Perfection is a static state.
Life is a dynamic process.
So "perfect life" is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing cannot exist. It is logically impossible.
31 May 2013
25 April 2013
India/Hindus and Israel/Jews: Similarities
Similarities between India/Hindus and Israel/Jews:
| Year | ||
| (approx) | ||
| 700 BC | ||
| 600 BC | ||
| 500 BC | ||
| 300 BC | ||
| 100 BC | ||
| 1 AD | ||
| 100 AD | ||
| 500 AD | ||
| 600 AD | ||
| 700 AD | ||
| 1000 AD | ||
| 1200 AD | ||
| 1400 AD | ||
| 1500 AD | ||
| 1750 AD | ||
| Year | ||
| 1948 | ||
| 1956 | ||
| 1962 | ||
| 1965 | ||
| 1967 | ||
| 1971 | ||
| 1973 | ||
| 1999 | ||
04 March 2013
"Lincoln" Vs Bollywood: Movies and Idealism
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln has a misleading title. A more accurate title would have been Amendment 13. For that is what the movie is really about – the 13th amendment to America's constitution, that abolished slavery (in 1865). But the central figure is still President Abraham Lincoln, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis' Lincoln is an idealist, a man of lofty ideals. But he is also a realist, a practical man. He realises that to achieve those lofty ideals, it is sometimes necessary to use not-so-lofty means. He is a simple and humble man. But he is also a powerful man – a man who is aware of his power, and is willing to use that power to achieve what he thinks is right. Tommy Lee Jones is superb as the liberal Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who pushes the amendment through the House. The debates in the House are the best scenes of the movie, with some powerful dialogues (written by Tony Kushner). Lincoln is about idealism. It is about freedom, justice and doing what is right. A movie about the President who freed America's blacks – when the country has its first black President. Can it get more poetic?
In a TV program, Bollywood producer/director Karan Johar said that Lincoln was "boring", and he had "fallen asleep" while watching it. Lincoln got 12 Oscar nominations, and won 2 Oscar awards. Spielberg's previous films include Schindler's List, Amistad and Munich. I am sure Johar found them also boring, and slept through them too. He, on the other hand, has given us all-time cinematic masterpieces like Kuch kuch hota hai, Kabhi khushi kabhi gham, Kabhi alvida na kehna, My name is Khan and Student of the year.
The difference in quality between Spielberg and Johar apart, there is a larger point here. For Bollywood, love means only romantic love. Is there no other kind of love? What about love of one's country? For Bollywood, the only thing in the world worth falling in love with is a good-looking woman/man. Is there nothing else? What about ideals like freedom, justice and equality? Are they not worth loving? Are they not worth living for, fighting for and dying for? Every guy tells his girlfriend that he will die for her, but how many have actually done that? On the other hand, history is drenched with the blood of the crores of men and women who gave their lives for their country and their ideals. Yet Bollywood prides itself on churning out boy-meets-girl flicks (with the boy and girl singing and dancing around trees). The pinnacle of this industry's achievement is Salman Khan starrers that gross Rs 100 crore at the box office. As for the smug and pompous Karan Johar, he will earn my respect the day he makes a picture that moves me and inspires me – like Lincoln.
In a TV program, Bollywood producer/director Karan Johar said that Lincoln was "boring", and he had "fallen asleep" while watching it. Lincoln got 12 Oscar nominations, and won 2 Oscar awards. Spielberg's previous films include Schindler's List, Amistad and Munich. I am sure Johar found them also boring, and slept through them too. He, on the other hand, has given us all-time cinematic masterpieces like Kuch kuch hota hai, Kabhi khushi kabhi gham, Kabhi alvida na kehna, My name is Khan and Student of the year.
The difference in quality between Spielberg and Johar apart, there is a larger point here. For Bollywood, love means only romantic love. Is there no other kind of love? What about love of one's country? For Bollywood, the only thing in the world worth falling in love with is a good-looking woman/man. Is there nothing else? What about ideals like freedom, justice and equality? Are they not worth loving? Are they not worth living for, fighting for and dying for? Every guy tells his girlfriend that he will die for her, but how many have actually done that? On the other hand, history is drenched with the blood of the crores of men and women who gave their lives for their country and their ideals. Yet Bollywood prides itself on churning out boy-meets-girl flicks (with the boy and girl singing and dancing around trees). The pinnacle of this industry's achievement is Salman Khan starrers that gross Rs 100 crore at the box office. As for the smug and pompous Karan Johar, he will earn my respect the day he makes a picture that moves me and inspires me – like Lincoln.
05 February 2013
India's Politics = Money + Muscle + Caste
Indian politics is nothing but the politics of money, muscle and caste. How did this come about?
* 30% of India lives in poverty.
* 25% of India is illiterate.
* 70% of India lives in villages.
* 50% of India works in agriculture.
* India had 1000 years of feudalism (under the Turks, Mughals and British).
Having a democracy based on universal adult franchise in such a society automatically leads to the politics of money, muscle and caste. Money, muscle and caste politics is nothing but the logical consequence of opting for adult franchise in 1947.
Liberals staunchly defend universal franchise, and staunchly criticise money, muscle and caste politics. But the latter is a direct result of the former.
See India's Democracy = Corruption + Violence + Casteism
* 30% of India lives in poverty.
* 25% of India is illiterate.
* 70% of India lives in villages.
* 50% of India works in agriculture.
* India had 1000 years of feudalism (under the Turks, Mughals and British).
Having a democracy based on universal adult franchise in such a society automatically leads to the politics of money, muscle and caste. Money, muscle and caste politics is nothing but the logical consequence of opting for adult franchise in 1947.
Liberals staunchly defend universal franchise, and staunchly criticise money, muscle and caste politics. But the latter is a direct result of the former.
See India's Democracy = Corruption + Violence + Casteism
05 January 2013
India's Politics: Corruption
Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on corruption:
"An elaborate network of patronage has developed, extending deep into the countryside. Much of this is controlled and directed from levels lower than the state. Availability of new kinds of jobs, distribution of loans and benefits, control of institutions dealing with credit and scarce materials, establishment of new positions of prestige and authority, the penetration of educational institutions and voluntary organisations with new resources, and above all a known and intelligible pattern of influence and corruption – all these have brought life and significance to the governmental machine, endowed it with political meaning, and led to an increasing communication between traditional society and the new structure of institutions."
"An elaborate network of patronage has developed, extending deep into the countryside. Much of this is controlled and directed from levels lower than the state. Availability of new kinds of jobs, distribution of loans and benefits, control of institutions dealing with credit and scarce materials, establishment of new positions of prestige and authority, the penetration of educational institutions and voluntary organisations with new resources, and above all a known and intelligible pattern of influence and corruption – all these have brought life and significance to the governmental machine, endowed it with political meaning, and led to an increasing communication between traditional society and the new structure of institutions."
04 January 2013
India's Politics: The Urban Middle Class
Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on how the urban middle class lost power to the rural zamindars:
"Different stages in the social organisation of politics call for somewhat different leadership and organisational skills, and the movement from one stage to another may displace one kind of leadership by another. Consequently, one social group endowed with one type of social skills may be displaced by another endowed with another type of skills.
Thus in the early stage of intellectual awakening and urban-style political organisation, the need was for people able to deal with Western and Westernised administrators, well-versed in fine points of debate and ideological disputation, possessing legal acumen, and capable of founding and sustaining small associations of public-minded persons that would agitate for specific causes. Such men were mainly provided by the Brahminic and traditional administrative classes who not only took to the new education but had also been endowed by a long tradition of scholastic knowledge and formal brilliance.
With the movement into a more diversified and mass-oriented politics, however, not only was there a need for a wider base of support articulation but also for new types of managerial and organisational skills. With this shift in orientation, the Brahminic and administrative castes began to be outnumbered by men from commercial and peasant proprietor occupations, occupations that had always called for a high level of interpersonal skills, a pragmatic and bargaining approach to problems, and an ability to marshal a new type of solidarity among their own castes, often based on a reinterpretation of their traditional status and a populist and anti-elitist ideology. These were the new entrepreneurs, the new innovators, of politics. They were less modern than the elites they replaced, less educated and more rural-based, operated through an idiom that was decidedly more traditional.
There has taken place a growing politicisation of the traditional sub-centres of Indian society. The rural elites have seized the organisation of these sub-centres and have on the basis of a new consolidation – caste federations, cooperative societies, panchayati raj – pushed themselves upward to state and national levels. Utilising the opportunities of cooptation offered by the metropolitan elite, they have occupied crucial positions at higher levels and have generally succeeded in outnumbering and outwitting the modernists."
"Different stages in the social organisation of politics call for somewhat different leadership and organisational skills, and the movement from one stage to another may displace one kind of leadership by another. Consequently, one social group endowed with one type of social skills may be displaced by another endowed with another type of skills.
Thus in the early stage of intellectual awakening and urban-style political organisation, the need was for people able to deal with Western and Westernised administrators, well-versed in fine points of debate and ideological disputation, possessing legal acumen, and capable of founding and sustaining small associations of public-minded persons that would agitate for specific causes. Such men were mainly provided by the Brahminic and traditional administrative classes who not only took to the new education but had also been endowed by a long tradition of scholastic knowledge and formal brilliance.
With the movement into a more diversified and mass-oriented politics, however, not only was there a need for a wider base of support articulation but also for new types of managerial and organisational skills. With this shift in orientation, the Brahminic and administrative castes began to be outnumbered by men from commercial and peasant proprietor occupations, occupations that had always called for a high level of interpersonal skills, a pragmatic and bargaining approach to problems, and an ability to marshal a new type of solidarity among their own castes, often based on a reinterpretation of their traditional status and a populist and anti-elitist ideology. These were the new entrepreneurs, the new innovators, of politics. They were less modern than the elites they replaced, less educated and more rural-based, operated through an idiom that was decidedly more traditional.
There has taken place a growing politicisation of the traditional sub-centres of Indian society. The rural elites have seized the organisation of these sub-centres and have on the basis of a new consolidation – caste federations, cooperative societies, panchayati raj – pushed themselves upward to state and national levels. Utilising the opportunities of cooptation offered by the metropolitan elite, they have occupied crucial positions at higher levels and have generally succeeded in outnumbering and outwitting the modernists."
03 January 2013
India's Politicians: The Rural Zamindars
Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on politicians – the rural zamindars:
"In order to make itself secure in office, the ruling groups in the states have increasingly relied on the rural vote, spreading its patronage far and wide controlling local authorities, educational institutions and other developmental agencies, including important voluntary organisations. Concomitantly, institutional power shifted downward and a different set of men emerged who took charge of these networks, captured positions in the party organisation, and slowly acquired considerable strength and power.
The new organisation men that emerged are to be found away from the urban centres of state power in small towns and district capitals, closer to the traditional order, and exhibiting a new style in Indian politics. They are pragmatic men, less oriented to the modernist idiom but modernisers in their own way, men who understand the subtleties and nuances of local society, powerful persons who have taken time in coming up, and who are therefore confident of their own strength. When elections come, the state leaders have to rely increasingly upon these men who happen both to occupy positions of influence in the institutions of planned change and to be in close communication with socially entrenched and economically powerful local elites. Some of them are popular leaders, others ruthless managers, but they control the vote.
Generally coming from the well-to-do class of peasant proprietors, they are men of some means, skilled in the art of managing men and running institutions, and very knowledgeable concerning local conditions.
They have to establish a rapport with the local bullies (muscle) who can intimidate and cajole the people, who normally keep faith, and who in their crude way maintain peace in the locality."
"In order to make itself secure in office, the ruling groups in the states have increasingly relied on the rural vote, spreading its patronage far and wide controlling local authorities, educational institutions and other developmental agencies, including important voluntary organisations. Concomitantly, institutional power shifted downward and a different set of men emerged who took charge of these networks, captured positions in the party organisation, and slowly acquired considerable strength and power.
The new organisation men that emerged are to be found away from the urban centres of state power in small towns and district capitals, closer to the traditional order, and exhibiting a new style in Indian politics. They are pragmatic men, less oriented to the modernist idiom but modernisers in their own way, men who understand the subtleties and nuances of local society, powerful persons who have taken time in coming up, and who are therefore confident of their own strength. When elections come, the state leaders have to rely increasingly upon these men who happen both to occupy positions of influence in the institutions of planned change and to be in close communication with socially entrenched and economically powerful local elites. Some of them are popular leaders, others ruthless managers, but they control the vote.
Generally coming from the well-to-do class of peasant proprietors, they are men of some means, skilled in the art of managing men and running institutions, and very knowledgeable concerning local conditions.
They have to establish a rapport with the local bullies (muscle) who can intimidate and cajole the people, who normally keep faith, and who in their crude way maintain peace in the locality."
02 January 2013
India's Politics: Caste
Rajni Kothari ("Politics in India", 1970) on caste:
"Everyone recognises that the social system in India is organised around caste structures and caste identities. In dealing with the relationship between caste and politics, however, the tendency is to start at the wrong end of the question: Is caste disappearing? In part such an approach comes from a widely held dichotomy between traditional and modern forms of organisation. In reality, however, no social system disappears. A more useful point of departure would be: What form is caste taking under the impact of politics, and what form is politics taking in a caste-oriented society?
Those who complain of 'casteism in politics' in India are really looking for a sort of politics that has no basis in society. They also probably lack any clear conception of either the nature of politics or the nature of the caste system. (Some of them would want to throw out both politics and the caste system) The process of politics is one of identifying and manipulating existing structures in order to mobilise support and consolidate positions. Where the caste structure provides one of the most important organisational clusters in which the population is found to live, politics must strive to organise through such a structure."
"Everyone recognises that the social system in India is organised around caste structures and caste identities. In dealing with the relationship between caste and politics, however, the tendency is to start at the wrong end of the question: Is caste disappearing? In part such an approach comes from a widely held dichotomy between traditional and modern forms of organisation. In reality, however, no social system disappears. A more useful point of departure would be: What form is caste taking under the impact of politics, and what form is politics taking in a caste-oriented society?
Those who complain of 'casteism in politics' in India are really looking for a sort of politics that has no basis in society. They also probably lack any clear conception of either the nature of politics or the nature of the caste system. (Some of them would want to throw out both politics and the caste system) The process of politics is one of identifying and manipulating existing structures in order to mobilise support and consolidate positions. Where the caste structure provides one of the most important organisational clusters in which the population is found to live, politics must strive to organise through such a structure."
01 January 2013
"Politics in India": Rajni Kothari
Rajni Kothari's "Politics in India" (1970) is a systematic study of Indian politics.
Contents:
A. Introduction
1. Theoretical background
2. Historical background
3. Political background
B. The Political System
4. Development of the system
5. Political parties
C. The System's Environment
6. Indian/Hindu society
7. Indian/Hindu culture
D. The System's Performance
8. Political performance
9. Economic performance
10. Foreign affairs
11. Future trends
Contents:
A. Introduction
1. Theoretical background
2. Historical background
3. Political background
B. The Political System
4. Development of the system
5. Political parties
C. The System's Environment
6. Indian/Hindu society
7. Indian/Hindu culture
D. The System's Performance
8. Political performance
9. Economic performance
10. Foreign affairs
11. Future trends
20 December 2012
India: Ordinary Men Vs Great Men (Society/Family)
A brilliant psychological analysis* of how the Indian society/family is designed to produce a mass of ordinary men and only a very few great men (like Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi):
"Almost all students of Indian personality have been struck by the extreme indulgence of the Indian child, principally by the mother but also by other members of the family. This gives rise to a sense of omnipotence in the infant, a feeling that is fortified by nursing practices and physical proximity with the mother for an extended period of time.
An important consequence of this is that there develops in the Indian child a strong individual ego. As a result, moral energy does not come from the pressure of guilt feelings arising from a failure to live up to the social ideal, but depends crucially on a self-cultivated individual ideal. Fulfillment of the ideals set for the individual – rather than social obligation – becomes the main drive for moral action.
This creates wide gaps in individual capacities. For the average Indian, as morality has reference to self-directed and introspective perfection, the compulsion to perform is not very great. On the other hand, the culture develops high and universalist ideals with which the creative and power-motivated individuals strongly identify: the theme that the individual itself is the Absolute drives them to ever higher levels of perfection.
This gulf between the drives of ordinary men and those of great men results in abstract concepts of duty and morality, and a personality ideal that is high and remote – realisable only by exceptional men whose authority derives from their capacity to embody virtues that are lacking in ordinary men. Hence the exaggerated role of the guru, the ascetic, the warrior, and indirectly of a hierarchy of roles, and charisma."
*Politics in India – Rajni Kothari (1970)
See Nietzsche's "Superman" Theory
"Almost all students of Indian personality have been struck by the extreme indulgence of the Indian child, principally by the mother but also by other members of the family. This gives rise to a sense of omnipotence in the infant, a feeling that is fortified by nursing practices and physical proximity with the mother for an extended period of time.
An important consequence of this is that there develops in the Indian child a strong individual ego. As a result, moral energy does not come from the pressure of guilt feelings arising from a failure to live up to the social ideal, but depends crucially on a self-cultivated individual ideal. Fulfillment of the ideals set for the individual – rather than social obligation – becomes the main drive for moral action.
This creates wide gaps in individual capacities. For the average Indian, as morality has reference to self-directed and introspective perfection, the compulsion to perform is not very great. On the other hand, the culture develops high and universalist ideals with which the creative and power-motivated individuals strongly identify: the theme that the individual itself is the Absolute drives them to ever higher levels of perfection.
This gulf between the drives of ordinary men and those of great men results in abstract concepts of duty and morality, and a personality ideal that is high and remote – realisable only by exceptional men whose authority derives from their capacity to embody virtues that are lacking in ordinary men. Hence the exaggerated role of the guru, the ascetic, the warrior, and indirectly of a hierarchy of roles, and charisma."
*Politics in India – Rajni Kothari (1970)
See Nietzsche's "Superman" Theory
05 November 2012
India: Ancient Vs Medieval - Traditional Vs Feudal Politico-Economic Systems
A comparison of the politico-economic systems of ancient and medieval India (traditional vs feudal):
| . | ||
| 1. Nationality of the rulers | ||
| . | ||
| 2. Objective of the system | ||
| . | ||
| 3. Basis of the system | ||
| . | ||
| 4. Political nature | ||
| . | ||
| 5. Economic objective | ||
| . | ||
| 6. Religious agenda | ||
| . | ||
| 7. Legal basis |
16 October 2012
Materialism, Spirituality and Idealism in India
What is the purpose of life? All human goals can be classified into 4 groups:
1. Kama (desire, pleasure)
2. Artha (wealth, power)
3. Dharma (morality, duty)
4. Moksha (salvation)
Accordingly we have the 3 philosophies of life:
A. Materialism – The pursuit of Kama and Artha
B. Idealism – The pursuit of Dharma
C. Spirituality – The pursuit of Moksha
Materialism does not give us happiness. Worse, it breeds selfishness, dishonesty and corruption – leading to the downfall of the society/nation. Example: Roman Empire.
Spirituality is offered as an alternative to materialism. But spirituality is an other-worldly philosophy. It rejects life in this world. By neglecting society, it also leads to the downfall of a nation. Example: India around 1000 AD.
So what is the solution? Lost between the two extremes of materialism and spirituality is the true answer: idealism – the pursuit of Dharma. If people live by certain simple rules (ie, morality) and do their duty sincerely, it brings both individual happiness and social well-being.
For 4000 years India gave primacy to Dharma – and was the world's richest and most powerful civilisation. Then, for some reason, we started giving primacy to Moksha. The result was we were conquered and ruled by foreigners (Turks, Mughals, British) for 1000 years.
In 1947 AD (Kali Yuga 5049) we finally became free. It was a golden opportunity to restore Dharma as the foundation of our nation. Instead, we confused Dharma with religion and threw it into the dustbin (because we are "secular"). The vacuum was filled by materialism. The results are there for all to see today.
The time has come to rescue India from both materialism and spirituality, and restore idealism (Dharma) as our national philosophy.
1. Kama (desire, pleasure)
2. Artha (wealth, power)
3. Dharma (morality, duty)
4. Moksha (salvation)
Accordingly we have the 3 philosophies of life:
A. Materialism – The pursuit of Kama and Artha
B. Idealism – The pursuit of Dharma
C. Spirituality – The pursuit of Moksha
Materialism does not give us happiness. Worse, it breeds selfishness, dishonesty and corruption – leading to the downfall of the society/nation. Example: Roman Empire.
Spirituality is offered as an alternative to materialism. But spirituality is an other-worldly philosophy. It rejects life in this world. By neglecting society, it also leads to the downfall of a nation. Example: India around 1000 AD.
So what is the solution? Lost between the two extremes of materialism and spirituality is the true answer: idealism – the pursuit of Dharma. If people live by certain simple rules (ie, morality) and do their duty sincerely, it brings both individual happiness and social well-being.
For 4000 years India gave primacy to Dharma – and was the world's richest and most powerful civilisation. Then, for some reason, we started giving primacy to Moksha. The result was we were conquered and ruled by foreigners (Turks, Mughals, British) for 1000 years.
In 1947 AD (Kali Yuga 5049) we finally became free. It was a golden opportunity to restore Dharma as the foundation of our nation. Instead, we confused Dharma with religion and threw it into the dustbin (because we are "secular"). The vacuum was filled by materialism. The results are there for all to see today.
The time has come to rescue India from both materialism and spirituality, and restore idealism (Dharma) as our national philosophy.
See:
01 September 2012
The Most Important People in Society
The most important people in society are:
1. Farmers
2. Teachers
3. Soldiers
But they are given the least importance.
The most useless people in society are:
1. Movie stars
2. Cricket players
3. Politicians
But they are given the most importance.
1. Farmers
2. Teachers
3. Soldiers
But they are given the least importance.
The most useless people in society are:
1. Movie stars
2. Cricket players
3. Politicians
But they are given the most importance.
04 August 2012
Classification of World Religions
Classification of world religions:
A. Indian (Hindu/Aryan)
1. Shaivism
2. Vaishnavism
3. Shaktism
4. Buddhism
5. Jainism
6. Sikhism
B. East Asian (Sinic)
1. Confucianism
2. Taoism
3. Shintoism
C. West Asian (Semitic)
1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam
A. Indian (Hindu/Aryan)
1. Shaivism
2. Vaishnavism
3. Shaktism
4. Buddhism
5. Jainism
6. Sikhism
B. East Asian (Sinic)
1. Confucianism
2. Taoism
3. Shintoism
C. West Asian (Semitic)
1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam
07 July 2012
When Did World War 2 Start?
Q: When Did World War 2 Start?
A: 1939
WRONG! World War 2 began in 1937, when Japan invaded China on 7 July 1937.
On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland – starting the Second World War in Europe. But the war itself had already begun.
Western historians say World War 2 began in 1939, not 1937. This only shows their Western bias and Euro-centric view of the world. There is no need for us to parrot this lie.
Today is the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the most destructive war in history.
A: 1939
WRONG! World War 2 began in 1937, when Japan invaded China on 7 July 1937.
On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland – starting the Second World War in Europe. But the war itself had already begun.
Western historians say World War 2 began in 1939, not 1937. This only shows their Western bias and Euro-centric view of the world. There is no need for us to parrot this lie.
Today is the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the most destructive war in history.
17 June 2012
India's Caste/Varna System: An Economic System
The four inputs (factors) of production are land, labour, capital and knowledge. Efficiency can be achieved by specialisation. In ancient India, different social groups (Varnas) specialised in handling the different factors of production:
Thus the Varna/caste system was born, based on economic specialisation.
See The Origin of the Varna/Caste System.
| Varna | |
| Brahmana | |
| Kshatriya | |
| Vaishya | |
| Shudra |
Thus the Varna/caste system was born, based on economic specialisation.
See The Origin of the Varna/Caste System.
04 May 2012
"IF" - Rudyard Kipling: Kannada Translation
My crude Kannada translation of Rudyard Kipling's "IF" (1895):
ಧೀರ
ಜನ ತಲೆ ಕೆಟ್ಟು ನಿನಗೆ ಶಾಪ ಹಾಕಿದಾಗ,
ನೀನು ಶಾಂತವಾಗಿರು.
ಯಾರೂ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ನಂಬದಿದ್ದಾಗ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ನೀನು ನಂಬು,
ಆದರೆ ಅವರ ಸಂದೇಹವನ್ನೂ ಗೌರವಿಸು.
ಜೀವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಯುವುದು ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯ;
ಕಾಯುವುದರಿಂದ ಸುಸ್ತಾಗದಿರು.
ನಿನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಜನ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ, ನೀನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳದಿರು.
ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ಜನ ದ್ವೇಷಿಸಿದಾಗ, ನೀನು ದ್ವೇಷಿಸದಿರು.
ಆದರೂ ಸಂತನ ಹಾಗೆ ಕಾಣದಿರು, ಋಷಿಯ ಹಾಗೆ ನುಡಿಯದಿರು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಕನಸು ಕಾಣು - ಆದರೆ ಕನಸುಗಳು ನಿನ್ನ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಆಗದಿರಲಿ.
ಚಿಂತನೆ ಮಾಡು - ಆದರೆ ಚಿಂತನೆಗಳು ನಿನ್ನ ಗುರಿ ಆಗದಿರಲಿ.
ಗೆಲುವು-ಸೋಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಿ,
ಆ ಎರಡು ವಂಚಕರನ್ನು ಸಮವಾಗಿ ನೋಡು.
ನೀನು ಹೇಳಿದ ಸತ್ಯವನ್ನು ನೀಚರು ತಿರುಚಿಸಿ
ಮೂರ್ಖರಿಗೆ ಬಲೆ ಹೆಣೆದರೆ ಹೆಣೆಯಲಿ.
ನೀನು ಜೀವನ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಕಾರ್ಯ ನಾಶವಾದಾಗ,
ಬಗ್ಗಿ ಸವೆದು ಹೋದ ಯಂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿಸು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಜೀವನದ ಜೂಜಾಟದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀನು ಗೆದ್ದಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಶಿ ಮಾಡಿ,
ಅದನ್ನು ನಾಣ್ಯದ ಒಂದು ಎಸೆತದ ಮೇಲೆ ಜೂಜಿಡು.
ಸೋತರೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಮೊದಲಿನಿಂದ ಆಟ ಶುರು ಮಾಡು;
ಯಾರಿಗೂ ನಿನ್ನ ನಷ್ಟದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೇಳದಿರು.
ಎದೆ-ನರ-ಸ್ನಾಯುಗಳು ಕಿತ್ತು ಹೋದರೂ ಹೋರಾಟ ಮಾಡು
ನಿನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ "ಮುನ್ನಡೆ!" ಎನ್ನುವ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಒಂದೇ ಉಳಿದಾಗ
ನೀನು ಮುನ್ನಡೆ!
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಬಡವರ ಜತೆ ನುಡಿ - ಆದರೆ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠನಾಗಿರು.
ಒಡೆಯರ ಜತೆ ನಡೆ - ಆದರೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯನಾಗಿರು.
ಶತ್ರುಗಳು ಮಿತ್ರರು ಯಾರೂ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ದುಃಖಿಸಬಲ್ಲರು.
ಎಲ್ಲರನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸು, ಯಾರನ್ನೂ ಮೋಹಿಸಬೇಡ.
ನಿರ್ದಯ ದಿನವನ್ನು 24 ಗಂಟೆಗಳ ಕೆಲಸದಿಂದ ತುಂಬಿಸು.
ಈ ಭೂಮಿ ನಿನ್ನದು, ಈ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನದು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಜನ ತಲೆ ಕೆಟ್ಟು ನಿನಗೆ ಶಾಪ ಹಾಕಿದಾಗ,
ನೀನು ಶಾಂತವಾಗಿರು.
ಯಾರೂ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ನಂಬದಿದ್ದಾಗ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ನೀನು ನಂಬು,
ಆದರೆ ಅವರ ಸಂದೇಹವನ್ನೂ ಗೌರವಿಸು.
ಜೀವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಯುವುದು ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯ;
ಕಾಯುವುದರಿಂದ ಸುಸ್ತಾಗದಿರು.
ನಿನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಜನ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ, ನೀನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳದಿರು.
ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ಜನ ದ್ವೇಷಿಸಿದಾಗ, ನೀನು ದ್ವೇಷಿಸದಿರು.
ಆದರೂ ಸಂತನ ಹಾಗೆ ಕಾಣದಿರು, ಋಷಿಯ ಹಾಗೆ ನುಡಿಯದಿರು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಕನಸು ಕಾಣು - ಆದರೆ ಕನಸುಗಳು ನಿನ್ನ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಆಗದಿರಲಿ.
ಚಿಂತನೆ ಮಾಡು - ಆದರೆ ಚಿಂತನೆಗಳು ನಿನ್ನ ಗುರಿ ಆಗದಿರಲಿ.
ಗೆಲುವು-ಸೋಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಿ,
ಆ ಎರಡು ವಂಚಕರನ್ನು ಸಮವಾಗಿ ನೋಡು.
ನೀನು ಹೇಳಿದ ಸತ್ಯವನ್ನು ನೀಚರು ತಿರುಚಿಸಿ
ಮೂರ್ಖರಿಗೆ ಬಲೆ ಹೆಣೆದರೆ ಹೆಣೆಯಲಿ.
ನೀನು ಜೀವನ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಕಾರ್ಯ ನಾಶವಾದಾಗ,
ಬಗ್ಗಿ ಸವೆದು ಹೋದ ಯಂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿಸು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಜೀವನದ ಜೂಜಾಟದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀನು ಗೆದ್ದಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಶಿ ಮಾಡಿ,
ಅದನ್ನು ನಾಣ್ಯದ ಒಂದು ಎಸೆತದ ಮೇಲೆ ಜೂಜಿಡು.
ಸೋತರೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಮೊದಲಿನಿಂದ ಆಟ ಶುರು ಮಾಡು;
ಯಾರಿಗೂ ನಿನ್ನ ನಷ್ಟದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೇಳದಿರು.
ಎದೆ-ನರ-ಸ್ನಾಯುಗಳು ಕಿತ್ತು ಹೋದರೂ ಹೋರಾಟ ಮಾಡು
ನಿನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ "ಮುನ್ನಡೆ!" ಎನ್ನುವ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಒಂದೇ ಉಳಿದಾಗ
ನೀನು ಮುನ್ನಡೆ!
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
ಬಡವರ ಜತೆ ನುಡಿ - ಆದರೆ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠನಾಗಿರು.
ಒಡೆಯರ ಜತೆ ನಡೆ - ಆದರೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯನಾಗಿರು.
ಶತ್ರುಗಳು ಮಿತ್ರರು ಯಾರೂ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ದುಃಖಿಸಬಲ್ಲರು.
ಎಲ್ಲರನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸು, ಯಾರನ್ನೂ ಮೋಹಿಸಬೇಡ.
ನಿರ್ದಯ ದಿನವನ್ನು 24 ಗಂಟೆಗಳ ಕೆಲಸದಿಂದ ತುಂಬಿಸು.
ಈ ಭೂಮಿ ನಿನ್ನದು, ಈ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನದು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.
12 April 2012
Dipankar Gupta: "Mistaken Modernity - India Between Worlds"
Dipankar Gupta was professor of sociology at JNU. A review of his "Mistaken Modernity: India Between Worlds" (2000):
Modernity
"Modernity has to do with attitudes, especially those that come into play in social relations. A modern society is one in which at least the following characteristics must be present:
- Dignity of the individual
- Adherence to universalistic norms
- Elevation of individual achievement over privileges of birth
- Accountability in public life."
This is a very narrow and selective definition of modernity. Modernity refers to the totality of the technology, economy, society, politics and culture that came into being after the Industrial Revolution. See Modernity: Technology, Economy, Society, Politics.
Modernisation
"Once these attributes are in place, it does not really matter if there is high-level technology. Generally speaking, technology (is a) consequence of the four characteristics of modernisation listed above, and (does not by itself) constitute modernity."
This is complete nonsense. The above characteristics are the features of an industrial society – which was the product of the Industrial Revolution. See The Techno-Economic Basis of Society.
India Today
"An analysis of contemporary India will reveal that while there has been a definite move from tradition, what we see around us is not yet modern. If the clock were to stop here, the final diagnosis should declare India as still unmodern."
Of course India is not yet modern. India began modernising properly only from 1991 onwards. See India's Modernisation. Today India can be said to be only 50% modern. See my Index of Modernisation. By the way, this delay in India's modernisation was due to Nehru's socialism – which Prof Gupta also believes in (see below).
Economics
"In this era (of globalisation), trade unions have been laid low and, along with it, the emphasis on production and producers as the main planks of economic thought and policy making. In their place, the consumer has stepped in and has become pivotal in all calculations.
Thus in the age when production was central, technologies entered only if they first cleared national barriers regarding what will be produced. Today, consumers get the first preference and any obstruction, in getting these goods and services across to them is anathema to the ideology of globalisation. In the age of globalisation, the consumer is king while the producer has been put out to pasture.
In other words, economic policies today tend to centre on what consumers want. It is no longer material if this brings about unemployment, greater economic dependency or lack of trade union privileges. These issues mattered a great deal in the age of internationalisation, which was production-centric."
Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, two halves of the same process. How can there be any production without consumption? What is the use of producing goods for which there is no demand? Prof Gupta should stick to sociology, and leave economics alone (but then, he has gotten his sociology also wrong). To talk about production vs consumption is meaningless. His real argument here is socialism vs capitalism.
Socialism
"(Before globalisation,) national well-being and economic sovereignty were critical issues then that could not be ignored; indeed, these had to be kept up front in any policy formulation. This approach quite logically favoured planned and centralised development in which workers' rights, wages, wage goods and production conditions were critical considerations. Therefore, if the long-term interest of the nation meant that cars of a certain kind, or colour televisions, would not be produced because that might jeopardise a country's economic self-reliance, then that was that.
Economic restrictions and trade policies that earlier determined what will be produced, and how, are now looked at with distaste."
Here Prof Gupta openly makes the case for socialism. These are exactly the policies that kept India poor for 40 years – and delayed India's modernisation (an issue he is so worked up over).
Tradition
"The encumbrances of tradition permanently debased large numbers of people who were locked in an unyielding social hierarchy. There was no such thing as a universal law in traditional India, leaving subjects completely at the whim of their superiors. People suffered untold misery because of the accident of their birth.
Anyone who has seen how tradition has shackled the poor, or how it has tormented Hindu widows, will not have the slightest hesitation in welcoming modernity with all its stated drawbacks."
Tradition is the way of life of agricultural society, and modernity is the way of life of industrial society. Agricultural society was an unequal society all over the world – not just in India. Even Western society was like this before the Industrial Revolution.
Feudalism
"Much of the recent spate of murders and mayhem is only a bold reassertion of traditional Indian culture. Women and underlings must always be subservient, or else. Those wielding positions of power are not accountable to anyone. Children, especially boys, are supposed to run amok all their lives, more so if they come from privileged homes.
To hold modernity responsible for the grisly incidents of urban violence perpetrated by political brats, or to blame westernisation for the molestation of women in hotel discotheques, only corroborates what we Indians hate to admit: that our traditional culture is deeply flawed at its core."
These perversions are not "tradition", but feudalism – which was the product of 1000 years of Islamic and British rule. See India: Ancient, Medieval, Modern Periods. It is not Hindu tradition that is "deeply flawed at its core", but Islamic+British feudalism – which sadly still survives in India today.
It is Prof Gupta who is mistaken about modernity (and many other things), not India.
Modernity
"Modernity has to do with attitudes, especially those that come into play in social relations. A modern society is one in which at least the following characteristics must be present:
- Dignity of the individual
- Adherence to universalistic norms
- Elevation of individual achievement over privileges of birth
- Accountability in public life."
This is a very narrow and selective definition of modernity. Modernity refers to the totality of the technology, economy, society, politics and culture that came into being after the Industrial Revolution. See Modernity: Technology, Economy, Society, Politics.
Modernisation
"Once these attributes are in place, it does not really matter if there is high-level technology. Generally speaking, technology (is a) consequence of the four characteristics of modernisation listed above, and (does not by itself) constitute modernity."
This is complete nonsense. The above characteristics are the features of an industrial society – which was the product of the Industrial Revolution. See The Techno-Economic Basis of Society.
India Today
"An analysis of contemporary India will reveal that while there has been a definite move from tradition, what we see around us is not yet modern. If the clock were to stop here, the final diagnosis should declare India as still unmodern."
Of course India is not yet modern. India began modernising properly only from 1991 onwards. See India's Modernisation. Today India can be said to be only 50% modern. See my Index of Modernisation. By the way, this delay in India's modernisation was due to Nehru's socialism – which Prof Gupta also believes in (see below).
Economics
"In this era (of globalisation), trade unions have been laid low and, along with it, the emphasis on production and producers as the main planks of economic thought and policy making. In their place, the consumer has stepped in and has become pivotal in all calculations.
Thus in the age when production was central, technologies entered only if they first cleared national barriers regarding what will be produced. Today, consumers get the first preference and any obstruction, in getting these goods and services across to them is anathema to the ideology of globalisation. In the age of globalisation, the consumer is king while the producer has been put out to pasture.
In other words, economic policies today tend to centre on what consumers want. It is no longer material if this brings about unemployment, greater economic dependency or lack of trade union privileges. These issues mattered a great deal in the age of internationalisation, which was production-centric."
Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, two halves of the same process. How can there be any production without consumption? What is the use of producing goods for which there is no demand? Prof Gupta should stick to sociology, and leave economics alone (but then, he has gotten his sociology also wrong). To talk about production vs consumption is meaningless. His real argument here is socialism vs capitalism.
Socialism
"(Before globalisation,) national well-being and economic sovereignty were critical issues then that could not be ignored; indeed, these had to be kept up front in any policy formulation. This approach quite logically favoured planned and centralised development in which workers' rights, wages, wage goods and production conditions were critical considerations. Therefore, if the long-term interest of the nation meant that cars of a certain kind, or colour televisions, would not be produced because that might jeopardise a country's economic self-reliance, then that was that.
Economic restrictions and trade policies that earlier determined what will be produced, and how, are now looked at with distaste."
Here Prof Gupta openly makes the case for socialism. These are exactly the policies that kept India poor for 40 years – and delayed India's modernisation (an issue he is so worked up over).
Tradition
"The encumbrances of tradition permanently debased large numbers of people who were locked in an unyielding social hierarchy. There was no such thing as a universal law in traditional India, leaving subjects completely at the whim of their superiors. People suffered untold misery because of the accident of their birth.
Anyone who has seen how tradition has shackled the poor, or how it has tormented Hindu widows, will not have the slightest hesitation in welcoming modernity with all its stated drawbacks."
Tradition is the way of life of agricultural society, and modernity is the way of life of industrial society. Agricultural society was an unequal society all over the world – not just in India. Even Western society was like this before the Industrial Revolution.
Feudalism
"Much of the recent spate of murders and mayhem is only a bold reassertion of traditional Indian culture. Women and underlings must always be subservient, or else. Those wielding positions of power are not accountable to anyone. Children, especially boys, are supposed to run amok all their lives, more so if they come from privileged homes.
To hold modernity responsible for the grisly incidents of urban violence perpetrated by political brats, or to blame westernisation for the molestation of women in hotel discotheques, only corroborates what we Indians hate to admit: that our traditional culture is deeply flawed at its core."
These perversions are not "tradition", but feudalism – which was the product of 1000 years of Islamic and British rule. See India: Ancient, Medieval, Modern Periods. It is not Hindu tradition that is "deeply flawed at its core", but Islamic+British feudalism – which sadly still survives in India today.
It is Prof Gupta who is mistaken about modernity (and many other things), not India.
01 March 2012
Industrialisation/Modernisation: Definition
What is industrialisation/modernisation? What is its definition?
Industrialisation/modernisation = Increasing output by using technology (in agriculture, industry and services – in that order).
This is the core/heart/essence of industrialisation or modernisation.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Economic Development"):
"A broader view of industrialisation is more relevant to economic development. In this sense, industrialisation is the application of modern science, technology and management to the task of raising the productivity of resources – not only in the manufacturing sector but in the economy as a whole, including the agricultural sector."
Industrialisation/modernisation = Increasing output by using technology (in agriculture, industry and services – in that order).
This is the core/heart/essence of industrialisation or modernisation.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Economic Development"):
"A broader view of industrialisation is more relevant to economic development. In this sense, industrialisation is the application of modern science, technology and management to the task of raising the productivity of resources – not only in the manufacturing sector but in the economy as a whole, including the agricultural sector."
06 February 2012
India's Development and the Five-Year Plans
Development economics tells us that the keys to a country's development are:
1. Agriculture
2. Education
3. Healthcare
4. Infrastructure
How has India fared in these four areas (in terms of inputs) since 1947? Let us look at the resource allocation for different sectors in our Five-Year Plans:
a) "Agriculture" = Agriculture + Irrigation. From the Seventh Plan onward, it includes Rural Development also.
b) "Infrastructure" = Energy + Transport and Communications.
c) "Social Services" = Education + Healthcare + other services. Separate figures for Education and Healthcare are available only till the Sixth Plan. Till the Sixth Plan, allocations for Education and Healthcare averaged around 6% and 4% respectively – together about 50% of "Social Services".
d) Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding off. Also, the Seventh and later Plans have some minor sectors, which I have left out.
1. Agriculture – Average
2. Education – Poor
3. Healthcare – Poor
4. Infrastructure – Good
Data from Indian Economy (2010) by S K Misra and V K Puri.
1. Agriculture
2. Education
3. Healthcare
4. Infrastructure
How has India fared in these four areas (in terms of inputs) since 1947? Let us look at the resource allocation for different sectors in our Five-Year Plans:
| Plan | Agriculture | Industry | Infrastructure | Social Services |
| 1. 1951–56 | ||||
| 2. 1956–61 | ||||
| 3. 1961–66 | ||||
| A. 1966–69 | ||||
| 4. 1969–74 | ||||
| 5. 1974–79 | ||||
| 6. 1980–85 | ||||
| 7. 1985–90 | ||||
| 8. 1992–97 | ||||
| 9. 1997–02 | ||||
| 10. 2002–07 | ||||
| 11. 2007–12 | ||||
a) "Agriculture" = Agriculture + Irrigation. From the Seventh Plan onward, it includes Rural Development also.
b) "Infrastructure" = Energy + Transport and Communications.
c) "Social Services" = Education + Healthcare + other services. Separate figures for Education and Healthcare are available only till the Sixth Plan. Till the Sixth Plan, allocations for Education and Healthcare averaged around 6% and 4% respectively – together about 50% of "Social Services".
d) Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding off. Also, the Seventh and later Plans have some minor sectors, which I have left out.
- Agriculture and Industry were given equal importance till 1974-79. They received an average of 22% and 23% respectively of the total allocation (from 1956-61 to 1974-79). But we should have given more importance to Agriculture – like the East Asian countries.
- Infrastructure was not neglected, contrary to popular opinion. It received the largest share of resources (average 40%). Then why is our infrastructure so poor?
- Education and Healthcare were neglected – getting only around 6% and 4% respectively. This was our biggest mistake. Only in the last two Plans (2002-07 and 2007-12) did we allocate more resources for them – presumably around 9% and 6% respectively.
- Finally, Industry was given importance till 1974-79: average 23%. This decreased with the "limited liberalisation" of the 1980s (1980-85 and 1985-90): average 14%. It decreased even more after the 1991 reforms (1997-2002 onwards): average 4%, with industry being left to the private sector.
1. Agriculture – Average
2. Education – Poor
3. Healthcare – Poor
4. Infrastructure – Good
Data from Indian Economy (2010) by S K Misra and V K Puri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
