Most of the time Indian youth search the answer of the question"what is the biggest challenge in front of India" they get many answer from corruption, inefficiency, illiteracy and so on. But when we have democracy why cant we choose a govt which will help in pulling india out of this abyss of poverty and misery?? We are not under dictatorship where we are compelled to bear the burden of a dictator and his ideas?? Some people blame it on British and say we are still mental slave of them we still in the way west think some blame it on the diversity of India and its different way of thinking and say all Indian cant think in the same way, rather they say because of this diversity only way Indian can think in same way on any topic is they think in British way, how to make Indian think as Indian and think for India , not for local issue?? here is one discussion I have with my friends
GY: Being,thinking and living the Indian way are not same. India faces its biggest challenge ever...how to make its citizens think independent of the west?
Me: Among all type of freedom "freedom to think (and of course express)" is supreme, during the 'Raj' "natives" are not allowed to think, that is reserved for "Gora sahib" (white bureaucrats) and "orientals" are supposed to follow the orders, while today every Indian have that freedom as we have democracy(although on papers) so your question had been answered by Bhagat singh long ago "gore sahib chale jayenge to kya bhoore sahab aa jayenge"(if white bureaucrats go brown bureaucrats will take their place) so if sahib don't become "bhoora sahab" may be Indian will get the real sense of freedom
*Sahib does not mean IAS or higher govt official it include every one who give his ego more importance that his duty, and such type of idiots exist even in corporate
GY : We are prisoners of our system, that still produces glorified clerks. then we lament brain drain. Macaulay is still guiding our education policy and goals. The so called free media of free India is actually agent of the neo-imperialistic western agenda.
Me: Don't be a typical Indian intellectual GY, who always blame British for every problem. first thing British exploit Indian weakness, its Indian who have those weakness and instead of working for eliminating those weakness we lament that others exploit them, we are free for more than 60 yrs but we have not done anything to improve the situation, some effort done by Mr Nehru ( by making IIT and IIM), who expect them to change the direction of Indian education system, but instead of changing the direction they become the part of system and now become the tool of vote bank system. the process of changing this mess is difficult not because its requirements are huge but it require lot of courage and a very strong will power and worst thing is that it can not offer anything in return on the positive side you may get a place in history text books on the negative side you die after living a total unsatisfactory, frustrated life
Trip : Just one question....do u believe in dictatorship for India?
Me: No, because it will make situation worse instead of improving it, in dictatorship bureaucrats will become unleashed bull
Trip: Your freedom of thinking point is correct...but...that is inculcated not through education of IIT IIM etc. but through awareness...but yes i agree...my awareness increased manifold after studying in an IIT and IIM....freedom of thinking comes from not being how the external world knows you (ex. a software engineer or a banker) but rather how u know yourself...if your perception about yourself is same as that of others about yourself...then there are two scenarios....one where you are a very clean hearted person...where everyone knows you what you exactly are...in our political leaders...closest example. might be our present PM...and other is where you have no view of yourself...and others view of yourself becomes your view of yourself....such a person is in complete ignorance and a threat to the society, country and the world... if u r still able to think..after stepping out of your physical being...your profession...your name...then that is freedom of thinking... and that comes from fearlessness... which comes from....facing the fear of losing your physical being...profession and name... such a person can have freedom of thinking
Me: Yes and that freedom of thinking may lead them to think that India is not a compulsion but a necessity for the existence of this society
Trip: Agreed India require leaders and people who can have this freedom of thinking
Me: although you can say it will force them to make compromise but i will not mind if their compromise can keep India as a country, I want this country to be united at any cost
Trip: United by... land people thought or what???
Me: United against its enemy at least
Trip: And who are they? they may be within India or outside also.
Me: Yes they may be anywhere as I think real enemy of any country are those who envy of freedom and progress of People of that country, so anyone who has this thought in his heart is an enemy of India, Even it is a sahib who envy of freedom of people, So may be this freedom of thinking may make Indian capable of keeping their enemy at bay
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
disclaimer
I am new to the job of doing experiments on thoughts with pen and paper (although both virtual) as only tools. In case if any one minds what may be the result of my experiments please forgive me or ignore it
Mad Ashu
Mad Ashu
Monday, May 19, 2008
What is Right??
Sometimes i am not able to understand what is right and what is wrong ?
There are some topic where my thinking is different from the majority. what should i do in those condition? Should i do what i think is right or should i swim with stream and do what majority think is right. Matter get worse when its my duty to work for the benefit for the majority but its different from what majority want.
Amid these confusion i even divide my thoughts in two parts, my idea which are going to effect me and my ideas which may effect the society (although it may require i should hold such a high designation so that i can influence masses)
Similarly i divide the thinking of society in two part, one which can be said as prejudice, which usually illogical and baseless, second the thoughts which prevails in society and converted into laws as soon as time come (someone may ask how is it possible that when majority of society have something in mind why it will not become a law instantaneously but even in democracy you has to wait until the next election in case current govt take a oath not to listen to the people)
There is no problem with first part of my thoughts, i think i can enjoy my ideas which are going to effect me similarly i can ignore the prejudice because they does not have any logic behind them. But what about the idea which are not baseless but my thinking differ from society and worse i hold a designation which may effect masses.
Let's take an example to simplify this:
Everyone know India is more or less a socialist economy before 1991 until Mr ManMohan Singh liberalize it. Its not consumer but "License Raj" who rule the Indian economy. Even after that liberalization some sector are still "untouchable" like defense, which is still dominated by PSU and Govt organization. Only Source for arms for Indian armed forces are these PSU or foreign companies. Some People want that this sector should also be open for private player so that we can save some amount of huge defense deal form leaving Indian economy. But these are the sound of some people. What about Indian masses who does not understand much about economy. For whom the private player are as less thrust worthy as foreign companies and consequently they want that govt should develop these PSU and Govt Organization instead of dealing with private players and MNCs. Consider a situation i am also one of those people who want to liberalize the defense sector and also hold the position of a editor of a newspaper. Suppose I came to know that some big business house are lobbying for this liberalization (and they wont deny of using some unfair mean for this) what should i do? I know very well they are doing what I want. it will be going in the benefit for the economy (as far as my thoughts) and if they does not use these unfair means the required change may take much longer time then it will take i current situation. According to my duty (as a news paper editor) i should report this to public because its going against majority thinking but my inside will insist to keep silent and let this positive change happen ( its only duty which matter otherwise if i want money to decide about what should i tell public i can take any side because there should be some lobby to counter balance this lobby). Does it matter what i think as far as my duty is concerned ???
Correct way will be, as a news paper editor i should create awareness in the public about my thoughts and in case they agree with it the change happen automatically but sometime some unfairness is required to accelerate the process . Does that unfairness is correct?
And in case if this unfairness is correct we have a drawback. what will happen in the condition in which i think i am right and thinking in the benefit of country but its only because i am too little to understand big picture and my tendency to work according to my thinking instead of rule/law will harm others.(which usually happen public pay the price of wrong decision made by the people who had the power to influence decision).
Although its true that corruption can harm the interest of the country/public but sometime we face a situation when no one is wrong but the way policy maker think make a huge impact on our future
Your comments are welcome.
There are some topic where my thinking is different from the majority. what should i do in those condition? Should i do what i think is right or should i swim with stream and do what majority think is right. Matter get worse when its my duty to work for the benefit for the majority but its different from what majority want.
Amid these confusion i even divide my thoughts in two parts, my idea which are going to effect me and my ideas which may effect the society (although it may require i should hold such a high designation so that i can influence masses)
Similarly i divide the thinking of society in two part, one which can be said as prejudice, which usually illogical and baseless, second the thoughts which prevails in society and converted into laws as soon as time come (someone may ask how is it possible that when majority of society have something in mind why it will not become a law instantaneously but even in democracy you has to wait until the next election in case current govt take a oath not to listen to the people)
There is no problem with first part of my thoughts, i think i can enjoy my ideas which are going to effect me similarly i can ignore the prejudice because they does not have any logic behind them. But what about the idea which are not baseless but my thinking differ from society and worse i hold a designation which may effect masses.
Let's take an example to simplify this:
Everyone know India is more or less a socialist economy before 1991 until Mr ManMohan Singh liberalize it. Its not consumer but "License Raj" who rule the Indian economy. Even after that liberalization some sector are still "untouchable" like defense, which is still dominated by PSU and Govt organization. Only Source for arms for Indian armed forces are these PSU or foreign companies. Some People want that this sector should also be open for private player so that we can save some amount of huge defense deal form leaving Indian economy. But these are the sound of some people. What about Indian masses who does not understand much about economy. For whom the private player are as less thrust worthy as foreign companies and consequently they want that govt should develop these PSU and Govt Organization instead of dealing with private players and MNCs. Consider a situation i am also one of those people who want to liberalize the defense sector and also hold the position of a editor of a newspaper. Suppose I came to know that some big business house are lobbying for this liberalization (and they wont deny of using some unfair mean for this) what should i do? I know very well they are doing what I want. it will be going in the benefit for the economy (as far as my thoughts) and if they does not use these unfair means the required change may take much longer time then it will take i current situation. According to my duty (as a news paper editor) i should report this to public because its going against majority thinking but my inside will insist to keep silent and let this positive change happen ( its only duty which matter otherwise if i want money to decide about what should i tell public i can take any side because there should be some lobby to counter balance this lobby). Does it matter what i think as far as my duty is concerned ???
Correct way will be, as a news paper editor i should create awareness in the public about my thoughts and in case they agree with it the change happen automatically but sometime some unfairness is required to accelerate the process . Does that unfairness is correct?
And in case if this unfairness is correct we have a drawback. what will happen in the condition in which i think i am right and thinking in the benefit of country but its only because i am too little to understand big picture and my tendency to work according to my thinking instead of rule/law will harm others.(which usually happen public pay the price of wrong decision made by the people who had the power to influence decision).
Although its true that corruption can harm the interest of the country/public but sometime we face a situation when no one is wrong but the way policy maker think make a huge impact on our future
Your comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
