Preemptive attack and the power of Weak

Recently I have witnessed an incident while I was travelling by a public transport. There was a verbal duel between two passengers not sure what was the reason but reason per se might be quite an irrelevant item on which we are about to discuss. 

Two actors involved one person visibly weak and the other person reasonably strong, at least that is how they appear. When the duel reached a certain point the stronger one out of frustration slapped the weaker one, it appeared that he could not take it anymore. Then the weaker one just stopped talking. Something interesting ensued thereafter, as the weaker one was about to get down at his bus stop (ie., at his place) he called the big guy and asked sorry for what he has done. That act of asking sorry never appeared genuine at first place; I thought there was more of sarcasm. This stronger guy had some kind of triumphant feeling.

Before the bus could reach next stop the same weaker guy who got down at the previous stop asking apology and all that, brought his friend (a moderately stout guy – in good position to challenge the stronger one who slapped the weaker one earlier). And what happened next is indeed an easy guess, weaker one wanted to avenge.

But quite different happened in the approach the weaker one has taken. The moment these two guys got in to the bus, the weaker one’s friend was seen questioning the stronger one who is already in bus about why he slapped his friend. When they both were talking, taking the benefit of distraction the weaker one slapped the stronger one. Then suddenly I could see the stronger one pushing the weaker one and his friend. In that commotion the weaker one got down and walked away. And the guy who came to support the weaker one had to bear few blows before he could leave. End of the story.

International Relations & Politics

For a very long time this incident has been lingering in my mind and as a student of International Relations and Politics I could not arrest my temptation but to relate this incident to the behavior of nation states. And following questions should guide us in our discussion. And I will try to relate few known issues which are happening around us with this real incident. I shall interchangeably cite the incident mentioned above and few issues in International relations for the purposes of an easy comparison.

1. How a weak country will react if it was attacked by a stronger one (a reference to weaker one and the stronger one in the above mentioned real incident)?
2. What happens if a nation state faces flack for supporting its friendly neighbor or another friendly nation state in crisis situation?
3. What consequences should a strong country take in consideration before it decides to launch a pre-emptive attack on a weaker state?

On Question No.1

If you irritate a mighty super power (stronger one) then you (weaker one) should be ready for consequence/s (weaker one got slapped by the stronger one in the bus) your action generates.

Bin-Laden has been irritating the mighty US for quite some time and for once it retaliated and killed Bin-Laden, that is a consequence for his act of bombing twin towers, pentagon and few other sites in US ie., 9/11 incident.

But then the moment US slapped the weaker one (conventionally & militarily speaking bin laden/Al-Qaida is weaker than US) the scope of conflict expands, Laden’s friends (fellow Jihadis and other terrorist organizations jumped the fray) become a new irritant then the fight goes on and at last after it - US has completely bogged itself down now wants to engage with Taliban to finish the war.

If you don’t have an idea about the consequences your physical attack on other nation state could generate you should not attack. Especially if the other state is a relatively a weaker one the temptation is apparently higher as in the case of Iraq’s invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait, but it failed to factor in the consequences – US retaliation (reaction ?). Two equally stronger ones don’t fight or attack each other directly. US v/s Russia and US v/s China. But US intervenes everywhere else in the world in some pretext or the other.

On Question No.2

Before getting carried away by your friend’s call for help and supporting him you should assess whether it is really worth it. In our original incident the guy who came in supporting the weaker one had to bear few blows. Compare this with US invading/attacking Afghanistan, in the beginning all its European allies and allies elsewhere willingly joined the effort and as it turned out to be an endless quagmire everyone started to get out of it.

If you cannot make an unconditional commitment to your friend’s cause then don’t go for it.

On Question No.3

If you don’t have the skill (or resources) to destroy your opponents with least or no damage to yourself just don’t go for a preemptive attack. US attack on Vietnam could be an example. Mighty US was defeated by Vietnam.

If not nations, these suggestions are definitely helpful for those who travel by public transport daily.

Fighting it out with Tamil ?

When I attempted to Translate this piece from English to Tamil this is how it turns out to be. Thanks to my friend Prabhakar (@prabhakarrk) to help correct (Proof Read indeed) it. Off late I have been spending some time to improve my elementary knowledge on some Indian Classical Languages which Includes Tamil, Telugu and Hindi to some thing better. This is first such an attempt on that quest and here is how I start it by laying my hands on Tamil.

The beginning of the End for Congress Party of India

If the recent four state assembly elections are any indication then that means Congress party is headed for a complete burial. The perception of Monumental corruption & Mal-governance are not the only reasons for people’s anger, it is also because of the harassment it meted out to ordinary public (especially urban electorate) on compulsory Aadhar registration, complex bureaucratic hurdles it created in its name and reduction of subsidized cooking cylinders available per year, these are to name a few in addition to price rise and inflation. At least these are the reasons why I would vote against Congress given a chance.

It could have been a heavy jolt for congress which was conveniently banking on Minority & Secular-Communal farce, because all the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe concentrated areas voted against congress in Delhi. During the campaign congress did not offer any tangible ideas or solutions on the most begging issues such as price rise and inflation instead it limited itself to parrot the propaganda on Food Security Bill, Right to Education and Right Information Act, this proves that Congress ran out of ideas and is a victim of limited imagination.

The urban voter has shown Congress Party its rightful place in Delhi and also all voters in other three states. Its arrogance was so enormous that it always felt that it can get away with diverting people’s attention by bringing in secular-communal card. Congress wants this country to remain poor forever so that it can dole out few sops and freebies to earn their votes and then power. Hence you could see a standard practice of doling out free schemes on the last year of every tenure. Food Security Bill is an example of such a pattern. After inheriting a stable economy in 2004 from BJP and being in power for 9 years suddenly it woke up a fine morning and decided to go with Food security bill.

Instead of spending its energies on countering the conditions which are forcing the ordinary citizen to endure a sub-standard life under its regime, it chose to concentrate on Narendra Modi and has been working overtime to fix him on something or the other. What Congress has failed to realize was that the platform to challenge Narendra Modi was Gujarat assembly elections in which too Congress squarely lost. Now it must do some justice for which it came to power. The hollow rhetoric of Secularism is not going to save the Congress any more.

Few talked about dual power centers in Congress and also passed a judgment that it is working well. In my opinion it is a completely misplaced argument, there is no diarchy or dual power centers. There is only one power center – Presidentship of congress. And that is why you could hardly see Prime Minister reacting to anything if not for his party’s complete rout in four state assembly elections, after all it is his government’s policies and workings which affects to an extent voter’s decision in choosing a party during elections. But only Sonia Gandhi and her son chose to react on the results. Doesn’t that mean that for all that PM is doing by occupying the highest post he is simply not accountable?

It is important to acknowledge what Kejriwal and Aam Admi party has done in Delhi but the only worry is it should not become yet another leftist party ending up embracing “Distorting India” as its only goal. It is an era of Knowledge Voter and it is not easy to fool him anymore on some abstract ideas & ideologies.

Punditry says that BJP trouncing Congress in 2014 parliamentary elections is almost a sealed matter. But if Congress wants to secure a distant second position it should seriously think about being honest first.

Marxism & Islamism: Double Entente in India and sworn enemies elsewhere

Have you ever realized that why acts that have a special relation to Hindus (as a Religion) in India gets a sensational coverage? If a Hindu seer is accused of rape why journalists spend over time in chat shows debating it? Often in the name of upholding justice. Let me caution you right away. If you ask me a question whether if someone happens to be a Hindu he has to condone all these acts? Then my answer is I do not care if he is a priest, baba or Seer whatever. If there is a crime committed, Justice must be done. The crime doer must be punished, of course through a due course of law and with proper regard to the principles of natural justice.

In all these cases there is some kind of link with Hinduism as a religion. When such opportunities arise you shall see the parties which are inclined to Leftist Ideology jumping the bandwagon with all its excitement to do what Marxism preaches to do. I.e., to relieve the masses from religious suffering. But how do you achieve that limited goal so that you can form a classless society? Opportunities such as these will not be missed at all. A Hindu mind is too inconsiderate and rationally ignorant when it comes to reacting to this evil design. I.e., a deliberated and concerted attempt to tarnish the image of Hinduism as a religion.

That is why when creators of M.F.Hussain’s creed paint Naked Hindu goddess and claim that it was their creativity and when protests erupt as a reaction to that they would say Hindu extremists are hounding. He is in a way correct, even with more than 80% of Hindu Cultural majority very few people have reacted for this outrageous act with extreme concern, hence extremists?

What drives all these anti-Hindu forces in India? Some pointers are mentioned herewith.

• Marxist Ideology
• Paid Cohorts in Media
• And Political parties which exploits the Heterogeneity of Hindus

That is why you see abuses were hurled by paid media at Kanchi Sankaracharya who was accused in a murder case including the circulation of wild theories against him. Now what happens after he was acquitted by the court? Will anyone admit apology? I hope not. Because that will be going against Marxist ethos.

Just like the erstwhile Illuminati infiltrated in every institution in their time to counter the oppressive church these leftists are everywhere, bureaucracy, political parties, media houses etc., you name anything they might be just there to perpetuate Marxism, ie., to abolish Hinduism. On the face of it, we might think that religion per se means it should be everything, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and all that? No it is not. In India the target of Communists is only Hinduism. And there is a wide political patronage for this view simply to remain in power by dividing Hindus with castes, regionalism and on other issues, though these parties may not agree with Marxism as an ideology they are fine with it as long as it is helping them to cling on to power.

Take for example Congress Party - the party of Mahatma Gandhi which ruled India for many years, approx. 60. But why do communal riots still happen? What has it done to improve the communal harmony in this country since the riots of partition?

Organizations such as RSS have come as a beacon in highlighting the atrocities (Current & Historic) committed on Hindus by different constituencies including parties like Congress, and their sense of insecurity in understandable by the rise of Hindu Nationalist – Narendra Modi, it needs no further explanation.

While there is a method in their (Congress & Marxists) madness on why they want divisions in Hindu society to remain perpetually, but it is almost interesting to see how the interests of Islamists and Marxists converge within India as far as their goal is concerned, ie., destruction of Hinduism. While Maoists engage in the people’s war in order to impose a classless society on this country but it is shocking to see how Islamists join them or benefitted by the work done by them. In this regard let’s see what the terrorist a.k.a Marxist Kishenji has said on Islamic terrorism :

The Islamic upsurge should not be opposed as it is basically anti-US and anti-imperialist in nature. We, therefore, want it to grow” 

This explains the whole picture; Marxists want the Jihadis/Islamists to do their work, i.e., fight their ideological enemy – political right. 

Media houses which are guided by the misguided men & women are readily available to do their bidding through their propaganda. And that is why when Muslims engage in riots in Bengal, Assam or Uttar Pradesh and burn Indian National Flag, you will have almost no coverage. Because Marxists & Islamists do not want to see Hindus reacting to what a Muslim is doing?

I have previously too said somewhere that Marxists are very well aware that abolishing Hinduism is a mammoth task and they need some help for which Islamists are more than happy and ready to do it. Once the task of abolishing Hinduism as a religion and culture is over their next task is to deal with Islam which in their opinion is an easy task, it is only in this context why China and Pakistan collaborate though they have two conflicting ideological allegiances and are hell bent in turning India in to one way or the other for Pakistan it is a pious duty to convert it in to sharia and for China it is an Ideological duty. But both want destruction of Hinduism, there are no differences on that flashpoint.

The only way to counter this is to educate Muslims that the leftists are a danger to their religion too. But who will enlighten Muslims?

Encounter with Marxists

Recently I had a conversation with Tarek Fatah, Author of “Chasing the Mirage” a great book which exposes Islamists, who was also briefly joined by his fellow Indian Marxist Irfan Habib – a historian of Romila Thappar’s creed. I know very well that Tarek’s allegiance to Marxism is absolute and there are no two ways about that. What appalled me was there were no convincing answers for the counter arguments posed to him on his attempt to claim Nationalists like Netaji and Shaheed Bhagat Singh as Marxists.

The reason why Tarek stands in different pedal is that he is not an Indian or not living in India at the moment and his focus is not India but to denounce every religion (especially Islam) in his own subtle way, that is not his mistake because that is a standard issue with any Marxist who is thoroughly indoctrinated and goes up to any length to prove that religion is rubbish.

Marx’s take on religion is that, it is used by bourgeoisie to deceive the proletariat. May be I would say “Marx why do not you get a life” now. Let’s see what his views are on religion

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”

 “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo”

All this was said based on the history of papal cruelty on Europeans in the name of Christianity and he had no firsthand account of any other religion.

For the millions who perished and are still dying so much for this euphoria called Marxist state did not get justice. Just like Jihadis who are killing and maiming for the establishment of caliphate in the name of Allah.

Two evils that threaten this world at the moment is one Murderous Marxism and the other is Militant Islam. Tarek does what Marx intended to do with religion in abroad with Islam. With so much dark spots which Islam has on its back Tarek’s job of doing Marx on Islam is easy.

But his fellows in India when they take up the job of doing Marx to Hinduism, problem arises. There are not many loop holes to say that the whole Hinduism is rubbish. The Indian Left is currently trying what Islamic Invaders have tried for over 800 years and what Christian invaders tried to do for 200 years, ie., converting this whole country from a Culturally Hindu Majority to 100 % Muslim or 100% Christian.

Both the Abraham religions (Christianity, Islam) have lost their battle with Marxism because when it comes to atrocities they committed on non-believers they are gory. And in this context whatever Marx ranted about religion is more or less true with respect to these two religions. But when it comes to Hinduism which I have already called it a religion of thousand prophets and if I have to explain this to Marxists then Hinduism is a religion of 100,000 Marxists whose thoughts are so great which we can very well see it from the work they have produced and from their teachings too.

All hell broke loose when the moment I have uttered Murderous Marxists. Tarek has no answers for all atrocities committed by Marxists for which millions were killed by Stalin, Lenin and polpot in the name Marxist Garbage, not to mention that China executes thousands of people on an yearly basis in the name of capital punishment. And you will not hear a word from double standard Marxist Intellectuals when it comes to condemning the acts committed by China, simply because China is doing what Marx has prescribed to do.

Violence is at the core of Marxist scheme of things. Let’s not forget what the murderer Mao said “Power flows from the barrel of gun” you don't need to know any further. Violence is in Marxist’s genetic makeup. They do not give a damn about all that, cleansing is their priority which they have done and are still doing it to meet their end objective ie., to turn this world in to a communist state. Though he momentarily chose to call these Marxist killers as goons his stand is that he is a Marxist.

Instead of answering the questions posed he started saying that Bhgat Singh and Netaji too committed Murderous acts or they too are Murderous Marxists. Let’s get this record straight. To call Bhagat Singh and Netaji as Marxists is a lie which the Indian Pseudo-Intellectuals are doing it for a very longtime.

And Tarek’s argument sounded so hollow when he calls Bhagat Singh a Marxist because he happens to be an Atheist. This shows how deep he (and his fellow traveler) is in to this Marxist abyss. Either he does it willingly as a standard Marxist technique taken from the cook book given to him by Karl Marx or he does not know the truth. Atheism is one of the central components of Hinduism. It is possible that you can be an atheist and a Hindu at a same time. But if you are a Marxist you have to be an atheist. 

There is no denial that Shaheed Bhagat singh was inspired by Marxism and he read so much about that, and the limited violence he engaged was to prove his point to colonial oppressors. He did not kill anybody because someone did not agree with Marxism. Did he kill his fellow citizens/human beings because they did not agree with Marxism? But what happened when Bolshevik mobs took over the reins of power in Russia? And what the Murderer Stalin did once he became the ruler of Russia, not to mention Polpot and Cambodia.

It is a blatant lie perpetuated by Marxists especially by the complicit Indian Left when they call Bhagat Singh and Netaji as Marxists, no they are Nationalists by blood. All they did is for the sake of Independence not for the sake of Marxist gibberish. If they have lived on to see what Marxism did to this world they would have called it as the ideology of liars and barbarians. It is convenient to quote a book written by Bhagat Singh called as “why I am an atheist” rather than to acknowledge the truth.

Marxism is a failed Idea. There are umpteen examples throughout the world. If someone shows China and Cuba as success stories they are actually wrong, these are indeed aristocratic states. In an absolute Marxist state anarchy prevails, where supporters will be spared and not the others just like status of non-believers in a caliphate. There used to be days when most of the populace was illiterate they were easily deceived by this Mob called Indian Left with their cohorts in Media and political parties. It is not going to work anymore. While I would have no problem with Tarek and his band doing the Marx to Islam and Islamists, he may not be able to do the same to Bharath, Hindus and Nationalists.

When asked about the Murderous acts committed by Stalin, Lenin and other fellow Marxist travelers. See what they have to say 

Do you see how they divert the question? Thanks to Marxists for making this world a dangerous place to live.

Who is getting sleepless nights?

The moment we have had the announcement of BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate we have been seeing all non-sense let loose in an attempt to belittle Narendra Modi. But the question is, are they belittling themselves or Mr.Modi? The recent remarks made by SP’s Naresh Agarwal that Mr.Modi a chaay waala (Tea seller) cannot aspire for PM’s job is truly telling of their attititude. Where in the constitution of this country it says that a chaay waalaa cannot become a prime minister or is there any special law which says a former chaaywaala cannot become one?

It purely shows the frustration of Political parties who are living and fooling people with their bankrupted ideologies. Now what qualification did Dimple Yadav and Akhilesh, for that matter what qualification does Mulayam Singh Yadav has to be a CM?

Cannot agree more with Arun Jaitely who said that Modi defied the conventional system. A cobbler could rise up to become a president of the powerful country – USA. What qualification does Nehru have to become a prime minister? What qualification did DevaGowda have?

What qualification does RaulVinci has? Where people lie about their (literally liars) very education aspire to become PM why cannot an honest man who has set record for good governance.

If there is really some worth and credibility left in them they should start answering the questions which Mr. Modi is posing on Governance and development aspects instead of talking rubbish. This applies well to Congress also.

Now Naresh Agarwal should be asking himself what they have done to UP with their Goonda Raj. This only proves the Slave mentality of Naresh. In parties which are in control of dynasties we cannot expect anything better. All the dynasties - #Congress, #DMK, JD(S), SP and others we should be really careful about. In 2014 I hope people will give these feudal lords a fitting reply.

Reflecting on Col.PK.Gautam’s One Hundred Years of Kautilya's Arthasastra

Reflecting on Col.PK.Gautam’s One Hundred Years of Kautilya's Arthasastra

This is the first time I am reading a Monograph on Kautilya’s Arthasastra. I am really grateful to author for showing a direction to younger generation to look in to wisdom given to us by our forefathers.

Few years ago I have been habitually doing an unguided reading which took me to Shama Sastry’s translation of Arthasastra for the first time and as a first time reader with no stated goals and specific object in reading it apart from satisfying the adrenaline started reading few pages, I already got a sense that this is highly advanced treatise on governmental and state affairs. One of the topics that did attract me was “Ascertaining by temptations Purity or Impurity in the character of Ministers” and this must essentially be followed in the appointment of ministers in modern day governments. But sadly on all such appointments loyalties take precedence than honesty. Especially in a coalition era choices of ministers are being imposed. Then due to vagaries of time I could not keep up the reading, but looking to revive my interest.

And this is the first time I get a clear explanation of the term sama, dana, beda, danda (conciliation, gifts, rupture and force), that was simply enlightening, a method which is still alive in the practice of Foreign policy and diplomacy. The leftist rhetoric has done a considerable damage by showing the indigenous knowledge in low light. Because all the ancient literature is apparently the work of Hindus and their vague worry is that speaking truth about a treatise like Arthasastra would revive the Hindu glory which will become a detriment to their propaganda industry and will impact their communist support base, whose cadres are drawn mainly from Hindus.

We would do well by reading a Supreme Court judgment on what Hinduism is, if we ever have to gauge its secular credentials.

 I am quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Justice J S Verma on this question.

The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects. Buddha started Buddhism; Mahavir founded Jainism: Basava became the founder of Lingayat religion; Jnaneshwar and Tukaram initiated the Varakari cult: Guru Nanak inspired Sikhism: Dayananda founded Arya Samaj: and Chaitanya began Bhakti cult; and as a result of the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, Hindu religion flowered into its most attractive, progressive and dynamic form. If we study the teachings of these saints and religious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence in their respective views. but underneath that divergence, there is a kind of subtle indescribable unity which keeps them within the sweep of the broad and progressive Hindu religion.

There is no dearth of great men in Hindu religion and it will not be an exaggeration to call it a religion of 1000 prophets.

The Judge goes on and says that:

The Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion: and so, while guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of religion, explanation II to Art. 25 has made it clear that in sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jam or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly." (from pages 259-266)

There should be no worry in accepting the truth that Hinduism is the only secular religion, and the word secularism does not in any way contradicts with Hinduism. In India and abroad there is some kind of an unofficial embargo on those who speak for Hinduism or on any classics which even has a remote connection to Hindus and their glory. And the Hindu scholars are chastised for their stand in their work. There is of course a grand conspiracy which constantly obstructs processes through which the history can be set right, ie., where we can get a rightful place in the world for our knowledge and wisdom.

For Europeans who endured the pain of religion which controlled their very private affairs the secular/Non-secular question was more relevant to them not for us, because implicitly Hindus are secular. Hence for Europeans age of enlightenment is some kind of higher calling but people in this sub-continent have always lived in enlightenment. With sages and seers walking this land by foot teaching values which benefits and befits humans and imparting practical wisdom for a day to day life was a routine. But for Europeans and others it was new.

If there is one thing that propelled westerners in the forefront of supremacy it is because they are organized and it is our curse that we could not organize ourselves and even after enduring 1000 years of enslavement from Islamic and Christian aliens from distant lands we are still busy with our petty internal fights which arise out of Ego and prejudice. After his whirlwind tour of west when Swami Vivekananda returned Bharath he acknowledged the fact that we are not organized like England. Moreover the only reason why a tiny Island ruled most of this world is because it is organized.

It is a matter of grave concern that the Indian political thought is not promoted on par with the western political thought. When the outsiders are taking a serious interest in all that is Bharath and India we are yet to learn what our roots are. It will be a great service to this country if governments can take serious note of this and promote our residual knowledge.

US state department paying $50,000 grant to digitize our manuscripts shows where we stand and what our priorities are not to mention that it highlights our indifference. It is a sad state of affairs.

At the end author suggested many research themes based on Arthasastra and students should very well pick up some cues from this and bring this trove of knowledge to the fore with their new, intriguing and brilliant interpretations. Thanks for Author’s service to a greater cause.

This is on Legal research paper writing.

http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/guidelines.html

http://www.aallnet.org/sections/rips/pdfs/19th-Legal-Research-Teach-In/frazer-guide-llm-research.pdf

http://custompapers.com/writing-tutorial/legal-research-paper/

http://firestone.princeton.edu/law/usrg.pdf

http://www.aallnet.org/main-menu/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-103/2011-03/2011-26.pdf

http://www.state.hi.us/jud/library/legalresearch.pdf

Readings on how to research

Recently I have been reading plenty of things on how to write a research paper in social sciences and also how to go ahead with literature reviews. And found few links mentioned below useful and would make use of them as a guide.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~leeds/Leedsrespaperguide.pdf

http://qcpages.qc.edu/Political_Science/tips.html

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/kingch/writing_PolSci_Essay.htm

http://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/empirical-social-science.pdf

On Literature Reviews :

http://www4.caes.hku.hk/acadgrammar/litrev/examples/litex3.htm - Important.

http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/litreview.jsp

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/

http://www.ais.up.ac.za/med/tnm800/tnmwritingliteraturereviewlie.htm

http://studywell.library.qut.edu.au/ppoint_files/READINGNOTETAKING_ReadingandTakingNotes.pdf

http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/studyadvice/StudyResources/Essays/sta-startinglitreview.aspx

http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/ResourcesForCourses/LitReview.html

http://studywell.library.qut.edu.au/pdf_files/WRITING_WritingStructureOverview.pdf

http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/82796/LitReview.pdf

http://www.reading.ac.uk/library/finding-info/guides/lib-database-guides.aspx - Databases.

And a Book - The Craft of Reasearch - Co-authored by Wayne C Booth.

This is primarily to save my time on google, when I need them again.

Should Colonizers & Oppressors Pay reparations for Slavery ? Yes. They should.

Responding to an NYT report on whether former colonial powers should pay reparations for slavery?

For all that modern jargon in Human rights and insistence of European Powers to follow them, it will be a surprise for someone to hear it for the first time that it is none other than Europeans who invented “Slavery” and oppressed almost more than half of the planet.One thing is for sure. Being a former brutal oppressor and colonizer does not mean they have no right to talk about Human rights or some higher ideals.

But European powers in a way are indeed polluters of humanity and must be obliged to pay reparations. To borrow a principle which is relied on environmental suits mostly in India ie., “Polluter Pays Principle” and use it in this context as an analogy or as a metaphor might help. This principle more or less says he who pollutes and/or has a direct role in perpetuating pollution should pay for it. In that sense former colonial powers are liable to pay the compensation. It is no doubt that people in African and Caribbean countries are the most oppressed who could never fully recover from the atrocities committed by the European countries. China & US, they asserted themselves since beginning, who were the only two former colonized countries/regions went on to become major economies in the world, thanks to their resolve, but not everybody is that fortunate.

Arguments like whether we can bring in people in to courts who were actually oppressed does not stand, their legal heirs and next generation must be compensated. And the reaction of Lauterpacht Center forInternational Law is understandable.Reparations such as these will definitely put Jihadist apologists in a spot, because oppression by the Christian world was always shown as a justification for the atrocities they have committed and still committing.

Richard Dawkins some time ago in his twitter conversation said that yes, Christians have committed innumerable atrocities by killing & maiming millions but they have moved on and realized their mistakes.

The spiritual giant of India Sri Aurobindo too supported Colonial powers especially British because in his opinion though British is a colonizer and oppressor it also propagated many good ideals like democracy and freedom etc., hence he supported the colonial powers in their war effort against axis powers, who then called colonial powers as advanced and progressive forces.

So in that context when juxtaposed with axis powers, the colonial powers were considered either angels or lesser evils. You cannot imagine a world after World War II with axis powers winning it; civilizations must have been made to endure highest forms of slavery.

An extract from Volume 36  of Aurobindo's writings “Autobiographical Notes and Other Writings of Historical Interest” Pages – 459 & 467 could help us understand the argument.

It is hardly possible that after the war the old order of things can survive unchanged; if that happened, there would again be a repetition of unrest, chaos, economic disorder and armed strife till the necessary change is made. The reason is that the life of mankind has become in fact a large though loosely complex unit and a world-order recognizing this fact is inevitable. It is ceasing to be possible for national egoisms to entrench themselves in their isolated independence and be sufficient for themselves, for all are now dependent on the whole. The professed separate self-sufficiency of Germany ended in a push for life-room which threatens all other peoples; nations which tried to isolate themselves in a self-regarding neutrality have paid the penalty of their blindness and the others who still maintain that attitude are likely sooner or later to share the same fate; either they must become the slaves or subservient vassals of three or four greater Powers, or a world-order must be found in which all can be safe in their freedom and yet united for the common good. It will be well for India, if in spite of the absorption of her pressing need, she recognizes that national egoism is no longer sufficient. She must claim freedom and equality for herself in whatever new order is to come or any post-war arrangement, but recognize also that the international idea and its realization are something that is becoming equally insistent, necessary and inevitable. If the totalitarian Powers win, there will indeed be a new world-order,—it may be in the end, a unification; but it will be a new order of naked brute Force, repression and exploitation, and for the people of Asia and Africa a subjection worse than anything they had experienced before. This has been recognized even by the Arabs who were fighting England in Palestine before the war; they have turned to her side. Not only Europe, Asia and Africa, but distant America with all her power and resources is no longer safe, and she has shown that she knows it; she has felt the peril and is arming herself in haste to meet it. In the other contingency, there will be not only the necessity for a freer new order, but every possibility of its formation; for the idea is growing; it is already recognized as an actual program by advanced progressive forces in England and elsewhere.

We should remember that conquest and rule over subject peoples were not regarded as wrong either in ancient or mediaeval or quite recent times, but as something great and glorious; men did not see any special wickedness in conquerors or conquering nations. Just government of subject peoples was envisaged but nothing more—exploitation was not excluded. The modern ideas on the subject, the right of all to liberty, both individuals and nations, the immorality of conquest and empire, or such compromises as the British idea of training subject races for democratic freedom, are new values, an evolutionary movement; this is a new Dharma which has only begun slowly and initially to influence practice,—an infant Dharma which would have been throttled for good if Hitler succeeded in his “Avataric” mission and established his new “religion” over all the earth. Subject nations naturally accept the new Dharma and severely criticize the old imperialisms; it is to be hoped that they will practice what they now preach when they themselves become strong and rich and powerful. But the best will be if a new world-order evolves, even if at first stumblingly or incompletely, which will make the old things impossible—a difficult task, but not absolutely impossible.

The victims of European colonization must be satisfied with one thing that at least their former colonizers agree and apologize that their crimes are deplorable. But, the victims of Islamic Imperialism are not that fortunate enough. The way forward should be that either through political or legal means the victims must be compensated that would add more credibility to European’s current status and equating international aids with compensation is completely misleading.

May be it is time to codify in international law that nation states which are economically weak and backward must be allowed to seek compensation from their former oppressors for crimes like slavery and must not be restricted only to slavery. Probably if this case is taken up and it wins in ICJ that would certainly set some kind of precedent which shall withstand assertions like calling the whole exercise as legal fantasy.

India must also explore such options for the atrocities committed by England in TamilNadu, India where native Tamils were migrated to plantations of Srilanka and made to work as slaves, not sure if we can ask the same to the oppressors of Persia.

Responding to Col. PK Gautam's comment

Thanks for responding.

It is agreed that much needs to be done on the secular aspect of education. But all those epics and other religious texts when they were written originally they were not meant to be non-secular. In my opinion this secularism debate came to the fore because of the church-state debacle in Europe and I feel that it has been unduly imposed on earth with out giving due regard to unique conditions of others cultures.

If there is any civilization which is truly secular it is Hindu Civilization, I am sure you would agree. Though we cannot say that it is perfect one but is best of all, which was verily agreed by Swami Vivekananda who argued that barring Vedas the whole body of Hindu scriptures must be re-worked to reflect the current day realities. But you & I know that, the scholar who could do this Himalayan task is yet to be born.

You have talked about alliances which Cholas practiced. But all that grand alliances, strategy and diplomacy has been practiced in its advanced form in Mahabharata long ago.

The begging question is how to handle the grave threat of Militant Islam & Islamists and does our indigenous wisdom help us address this question ? Yes. I agree, for this we have to remain bi-partisan, ideological-neutral and religious neutral. But remaining neutral does not definitely mean being prejudicial to one point of view and this is exactly why we should differ ourselves from our Marxist friends who have different yardsticks for measuring secularism.

Looking forward to read some of your other work too.

Response from Col. PK. Gautam reg. my comment on his Monograph

Response from Col. PK. Gautam with respect to my comment on his monograph

Dear Sathya,

1.  Thank you so much for your kinds words. The project has only begun starting with Kautilya. Many more periods and regions need to be covered. At Note 42  reference has been made.  I paste specially for you the work so far below after paragraph 4 and my signature block.

2.   In my monograph and also in the forthcoming edited book of the two seminars of October 2012 and April 2013 in the policy suggestion it has been stressed that the work is a-religious and a-political..Please see H at p.83.from pages 83 onwards.  Rather in my monograph I have explained the old issue of nationalist and Marxist also (p.74)  and surely we are beyond that now. Please  see pages122 -125 of my monograph.

3.  For the  other South Asian countries I have urged them to own up these traditions(pp. 108-109 including note 259). Also I do not agree with what   A Matto says.  In chapter III  have argued on that issue at pages 50 to 51. This aspect has been covered by me in my   Shruti and Smriti : Some Issues in the Re-emergence of Indian Traditional Knowledge, IDSA Issue Brief, February 12, 2013 at    http://idsa.in/issuebrief/ShrutiandSmriti_PKGautam_120213

4. All religious text has both religious and secular text. Much needs to be  done and  in my forthcoming work I have explained it as : “   Because of absence of teaching secular aspects of religion and not studying all knowledge emanating from religious literature we are missing out on many things of philosophy both at individual level and at the state level.( This type of education  to approaches to study of religions is called “ Phenomenology” . Phenomenological epoche is an approach to the study of religions to become and remain entirely neutral about what is studied. See Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby, ‘ Introduction’,  in Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby (eds.), Religion in South Asia: an Introduction, Routledge, 2006, pp.10-11)
You can also write to the editor of JDS  and if they consider it fit may publish it in future

Regards
PKGautam

Reflecting on Col. P K Gautam’s recently written paper in IDSA

Reflecting on Col. P K Gautam’s recently written paper in IDSA on Enduring issues of Statecraft, Military Issues andInternational Relations from Cholas the powerful southern kingdom.

It is a scintillating write up which talks about areas which needs focus to solve some of the serious issues which afflict the present day world. Col. PK Gautam talked about indigenous solutions to global problems.

All major issues which remain unsolved in the arena of international politics India has solutions. Firstly in the academic domain there is no great interest in researching our glorious past, even if somebody does, it is completely distorted because of researcher’s ideological moorings. For example, we have Romila Thappar who in a way eulogizes all Islamic Invasions and the destruction that ensued in the name of their religion.

Supremacy of Cholas:

Based on my elementary reading on Cholas I can say that, they were like Brits of 16 th and 17 th century, especially with respect to the invincibility of their naval fleet. They ruled throughout the Southeast Asia uninterrupted for nearly 500 years, engaged in trade with southern part of Africa. And the northern Kingdoms did not dare to enter in to their fiefdom. There was more of an internal conflict within the triumvirate of chera, chola and pandyas.

The take away for a budding student especially like me would be firstly not to go for foreign sources and ideas for everything and waste time, but look within. India was an intellectual power house once and we were systematically indoctrinated by a highly organized but a very small group of people called Brits and were forced to agree that everything indigenous was inferior. This feeling remains intact till this date.

Gandhi said if we have to for a moment imagine that the whole written literature of Hinduism is disappeared and only the first phrase of Isho Upanishad remains, all that lost literature can be re-constructed from that one phrase, Amitabh Mattoo described this in one of his op-ed some time ago. Mattoo went on and added that if the whole international literature has disappeared from this world, all can be re-constructed from the epic Mahabharata. That is the power of indigenous wisdom. Mahabharath is the best teacher you can ever have especially if you are a student of International Politics.

Yes. There were myriad independent political entities in the name of kingdoms but people were united with one culture, which we can conveniently call it as Hindu religion. Though few in the current days who were completely indoctrinated with Marxist ideology might have an objection with that “H” word, truth remains unsullied.

We Indians should take the study of history seriously and learn from our past for the sake of addressing our own problems and subsequently to help others too.

Thanks to Shri. Col. P K Gautam.

Act of International Criminal Court to prosecute only Africans is illegitimate.

Reacting to Jurist  report on " Africa leaders should be immune from ICC prosecution: AU "

The bullying of third world countries by international agencies, especially courts is not something new and it is a regular phenomena since the formation of UNO and other institutions which came to existence subsequently. International criminal law might have taken a new turn ever since the Nuremberg trials, but the disgust stems from the maxim - "Selective application of law is no law" . Are we to assume that in this civil world it is only in Africa people commit crimes especially state sponsored ie., the crime where leaders take an active role in engaging in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide?

Whenever you hear about a case in International Criminal Court (ICC), there is a high degree of probability that the accused will be from third world, mostly from Africa. Mired in poverty, illiteracy and political corruption and at the receiving end of super powers they remain robbed off their wealth. Oppressed by the European colonial powers they continue to remain as a second class civilians and their very state of life is a blot on the legitimacy of civilized world.

The interest and alacrity which colonial powers shown in robbing off the wealth of Africa is not shown when it comes to contributing towards its development. It is a misnomer to claim that whatever little the developed world is doing is due its generosity but in my opinion it is firstly a misplaced argument and secondly it must be seen as if they are giving it back to the rightful owners from whom they have taken forcefully. The rosy picture given by the the departments of international development of developed countries on their contribution towards global development cannot taken at face value.

Yes. There is no doubt that by providing 70% of funding which is required to run ICC, EU uses it to settle political scores and for the purpose of arm twisting in the resource rich Africa. And in this light the threat by African Union to pull out of ICC is highly legitimate and AU must make the regional institutions stronger and establish an ICC like setup exclusive for Africa and try all cases there, probably with an international supervision. And the former colonial powers must not be allowed to use new tools to loot Africa.

If we ever have to try all the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the European Colonial powers, especially by the countries like Portugal, Spain and Britain we may have to establish hundreds of such courts.

Sub-Standard Performance in Chennai Moot competition

I have been attending few moot court competitions off late for a hands-on experience on advocacy and yes, as elders say to hone the lawyerly skills. The first one was in Trichy on last week of last month and the other one in Chennai yesterday. I played the role of researcher in the Tamil moot last month and as a speaker yesterday. The way I fumbled yesterday was unprecedented, it was all about questions on Indian constitution law. I have tried to convince my mind with silly reasons on why I have done pathetically. But my mind knows, that what I was saying to myself was not truth, and I am way below the average.

Yes. All kept saying that participation is more important and this opportunity is to provide an exposure. But I felt humiliated and challenged.

Though I knew it but I am realizing only now that a good command on constitutional law is essential for a law student. My priorities will be re-aligned accordingly.

Can we separate politics from law ?

Whenever I try to give a political dimension to a legal question, I am cautioned by learned people and teachers by a statement “You should keep yourself away from Politics”. Instantly I would ask myself why?

This is not the question only with respect to academia but in general too. Suppose we are travelling in a public transport and if you happen to discuss your political views with your fellow traveler, what if he does not agree? Or what if he weakens your argument. What if it ends in a duel? May be that is why generally if someone talks about it – Politics, others might just say “here we go we have got another wayward”. If that is the case we should declare “Aristotle” a wayward.

But here I would like to ponder over such cases with in the academia. On the other day my teacher and I were discussing some legal questions on few things, one of the item that came up was federalism and Art: 370 of Indian constitution.

My view was that India is not strictly a federal country; any time centre can usurp all the notional powers given to provinces or states.

And it completely depends up on temperament of the leader who is ruling at a specific point of time. Nehru and Indira Gandhi are such leaders whose tendencies were always unitary and they rarely indulged in the practice of federalism. May be we have had a single party rule for a very long time. But that is not the point.

The moment I have taken few names in politics, comes the caveat “Don’t mix the politics” in law.  Then the question would be is it really possible or is it appropriate to view politics and law as two separate worlds? May be yes. But it should not be, if we are looking for a holistic view. After all law is nothing but the result of political deliberations and in effect law is an offspring of politics. Without politics, law is not possible. But in the Indian context unlike west we have a lot of practical difficulties if we ever have to engage in daily life political discussions. Though in broad terms ‘Politics’ could mean everything we do in our life, here I am only referring to relations between public & political parties which rule the former through an institution called government.

Aren’t we discussing politics all the time? When fuel and cooking gas prices are hiked we deplore the actions of govt. because we know it is they who have taken this decision.

Why academia as a whole does not engage itself in political discourse is an important question. At least teachers from the depts. of Humanities and Social sciences rarely discuss current issues in public or classroom. That is why there is a scant regard for social sciences in India.

In India people do not practice “Transaction based reactions” i.e., you do not agree/disagree with a person but only with issues. Even though congress is neck deep in corruption it is possible that few people including I could agree on few issues that does not mean that I am either Pro or anti.

But the compulsion of teachers not to discuss current politics with students in particular or with in academia at least is because if your political inclinations are known, there will be issues in career progression i.e., becoming from guest prof. to tenure prof. or from an Asst. Prof. to Prof. or to go on and become a vice chancellor or directors. So there is hardly a requirement of your subject mastery. Additionally they fear professional retaliation if they make their inclinations apparent.

In reality if we endeavor to answer critical legal questions in its entirety, keeping politics aside will not help either the student or teacher. Way to go for Democracy in India!

My Comment on The Politics of going public

Commenting on John W. Patty's The Politics of Going Public

One of the earliest constitutions which gives so much of power (Near absolute ?) and enough room to react on exigencies, doing public vetting on certain decisions (few may be less important) looks like some kind of precedent setting.

America appears to have guarded itself from an outright tyranny which is prevalent in third and Muslim world, because most of the presidents were some kind of Plato's Philosopher kings, but I know many would disagree with this assertion.

While there is no disagreement that the president gets to decide when and in front of whom, but the larger question I feel it should be, is he not shackling the future presidents by his current actions.The expectations of the public will be raised ?

Going or not going to public may not be an issue in a country like India for example, they are mostly ritualistic, where once a year the prime minister or the president will address the nation on independence day and opening session etc., And no importance is given to clarify their stance to the public directly before/after taking critical decisions.

I forgot to mention they go around during election campaigns.

My Comment on Arms Race in Asia between China and India

Responding to Arms race between China and India

There is another possibility like Chinese media some time ago quoted, that India is actually underplaying its missile development program. And Agni V itself is some kind of ICBM, just to avoid an arms race in ASIA India constantly projects a  picture to the world in general and China in particular that it is not racing with them but in reality it is reaching near China's military prowess. But I hope Chinese intelligence is not that dumb in not knowing what we are up to.

Western powers have realized that the embargoes and regimes like MTCR(Missile technology control regime) have in no meaningful way obstructed India's indigenous development of ballistic missiles, though we have to agree that it did sluggish the pace. The job of our scientists is commendable. The issue was always with political leadership.

May be the statements like the one which Avinash Ji made could be because of current circumstances where Chinese at will cross Indian borders and go back. The strategic leadership may have stage managed such comments and reactions in their attempt to create some kind of deterrent to Chinese with respect to border intrusions.

We really do not know if mere statements could cause deterrence. But there is a profound pride on reaching this milestone by India among the educated citizenry.

The reply I got for the above comment :

From JB :

Having something in your drawing room showcase does not mean you know how to or you have the mental strength to use them. In 1962 having far superior air power India failed to put it to resulting in lasting humiliation!

And my further response to it is mentioned below :

Agreed ! But that was exactly what I have said as it has to do with Political unpreparedness rather than Military unpreparedness.

You know, Nehru once declared that India does not need a military. All it needed was a police force to control the public. How naive. The strategic thinking itself was not in deficit, but the strategic thinking of political leadership was in deficit. China never had this problem.

Can Hegelian Idea of War & Peace address the Issue of corruption?

Recently read thoughts of Hegel:

• The movement of power from one nation state to another is the march of God on earth. 

• Men stagnate in peace. Corruption could be the product of prolonged if not perpetual peace.

Reflecting on the above thoughts.

Power does not remain with a person, nation, group, tribe, clan forever as it moves from one to another and for the time it remains in a specific place that entity enjoys certain status and is in a position to set the rules for others and then exacts obedience for the rules it set.

The theologies of different religions which sprouted in the last 2000 years have thrown the baggage of divine power on us in which king or caliph has to rule his subjects, a theory which could not stand the scrutiny of reason. With no defined boundary for religion and state the entity of God was imposed on all personal affairs of men and he permeated in the air like oxygen. As someone new to this domain I am thrilled to see an innovative explanation of Hegel on how he explains the march of God on earth. The movement of superpower status from country to another is march of God on earth.

So it appears to be true to an extent. Once the ultimate power lied with Spain and Portugal then it moved to Brits then to US at the moment. Much before 2000 years there were powerful kingdoms but there was always one kingdom which had the supreme power.

The possession of power was purely written in a destructive sense at a time this was coined. If you are too powerful you can annex. Now the other dimension of this is march of god theory is equal to theory of power, you need to fight for God otherwise he moves elsewhere, so is your superpower thereby your superpower status.

If you are engaged in constant war to retain the power which is nothing but you are trying to retain the god, apparently there will be no peace, so during war men will be either less corrupt or completely honest because peace is a reason for corruption and men stagnate in it. That could mean he does not innovate and just stays idle? May be yes. If there was no second world war the academic discipline (technique) Operations research would not have been discovered. All the modern weaponry would not have been discovered because people were forced to innovate on sheer necessity.

So Hegel essentially says – “God marches from one to another and you need to constantly engage yourself in war to retain him without becoming a victim of an abstract idea called Peace”?

I am just realizing that in the medieval terms war certainly meant a direct armed conflict with two opponents. But in current times it could be many things in addition to direct armed conflict.

The struggle to retain God and acquire him continues. God meaning power.

Powerful state/s i.e., those entities who currently have god with them in their attempt to retain him have to make sure that no other state acquires him. So firstly they will find out the serious contender, once identified they will see who is the contender’s contender then he will be funded to fight his contender.

An example on Hegel line could be, in strict Bi-polar sense God has already marched to US and it has to retain it somehow, any attempt by other nation to acquire some superpower status must be resisted by US. So we have had this Afghanistan and Jihad which was funded by US to thwart Russia’s efforts to acquire such status, though Jihad was no friend to US.

Men are constantly at war for power. When it is ensured that there is no peace why then still corruption continues? It is because of God=Power?

So when you have power you abuse it, just like Lord Acton said. The problem is even the march of God cannot stop corruption.

Can we say that to manipulate the march of god men engage in corruption?

Money, Social Status & Social Distance leads to class consciousness, vanity and false pride

I have been doing an elementary reading on political sociology and found the concept Social status & Social distance more interesting because I then realized that we encounter it on a daily basis without knowledge.

Social status is the starter and Social Distance shall follow as a consequence. Primitive man was never a victim of this non-sense and he led a satisfied life. But then that alone will not be a strong reason to give up the feeling of Social Status. On a positive note if you are a soldier and serving your motherland, you should be proud about that and Social Status which ensues as a result is reasonable and indeed legitimate. The only danger is if you carry the baggage of Social Status all the time and/or your heightened obsession towards this, will only harden your ego and is not good for your mental & physical health. Let me tell you how and why.

The Hindu scriptures quote that Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Mada , matsarya which in English translates to Lust, anger, greed, attachment, pride(vanity,ego) and jealousy are the six enemies of man. Man is virtually a prisoner of these six evils which does not allow him to realize the god within or elsewhere. These six evils act like layers which obstructs men to see and experience what is real. This teaching is at the core of Hindu philosophical thought.

The most dangerous of these six is ego (Ahankar-Hindi/Sanskrit) Ahambavamu-Telegu, Ahambavam – Tamil. And Man’s excessive consciousness of Social Status nurtures this feeling of Ego which is detrimental to his mental peace. With Ego and pride your mind will always be agitated. A disturbed and agitated mind causes severe damage to your physical health too, so it is in your own interest to shun it.

Let’s see how this pans out in real time. For Political sociologists social status maintains some kind of order in society which is positive and is actually required, this is mostly associated with an official position sometimes but mostly it has got something to do with possession of material wealth. If you are a politician your Social Status is different from the ordinary citizenry. And if you are an Ambani like that means you have a lot of money so your social status is different from the one who is a popper.

In the ancient days we have had this caste system through which order was ensured in society, this is a typical example of Social Status, which is primarily associated with the occupation one is engaged in to. Though in the current days there is no utility of caste system it is upheld by some zealots. This is actually a blot on Hinduism itself.

The debate of haves and have-nots: It is important to note that in a society where income inequality is rampant, the have-nots running behind material wealth and the haves being indifferent is quite common. It is a no-brainer that men who possess enormous amount of wealth also maintain status and influence in every arena. This mere possession of wealth and status forces him to maintain a social distance with those who do not have it.

So you maintain a marked distance with your relatives because you are afraid that they might ask you for a material help. Does this not sound like a prejudice? And you want have a relationship with someone who has an equal status (Social status) i.e., someone who has material wealth of your level or even more.

As you move on you develop some kind of profound ego, which makes you think that you have all the power at your disposal and you can do anything you want. This is obviously true. You can literally do anything with money starting from turning a man to woman and woman to man to buying judgments in courts. It shall be noted that many dalal street traders too were in that mental makeup but committed suicide in the verge of 2008 financial crisis. Their Social Status, distance and ego etc could not save their life.

The nature of wealth accumulation is such that you would naturally create a class of stooge, which will agree to anything you say there by catering to your ego which further degenerates to false ego. You end up creating false class consciousness i.e., you call all of them who does not have enough wealth to matche your level either second or third class, which is absolutely not needed apart from genuine governmental purposes i.e., taxing individuals for example.

During my childhood I have encountered a strange mindset of my cousin, she would call me a third class because as a kid of say 10 years old I would enjoy blowing soap bubbles. I never knew that if you blew soap bubbles you are a third class. For a very long time I thought about what could be a potential reason for this peculiar behavior, why would she call me a third class?

I realized that as far as I see the only difference was that of a classic case of haves and have-nots. She too was a kid of tender age; somehow her family socialization has taught her that all have-nots are either second or third class. That is a disturbing behavior. This false pride sustains your ego. And you tend to think you get some kind of superior plane because of your financial status, which is rubbish. Because a financially inferior person could be superior in other facets of life.

So it is not too late. If you are catering to your ego through your false pride which rests on the premise of possession of money or because of your official position, ie., say you are an employee of governmental organization or you are an employee of an IT company or you are simply living abroad after some brief education etc., you do not gain some kind of imaginary first class status. If you think you are in that class then you are a victim of your ego and this will not allow you to become a perfect human being. So stay there at your own risk.

What is professionalism?

Have you come across this debate on who is a professional? Many might have been through this question for sure, especially if you are in the so called corporate domain. But this question is not limited to white collar labor, though our discussion would be primarily about them.

With that above statement we cannot help but go back to the same corporate domain, because that is the place where the term professionalism is abused often with its distorted meaning. The fixation on dress code is especially pre-dominant in defining professionalism and the corporate psyche has been a victim of that notion.

It is more or less declared that wearing an ironed shirt and Pant is the end of professionalism. Do you agree? If you do then I have a serious doubt on your reasoning ability. Who decided that if someone wears an Ironed shirt & pant becomes a complete professional?

Here is how I would like to spin it out. Long ago, i.e., centuries ago when Englishmen were out for territory acquiring expeditions in east and west, they not only invaded all those lands physically but also culturally. Now what I mean culturally is that it is the culture of English men to wear shirt, pant, and coat then all that suffocating stuff, but it was not our culture definitely. Ours was dhoti and/or pajama.

So from the time we became slaves and were employed in the offices of Englishmen we must have started wearing these. Or were naturally inclined to that costume because it was something new.

Figment of imagination: Let’s assume that long ago if Indian kings went on land acquiring/annexing expedition and did subjugate the west through brute force, by now the corporate definition of professionalism with respect to dress code would have been wearing dhoti and pajamas. Can you imagine that?

India’s defense minister and Finance Minister wear their cultural dress that is dhoti with western style shirt on top even on their foreign tours. Are they not professionals?

Now if a politician wears an Ironed shirt and pant but engages in a scam, can we still call him a professional?

Let’s move on to the real meaning of professionalism instead being stooped at this pant & shirt debate. Some of the components mentioned below in my opinion shall make someone a professional if not a complete professional, most of it based on common sense.

v  If you have to reprimand someone do it in private but appreciate in public.

v  Speak truth and stop lying.

v  Stop your ill will against your colleague.

v  Don’t be a cunning idiot, it only suits a fox.

v  Don’t pretend but do some actual work.

v  Don’t score points on your colleague’s mistakes but help.

v  Don’t claim credit for other’s work.

v  If you have become a manager it means you are still a human being, so behave humanely.

v  When you are talking to people who are inferior to you, i.e., with respect to official position, show respect.

v  Shun your ego.

v  Stop thinking that you are the last brilliant left in this world.

v  Just do not talk but also listen.

v  Stop using the word attitude.

v  Maintain the harmony of thought, word and deed.

This list is definitely not exhaustive but a way to evolve in to something better. In corporate arena people just adhere to that Ironed pant-shirt thing and claim that they are professionals which is not only rubbish but an attempt to fool oneself. The whole argument is while there is nobody saying that people should wear dhoti and pajamas to work place thought it is correct to wear it on a daily basis. But over emphasis on JUST the DRESS CODE defeats the whole purpose of turning someone in to a complete professional.