I wish to put down my thoughts on "God, Destiny and Divine Fatalism(Belief that everything which happens is pre-determined) in question answer form.
Q: What is the basis of belief in God? (Why So many people believe in God?)
A: Like most other beliefs it is most imporantantly "learning from elders". Remember how, when you were little, your parents told, whenever faced with a problem, "God is there to help us". Prayer was thought to be more fruitful that action. You saw them praying daily and you were told to do the same. If you asked "does god exist", you were replied with more certainity than that in 2+2=4, that yes it does. If you ever raised some doubt, you were muted forcibly and told that it is vile and corrupt to question such "beyond the logic" matters. Then you went to school and saw same thing repeated there. Schools taught it, Movies showed it, Temples boasted it, Mothers scared you by it, Everyone prayed it. Slowly you internalised the idea of god. Now it was your belief(and not forced by someone else) that yes god exists. You were certain of your belief, though there was no other reason to be so, than that most others were equally certain. In your subconscious, you were scared to even slightly doubt this idea. You had your "Big Brother", always standing by your side to protect and help but ready to put you in hell if you dared to doubt. You did not want to loose him and you ofcourse did not want to get burnt in hellfire till eternity.
It brings us to the question what about those who did not "learn from elders"? I mean those who first thought of this idea called god or invented god if you are ok with that term. I think it was subconscious desire and conscious necessity to control the unknown destructive events combined with ignorace of their causes that led savages to believe in god. Their god was one who caused fire and rain, winter and summer, flood and drought etc. They thought if they could please one who controls all this, he would protect them from destruction. God did not do so, they perished in large numbers but belief continued because it provided them last ray of hope. All beliefs of savages have failed to meet test of time, but strangely this one persists.
But what about philosophers who first believed in god and then went on to invent reasons for doing so.( Philosophy is almost always an attempt to rationalize one's beliefs. Mind it: not to find disinterested rational answers but to rationalise.) Well the most lucid and concise answer to the arguments of theist philosophers is already given by agnoist thinker Bertrand russell. If you are interesrted pls do have a look http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm
I would limit myself to the question which common people ask when in philosophical mood: "How this world is so perfect? I mean everything just does fit in place" I dont know what this logic really means. Are they talking about perfection embodied in life. But life is too brief interlude in time and at too little place in space of this universe for life to be central point of existence of universe(unless ofcourse evidence proves that aliens have existed since eternity and will continue to do so till universe exists.) Or they mean Life, by itself, has very low probability of evolving from dead matter, so there must some creator behind this perfect design which makes life possible. But because of this low probability life exists in too short span of time and space. Even on earth it did not happen in 7 days, as holy bible tells us, but took billions of years for life to develop as we see it now: Minerals and water surrounded by a lipid(basically fat) => Organelle and Coacervates(Basic cell) => Protozoa(Ameba and all 1 cell species), Jellyfish => Poriferas =>Arthopeda=>…..=>……=> Monkey ,Gorilla or Chimpanji =>Human being(before 30 lakh years). As darwin has shown this development was made possible, not because surroundings were perfectly adapted to life by some supernatural creature but because life adapted itself to the surroundings. World was not made fit for life(though it was better than other worlds), accidents(which happened in huge numbers) produced life and added features to it through evolution. And life itself is not at all perfect. With life god also gave us Wars, Famines, Floods, Droughts, rapes, murders, Hitlers, Stalins, Changez khans etc. After billions of years of hard work, this is too bad god too bad.
Q: Why Divine fatalism seems improbable?
A: 1) Suppose that whatever happens in universe is predetermined by divine force, there must be a purpose behind all this: creation and control ulitimately leading to some predetermined conclusion. But there seems to be no purpose behind this universe, it seems that it exists for its own sake. If someone knows the purpose, please enlighten me. Hinduism says "Universe exists for life, life exists for moksha through its human form. Now moksha is unity with paramattma. But then why sepration at first place."
2) If every thing is controlled by divine force, what kind of control of it is. It is very old but pertinent question "If god is omnipotent and good, why there is evil in world. It shows that either god can prevent evil but he does not want or he can not. Option is to choose between demon and Man(if he is not omnipotent)". Children die, people starve, wars happen. Why, if god controls all this? Please don't say as said in Hinduism that these all are the effects of past Bad karmas. It means that you have done something bad in past lives but now in this life even if u are leading a good life u have to suffer the consequences for actions which you dont even remember. Does god not understand the meaning of justice? or Should we preach a lesson to him about reformative justice? What is the goal of this sort of judgment? Then even if people keep saying "God is the best judge and his laws are eternal". Then let me say frankly "Do hell with this sort of justice and law which is nothing more than a blind revenge of unknown sin".
3) Logic given by my best friend Amit who believes in fatalism is: "Suppose you study very hard and someone does not study much and yet at times you dont score well while he does better. It means only you don't control results of your actions but some supernatural force does". Well this is very untenable argument. First of all again, what kind of divine justice it is. In a good god controlled world i would believe fruits to be based on actions. Since it does not happen, rather than finding past life actions as an excuse to our theory, we should look for alternative points of interest: "does that guy got genes which gave him better memory retaining capacity or intersection of what he studied and questions the examiner choosed was greater than that in my case or he had some connection with examiner or i developed an headache because of fight with my mother or a biker hit me on road". So many things can happen with different probabilities where number of actors is 6 billion humans+ unknown no of living and and dead things( even a fly can go into your nose and get you a car accident but it does mean that divine will was guiding that action, You are not that important idiot). So my point is: "this world is a playground, here beutiful things happen, ugly things happen, Ugly things assure that a good omnipotent god is not behind them, there are lots of actors making lot of rational and sometimes not so rational choices, interacting with and affecting each other, you can increase and decrease probabilities of what is about to happen but can never make them 0 or 1, no one has written and no one knows what will happen until it actually happen".
Well what are implications of my theory compared to fatalism:
1) It does not bring in god to explain happenings of world while fatalism does.
2) It leaves more space for individual to act, since he can increase and decrease his probabilities, while fatalism lives no space since everything is already decided and you have to just ollow that.
3) It allows the imperturbability which amit desires so much by thinking that since god controls everything if something bad happend it was not my fault, because remember you can not make your probabilities 0 or 1 since you are not the only player in game. The one thing is this calmness is of a free rational human being while fatalist's calmness is of one who has psychologically surrendered to idea called.
4) To paraphrase bertrand russell " My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of fatalism and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity".
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Why the hell Karva Chauth?
Yesterday was Hindu festival of Karva Chauth in which women keep fast for long and healthy life of their husband. I wish to contest the very idea of this festival on following two grounds:
1) It is Patriarchal: Why only woman fast for well being of her husband? Can anyone please tell me of a single day in year when man is suppose to fast for wellbeing of his woman? Perhaps it is because of the patriarchal setup in which a man can marry for second time if his wife dies while wife can not remarry that easily and would have to suffer socially stigmatised widowhood, that a woman cares more about wellbeing of her husband than man does for his wife.
2) It is Irrational: What exactly fasting and not drinking a single drop of water by one person has to do with wellbeing of another fellow? I fail to see any cause and effect relationship in it. "Oh, you just dont know infidel,there are few things beyond your stupid logic, good god (who has written in advance the destiny of my husband) will be pleased by my fasting and alter any bad fate if it were about to happen in future" shouts a believer woman. Well this god must be a sadist if it is pleased by a person's hunger and thirst. By the way, when hitler killed 11 lakh people in Germany, most of them fiedal who prayed earnestly to god to save them till last movment, where your god was? "Oh god of chirstians and jews is impotent, I am talking about my Bhagwan".Ok where was your bhagwan during the famine of bengal, where people fasted for weeks since they did not have anything to eat and prayed to god to save them from death and yet millions died. How are you so sure that a god who does not listen to pleas of 27000 mothers of different religions(whose children die every day because of poverty) will listen to your request?
Note: I am not against social customs. But almost all customs are inegalitairan and irrational in nature. So i find responsbility of viciously attacking them befallen on me.
1) It is Patriarchal: Why only woman fast for well being of her husband? Can anyone please tell me of a single day in year when man is suppose to fast for wellbeing of his woman? Perhaps it is because of the patriarchal setup in which a man can marry for second time if his wife dies while wife can not remarry that easily and would have to suffer socially stigmatised widowhood, that a woman cares more about wellbeing of her husband than man does for his wife.
2) It is Irrational: What exactly fasting and not drinking a single drop of water by one person has to do with wellbeing of another fellow? I fail to see any cause and effect relationship in it. "Oh, you just dont know infidel,there are few things beyond your stupid logic, good god (who has written in advance the destiny of my husband) will be pleased by my fasting and alter any bad fate if it were about to happen in future" shouts a believer woman. Well this god must be a sadist if it is pleased by a person's hunger and thirst. By the way, when hitler killed 11 lakh people in Germany, most of them fiedal who prayed earnestly to god to save them till last movment, where your god was? "Oh god of chirstians and jews is impotent, I am talking about my Bhagwan".Ok where was your bhagwan during the famine of bengal, where people fasted for weeks since they did not have anything to eat and prayed to god to save them from death and yet millions died. How are you so sure that a god who does not listen to pleas of 27000 mothers of different religions(whose children die every day because of poverty) will listen to your request?
Note: I am not against social customs. But almost all customs are inegalitairan and irrational in nature. So i find responsbility of viciously attacking them befallen on me.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Few facts for you all
These Fact talk about problems of world in numbers:
1. According to the report, published by the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) and based on data from 2000, the top one percent of the world’s adult population (about 37 million people) owns 40 percent of the world’s wealth, while the top two percent owns over half and the top 10 percent owns 85 percent. Wealth is defined as physical and financial assets minus liabilities.In contrast, the bottom half of the world’s adult population—or about 1.85 billion people—owns collectively only one percent of the world’s assets.This means that the top one percent of the world’s adult population owns 40 times more than the bottom 50 percent, and nearly 3 times more than the bottom 90 percent. Put another way, the authors note, "The average member of the top decile [top 10 percent] owns nearly 3,000 times the mean wealth of the bottom decile, and the average member of the top percentile [top one percent] is more than 13,000 times richer."(The report does not take into account individuals under the age of 20). Using a common measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, the authors note that the global wealth Gini is higher, at 0.892, than the corresponding figure for income. A Gini value of 0.892 "roughly corresponds to the Gini value that would be recorded in a 10-person population if one person had $1,000 and the remaining 9 people each had $1," the report notes.
In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 2000, 80 times as much.Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day(with PPP) or 20 Rs per day approximaely.
2. According to the report, the top one percent of the population in the US owns 32.7 percent of the wealth, trailing only Switzerland, where the top one percent owns 34.8 percent. However, the US figure excludes the very richest families that are included in the list of Forbes billionaires. If these were included, the share owned by the top one percent would rise to 34.7 percent. The share owned by the top ten percent, a figure that is available for a larger set of countries, ranges from 41.4 percent in China to 69.8 percent in the US. The richest one-tenth of one percent of the population, or about 300,000 Americans, reported significantly higher combined pretax income in 2004 than the poorest 120 million.
3.World gross domestic product (world population approximately 6.5 billion) in 2006 was $48.2 trillion in 2006.The world’s wealthiest countries (approximately 1 billion people) accounted for $36.6 trillion dollars (76%).The world’s billionaires — just 497 people (approximately 0.000008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion (over 7% of world GDP).Low income countries (2.4 billion people) accounted for just $1.6 trillion of GDP (3.3%).Middle income countries (3 billion people) made up the rest of GDP at just over $10 trillion (20.7%). The world’s low income countries (2.4 billion people) account for just 2.4% of world exports.
4.Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.
5. In recorded history since 3600 BC, over 14,500 major wars have killed close to four billion people – two-thirds of the current world population In armed conflicts since 1945, 90 per cent of casualties have been civilians compared to 50 per cent in the Second World War and 10 per cent in the First. There are at least 250,000 child soldiers fighting in armed conflict. USA is World’s biggest arms exporter – supplies around 40 per cent of the developing world’s arms. Its junior partner Britain is World’s second-largest arms exporter with a 25 per cent share of the legal global market.
6. Over millenia, due to agriculture and deforestation carried out by ancient and medieval societies, CO2 levels in the atmosphere inched along from 260 parts per million (ppm) to about 278 ppm until the time of the Industrial Revolution. However, since the mid-18th century, CO2 has jumped to 384 ppm, much of it in the past few decades. As a consequence, the Earth’s average temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution, reaching 14.5 degrees C in 2005. The problem, as Paul Brown explains in Global Warming: The Last Chance for Change, is that there’s more warming in the pipeline. There’s a lag of about 25-30 years between greenhouse gases being emitted and the full effects of their warming. So the recent climate chaos is actually the consequence of emissions in the late 1970s. The full effects of more recent emissions, including from China’s coal-based power stations that some are suddenly and rightly concerned about, will be felt in the years to come. We are committed, Brown writes, to a further 0.7 degrees C. That would add up to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. At 1.5 degrees, 18 per cent of the world’s species will die, and 400 million more people worldwide will be exposed to water stress. In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s population resides. the North is responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb GHGs. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.
7. 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day).A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water.
In the slums of mumbai countless women line up for water every morning. From four in the morning they begin positioning their buckets in line to stake their place in the queue. Sometimes, they might not get the water they wait for, which is no more than 40-50 litres a day. In and around the same Mumbai, in the same period, there were 24 amusement water parks using 50 billion – that’s right, 50 billion – litres of water a day for the entertainment of the rich. In the desert state of Rajasthan, plagued by actual scarcity of water for five years, more water parks and golf courses were planned. A single golf course takes 1.8 to 2.3 million litres of water a day through the season. On that amount of water, over 100,000 villagers in the state could have all their water needs met for the entire summer season.
9. In india Public spending on health is a mere 0.8% of GDP(reduced from 1.5% from 20 years earlier) , and medical care is now the second most common cause of rural family debt in india. The UNHDR records that almost a third of India's children, or 30 per cent, are below average weight at birth. Amongst children under the age of five, 47 per cent in India are underweight.Each year since 1990, the Human Development Report (HDR) of the UNDP publishes the Human Development Index (HDI). This index "looks beyond GDP to a broader definition of well-being." The HDI seeks to capture "three dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life (measured by life expectancy at birth). Being educated (measured by adult literacy and enrolment in primary, secondary and tertiary education). And third: GDP per capita measured in U.S. dollars at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)." the rank of 128 puts us in the bottom 50 of the 177 nations that the UNDP Human Development Report looks at. Treat Adivasis and Dalits as a separate nation and you will find that nation in the bottom 25. Or subtract our per capita GDP ranking from the process and watch India as a whole do a slide.India rose in the dollar billionaire rankings, though. From rank 8 in 2006 to number 4 in the Forbes list 2007, but we slipped from 126 to 128 in human development.
10. An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:3 to 1 in 182011 to 1 in 191335 to 1 in 195044 to 1 in 197372 to 1 in 1992 In Monetary terms according to the World Bank, the 2.3 billion residents of low-income countries accounted for less than 3% of public and private consumption in 2004, while the 1 billion residents of high-income countries consumed more than 80% of the global total. In this same year the United States accounted for 4.6 percent of the world's population and 33 percent of global consumption--more than $9 trillion U.S. dollars.In The U.S. itself also has the largest gap and inequality between rich and poor compared to all the other industrialized nations. For example, the top 1% receives more money than the bottom 40% and the gap is the widest in 70 years. Furthermore, in the last 20 years while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased, it has decreased for the poorest 40%.
11.
In the 1970s, in india the Planning Commission defined poverty based on nutrition norms wherein all people unable to access 2400 calories and 2100 calories per capita per day in rural and urban areas were to be considered poor. (Rural energy norms were set higher as more rural workers perform harder physical labour as compared to workers in urban areas.) As
per these norms, according to official surveys (called the National Sample Surveys), three-fourths of the rural population (74.5%) in 1993 did not get the minimum recommended daily calories! Their monthly expenditure per person was less than Rs.565. The situation in the urban areas was slightly better: 45 % of the urban population, which was spending below Rs.625 per month per person, obtained less than the minimum required daily calories. The latest official survey carried out in 2004-05 shows that the situation has considerably worsened: an appalling 87% of the rural population was unable to access the minimum recommended 2400 calories per day!! The corresponding percentage for urban India, where the nutrition norm is lower at 2,100 calories, was 64.5.
Then how come the government figures derived from the same data show that poverty has fallen during globalization years? For instance, the government claims that rural poverty has fallen from 36% in 1993-94 to 27.5% in 2004-05. The government has succeeded in uplifting 60% of the rural population above the poverty line by a simple trick: by simply lowering the poverty line! The new poverty line has nothing to do with whether a person is able to access the minimum recommended calories. Thus, in 2004-05, while nutrition data from the NSS 61st Round (2004-05) show that a person needed to spend Rs.795 in rural and Rs.1,000 in urban India a month to access 2,400 and 2,100 calories respectively, the official poverty lines for that year were only Rs.356 and Rs.539, half or less than half the actual requirement.
A little poem
With a borrowed definition of success,
everyone strives to succedd.
Here success is praised, failure sympathised,
but attempt to create one's own definition, despised.
A standard criteria, applied to all,
How much money made, without being put in jail.
Not his poetry, not his painting, not his inventions, not his creativity
But for how much, it all sell.
This evaluation criteria, needs to be evaluated,
on the ground of individuality, where it fails most.
Youth and Politics part2
My dear friend,In last letter we agreed that change is required, change is possible and politics is necessary instrument for any broad and stable change. In this letter i want to put forward my opinion on two questions: why interaction of youth and politics is particularly important, and what are steps youth need to take in order to do positive politics.Interaction of youth and politics is important in our country because:
1) Some 47% of country's population is under 20 and 70% is under 35. Youth (age group of 13 to 35) make around 40% in countries population. For any strong and healthy democracy involvement of such huge section in politics process is very necessary. Today youth are alienated from politics and that's why they sometimes disrespect democracy itself. If india has to be biggest democracy in reality and not only in textbooks, youth would have to politicise themselves and politics would have to create space for young.
2) Young, since they have ability to dream and think beyond immediate personal gains, are least interested in maintaining the status quo and if something better is possible which would improve the lot of masses, they will be ready to fight for it. Justics, Equality, Liberty all such great values attract them and if given proper platform they can be the most passionate satyagrahis for a just, egalitarian and free society. Politics need the passion of youth.
3) If youth wont do politics, they will become a silent spectator and hence supporter of other's politics. The best friend of status quo are those who feel that it is unjust and inhuman and yet prefer silence. As i already stressed in first part, world wide a special kind of politics is going on: politics of hunger, startvation and prolonged malnutrition, politics of individual and state terrorism, politics of ecological destruction etc. Either youth will do their own idealistic politics against this mainstream rotten one, or they would remain a passive instrument in the hands of those who do mainstream politics.
4) Any individual who is a bit sensitive and socially conscius would be forced to ask this question, when he sees around himself: Is this the society, the nation, the world I want to leave for my future generation to live in? and this is not an insignificant question. It made our freedom fighters give their lives so that we can be citizen of a free nation. Soon he will find the answer: no, there are many things that ought to be changed. His sensitiveness would force him to find ways to do something for society and bring a positive change. and the best way to bring a positive broad and stable change is politics. So for sensitive youths, the hope and the vision to create a better society, a better country and a better world would find its destination in politics.Now i come to the final topic of my letter: What are precautions youth need to take or thing they need to learn in order to do positive politics:
1) Fault in character or in understanding: We all talk alot about faluty character of politicians: that they are corrupt, greedy, selfish etc. Any problem comes and we attribute it to the fault in character. Thats why few youth who think of coming in politics, assume that since they are strong in character, they are not corrupt, greedy or selfish, they dont have to worry about anything else in order to do positive politics. But in reality fault in understanding is perhaps bigger reason of evil winning the battle. So youth who are interested in politics would have to form an understanding of problems of world: in short Idealogy. If you have to connect farmers suciede in Vidarbha, BT cotton and GATT agreements or inflation and opening of markets or poverty and richness going side by side and form a view about any broad issue, you need an idealogy. It does not have to be dogmatic but you need one if you have to do politics. Like for example, i think in present day india, to form an idealogy, we need to learn from socialists like ram manohar lohia and JP, from Cast system opposers like Jyotiba phule and B. R. Ambedkar, from revolutionary side of gandhi and bhagat both, from feminism and envrionmentalism, from 19th century marxism as well liberalism and form an understanding of the issues our nation and world is facing today.
2) Where to start: I have seen many enthusiastic youth organisations coming and vanishing in last 2 years. The reason behind it are two: first they dont understand that rome was not built in one day (change comes slowly) and second they fail to identify where the potential for change or revolution is, in our society. Since last 25 years this energy for change is coming from various grassroot people movments working through out the country.(You might search on net about MKSS: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghtan, Aazadi Bachao Andolan, Narmada Bachao Andolan etc). Youth who want to do something for society would find these people movments as an excellent platform to put their passion in practice. Many people movments after working for decades on ground have realised the need to intervene directly into politics and together they have formed Lok Rajnitik Manch(People political forum). It is a flexible organisation of organisations. If you are interested in doing pro-people politics, i invite you to become a part of the manch. This is the platform for you to start. You can visit its website here http://www.lokrajnitimanch.org/
1) Some 47% of country's population is under 20 and 70% is under 35. Youth (age group of 13 to 35) make around 40% in countries population. For any strong and healthy democracy involvement of such huge section in politics process is very necessary. Today youth are alienated from politics and that's why they sometimes disrespect democracy itself. If india has to be biggest democracy in reality and not only in textbooks, youth would have to politicise themselves and politics would have to create space for young.
2) Young, since they have ability to dream and think beyond immediate personal gains, are least interested in maintaining the status quo and if something better is possible which would improve the lot of masses, they will be ready to fight for it. Justics, Equality, Liberty all such great values attract them and if given proper platform they can be the most passionate satyagrahis for a just, egalitarian and free society. Politics need the passion of youth.
3) If youth wont do politics, they will become a silent spectator and hence supporter of other's politics. The best friend of status quo are those who feel that it is unjust and inhuman and yet prefer silence. As i already stressed in first part, world wide a special kind of politics is going on: politics of hunger, startvation and prolonged malnutrition, politics of individual and state terrorism, politics of ecological destruction etc. Either youth will do their own idealistic politics against this mainstream rotten one, or they would remain a passive instrument in the hands of those who do mainstream politics.
4) Any individual who is a bit sensitive and socially conscius would be forced to ask this question, when he sees around himself: Is this the society, the nation, the world I want to leave for my future generation to live in? and this is not an insignificant question. It made our freedom fighters give their lives so that we can be citizen of a free nation. Soon he will find the answer: no, there are many things that ought to be changed. His sensitiveness would force him to find ways to do something for society and bring a positive change. and the best way to bring a positive broad and stable change is politics. So for sensitive youths, the hope and the vision to create a better society, a better country and a better world would find its destination in politics.Now i come to the final topic of my letter: What are precautions youth need to take or thing they need to learn in order to do positive politics:
1) Fault in character or in understanding: We all talk alot about faluty character of politicians: that they are corrupt, greedy, selfish etc. Any problem comes and we attribute it to the fault in character. Thats why few youth who think of coming in politics, assume that since they are strong in character, they are not corrupt, greedy or selfish, they dont have to worry about anything else in order to do positive politics. But in reality fault in understanding is perhaps bigger reason of evil winning the battle. So youth who are interested in politics would have to form an understanding of problems of world: in short Idealogy. If you have to connect farmers suciede in Vidarbha, BT cotton and GATT agreements or inflation and opening of markets or poverty and richness going side by side and form a view about any broad issue, you need an idealogy. It does not have to be dogmatic but you need one if you have to do politics. Like for example, i think in present day india, to form an idealogy, we need to learn from socialists like ram manohar lohia and JP, from Cast system opposers like Jyotiba phule and B. R. Ambedkar, from revolutionary side of gandhi and bhagat both, from feminism and envrionmentalism, from 19th century marxism as well liberalism and form an understanding of the issues our nation and world is facing today.
2) Where to start: I have seen many enthusiastic youth organisations coming and vanishing in last 2 years. The reason behind it are two: first they dont understand that rome was not built in one day (change comes slowly) and second they fail to identify where the potential for change or revolution is, in our society. Since last 25 years this energy for change is coming from various grassroot people movments working through out the country.(You might search on net about MKSS: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghtan, Aazadi Bachao Andolan, Narmada Bachao Andolan etc). Youth who want to do something for society would find these people movments as an excellent platform to put their passion in practice. Many people movments after working for decades on ground have realised the need to intervene directly into politics and together they have formed Lok Rajnitik Manch(People political forum). It is a flexible organisation of organisations. If you are interested in doing pro-people politics, i invite you to become a part of the manch. This is the platform for you to start. You can visit its website here http://www.lokrajnitimanch.org/
Youth and Politics
I am writing this letter to an average middle class youth of india who loves to hate politics. Hating politics and loving cricket are his two passions compteting for the first position. I do so,as a friend of him, who understand his frustation and anger but disagree with his conclusions. I do so, with an intention, that some day we will walk together and try to make this world a better place to live.
Dear friend, Your hatred of politics is not baseless. When you say "politics has become very dirty", "there is no scope for good people in it", "Politics without muscle power and money power: forget it dude", "Nothing is going to change man, hoping for a better society is fruitless, be practical" etc, it becomes clear that there is something very serious wrong with the present political establishment. This establishment does not deliever what we want, it does not even care to listen. So you have concluded that it is futile to speak and the best option is to withdraw. I think,No, if it does not care to listen, let us shout and if it does not respond even then let us keep ready the instruments needed for an ear surgery.On a serious note, You should not withdraw because it is impossible to be neutral on a running train. A specific kind of politics is being promoted by ruling party and its loyal opposition around the world: resulting in 496 individuals having more than double the weath of 2.3 billion people, 27000 children below five dying each day because of poverty, misery of many for enrichment of few, prolonged malnourishment and starvation, individual and state terrorism, irreversible environmental damage, increasing crime, insecurity, depression to name a few. In India this politics has resulted into more than 150,000 farmers commiting sucide because of farm crisis, people being displaced and their land being snatched, 83 coror people living on less than 20 Rs per day while Ambanis are growing richer, health care budget declining from 1.5% of GDP to 0.8% in last 20 years, widespread corruption etc. If you are not shouting against it, you are silent in favour of it.I hope now you agree that Change is required.
But what about "kuch nahi badlane wala" (Nothing is going to Change), well let us try to find answer to this question in history. Our country and many other countries were colonised by Brithish Imperalism. People, like you and me, participating in freedom struggle did not think "kuch nahi badlane wala", and the empire was defeated. Slavery was a custom, from ancient greece to modern america. But People, like you and me, fought against it and secured victory. Women's opression, Monarchy, Voting rights only for property holders, Untouchability in our country etc all these things were norms of some place at some time. But when people realised that it is unjust and woke up, change followed. History teaches us that no norm, no custom, no system is god given and at numerous instances ordinary people like you and me, standing together, have defeated empires and brought out important change. Change is possible.
"Ok fine, but this dirty politics can not be an instrument for such change. Ya i want to do something for soceity. I will join some NGO and do social work" are you thinking this my dear friend? Well it is possible to teach 2 hours per week in slum through NGO but the route to reform education system so that quality education is accessible to all goes via politics. It is possible to conduct a medical camp on weekend as social work but politics is bound to come into picture if one thinks of a well functioning public health care system. For any broad and stable change, politics( in a broad sense, not merely the power game) is only instrument. You take example of education, for instance. We all would agree that every child should a minimum of 10-12 years of education. Now in order to achieve it: people might have to come together and start a campign, government might have to pass a law and allocate necessary resources, then create awareness on a massive scale so that children attend school and recieve the education. All these are inherently political steps.NGO is about charity of rich and luck of poor, Politics is about responsibility of state and rights of people. NGO is about (only) feeding the poor: easy, self esteem building but ineffective, Politics is about eradicating the poverty and hunger: tough, includes suffering but long lasting and effective. Politics has the power to create and stop war, NGO can, at best, heal the wounded. So while what NGOs do may be a good thing in itself, for broad and stable changes in any field like education, economy etc politics is absolutely necessary. So Politics is necessary instrument for change.
So Change is required, Change is possible and Politics(again in a broad sense, not merely as the power game) is necessary instrument for any broad and stable change. You still hate politics, my dear friend? I hope not anymore!
Dear friend, Your hatred of politics is not baseless. When you say "politics has become very dirty", "there is no scope for good people in it", "Politics without muscle power and money power: forget it dude", "Nothing is going to change man, hoping for a better society is fruitless, be practical" etc, it becomes clear that there is something very serious wrong with the present political establishment. This establishment does not deliever what we want, it does not even care to listen. So you have concluded that it is futile to speak and the best option is to withdraw. I think,No, if it does not care to listen, let us shout and if it does not respond even then let us keep ready the instruments needed for an ear surgery.On a serious note, You should not withdraw because it is impossible to be neutral on a running train. A specific kind of politics is being promoted by ruling party and its loyal opposition around the world: resulting in 496 individuals having more than double the weath of 2.3 billion people, 27000 children below five dying each day because of poverty, misery of many for enrichment of few, prolonged malnourishment and starvation, individual and state terrorism, irreversible environmental damage, increasing crime, insecurity, depression to name a few. In India this politics has resulted into more than 150,000 farmers commiting sucide because of farm crisis, people being displaced and their land being snatched, 83 coror people living on less than 20 Rs per day while Ambanis are growing richer, health care budget declining from 1.5% of GDP to 0.8% in last 20 years, widespread corruption etc. If you are not shouting against it, you are silent in favour of it.I hope now you agree that Change is required.
But what about "kuch nahi badlane wala" (Nothing is going to Change), well let us try to find answer to this question in history. Our country and many other countries were colonised by Brithish Imperalism. People, like you and me, participating in freedom struggle did not think "kuch nahi badlane wala", and the empire was defeated. Slavery was a custom, from ancient greece to modern america. But People, like you and me, fought against it and secured victory. Women's opression, Monarchy, Voting rights only for property holders, Untouchability in our country etc all these things were norms of some place at some time. But when people realised that it is unjust and woke up, change followed. History teaches us that no norm, no custom, no system is god given and at numerous instances ordinary people like you and me, standing together, have defeated empires and brought out important change. Change is possible.
"Ok fine, but this dirty politics can not be an instrument for such change. Ya i want to do something for soceity. I will join some NGO and do social work" are you thinking this my dear friend? Well it is possible to teach 2 hours per week in slum through NGO but the route to reform education system so that quality education is accessible to all goes via politics. It is possible to conduct a medical camp on weekend as social work but politics is bound to come into picture if one thinks of a well functioning public health care system. For any broad and stable change, politics( in a broad sense, not merely the power game) is only instrument. You take example of education, for instance. We all would agree that every child should a minimum of 10-12 years of education. Now in order to achieve it: people might have to come together and start a campign, government might have to pass a law and allocate necessary resources, then create awareness on a massive scale so that children attend school and recieve the education. All these are inherently political steps.NGO is about charity of rich and luck of poor, Politics is about responsibility of state and rights of people. NGO is about (only) feeding the poor: easy, self esteem building but ineffective, Politics is about eradicating the poverty and hunger: tough, includes suffering but long lasting and effective. Politics has the power to create and stop war, NGO can, at best, heal the wounded. So while what NGOs do may be a good thing in itself, for broad and stable changes in any field like education, economy etc politics is absolutely necessary. So Politics is necessary instrument for change.
So Change is required, Change is possible and Politics(again in a broad sense, not merely as the power game) is necessary instrument for any broad and stable change. You still hate politics, my dear friend? I hope not anymore!
Introduction
Well I am abhishek. Philosophical Liberal, temperamental anarchist and politically Lohiyaite. By proffesion i have just completed my enggineering and my passion lies in political activism. This blog is to put forward my views on various issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)