00.000-08:00

From what I surmise, the Jammu & Kashmir administration has decided to allow those who were involved in militancy in Jammu & Kashmir, to return back to their homes, subject to certain considerations. I believe, that this is the right approach, and it has the consideration of the Indian administration. Perhaps, those who will return back home, under this agreement, will have something to go back home, to, according to them. This is the biggest factor going for this approach. If Jammu & Kashmir is one state, then let the people choose to live, wherever they choose to live. What I wonder, is, that how has Pakistan incited these minds to go against their own way of living, and become fugitives? How did they go to Pakistan, and leave their families at the mercy of those whom they did not trust? And, after leaving behind their families, at the mercy of their enemies, they still waged war against their enemies? If these people come back, it can be assumed, that India was not their enemy, and that they wantonly committed acts, which made them leave their own land. This should be the surmise, of the Indian administration, and they should act with whatever goodwill that they can muster, on this regard. If any innocent people have lost their lives, then what has been the contribution of these people? What was the issue with the Indian administration? Did these people feel, that there was going to be restraint shown, because Indian's would not want to fall in their own estimate? Did the militants fall in their estimate? More than the Indian government, they have to make their own families understand their behaviour. How did they make others, join their fold? What dastardly forces from outside, made them act the way that they did? Did their families tell them to wage a war from outside the border, and leave them, (the families), at the mercy of enemies?

India will certainly show understanding, but what if there are issues after the return of the militants? If there are incidents of violence, then that would be a major injury to the self confidence of India, perhaps she would introspect on her decision. Perhaps, many others, who would live in peace, and want to belong to their land, would feel like they do not belong in Jammu & Kashmir.

Thoughts on Pandit Nehru's foreign policy.

2010-02-10T07:04:00.000-08:00

The last book that I have purchased has been 'The Penguin Book of Modern Indian Speeches'. I am very much desirous of reading this book. Indeed, those who have made the speeches, have spoken, on matters of importance to the nation, and consequence to themselves. The speeches are of importance, furthermore, because only the speeches of luminaries have been recorded. India has had an embarrassment of riches when the number of her great people have been counted. The book is testimony to this fact, having nine hundred pages in it's volume. I have recorded in my observation, that I hold the speeches of luminaries as very significant. No less significant is the opinion of the person, who is honest in his observation, and wanting to see appropriate changes according to his observation. I feel, that what is to pass, will pass. But, I would like to see in my observations, what is acceptable not to me, but generally acceptable to the whole world, as an identity. This is indeed a Utopian want, or need.

The speech was abridged, in the volume that I speak of. What stands out, is that the speech was delivered very soon after the provisional government had taken power after the end of British rule in India. By the tone, and tenor, of the speech, it seems to me, that Pandit Nehru was a stranger to the leaders of the nations he mentions in his speech. He may have been well known, but not as the Prime Minister of India, and his dealings with the other Heads of State, was not between Heads of State, previously. In fact, it seems to me, that he did not know the Chinese leaders either personally, or formally, or in any other way. This might be a mistake of my perception, since Mr Nehru was not communicating his acquaintance with other world leaders. However, I surmise from the speech, that he had communicated adequately with Mr Roosevelt, and of course, with the leaders of Great Britain. He does not mention the people who resisted Apartheid by name in South Africa, nor does he mention the leaders of Cambodia, who were wanting their own freedom. He mentions, that India then, was in close proximity to other South East Asian nations, and that in the times, India was going to emerge with the other nations, or suffer the fate of the rest of the globe(?), if that was the adversity. I found nothing inspiring in the tone, or tenor of the speech, but the message of the speech, was very inspiring. The speech on the eve of India's Independence was more inspiring. What does this say, about what might have been Mr Nehru's approach to foreign affairs? I believe, that Mr Nehru had an extremely pragmatic foreign policy view. Mr Nehru had a view, of India's foreign policy, which was inclusive of interests. What is interesting, is that Pakistan is not mentioned in the speech. Perhaps, Mr Nehru felt that India's relationship with Pakistan would become more amenable with the passage of time. Or, then, he looked at the relationship with foreboding.

Another interesting part of the speech, expresses that Afghanistan should find her mooring along with Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Perhaps, Mr Nehru saw Afghanistan as a nation which would bring the Sunni-Muslim nation of Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Muslim nation of Iran, together. India was to partner with other South Asian, and South East Asian nations.The fulcrum of Asian affairs, was Central Asia, of which India was a fulcrum. In Mr Nehru's vision, the spheres of influence in Asia, were delineated between East Asia, and West Asia, of which Central Asia was a fulcrum, and further, to which India acted as a fulcrum to Central Asia. Where exactly, is Central Asia? The area of Asia, above the Indian sub continent, presumably, which was the Soviet Union, previously. Again, there is no mention of Pakistan, in the scheme of things. Pakistan, is as different from the land-mass and the people of Afghanistan, as chalk and cheese. Perhaps, Mr Nehru saw Pakistan not in concord with Afghanistan, but this is conjecture. In another great speech on 23rd October, soon after the independence of India, the great Indian leader Maulana Azaad, addressed the Muslims of Delhi, at the Jaama Masjid. In a particular moment, full of pathos towards his audience, he expressed, that the Muslims of India, were seeming to be clutching at their own throats. Perhaps, he saw the nation of Pakistan in a similar light. Maulana Azaad was not only a leader of the Muslim community. He was a leader whom perhaps Hindu's would like among their present day leaders. The speech of Maulana Azaad on 23rd October, is one of the most inspirational speeches of India, ever delivered.

If one looks at the geo-political vision of Mr Nehru, he perhaps saw, that Afghanistan was of too independent a spirit, to depend on Pakistan, for friendly relations. Pakistan and Afghanistan had not a lot to offer each other, in strategic terms, naturally. Pakistan and Afghanistan, would need to work, and find different avenues for their relationship. Pakistan is a nation, which is completely different from Afghanistan in topography, culture, and apart from the Pashtuns, in the ethnic mix of their peoples.

Mr Arun Shourie's new book.

2010-01-01T05:57:00.000-08:00

I was reading Mr Arun Shourie's new book, called 'There Must Be No Price'. I hope that I have mentioned the name correctly. In the second chapter of his book, Mr Shourie mentions that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was enthused in emphasizing the dangers imposed on India by communism, then, and the strong efforts needed in combating the dangers. May I ponder, did Mr Patel, in Mr Shourie's estimation, exert the strong will needed then, in combating the dangers? Did he stringently use the laws existing then, or did he feel the need to depend on laws like POTA? Let me ask a question. Would Mr Patel have passed a law like POTA in parliament? Then, why did he not? Apparently, communism then, like terrorism now, was having the same effect on India.
The problem, is not in the system, but in the people who are the system. People like perhaps, me. Mr Shourie, explained the lack of nationalism in the nation. How many people outside Mumbai, felt the way Mumbaikar's felt during, and immediately after 26/11. Did they even contemplate, that the events of 26/11 could happen to them? On another vein, if the city of Mumbai belongs to Mumbaikars, then why is it in the state that we find it now? Does the Mumbaikar care, living in Mumbai, about Mumbai? If parties blame each other, then is there any thing called responsibility? Because the BJP find's herself only reproaching the ruling coalition in parliament, as if she does not belong, to the system of parliament, but is only a guest of parliament, does she find, that the ruling coalition is not responsible to itself. The same would be true for the NDA, if the NDA were in power.

Thoughts on the presidency of the United States of America.

2009-10-17T08:18:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-14T03:18:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-13T09:35:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-10-03T09:01:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-02T21:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Relations between The United States and Shia Iran.

2009-09-29T05:46:00.000-07:00

In my humble opinion, the differences between the United States of America, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has a history, which precedes the history of the rule of the last Shah of Iran. The United States, has been on amiable terms with the Sunni states like the United Arab Emirates, and at one time in history, was also on amiable terms with the Shah of Iran, at the same time. This was unacceptable to the Shia population of Iran, which was much under the influence of the Ayatollah's, who are the guardians of the Shia following in Iran. The Iranian's had no personal grudge directly with the United States. Perhaps, the Ayatollah's felt that The United States of America would make the interests of Iran secondary, to the interests of the United Arab Emirates, and other Sunni dominated Muslim states. This might be because, the United States was dependent on the oil supplied by the United Arab Emirates, and also Iraq, which also, then, had Saddam Hussein as President. I am sure that the United States had also deliberated on this, but on second impressions, I believe, that this might have escaped the United States administration, then, considering the beliefs and actions of the United States on the matters of Iran, now. How this could have escaped the consideration of Mr Kissinger, is beyond me. I am sure that he had come to the same conclusions as I have come to, now. I urge the United States administration to not consider immediate material self interest, and to work to have good relations with all Sunni and Shia Muslim states all over the world. The Iranian's have as much of a varied history, as do the Jewish democracy, and Muslim states, all over the world. The mistrust between Shia and Sunni, must be made into a bridge of trust, and the United States has the power to achieve this. The United States must also remember, that due to the Middle East War's between Israel and other Muslim States, the Shia populated Beruit, also suffered because of the military action of Israel, if I am not mistaken. It seems to me, that the Cold War foreign affairs policy, on the part of the United States, was that the Cold War should extend indefinitely, while the opposite view was taken by Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, the architect of Glasnost and Perestroika. The United States was comfortable with the international status quo, which was brought about with the Cold War. I do not see, that NATO wanted the Cold War to end, hence the royal mess, that the world finds itself in.

The Issue of Naxalism in present day India.

2009-09-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

The issue of Naxalism in India, pertaining to the present day, makes a person come to certain unfortunate conclusions. Today, fighting an armed uprising against the administration of India is impossible. The Naxal uprising which started in the nineteen sixties, had a leadership which was disillusioned with the status quo of the Indian State. It was more impossible then, than it is today, to fight such a battle. The Naxal uprising then, surfaced under very romantic notions of Josef Stalin, and Karl Marx. I knew a gentleman who looked upto Josef Stalin, but he had since given up Naxalism. He was, and I suppose is, a great intellectual mind who lives in Kolkata, perhaps. What strikes me today, is that he had the same notions about Josef Stalin, as I may have about Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, today. When I mentioned that Stalin is supposed to have committed certain crimes, very henious crimes, he refused to accept. It strikes me now, today, that another person may have as strong views about Naxalism, as I may have about Democracy. After all, Stalin was as much a man as am I, and so was my science teacher. Opium is not the religion of the masses, nor is religion the opium of the masses. Perhaps, thought, and feeling, when given full flight, become a law unto themselves. This gentleman thought himself more capable than the man next to himself. He did not believe in religion. But his capacity for thought, made him a great champion for the Naxal cause. I believe, he had given up the cause, because the people did not believe, with one intent in Naxalism, in West Bengal.
Today, the Naxal movement in India, is very different. This movement is very recent in it's entity. I believe, that no ideology drives the present Naxal menace, but the members of the Naxal groups are tribals, who have been displaced by the emerging India, who no one bothers to care for, whose livelihood has been made non existent. The tribals are a great number in India, and the states where the Naxal issue has surfaced, have a large tribal population. Without the habitat, which they have, they loose the sense of their identity. This causes, perhaps hopelessness in their ranks, and then when they have no other option, then they are made to join what is termed as a Naxal movement. The leaders of the movement are perhaps, very few in number. I too feel for the tribals, and their plight. But is it right for a large number of Indian citizens to be made cannon fodder for Indian security forces, whose work it is to defend India, and her citizens? How is it, that the elite Naxal leadership, sees themselves as human beings, and the tribals as human beings, but not the other people of India, as such, too? Is the ordinary Indian citizen bereft of heart, or mind, that he does not want to see the plight of these tribals? Tribals cannot displace the Indian administration from New Delhi. If possible, the minds of the Indian citizenry, must be made more compassionate towards their immediate, and not so immediate environment. I see a disconnect between the Naxal leadership, and the Naxal cadre. The cadre is not the leadership, and the leadership is not the cadre. It would be good for the Indian Government to work for the tribals, as much as work is done for Rural and Urban India. The Statehood of India and all what it stands for, is dependent on the good works the citizen of India does in this regard.

The case of Ms Ishrat Jahan.

2009-09-08T05:49:00.000-07:00

The case rests on the information given by the central government, about the companions of Ms Ishrat Jahan and about the expression in Pakistan, given supposedly by the Lashkar e Tayiba about Ms Jahan, after the alleged encounter took place. I would like to add, that the case seems as white, as it does black to me. The lady was mentioned by the Lashkar e Tayibba, but they knew very little about the lady, except that she was the supposed spouse of one of the alleged criminals in the car. Could that have been made up, by them? I don't assume, that the men in the car were not guilty, in past criminal misdemeanors, perhaps, some of them, and not all. The man with Ms Jahan, was supposed to be a criminal, and he knew supposedly, the Lashkar terrorists, but was he a Laskkar operative? The question is not, whether his life was of consequence or inconsequential, but the fact, that Ms Jahan was perhaps tragically killed in police action. Agreed, that the car was not a registered taxi, but was the car private in ownership? Were the people in the car, going to commit a terrorist misdemeanor, or were they on their way to commit a terrorist misdemeanor? I do not believe the alleged incounter could have been avoided, but if the unfortunate riots had not taken place in Gujarat, then this supposed plot would not have been hatched. What requirement is there in Gujarat for the Chief Minister's life to be in danger, by the prevailing situation there? Perhaps, this turn of events could have been avoided?
The whole case rests, as I have intimated, on the intelligence shared by the central intelligence agencies, with the Gujarat government.

Naval Traditions.

2009-07-21T22:13:00.000-07:00

I was perusing through a book called, "Battle at Sea", published by Dorling Kindersley. The book also tries to chart the beginning of the naval traditions of the various major naval powers of the past, and the present, apart from giving an account of the various known battles at sea.
It appears to me, that the British Empire was a direct consequence of her having to maintain a large naval fleet. In the first place, Britain needed an adequate fleet, because she is an island nation. Any threat of invasion would surface from her shores. The Roman Empire reached Britain, because of the existence of the Roman navy. Britain became a Roman vassal because she was invaded by the Roman empire by the sea route, and was thereafter conquered by the Roman empire. It also appears to me, that for a nation to be of some consequence in international affairs, she should share a coastline with the sea. The larger the coastline, the more the consequence. The British Empire was totally dependent on the seas, for interaction with foreign nations. I do not infer to France by my assumption, because France shares a common ancestry with Britain. Those nations which have a large coastline, have better access to resources than those nations who share a border drawn on land with other nations. A landlocked nation is more at the mercy of her neighbors, than are seafaring nations. Landlocked nations have limited natural resources, at their disposal. The reason for the unification of India, into a nation with the Indian Peninsula as her coastline, is this very reason. With animosity between the many princely states in India, the situation led to the landlocked princely states being vulnerable to their neighbors.
The various important kingdoms of Europe during her past, could not match the might of the British Empire, because they were but partially bordered by a coastline. The current political situation in Europe, in which Europe seeks a 'European Union', through peaceful means, may be a furtherance of the idea that I have expressed.

The behavior of the electorate, towards the elected.

2009-04-26T06:22:00.000-07:00

The elected, must have a certain standard of decorum, too. The electorate, feel that it is appropriate, that many varied types of footwear are tossed towards those who may be elected to the state or national legislatures. Are those who are elected, some if not all, not guilty of misdemeanors of behavior? Then, they must be on guard, that those among them who are blameless, are not taken to be unreasonable and undesirable elements among those who are elected.

Trade Unions and India.

2009-04-01T07:28:00.000-07:00

I was watching an interesting programme on television called Lok Manch, which was pertaining to a discussion on Trade Unions in India. Trade Unions are a very complex concept. If we look at the bastion of capitalism, which is The United States of America, then, there, the CEO of a company is as much an employee, as is the man who is employed in the workshop. The real ownership of the company, lies with the shareholders of the company. Why are the workers not very vocal in the United States, on why there is not enough semblance of parity between their wages, and the salary of the CEO?
Now, if one is to look eastwards from the United States, to Germany, then Porsche is supposed to be the most profitable of all car manufacturing concerns in the world, perhaps, even today, in times of recession. Are the workers at Porsche, agitating because they want a bigger share of wages, than before? If not, then why? In the West, there is no conspicuous disparity in the distribution of wealth. Basically, the worker is not worried, that his bread is being stolen from him, which may be the perception of the worker in India. The workers at Porsche get their bonuses on time, and they get bonuses frequently, I presume. Also, perhaps, their plants are automated, which means, that their workers are perhaps fewer in number, and hence they are more secure in their jobs, they having specialized in their jobs. Perhaps, the larger the organization, then the more there is need for job security. If there were smaller, more numerous factories, then, there would be more job security. Also, in an organization, the owner decides who is more needed in an organization. In the case of the company owned by shareholders, the share holders decide in the annual general meeting, the affairs of the company. They see the management, as having managed efficiently, so as to generate profits, if profits have been generated. Hence, in the case of Reliance Industries, the shareholders decide that the company has been managed competently. The workers of Reliance, are perhaps, quite prosperous.
To make another point about Trade Unions in India, then the Trade Unions are not united, because, basically, the Trade Unions are bothered about the interests of the factory worker in India, and not very concerned about the plight of the other workers in the disorganized sector. Hence, if the Trade Unions only think about their own interests, then in India, they will always think in ever narrower terms, pertaining to their self interest. For the Trade Union member, there has to be betterment in work relations, with the management, if there is to be a perceived improvement in their working conditions, and in the payment of ample wages to them. What management, would not want to pay their workers in due and ample measure? In very early times, trade guilds were formed, in Europe, by those plying different trades, and different trade practices. These trade guilds, became very prosperous, and as a result, so did the members of the guilds. These members became rich merchants, and similar types of professional people. Hence, those who were once poor, then became rich, and forgot about their previous poverty. Perhaps, this is the story of mankind, in the industrialized West. In England, perhaps, this is the reason, or perhaps this reason influenced the causes which did not allow Communism to spread in Western Europe. It was in the interest of the workers, that Communism should not spread.

The current India Vs New Zealand Test Cricket series.

2009-03-25T04:39:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, when the cricket pitch is not very good for batting, then the need is reduced for the bowler to bowl a good delivery. In other words, if the batsman depends upon the batting strip to be good for batting, then he depends on his dependency. The bowler just needs to be reasonably good, and the batsman will not need the bowler to be very skilled, to get himself out. When the batting strip is in a certain condition, then the skill of the bowler, after a certain degree is not required. Is this going to be the situation in Napier tomorrow, when the Second Test India Vs New Zealand begins? New Zealand, too, have some very good batsman. I can count at least to four, when I think about them. How the batsman feel during the game, will depend upon how successful they perceive the bowlers to be. Perhaps, if the team is successful during the second test, then the other players in the squad will get their chance in the third test match.

Mr Naresh Chandra's interview to NDTV Profit.

2009-03-12T10:04:00.000-07:00

I was watching Mr Chandra's interview with attention. Mr Chandra said, that perhaps, the civilian government in Pakistan, acts as a front for the army. Perhaps, the army and elected civilian governments in Pakistan, have many and meaningful differences, but they put up a joint front, to the external interests of Pakistan. This is very obvious, in the current political standoff in Pakistan. Mr Chandra gave some points, on why the U S government was understanding, after the later nuclear testing of India. The fact of the matter is, like Mr Chandra pointed out, the friends of India were more antagonistic in The United states, towards the nuclear testing, than the others. Perhaps, the points which Mr Chandra, put in front of the United States, could have equally in chance, not been accepted by the United States government. Or perhaps, there is no chance, in what occurs.

Pakistan's Internal Dilemma.

2009-03-06T00:36:00.000-08:00

Pakistan's dilemma is that she is not well represented in the house of representatives, in Islamabad, adequately, by representatives, from all of her provinces. It is said that Balochistan is a very resource rich province of Pakistan. But do the politicians of Balochistan have the same standing in Islamabad, as do the politicians of Sindh and the Punjab? What about the politicians from the North West Frontier Provinces? Pakistan wants a strong national identity, and the semi independent identity of the North West Frontier tribes, and the tribes from Balochistan, do not accord with the previously mentioned identity. It would perhaps be wise to foster this strong national identity, within and above the semi independent identity of the tribes. But, to come back to my earlier presumption, why, if so, are the Balochistan politicians not important to Pakistan politics? And also why does the same apply to the N W F P politicians? Why are the Punjab landlords seen as more patriotic than the leaders of the mentioned provinces? Perhaps, in Pakistan, first, the political party comes to power, and then, the political agenda is formulated. In other words, the political agenda keeps on changing, after the political party, comes to power in Pakistan. In this situation, the winner would not want to share power with those who are not in power. So, this is the cause of a circular operation, perhaps, in Pakistan politics, which is perceived as negative, by the rest of the democratic world. Also, Pakistan does not have a very democratic identity. The nation was not formed out of feelings of love between her and her neighbors. The nation was formed out of a force of intent, rather than understanding. Hence, perhaps, the political setup of Pakistan can be explained. The neighbors of Pakistan can perhaps, be proactive, in assisting goodwill to foster inside Pakistan, between herself, and her neighbors, and also can help Pakistan to be prosperous and happy inside of herself.

India's opportunities in World Affairs.

2009-03-05T23:29:00.000-08:00

I was reading the editorial of The Hindu newspaper, today, where a senior former diplomat commented on the situations in India's foreign affairs. The gentleman, said, that many alliances around the world, have been readdressed. If one looks at world alliances, most of them, are very well intentioned, and very important treaties. I am sure, that the gentleman agrees, that if nations like China, India, and the United States, keep changing their alliances, then the rest of the globe will be wary. So, perhaps, India, China, and the United States, have not made alterations to their alliances, but have proceeded further on the same path. I am sure, that the closeness in proximity to the United States, in international relations, was but inevitable for India. I did not know, that India had made changes to her diplomatic exchanges with Tehran, and some other nations. This is a minor hiccup in the diplomatic exchanges. Iran and New Delhi have had very good relations from very early times. I am sure that things will improve, in time. Relations are forged, but once they are forged, they are very difficult to forgo, if they are good. Relations which are strained, may be easier to remedy, in the future.

International relations in the future.

2009-02-23T04:27:00.000-08:00

I believe, that international relations will enter a new epoch making age of cooperation, in the future. Like I have mentioned, the world is a global village. The current tensions in the present, between militancy, and the authorities in the various nations, is in fact not unwelcome, because it gives the authorities a chance to understand the basis of militancy, and what are it's root causes. In my opinion, the causes of militancy are not religion, nor diverse beliefs, however secular that they may be. The cause of militancy is the seemingly irreversible differences between those in authority, and those who are the subjects to that authority. In India, for example, there has been a history of unhappiness, which has been mitigated to a certain extent, but which needs to be eradicated totally. Why the naxalites in the heartland of India, bear arms against the state, is a matter for pondering. Perhaps, the powers that are in the seat of authority, must be more considerate to the subjects under authority. Since India is a state, the individual and the state, are equally important. In my humble opinion, the individual must help himself, to the extent, that he/she helps the state equally. Presently, the individual is not in the position to help himself/herself, to the extent that the individual can also help the state.
On the subject of religious militancy, it can be observed, also, that the differences are between those who are in authority, and the subjects under that authority. Where there is religious militancy, there is conflict within the particular religion, firstly and primarily. The European powers were the victims of religious militancy, in the past. I mean, militancy in the name of Christianity. Now the people who follow Christianity are more or less at peace with each other. The various authorities are content, because the common citizen is at peace, and there is less conflict between the Protestant, and the Catholic, for example. The Protestant and Catholic authorities welcome the peace, between the people. In India, in the past, there were differences between the Hindu sects, but the differences were not expressed violently. Now, India has to understand the various religions that are a part of her identity. There are a number of Jews, who reside in India. Hopefully, India will be a beacon of hope to the other nations, in this regard.

The Rise of China and the future of the West.

2009-02-16T10:04:00.000-08:00

I was reading a piece, with the heading of my post as the title, on foreignaffairs.org. The piece was written by G.John Ikenberry. It occurs to me, that China is very passive, in it's foreign affairs relations with the West, because she is dealing with the Western Powers as a single entity, or at least, that she is dealing with institutions created by the Western Powers, and she is broadly in acquiescence with the Western Powers in the mechanism of foreign policy interaction, and international diplomacy. What I mean to infer, is that China is following the rules which were institutionalised by the Western Powers, in foreign affairs, which is the culmination of the long journey of the Western Powers in the realm of foreign affairs, which they practiced among, and between themselves. To proceed further, much further, China will have to gain the confidence of the Western Powers, to become a world power, which the world depends upon. The Chinese economy is very dependent on the western markets. The situation may arise, where China becomes the major manufacturing nation, of consumer goods, or in other words, the main manufacturing hub of consumer goods. In such a situation, she will have to be in the confidence of her business associates. There must not be a clash of interests, between affairs of state, and affairs of business. Also, if China is following the rules, which have been institutionalised in the west, of administration and diplomacy, then I am sure, that she is changing the institution, which she is following, too. Is the United States helping to change the way, in which she herself is very relevant in world affairs? If China had not been ascendant, then would the present economic situation, have been in it's current form? Perhaps, the situation may have been a lot worse. I believe, that for China to be a positive force in the globe, it will have to be accepted as a positive force, by the majority of the major political international powers.

Role of The Indian Navy.

2009-02-12T08:50:00.000-08:00

I believe, that The Indian Navy should be a strong Navy, not out of necessity, but out of choice. The Indian Navy must closely cooperate with the other maritime powers, so that India, and the maritime interests of other sea faring nations are best served. Perhaps, the services of the Navy, in military engagement, would never be required, if we follow such a path. The Indian Navy must seamlessly adapt to the different operations, and capabilities of the other maritime powers. That the United States is a close associate, there is no doubt. But, there should be no need for cooperation, between the two maritime powers. India, as I have mentioned before, does not need a strong Navy, as much as do other maritime nations. All the defense requirements of land, sea, and air, are however to be given equal consideration, when considering what their apparently equitable operation, and requirements are to be. Since, the navy is to operate on the high seas, and also, since land and air engagements are not of the same nature, due to the scope of the corresponding medium of engagement, in combat, in very tangible terms, The Indian Armed Forces must maintain an equitable balance, of the three military forces, as is deemed fit. All the three military forces are but different arms of the same military.
How should India operate her powerful Navy? India must, foremost, protect her maritime commercial interests, and as a consequence, protect the commercial interests, of others. India has trading relations with many nations, due to her very varied and complex business interests. The many nations who trade with India, would want to continue, their vibrant economic activity with India, and would be eager to do so. The Indian Navy may, if they so see fit, continue with naval exercises, so that the other nations are not unnecessarily diverted in attention, by the exercises. I hope, that the Indian Navy is not required to project her force, on any maritime power for an unnecessary cause in the future.

The Book Moby Dick.

2009-02-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

I have the book by Herman Melville which is Moby Dick, in my M. A. Final Year syllabus. The book is among the most important works of American literature. The book was first published in England on 18 October, 1851, and on the following month in the United States. The writer was a popular author, but Moby Dick gained in popularity, after the First World War. The work was deemed important, and a great American contribution to the arts, much later after it was published. I believe, like some great American icons, this book too, is an icon in American literature. Modern Library has an Hardcover Edition, like it does of Mr Gibbons' 'The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire'. There are many subtle psychological meanings in the book, pertaining to the writer. The Captain Ahab, leaves on his voyage, on Christmas Day. This could mean, that the day was auspicious, or that the good Captain did not observe Christmas. If Mr Melville had been captain, of the Pequod, then, how would this event have been interpreted? The Captain is said to be magnanimous, and of great intellect. But, he disregards these qualities of his own, and embarks on a very strange voyage.

The security concerns of South East Asia.

2009-01-26T03:49:00.000-08:00

I believe, that there is better understanding in South East Asia, today, than perhaps before. There is less consideration of motives, and more communication, between nations in South East Asia. There is no doubt commentary in the news channels, on relations between India and Pakistan, but the governments of the two nations seem to be communicating with each other. This is a perception of mine, but one that I hold significant, to myself. There are better relations between India and Bangladesh, perhaps, because there have been no communications which are very noticeable, which have not been warm, or similar. I believe, that if India and her neighbors cannot come to an understanding, then how is it possible for India to come to a credible understanding with any nation? India has very close bonds with her neighbors, be it any of her neighbors. Because of various reasons, including the cultural. If China can facilitate good relations, along with India, in South East Asia, then it would be good. What is the Chinese vision for her own? It will take some doing, to regulate a society like China. I hope all the world is there to contribute to the South East of Asia, and peace.

Reflections on Pakistan.

2008-12-24T17:06:00.000-08:00

The army and the establishment, in Pakistan, are not able to stem discontent in Pakistan. Why is this so? Are those who profess to belong to Islam, and who do so in strong terms, bad for Pakistan? Pakistan was established as a state, when those who were Muslim, left India, and went to create another state for themselves. The significance is that, many Muslims in India, were opposed to the creation of Pakistan, and the Dar Ul Ulum, the most significant Islamic Seminary in South Asia, led this opposition. Those who follow Islam in Pakistan, know about this. So, Pakistan was a creation, when the dar Ul Ulum, and a great number of Muslims, were left in India, and when Pakistan was created as it was created. If I were Pakistani, I would reflect that Pakistan was born of opportunism. The Muslims of Pakistan are not better off than the Muslims of India. The most respected Islamic Seminary did not want partition from India. And the 'establishment', and the army may be branding The 'Islamists' as 'Islamists', because if the Islamists come to power, they may work for reunification with India. The Pakistani Army do not shield the militant Islamists. They do not want these elements to be viewed favorably. The Pakistan Army has legitimate concerns. How does a section of society partion themselves into a separate nation, and then ask for reunification? Will this be viewed as good? I do not view the Muslim of India, as not having a voice. The Muslim in Pakistan, is very much more in need. Many luminaries of the foreign office, like Mr Natwar Singh, must be aware, of this state of affairs. International Relations are not under any strident law. There is lawlessness, on the borders of India and Pakistan. If India and Pakistan agree to agree on peace, they do so on personal initiative, not because of any other accepted norm of international behavior, and law. Pakistan is an international entity as a nation. Both India and Pakistan are civil in diplomatic channels, but the prevalent lawlessness, is not good on the border. I do not believe, India can promote law in a democracy, if the border is not lawful, to consideration. The United States believes what the army wants it to believe, on the 'Islamists' of Pakistan. This may be due, to the experience of the United States, with Iran. The abdication of The Shah of Iran, was a mistake. Would the President of the United States leave The United States, if he were in the shoes of The Shah, and The United States was Iran? To reflect on the 'establishment', in Pakistan, the 'establishment', are the inheritors of those who were the makers of Pakistan. The people who created Pakistan, had left their precedence in India, and had created Pakistan, on what they hoped would be a lasting legacy, for the people of Pakistan. What face would the establishment have, if reunification was considered? Is the position of Pakistan and India, then hopeless? No commentator on International Relations, has been as bold as I have in my expression. Also, the various governments see what they would like to believe, even if the various esteemed scholars at their intellectual disposal, intimate otherwise to their belief.

Identifying Spirituality.

2008-12-21T04:16:00.000-08:00

Identifying what one identifies as spirituality in a spiritual person can be very misleading. For example, I may feel that Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is spiritual, but what is it exactly that I find spiritual about the great saint? When I contemplate his sayings, I do not find anything that he said, as out of the ordinary. But I find great joy in his sayings. There was nothing I find as not ordinary, in his personality, when I thnk of him. In other words, for a man like him, living his life was not extraordinary, for him. It would be an injustice to him, to justify his existence, as he lived in human form, on Earth.

Banking in India.

2008-12-17T21:16:00.000-08:00

Generally, the regulations in the Indian Banking Sector, have their origins, in practices which have their foundations, on financial principles, which have existed from a long time. But, let me express on the system of overdraft. I know a little, on how one gets an overdraft in India. I was considering the following scenario: What if I took an overdraft of Rs 80, on a fixed deposit of Rs 100. Suppose the interest on overdraft is 12%, and the interest on deposit, which accrues to the depositor, is 10%. Now, if the depositor pays 10% as the interest on the overdraft, and the further 2% which is charged by the bank as an added interest for the surcharge on the overdraft, is used by the bank, to help the overdraft amount to be recovered by the bank, at no cost either to bank, or to the person who has taken the overdraft amount. In other words, if the 2% is not used as interest, but as a means for the bank to recover the amount, which it has given as overdraft, to the person who has taken the overdraft, then how may it be perceived? The bank borrows at a certain rate, from the depositor, and lends money to the depositor at a certain rate. Why can not the lending rate, and the borrowing rate, of the bank be identical? If the borrowing rate and the lending rate, is the same, then there is no question of either the borrower making more profit, or the lender making more profit, while lending and borrowing. Hence, the income made by the person who lends, cannot be seen as interest, because the lending rate is universal, and income is not disproportionate, if one lends. After all, one borrows in a business to make income, so how do the funds which fund business grow, or in other words, if the funds to fund business do not grow, there will be no funds for the business. To come back to the overdraft scenario, if the 2% is used as I intimated, then the customer is helped, to recover the overdraft, and the bank is helped to technically recover the deposit.

Debates in the Lok Sabha.

2008-12-17T01:35:00.000-08:00

Today, I had the chance to hear two luminaries of the Lok Sabha, give speeches. One of the luminaries was Mr Chidambaram, and the other was Mr L K Advani. What Mr Chidambaram says is very significant, because he is the Minister for Home. Mr Advani is somewhat more significant in his speech, because he heads the opposition. The speeches of luminaries are very engrossing, when the speeches are made in the Lok Sabha. Mr Chidambaram was very specific, when he was discussing the laws pertaining to public peace. Mr Advani was very emotive, and spoke with feeling, but in a more general manner. Mr Chidambaram discussed the finer points of the mentioned law. I seriously feel, that laws should be made redundant in society. The longer the laws exist, the more complex is their interpretation. Why does a person have to be conscious about the laws of society? To take the discussion further, perhaps, when a Judge has seen evidence, and has made a determination, then that evidence cannot be disputed. If any party wants to dispute the evidence, that is not possible. He may have to present different evidence, for the Judge to make a different determination. The reason why court cases pend, is because the people carry this process to the extremes, when presenting their case. Because of this extreme effort by the parties to the lawsuit, the person who does not see himself in any advantage, at the termination of the lawsuit, is suitably mentally disposed to the situation. Hence, how has the Law been perceived by such a person? Mr Advani pointed out that India is perceived as not being agreeable to the Al Qaeda, but not to the extent that the United States is disagreeable. I would like to point out, that Mr Bin Laden was not very well disposed towards the Saudi Sultan either, who is considered to be the custodian of the holy site in Mecca. Perhaps, they are more at peace with each other. But at one time, the disagreement of the viewpoints of the Saudi Sultan, and Mr Bin Laden, must have preoccupied Mr Bin Laden's mind. Mr Bin Laden is the head of the Al Qaeda. But, the people who carried out the physical attacks on the World Trade Center, were of a definite number. The aeroplanes used were four. Hence, those who were responsible for the attacks, should be the only persons booked. There are many people in society, who profess animosity and hate towards other people, and causes. But they may not carry out attacks physically on those people or causes. Many opinions on the net, posted by United States citizens, bear animosity towards the U S President. But what if a lone opinion, causes an attack on the president of the United States, not an action of the Al Qaeda, but of another American citizen? How far is the horizon of the war on 'terror'? If the horizon is unending, then where is the end to be determined? An ordinary citizen of the United States, may be said to hold militant aspirations towards the President of the United States, towards the detriment of the President. If possible, it is better to change the attitude of the perceived aggressor, to the perceived victim. Can not the International States, and their representatives, not be perceived as the rightful targets of those, who may want to target them? In such a situation, if there is an aggression, then is any action of self defence to be justified by any party? Why is an act of self defense, by any party, in a situation, a matter of conjecture, and surmise, by those, who are not a party to the situation? Perhaps, to be fair, these acts, when once determined by the perpetrator, are difficult to determine. Otherwise, the tragedy of 9/11, would not have taken place. Can one surmise, that it is due to the diligence of the United States bureaucracy, alone, which is the cause of another 9/11 not taking place? Laws must be made redundant. I have respect for the Law, but if there is no need for the Law, then the law does not apply in a particular situation. The concerned parties, must act when the act is required. Perhaps, this will cause the situation to better. Let not the verdict of the law be a justification to some, and for others, leave them with a sense of shame, and animosity towards the society. Let the law be not blind, but perceived as dead, when it operates.

Politics and Islam.

2008-12-14T02:27:00.000-08:00

I would like to start my discussion, by making observations. The two people who are identified to have introduced the creed of Islam to the Indian Subcontinent. They are Mahmud of Ghori, and Mahmud of Ghazni. These two entities, entered India proper on the pretext of spreading Islam, and it is said, that they made back to Ghori and Ghazni, with a huge bounty. These two entities, after spreading Islam in the spaces they occupied in the Indian sub continent, left those people in penury. If one visits those areas in Pakistan, those areas are in as much abject poverty, as is the rest of Pakistan. Is the territory of what was Ghori and Ghazni, then, any better, now, in wealth, or prosperity? The two entities, who invaded India, on the pretext of spreading Islam, saw their political ambitions separate from other considerations. Was the wealth that was accumulated by these entities, of any help to their people back in their territories? So, can we call these people opportunists, who did not help those whom they needed to help? In India, in the state of Gujarat, innocent individuals lost their lives, because the parties who committed the atrocities, identified themselves as members of a certain religion. These people were using their religion in politics, as Mahmud of Ghazni and Ghori did. The British taught India the game of cricket, and India exceeded the abilities of the English in that game. Have the people who profess Islam, spread the creed of Mohammad, or their own brand of Islam? In Pakistan, today, what is the state of the nation? Is Pakistan better being Pakistan? What have the people who guide Pakistan, done for Pakistan? More importantly, what does Islam have to do with the abject civil conditions in Pakistan? Why does the world look at Pakistan with trepidation? Because of Islam, or because of Pakistan? I learnt to respect The great Prophet of Islam, because I was aquainted with a Hindu Saint, who had followed the tenets of Islam, and who knew the truth about the Prophet, not because of some opportunistic person. Do I believe, that Pakistan is where she stands, because she is an Islamic state? Then can I respect the people who call themselves Pakistani's? Who is representing Islam today? Why should the Indian Muslim be associated with the chaos in Pakistan? There is no religion called Hinduism. In India, the Muslims live as brothers with others who believe in God, apart from those who follow the other religions. What does Pakistan want the Pakistani to identify positively in his nation? How does the Islam which Pakistan professes, make her respectable? Is she the equal of any Muslim state, or does she fall short, in the measure? How does she fall short in the measure, if she does? What is positive about pakistan's existence to her neighbors, Iran, Afghanistan, India, and China? Why does Pakistan give Ghori and Ghazni the honor, and name ballistic missiles after the individuals? Because of the great service, which they rendered unto Pakistan? Or because they render a great service to Pakistan, because their leaders serve Pakistan, as did Ghori and Ghazni, their own provinces?

The American automakers of Detroit.

2008-12-13T20:36:00.000-08:00

I believe, the companies like General Motors, and Ford, to be among the best in the world. The companies run themselves impressively. It is a fact, and not to be lamented, or seen negatively, that the companies cannot be competitive, inspite of their operations, to be seen as prosperous. One does not estimate the working of a corporation, solely, on profit making. The corporations like General Motors, perhaps technically were in the red, but other businesses were technically in the green, perhaps, because of the big corporations. I cannot see how the corporations run badly. Why should corporations look bad to themselves, if they do not make a perceived profit? They should stop worring about profit, and start working out, how people will consider wanting to purchase their cars. To be fair, a Cadillac is not very different from a Mercedes. A man who purchases a Cadillac, does so because he wants to purchase a Cadillac, and not a Mercedes. How can the American automakers make what they think is appealing in their cars, more of a consideration to themselves, and to their buyers? At the moment, the buyer considers the positives of a Mercedes, more than he considers the positives of a Cadillac. How is the positive seen in the Mercedes, more than the positive seen in the Cadillac? I do not think Mr Wagoner is an indifferent CEO of General Motors. How many Americans are aware, of Mr Wagoner being the CEO of General Motors? Many, but not very many. The policy of the lay off on jobs, would not be unacceptable, if it it was seen as not needed, though it exists as a policy. Perhaps, the giant automakers should stop worring about each other, as competitors, and just make the best cars that they can. If this had been done earlier, then perhaps, the world economy would not be in recession. In America, the recession is due, because great companies like General Motors, were not optimistic always, in the running of their business, but tried to keep up with the others. General Motors does not lack in anything, in any resource.

The Global Financial Situation.

2008-12-12T23:12:00.000-08:00

The current global financial situation, which seems to be a crisis, may be a corrective situation. I may be stating, what is obvious to many. I do not infer that the situation before the crisis was either good, or bad, because the financial practices were accepted by the concerned parties in the financial transaction. It may not be inferred, that the first great depression of the industrial era, was the cause of a faulty industrial effect. It was just that the perception of the industrial effect, was seen to be in the need of changes. I have heard, that the citizens of the United States, use credit cards, as a very natural act of existence. Perhaps, when they use credit cards, they are not sure of the payment, as I am not sure that I may not expire tomorrow. The financial status quo, was seen by the great financial institutions to be maintained at any cost, which was perceived as could be forseen. Just as a person does not stand still, all the time, this status quo, also came to pass. In the United States, the perception of wealth is very stark. When people perceive the trappings of wealth, they perceive, only what their senses are content perceiving. The more the senses perceive, the more the senses justify sight, sound, taste, smell, and all the other trappings of perception, at a very stark level. How can good living be made more accessible to all? Why does prosperity need to be perceived and measured? Can not a person be prosperous, and not identify himself as either prosperous, or very otherwise? Would a person be less prosperous, if he was content, with prosperity, and did not consciously want prosperity, when he was prosperous? How can prosperity be measured, as marginally prosperous, substantially prosperous, largely prosperous, etc? How can those, who are still very substantially wealthy, worry about when they will be reduced to penury? Perhaps, this mindset needs to see perspective in a different light.

The Indian, and The Indian Civil Entity.

2008-12-12T20:06:00.000-08:00

The Union Cabinet of The Indian Government, consists of not a large number of people. The same can be said of the State Governing Cabinets. The civil servants, as well as the civilians, and the military, assist the cabinet to govern. The cabinet assists the civilians, and the civil servants, and the military, but in a different perception of service. Governors and the government of various entities, are mainly the patrons of the functioning of the various institutions. When the government is perceived to be in discomfort, it is for a different reason than the reason of the discomfort of the entities under the patronage of the government. Why do we not assist the government, in the functioning of the government? We may vote out the government, but later, rather than sooner, we vote them back. Why should we vote in a government, whom we see as deserving when we vote, and whom we see as undeserving when we vote them out? I see a division of the nation, which is very marked, in India, because those who are in the opposition, and those those who are in the ruling coalition, are hostile to each other, when they are perceived as politicians. If I may cite an example, and if I may be pardoned, Mr Omar Abdullah is married to the sister of a prominent politician, whose name I cannot recall, but they do not see the same point of view as politicians, and the parties which they represent, are antagonistic towards each other. The business of government functions very well as it does, but it can perhaps function very much better. The ruling party blames the opposition, and the opposition blames the ruling party. Hence, the ruling party is not accountable, and nor is the opposition. All the matters of governance are discussed, but this matter is not discussed. What is the most pressing need, it seems, will sort itself out, by itself, is what the collective opinion of the politicians hold. This is a fact, but why does it take such a duration of time, and the time is yet to come to a conclusion, on this matter. What will lead to the issues in the nation to resolve itself? The question is not to be asked by the politicians, but by the persons, whom the politicians represent.

A discussion on the ISI.

2008-12-09T08:22:00.000-08:00

In my opinion, the ISI is an organisation under the titular authority of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistan Army was not involved directly, in the war between the Mujahedin and The Soviet union. The ISI was the channel of exchange between the United States, and The Mujahedin, during the last Afghan War. How exactly does the ISI operate? In the past, the Indian Army was a source of concern to the Pakistan establishment, for many reasons. The intelligence required by the Pakistan establishment, including the Pakistan Army, was of a defense oriented nature. Hence, the ISI was established. The ISI has no military role, perhaps. I mean, that they have no military function, except to act in a way, which may aid the military of Pakistan, in a vaguely indirect way. Now, the units of the Pakistan Army, may be expected to give support to the ISI. The question to be asked is, how is the ISI accountable to the Pakistan Army? The Pakistan Army and the Government of Pakistan, are not very happy with international awareness of the ISI. But the ISI cannot help this state of awareness, nor can the Army, and the Government. How does one act appropriately, with a certain divestment of passion, in such a scenario? Why are the actions of the ISI, affecting the civilian diaspora of India? The ISI would never, in my opinion, target the Indian Army directly with indirect aggression. That would be an undeclared act of hostility. It seems that the ISI is acting on it's own, but to what end? A destabilized India, would be very dangerous to Pakistan. Pakistan is aware that it is faced with a difficult situation at the domestic level. If India did not survive, how would Pakistan survive? Many entities in Pakistan are considered as embarrassing in Pakistan. Is it that the administration feels that it will be left without the faith of those who are the supporters of the cause of Pakistan? I am sure, that Pakistan is aware of no immediate danger emanating out of India. Does the government of Pakistan trust her people, and do the people of Pakistan trust her government? Does the administration of Pakistan, function as a government? Is the Government of Pakistan the representative of all state institutions? Perhaps, the bureaucracy has no real power in Pakistan, because there is no power above the bureaucracy. How can India help Pakistan from being a cannibal towards itself? India and Pakistan must make one another more accountable to each other. If the national borders between the two nations were opened, then Indian state institutions would need to function better than they are now. I am not an ill wisher of Pakistan, as many Pakistani's are not ill wishers of India. The points that I have expressed, are known to the Indian Government, and Indian Army. Their powers of perception perhaps surpass that of the common man. The Indian Muslim is identical in some ways to his Pakistani counterpart, in a cultural aspect. At least, this is true of the Muslims who share the border with Pakistan. How is it not beneficial, if we did not have such strong individual national identities, when we contemplate each other as nations? Let us stop differentiating between us and them. Unfortunately, or otherwise, the militants say, that their guide in Islam, is the Islamic Seminary at Deoband. Even in the North West Frontier Province, the Deoband Seminary is well regarded, or perhaps it is regarded as paramount. It is very evident, that the nation of Pakistan needs help. In such a situation, let India be positively proactive. The only way that borders may not be contemplated within Pakistan, is when India does not contemplate a border with pakistan, as a principal of apparent perception.

What is Freedom?

2008-11-22T21:18:00.000-08:00

Freedom to me is to be free from the bondage of perceptions. In other words, freedom to me, is not to be under the influence or under the spell of my perceptions. I have had varied perceptions, and my perceptions have been contradictory to other perceptions at other times. When have I accepted perceptions perceived by me? When I have accepted the unity behind the perceptions toward what I am perceiving. There are perhaps, two ways to accept the unity behind the perception, toward what I am perceiving. One is to see the myriad manifestations of the perceptions of what I am perceiving, and accept the perceptions, as I perceive them. The second is to accept what I perceive as a constant, and then to accept the myriad perceptions on what I perceive. However, belief and disbelief can be compared to the same person, wearing different clothes at different times. We believe one perception about a person, and disbelieve another perception about the same person. Belief and disbelief is not about believing what is true, and disbelieving what is false. We believe what we feel is good, and disbelieve, what we think is bad, about a person. A false statement, is one which we believe has not a good motive behind the statement, by the person who makes the statement. Or in other words, it is the negative feeling behind the statement, that makes it false. The person who makes the statement, if he can accept the negativity of the feeling behind the statement, his words are accepted as true by the perceiver of his words. But in this case, the person who makes the negative statement is disowned, though his negative statement is accepted. How, then, can I be free of my perceptions? This is the question. Perhaps, I should exist with my myriad perceptions, but the perceptions should not be given importance, even though all careful attention should be lavished on the perceptions. This may look like a contradictory statement. Why should the perceptions not be given importance? because if we give all perceptions importance, we give our negative perceptions importance, too. Negativity, is rejection, and it is rejected first, by the person who has the negative perception. So it is no wonder, that it is rejected by the others who perceive the perceiver, and his perception. In this state of affairs, why should we lavish attention, and carefully, on our perceptions? Because our organs of perception when uncontrolled, looks for objects of perception to perceive, and perceives the first object of perception, that it perceives, whether good, bad, or indifferent. What is a good perception? What is a bad perception? How do we feel negatively, or positively about a perception? This is an idea, but we feel positively, about what we want to feel positively about, and negatively about what we want to feel negatively about, we may even feel indifferently about a perception. If I see a sick man on the roadside,I may feel negatively, positively, or indifferently. The person who sees the sick man, and his situation negatively, has a negative perception on the situation of the sick man. A man who sees his own situation in a negative perspective, for example a depressed suicide, may look at the situation odf the sick man positively,and feel happy, that the man may die soon. An indifferent man, would feel indifferent, because he sees himself, not any better or worse off from the sick man on the road, even if he be a rich man, himself. So, all the perceptions, to be fair to all the perceivers, have validity, to the perceivers. But the way I view the perceivers, I see a grave injustice done by all the perceivers toward the sick man. Whose perception would you support? The sick man has an ailment,and people have opinions on the sick man's situation. Perhaps, if one tells a sick man, that he will die soon, then he will not care, he being more preoccupied with his sickness. I mean, a simple, normal sickness. Now, can the sick man, not help dying, if he has to die? No, but how do the perceptions of the others, help the others? Are they free of their perceptions? If they ponder their perceptions, then they are free of their perceptions. A person who questions his own perceptions, when he perceives, is free from the bondage of his perceptions, when he perceives. This is perhaps freedom. A man, is free of perceptions, and hence, is free, when he knows, that he cannot help himself, nor others, but he can do, what he can do in his situation, and nothing more.

Religion.

2008-11-15T08:35:00.000-08:00

Religion is, to me, experiencing what I cannot express as an experience, to others. I have not initiated myself into reflecting on religion. I always took the existence of God for a fact. My parents told me about the existence of God, when I was a young boy. I remember praying as a young boy, and I do remember that no one told me to pray. I watched my mother pray, and I started praying on my own. I prayed to God, sincerely, so sincerely, that it was as if I was speaking to myself. I used to ask for the well being of my family, and my pet dogs, without a hint of emotion, as if God was sitting in front of me. My mother to me, was the most profound experience, that I had as a child. But the person who introduced me to God, as an entity, who could be communicated to, as one communicates to a living entity, was Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.I have not experienced God, but through Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.What is religion? Belief in God, any belief in God, is religion. Perhaps, I had experienced God, earlier, before I had introduced myself to Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa. But I did not know, of my introduction to God. I was told, that there is a God, and he listens to our prayers, but I did not experience God as "God", because I had no concept of God. As a child I believed totally in God, whom I had not seen, heard, felt, listened to, etc. When I prayed to him, he existed, without existing. If someone had asked me, on whom I was praying to, I would have answered. If I were asked where God was, I would not have answered. When I read Sri Ramakrishna's words on God, it was as if I could not have dreamed to have uttered those words, but I had uttered those words nonetheless. How could a mere man have even dreamed to have said the words, which he said? If a mere man could have uttered those words, then I would have. But how did the words have such a profound impact on me, as if I was the person, who was saying the words? Even his words of chastisement are agreeable, because I see the truth in what he says. If he had uttered them to me, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. If previously, I had experienced religion on my own accord, now I experience religion, as it should be experienced. I have still not seen God, nor communicated with God.

The Ambiguity of Accountability.

2008-11-11T00:06:00.000-08:00

I support Dr Ramadoss on his stand concerning smoking. If a child has a cigarette, he is not accountable to his health. If an adult has a cigarette, how is the adult accountable? Suppose, a lung cancer patient, insists on smoking. Why should the child be asked to desist from smoking, if found to do so, and the lung cancer patient be dismissed as hard headed? In a democracy, there is ambiguity in accountability. This is the reason, that France, the nation which invented democracy, wants a uniform code of norms. Which to my mind, is very undemocratic. The undemocratic mode of this being can be found out if it exists in a nation like India. Should all Indians dress or talk like Maharashtrians or Madrasis? The esteemed communities mentioned will themselves balk at the mention of the idea. The uniqueness of the named communities will then vanish. They will have no identity. If the law makes an example of the wrongdoer, then to facilitate compliance with the law, adults will make an example of children. For mistakes in schoolwork, children may be beaten, as they are very commonly, or used to be, very commonly. Hypothetically, in a democracy, the creed of "an eye for an eye" should work admirably. If a human being is responsible for his own life, and if he takes another persons life, then how should a responsible person pay in kind? In a fine and functioning democracy, the awareness of crime should exist, but crime should not exist. Everyone who holds himself accountable in a democracy, should have no complaints as to the consequences of his actions, and everyone should be accountable to himself for the consequences of his actions. I see people 'wanting to have the cake, and eat it too'. A lady, for example, may want to be treated as a first class citizen, even if it be at the expense of another man being treated as a second class citizen. For an example, a lady may be very cordial and mindful towards her husband, but towards her manservant, she may be less so, and expect the manservant to be more respectful and cordial towards her, in turn. I believe, a fundamental basis of function should exist, separate from the existence of communities, and modes of existence. Perhaps, we may not go as far as France, in forging a national identity, but we may have a fundamental code of behavior and existence, which is fundamental and common to all the peoples of India.

Perceptions on Ethnicity, and on The Peoples of The World.

2008-10-25T22:47:00.002-07:00

I am reading a very enlightening book, written by National Geographic, called 'Peoples of The World'. I purchased the book, because of its beauty, but I find, that the book has a wealth of information on the views of a Professor(former?) of Harvard University, Mr David Maybury-Lewis.I was enlightened, and humbly entertained by his very nice account in his writing of the piece, which is the introduction to the book, "Peoples of The World". He has come to the conclusion, in my humble opinion, that there may be infinite circumstances, which may give different groups of people, different ethnic identities. But in the forging of different ethnic identities, there is a common factor. That common factor is the goodwill among the people belonging to an ethnic identity, or any common identity. The Sikh community is a religious identity which is very inclusive, of other religious identities, but has one of the strongest individual religious identities. Perhaps the rule of forging strong individual group identities is, "The more amiable the group is among themselves, and the more amiable the group is towards other groups, the stronger is the identity of the group, among themselves, and the stronger is the identity of the group, in the hearts and minds of other groups.

God and the secular.

2008-10-14T23:21:00.000-07:00

What is secular, and what is God? How does one define both the concepts? Does secularity promote the belief, that creation has been created, from no creation? The term 'secular' is broadly defined as pertaining to everyday existence. Being secular does not give anyone a comfortable cushioned seat in existence. When I ponder secularism, I see, that the form of material is changing. For example, the physical form of my computer, is not identical to the physical form of another computer. A computer may be broken, and then, it ceases to operate as a computer. After a computer is manufactured, can one imagine, what the components of the computer are, if one has not seen them? What about the components, which make up the components of the computer? Then, is it logical to ponder, that form, and material is not permanent, and hence cannot be relied on to find the origin of the universe? Can I say for certain, what my anscestors looked like, without looking at their photograph? We may take this theory to the extreme. If form and material is non permanent,(Material is non permanent, because we cannot perceive only material. I mean, we do perceive blank space.), then how is the universe based on material, and form? If the basis of the universe was material, then we would not perceive problems pertaining to the material plane of existence. A human being would have his material wants, without having to move, or resort to locomotion. Then, what is the origin of the universe? The answer is not that the origin of the universe is material. If material contradicts itself, then the origin of the universe is contrary to the existence of material. I mean to infer, that material came out of nothing. By 'nothing' I infer, that 'nothing', is something, but not material. I am just addressing my blog, which is known as 'General Discussion'. Please feel free to address my opinion, and views.

Uncertainty.

2008-10-10T20:48:00.000-07:00

What is uncertainty? I feel that uncertainty is what makes our behavior uncertain to ourselves. We do not know, what is going to pass, and hence, we do not know how we are going to react, or respond to what is going to pass. How is it that in total uncertainty, we want to be certain? We want certainty, or we want to perceive certainty. What makes our perception uncertain? We want our perception to be constant. What do we want, in our perception, to be constant? To see, hear, feel, touch the same things? Is this possible, all the time? If I like red, why am I not happy, when I see red all the time? Perhaps, because, I am touching something, and that touch is unpleasant, and I am identifying with that touch, and not with the color red. I may like the color red, but if liking the color red, is good, then not liking the touch of what I dislike, is bad. Can one live without perception? If we cannot live without perception, then why do we negate our perceptions, sometimes? I mean, why do we perceive, our perceptions as negative? Why do we not want certain perceptions?

Perception and Reality.

2008-10-07T02:35:00.000-07:00

What is perception, and what is reality? Perception is how we face reality. Reality, should be totally independent of the senses. If a person is angry, he will face reality with an angry perception. Another person may find his perception funny, and he will find that persons perception as offensive. What is reality? All our perceptions are prejudicial. We say, that we like blue, before or after we see blue. Similarly, we have preconceptions about all perceptions, and we have conceptions on the perceptions after we perceive. What do we perceive? We perceive, what we have perceived before, and what we will perceive. What makes us change our perception? Is what makes us change our perception, referred to as 'circumstance'? Accordingly, all circumstances are the same, because we perceive, what we have perceived before, and what we will perceive thereafter. What changes 'circumstance'? Perhaps, it is our perception of the circumstance. What changes our perception of the circumstance? What changes our perception? If we think that we are intelligent, what makes us feel silly, and unintelligent, sometimes? Are we intelligent, or unintelligent? What about those who perceive us as intelligent, and unintelligent? We believe, and disbelieve our perceptions. What do we believe, and what do we disbelieve? Belief and disbelief, are the two sides of the same coin, the coin, which is reality. We believe our disbelief, and we believe our beliefs, too. We disbelieve how we perceive our beliefs, and hence we call our perception as false.

What is a social code?

2008-09-27T23:21:00.000-07:00

How would one like to be in private and in society? That is perhaps what is referred to as a social code. Perhaps, one wants to have a social code, which is constant. When there is no constancy in the social code, then one perceives and comprehends conflict.

Science and Understanding.

2008-09-24T21:28:00.000-07:00

Science is the discovery of new phenomena. But what does science want to discover, ultimately? If matter always existed, then there is no end to the discovery of new phenomena. If there is something beyond matter, what then? If matter did not create matter, or if there was no matter, before matter, then too, we are in the same boat. We cannot find out nothing, by studying phenomena. I do not believe, that science is bad, or good, but what is it that we are discovering? What do we want to discover? What will we know, that will not be known? Do we want to know, what will not be known? If a person wants to study science for eternity, then the study of science, will be cumbersome.

The bombings on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

2008-09-11T05:11:00.000-07:00

A minister in the Pakistan Government, says that the militants in Pakistan have very sophisticated weapons, and that there is a problem on the Pakistan Afghanistan border. The weapons most probably do not come from Afghanistan, as the Americans would probably surmise if they did. Anyone with consideration of the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, know, that perhaps the gunsmiths there make the best Kalashnikov rifles, better than in Russia, or anywhere. This is my common sense, and common knowledge. How does the Pakistan Government deal with this? The North West Frontier Province is an important part of Pakistan, and this is accepted in Pakistan. How is the situation to be brought back to normal in that province? It would be to the benefit of all.

The perception of wellbeing in society.

2008-08-28T20:19:00.000-07:00

If television news channels are showing news with so much of consideration for the suffering, then they are also feeling as uneasy as those suffering. However, if people who are materially, and socially well off, can have nightmares, then both the materially well off, and the not so well off, are in the same boat. Are the materially well off to comfort other people's nightmares, when they are experiencing nightmares themselves? The poor have their reasons, for their nightmares, and so do the rich. If being rich does not guarantee happiness, then neither does being poor. What is the in between? Perhaps, when we are neither rich, nor poor? When are we neither rich nor poor? When a person is neither rich nor poor, is the mindset of the individual. A person who is neither rich nor poor, is affected by richness and poorness, which means, that we all are both rich and poor. If a man says, that he is in want, whether he be less or more well off materially, we may be more considerate towards the less materially well off, and less considerate towards the more materially well off. A person who is better off materially, is considerate towards the poor, by not comparing his own well being, negatively, when comparing the well being of the poor to his own well being. But, if a person is making efforts towards wealth, be sure, that he compares himself negatively to others, in terms of wealth. How can one be considerate towards, only the poor? The rich may feel, that they have a choice. The poor feel that they have no choice. The rich are insecure in choices, and the poor are insecure in no choices. Those who were poor, may be rich, but how have the once poor, helped the now rich, and vice versa? have those who were once poor, helped their fellow rich to be less insecure? Have those who were once rich, now poor, done the same for the poor?

Can the world relate with itself?

2008-08-28T06:31:00.000-07:00

I believe, that the world can relate with itself, and that it is relating with itself. But, perhaps, civilization's relation to the surroundings of it's habitat, should not be measured. We perhaps, are trying to quantify our relation to our habitat. By quantity, I imply measure. We are obsessed with the measure of our perceptions. We do not perceive the perception, that we estimate, all the time, and we try to definitely estimate our perceptions, which are not constant. How can the world relate to the self? The question may be, alternately, How can I relate to the world? The more I relate, the less I need to relate. Every civilization represented on the globe, has it's virtues. These virtues must not exist, because they must, but because they exist. If these virtues exist, does one need to perceive the virtues? If I am peaceful, then I would rather not be reminded that I am peaceful. If I am not, then I am reminded of peace. Perhaps, if we can not justify ourselves, to ourselves, and to others, then, we will reach where civilization can attain. A person may not justify death, birth, and other phenomenon, because the justification will make him secure, in his estimation. When there is no justification, then there is peace. This is my humble expression.

Perceptions on a Nation's greatness.

2008-08-25T23:13:00.000-07:00

If a country has to exhibit it's greatness, then how does one empathize with the perception of the greatness? If greatness can be perceived, and not perceived, then it is not the consideration of the perceived greatness, but the consideration of the perception. If perceptions of greatness change, then perhaps, perceptions are moving. In an environment, where greatness is extolled, there must be an understanding, of the greatness which is expressed. I find it preferable, not to understand.

My impressions on The Second World War.

2008-08-07T00:43:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, there was no benefit for any party, after the second world war, as it should be. There were acts of aggression instigated by all nations, except the United States. The Japanese attacked the United States, when it should have normalized relationship with her. Japanese interests were in Asia, but even then she should not have used aggression. England, was at a disadvantage. She was controlling territory, for example, Burma, in Asia, and she was a small nation in territory, although an earnest nation in her people. She had decided to give up her claims in Asia, or at least the political circles in England had, except for those who followed Winston Churchill's peacetime plans. She decided on this course of action, perhaps, before the Second World War, when Hitler gained prominence. A valuable part of her armed forces was stationed in India. If the Japanese had concentrated on her interests in Asia, I do not believe, that English resistance would have endured in Asia. And, I am sure, British practical thought would have accepted, that the English military presence was misplaced in South, South-East Asia. However, Japanese inappropriateness in her military actions in Burma, Korea, and against the British Armed Forces, strengthened that Dogged, and brave nation England's resolve. I believe, if The United States was not attacked, England would have attacked Germany, in the scenario just mentioned earlier. There was no need for Germany to attack the British Isles, in any situation, and instigate her hostility. If I were Japan, I would have only considered aggression, if I had friends in Asia, who needed military assistance. I am sure, that in hindsight, the political thought in England today feels that it benefited by her major withdrawal of her military presence from Asia, then. Japan could then have assisted the Asian Nations, and withdrawn. Japan then could have assuaged English feelings in the best manner possible. England was a reasonable and practical nation, but she was justifying her presence in Asia, which was not to her interest, keeping in mind Adolf Hitler. Even if Hitler had not risen in German politics, England would have been strained. The Indian Army under the British, was greater in number than the British Army, in peacetime. Indian Industry was accepting western technology. A pioneer in this regard was the House of Tata & sons. India, under British rule, would have benefited more industrially, than England, and perhaps, England would have left India to her considerable fate, more gracefully, in the future, then. This is all hindsight. Japan, and all the nations involved in the Second World War, did great disservice to themselves, in the aftermath of the war. This was to the extent, that the Allies did not trust each other after the war. The United States cannot be blamed for entering the war, but she did use atomic weapon technology in war. Perhaps, the Japanese would have fought on, if The United States had not used atomic weapon technology.

Me on my perceptions.

2008-07-28T07:12:00.000-07:00

My perceptions, are those of others, and how I see the others' perceptions. I do not say that what I express, are my own perceptions. It is not appropriate, that I speak about God, but I do not claim to know anything about God. What I express, is my contemplation on the reflections of others. One may presume, that I reflect on the reflections of others. I must not make presumptions about God, but I may presume, on how I reflect, on other secular matters.

The proposed development in the North-East of India.

2008-07-01T20:21:00.000-07:00

I admire Mr Aiyer's (Union Minister), unveiling of the proposed development of the North East of India. Any development, in my opinion, should be sustainable. Sustainable development, to me, is any development, easy to construct, and deconstruct. If soil can be made fertile, without the use of chemical fertilizers, for instance, it is considered good, hence the new idea in the west, which recognizes the use of organic fertilizer. All activity is a cycle, the cycle sustains itself. If more cattle are required to be reared, then it should be done. When we construct, we appreciate the effort to construct, but we are unwilling to consider how to deconstruct. Hence, it is very difficult to manufacture many chemicals, and impossible to deconstruct them. What is perhaps needed by the population of India, including the population in the North-East of India, is to live acceptably, and in peace with the habitat. Any construction should be simple, then the environment will not be affected. I am all for effort, but the effort and it's aftermath should be appreciated. The area of the North-East may be inhabited by some important officials, who will try to find, the issues that belong to the existence, of the North-East. The people may have, equally, individual and collective interests. A farmer may be important, but it is important, that a farmer have an individual, and a collective identity. A farmer may exist as a farmer having the perception, that he is neither no more, nor no less, important to the environment, than the environment is to him. A National Army, for a further example, may appreciate the affairs of a nation, and voice their opinion, and their opinion must be appreciated. One cannot not appreciate the idea of giving up one's life in military combat, but appreciate the willing intent of a soldier, sacrificing his life in military combat.

Explanation.

2008-06-21T20:56:00.000-07:00

Life is an explanation to oneself, about how existence really is. No one wants to explain to oneself, that life is unpleasant, or that one finds life unbearably unhappy. That is the perceived goal of some people. Some people are so inspired early in their lives, that they cannot but achieve a certain state. All existence wants to justify to God, that their existence was not a mistake to themselves and to God. In a simple explanation, life, according to all, must be perfectly acceptable, to all those who experience it.

The science of stimuli.

2008-06-12T06:32:00.000-07:00

Just as we perceive the sense of touch, without perceiving the touch, but perceiving the object which touches us, and react according to what we perceive touches us, we react to stimuli, at the basic level in the same way. We basically react to touch. Why do we react to different touches, in different ways? Because of our past conditioning, and our reaction to our past conditioning. Why do we perceive? Because the answer can only be answered by another perception, it cannot be answered. The only answer is that we perceive, there is no reason. Before reason, there is no reason. Before perception, no perception. What causes the perception? If we knew what was the cause of perception, would we perceive better? Do some people perceive better, because of this cause? I believe,the cause of perception is the same. If some people can perceive like Jesus Christ, or Sri Krishna, can the cause of my perception be different? If not, why do we identify with these Spiritual Luminaries? Some people do not identify. What is the reason? They are busy identifying with their own selves, and conditioning themselves to identify themselves.

What is liberation in everyday living?

2008-06-12T05:29:00.000-07:00

In my humble opinion, when a man can say that he does not see, when asked if he does see through his healthy eyes, or when he is eating, or doing any activity, he feels that he is not engaged in that activity, then that man, perhaps is said to be liberated. If a man can be liberated in the process of his life, what is it that prevents him from being liberated at the period of his birth? Nothing can prevent him, as he is already liberated. A moment, when one perfectly believes, or is perfectly happy in another's company, is the cause of the comprehension of liberation. When we do not feel that we are acting, we feel a deadening of our emotions. Only those faculties work, when we act in this state, which need to work. It is said, that a man of perfection(who is liberated) has no desire, unless he is acting a part in his mind. When he does not act the part, he feels that he has no desire. When a man can feel that he is with his mother in the company of a man, or feel dead in his emotions, in the company of a lady, when he is trying to emote, or act emotions, then, perhaps, that person is liberated. But what is said to be a sign of liberation, by what I infer from the sayings of those who are Holy is this: that what is normal in another human, is special and pronounced in the man who is liberated. A normal man may take life for granted, or something to be lived, but a liberated man does not. Why this difference in the functioning of a liberated man, and a man who perceives that he is not liberated? Just as the Doctor puts his skills, which were caused by a due process, to use, differently from an Accountant, hence, the change in the functioning of a liberated man, and one whom does not consider himself liberated. If a liberated man confronts himself with a query, on whether he is liberated, perhaps he will infer, that he does not know.

Hinduism.

2008-06-10T21:44:00.000-07:00

The Hindu castes or Varna's are said to be created from the different parts of Brahma, the creator. But does it really matter, if one has originated from the Lotus feet of the Lord, or from the head of the Lord? If one asks a true devotee, it will not make any difference. Now if one claims that he is not created from Brahma, then he is created from Brahman. All the professions, whether it be of a doctor, or butcher, exists because of the needs of other people. Let us not advertise our good offices, and keep a low profile. Instead of creating need, let our needs be such that our perceived existence does not depend on our needs, and let us be conscious, that other living beings have existence on their mind, too. For instance, instead of comprehending environmental pollution, like air pollution, as a consequence of our actions, let us find alternative consequences for our actions, and make existence agreeable for all, including those who do not use fossil fuels in excess.

Energy consumption and its costs.

2008-06-04T08:47:00.000-07:00

If the poor have it all their way, or if the rich have it all their way, the rich will become poor, and all the poor will suffer. I heard Mr Dipankar Mukherji of the CPI(M), and his views that the excise tax/duty must be removed. I must remind Mr Mukherji, that it is the poor man who uses the road, more than the rich man. If the taxes which are generated from transport, and its causes are stopped, then the condition of transport will become worse. It is the Truck and Transport driver who uses the road. We must exercise self discipline, and 'we' pertains to all the citizens. 'We" are looking at ourselves as rich, poor, blue collared workers, women, etc, while we forget, that we would not exist, if nothing else did not, too. I believe in the intentions and the tenacity of Mr Mukherji, but there must be common consensus, among those that have power, on the one hand, and among those who do not, on the other. Either we find alternative sources of energy, or we remunerate the traditional suppliers of energy. It is not those who are not empowered, who make the decisions, but the rich, and the powerful who do. If the rich people of the different sectors of the economy spoke in one voice, then there would be no poor. Why is currency so sought after? Because it 'purchases' wealth, which is very difficult to purchase. If wealth were easier to 'purchase', then there would be less divisions in society. I believe, that if more people were moderate consumers, in our nation of more than a billion people, then the producer, would compel himself to reduce the price of commodities. Wealth is in the mind. If we spend it, it ceases to exist. If we perceive wealth, it remains for as long as we perceive. The only way, perhaps to be wealthy is to exercise self discipline.

What is awareness?

2008-06-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

We believe, sometimes, that we are not in conflict with ourselves. However, perhaps, consciousness and awareness of ones surroundings, is a sign of a basic conflict in ourselves, with ourselves. In other words, we identify a car, or even a beautiful Red Rose, because a conflict in ourselves makes us do so. All conflict is not unpleasant. Those Sages, and Avatars, who have experienced Brahman, have learnt to overcome this basic conflict within themselves, perhaps. We must not be for, nor against, this internal conflict in ourselves. This has been my shortest posting.

States of Mind.

2008-06-01T02:17:00.000-07:00

The ideal state of mind, is when one experiences nothing. We feel that happiness is good, and unhappiness is bad. But those who have identified happiness, have identified unhappiness, too. There is no man who has not identified unhappiness either in himself, or in an other. The Buddha, also known as Prince Gautama, during a period of his life, knew death, even though he had never experienced it. As soon as he saw a corpse, he identified it in his mind, as a state of something, even though he had not seen a corpse before. Hence, the best way to experience God, is to have no experience. Why then, does a being, for example a human being experience? A human being is never far away from God. A human is nearest to God, even more than he is to himself. A human soul experiences because it wants to experience, because it wants to put a value to its feelings towards God. Or in other words, it wants to be extremely specific, when it wants to identify God. What it does nor realize is that the most specific experience of God, is no experience. Why does a man, again want to realize God? It is just God's will, that he does, so that he may experience God, and not want, due to want of happiness, to experience God any more, and go back to the state of non experience. Whatever has to be experienced in Heaven, we experience on Earth. Why then, do we wait to go to Heaven to appreciate it? When I see a joyful child, or a lady, or a saint,(for only a man can really appreciate another, who is a saint), I believe, God has shown me all the good in creation, which is very close to God.

The Unity and Polity of India.

2008-05-30T00:00:00.000-07:00

Looking at the issues concerning Rajasthan at the present, I believe, that the Government, by which is inferred the Union as well as the State Government, has to take some serious tasks on hand concerning Social Issues. The fact is, Robin Hood, took from the rich and gave the poor, but he had no moral and social jurisdiction, or justification. Whenever a member of a powerful section of society is disadvantaged, his family is indirectly affected,too. How can one justify, depriving those who have, and giving to those who do not have? The answer is not depriving those who have, and assisting those who do not have. We have the globe, and history as precedents. India must take the world as an example to herself, in the manner of all the positives that she can derive, from all the various public and social institutions. Why cannot India, for instance, combine the positive functionings of The United States, Great Britain, and The Chinese models of Government, and learn from all the positive experiences of the other nations of the world, in this regard? For example, at the state level, we might have a colligiate system of election, as in the United States, and in the center, have direct elections, to the Lower House of Parliament. We can learn from the Chinese model of government, the lesson of Government not being influenced by forces extraneous to the functioning of government. Or we can combine all three models, in the legislature of the Union and State Governments. Now, all the sections of society are powerful. We cannot take from a number of people, and give to another equal number of people. Perhaps, the government can call a number of prominent representatives from each section of society, and formulate a new policy for the people of India. What people must realise, is that at any given time, a person does not perceive himself as intelligent as another, in excess, all the time, nor is the income of all the citizens of any nation, equal to the last paisa. It is because of this reason, that there are millionaires and paupers constituting the polity of a nation.

The Mirror of The Self.

2008-05-23T20:12:00.000-07:00

The world is your mirror. By this I mean, what you see the world to be, you are putting yourself in the world's position, and judging yourself. If a man wants complete fealty from a woman, he is putting himself in the position of that woman, and judging himself.In the same way, the followers of Jesus Christ or Mohammad, see themselves as what they see in their religious leaders. I did not mention any Hindu Avatar, but what I said in the last sentence, holds true for Hindu's too(but naturally). The real thing is not to believe in God, but somehow to know, that he exists. Belief and disbelief are the same thing. If a man sees good, he is reminded of God, when he does not see good, he is not. You disbelieve God, when you do not see good. This is my humble opinion, but an Avatar or Prophet does nothing. His followers do it all. The Avatar ignites the spirit of the people around him, but the people fail to recognize it. Even Duryodhana in the Mahabharat, saw heaven, even though he is considered to be how the Christians consider the Anti-Christ. What is surprising, is that the Mahabharat, does not mention that Duryodhana was liberated. It is said, that the thought of an Avatar is liberating, and Duryodhana actually saw, and touched, an Avatar!(I presume). This shows, that the compiler of the Mahabharata is a true devotee. He does not even contemplate the possibility of liberation, when contemplating the Lord.

Thoughts on The Book of Job.

2008-05-21T21:43:00.000-07:00

The Book of Job is an important literary document which is studied. Two ideas make an impression on me. One is on Job's exclamation, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." The word, "there", suggests that he sees God, as both his father and mother. Another idea, which comes to mind, is that he loves God for God's sake, and no other reason. I see many parallels to Hinduism in this ancient document. The ideal of submission to the will of God, finds a parallel to the faith of Islam. The main idea which comes to mind, is that just as we judge happenings, others also judge them, and we are reminded that opinions, when they are due to a dependence on them, are very fallible. However, this text is fascinating, as it gives an insight into the mature consciousness of the people of the ancient world.

Thoughts on The Prologue to The Canterbury Tales.

2008-05-18T23:04:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, Chaucer was very humorous while dealing with the subject of the many characters of the work mentioned in the heading. However, if society at that time had looked at it's workings more sympathetically, then the situation might have improved then. This holds true of Chaucer's observations, too. There were good Peers like the Duke of Lancaster, but there was growing dissatisfaction among the general population, during the time of Chaucer. Those who were dissatisfied, were the cause of their own dissatisfaction. These included members of the Peerage, and it percolated down to the other people. Perhaps, with common good sense, the Deadly Plague, and the peasants revolt, may have been averted. But the good sense had to be exercised by all. What I had wanted to express in this piece, was that the Saints of Christianity, were perhaps only there to be looked up to. Chaucer is critical, but there he stops short. Did society, even during The Middle Age, feel that Christianity was too great an ideal to follow for the common man? Perhaps, it is not for me to say, but one does not live an ideal, because ideals are imaginations of situations, which one may not see oneself a part of. One has the ideal in mind, but one does not get demoralized having the ideal in mind. One does not know what bend the great work of Chaucer was to take later, as it is incomplete, but these are a few of the expressions of my thought, which I have recorded. I hope I have not been very eager in my expressions, and offended in my eagerness.

Government Policy and Civilian Cooperation.

2008-05-17T01:47:00.000-07:00

I saw a news bite on an Indian Hindi News Channel, where the workers in the canteen of the hospital were stealing the kitchen of food, and the kitchen was neglected. I must point out, that the very taxpayers who pay taxes, lay waste their taxes paid when they behave in the above manner. The general perception among people, is that one has to be extremely crooked to be very rich. This is a fallacy. Business runs because of certain practices. Even the fines one pays in business, is a process of business.If Mr Bill Gates looses a lawsuit, it is a process of business. If one has to change the course of paying fines, one must change the process of business. The government is not out of public and/or private lives, nor is the common man out of the process of government in a democracy. The government makes civil and criminal laws that affect the common man. The common man elects the government. Society must stand as one, and together, and be more intimate where it should be. If the soldier indulges in business, or if a businessman fights on the front, then there will be a clash of interests. The key to a progressive society, is to recognize and accept this state of affairs.The civil/military population are one with the government. The nation is one entity. When this is realized, the cooperation between the government and those that are affect by the it, will be a result.

The Last Avatar of Lord Vishnu.

2008-05-16T22:46:00.000-07:00

When a person feels grieved,and asks God for the reason, I understand and empathize with the person. However, one knows the mistakes the mind can make, when trying to fathom an Avatar. I have extreme happiness when I do so, but soon after, I experience apprehension. My mind, which can experience negative emotions, how can it hope to experience an Avatar? The greatest mistake of man, which is trying to experience some of the virtues of God, through an Avatar, is his greatest blessing. The last Avatar will have a steed, as has been said by the Sages. All, whether Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc, will identify with him, but not give up their individual faiths, and he will help their faith.

The Virtues of God.

2008-05-15T04:48:00.000-07:00

I am a great believer in God. When one believes in the virtues of God, and wants to be reminded of and contemplate God's virtues, one does not want to loose the ability of the experience. Hence, the knowledge of Brahman, can be an experience which is undesirable. The best way to experience Brahman, is to do so while contemplating the virtues of God. Then one surrenders completely, and gets the "vision" of Brahman. If one believes in God, one must try one's best to get the nearest experience of God. Otherwise, one is disillusioned. One knows that God loves and cares for all, but because of self conditioning, one sees a lot of the negative perception of creation, and this leads to grief and disillusion.

Awareness of the Holy.

2008-05-10T20:53:00.000-07:00

In one great poem of Sri Rabindra Nath Tagore, a beggar is asked by a King, who asks in jest, for alms. The beggar is very embarassed, and resists the Kings good humor. When the King departs, the beggar finds a particle of gold in his possession. His laments on why he did not give the King his all. The beggar, in the presence of the King, had elevated his own status to the status of the King. Similarly, in the presence of a sannyasi, or a Holy Man, one finds ones being elevated. The Holy Man may not think himself great, that is his greatness, but the people around him imagine him extremely great, and hence, elevate themselves, for themselves. I feel extremely humble, in the presence of such people. But this elevates my feelings, and I am aware of my feelings. This may cause conflict, but the whole purpose of life is to integrate one's belief in God and the Holy, in one's life. One just has to love God, and one becomes an Aristocrat, just by being in his presence.

Perception of society.

2008-04-20T21:22:00.000-07:00

Mr Sorabjee in a recent newspaper writing expressed the fairness of the English Judicial system. He would know, that the British judicial system has judged itself constantly from the times of Charles Dickens, and Oliver Twist. The system has progressed. In India, perceptions are interpreted differently, Nothing is right or wrong, because one's conscience is one's guide. How does one do business otherwise, if certain practices are prevalent, in business? Even in the ISCON explanation of the Gita, it is said that a soldier has to take a life. Should he feel that he has done wrong? When society is not encumbered by one's own or other's conscience, then perhaps, things improve. Can a businessman tell the government how to administrate, and is the government in control of individual businesses at any given moment, to administrate them? Why does Bill Gates have to be told that he has violated the law, in the course of his business, in the United States?

On Plato and Aristotle.

2008-03-26T08:56:00.000-07:00

It is generally believed, that Plato and his illustrious pupil Aristotle espoused different views on the same subject. In other words, their view was the same, but they interpreted the view differently from the other. This may tempt one to conclude, that the views of one complemented the views of the other. When one reads about Plato and Aristotle, one makes the conclusion that the different points of view espoused on the same subject were equally right at the same time. However, one cannot espouse both views at the same time, hence, the difference of opinion. Plato was reputed to build the structure of his views, from the general to the specific. Aristotle proved, that to build ideas from the specific to the general, was also held in repute. Perhaps, the differing in views was due to the fact, that one view was cautioning the other view, not to espouse itself as the only view. In my humble opinion, the lofty ideas of both the philosophers, should be taken in the same context. For some, it is prudent to take the advice of Plato, and refrain from poetry, while for others, perhaps, one should take the advice of Aristotle, and comprehend life better hereafter, with the enjoyment, and the aid of poetry.

Should there be i d cards for ethnic Asians in Britain?

2008-03-08T00:02:00.000-08:00

I agree both for and against the motion. The Asian community in Britain, does not endeavor enough, so that their unhappy unfortunate brethren do not blow themselves, and others up. Will not all the communities be affected, if there is violence? The British Government has not done anything to make the situation any better. Why is it that Moslems around the world are insecure? Will issuing I D cards, make them feel more integrated? Moslems feel that they pray to a seperate God, and that the Gods of the other religions are neither compassionate, nor merciful. I believe, they are equally a part of other religions. I do not ask the religions of the world to loose their identity. They should cherish their culture, and live with and admire the other cultures, which seem very different, but are also very similar. The British Government seem to feel that all acts of mass violence these days are perpetrated by ethnic Asians. Until the time there are unfortunate incidents, is it not better for Asians to assist the British Government? Did not Asia, compell Europe to give up her colonies? Why do ethnic Asians want to migrate to those nations, where they face difficuilty? If they stay in India, with their skills, they will compell the government to work to put their skills to better use.

Quest.

2008-03-07T04:15:00.000-08:00

What is man's quest? Is it for wealth, love, honor, happiness? Perhaps, a lot more. Man may humiliate himself, and degrade himself, in this quest, but he does not give up the quest. When he has wealth, he will think he lacks honor, and be unhappy. When he has honor, he will lack happiness. This is because, one can identify with either honor, or happiness at one time, not both. One cannot be aware of all ones posessions at one time. We will not understand, we will continue to have, loose, and believe in having, and loosing, while we go through the process. We will continue to feel that what we are going through, and what we put others through, is justified. Is it? Is putting others through humiliation, and suffering humiliation, in return, acceptable for gain, which we will eventually forget? What are we looking for? Contentment? If we can identify the fact, perhaps we have it, but we are looking at things which are affording us no contentment. How can we identify contentment, if we have not, or are not experiencing it? We believe it is due to what we possess, or have, but this is a fallacy, because are we content all the time, when we consider what we possess? If one values one's parents, one remembers them equally fondly and regularly, when they have expired, as when they were alive. There are some, who have given up this quest. They do not believe in humiliating ones fellow being, for existence, and die of hunger, as a result, on the footpath. Do we look down on them, because we are not like them, or because they are not like us? Would that not be an error, similar to our quest? Should we improve situations, so that these people, too can live in peace, and not by disbelieving themselves, because they cannot humiliate, like we do?

The 'sync' of the self.

2008-03-06T19:47:00.000-08:00

When while interacting with the world, one is aware of himself/herself, the reason may be, that we have conditioned ourself not to be in 'sync', with our surroundings. When we are completely lost in thought, or feeling, and are made to distract from them due to extraneous circumstances, one feels not in 'sync' with the proceedings. One is not comfortable, either with the previous, nor the current thought. This leads to thoughts and attitudes of insecurity. The individual may wonder, if he is right, or wrong. The way to self control, in modern times, is to feel all impulses. When one takes responsibility, due to the consequent 'sync', that may be obtained, one acts accordingly. What I have expressed, is just an expression.

The science of my emotions.

2008-03-06T04:20:00.000-08:00

The cause of my unhappiness, sometimes, is that I cannot deal with my happiness appropriately. I may be happy, and very meaningful in my happiness, and when my happiness is not understood, as it should be, it makes me unhappy. Happiness and unhappiness act as a check on each other. When we see external causes to our happiness, and unhappiness, we cannot control either. If I allowed my unhappiness to modify my reaction to it, and also allowed myself to react appropriately to happiness, then I would be more content, and peaceful. To respect both happiness and unhappiness, one should allow the self to experience both, believing unhappiness to be as natural as happiness.

Negative Emotions

2008-03-05T21:46:00.000-08:00

We are taught to value our emotions, such that pleasurable emotions are good, painful emotions are bad. Some of us carry this further, and feel that negative emotions are extremely disagreeable, and positive emotions are extremely agreeable. If negative emotions were bad, then they would not have been associated with happiness. Negative emotions can help in reminding ourselves of the situation, when we are unhappy. We are the cause of our own conundrum. We want to feel happy all the time, and are vexed, when we do not.

"It is glorious to be rich."

2008-03-05T03:22:00.000-08:00

When the Great Chinese Leader Deng Xiaoping declared, "It is glorious to be rich", he was perhaps refering to the appreciation of wealth, and not only on a pecuniary basis. Deng Xiaoping did not lead a life of ostentation. Perhaps, there was a reason, why he did not meet the fate of his many colleagues. The suffering he endured, made him, perhaps, to be more pragmatic, than he had experienced himself to be, before. "Richness", has not to do with wealth, but the appreciation of wealth, which is a futile attempt in practice. Am I wealthy, in good health, or with paper currency, sufering from bad health? When we evaluate, we do a disservice, because, the higher we evaluate, the more we are under the impression, that we evaluate well, which is a fallacy. The bounties of nature, are beyond measure, in value. Are the fresh vegetables one consumes, to be measured, and compared, to gold? Gold is a measure, not a value. Can one value gold, over food? India and China, can learn from each other, because, they identify their past, and present, in a common manner. They interpret the solution differently, but only the interpretation differs. Both India, and China, are great Asian nations, who interract with other great nations, like The United States of America. As the nations interract with one another, due to the obligations of business, and diplomatic, and other relations, the nations must ponder on how they can assist each other.

The Lion.

2008-02-23T20:55:00.000-08:00

Among animals, the Lion is most formidable in combat, because he is unpredictable, as he does not depend on perceptions. He may be cleaning his paws at one moment, and the next he may strike ferociously. The Tiger, and other animals, are dependent on perceptions, and act according to their perceptions. The Lion sees the other animals in himself, and the other animals identify with the Lion. Perhaps that is why the male of the species is not a predator. I have never heard of a Tiger and Lion in conflict, in the most dire of circumstances. The Lion sees different perceptions as acceptable at different times, in combat, and acts accordingly.

Identification of Good and Bad.

2008-02-23T20:36:00.000-08:00

We identify good and bad, but good and bad are permanent concepts. We say that someone is good, identifying some characteristics in them. Good is permanent, but we want that what we identify as good to be permanently identified as good, according to our view. For example, if eating makes us happy, we want to eat all the time, so that we are happy, because we associate happiness with eating. When we do not eat, we may become unhappy. What we do not realise is that opposite states are acceptable as good at different times. For example, when we sleep, it is good, and wakefulness is also required. When we depend on our perceptions, we become unreasonable, in my humble observation. If I think white is good, good will always remain, but I may not see white all the time. Then, if I see black, is it bad?

Likes and Dislikes.

2008-02-18T22:41:00.000-08:00

When I see a person angry with his perception of me, I too get angry. Why is this so? Because, I put myself in that persons shoes, and agree with his perception. To understand this, one must want to. When a person gets afraid of a formidable opponent, he is in reality, afraid of himself, seeing himself in the shoes of his opponent. Now you are either doing your opponent the ultimate compliment, or doing him the greatest disservice. Never judge a person, on his attitude towards himself. He will always be understanding towards himself, in Heaven or in hell. Judge his standards, by his judging the standards of others. If he sees someone in the throes of physical pleasure, and goes into raptures himself, that man should be marked. If we see such an observer, in a calm state, or trying his best to attain that state, or if we see a person whom we love dearly, then that person, becomes your ideal. If you experience this, then you are completely in sinc with that person. As long as you continue. Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma, are the alter egos in a person. When these egos are in equilibrium, then The ego of Lord Vishnu, emerges, in a person. It is then he experiences Brahman. In times of instability, some people become Lord Brahma, and some Lord Shiva. The world behaves like it is in a state of a pendulum, in times of instability. When there is no desire for progress, then that is the ideal state of a society, because then, that is peace. The faster we progress, the faster we negate it, because it will not be required in the future.

Waste, and Productivity.

2008-02-16T19:50:00.000-08:00

How do we become productive, and what is waste? Why is Gold so valued? Because we get inspired by our idea of Gold. We love our association with Gold. Because of its color, its shiny element, and so on, and so forth. We proceed to make ornaments with gold. Some people may feel, ornaments are not of importance, in the manufacture of computers, for instance. But Gold can buy many computers. The economy is dependent on Gold. All because, we have decided, that Gold is good. Hindu's, and I being one of them, regard cow dung no less, because of various associations. Because of these associations, we found, that cow dung is a fuel, and has various uses. If India, had found value in what it terms waste, we would have been the most developed country in the World. One cannot eat Gold, but it has its uses. Similarly everything can be used. It may be argued, that where is the inspiration, in comparing Gold and Dung? Do we need to find inspiration, to be productive? It is our functioning which makes us productive, not our need. If we found a use for everything we associate with, we would be without need. Others would take inspiration from us, because people want to be free of need, and its associations. When we see waste, we abandon waste, but does it abandon us? It keeps on increasing. Either we must not produce waste, or find a use for waste.

My experience of God.

2008-02-15T22:22:00.000-08:00

What does a parent feel, when his five year old son makes inquiries about his inheritance, from him/her? It must be the most endearing experience, for the parent, but the child should know better. When we make inquiries about this world, and are curious about this world, God feels in the same manner, towards us. We are only given what God wants to give us, is my humble understanding. He gives us what is required, but that does not mean, that we are rich, because, we have consumed, what we had before. There are many seekers of God, I hope, fervently, who are more humble than myself, and my heart weeps, when, in their quest for God, they experience unhappiness, and misery, which is not their fault, or the fault of God. My heart bleeds, because I experience the same. I am as good as the best of men(perhaps not), and as bad as the worst. May I gain what God wills, and loose what God wills. If not for certain experiences, I might have done drugs, been a murderer, or stolen, from others. Perhaps I have done all of the above. It is not my virtue, that I may have been spared certain griefs. I know my own virtues, which are nil. I say, what is in my heart, and I hope others are not innocent, in respect to themselves, when they try to understand, my words. I am not a seeker, I do not seek God, but can I not admit, that I hope to understand, all that is to be understood?

Expriencing.

2008-02-14T22:32:00.000-08:00

When we are at unease with a situation, we are at fault, not the situation. We are perhaps reminding ourselves about it, by reacting unfavorably towards it. When we regard our discomfort, or any other emotion, good or bad, we check our emotions, and are at sync with them. Perhaps, then, we are completely at ease with our emotions. When we are aware of our happiness, or unhappiness, it is a sign, that things are out of hand. We then have to deal with our happiness, and unhappiness. In such a situation, we normally accept totally, happiness, and reject totally, unhappiness. Rejection and acceptance, are always total. one does not reject or accept a situation in parts. When a man is stealing, if we are angry, we are perhaps, not at ease, with what we are about to do, or expected to do. If we administer a good beating, with love, that man will love you in return. If we do the same at ease, that man will accept the situation, and will accept his part, and will weigh the pro's and cons, of his action, and the consequence. I must find all acceptable actions, acceptable to society, to improve myself. A man who believes in the now of the moment, and who accepts that his current actions, or circumstance, is agreeable or disagreeable, and who acts accordingly, works well.

National Institutions.

2008-02-14T20:28:00.000-08:00

I gave a great regard, for institutions like the armed forces. Before the British Raj, the regular army of various Princely states were fiercely proud. What the British contributed was a narrow disciplinary code, and blended in it the military tradition of the old Indian warrior. The British had regard, and fondness, for the Imperial Indian Army, perhaps, more than their own ethnic European army. Perhaps, the British tradition of the armed forces, relied mainly on tradition contributed from battle. They did not have the diverse traditions of the warriors of India. The Indian warrior had a tradition from various influences, because, in the Indian Army, the Army is a way of life, not a profession. The British respected the old traditions, and made improvements in the efficiency of functioning, where needed. India, and Pakistan, have a glorious military heritage. Increasing and manifold pride in the institutions, is the pathway to a more glorious future. The Armed Forces of India, and Pakistan, are basically of one spirit. It is a telling compliment to the martial spirit that they had regard enough for the other, to fight. However, the Armed Forces of the two nations must assist each other, to benefit the other, because, that is the more natural path to the development of the two institutions. Both may benefit greatly from the others experiences. It is better for brothers to assist each other, instead of harboring wounds, which are cherished, not in the ways that they should. This should be done with the consent of and in consultation with the respective governments.

What is Fear?

2008-02-14T04:07:00.000-08:00

Fear is nothing, but processing information about a situation. It must not be experienced personally, or identified with. Nothing in this created world should be identified with, except God, the creator. Identifying with love, happiness, etc, makes one sooner or later, identify with the opposite. On Fear, it is advised, to try to overcome it, in situations, where one feels it the most. Fear on the other hand, can be an invaluable learning tool. If one experiences fear impersonally, then one can overcome the negative situation quickly. Some might even find the experience enjoyable, I presume. Fear can give us very accurate assessments, about situations, and then, one gets to respect fear. When one respects fear, one defeats it. However, it is admirable, when entities have given up fear. Then, viewing the situation becomes more objective. I feel, that one is whole to the universe. Is it not God, who has created us, all the identities of the universe? Then, one is no less, or no more equal to any creation, but equal in the eyes of God. One must respect negation, to defeat it. There is a cause for fear. Just as we process information, in pleasure, we do so in fear. We may not be aware of the fact, when we concentrate on the emotion, and not on the other goings on, at the time.

Influence.

2008-02-12T20:28:00.000-08:00

We react to what we see, not what others see. Another person may want to influence me to see myself negatively, if I do, then, whose fault is it? It is like saying, you have made me feel unhappy, so I am against you. All human beings are basically the same. We just imagine ourselves, and others as different individuals, and in different situations. We are reacting to different situations, so we react differently. Even if I agree, that different human brains work differently, if my human brain was in the situation of another human brain, it would work the same. The greatest crime, is to look down on another human being's situation. It is a crime, because it leads to crimes, being committed. Generally, children have this mindset, nowadays. A child's mind is flexible. When the child, sees himself, as an adult of consequence, he is helpless, as he tells himself, that he cannot help himself. In a negative frame of mind, we always see ourselves loosing, and in a positive frame of mind, we always see the opposite. I behave irrationally, when I believe, in my negative and positive frame of mind. I may behave in opposites, in the same situation, which I view positively, or negatively. I do not believe, that looking at the positivity of life is the way out. Introducing peace in our lives, is. We may look at life positively, but when we are on our deathbed, we will be negative, because we view death negatively. Peace is not being affected by either happiness, or unhappiness. Peace is, neither experiencing happiness nor unhappiness, and thus experiencing a higher state. Pain, or unhappiness, is nothing but not experiencing happiness, when we are expecting it. In this situation, we look at the reasons, why we are not happy, and thus become unhappy, perhaps. This is a mechanism, which has become so much a part of our lives, that it works like automation, unconscious automation. We are perhaps not happy with a situation, we want to be happy in, because we are in reality, not experiencing that situation, at the time.

Mr Advani, and the BJP.

2008-02-12T08:50:00.000-08:00

I do not consider Mr Advani, an Indian leader, rather, he is a leader of international stature. I am sure, that he would make a great Prime Minister, just like Mr Vajpayee. We must give our leaders all support, so that they are at ease, while administering the affairs of the country. We must remember, that they did not make themselves leaders, alone, but we also reposed our faith in them. I only ask that the humble member of the BJP, not alienate any section of Indian Society. I may dwell in India, but I consider myself last when I consider the citizens of India.

What is Love?

2008-02-10T07:20:00.000-08:00

Love to me, is being at peace, with whomever I am with. I do not care to be loved in return, my care is only that I am with that particular person. This is an achievement on my part, because, for a time, I was never at peace with myself. If I feel like I have described about any person, then I consider that person, above me.

The Reins of The Self.

2008-02-08T21:46:00.000-08:00

To be in control, one has to experience lack of all control. By this is inferred to feel completely helpless, in the realm of the mind, in thought and emotion. There is a time in a human beings existence, when we revel in lack of control, for example, in the case of a child. Because the child accepts the state, so do others. When a child does not, nor do the others. The whole idea is to experience the state, without trying to avoid it. What is self control? Experiencing, without feeling helpless to the experience. When one does this, he is completely free from the experience, and revels in it. By 'revel', is inferred that he acts in spite, and despite, of the experience. I am sure, in such a situation, one has found Heaven on Earth. I have yet to experience the situation.

The debate over Arunachal Pradesh.

2008-02-08T11:19:00.000-08:00

First of all, what is the present position of Indian and Chinese Troops in Arunachal Pradesh? Why is the present position so? What is our argument for or against it? We share a proximity of culture and border with The People's Republic of China. We have been active in works on our side of the border. The Dalai Lama is a guest of India, out of his own accord, just as India and China, exist, out of their own accord, on certain principles of existence. He chooses to dwell in India. He does not subscribe to an armed struggle. In other words, he does not see himself as a Chinese citizen, yet. The Indian constitution allows any persona, to identify with or without any state, including India. It would be good for India to have a stable China, as a friendly neighbor. The Dalai Lama will not destabilize Tibet, he does not want it to happen. It is in the interest of India, and China, to have a non volatile population at the border. India does not but have the best wishes for China, and it is in the interest of Tibet to benefit from China, in any which way it can. It is in the interest of China, Tibet, India, and all her people, that we are in no debate over the border. The dispute is due to perceived grievances which may or may not be a fact of logic.

What is Hunger?

2008-02-08T07:50:00.000-08:00

Hunger is nothing, but a reminder to us of our mortality. We first learn, that we subsist on other living beings, due to the experience, action, and reaction of hunger. No man can say, that he has been completely non violent, because he has assuaged his hunger, sometime, preying on other living beings. There are some, who are incapable, at being adept at assuaging their hunger. Perhaps, we should not ridicule their ineptness at this basic function of an animal, and help them out, in any little way we can. This experience of hunger, makes some eager to follow non violence, as non violence gives one a spiritual bent. Hunger is any primeval need in man, whether to do with food, physical need, or any other such experience. It is best to negate this experience in oneself, as much as possible, or at least, not give it over importance. There are records of spiritual beings, who have stopped being driven by hunger. Hunger is important, because the world would be otherwise overpopulated with plant and animal life, and human life.

Finite and Infinite.

2008-02-06T23:17:00.000-08:00

When we experience the finite, we know that the infinite exists. When we experience both finite and infinite, we know that there is something beyond, and so on, and so forth. We will never get to know, God, if we try. Only if there is complete ceasing of effort, will we get to know. In Islam, it is referred to as "Complete Submission to The Will of God". If we follow this train of thought, we realize, that there is nothing to seek. What we seek is already with us. We seek as a gratification towards the self, but, because, we seek, we do not care for the culmination of our seeking. We would rather seek God, than find him. This is not deliberate, on our part, but because we cannot help it. We are conditioned thus. Perhaps, when we are in the Womb, we are in this state, of not seeking. Does it matter to us, if God takes our life, in the Womb? However, if we can end a life in the womb, it means that for gratification, we are capable of anything, and in the future tense, we gratify our own agony, and grief. For me to understand what I express, it is important for me to loose experience of time, for a time. For a while, one must be in a state of complete unconsciousness, while others feel that one has been unconscious for a long while. Perhaps, I have been in such a state, during a previous illness. What I have expressed, may be conjecture, or it may not.

The Doer of Works.

2008-02-06T20:00:00.000-08:00

Are we the doer of works, or just an instrument, like any implement? We do not rely on any one of our faculties, but all of them, different faculties at different times. We believe ourselves to be absurd, and meaningful, at different times, but we are the same person. This is the case with everyone. Everyone is in the same boat. In these circumstances, if no one is in control, then Who is? I believe it is God. The world will never be a perfect place, unless we find God, who is directing us. We find meaning in our feelings, when they mean nothing. When we have to die, we will. We may weep for our loved ones, on our deathbed, but will we be exempt from our fate? Now, the world, in reality, is one, because, there is not one living organism, which has not experienced life, there is nothing, which is not a part of this universe. There is consciousness in everything, even a stone, oxygen, etcetera. When I undermine the consciousness, of any existence, I undermine God, and I have to pay the price, in some measure. If I 'possess', something which is very dear to me, anything, I pay a very dear price, because, in the end, The only possessor of everything is God. To find self assurance, I must be self assured first. If a human being can be conscious of the thought, that he is the 'doer', of works, then he can be equally conscious of the opposite spectrum of thought. If I follow any path of thought selflessly, then I approach God, in whatever way He deems it fit.

Work and Peace.

2008-02-05T23:35:00.000-08:00

Perhaps, work can lead to peace. Working for the bad of others is the least desirable, working for good, is more desirable, and working for neither good, nor bad, is the highest ideal. When we look at something bad, we should work for it's good. That good work will also produce some bad after effect, so we work to make the bad after effect good, and so on. A time will come, when doing good works, where we will not think about good or bad, but about what is appropriate. When a number of people, start to act, and think with neither good nor bad in mind, then peace spreads. Emotions are no longer the driving force of any work, but appropriateness is. However, when one man practices the before mentioned, which is, indifference to good and bad, when doing works, with true sincerity, then many around him are convinced of his good sense, and follow his example.

Industry and The Global Village.

2008-02-04T20:51:00.000-08:00

The global village is a creation of necessity. There is talk of the globe increasingly resembling a global village, but I would prefer villages in the world, to be more global. Because of the world industry, over the centuries, becoming increasingly selective, and discriminating towards itself, the Global Village has emerged. I would prefer the national industry of a nation, to be self reliant, with all the various works, whether they be public, private, entreprenurial, mental or physical exertion, to have equal footing, in the eyes of all. The well being of a country, is dependent on this state of affairs. If any part of the economy, is in demand, or in scarcity, then it can start to dictate to the other sectors of the economy. The iron monger is equally important as the scientist is, because, without one, the other would be without work. Both should be regarded with the same reverence, and regard, because both are working for the other, and for others. The advent of the Global Village, and colonisation, was because of the dissatisfaction of the peoples of industrial nations, with the economic state, of their nations. In an ideal economy, there is economic parity among all sections of society, because, in such a society, all sections of the economy are regarded with equal importance.