Gandhi's Legacy

Some excerpts from the following article with my own views added to each one of them.

http://www.sandeepweb.com/2012/10/04/mahatma-gandhis-true-legacy/

"After Gandhi entered the scene, people lost this practice of critically examining any topic or issue and approaching it from multiple perspectives. The emphasis suddenly shifted in favour of a unilateral political voice which therefore meant that no obstacle should hinder the Mahatma’s leadership".
---this is the single most issue which  is enough for me to dislike Gandhi

"Their stance was that perchance somebody found something to disagree with even one thing that Gandhi said, he or she had to compulsorily suppress its expression. Thus the national atmosphere of discourse quickly became one where nobody could ever think of something different from what Gandhi thought. The minds of the general public—both literate and otherwise—soon became habituated to conformity, which then turned to blind loyalty towards a partisan idea."
-- How can one man be right all the time for almost 40 years? Any other opinion or voice in INC was not heard except Gandhi's. INC's presidents were elected (should I say selected) at Gandhi's will.

"And because he is painted as the man who got us freedom, the logical question arises: did he really get us freedom?"
-- People were so conveniently brain washed during these ~65 years through school history text books, which carried a nice political agenda of our fake Gandhians. Even the present generation, well educated doesn't question just believes what was/is said about Gandhi.

"Gandhi’s heady potions of ahimsa and satyagraha (how truthful was Gandhi to himself is question here) robbed Indians of the incentive to put up a fierce resistance, the kind that actually made the British tremble in their knees, the kind that Subash Bose inspired."
-- India definitely did lack the teeth to bite, even toady!

India was one of the last prominent countries to be decolonised. By the time India got independence Britain had colonies only in small African nations and some Islands with few thousands of populations. So, the question arises gain. Did Gandhi really bring freedom to India or British left India just because they had to?

On Indian men and why there are still boys.

Why there shouldn't be masculine movement? Are the present day men leading a better life? Do they understand everything they see? Why they suppress all their emotions as if they don't have any? The following article addresses these points to some extent.

An excerpt from the article.
"The point is, there should be no one unicorn: no new stereotype to replace the first. If there was to be a masculine movement to equal the feminist movement that has set large sections of the Indian woman free, the goal for Indian men would be to throw off some of their own deprivations. From the moment they can walk, Indian men are taught to provide but not feel. Taught to command, not empathise. Taught to expect subservience not companionship. Taught, most damagingly, to repudiate their emotions. Their inner life. Their capacity for variety".

For the full article go here

Facts with stats: America really needs super heroes not just the fictitious ones in the hollywood movies

Chris Jordan pictures some shocking stats | Video on TED.com

Niall Ferguson: The 6 killer apps of prosperity | Video on TED.com

Probably the best analysis that I saw why the western countries were economically dominant compared to their Asian counterparts. However, since 1990s most of the Asian countries seem to catchup with west.

Jana Gana Mana in 39 voices - Video | The Times of India

New video on India national anthem with 39 voices singing it. Wonderful!

Jana Gana Mana in 39 voices - Video | The Times of India

Saving billion lives from hunger

A good and meaningful talk on TED that I had listened to in many months. The link to the talk is given at the end. The speaker correctly points out the fact that there is more than enough food in this world feed the whole world. Then why is it that many people starve to death? There is no proper planning, implementation and distribution system. Coming to the numbers, the speaker says that number of hunger deaths is much more than the deaths caused by AIDS, malaria and some other diseases put together. We see companies and governments spending huge amounts on research aimed at finding cure for these diseases. Though this is needed I still feel that not enough is being spent for eradication of hunger(by enough I mean not in proportion to the effected population). Why is it? Is it because our corporate world cannot benefit enough from doing s0?. The only beneficiaries here would be farmers and the hunger victims (there may be an indirect link here between agriculture produce and fertilizer companies etc.). Currently a total of one billion population is facing the hunger problem. When this portion of population receives proper nutrition the global GDP rises hugely compared to what we invest in solving their hunger problem. I feel that since the corporate world cannot benefit directly and immediately from this not enough is being spent to solve this problem. From what I can see through my research field a lot of money is being spent on many research topics which are of more interest to the corporate world.

But there is a silver lining here, the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are doing their bit to solve this problem through their own foundations. I would like to see more inspirational personalities like these to raise up to the occasion. This would lead/inspire a common man to do his/her bit to this world.

I read this peace a some time in 2008 when the US government bailed out its banks and other corporations which I think will fit in here. This is how it goes - "At a time when $700 billion can be found overnight to bail out the richest bankers in the world and $1000 billion can be spent on one single “war,” when sovereign wealth funds in a few rich countries alone are at $2500 billion and growing, it stretches credulity when we are told that the world can’t find an extra $18 billion a year to save the lives of millions of children and women and meet the basic needs of the majority of the world’s population".

Josette Sheeran: Ending hunger now | Video on TED.com

She's Alive... Beautiful... Finite... Hurting... Worth Dying for.

Needed: Tough person for CIC - India - The Times of India

Needed: Tough person for CIC - India - The Times of India

Some stunning facts and numbers on how right to information (RTI)act is being implemented in India.

Government failure to acknowledge oil supply crunch risks conflict and threatens the climate - media library - global witness

Government failure to acknowledge oil supply crunch risks conflict and threatens the climate - media library - global witness

As most of the countries in the world talk on issues like infrastructure, economic polices and pollution control that their governments would do for the coutry, we still talk about providing basic needs like drinking water, housing facilities, eradicating poverty etc., even after 60 years of independence. How long is it going to take for us to be out from this frame and join the league of western world and Japan? Are our current breed of politicians capable of doing that? I felt this after reading an interesting piece of article written by a foreign journalist. Here are some excerpts from the article. For the complete article go here.

.....These lives aren't defined by caste or creed. They're defined by poverty. A kind of endemic, abject poverty that crushes souls. The villagers' eyes shine brightly and their tongues are quick, but tummies are empty and clothes falling apart. It's a world away from the India Shining story we've read ad nauseam in recent years.


The accepted theory, in US academia, is that Economic Status and Education Level are the strongest positive predictors of political participation. India flips this maxim squarely on its head. Here, it's the poor who queue up for hours, who sit in dusty government buildings for near eternity, to ensure they have voter ID cards.


Finally, if Nepotism is a problem in America, it's a disaster in India. Politics, like most other enterprises here, is a family business. But in a nation of 1.2 billion people, in a nation which produces Nanden Nilekanis and Amartya Sens and Indra Nooyis, isn't there someone without the surname Gandhi capable of leading the country?


A Hindu villager in Karnataka, with his vegetarian diet and spoken Kannada, has little in common with a Christian from the North Eastern town of Shillong or a Muslim from Jammu and Kashmir. Yet their voices, poured through the voter's funnel and distilled into the Indian Parliament, all coalesce. It's truly an epic confluence of different perspectives. And somehow, miraculously, it all works.
So if the Lok Sabha itself is sometimes a cacophony, forgive it. It's only representative of its constituents.....