I Think

Understanding Randomness

2011-12-27T19:38:00.000+05:00

The mind has delved into the realm of the“random”. Thus it asks the pivotal question, what is random? What constitutesrandom? Is random truly random? I remember my lecturer once telling the classfor one of my engineering courses, “In digital world the random numbersgenerated are not ‘truly’ random because the system needs a ‘seed’, which isacted upon by few mathematical operators to generate this ‘random’ number”.

Accepting this premise for the argument’s sake,question arises that which ones are ‘truly’ random numbers? Randomness as aphenomenon goes beyond numbers as well to more abstract domains of words,letters and thoughts. A teacher once in school told us about the motion ofmolecules while lecturing on Brownian motion. He called it to be ‘random’. Iguess this was officially the first time I came across the term which Iunderstood to mean ‘something that cannot be determined prior to it occurring’or simply ‘unpredictable’. Coming back to Brownian motion, one is compelled tofurther inquire whether it is unpredictable or not?

In order to understand the alleged ‘randomness’of motion of molecules, let us perform a thought experiment. Excuse it to be anoverly sciency narrative but anyways. Suppose we take an ideal gas at atemperature of zero Kelvin. It should have zero volume and zero energy. Now ifthis gas is supplied with a small amount of energy, the molecules would absorbthis energy and thus start their vibratory motion while registering aproportional change in volume. These molecules owing to very high density ofmatter will have ‘elastic’ collisions with each other. These collisions willmake the molecules to move in different directions. If properly analysed whichthe energy level of these molecules and other mechanical factors, the directionof travel after the collision can be calculated using elementary algebra. As myunderstanding of the word ‘unpredictable’ goes it does not include anythingthat can be calculated. So how come the motion is random? Or maybe the rightquestion to ask would be; is it really ‘random’?

The scientific world is filled with processesthat are called ‘random’ processes. The list includes Bernoulli Process,Dirichlet Processes, Gamma Processes and many others. But they all fall in the categoryof Brownian motion. The most convincing types of so-called ‘random’ processesare the ones of type alpha-particle emission as it seems not possible tocalculate the emission prior to its occurrence. But having said this there is apossibility that these processes are random because our current technological levelis not sufficient to ascertain the occurrence of event. So they might not betruly random but are random for us observers. This brings us to famousquotation from Einstein who while talking about randomness at sub-atomic levelfamously said, “God does not play dice.” To this Niel Bohr replied, “Do nottell God what to do”. Although I do not have any scientific proof tosubstantiate my claims, but building up from the above given arguments thepossibility should not be overlooked that the processes are not truly randomrather label as such due to either in availability of sufficient technology toascertain or the calculation is too difficult to make. Whether they aresub-atomic processes, biological processes or any other including neurological orpsychological process are not truly random per se. Who knows, maybe Einsteinwas right.

A Professor's Dilemma

2011-08-15T12:06:00.000+05:00

A young and enthusiastic professor joined a local private engineering university. After completion of his doctorate he returned in a highly motivated state of mind in order to impart what knowledge he had acquired to the younger generation. He aspired to design the course in state-of-of-the-art sort of way so that he be able to make his students to strive beyond their capacities and try and achieve excellence at least in that particular course. He wanted to lead the students to the research horizons of his field so that to make them reach the skies. His colleagues advised him against such high goals arguing that this is a very new university and intellectual capacity of pupil does not support endeavours for such high standards. One of them suggested the professor to test these students with very trivial mathematical problems that can be solved by students of grade 10th or 12th. He further informed that the intellectual abilities of these students were not even of such a level that they could handle such trivial mathematical problems. On one hand he aspired to make his students to excel to world class standards of knowledge and on the other hand he was warned and discouraged by his colleagues and seniors that the students can not handle such high standards. With such conflicting thoughts in his mind, he moved towards the classroom to deliver his first lecture.

Assigned a course of final year students, the professor decided to conform to the later advice of his colleague and test his students with very trivial mathematical problems that should be of the level of 10th grade students. To the astonishment of the professor the complete class managed a score next to zero. These final years students of an engineering university miserably failed to answer the questions that should be within the grip of 10th graders.

With the test results in his hands the professor found himself in a fix. He was at a crossroads, where he had two choices and had to choose one of them. Unfortunately, he was not comfortable with any of these available choices. One of the choices that he had was to lower down standard of education to such a level that would be comparable with that of the pupils whom he was supposed to be teach. In this case what he could do was to start from this bare minimum level and then try and raise the standard of these pupil during the course of an 18 weeks semester. Having established this, one thing was certain that no matter how hard he tried and exerted these students, he might be able to improve them to a large extent but will never be able to reach the epitome that he aspired to reach. Considering current intellectual level of these students, an 18 week semester was way too less a time for a task of building it up to the level that is required for the professor to fulfil his aspirations. The second choice he had was to leave the students on their own and continue lecturing, maintaining those ideal standards of education that he wanted. He could lecture them without reducing the desired standard of education dis-regarding the intellectual ability or dis-ability of these students to grasp ideas presented. They were final year students and they should have been able to do it. If they are not capable enough they would simply fail as all those not capable enough always do. Reducing the standard of education just so that the students can pass the exams, it seemed morally wrong to him.

Now from here a question arises that what is morality? What constitutes a morally right position on this or any other issue for that matter? Kantian definition of morally right action states, “A maxim is morally right if it can be universally applied and then does not produce negative effects.”^[1] Using this definition of morally right action let us analyse the above choices.

Let us first consider the case of reducing the standard of education. When such a maxim is universally applied this means every professor will have to do the same. Suppose every professor does reduce the standard of education just for the sake that these students can cope with it. This will obviously have some positive implications and some negative implications. The possible positive effects of such a move can be that nevertheless when the semester ends there will be some improvement in the intellectual ability of these students even if of the order of say 2%. Secondly, the results of the class will be respectable which at the end of the day matters to the students who had been paying the tuition and administration of the university if not to professors themselves. As for the negative repercussions of such an action, this will eventually reduce the standard of education on the whole. Reduction of standard of education on such a scale would obviously reduce the value of the course, thus the degree and the education itself. It leads to a sort of never ending downward spiral. As with successive years the standard of education would ultimately keep on reducing in real terms and a time will come when the degree would be worthless and outdated according to the technological level of that particular epoch. Unfortunately for us, the technological development in current age does not take into consideration the fact that pupil are intellectually not capable enough and therefore it should slow down its own pace. Rather it moves at its own pace which happens to be an exponentially accelerated pace.

Now analysing the second case of maintaining the standard of education. A standard of education which intends to stand at the pinnacle of technological advancement in current era and aeons to come. As with every deed this one will also have its own positive and negative ramifications. The negative effects of this will be that many of the pupil will fail the course and under the condition of universality of the maxim, they would eventually drop out of the university. It would increase rate of university drop outs which will negatively influence reputation of teaching staff at least if not the university itself. A high percentage of university drop-out might have a negative bearing on unemployment rate in the particular society and thus might possibly lead to social problems of its own. But these affects should be short-termed considering the fact that if such a maxim gains universality, then educational institutions catering for prior education would try to increase their standard of education for their own sake leading to reduction in the problem in long run. As for positive effects of this action. It will lead to increased respect for institution as it will be recognised as having a class of its own. It would attract intellectual brains from near and far, this would positively effect the university in form of its research output and the society at large as well. The university's graduates and its degree would gain respect and have its own worth, making it a favourable investment for those willing to invest for their education. The university would reach epitome in education and would be at the helm of research, and would surely retain such a position as long as it does not compromise on its standard of education.

The above analysis (I by no means claim neutrality for it, it may or may not be neutral) would find its supporters on both sides of the divide and many looking for a compromise between these two positions. I for one surely support the second position and abhor the idea of compromising on standard of education under any circumstances. I guess the other position would find many a sympathizers for itself and I would not be surprised if most of them are students themselves. But one thing I am pretty sure about is the fact that compromised reasoning leads to compromised results. Lastly, let me further add here that I by no means intend to blame students for these conditions, rather it is the system that is to be blamed. But unfortunately, it is the students who would suffer the brunt, one way or the other.

[1] Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals [1785], Immanuel Kant

The Ahmedi Question

2011-07-01T12:01:00.002+05:00

The question that has come up in the heretic mind that I carry around is, are ahmedis Non-Muslims? if yes, then why? When I asked this question to a friend of mine, the conversation went some what like this:

Me: Do you think Ahmedis are Non-Muslims?

Friend: Yes, ofcourse. They do not believe in khatam-e-nabuwat (finality of Prophethood)

Me: How do you know about it?

Friend: Who does not know? Everybody knows about it.

Me: Have you read any of their books? or do you have any Ahmedi friend who would have told you some of their beliefs?

Friend: No. Are you Ahmedi?

After this the conversation shifted to my explaining that I am not Ahmedi and when somebody asks such questions it does not make him out of the circle of Islam.

From this conversation the obvious question that comes up is, what is meant by the “finality of Prophethood”? Well finality of prophethood is a concept intrinsic to Islam. It states that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is last of the long chain of prophets that God sent for guiding the mankind. In order to claim oneself of being a Muslim, a person has to believe in the above stated belief.

Here is a need to ask some more fundamental questions. Who has the authority to define a Muslim? What constitutes a Muslim? As I understand Islam the only authority that can define a Muslim is the Quran. Hadith being the second source of Islamic law stands second to Quran for definition of Muslim. So what does Quran say on the subject? Well as per Quran, a Muslim is a person who believes that there is only one God and believes on finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). As for the hadith, it has this to say in this regard:

“Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah's and His Apostle's protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection.”^[1]

and

“Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”^[2]

Having firmly established what constitutes a Muslim, we move to see what does Ahmadi belief hold? More importantly where does it differ from the rest of Islamic sects. Before doing so, what needs to be understood is that Ahmadis have got two of their own sects as well. These sects hold slightly different views from each other. The names of these sects are Lahore Ahmediya Movement or Lahori group and the second sect is called, Ahmadiya Muslim Community. The following tables hold differences between Lahori group, Ahmadiya Muslim Community and the rest of the Muslims.

	Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh)
Mainstream Muslims	The meaning of “Seal of the prophets” is that Muhammad is the last of the prophets.
Lahori group	The meaning of “Seal of the prophets” is that Muhammad is the last of the prophets. No prophet, either new or old can come after him.^[3] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mujaddid (reformer) of the 14th century Hijra and not a true prophet.^[4]
Ahmadiya Muslim Community	Muhammad brought prophethood to perfection, he sealed prophethood and religious law, thus being the last law-bearing prophet. New prophets can come but they must be subordinate to Muhammad and cannot exceed him in excellence, alter his teaching, nor bring any new law or religion. They shall be sent for the revival of the true spirit of Islam.^[5]

This article of faith is of foremost importance as it talks about the finality of the prophethood. The issue of finality of prophethood of Muhammad (saw) gains further importance as it is discussed by the Quran itself. What is evident from the table above is that as far as Lahori group is concerned they do not differ with mainstream Muslims at all. Given this particular sect conforms with the rest of conditions imposed by ahadeeth given above, calling them a non-Muslim would not only be sheer arrogant stupidity but straying away from teachings of these ahadeeth as well.

As for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, this sect may have strangely different concept of the issue but if looked on the whole they tend to conform to the basic understanding of Islamic injunctions by following Mohammadan law and excepting him to be above the rest. In this sense to submit that they are outside the fold of Islam would be mis-guided to say the least. Their belief may be wrong from the point of view of majority of the Muslims but on the whole it does not deviate from the original law or the spirit of that law. The reason being that the subsequent prophets it talks about seem more like “reformers” than a “prophet”. Although they insist on using word “prophet” for their “reformer” but then the question arises, whether this is enough to throw somebody out of the folds of Islam? Not to mention the fact that the very similar use of word “prophet” exists among sufi orders as well. As Ibn Al-Arabi, the greatest sufi mystic of all times, elaborates in his book “The Bezels of Wisdom” or “Fusoos al-Hikmah” as it is originally called..

	Jesus, Son of Mary
Mainstream Muslims	Born of a miraculous birth from the virgin, Mary, but not the son of God. Did not die on the cross but was transported to heaven, where he lives to return in the flesh to this world shortly before Doomsday. Since Jesus (considered a prophet) came before Muhammad, his return to Earth would not disqualify Muhammad as the “last” prophet. Jesus will come to earth not as a prophet but as a follower of Muhammad and preach the teachings of Muhammad.^[6]
Lahori group	Similar to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community belief except that the question of Jesus's virgin birth is not an essential requirement of faith and is left to the individual's personal conviction.^[7]
Ahmadiya Muslim Community	Believes in virgin birth of Jesus but not that he is son of God. He survived the crucifixion and did not die an accursed death. Everything with Jesus was natural like other human beings regarding his birth and his death and that is the Lord's rule. Instead he travelled east to India in search of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Jesus lived a full life and died on earth, specifically Jesus's tomb lies in Kashmir under the name Yuz Asaf.^[8]

This Issue is not of so much of significance that it should act as a litmus test of who is a Muslim or not, the reason being that it is not from the basic tenets of Islam elaborated above.

	Return of Jesus
Mainstream Muslims	At the “end of days” Jesus himself will descend from heaven in the flesh.^[9]
Lahori group	References to the second coming of Jesus among the Muslims are allegorical in that one was to be born and rise as a prophet within the dispensation of Muhammad who by virtue of his similarity, and affinity with Jesus and the similarity between the Jews of Jesus’ time and the Muslims of the time of the promised one (The Mahdi) is called by the same name. The prophecy of the second coming was fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.^[10]
Ahmadiya Muslim Community	References to the second coming of Jesus among the Muslims are allegorical in that one was to be born and rise as a prophet within the dispensation of Muhammad who by virtue of his similarity, and affinity with Jesus and the similarity between the Jews of Jesus' time and the Muslims of the time of the promised one (The Mahdi) is called by the same name. The physical coming of Jesus (an old Israelite prophet) would disqualify Muhammad as the final prophet. The prophecy of the second coming was fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.^[11]

This Issue is not of so much of significance that it should act as a litmus test of who is a Muslim or not, as it is not from the basic tenets of Islam. But what is worth mentioning regarding Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is that it further elaborates their earlier claim regarding finality of prophethood. It seems that their claim regarding new prophets is particularly about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself. This claim gets further elaborated below.

	Status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Mainstream Muslims	Mainstream Muslims consider him an apostate and believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was one of the 30 false claimants to prophethood
Lahori group	Ahmad was a Mujaddid (Islamic Reformer) of the 14th Islamic century (19th Century Gregorian), the promised Mahdi and the second coming of Jesus. He is referred to as a prophet in the metaphorical sense only (as other recognized Islamic saints and sufis are similarly referred to), not a prophet in the technical meaning of the word.^[12]
Ahmadiya Muslim Community	Ahmad was a prophet ("Rasul" as mentioned in 2:285 [We make no distinction between any of His Messengers]) but subordinate and deputy to the Prophet Muhammad. The Messiah, Imam Mahdi and Mujaddid of the 14th Islamic century, and the second coming of Jesus.^[13]

As per Quranic teaching, whether I believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be an apostate or not is immaterial as far as my belief as a Muslim is concerned. Some people might argue that in hadith mentioned above does imply this. But if looked more carefully the hadith does not name the persons, therefore my view of Ghulam Ahmad becomes immaterial as long as I believe in the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (saw).

As for Lahori group, they call him to be saint the promised mahdi. this belief although not in conformity with the mainstream belief but at the same time is not such that it would put them out of the fold of religion Islam. The reason being that believing in somebody being a saint or not is not a basis for checking whether the person is a Muslim or not.

For the Ahmadiya Muslim Community, this point does also help their case as they seem to refer to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as second coming of Jesus Christ. While most of the Muslims believe that Christ’s second coming is awaited event, this group believes that he did return in the body of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It again is deviant from the mainstream belief on the issue but does conform to the basic definition of a Muslim established at the beginning. As second coming of Jesus is not something which can be claimed as basic tenet of Islam. Whether he has come or is still to come is immaterial from the standpoint of definition of Muslim as endorsed by Quran and Hadith.

When confronted with this argument somebody reasoned that these people believe another thing and say something else to gain acceptance. This is a riddiculous argument and as a matter of fact can be used against anybody anywhere. As a refutation for this argument, I would like to quote the following hadith:

“It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle (may peace be upon him). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day.”^[14]

In light of above presented argument, I strongly feel that beliefs of Ahmadis might be different from rest of Muslim sects but it does not fall outside the fold of Islam. It is so, because the basic tenets of being a Muslim can not be dependant upon the whim and desires of any person and can only come from Quran and hadeeth. As far as my understanding of Quran and Hadeeth goes, these people may not be good Muslims (by somebody else’s standards) in the same sense as all the rest of Muslim sects think of all the other of the sects as not good Muslims but still are Muslims and can not be casted out of the fold of Islam, the same should hold here as well.

[1]Sahih Al-Bukhari: The Book of Prayer, Hadith Number 387

[2]Sahih Al-Bukhari: The Book of Prayer, Hadith Number 388

[3]The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:

http://www.aaiil.info/

[4]The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:

http://www.aaiil.info/

[5]The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry

[6]Sahih Muslim: Hadith Number: 242

[7]The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:

http://www.aaiil.info/

[8]The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry

[9]Islamic View of the Coming/Return of Jesus, by Ahmad Shafaat, Islamic Perspectives

[10]Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib of Qadian never Claimed Prophethood [in the light of his own writings], The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for Propagation of Islam

[11]The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry

[12]The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:

http://www.aaiil.info/

[13]The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry

[14]Sahih Muslim: Book 1, Hadith Number 176

Freewill

2011-06-23T00:06:00.003+05:00

I, Muhammad Shemyal Nisar, was born on 22nd of May 1986 at about 10 minutes to 11 A.M. to a traditional but educated Muslim family in the city of Lahore, Pakistan. What did I do to deserve all this? Although I can never be sure of this, but as far as I can tell I did nothing to deserve this nor did I ask for any of it (as per my knowledge), prior to the time I received all these linguistic constructs. I entered this world which was a deceptive mixture of physical as well as mental reality. The word “mental” needs further clarification for I do not mean it in the Cartesian sense of the word rather in the sense of ontologically subjective or linguistically constructed reality. I am so informed that after my birth I was named as Muhammad Shemyal Nisar by my dad.

Having born into a Muslim family I was proclaimed as “Muslim” and indoctrinated with its teachings to this day. My family is ethnically Punjabi and this made me one as well and because my family was “Pakistani”, I by default became one as well. I had not asked for any of these labels, neither implicitly nor explicitly, but so it became. It is also important to mention that neither did I approve of this nor did I disapprove of this. It was as when this reality was unfolded onto me I did not show slightest sign of resentment. But even if I did, I could not change it. It was so “determined” and it happened. Did I freely and willingly chose this path for myself? As far as I can tell, No.

Now let us examine the situation. The above mentioned social constructs determined the path my life took in many a ways. The social and economic position of my family determined the nutritious value of the food I consumed and the quantity of it I consumed. The environment of the house that I lived in determined the way I looked at the world. Having a father who was a military man was beyond my choosing as well, but it did determine that I was not to be stationed at a single city/station for an extended period of time, rather would be moving around it the country. My being a Pakistani determined for me those geographic locations of the world where I could go and those where i could not go or were at least not easily accessible to me. There were visa procedures which were to be followed. I being a Pakistani and financial position of my parents further determined and consolidated upon the places of world inaccessible to me and those which were accessible to me at least for the earlier years of my lifetime. The same variables determined which schools I will attend and these schools were further a determining factors of my thinking abilities and the ideas I will be indoctrinated with. The psychological upbringing at my house and school were crucial in determining my likes, dislikes and attitude towards life in general as well as global events.

What can be an alternative explanation for all my attitudes if we are not comfortable with the above narrated “determinism”? Another explanation for my behaviours and attitudes towards world at large and my immediate environment in specific can be that each and everything was innate. More crudely speaking, it was in my DNA. Although contemplating on what personal features are determined by DNA and which of them are not determined by it would require an in-depth knowledge of DNA, which I clearly lack. But the point to which i would want to bring the attention is a philosophical problem that given all behaviours and attitudes are innate, it makes my life and will, so-to-say, even more determined than it was under psychological model of determinism.

The above given argument whether unfortunately or fortunately proves the case for determinism. The attitude amongst philosophers and the rest is that of dislike, if not contempt towards determinism. The idea is out-rightly rejected even in the presence of overwhelming evidence for determinism.

An argument for refutation of determinism that I heard from Professor Dr. John Searle^[1] states:

“I intend to raise my hand above my head. The intention produces intention-in-action. Lo and Behold!! The hand actually raises above the head. It is not only one single incidence rather it can be done as and when you intend to do it.”

This phenomenon can be elucidated by three explanations. First of all it is a very trivial case, even if we assume that it was freely willed an action all it changes for the original stance is that such trivial matters can be freely willed and acted upon and are thus not determined giving limited freedom to the humans which gives a delusion to us that we enjoy this privilege completely and in all our actions. Such menial issues do not effect the overall architecture in anyway so can be ignored. Secondly, it can be easily argued that my psychological upbringing determined my likes, dislikes and attitudes towards life and the world around. This led me to the study of philosophy. Philosophy that I studied was also molded and fixed to be symmetric with my psychological background, of which should I remind I was not the architect. My study of philosophy led me to this trivial experiment to check my free-will and thus I move my arm. It was all rigged from the beginning. Third argument is given by Professor Dr. Searle himself that it may be that it was written in the great book of history some 10 billion years ago that so and so would raise his arm at so and so place at so and so time in order to prove his free will. The argument can also be postulated using the Laplace's demon^[2]. Laplace’s demon is a thought experiment performed by Pierre-Simon Laplace which states that if some demon outside of our universe knew the position of each and every particle in the universe at a particular time and additionally it knew all the laws of physics, it could work out the position of all of them at any instance of time in future or in past. Humans or no Humans, each and everything in the universe in made out of particles. Hence it was all determined at the time of big-bang. As a counter argument to Laplace’s demon, many a philosophers try to use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of quantum in-determinism to argue against determinism. Unfortunately they also know it quiet well that the randomness that is there at quantum level cancels out at larger level. That is the reason that Newtonian laws work perfectly accurately in our daily lives. Secondly, as far as I am concerned human actions were supposed to be “freely willed” and not random, which has its own completely different epistemological and ontological repercussions.

Unfortunately the above argument reduces humans to lambs and cattle. The only difference being that they have a delusion of freewill. This, the rest of the lambs and cattle do not have. This is what makes us different from them. A mere illusion. The argument for determinism is coherent with laws of science as well. As in the realm of science there are laws for everything and everything is determined by these laws. Why should the humans be any different? They are part of this great cosmos as the rest of the elements in it. The modern psychology tells us that human beings are rationalizing beings rather than rational beings as most of us would like to think. It makes the case of free will even worse.

One reason for reluctance of philosophers towards accepting determinism is that it creates moral and ethical dilemmas. It removes the moral and ethical responsibility of a person from his actions. A person whose actions are determined by something external to him can not be held responsible for those actions as anyone who under hypnosis is ordered to do some action and when he performs that action, he can not be held accountable for those actions committed under hypnosis.

As I see this, I see no problem that determinism might cause for moral or ethical responsibility. Given the case of determined reality, the psychological state of a person creates a subjective reality in his mind out the given reality. If the society has an established order for the crime and punishment, it should have ingrained in his sub-conscious during his upbringing. If it has gotten ingrained in his sub-conscious then it would and should come into account during the decision making process of the mind, therefore act as an inhibitor of crime.

Given this model consider the three cases presented above. First and the second cases are similar in this regard. As stated above the, psychological upbringing determines everything for the person. This psychological upbringing would also include laws and the punishments that are given for crimes. In other words the moral values would also be ingrained in the psychology of the person. While committing any action he would take this into account and whether the fear of law or otherwise, it would act as an inhibitor against crime. The punishments given under law would therefore be in order to warn other people from committing crimes as well as the culprit himself from repeating it in future. It is more like training the population against criminal activities as dogs are trained for certain behaviours. As for the third case where it is postulated that all was written in the book of history some 10 billion years ago at the time of big bang. Here when the criminal’s criminal behaviour was given in the book of history so would it be given that he would be castigated for the crime committed. As it removes the moral responsibility from the criminal so would it remove the same responsibility from those who sanction against the criminals.

In light of the above discussion, as it seems the case is closed in favour of determinism. The free will that is so often talked about is mere illusion created by the human mind and does not exist in reality. The human world and lives are as determined as the laws of physics. No matter how much we wishfully think against this reality, our wishful thinking would not change the reality and the reality would remain as it has always been.

Having established the illusion of freewill, it is imperative to mention that human society can not work without assuming freewill, even if it is absent. For instance, when I wake up tomorrow morning and standing in front of my wardrobe I have to decide which dress should I wear. I can not claim determinism and try to sit and wait which dress I choose. Rather I would have to choose the dress that I would be wearing, although as clear from the above analysis it would be predetermined.

Having come thus far, it is imperative to consider a more fundamental of the questions on this topic. This question is, what is freewill? How can it be defined? Consider hypothetically that there was such a being who had the gift of freewill, how will he act or behave in certain situations?

As I understand freewill, I think it should mean that the actions that a person takes should be free actions and not a result of any external power. The word “power” needs further elaboration. Power is a capacity or ability or disposition that a person has over another person in regard to certain actions irrespective of whether he exercises this power or not. It is a kind of power that a person A enjoys over person B intentionally in order to get person B to do something regardless of person B’s desires. The power in human beings has to be linked to intentionality. The exercise of power has to be intentional, the person A has to intentionally exercise power. The unintentional exercise of power can be called influence which is distinctly different from power itself. Taking a hypothetical situation, there is a person that I abhor to the extent that I can not stand his presence and leave the room immediately when he shows up. This is not his power rather the sorry effect of his presence. On the other hand if he did intentionally want me to leave the room and thus went in the room to produce this effect, it would be his power and the exercise of that power.^[3]

Getting back to the topic at hand, the person with freewill should be able to perform actions that are not result of intention of any external agent rather should be result of free and independent intention of the person himself. In other words the person should have complete “power” over himself.

Having established thus far, it is imperative to contemplate on the question previously stated. How would a person behave, provided he has the gift of freewill for him? In this situation there seem to be two possible outcomes. First possible outcome considers that the person involved should not have any preferences, likes, dislikes or preconceived notions about the situation at hand. Suppose the test involves for the said person to choose a dress for himself assuming equal prices everywhere. Now the problem is that how will he choose? For he lacks likes, dislikes and preferences on which to base his decision. The only possible outcome of such a situation is that he would choose at random. Now there are two problems with in this case, first one being that as argued earlier randomness is not the same as “freely willed” action and we never wanted human actions to be random. Second problem in this case is that a person without likes, dislikes and preferences lacks everything we know to be “human”. Second possible outcome considers that the person involved has got likes, dislikes and preferences. He might like one colour more than the others and one style or dressing more than the others. This means that when he gets in the store he checks the available dresses with his preferences and “freely” chooses the one that fits his preferences. The reason that we can not dis-regard like, dislikes and preferences in this case is that it is a case of “Judgement of Taste”, as Immanuel Kant would call it or ontologically and epistemological subjective. A judgement of this kind should depend upon like, dislikes and preferences as there is no other method to measure or judge them and come to a “rational” conclusion. Although his choice was “predetermined” given his preferences, in the way that if there was such an agent who knew what the store had to offer and psychological condition, likes, dislikes and preferences of the person he would be able to make an “intelligent guess” regarding what that person will choose. This behaviour seems very similar to the way normally humans behave. I think the above given argument conclusively proves the case that although the choices maybe predetermined but they are “freely” or “independently” made and the people do have the freedom of action as according to our understanding of “freedom of action” elaborated above as having “power” over oneself.

Consider another example, there is a judge in a courtroom who is to give a verdict on the trial of the murderer. Now the judge is known to be upright and a man of principles implying he is incorruptible and without any bias who would judge the case on its merit. The law of the land says that the murderer should be shown the way to gallows. Then there is an overwhelming evidence incriminating the alleged murderer. Assuming no double play of any sort in the complete process, what would the judge do? Of course, in light of the given evidence judge would give the verdict in accordance with the law of the land. In this situation the murderer when caught with the evidence was “predetermined” to to hanged. In precisely the same way the judge being of upright character was “predetermined” to give the verdict which he ultimate does give. But having established all this it does also fit with our earlier stated definition of freewill. The judge had complete freedom of action and “power” over himself when he handed down the verdict.

In the above stated way “predeterminism” and “freewill” are related to each other and thus also different from each other.

Another related jargon that is used along with “freewill” is the word “fate”. What is “fate” and what is its ontology? The term “fate” as I understand refers to the inevitable outcome of the situation. When a certain person takes a certain action, it determines his fate for him in given situations although other factors do also come into play and his action is not the sole variable for the equation of fate. Taking the example of the judge from above, when the murderer committed the crime and was caught by the law enforcement agencies. It “sealed” his fate for him. Which eventually was later unfolded as to be hanged. Although our actions are free actions but the consequence that they bring about as a result of them is called fate. In the present model of freewill, the fate should change with each and every subsequent action that a “free” agent takes.

Considering an example for the purpose of elucidation. A person is waiting in his car at the railway junction for the train to pass. When he sees the train coming he is confronted with two options. Either he could wait, or he could take his car on the railway track and run his car on the track. Suppose he makes a free choice of the second option and runs his car on the railway track. Now his “free choice” seals the fate for him which of course is that he would die by being overrun by the train. On the other hand supposing that he “freely” chooses to wait for the train to leave and drives over when it is safe, he effectively changed his fate and would now live, at least for the time being.

The mechanism can work differently as well. Differently in the sense that the person who is to meet his fate, is himself unaware of it and/or it depends solely on actions of others. For example, I make a “freely willed” decision to walk down my street and then onto the main road. While I am walking on the main road I see two cars come close to each other and collide with each other. I hence become a witness of the accident. From this it can be construed that my fate is not only dependent upon my own actions rather it is intertwined with the actions and thus fate of others as well. When I chose to go for a walk I sealed my fate to be at the point where I was standing at that particular instant in time when the accident occurred. If for a second we assume that i am the only intelligent agent then I not only made it my fate to be standing there but also to be the witness of the accident. This is the case with natural disasters or events of like nature. In the case of intelligent agents operating as were in the car accident, then the split-second actions of the drivers that made it their fate to meet the accident did also make it my fate to be the witness of that accident. Therefore as expounded above, fate of human being is an inevitable outcome of the given actions of humans themselves or that of other intelligent agents such as all living creatures and lastly of the unintelligent things in this universe. Although this fate can change depending upon the choice of action that humans undertake. Not to mention that fate gave me an opportunity to help those involved in the accident which I can freely choose whether I want to do or overlook, although it might be predetermined by my psychological disposition.

Finally there is yet another kind of fate. This one involves no intentionality on our part. Although not so permanent as we might think but it does influence many of our actions. In my personal case, my DNA was predetermined which determined many a features of my personality which i would later call as my fate. This includes my skin colour, the colour of my hair, the colour of my eyes, my voice, my height and my being male. The predetermined attributes not only include biological features but the ontologically subjective linguistic constructs as well. These include my being a Pakistani, son of a military man and so on. These would play part in influencing my fate although they included no intentionality on my part what so ever. This kind of fate being of the only kind that seems difficult to alter by any of the human actions, although later human actions can multiply or decrease the impact they have on our lives. Nevertheless it would be an overstatement to say that just because these attributes were determined implies that my whole life was determined as well implying no way I could make things better for myself.

The above argument shows that humans do have freewill but at the same time their actions are predetermined and fate plays in the equation as well. These things can and do co-exist and the presence of one does not negate the presence of the other. Although both of these statements are epistemologically subjective to the truth condition of the given arguments. But then “Freewill” is the ultimate philosophical problem.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the “effectiveness” so-to-say of the freewill in contemporary times in wake of elaborate propaganda techniques and apparatus in place. Does it not undermine the true notion of freewill when humans start being bread as lambs by those with authority or otherwise? But I guess we better leave that for some other time and some other place.

Acknowledgement: I am greatly indebted thus would like to acknowledge the help extended to me by Mr. Waqas Ghazi for completing this work. It would have been quiet difficult without your guidance at such crucial time.

[1] http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/

[2]A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, by Pierre-Simon Laplace, 1902

[3]Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, by John Searle, 2010

De-constructing Blasphemy

2011-01-17T22:35:00.005+05:00

Blasphemy. One of the very hot topics of these days means “sacrilegious act” as per oxford dictionary. In the context of Pakistan Penal Code, it is:

295-B	Defiling, etc, of copy of Holy Quran. Whoever will fully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable for imprisonment for life.
295-C	Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
298-A	Use of derogatory remarks, etc..., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles a sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), or any of the righteous caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

As it is clear from above presented references from Pakistan Penal Code, blasphemy is a religious law, specifically pertaining to the religion of Islam. Being an Islamic law it should have some base in Islamic jurisprudence itself, to render it authenticity. The first pillar of Islamic jurisprudence is the Quran. Hence any law which is repugnant to Quranic teachings, can at the very least not be labeled as Islamic law.

In light of the Holy Quran, a person who says anything against God, or the Prophet (SAW) has not not been prescribed with any punishment at all. Rather the Quran takes an altogether different course of action by telling the believers that it is God Himself who will punish such an offence. God has (in the Quran) gone to the extent of telling His followers to leave the company of such people until they change the topic of the conversation. These Quranic views are evident from the following verses:

“You [Prophet], enfolded in your cloak! Stay up throughout the night, all but a small part of it, half, or a little less, or a little more; recite the Qur an slowly and distinctly: We shall send a momentous message down to you. Night prayer makes a deeper impression and sharpens words–– you are kept busy for long periods of the day–– so celebrate the name of your Lord and devote yourself wholeheartedly to Him. He is Lord of the east and west, there is no god but Him, so take Him as your Protector, patiently endure what they say, ignore them politely, and leave to Me those who deny the truth and live in luxury. Bear with them for a little while; We have fetters, a blazing fire”^[1]

“Every previous people to whom a messenger was sent also said, ‘A sorcerer, or maybe a madman!’ Did they tell one another to do this? No! They are a people who exceed all bounds, so ignore them [Prophet]– you are not to blame– and go on reminding [people],it is good for those who believe to be reminded.”^[2]

“Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next– He has prepared a humiliating torment for them and those who undeservedly insult believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and flagrant sin.”^[3]

“[Prophet], have you not considered how those who were given a share of the Scripture purchase misguidance and want you [believers], too, to lose the right path? God knows your enemies best: God is enough to protect and to help you. Some Jews distort the meaning of [revealed] words: they say, ‘We hear and disobey,’ and ‘Listen,’ [adding the insult] ‘May you not hear,’ and ‘Ra ina [Look at us],’ d twisting it abusively with their tongues so as to disparage religion. If they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ ‘Listen,’ and ‘Unzurna [Look at us],’ that would have been better and more proper for them. But God has spurned them for their defiance; they believe very little”^[4]

“As He has already revealed to you [believers] in the Scripture, if you hear people denying and ridiculing God’s revelation, do not sit with them unless they start to talk of other things, or else you yourselves will become like them: God will gather all the hypocrites and disbelievers together into Hell.”^[5]

These are few of the many available Quranic verses. From all these verses one thing is evident; God has taken the matter of punishing anyone who abuses or makes fun of God, his Prophet Muhammad (SAW) or the Quran itself in His own hands, rather than giving it into the hands of his Prophet Muhammad (SAW) let alone the followers of his religion. On the contrary, the Quran clearly enjoins Muslims to ignore such deeds of non-Muslims. It is also worth mentioning that Quran only allows the state to award the death penalty on two occasions. One when murder is committed ,second when somebody spreads mischief in the world.

The second source of Islamic law is hadth (i.e saying and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Unfortunately for us, the most authentic books of hadith have nothing to say in this regard. This list of authentic books includes Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Al-Muslim among others. We have incidents where the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) behaved in a manner which is in total contradiction of these laws. Two very famous incidents i find worth mentioning here (though there are numerous others as well), one is that of an old woman who used to throw garbage at the Prophet (SAW). One day the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not have gharbage thrown at him. He became curious and inquired about the old lady and was told that she is sick. Our Holy Prophet(SAW) did not thank God for it rather went to her home, inquired about her health and took care of her. The second incident is when Prophet (SAW) was bombarded with pebbles by the people of Taif, God sent an angel to him asking if the Prophet (pbuh) so ordered these people can be crushed under the mountains. Again our beloved Prophet (pbuh) instead of resorting to revenge, showed magnanimity asking God for their forgiveness.

Here it would be imperative to mention that some supporters of this blasphemy law give examples of incidents where Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself ordered alleged blasphemers to be killed. Unfortunately none of these mentioned people were killed for committing the crime of blasphemy. Most famous of these is the case Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul al-`Aufi. Here the supporters of the law fail to see that the person was killed not for committing blasphemy, rather for incessant slandering against the Wife of Prophet (SAW), (i.e spread mischief). Second is the story of Jewish poet Abu Afak who was one of the biggest political rivals of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He allegedly published a poem which was blasphemous to Prophet(SAW) thus was ordered to be killed. Unfortunately this story can not be confirmed by any of the available authorities on Hadith. So much so that Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not even consider mentioning it in their respective works. Similarly, many other incidents are mentioned by the proponents of blasphemy law but all of them have similar stories behind them.

After the Quran and Sunnah there is a third source of Islamic law that is more often than not used by Muslims, fiqh. Fiqh is basically an expansion on laws of Quran and Sunnah by people of later period. It is also worth mentioning that fiqh is man-made and like everything that is man-made can not be categorized as perfect. Fiqh has been compiled by many a people over a period almost 1500 years of Islamic history. Some received wide spread approval and others did not. Of all these books of fiqh the one that has a most following in the world of Sunni Islam is the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifa. On the question of blasphemy it clearly states that Non-Muslims can not be punished for blasphemy for they have already committed a greater crime of not following Islam. When we have been stopped by God from punishing them of this crime who are we to punish them for the crime of blasphemy. A Muslim on the other hand can not commit blasphemy on the faith that he claims to be following. In this case no-body’s allegation is acceptable, but if a person himself admits and further persists on doing so he is considered as “murtid”. He would under the supervision of the court be asked by people three times everyday for three consecutive days to apologise for what he has done. If he submits, he is not to be punished. On the other hand if he refuses to comply, he is to be punished for being a “murtid” and not for committing blasphemy.

Here somebody pointed out that no one would admit his crime and thus would evade punishment. It is submitted that in such crimes no witnesses are admissible as this matter involves the heart and if a person does not admit it himself he is not to be punished. To support this claim I would like to quote a hadith:

The above mentioned hadith is mentioned many a times in Sahih Al-Muslim as well as Sahih Al-Bukhari, two most authoritative books of hadith.

From the above given narrative, a few things become very evident. Firstly, the law is repugnant to Quran and its injunctions. Secondly, the law is repugnant to Hadith as well. Thirdly, neither it is at the very least in-line with the fiqh.

Many people argue that people have sentiments attached to with this issue, hence, as per the democratic principles, the laws should not be changed. Yet, for the same logical reasoning would you legalize honor killing as well? or hypothetically speaking a certain group of people are considered as outcasts by the rest so much so that they want that group killed. Would genocide be legalized? In short I think that laws should not be subject to whims and desires of people, rather enacted upon principles.

In light of the above given arguments, I most emphatically assert that blasphemy law is a blasphemous law in itself. A sad and unfortunate irony that we are living.

[1]Quran: Al-Muzzammil (Enfolded), 76: 1-12

[2]Quran: Al-Dhariyat (Scattering Wind), 51: 52-55

[3]Quran: Al-Ahzab (The Joint Forces), 33:57-58

[4]Quran: Al-Nisa (Women), 4: 44-46

[5]Quran: Al-Nisa (Women), 4: 140

[6]Sahih Muslim: Book 1, Hadith Number 176

I am a TELLI

2010-05-05T21:00:00.003+05:00

A few months ago I got an opportunity to visit Mona Depot. It is the largest depot of its kind where military horses and mules are bred and trained. It was a family trip and my family along with my father’s friend’s family went there for an overnight stay. These people had recently returned to Pakistan from US, where ‘uncle’ was a part of Clinton administration.

After the trip was over and we were walking towards our cars, there came a comment from this ‘uncle’.

“In US vets are very highly paid and they charge heavens for treatments and what do we to them here in Pakistan? We call them ‘dunger daacter’.”

Everyone had a laugh at ‘dunger daacter’, while simultaneously agreeing to this profound observation that had horribly stigmatized our society, not to mention how it paints a serious and honourable profession derogatorily. The sound of it made it look as if this is one of the biggest problems that Pakistani society must rectify if it wishes itself to progress.

But this very statement for its analysis invites many questions, which seek answers for better understanding of societal behaviour. The very first question that can be raised is that why vets are not better paid in Pakistan? Secondly, are vets the only ones who hold a label such as ‘dunger daacter’?

In my opinion there are two reasons for vets not being better paid in Pakistan. The first reason for this trend is the same for all professions, including doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. In short general wage rates are lower here. Second reason is that Pakistan is a poor country where about 25% of its population lives below poverty line; I think people have better things to do with their hard earned money than to spend it on pets. This makes demand for vets abysmally low and thus reducing their income.

The second question is that whether this attitude is restricted to vets alone? A deeper look at the society around will tell you that this is not the case. There are various other professionally attributed names that are looked down upon. Some of the examples are; tarkhan, telli, kumhaar, mochi, julaha, lohar, etc. Here, with the exception of mochi, you would not see many of the workers using these names for themselves. They would be reluctant to even admit to the idea that their work is somehow related to these professional names. The phenomenon is more vocal in urban centres and gradually reduces as you move to rural areas of the country. In other words, this practice is proportional to educational level of people. As for mochis, they are always from that segment of society that is illiterate and downtrodden anyway to bother about such issues.

A close observation would tell you that a tarkhan would never use this word for himself and nor likes it being used for him, but if you call him a “carpenter” he feels elevated and thinks of it as a respectable profession. In the same way a person working in oilfield or associated with its business might frown upon you if you call him a telli, but he would be fine if he is called as “oil-man”. The same goes for kumhaars who prefer “potter” or “ceramics worker”, julaha prefers “textile engineer” for himself.

So what is with these words that are disliked? Is dislike for these professionals the main reason behind this attitude? Are these professions considered menial to be labelled like this?

I don’t think these professions being menial or disliked is the main reason behind this, for they are well paid comparatively. The only thing that is common between them is that they belong from “Urdu” language while the preferred ones are from “English”. Although a remnant of our colonial past, this social attitude has gotten embedded in our society that it is barely noticed.

In my opinion the problem was seeded in colonial times and it flourished after independence. The elite class being educated from British schools and colleges spoke English and thought everything British being good. Rest of the crowd tried to conform to these attitudes adopted by elite in an effort to look like them. Hence slowly and gradually this attitude seeped into our thinking process and made itself a permanent home. Although in later years America replaced the British in preference but it did not change much apart from the fact that now we started to copy American accent.

This behaviour is not limited to language alone. It is present in almost every aspect or our thinking. Whether it is any commodity, or newspaper, or fruits and even educational degrees, foreign is always subconsciously equated to better while local is inferior. A seed implanted by British education in colonial times and flourished on our own wrong decisions and personal prejudices of the ruling class in post-colonial era.

Coming back to the language, recently there was massive hue and cry raised for implementation of constitution and restoration of constitution in its original form but the ruling class conveniently forgot even the mention of article 251(1) of the same constitution which states:

The national language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for it being used for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day.

One line of argument that might leave you inches from accepting the hegemony of English language is that ‘you cannot progress in science and technology unless you speak English’. But wait a minute; a nation just north of us got its independence two years after us and in almost the same condition as we were at that time, zoomed past us in all the fields including that of science and technology so much so that it is even out of our sights now. Its local language was never a hurdle in its technological advancement, then how come ours is?

Probably the reason for non-implementation of article 251(1) is that if it is implemented it would make educated class the same as illiterates and the elite would not be able to flaunt in front of the rest of menial Pakistanis. The absurdity reaches its pinnacle when people are asked as to why English is used and they would try and give self-justifications reinforcing their views with ‘facts’ such as that the whole world speaks English and this makes it easier for communicate with the rest of the world, or simply put English is an international language. Now if you scan across the globe you will find that, not more than 5% of continental Europeans speak English, the same goes for Russia, Turkey, China, Central Asia, while Latin America might have a higher population of English speakers but still that is certainly not as overwhelming as you might think. So where is this world that speaks English? It is most of the third world which was colonized by the British at some point in their history and is still to get its minds independent from their colonial masters.

On a lighter note, I myself work at an LPG plant. It makes me a telli. Do I like being called like that?

Pursuit of Happiness

2010-03-09T22:24:00.002+05:00

The question that is with us today is what is happiness? What causes happiness in anyone? Can anybody stay happy forever? Is the idea of “lived happily ever after” achievable? Is the pursuit of this state justifiable in light of morality and social cohesion?

Restricting this essay to happiness experienced by common people and thus not involving in metaphysical levels of happiness, happiness is a state of mind. Psychologically happiness was defined by Martin Seligman as a ‘positive’ emotion. Actually happiness is a very fluid concept and is thus attributed to many a things. Its common connotation is a smile or at a louder end is laughter.

There can be many a causes for happiness. These causes range from sexual gratification to achieving something that has been strived for. A poor man becomes happy when he receives money. A sick person gets happy when he gets healthy. Parents from animals and humans get happy when they see their offspring. A person who has been wronged gets happy when he receives justice. A singer gets happy when he makes a good tune. This list can go on forever. In short people find happiness in many varied things from many aspects of life.

Down at the bottom happiness is a state of mind. In more metaphorical terms it is stated as the state of heart, but we know that heart is a mere pump for the blood and incapable of thinking and contemplating. In light of this it would be justified to attribute happiness to the mind.

Happiness as it is experienced by people is that it is momentary. For a certain moment there is a peak of happiness and after that moment this happiness decays until it reaches equilibrium state or normal state. The time taken for happiness to subside is dependent upon many a factors which includes personality of the person and attachment of thing that caused happiness to the person. As experience tells no matter how favourable the circumstances are, happiness does always settle. Another interesting aspect of happiness is that when you start receiving its cause on regular basis, after some time it ceases to cause happiness although if its supply is abruptly stopped it does cause pain, unhappiness or disturbance whichever way you would want to call it.

If it is established that case of happiness is always as stated above then what does notion of “lived happily ever after” imply? Is this state of happiness possible? From the analysis of happiness stated above it can be easily construed that no such state is possible. Nobody can stay in the high state for a long period of time let alone living there forever.

So if nobody can stay happy for a long period of time it should also imply that a person for the same reason cannot stay unhappy for a longer period of time. If this is how our emotions behave then there must be some state in between these two extremes. There actually lies a hazy area in between these two extremes where lies normal state of emotions. If we are to point out a centre of these two extremes, portion of hazy region above this centre and closer to happiness can be called contentment while the corresponding region on the other side of this centre can be called disgruntled state.

As per natural inclination people desire state of happiness for themselves. This state as discussed earlier cannot be maintained for longer period of time. Existence of desire and unavailability of the desired gives birth to another question that can happiness be made or created? Can happiness be induced using some external agents?

Well happiness is created using entertainment industry. This entertainment industry implies everything including television, movies, sports, casinos, pubs, etc. External agents can and are also used to induce “artificial happiness”. Drugs, alcohol and other intoxications are used for the purpose of inducing artificial happiness.

The use of entertainment industry and drugs for creating artificial happiness invites questions regarding moral and ethical issues related to these industries. Is the entertainment industry morally and ethically justified? Should people be allowed use of drugs to gain get “artificial happiness”? Is the use of drugs justified under the pretext of keeping the population happy?

As far as entertainment is concerned it should be regulated so that it forbids ‘inappropriate’ content on television. The definition of ‘inappropriate’ content would of course vary from one society to another, depending upon their values and customs. The media should be regulated in such a way that it does not allow any content that would be damaging to children’s minds and inculcating in these feeble minds some ‘wrong’ values. These ‘wrong’ values are those values that are not in line with prevalent values of the society or the values which those ruling would want to induce in the society. Example of this can be that supposedly there is some society where cheating is rampant. Those who are ruling think that this is a ‘wrong’ trend and thus should be stopped they should apart from making legislations should also make entertainment sector to not to glamorize or show content that would give ‘positive’ light to it. Rather they should stay in line with government policy and try and educate people about ills that such habits bring in the society.

Another aspect worth consideration is that people should not be allowed to view ‘inappropriate’ content even if it adds to their happiness. A very good example of this is pornography. Although it would add to happiness of people, the entertainment industry should not be allowed to show such content for the reason that it damages the moral and ethical fabric of any society. People after consistently being in audience of such entertainment, would be demeaning to themselves and would cause ills in the society. It would increase their restlessness in the society and would compel week minds to choose even illegal routes to satisfaction such as rape. This therefore would become never ending quest for happiness and there insatiable desires. It would also increase crime in the society not only the related ones but all types of crimes as those whose character would fall to such depths would not mind other crimes either as it would mean easy money for themselves as well. Apart from immorality the recent trends show as increased inclination such as bestiality. Trend such as these are, in my view, a direct result of pornographic industry which has put societies in never ending quest for happiness and desires.

As for “Artificial Happiness” which is induced using drugs, such drugs should be banned from the society which induces artificial happiness. The reason for this as that all these drugs are addictive, because as per human nature anyone who experiences nirvana never wants to return to real world. This is how consumption of these drugs increases at initial stages. This is a psychological effect or addiction. Later these drugs make body of person addicted to themselves, at this point amount of these in blood increases to alarming levels and the person feels like dying if not drugged. Although at initial stages it was giving happiness to the user but at later took over the control of his body and this does also lead to death apart from other problems to the person as well as the society which has to pay for wrongs of this person.

A question that comes out of this is what is wrong with any drug being addictive or a person being addicted to any drug? The answer to this question is that whenever somebody is addicted to anything to such an extent that it is a matter of life and death for him, then the person would be ready to go to any limits in order to achieve this ‘life saving drug’. To add to worries, most of these drugs reduce productivity of its consumers who are so absorbed in the nirvana that they cannot be bothered to do anything else. The reduction in productivity means a reduction in their incomes. This scarcity of monetary resources leads them to think of illegal ways to gain wealth so that they can satisfy their addiction. These illegal ways would be cheating, thefts, robberies and other such crimes. This means that the whole society has to pay price for addiction of these individuals.

Another issue that can be raised is whether those who are already rich should be allowed such addiction? This is another no. Reason for it is that first of all it creates inequality in a society in form of different laws for rich and poor. Then those poor who want to use these drugs would want to get rich by hook or crook. This would also increase the crime rate of the society. Secondly, a drug in order to induce happiness drives people out of senses and when out of senses they would end up doing undesirable things for themselves as well as for the society. These ‘undesirables’ include many issues ranging from vandalism to rape. No wonder there is law and order situation on Friday nights and Saturday nights in every country where drinking is allowed. Not to mention the morality has reduced and everything that makes you happy is right. In light of this argument population should not be allowed to induce ‘artificial happiness’ and such drugs should be banned.

Happiness in every person is transitive. Nobody can stay happy forever and neither at the same time can anyone stay unhappy forever unless the person deliberately wants himself in such a state. Happiness is basically a state of mind which although affected by external factors but can also be deliberately controlled without the use of drugs. If someone wants to stay happy all the time, the person in my view is misguided. People can stay content for maximum of the time as given in argument above. It is important to clarify that happiness though desirable cannot be maintained for a longer period of time and thus state of staying ‘content’ must be aimed it. If happiness is excessively pursued it buys person into the notion of ‘buying’ happiness which in itself is a dangerous concept and then has its negative externalities with it. It damages moral and social fabric of a society. In the same way excessive pursuit of happiness through entertainment leads to negative impacts on the society on the whole and individual in particular. This is also true in case of artificially induced happiness which does also damage moral and social fibre of a society in a worse way. In short people should try and stay content and not spend too much time and resources at excessive pursuit of happiness.

Education and Platonic Specialization

2009-09-25T00:55:00.001+06:00

More often than not we come across someone propagating specialization in each and every sphere of human activity. Some people even go to the extent of condemning those who delve in field to which they have not been related up till now. This opposition brings forward the following argument in one way or other;

“This is an age of specialization, today everybody tries to specialize and master his field. The world of today is so advanced that nobody can and nor should try to be ‘Jack-of-all-trades’ rather you should try and be a master of your own. Therefore you should quit reading and especially writing on philosophy. I should rather concentrate on my own course and if interested in writing I should try and write on issues related to my degree.”

An initial look at study of philosophy and philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Al-Farabi all seem to support the notion of specialization. All of them were of the view that a man can do only one thing good and therefore should concentrate on that and not try to do anything else as he is not good enough in that trade.

In words of Plato in his book “The Republic”, Plato argues for specialization in following words;

“The barest notion of a state must include four or five men. And how will they proceed? Will each bring the result of his labour in common stock? The individual husbandman, for example, producing for four, and labouring four times as long and as much as he need in the provision of food with which he supplies others as well as himself; or will he have nothing to do with others and not be at trouble of producing for them, but provide for himself alone a fourth of food in a fourth of time, and in the remaining three fourth of his time be employed in making a house or a coat or a pair of shoes, having no partnership with others, but supplying himself all his own wants?

I am myself reminded that we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations. Will you have a work better done when the workman has many occupations, or when he has only one? When he has only one.”⁽¹⁾

In the above words of Plato, it is better for the society when everybody does what he is best at doing and let others do everything else or we should try and achieve specialization in something rather than trying and doing everything by ourselves.

These ideas echo through the writings of Aristotle as well. Aristotle was also of the view that people are better off doing what they are better at doing rather than doing anything else. This in essence means that a cobbler should not do the work of husbandman and nor should a husbandman try and do the work of a cobbler. The reason given by Aristotle is similar to that of his teacher, Plato. Aristotle argues that a person can only achieve near-perfection in one thing only; therefore they should rather stick to that as a profession and means of earning money. In this way when they would hire a cobbler to mend their shoes he because of being more skilled in the art of mending shoes would mend them better than the person himself would do it. In this way there would be a society with higher living standards.

During the medieval times, Arab philosophers followed suit with their Greek predecessors and agreed with them on the issue of specialization. The support for the idea of specialization is shown by Averroes in his book named “Averroes commentary on Plato’s republic”. In his commentary he supports the views held by Plato on the issue of specialization. The reason that Averroes associates to this view of his is same that is given by Plato himself. In the same way another medieval Arab philosopher Al-Farabi also hold the same views at that of Averroes and essentially those of Plato in his philosophical works. Although he does not address the issue of specialization in his famous work of “On the Perfect State” directly, but it is construed from the situation he builds for the ideal state. Al-Farabi writes:

“The excellent city resembles the perfect and healthy body, all of whose limbs co-operate to make the life of the animal perfect and to preserve it in this state. Now the limbs and organs of the body are different and their natural endowments and faculties are unequal in excellence”⁽²⁾

Many people use the quotations like those of above to support the issue of specialization. The same attitude is followed by Ibn Khaldun who is known for his great work called, “The Muqaddimah”. In this book he states in support of the idea of specialization:

“Each particular king of craft needs persons to be in charge of it and skilled in it. The more numerous the various subdivisions of a craft are, the larger the number of the people who (have to) practice that craft. The particular group (practicing that craft) is coloured by it. As the days follow one upon the other, and one professional colouring comes after the other, the crafts colouring men become experienced in their various crafts and skilled in the knowledge of them. Long periods of time and the repetition of similar (experiences) add to establishing the crafts and to causing them to be firmly rooted”.⁽³⁾

In more recent times this ideas of Ibn Khaldun have reached us through the works of Adam Smith and Keynes, as their works are strikingly similar to what was achieved by Ibn Khaldun in late 1300s early 1400s. The above excerpt for the support of specialization echoes through the writings of Adam smith as well in his book called “The Wealth of Nations.”.

If a society is built on principles that all of the above philosophers agree upon, then in essence everybody would be made to focus totally on a chosen field and strictly discouraged to acquire any other non-relevant skills. I do not have any issues with this theory of specialization and nor do I stand against the Idea of specialization, for I do believe that It will make us to achieve better results in which ever field it is applied. But I do seriously think that this concept of specialization has been mis-used in areas where it should not have been applied as in the case given at the beginning of this article.

What needs to be understood and taken into consideration in all the above paragraphs is that they all talk about skills of a human being or craft in case of Ibn Khaldun. The skills and knowledge must be strictly differentiated. Knowledge is not and should not be restricted, while the skills of the respective group of practical fields can be different depending upon the different personalities of people and their different aptitudes. Here I would like to add that engineering, mathematics, medicine and jurisprudence might require aptitude and training to enhance the skills but social sciences must be considered as universal knowledge. The social sciences must be taught to everybody from every field of life.

The reason for the exception of social sciences is that social sciences concern the whole society and people have to live in a society. In order to ensure that everybody abides by his social responsibilities and knows his social rights, it is important that everybody knows how the society operates and what are the reasons behind certain social behaviours? This will enable everybody to play a positive and constructive role in the progress of the society. The lack of education on social sciences and eroding interest of people in wake of rigorous specialization will lead a society into degrading social behaviours. This includes degrading moral and ethical values.

This group of social sciences should include sociology, ethics, morality and basic economics. First three of stated social sciences should be included so that to educate masses about social behaviours, to educate them on how to behave socially. This will help in making a stable and well mannered society, where people are caring about one another and are not treated unjustly by anybody who can treat them unjustly. This will not only minimize cheating in a society rather will also reduce crime rates of the society.

The masses should also be educated on at least basic economics because this is what governs most of people’s lives. If you consider a democratic society for the sake of argument, there people are the authority and have a say in every matter of the state. In this situation if people are not capable enough to judge economic policies and effects they will have on themselves as people and on the society as a whole. When a normal person is uneducated himself on these issues, he will have to depend on ‘other’ people to form any opinion on these issues. If such ‘illiteracy’ prevails at mass level, this means masses are dependent upon few ‘educated’ ones. In today’s world this job will be done by media, which is owned by corporations. ‘Experts’ appearing on this media will try and corroborate and propagate the views that are supported by owner of that channel. In this way opinion about any policy matters will be formed by this media, which can choose to support any policy or criticise and policy at its own behest. This effectively gives power to rich of the society as they are the ones who would own these media channels. This will make democracy into an oligarchy where rich will rule from behind the curtain while people will be made to believe using the same corporate media that they live in a democracy. This will therefore make a society very vulnerable to any adventurism and make a democratic society to crumble or be hijacked, as media would control thought process of people using intellectuals who conform to their interests or using pseudo-intellectuals who propagate interests of the channel.

What should be strictly differentiated is difference between skills and social sciences which educate people about societal knowledge. While making very advanced levels of any subject compulsory would be cruel to pupil, devoiding them of even basic education on these fields would be tantamount to enslaving them and leaving them at the behest of corporations, plus would degrade the moral value and thus social strata of the society.

Bibliography

1. Plato. The Republic. Athens : The Liberty Fund Inc., 387 BC. Vol. 2.

2. AlFarabi. On the Perfect State. [trans.] Richard Walzer. s.l. : Great Books of Islamic World. The original was in Arabic and then translated into English. 1-871031-76-1.

3. Khaldun, Ibn. “the Muqaddimah”: An Introduction to History. [trans.] Franz Rosenthal. s.l. : Princeton University Press, 1967. The original is in Arabic and then translated to english. 0-691-12054-4.

Further on Fault lines of Democracy

2009-07-06T03:24:00.003+06:00

Democracy. Democracy is one of many different forms of government. Like every other form of government, democracy has its own social setup and its own culture. In words of Aristotle, democracy is the form of government that strives for the interest of majority of population⁽¹⁾. Generally, the majority of population consists of poor people, it would not be wrong to categories democracy as government of the poor. Although democracy seems to be a very popular form of government in today’s world, rather it seems to be the only acceptable form of government. It has become something for which people give up their lives and for which they fight very enthusiastically. It order to avoid giving it a “yes”, without thinking about it, it would be important to look at what all of the great political philosophers of past have said about it. In words of Aristotle, from his famous work “Politics”:

“Tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all”

Another one of very famous philosopher of medieval time, Al Farabi says in his book “On the Perfect State”:

“The aim of its (democratic city) people is to be free, each of them doing that he wishes without restraining his passions to the least.”⁽²⁾

From the statement of Al Farabi it may seem to be a very positive stance. In fact all it says is that there is freedom, while this freedom could be positive or negative. This may differ from society to society as discussed earlier in, “Menaces of Democracy and Problems of it”.

Today a democracy is popularly defined in words of Abraham Lincoln that he used in his Gettysburg address, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”⁽³⁾.

As clearly indicated from above mentioned references democracy is government of majority of people. Therefore I deem it necessary to study people, their behaviour and role they play in the society and its political standing to be able to understand democracy better.

Every society can be divided into three broad categories in terms of their political and moral attitudes. These three segments of society operate differently in the political arena of any democratic setup. The first segment is of those people who are sincerely and honestly interested in doing something good. These people are educated enough to understand the problems and strive hard in order to achieve their goals of collective good for the whole society. These people generally tend to remain within the legal and moral limits of the society and therefore try and bring positive change while using means available in those limits.

Second segment of society consists of those people who are corrupt. These people would serve their own purposes alone. They would struggle in every way possible to achieve that they desire. These desires sometimes might corroborate with the desires of the society and sometimes they might be antagonistic towards popular demands. These people because of being corrupt would have more resources and would be able to achieve more because they are not bound by any legal or moral restrictions but only by their own intelligence and desires.

Third segment of the society consists of those people, who are indifferent to the political direction of the society. They are indifferent about what laws are made and how the country in governed, as long as they get what they want. These are the people who struggle in their life to make their ends meet. They do not necessarily have to be poor, they can be rich people as well, but they are not bothered about the government policies as long as they do not negatively affect them. In today’s world this only refers to financial affects, therefore as long as it does not pinch the pocket of these people they are not concerned about anything.

The behaviour and the eventual political outlook of a society will depend on proportion of each of these segments. Lets us assume the first case, where heavy majority of population is of the category of people who wish to do something good, who honestly want to contribute in a positive way. In such a situation the minority would be divided among other two categories. If it is like this then democracy should perform very efficiently and can end up being one of the best forms of government.

Second case would be if corrupt are in majority and thus they hold the power. This would be one of the worst forms of government because the worst people from the whole society would be rulers. Here minority would be consisting of other two categories of people. These other segments of society would be crushed and persecuted by the corrupt elite to the benefit of rulers. This kind of situation is fairly obvious in almost all of today’s third world countries, though not exactly the phenomenon of majority being corrupt rather that of corrupt being in power. While this situation is present in rest of the world as well but not visible due to reasons discussed later.

Another case would be when majority of population belongs to those people who only concerned with their day to day lives. As long as they are enjoying life and living comfortably it does not matter to them who are in power. These people are mostly not very politically ambitious rather they do not desire any political power or office for themselves. Therefore in such a case it is upon other two minority groups to try and influence this majority and get them on their own side. In my opinion this is the situation in most of the western world including US, UK, France, Germany, Australia, etc. For obvious reason of coming to power, both minority groups will try and influence the indifferent majority to their utmost. It may seem like a fair competition, but unfortunately the corrupt do not know anything about being fair unless it is for their advantage. Corrupt would use all methods legal and illegal including cheating, conspiring, lies, deceit, calumny, defamation and everything that they can use, in order to win the majority consent. While because of the very nature of those who are honest, they will try and gain majority support using all the available legal and morally correct means. Thus, there seems to be higher probability of honest group losing the consent of majority. Now people may argue as to why the honest people not use the same methods to achieve power? The simple reason of this is that you cannot use the same ways as of those you and ideologically fighting against. You can not commit injustice in order to fight against injustice for it will kill your own cause while giving opponents an opportunity to tell the masses of hypocrisy for they propagate one thing while they themselves do the polar opposite.

Secondly, the corrupt because of their inherent nature are going to be rich people of the society. This does also give them the ability of buy the loyalties of those from among the majority by using their wealth. This does not only mean to give money to people and ask them to vote for you. But rather by showing false kindnesses or for example, buy a tractor to farmer’s family. In this way they will buy the votes from not only the family of the farmer rather from many other people surrounding and their relatives. In the beginning it might look like a really nice thing to do and the person may be able to portray himself as messiah to people, but the problem would emerge when he would gain power. That is when he would not only take the money he “invested” in the election process but would also look for interest on that money, although not asking the same family for returning the whole thing which would be disastrous, rather making the coffers of public money to pay. This does not only include taking out the money directly from treasury but also bribery on government projects or giving of public tenders to personally or family owned corporations.

If corrupt people take government in a democratic society, they would also try and make more and more people from the segment of the society which is their opponents to those who are indifferent for they are easier to control and manipulate. This would further weaken their opposition and make their rule more lasting.

In today’s world media is one of the important instrument of conveying news and events and more so for the perception management of population. It has changed into propaganda machinery, which would propagate and strive for the interests of certain groups who own these media outlets or provide financial support to them. Media through its various means of television, radio, newspapers, movies and internet rules the hearts and minds of population⁽⁴⁾.

The introduction of media makes the above given argument even messier. If we look around, most of the international media or even domestic media is owned by rich conglomerates who in the hands of its rich owners manage the perception of virtually everything around. Let us then re-examine our above analysis including this new factor.

The first case where the majority of people are honest, in this situation there is a high probability that honest people would be the ones running media outlets as well. But at the same time the corrupt cannot be stopped in a democratic society to have media outlets for them as well. Corrupt while being rich might be able to have more media outlets than their competitors. In these circumstances the corrupt although being a minority would be able to slowly and gradually creep into the base of the society and make more following for them until they form a majority.

In the second case corrupt people already form a majority therefore they would keep media firmly under their grip. This would allow them to further plunder wealth of people and get away with it. While media will either not report it or just give a vague account and keep the population distract to non-essentials.

In the third case where indifferent people form a majority, this time around corrupt people find it much easier to convince the population to their own cause. By the use of mass media corrupt elements of a society will be in a much better position to attract more and more people first to their cause and then to make honest people to defect from their cause and join the indifferent segment of the society. In this way they will be in a better position to prolong their own rule and amass their own wealth at the expense of public money.

Let us now consider an example case that I believe is closer to reality. Let us assume a nation of 10 persons. Out of these 10 let us say that 5 are the ones who are honest, 3 are indifferent while 2 are corrupt. Now because corrupt would inherently also be rich, they would provide the indifferent with what they want and thus buy their loyalties for themselves. Because these indifferent people are the kinds who live Friday to Friday, the rich people can easily influence them thus turning them on their own side. After introduction of mass media into the equation, it makes it easier for the corrupt to influence indifferent people and provide them with false satisfactions. While the media does also serve as an instrument to cause say 2 persons from the honest segment of the society to defect due to intensive propaganda campaigns. In this way corrupt people will be able to form a government with a majority of 70%.

Therefore, after all the above discussion I believe that democracy will eventually lead corrupt elements of any society to power. While when these corrupt elements gain power at once it is easier for them to retain it as well. The corrupt element do not necessarily have to be financially corrupt which nevertheless they are in most cases, they can be morally corrupt or ethically corrupt and when they would rule a society they would cause of downfall of the society. Degradation of values and increase of crime rate as is evident from the condition of most of third world.

Bibliography

1. Aristotle. Politics.

2. AlFarabi. On the Perfect State. [trans.] Richard Walzer. s.l. : Great Books of Islamic World. 1-871031-76-1.

3. Abraham Lincoln Online. The Gettysburg Address. Abraham Lincoln Online. [Online] [Cited: 4 July 2009.] http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm.

4. Nisar, Muhammad Shemyal. I Think- Menaces of Democracy and its Problems. I Think Blog. [Online] 05 January 2009. [Cited: 05 July 2009.] http://mshemyalnisarthinks.blogspot.com/2008/12/menaces-of-democracy-and-its-problems.html.

Democracy Vs a Republic

2009-01-09T00:36:00.006+05:00

Democracy is a one of the many forms of government for any country. Like every other form of government it has its own political setup and social order. A democracy is popularly defined as “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.” In the words of Aristotle, democracy is a form of government that strives for the interest of the majority. As majority of a population is any society is generally poor, therefore it would not be wrong to classify democracy as government which caters for interest of poor. In short democracy means that poor of a country get to rule the country, while rulers are paid attend the assembly. But again this is not always true; there can be a society where majority of the population is rich. In such a case democracy would change into an oligarchy. Then again if majority of a certain state is racist or barbaric in nature, these people would get to rule the state. Not to mention if most of the population is illiterate and uneducated, like would be the people ruling them. This is because majority of the people get to have their say and there are boundaries to what majority can do when together. In words of Aristotle from his famous work “Politics”:

As already stated democracy is a form of government that takes care of the majority of the population or serves the interests of the majority only. This would mean that majority of the population if they want can and will make or change laws of the land as and when they want. This gives the majority the power of a monarch and thus of a tyrant ruler, in other words tyranny-by-majority. If we have learned anything from the history it is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If for example we assume that majority of people of a certain state are fascist or racist, they can try and eliminate all other minority nationalities from their society. This would bring misery and injustice to the people and would morally not be correct, otherwise what Nazi’s did in Germany should not be looked down upon as Germans were a majority in that land and thus exercised the right of majority to dislike or hate the minority races and thus take any action they deemed necessary.

Republic on the other hand, although generally confused with democracy, is a totally different kind of government. Today almost all of the countries in the world, with the exception of a handful, are declared republics. But still most people do not know what a republic is. A republic on the contrary is a form of government that is governed by laws. It controls the majority and ensures the rights of the minorities. It protects the minorities from the wrath of majority. It provides civil liberty to the people, especially minorities. The republic can therefore be defined as a constitutionally limited government, created by a constitution.

In democracy the majority’s power is absolute and unlimited its decisions are not appealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This is because majority is the authority for making of laws and therefore majority and make or bend laws in their own favour and thus achieve their own objects. As for example if in some country majority decides that a certain race or a religious group is unwanted and should not be allowed to live in that country after a certain period of time and the crime is made punishable by death. It does not matter if those people have been living there for past 500 years or 1000 years, when majority decides for them to be a threat they will have to either leave or be slaughtered by the majority. Again in democracy majorities can make minorities to change their lifestyle and ethical and moral standards. In other words democracy opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority.

The question that arises is, whether rule of law is important? If it is important, is it so important that we ignore the wishes of majority of population? I believe the answer to these questions is yes. This is important in order to prevent injustice in the society. So that everybody get his basic human rights, irrespective of race, creed, religion and colour. If such is the case, it brings a happier and a coherent society. It brings society at peace with itself, a society where everybody’s life, wealth and loved ones are secure.

As we see today in the world, where almost every country is a republic there each country is being trusted upon with the idea of democracy as well. Whether anybody likes it or not, he has to be a democracy today. So much so that today we have forgotten about every country being a republic. The idea of a republic seems to be fading away in the flood of clamour for democracy. So can a democracy and a republic co-exist? Let us see through this question and try and find an answer. If a democracy and a republic are enforced together this means that popularly elected politicians now have the right to change the laws of the land at their will. It would also mean that majority can now enforce their will on the minority by just including certain provisions in the laws or the constitution. This imposition of will can be usurping their wealth or taking away their religious rights or simply by banishing them from the state. This mean in case of such collusion very purpose of a republic is lost. I think for the simply reason of these two political orders being totally different from each other, their co-existence is next to impossible. Many would argue against it not being the case around the world where every country is a democracy as well as a republic. But I would argue is majority not usurping the rights of minorities. Take an example of France, a typical western European country. A few years ago a law was passed by the government banning head-gear worn by the religious minorities of Muslims, Jews and Sikhs. Was it not against the rights of religious freedom? I believe it was steered by the popular vote which undermined the rules of a republic. United States of America cannot be considered as a Republic, but it is not a democracy either. It has changed into an oligarchy where the rich rule, but we would leave this debate for some other time.

As we have already seen in the previous essay on democracy and it’s menaces, we now know that under a democratic regime the ethical and moral standards are more prone to spiral down. Whereas in a republic, which is governed by a rule of constitutional law this can be controlled by those who are governing. The rogue elements in the society which tend to degrade these ethical and moral standards would be educated to improve themselves or removed from the state for the obvious dangers they cause to the survival of the state and fabric of the society. The ultimate aim of any society is for its inhabitants to be living in peace and harmony. This is not achieved by mob rule enforced by tyranny of the majority. Everybody has his or her rights but at the same time there should be a limit to these as well, so that these rights are not abused by those with vested interests. So that we do not offend anybody or a minority group with our freedom of speech for instance.

Media has a very critical role which has been very instrumental in the past revolutions as well. It has played a very important role in bringing up revolutions as well as in containing many revolutions. Although media and its representatives should be watched very closely for the power they hold on the population but this topic is still open for debate. As it will require more deliberation to outline the role it would play and the boundary it would contain itself in for a perfect state. This is left for future discussions, but one thing is clear that republic is a better alternative to a democracy and democracy is a potential threat to a republic as well.

Menaces of Democracy and its Problems

2008-12-28T08:02:00.006+05:00

Democracy! Today we see the whole world going crazy about democracy and for the democracy. We see proponents of democracy all over the place and it has been engrained into the minds of people that democracy is the only form of government that is right, therefore should be the only one acceptable. Then we see wars taking place all over the world by these proponents of democracy into foreign lands to establish democratic governments there as well. Of all these people, I really doubt if many know what really a democracy is. Or what other options there are apart from a democracy? What are the short-comings of democracy? Is it all good and no pain? Is democracy the best type of government? To this last question someone answered: “Democracy is not the best but all others have been tried.” So are we falling for democracy just to have a different experience from the past? Besides, didn’t the ancient Greeks have democracy?

Democracy is popularly defined as, “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Democracy is described by Aristotle as a form of government that has in its view the interest of the majority; because majority of the people are poor therefore it is the government in the interest of poor. What this means is that the majority becomes a ruler in the state, where rulers are paid to go to the assembly.

So what other options are there apart from a democracy for the political setup of a society? The forms of government can be easily divided into four main groups, while all the rest being variations of these. These four groups are called monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Monarchy or dictatorship is theoretically the same thing. Monarchy can have two extreme variations, first being a benevolent monarch or a dictator and second being the tyranny thus headed by a tyrant leader who can be a king or a dictator as is often called these days. Then oligarchy is a political setup where the rich people rule. In oligarchy again there can be two extremes of one where the rich take care of their poor populace and the other where the rich are greedy and thus loot there poor populace. Aristocracy is a political setup where the affairs of the state are run by the best people from among the population and the criterion for the best can be chosen be morally best, religiously best or economically best, where in the later case the aristocracy would be similar to oligarchy. Finally, democracy is a political setup where majority runs the affairs of the state. As generally the majority is poor, therefore democracy can be called as a government by the poor. In another case if the majority of the population of a society or state is rich, this would be same as oligarchy. In yet another case if majority of the population of a society is incoherent or racist or barbarian the government would inevitably become tyranny by many. All these forms of government can be summed in words of Aristotle as:

“Tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all”

As already stated democracy is a form of government that takes care of the majority of the population or serves the interests of the majority only. This would mean that majority of the population if they want can and will make or change laws of the land as and when they want. This gives the majority the power of a monarch and thus of a tyrant ruler. If we have learned anything from the history it is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some would argue power if divided among many would be so little in itself that they would not be able to do anything. But the problem is that although divided it is still more than the people who are being ruled. If for example we assume that majority of people of a certain state are fascist or racist, they would try and eliminate all other nationalities from the society who fall in the category of minority. This would bring misery and injustice to the people and would morally not be correct, otherwise what Nazi’s did in Germany should not be looked down upon as Germans were a majority in that land and thus exercised the right of majority to dislike or hate the minority races and thus take any action they deemed necessary.

Again in another case when the majority rules and they are poor, they can try and usurp the property of the rich. As they are powerful thus they out of their jealousy or hatred for the rich people can try and forcefully loot the property and money of the rich, which not only is morally wrong and unjustifiable but harmful to the state itself. Therefore, if not properly taken care off or look properly at a democracy can easily turn into a tyranny of the majority. In such a state there would be no rule of law for the majority. As majority is the one who makes the laws and thus can make laws best suited to serve their own purposes.

Another phenomenon common in politics of majority is known as mob behaviour. As majority governs, when together in a group have a tendency to exhibit the behaviour of a mob or a herd. This psychological phenomenon means that people when together in a group exhibit irrational behaviour, plus they behave in the same way at the same time. This is how stock market rumours take the market to a crash. This is how ordinary citizens behave is the most irrational way during riots at sporting events or political rallies. This at times gives rise to further injustices as obviously the victims are the minorities. These irrationalities are even more evident in those classes of population who are uneducated or uncultured or emotionally charged at certain moment.

Another point of concern is decaying moral and ethical standards. As majority is the sole authority in making or changing any laws, then if majority of the people are somehow convinced about certain thing either good or bad can be made as a rule of law. The process of decaying morals starts with a single seemingly insignificant step at the time that can lead to big changes in the later years. Then the minds of the majority can also be changed through propaganda campaigns. This is evident in the history as in the case of crusaders when pope was able to get people to march to capture Jerusalem. It can be sighted as an example of propaganda campaign to achieve certain objectives. In the same manner propaganda can be used as an instrument to convince people for changes in certain laws which at times does also lead to decaying moral standards. It is just 50 years ago many of the things were unlawful because of the moral standards, but somehow or the other the moral standards have been reduced and the majority has been made to accept the ideas which were previously unacceptable.

These effects are evident all over the so called democratic world and because this democratic world is the one that is ruling over the rest of the world, these effects can be seen all over the world though in varying degrees from country to country and region to region. Let us consider the reducing moral standard, not more than 50 years ago porn was considered something bad and not to be viewed. But today it has become a household thing, again varying from society to society. I think this is because of an increasing infiltration into the society by the rogue elements. These elements have managed to convince more and more people slowly and gradually to accept this phenomenon, making the moral standards to reduce. Take the other case of democracy being the tyranny of the majority. Many people will consider this idea to be bizarre but like it or not this is what has been happening in many parts of this world. Take the example of India recognized all over the world for being the world’s biggest democracy. But each year in the whole on India thousands and thousands of minority people are killed, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Sikhs or other minority groups by the fascist Hindu groups. These killing get the government cover because the Hindus are in majority they get to say what they want done and whom they would allow to live in India and whom they would kill. If this is not tyranny then what tyranny would be? Chief Minister of the state of Maharashtra is reported involved in the sporadic killing of Muslims in the state using Hindu mob groups, under the police cover. But he even then gets elected back because the Hindus are in majority. Another example from the same country would be in eastern India where thousands of Christians are killed their women raped and churches burnt by the Hindu mobs supported by powerful political parties who have been in power for ten years. But nobody raises the voice because they majority is happy and majority get to have the say. Take another case of Serbia, where thousands and thousands of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by the Serbs who were in the majority and thus had their say.

You might think this phenomenon is exclusive to third world and doesn’t belong to the Western Europe in particular. Some years ago in France, the government imposed a strict ban on wearing headgear. Now had this headgear belonged the majority of the population’s dressing, of course this would have been a political suicide. But this headgear was worn by not the majority, rather the religious minorities of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and others. So as these religious groups were in minority their religious right could be taken away by the majority by the sole method of majority having the power to do so. Therefore under the tyranny of the majority the rights of the minorities were quashed and nobody even noticed.

In the recent times another factor has been introduced into the equation which is mass media and its role as propaganda machinery. Some would argue this has always been there. In some way or the other, propaganda has been part of the equation throughout the history. But in recent times this has risen to become one of the most important of the factors in the equation. Media through its various means of newspapers, television and cinema is what rules the hearts and minds of the people. People believe everything without question what this little black box tells them to be true or what the newspaper tells them. I think these are very important means of keeping people informed of what is happening around them and what are the steps their governments are taking and more importantly where the tax payer’s money is being spent by the government. This never the less helps them in making their decision in the future elections. Today if we consider United States of America only it would have got thousands of private Television Channels which work on their own agenda and are not controlled by the government. Private media without any government control should mean impartial and honest reporting so that the citizens stay informed whether the government likes it or not.

In today’s democracies these media outlets can either make or break the life of anybody they want and especially the politicians. Anybody the television tells to be a terrorist people believe him to be one blindly, or anybody this television tells to be a philanthropist and a patriot, people would believe him to be so as well without any question. Politicians need it to gain public support for their agenda and businesses need it to grow, while a common man needs this television to stay updated with the world around for the television tells him everything and plus to be entertained by it. If you consider this black box in the house, you would notice that you start liking whatever this box tells you to be good and dislike whatever this black box tells you to be bad. In other words ethics are also governed by this little machine in the house, to some extent if not totally. In a democracy where the opinion of the majority is what matters and not what is right or wrong, this invention just made the task of propaganda a lot easier and effective. People can now sit in their homes, get entertained and brainwashed at the same time to whatever the owner of that particular channel wants you to. This means that in a system where opinion of the majority is what matters, this television would be almighty and powerful for it has the power to make and break the opinion of people. Slowly and gradually when you have the majority of people conformed to your opinion you make it a law and or an adjustment in the law. All the ethical and moral standards can go down the drain.

After all the above discussion a question that arises is that who controls this powerful thing that can make or break anything around myths, opinions, heroes, villains, demagogues and presidents. Who has control over all this power? What are the ethical and moral standards the controller follows? For he has all this power we ought to know this as well. Unfortunately, today this all powerful media is not controlled by the people with the highest of the moral standards. If you look around, most of it is in controlled by big corporations. Behind these big corporations are filthy rich business men who are doing business. Profits being the main driving force for all of today’s ventures, for these businessmen anything that would sell would be good. Now with the all powerful media in their hands they are like gods. This would mean that these people on top have the power to make or break the governments. They can make populations content or they can bring upon revolutions. They can make governments to make or bend laws in their favour. They can force governments to make peace or to wage wars on other nations. So what does it do? It changes a democracy into an oligarchy. Where only that will happen what the rich want and what suits them the best. Only those people are allowed to rise through the corridors of power who have conformed to the desires of these rich. It would increase the exclusivity of the rich and therefore they would not like newer entrants either. Having all the power in their hands they would be very easily be able to ensure this. People will not be told what they are not supposed to know and only that which does not hurt the power of these powerful men.

If anything we have learned from history that would be that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So that would mean that private corporations should not be allowed control over such a vast amount of power. But what are the other options that we have? What other possible arrangement can be made apart from private people holding all this power? Some would argue that if all television stations would be in the hands of government the problem would be solved. Let us examine such a situation. A democratically elected government if starts to control the media, it would mean that the government would get control of the hearts and minds of the population and they can know make people to believe and like and dislike whatever they want. This would undermine the democratic process itself as it would allow those in government to over-power any opposition they have and get away with it. It means all the ills that were previously considered for the corporations can now be assumed to be for the ruler of the state and thereby democracy can in this way change into a monarchy of the head of the state where nobody can question him for he can choose what people should know and what they should not. It would imply he can very easily drift to become a tyrant ruler who would look for the benefits of himself and those who serve him properly. Therefore, a government controlled media is a potential threat to a democratic setup itself. But is free and independent media not a threat? Our previous discussion shows that free and private media is also a threat to the democratic setup. This is because it would do the same thing as the government controlled media but would only use more cosmetics.

In light of the above arguments I have managed to reach a logical conclusion. No matter how alluring and romantic a democracy may sound, democracy is not a best form of government. This is because of the irrationality of the majority of the population. Again the majority of the population is not so far sighted so as to judge the long-term impacts of short-term benefits. Most of the people are not even bothered to stand and think about the impact of the laws on the society in the long-term. Again if majority of the people think something to be right it does not mean that something is right. As evident from the entire above argument majority can be overtly or covertly be made to think that a certain something is beneficial to them and they would start and believe. People can be made to believe into much false propaganda and they would start to believe it. I think choosing democracy is synonymous to allowing people to commit suicide provided majority of them thinks that it would be beneficial to them.

What remains at large is the question of control of media. Who can be entrusted with such a powerful instrument? Should this thing be destroyed for once and for all, so that no one can use this power? But what about the contemporary methods of propaganda, as apart from television movies are very often used to portray a certain race of people to be evil so much so that the people are brainwashed to think that all the evil in the world is committed by that certain race of people. Then there are newspapers as well who make the opinions of the people. If we talk about blocking all the sources of propaganda machinery then newspapers are also a part of it and an important part of it. Should newspapers be closed down as well? Today another method being used are the video games, which the kids play and they then from their childhood are led to believe that so and so race or country are good and in the same way so and so countries are axis of evil and should always be fought against. Therefore, children are brainwashed to believe and behave in a certain way from the feeble time of their mental development. Should then the video games also be banned? Another question that arises is where should it stop? Because in this way we would end banishing everything, from television and movies to newspapers and video games and public gathering. Then certain things are for the betterment of the general people as well. For the newspapers and television do keep people updated on the national matters and concerns. People know about the problem and grievances of other people as well. So where the line should be drawn for what should be permissible and not permissible?

Unfortunately, these questions remain at large and deserve more deliberation and time. For the conclusion that seems logical maybe too harsh to implement or immature in itself to be whole heartedly implemented. But one thing is certain that a democracy is not the best form of government, rather more corruptible and more fatal to the fabric of the society as a whole.

The Case of Income Tax and Sales Tax in Pursuit of Equal Distribution of Wealth

2008-10-25T05:36:00.003+06:00

Income tax is a tax levied by the government on an individual’s personal financial income. This tax is also levied on the income of corporate or legal entities as well, therefore making the people and corporate sector to pay a portion of their income to the government. Size of this portion varies from country to country, some governments charge a very high tax while others charge at a lower rate. Nevertheless almost every country (if not all of them, but I seriously doubt if there is any that doesn’t) in the world imposes income tax on its citizens in one way or other. The only purpose of enforcement of income tax is to generate revenue for the state.

Income tax as it is known to us today was introduced in 1798-99 for the first time in Britain by William Pitt the younger, so that to support costs of Napoleonic wars. This initial income tax levied 0.8333 percent on incomes over £60 and 2 percent onto incomes over £200. It was hoped that this measure would raise £10 million but it fell short of target and actual tax collected only totalled around £6 million. The tax was later repealed in 1816. Its opponents argued that such a tax should only be imposed to finance wars; they further wanted all records of tax burnt along with its repeal. Due to this all records of tax were publically burnt although copies were retained. In US income tax was introduced in July 1861 where all incomes over $ 600 where charged at the rate of 3%. In this case as well this measure was adopted to finance Civil Wars. Later this idea was slowly and gradually adopted my others around the globe.

There are three main categories of income tax; progressive tax, proportional tax and regressive tax. Progressive taxation is generally followed taxation method all around the world. Under progressive taxation regime many income brackets are formed and higher income groups are levied higher tax rate while lower income groups are levied lower tax. By this method of taxation lower income groups are given protection by not imposing any tax at all onto them as they already have lesser income and even a small percentage can be very heavy upon them. While higher income groups who can afford to pay higher rate of tax are made to pay income tax at a higher rate.

Regressive taxation is the opposite of progressive taxation. In this taxation method poor people are made to pay more percentage of their income in tax while rich pay lesser percentage of their income in tax. This method of taxation is not followed anywhere in the world, because of its inherent injustice. On the other hand proportional taxation method levies flat tax on all citizens irrespective of their income. Proportional taxation although not very popular, still is followed by many countries especially Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia.

Sales tax or ad-valorem tax is a tax levied by the government on consumption. Generally known as GST (General Sales Tax) or VAT (Value Added Tax) sales tax is mostly charged as a percentage of prices. This tax generally increases the prices of these goods, total amount of tax being shared between consumer and seller or producer. The proportion of sharing of total amount of tax varies with products and markets depending upon various other economic factors.

Although Excise taxes were common in ancient world, but sales tax as we know it today is a relatively new idea. Multi-stage taxation was largely developed during First World War, but Value Added Tax was first implemented in France in 1958. This was taken up by other European Countries generally in order to harmonize taxation system inside European Union. Today this is employed in over a 100 countries all over the world. Sales tax is a form of indirect taxation. But sales tax has a very dreadful history with governments being toppled and kings being killed since then. (For further reading on history of sales tax, click here)

Inherently sales tax is a regressive tax, implying people with from lower-income groups spending more percentage on tax that those from higher-income groups. There are generally two reasons for imposition of sales tax. Sales tax is either used by the state to generate revenues. In this case this tax is imposed on many items which in third world countries also include items of basic necessity like milk and bread. In this kind of taxation regime poor person naturally pays more percentage of his income in tax than the rich person, therefore it increases economic inequality and pushes more people below poverty line. Secondly, sales tax is also imposed on certain goods to discourage the use of them in which case items of basic necessity are exempted from tax. A particular example of such a measure is imposition of high sales tax on cigarettes and alcohol. What it does is that it increases the prices of those commodities onto which this tax is enforced, which makes the demand for them to decrease according to basic economic law of demand. Although its usefulness as to whether it does reduce the demand of goods such as alcohol is debatable, in which case only purpose of the tax can be to generate revenue for the government.

The problem with income tax is that it is inhibitive in nature, especially when percentage reaches very high it discourages the individual from wanting to earn more and thus to work more. For example, if in a certain tax regime lower threshold is $10,000 for tax. It would discourage an individual from wanting to earn more. If his basic needs are being fulfilled within this amount of money, why should he work more and then he would have to pay the tax as well? Secondly, income tax is indiscriminate of needs of person who is paying the tax. For example, if a person is earning more than a certain threshold he would be taxed at a fixed rate, whether or not he is able to fulfil his needs with this money or not. Needs of people vary from person to person and family to family. Some people might just have themselves to support while others may be supporting a large family. Although a general estimate of the population can be made but it would still at best be a ‘general estimate’ which is not bound to make everyone happy. But I believe that even if only one person is unable to fulfil his needs while is bound to pay the tax, it is unfair to him and his happiness should be as important as happiness of all the rest. Besides, why should he pay the money to the state when he cannot even support himself? Lastly, income tax I believe is unfair in itself. It looks like state looting people of their hard-earned money in a systematic way. Just assume if a person is levied a tax rate of 10% per annum, the state takes away his income of more than a month. That means he worked 36 days (1.2 month) in a year for the state while rest of the year for himself. He does not get the credit for his hard work of a whole month. Think of it when the rates go higher. 25% to 40% is a normal rate of income tax in today’s world, meaning 3 months and almost 5 months in a year of 12 months. I am sorry to say, but I tend to compare this to slavery, economic slavery. Someone working for half of the year for the state while half of it for himself, if this is isn’t slavery than what would be?

Whereas sales tax as already stated is a regressive tax. Unless used shrewdly only on those items whose use is deemed hazardous and dangerous and needs to be discouraged from using, sales tax is inherently unfair to a poor man. As already stated it is because poor person pays more percentage of his income in tax than a rich man, while poor man’s ability to pay tax is less than compared to a rich man.

In contrast with both income tax and savings tax, if savings are taxed it seems a lot more fare. This is because savings is that portion of wealth of a person which he didn’t need for a certain accounting period. If a person didn’t need a portion of his wealth, implying that it was over and above his needs, when state asks for a percentage of that wealth from him it seems a fair and would mean that only rich are taxed. Although this might encourage consumption-ism to a certain degree but even if it results in lower savings, this would mean that wealth is circulating in the economy and thus creating more jobs for people. This can also lead to a society with better distribution of wealth. A society where rich are taxed and poor are not, which the gap between rich and the poor is also that great.

Many would argue that such a move would reduce revenues of government and thus development. I think in a society where private sector does everything, the need for government’s revenue greatly diminishes unless it needs to fight wars. Besides there can be many other ways of taxation than income tax and sales tax, in which only rich are taxed and poor are exempted. Property tax and wealth tax are a few of the examples. Another line of argument can be that such a system is difficult to implement, but it should be kept in mind that in today’s recorded economies this step is not that difficult to take.

In light of the above arguments I believe income tax and sales tax create unequal distribution of wealth and increase the gap between rich and the poor. These taxations methods favour rich people while suppressing the poor, therefore put be replaced with savings taxes and wealth taxes which are not a burden on poor people while are paid by those can afford to pay. I think this would lead to economic emancipation on population and create a world where everyone gets his fair share from the society and gives his fair share to the society. A society where rich people would not be hated by the poor, in short a better and coherent tomorrow for us all.

Economics of Money and Inflation in Historical Perspective

2008-09-25T23:52:00.001+06:00

Money! It is around which today’s world revolves. But have you ever thought of how money is defined? We all know that a dollar note is considered as money, but say if someone from outer space comes here and asks what is this money? How would you explain to him what money is? In short how would it be defined? Well there are quite a number of definitions that tend to satisfy the cause and more importantly the type of money used in today’s world. Some of the definitions are:

“Money is a commonly accepted medium of exchange in commerce.”

“Money is a legal tender used as a medium of exchange in commerce.”

“Money is what money does.”

“The official currency issued by a government or national bank”

Unlike money inflation is a relatively new phenomenon. Inflation is defined as persistent increase in general price level. In layman terms, if prices of goods of general use persistently increases over one accounting period this percentage increase is called inflation. Just to give you a little insight on inflation, there are two main types of inflation.

One is demand-pull-inflation. In this situation inflation occurs because of difference between the demand of certain commodities and their supply. Say for example; demand for milk and bread increases drastically due to some reason and supply cannot be increased immediately. This will cause prices to increase as well and not only of the milk and bread but all those things that are directly related to milk and bread, thus generally price of almost everything. This is demand-pull inflation.

Second type is supply-push-inflation. In this situation the supply of certain essential commodities contracts suddenly due to certain circumstances, therefore prices would go high because of unmet demand. For example, there is certain country that produces wheat. Its share in global market for wheat is 15%. It is struck by famine during certain year causing wheat production to be almost zero. This would cause the global prices of wheat to rocket-up, because the supply contracted and the therefore demand cannot be met. Take another situation which is closer to today’s world. If United States of America invades Iran for one thing or another. Iran being second largest producer of oil will not be able to export oil to the global market, creating huge shortage of oil. This shortage of oil would kick the prices upwards; making prices of everything go up as oil effects everything else as well. These would be supply-push-inflation as supply contraction would push the prices up.

For centuries man has been using gold and silver coins to fulfil his commerce needs. What is different in gold and silver compared to the modern currency? Since the beginning of time gold and silver or their coins for that matter have their own intrinsic value. Whether they owe this to their chemical properties, physical properties or whatever, it is beyond the scope of this article. But the bottom-line is that gold and silver hold some intrinsic value. Although the respective governments used to put their stamp on those coins, but still it was gold. It could be easily trader with any item anywhere around the world, irrespective of the stamp. Unlike today’s currency notes which need to be exchanged to buy stuff from the foreign countries. Then gold and silver are not perishable. Implying if you bury gold for a thousand years, it would still remain gold when you take it out and not decrease in value by even an ounce. But at the same time they had their own drawbacks like transportation was difficult and hectic task and security of them was also a problem.

To overcome these disadvantages of gold and silver, some private businessmen came up with a business idea. What they did was to open a shop where they would store gold of people and in return issue a receipt to them confirming that the holder has got so and so amount of gold with the issuer of that receipt. They called this institute a bank and the receipt later came to be known as bank notes. These receipts and gold were inter-changeable and thus equally good for commerce. The scheme because of its usefulness attracted many among people and use of bank notes became more and more common. This popularity of these bank notes made many businessmen to venture in this field. Up until this point everything seems good as the banks provide security to the gold of people and they in turn use bank’s receipts to do the commerce. There is no problem of inflation being faced either. All through the only time things start to get bad is when centuries old human attribute of greed comes into play. According to history not much time after the establishment of bank, greed destroyed fortunes of many people. The bankers when realised that people who have got deposits with them don’t really come to check or collect their gold and are content using receipts, started giving out fake receipts or vanish away with all gold that they have. These fake receipts were the ones which did not have any gold at their back. Therefore, when somehow this news came to the depositors they rushed to the bank to check if their gold was there or not and thus world saw crowds outside of banks. The banks closed because they could not exchange receipts for the gold as they didn’t have the gold of the amount of receipts they had given out. Thus the term, ‘run at the bank’.

Later the authority of issuing those receipts was transferred to the central banks and Federal Reserve in case of US. Most of these institutes are owned by the government apart from US, where Federal Reserve is a private institute as well that makes and follows its own policies. Another bit of information about it is that American presidents for decades had been opposing the establishment of such an institute as a central bank, but finally federal reserve act was passed through senate when most of the senators were on vacation and only a handful were available in senate. Such an important institute was enacted in a single day without consent of more than half of the senators, which had been vehemently opposed for decades. The central bank was for the purpose of providing security to the depositors in case any bank defaults.

During 1930s a couple of really interesting events happened in America. A law was passed making it illegal for people to have possession of gold with them and many were prosecuted and imprisoned on ignoring this law. Therefore whole economy was shifted to paper money, although it was still gold backed. Then there was great recession in the American economy. Thirdly, American currency was devalued by Federal Reserve. Meaning amount of gold at the back of every American dollar was reduced without any reason given to its stake holders who were forced to use that paper money by law. Overnight Federal Reserve which has currency issuing authority removed certain amount of gold at the back of not only new American dollars but also the existing ones. What it caused was sky-rocketing inflation. Before this adventurism with paper money concept of inflation was non-existent, although only in those societies who were not using paper money or were still fully gold backed. This concept was called partial gold standards. Whether this drastic change in economy prolonged recession period or was the cause of recession itself is still debatable and subject of many conspiracy theories as well along with enactment of the very same institute. To deny everything that these theorists say would also be wrong because where there is smoke, there has to be some sort of fire. Therefore, I believe until some clear logical explanation is given for the said step these theories would continues to roam around. If of course, there is some explanation behind this.

After the Second World War, the Breton woods system was formed. According to this system all of the world currencies were to be pegged to US Dollar, while US Dollar was still pegged to gold (gold standard). Dollar was made exchangeable with gold. While US promised to redeem the dollar in gold to other central banks. Trade imbalances were corrected by gold exchanges or loan from IMF. Breton woods agreement signed in 1944 gave the world two more institutions viz. International Monetary fund (IMF) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) also known as World Bank. The charter of these financial institutions says that no country should be allowed to revert to gold standards and they use every possible mean to ensure that sometimes even using the American military muscle. Therefore in a way the whole of the world was made dependent on the United States of America and its dollar.

In 1971, American economy was in recession because of heavy American involvement in the Vietnam War. With war expenses sky high and not enough gold to with US Government for to make dollars, the government thought of revoking the gold standards altogether. What did do? What were the implications? Well, for starter it reduced the value of banknotes to just printed pieces of paper. Then the government could technically print any amount of paper as was required and use it. This certainly solved the problem of government not having enough money for their war. But as later the economist came to know that this leads to drastic inflation. Why? Because that piece of paper now no longer has any intrinsic value and is just a ‘legal tender’ which do. As for the rest of the world, it already was not gold backed rather fixed with US dollar in accordance with Breton woods agreement. United States unilaterally came out of this agreement and whole world had to bear the consequences of fiat currency. Previously dollar was fixed to an ounce of gold, after Nixon reneged Breton woods in 1971 it was no longer fixed to gold, something measurable, it was only fixed to printing press of Federal Reserve System of US. The economist agree that decade of 1970s was the worst after 1930s in terms of economic performance. Although oil crisis was the reason behind this as is popularly thought, but the fact remains that oil crisis just added fuel to fire which was already there.

This crisis was stabilized by creating demand for US dollar in international market. An agreement was reached with Saudi Arabia according to which oil could only be sold in dollars and in return US would support “house of Saud” Saudi royal family. After this other OPEC countries followed suit and accept oil payments only in dollars, therefore every country in the world needed US dollars to purchase oil and therefore made dollar a de-facto global currency.

So how does this inflation happen? Well as explained earlier, inflation is persistent increase in general price level. Therefore when more money is printed to take care of expenses more of this money enters the economy, demand for goods increases. As people would have more money they would demand more as well. When they would demand more, prices of goods would increase. The money that is in circulation now does not have any intrinsic value therefore prices of goods vary according to prices of gold, which in turn depends upon its demand and secondly the amount of money in circulation in the economy. More recently in the past couple of years, United States is again engaged in a series of endless wars the so-called “War on Terror”. Keeping other things aside these wars have grown really expensive for American economy which is finding it had to finance this war. They can borrow money from Federal Reserve which runs the printing press but they already are under a debt of billions if not trillions of dollars to this Federal Reserve. The pitifulness of the situation can be judged by the fact that now US government is borrowing money from Saudi Arabia and China at lesser interest so that it doesn’t have to borrow from Federal Reserve which lends at higher interest rates. What this does it that it further weakens already dismal situation of US economy. The state of US economy is directly related to value of US dollar. Therefore meaning that as US economy further weaken so does the dollar, as does the dollar weakens prices of goods that have some intrinsic value increases including oil. When oil prices increase in nominal terms it further increases the prices of other commodities especially food items. When all these prices increase US economy further weakens and the vicious cycle goes on. The inflation that is being observed these days is in nominal terms only and not much in real term, although wages have been decreasing in real terms.

I tend to believe no matter how desperate be a situation, there always is a solution to it. The solution being hard to come up with or not is a separate matter and depends on the particular situation. In my opinion a possible and only solution to this problem is reverting back to gold standards and if not gold other commodities can be used for the purpose of trade, those commodities that have their own intrinsic value and is not just a printed piece of paper. These commodities can be silver, Iron, Wheat, Rice or oil. It might seem old thing to you but it is the only possible remedy to the curse of inflation, fiat paper money was a bad idea. Gold standards would close down the printing press of the government and give some real value to the money of people and make wealth of people independent of those sitting in the government, thus more secure. At the same time it also makes economies of countries independent of US hegemony when their currencies are linked to some other real commodity instead of US Dollar. What right does the government has to erode the hard earned money of people whenever they want? Or what right does the person sitting in Wall Street has to devalue the hard earned wealth of a person sitting in Africa? Therefore, the gold standard would make people and nations more independent of their government’s policies or US hegemony respectively. It would give them more authority over their own wealth and it would get the world rid of the curse of inflation.

Comformity???.............

2008-09-13T02:05:00.001+06:00

"Sitting there, he pleaded with himself into writing that first letter. The ordeal was a sense of apprehension of reading what he would write. What if it wasn't a hopeless piece of work? Zhan bit his lip and smothered out that first letter. "C". A brown "C', or rust as the label said it. Ever since he'd taken up writing, he always used crayons for acts of expression; he believed it allowed him to write without that brashness that came with the pen. A crayon was a medium not to be trashed and forgotten.

'Conformity' he began,' is an act of belonging. It is man's struggle to be charitable in his acceptance of ideas and ideology. It is the simplest of sacrifices one makes for a human relationship. Conformity approaches one's initial bias by rewarding it with the stature of acceptance. Even those who rebel out of tradition continuums, conform at the poles. Conformity by its very nature results out of an act of thought. Conformity is the original sin.'

He paused for the slightest of moments, as if to perhaps contemplate what he had only just claimed.

'The East in its mystical framework takes into consideration the conditioning of man. Thus, the initiate gets to observe how he perceives everything based on what he was conditioned to perceive and how he responded based on how he was be expected to respond. That is not in itself an elusive task to accomplish. You and I, in moments of misplaced sincerity, sometimes feel as if our lives are being constrained by forces beyond our influence or control. As if we have all been allocated timeslots and are being subjected to a subtle experiment. Everyone has left the red pill for the blue one. This feeling of doubt, perhaps even a sense of utter bereavement, refuses to last for any considerable period of time. No mysteries are solved, no conspiracies exposed and no revolutions erupt. The solace of our monotony is rejuvenating. What I cannot help but wonder is where this theatre of self-reassurance leads to? Does it create in us the inklings of a pattern of amnesia for the conformity of contemporary response - or say contemporary behaviour? Let us imagine that the members of most social, political and cultural sororities are coerced into acquiring this reflex. Each individual now follows this pattern, and when faced with an analogous predicament, they may look for a comparable solution. If I easily dismiss my doubt in being controlled, would I not then be as easily able to dismiss the doubts I have of my faith? This is by the far the surest track to instil a doctrine moral and religious hypocrisy into the psyche of the masses. Suddenly all those New World Order plots seem slightly subtler, slightly more plausible and possibly more true. ' "

I'd written all of that a few months ago in condescending cynicism. I had also failed to notice that I had fallen into the very same fallacy that I had been busy describing in the slightest of time spans. With the bravado of enlightenment and all that, of course.

Let me explain. For the longest time, I had been accepting morals and ideas, not just on the basis of conformity but also on whether I could intellectually subscribe to its justification or prohibition. Hah, I thought, I don't fall into the trap of letting myself be a complete hostage to conformity. Then if at any occasion I found myself making an ethical opinion, I'd readily find myself delving into the matter, until I could attach to it an abject morality. It would assure me with a sense of righteous personality and complete that struggle in me. Everything deconstructed to smallest detail: The devil's in the detail as we all know (excuse the pun). All thought of and debated, of course.

That was it, that would complete the process within me and it would be over. Like the above written story. And like it, I would rejuvenate in misplaced sincerity and chuck everything out of the window. You know of the cliché where everyone attacks the religious leaders and clergy of having done nothing but orate and repeat? Just like that.

It was only later - much later - that I began to notice the real essence of morality. I'd always figured that unless you actually understood why you were committing an act, you weren't really committing the act with purpose. I had also never tried to equate the more complex moral questions like war and abortion with things like rudeness and procrastination. But instead of going on about what thought about it this time, let me just say this: No matter what the circumstance or issue, the morality of any situation is of equal importance; it's about choosing what one personally feels is correct. And its about actually making an effort to follow on with that choice It's really simple. As long as morality stays within us, it'll only stay there. I think it's time we take it out and led it spread some.

Another Cold War?

2008-09-02T15:38:00.002+06:00

Russia and the U.S. seem destined to be moving towards another Cold War. The recent intractability of both Parties has brought back the old memories when former Soviet Union and the United States were locked in horn for a period of not less than 40 years in the last century. Robert Gates, the defense secretary of the U.S., said a few days back, "Russia has taken a U-turn and is heading towards Past now." And the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev replied in an unmistakable tone that Russia was not scared of another Cold War, although it did not want it. No doubt that the stand-off between the two countries is at highest point since the demise of the U.S.S.R. in 91, many aspects need to be considered before conveniently using 'New Cold War' for the recent rhetoric of Kremlin and White House. Many ask, did the cold war really end? Or is it just the same war now being fought with a changed global strategic balance and on new Eurasian fronts. No doubt the same trust deficit is there between the two parties but the world surely has changed since 91, and this Cold War, if it is that, will be fought differently than the previous one.The world was quick to announce the end of Cold War in 1991. Everyone was hailing 'New World Order' in the uni-polar world but little did they realize that the Cold War mentality had not changed. Although the economy of Moscow was in shambles yet it never ceased to be a strategic competitor of Washington. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved but NATO kept on growing and never disbanded itself. Many argues that the U.S. has always been wary of the Russians, and the Yanks had never let go of their isolationist policy towards the Russians. The pacified era of Boris Yeltson did not bear any sign of Cold War but the rise of national Vladmir Putin did mean that Russia was eager to regain its erstwhile strategic space. It was only a question of time as when would Moscow announce its revival on the world stage, which now has a different global strategic balance then what one observed in 1991.Analysts say that global strategic balance of power is shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity where many regional organizations have sprung up to assert in world politics. The global hegemony of the U.S. is over whelming but it is under strain and challenges in many regions. Gone are the days when the U.S could bestride on any continent of its choice with no one to challenge its authority except certain 'rogue' states. Washington's engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq seems to b e taking toll on its economy. China is no more the same as it was in 80's; its economic and military might has increased many fold in the recent years. Now there is a strategic alliance of the Chinese and the Russians to check the U.S. in its backyard. The center stage of the previous Cold War was central Europe, and now the recent Georgian conflict is termed as the first battle of the new Cold War.Georgia is a former Soviet Union country in the Caucasus region along with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Tiny Armenia, which borders Iran and Turkey, readily accepts Russian protection. It is Georgia, a vital region for the Wes, which is centre of attention these days. Pipelines through Georgia supply Europe with 1 million barrels of oil per day. Mr. Saakashvili, president of Georgia, is a pro-U.S. leader who has shown his ardour to join NATO on various occasions. The lobbying for NATO invites the wrath of the Russian; As Moscow sees NATO against the spirit of political understanding that took place between Gorbachec and George H.W. Bush. Georgia went to war with Russia recently over its break away provinces viz. South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Although the Western media did its best to paint Russia as a bully in its region, it remains undeniable that Georgia first attacked on the peace keeping Russian troops in the region. The result was inevitable; The mighty Red Army crushed the Georgian batallions and asserted its rule in the region. It was a clear signal for the West that Russia would not allow any U.S backed intervention in the region go unpunished. The U.S. vehemently supports Georgian stand and pushed the European world for sanctions on Russia. The Georgian conflict led to the build up of NATO ships in the Black Sea, and the heated harangue between the two parties followed. The situation had been restive in the Eastern Europe too prior to the Caucasus war.In the Eastern Europe, Polan and Ukraine are the major fronts in this new Cold War. Poland and Czech Republic recently signed a missile defense shield agreement with the U.S. Although the U.S maintains that the defense shield in these countries will be for rogue states like Iran yet Moscow hardly buys this and was left in fury over the agreement, and vowed that Poland will face nuclear strikes in regions in which it hosts the shield. These new threats from the Russians can not be discarded now as rhetoric especially when the shadow of the Georgian war still looms. Ukraine is the other country which is bone of contention. Moscow has not been on good terms with Kiev since 2004, their pro-democracy Orange Revolution which saw a U.S backed candidate Viktor Yushchenko coming in power. Ukraine was also involved recently in a spat of words with Russia over a Ukrainian Black Sea por, Sebastopol, which was leased to Russia till 2017 by the previous government. The population of Ukraine is sharply divided between the U.S and Russia for their support. 17% people of Ukraine are Russians and Moscow takes special interest in their politics; while U.S is eager to bring Ukraine on the tables of NATO. While Russia struggles to grow its influence in the Eastern Europe, the situation is not that desperate for her in Central Asia.The Central Asian states, viz. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, are currently wedged between Russian and China. Several are resource rich and endure varying levels of autocratic rule. The U.S faces difficulty in this region, for this is the area of Shanghai Corporation Organization (SCO). Washington applied for membership of the energy club (read SCO) but was bluntly refused in 2005. In 2005 Uzbekistan had to tell U.S to scrap American bases from its region owing to the growing pressure of the Russians and the Chinese. Stakes are high in this region, as this is the area termed as 'heartland' by Mackinder. Although the U.S. found it easy last time to grab the support of the Western Europe against the communist ideology, it would not be a walk in the park this time.The U.S is in Atlantic alliance (named NATO) with the Western Europe. This time NATO seems divided on how to deal with the Russians. This was evident in the last meeting when Germany vetoed against the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. France is also hesitant in calling the Georgian war its own war as White House wishes. The reasons behind this reluctance are not difficult to interpret. The West Europe does not feel threatened by the communism as they earlier used to. A quarter of oil and gas of Europe is provided by Russia with Germany and italy its biggest gas consumers. They do not want to be a part of this scepticism game that Russia and the U.S play.Trust deficit and scepticism is all time high as it was in the previous Cold War. Russian prime minister Vladmir Putin recently came on CNN and alleged that the whole Georgian conflict was orchestrated by the U.S to benefit one of its presidential candidate. He was pointing towards John McCain, the Republican candidate, who has often relied on his anti-Moscow rhetoric in his campaign. McCain has often called for the ouster of Russia from G8 and WTO. On the other hand, the U.S alleges that Russia is still living in the Past and has not gotten rid Cold War mind set. Both party accuses each other of continuing the Cold War. When one compares the previous Cold War with this new one, he will find many disparities.The New Cold War is different than the previous one in a sense that it is not an ideological war.. It is a war of strategic space with both super powers asserting themselves. While the U.S enjoyed global hegemony for 18 years, this time it is being checked by the Russia in its backyard. Many people would like to compare the recent Georgian war with the Soviet invasion CzechSlovakia in 1968. Sergey Lavrov writes in Newsweek, "Those who long for Cold War may wish to compare Russia's defense of its peace keepers and innocent civilians to the Soviet aggression of last century." Russia might not be ready now to check the U.S in all areas as it did in Vietnam and Korea, but the Russians' strategic might is sharply increasing thanks to the rising oil prices. There remains no doubt that this new Cold War will be fought differently.Both countries never let go of the Cold War mind set and they have only chosen new war fronts for their battle. The world has changed since 1991, as many new colossal entities like SCO and EU have emerged. The goergian war showed: no matter how much you turn to Europe but you can not run from your geography. There is a hint in it for countries like Ukraine. Moreover, the Europe is not ready to repeat the history by isolating Russia again. Whatever the results of this Cold War may be, this remains beyond doubt that a tussle between two super powers will harm the global interests, and the world's fight against terrorism, poverty and other menaces will be jeopardized.

I would like to thank the author of this article Mr. Husham Ahmad Cheema for permitting me to publish his work on my blog

Narcotics and Western Imperialism

2008-08-29T22:59:00.000+06:00

According to Oxford dictionary, the word narcotics means; an additive drug affecting mood or behaviour. The word also means a drug which induces drowsiness, stupor, or insensibility and relieves pain. Some of the drugs which fall under the category are mandrake root, Opium, Heroin which is an opium derivative and Cocaine. In legal context, narcotic refers to Opium, its derivatives and Cocaine.

Narcotics in general and Opium in particular have a very dreadful history. It reminds me of events during the beginning of the 19th century. When British came to the then Indian Sub-continent as traders, this trade was not limited to sub-continent. Trading expanded to China as well but using Indian Sub-Continent as a base. The problem occurred when the British realized that their trade was heavily in the favour of Chinese because they did not have anything to sell to Chinese. In order to balance the trade British started growing opium in the Bengal. This region had already been conquered from Mughal Empire of India. Slowly and gradually whole of the land of Bengal which was previously used to plant food crops for the whole of eastern region of the empire was forced to grow Opium, because it was bringing in money to the British. What were the effects of this move? The people adversely affected by this move were Chinese and Bengalis. British were able to turn the balance of trade in their favour within a couple of years at the cost of Bengalis who had to face famine because British didn’t allow any food crop to be planted and Chinese whose whole society was being destroyed because of opium addiction. But who cares, if the ancestors of today’s civilized world played with the lives of millions of people to gain wealth for the crown?

Did the locals not complain? Did the Chinese sit quietly and wait for the slow destruction of their society? When Bengalis had nothing to satisfy their hunger, they rebelled against British. The rebellion was successfully squashed and later the people were ruthlessly massacred villages were set on fire and their residents burnt alive. Those who tried to run off were shot by the British army supervising cremation. But in this case the people were alive. This is the past of today’s civilized world. Are you not surprised when they raise the slogan against Nazis for massacre of Jews? Are you not surprised when these people acting as saviours of the free world invade Serbia and Iraq and charge their leaders of war crimes and genocide? I would not say that I was against the ousting of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic or a supporter of the genocide that they carried out. But I am questioning the real motive of these saviours of civilized world, behind these steps. Could it not be money this time again? Or to dominate the region for that matter?

At the other front when Chinese government resisted destruction of their society because of Opium and banned opium trade in China, Opium Wars were launched against Chinese. All this was done to earn “profit”. All this blood of humanity was shed by ancestors of today’s saviours of free world and so-called-upholders of human rights to what end? The answer is, to destroy a superior society of Chinese and earn “profit”. In brings me to ask a very important question, is the human blood so worthless? Does human life has no value in the eyes of these predators? On what moral grounds do they wage wars on other nation in the pretext of drugs and human-rights abuses? Or do they have some other motives behind these expeditions, earning of “profits” at the cost of human blood.

What so ever maybe the case, fact remains that Chinese society was destroyed by the British Opium and they could not recover until Mao Zedong came in and killed all such perpetrators in 1949.

History tells us that by the end of Second World War, Imperialistic powers were declining and within a few years there were many new nations across the globe that got freed from previous Imperialistic powers. So is imperialism a thing of past now? Actually, imperialism had not died away; it had just evolved itself in the changing world scenario. Now most aggressive is economic imperialism which does also depend upon military might of those countries, not necessarily, but more often than not. Today United States of America stands as a sole superpower and enjoys imperialistic powers because of its military might. It’s CIA has destroyed societies of all Caribbean and Central American nations up to various degrees, with the exception of Cuba, with these drugs. It is the same CIA whose personal are shown in Hollywood movies as saviours and heroes of the so-called free world. So narcotics are still playing a role in achievement of foreign policy objectives of western imperialistic powers. Before people start labelling me as anti-western or something, I deem it necessary to clarify; history is witness to this that no other imperialistic power has ever used drugs to achieve its purposes. Soviet Union was an imperialistic power as well, but it did not use drugs to subdue the nations or to destroy their societies.

Then history saw Soviet-Afghan war. After this war Afghanistan became newer Bengal, this time not because of some imperialistic intervention but at the hands of nature. Afghanistan saw worst drought and because poppy being only crop that can be grown with least amount of water, afghan farmers started cultivation of poppy. Because of this, most affected nations were its neighbours viz. Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and China. But this poppy was being able to find its way to more lucrative markets of Western Europe and most importantly United States of America. This time the UN started a war against drugs and so-called civilized world suddenly woke up. Loads of money and effort was put in but not much was availed because of lawless Afghanistan.

In 1996, Taliban came into power in Afghanistan and they were successful in achieving what the rest of the world had failed to achieve. They because of their religious affiliation destroyed all poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. No matter what we think of their way of governance, of their way of life or their religious views, but they deserve the credit for poppy free Afghanistan.

After 9/11 world’s only superpower invaded Taliban’s Afghanistan under the pretext of so-called war on terror. Was it really a war on terror or it had any other political objectives? I wouldn’t go into that detail, as it is beyond the scope of this essay. After Taliban were ousted, things started to change for worse. Newer imperialist were no different from the old. US of A the world’s sole superpower after installing a puppet president of Afghanistan who was a former Unocal employee, is involved in planting opium in Afghanistan itself. Opium is being grown all over Afghanistan left, right and centre. They like us to believe that they are trying to stop it, but the fact of the matter is that it is being done right under their nose with largest output from the second largest city of Kandahar. This city after the capital Kabul is strongest hold of the coalition forces and more importantly, US troops. The fact of the matter is that there is heavy CIA involvement in opium cultivation. Then this opium under CIA supervision is being ‘exported’ to Pakistan and China. This opium is again coming into Pakistan to destroy our society, so that CIA can support it ‘covert’ operations in the region. Other than this it has got some political objectives as well. It is directed towards China again. It is rampantly being ‘exported’ the eastern provinces of China. Now that its production is being done in a controlled way and is directed towards those states where US wants it to go, we do not hear any clamour in the western news media or UN.

This quick view on the history tells that man is as barbarian as he has always been. It tells that man is as self-centred today as he has always been. It tells us that nothing has changed. Man would do everything possible to achieve his political objectives and to subdue other men. Today United States of America stands as a sole superpower of the world, but still is employing the methods centuries old. It is not that these methods are to win a war; rather they are to kill the whole society. It is to bring that society to its knees. This is the face of CIA, the real CIA whose face we only know from the Hollywood movies. Hollywood never gets tired to bringing out movies that would portray CIA as the saviour of the world. But it seems like an organization of ruthless criminals being governed by the corporatocratic government of their country. Willing to go as inhumane as possible to achieve what it wants. If this same heroin reaches American coast, it becomes illegal and the world needs to wage war on it. The world suddenly needs to stop it. But when it is being sent to other countries and by their own agencies, world never hears about it. Nor do we hear it in any of the corporate-controlled international media. Such are the double standards of the world today.

All we hear is an occasional appeal by some government official asking Hamid Karzai to do more to stop poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, who is the puppet of Americans themselves does not have any authority over Afghanistan is nothing more than the mayor of Kabul, While his brother happens to be world’s biggest heroin supplier. Mr. Karzai’s brother was detained by airport security for carrying heroin in US some two weeks ago.

Social Impact of Quantitative Pricing of Water

2008-08-26T23:23:00.000+06:00

Britain happens to be an island, located at the northern part of the western hemisphere. Although its location suggests that the place should be cold, but the temperature here moves around zero degrees Celsius in the southern part which includes England and Wales. While in the north it does snow during winter time, imply that temperature does go subzero. In the summers, the temperatures get mild but still it has got loads of cloudy days. As for the weather, the saying goes “It is always raining in England.” The winter months get most of the rainfall, where it literally rains every day. As for the summers, they are relatively dry but still there is sufficient rainfall.

A thing that has recently been introduced by the water companies is the new pricing mechanism. According to this new (at least to this part of the world) mechanism, the water supply to the households and other consumers would be charged according to the amount used rather than the previously working system of fixed monthly charge levied on the populace. All this would either be being done under the pretext of “saving water” or increased costs.

Let us first examine the “saving water” part. Does Britain need to save water? Does Britain face any water shortage in near or far future for that matter? What would Britain do of the water saved? Well, my analysis says that Britain does not need to save water. Here I dare not suggest that everyone should start wasting the water, but at the same time Britain does not face any shortage of water in near or far future to make any extensive measure to save water. As for the water saved, it would end in the sea anyway, because as we all know Britain is an island.

So is it because of increased costs that this new scheme is being introduced? Well if it was only about cost they could easily be handled by increasing the fixed amount already being charged. Assuming there are 2 million households (which is far less than the original figure), an increase in the fixed amount by 1 pound raise the revenue by 2 million pounds. Therefore, the idea of tackling increased cost does not seem to fit it in either.

The only thing today’s ultra-capitalist system cares about is called “profit”. I would not say that I am a proponent of communism, but I do also believe that making profit out of the essential need of the people is highly immoral. It is not only about spending more money on a basic need like water or making more profit out of it, rather it would have serious social implications as well 30 years down the lane.

Let us just examine how it would affect the lives of people and because it is being introduced on newer connections only, its affect would become evident slowly but surely. We have always taken water for granted, and why not it is abundant. 70% of the Earth’s surface is water, excluding the rivers and streams. Water is used for many purposes in many different ways. Apart from the primary use of drinking it is used for bathing, washing and cooking.

Today if someone asks for a glass of water people readily give it to him because it does not incur any cost on them and it is morally inappropriate to say no to a thirsty man’s request for water. Taking the same situation in future, when someone comes asking for a glass of water. This time people would think before giving this to the person. They would think that can they afford to give water to someone? In the end they might simply refuse, even if they find it morally inappropriate but they cannot afford to give water even to a guest. Can you think of it? Someone comes to you asking for simple glass water and you refuse it? I think this is bizarre, but this where the society would go if such a measure is adopted. Therefore, what it does apart from “saving water” is that it de-grades the moral values of people.

Take another scenario, a poor man returns home running and has a dry throat tends to drink water but then in occurs to him, can he afford that glass of water? Or probably he would be able to survive without that. It would remove self-respect from that person. What would be the life of a person who would need to think about his pocket before he drinks a glass of water? Can the poor man not even drink water without thinking about is pocket? The rich people would still waste water and use it the way they want. It is the poor man who would be hit by this measure, who would be deprived even of the luxury of drinking water. Because of this condition he might want to earn more and more money. Such a person would put his heart and soul in the single purpose of earning money. At first sight there would not seem anything wrong in it, if a person wants to earn more money. But it would make him more and more materialistic in nature, then a more materialistic society at large. When a society becomes more and more materialistic it loses moral values and all that it cares about is money. Then you can never ignore the crime rate, which is intrinsically bound to go up under such circumstances.

Things get more and more bizarre when it gets involved in things such as euthanasia. There is a man dying man taking his last breath, he asks for water. Would you give him water in those circumstances? Of course, this is human nature. Now picture same situation some 30 years later, would the dying man be given water? Would the person not think about his purse before giving water? He might as well think that the person is going to die anyway, why “waste” money on him. In the end some people might end up not giving water to the dying man. With the passage of time we would not know and it would be happening at large in the whole of the society. What did it do? It took away the compassion from the society. It made the society more and more materialistic. The only possible next step would be taxing oxygen in the same way.

In conclusion this newly introduced scheme apart from “saving water” would have many adverse effects on the society, including degradation of moral values, making the society more materialistic, increased crime rate and taking away compassion from society thus making it less and less human to name a few.

What this scheme is achieving is more profits for the water company’s owners and share holders at the stake of the whole society. People would argue what is wrong with the desire to earn more profits and making more money. I would reiterate that making excess money out of the essential needs of people is highly immoral. This further reminds me of a phenomenon by the name of hoarding that sometimes occurs in some third world countries. When certain crops are harvested some wealthy business men, in order to make “profit”, buy all the harvest from the farmers before the crop reaches the market. What it does is that it causes shortage of that crop in the market making the prices to go high. Then these businessmen sell the hoarded crop slowly in the market at a higher price, making “profit”. Is this way of earning morally legitimate? I mean if profit is the only thing that should govern every aspect of life, then I find nothing wrong in this hoarding. But profit is not what governs every aspect of life; profit should not be governing every aspect of life.

The further question that arises from here is that if profit is taken away, what would be the motivation behind people to do business? I totally agree that private entities and business are always profit driven would always do enter any business only for profit. Therefore, a resource as strategic as water itself should not be in the hands of private entities at all. They should be in the hands of the government and thus a collective responsibility of the whole of the society. They should in the government control not because I am against free-market economy. Rather they should be in government control because they are too strategic to be at the hands of private companies. The governments are there for the welfare of their citizen and therefore would not be inclined in making profits out of the needs of people. I believe putting water in private hands is tantamount to privatizing the nation army or the police. Therefore, by the above stated argument I believe that Quantitative pricing of water does more harm to the society in the long term and it should be abandoned. If the profit motive of the private enterprises is at stake then these water companies should be nationalised. The citizens of state at least have the right to safe drinking water available to them for free or at minimum fixed price, provided to them by the state.