Whenever we discuss India-Pakistan relationship, Kashmir is a central issue .
A bit of history:
The Indian independence Act, as passed in the British Parliament, posited the partition of British ruled India into Hindu and Muslim majority regions namely India and Pakistan . The princely states, and this is the important part , were given the freedom to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent . Raja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir chose to remain independent .
Pakistan meanwhile attacked Jammu and Kashmir . Raja Hari Singh approached India for help . India agreed to help on the condition that Jammu and Kashmir accede to India. Raja Hari Singh signed the document of accession and J&K legally became a part of India. The Indian army was in the process of evicting the Pakistani invaders when our leadership commited the historial blunder of involving the United Nations and agreeing on a cease fire . The marks of that blunder are now etched on the ground as the LoC , the positions of the army at the time of the ceasefire .
So much for history , India's claim on J&K are based on the document of accession , whereas Pakistan's claims stem from J&K being a muslim majority state. We can get into this discussion about whose claim is more legitimate, one based on rules and laws and the other based on religious separatism . But that is a separate issue . Since then Pakistan has been spreading terrorism in J&K, using all means possible.
Till a few weeks ago, India's official, international stand was that Pakistan is involved in spreading terrorism in J&K . A counterattack Pakistan has been using for years was accusing India of spreading discontent in Balochistan, which India has summarily denied .
Then came the NAM summit and Dr. Manmohan Singh , by virtue of being the 'elected' Prime Minister, represented India. What came out of the summit was a joint statement by India and Pakistan which stated that India will look into information which Pakistan has on threats in Balochistan . In a moment , India wasted the efforts it has been making for so long, to divert the Pakistani accusation . If this would have come unilaterally from Pakistani , it would have been worth just as any baseless allegation . But now it has a seal of authenticity from India. It is ununderstandable what forced India to agree to this mention in the joint statement .
Serious as the matter was , the issue reached the Parliament of India . The explanation given by the government was as ludicrous as it can be .
"We have nothing to hide on Balochistan". - I know we have nothing to hide on Balochistan , thats the precise reason why there should not have been any mention of Balochistan . Are we going to include things in the joint statement , on which we have nothing to hide ?
" We have not agreed to Indian hand in Balochistan, we will merely look into the issue " - Will Pakistan look into the information, India might provide it on Maoist infested areas ? If not , why will we look into the Balochistan issue ?
The ramifications of this blunder did not take much time to manifest . Just a few days ago , the Pakistani Foreign Minister was showing off the joint statement, as a confession by India of its hand in meddling in internal affairs of Pak . Who do we blame now ? Do we blame Pakistan , or do we blame the India leadership ?
What will we do when the international community asks us " Dear India ! What actions have you taken on the information provided to you by Pakistan about the Balochistan unrest ? " . Then we will be able to do nothing except show a red face .
What if Pakistan tells us that they will stop terrorism in Kashmir only after India stops terrorism in Balochistan .
India has been suffering for more than 60 years on the hands of Pakistan , but we still fail to learn from our mistakes . Today we remember Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru as the one who created the J&K problem for India by agreeing on a cease fire at a totally inappropriate time . Maybe 50 years down the line, we will remember Dr. Manmohan Singh as the architect of the Balochistan headache . A glimpse of that dreamy vision has already been given to us . Remember that India Pakistan joint anti-terror mechanism!
Now maybe , Ill be accused as one of those who does not want cordial relations between the two countries . Lets defeat the designs of the terrorists by not showing any reactions and by talking even more vigorously with Pakistan . That innocent Indians keep getting killed 'during' this peace process , is a totally different issue .
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wealth
As a student of the scientific disciplines, I am deeply influenced by conservation laws . Conservation laws help us solve many problems . Law of conservation of mass and energy , Law of conservation of momentum , Law of conservation of angular momentum and what not .
The idea which regularly came to my mind is does a Law of conservation of Wealth!! hold !! Wierd idea, but yes it did come to my mind . As long back as 4 years ago , I used to include conservation of wealth in my neat set of conservation laws . Come on lets try to test it .
For this purpose we will assume the theory of supply and demand . If u dont agree with this theory do let me know .
So , once upon a time there was an isolated village with three inhabitants , villager A , villager B and villager C . The village used the currency Foo . Villager A loved mangoes , B was indifferent towards mangoes and C used to grow mangoes . All three villagers owned 100 Foos .
C had 2 mangoes which he was ready to sell . A being the avid mango lover agreed to buy . He was ready to pay 5 Foos for a mango .
Now what is the total wealth of the village :
A's wealth =100 Foos .
B's wealth = 100 Foos.
C's wealth = 100 + 2* 5 Foos = 110 Foos .
Total = 310 Foos .
Suddenly B develops an intense desire to eat mangoes . He starts to meet C and finds him in negotiation with A regarding the mangoes . B really wants to have the mangoes and rates the mangoes at 6 Foos per piece .
Now what is the total wealth of the village :
A's wealth =100 Foos .
B's wealth = 100 Foos.
C's wealth = 100 + 2* 6 Foos = 112 Foos .
Total = 312 Foos .
Wow, the total wealth of the isolated village has changed . Our law of conservation of Wealth has failed!!
Physicists earlier used to follow a law of conservation of Mass , which was found to be inaccurate and came up with a law of conservation of Mass and Energy .
Maybe we need to forget the Law of conservation of Wealth , and start following a law of Conservation of Wealth and Demand , the exact formulation will need more investigation .
Wealth can be created and destroyed, It is not that it can only be transferred from one hand to another .
I hope communists understand this and end their opposition to creation of wealth and subdue their love for transfer of wealth .
The idea which regularly came to my mind is does a Law of conservation of Wealth!! hold !! Wierd idea, but yes it did come to my mind . As long back as 4 years ago , I used to include conservation of wealth in my neat set of conservation laws . Come on lets try to test it .
For this purpose we will assume the theory of supply and demand . If u dont agree with this theory do let me know .
So , once upon a time there was an isolated village with three inhabitants , villager A , villager B and villager C . The village used the currency Foo . Villager A loved mangoes , B was indifferent towards mangoes and C used to grow mangoes . All three villagers owned 100 Foos .
C had 2 mangoes which he was ready to sell . A being the avid mango lover agreed to buy . He was ready to pay 5 Foos for a mango .
Now what is the total wealth of the village :
A's wealth =100 Foos .
B's wealth = 100 Foos.
C's wealth = 100 + 2* 5 Foos = 110 Foos .
Total = 310 Foos .
Suddenly B develops an intense desire to eat mangoes . He starts to meet C and finds him in negotiation with A regarding the mangoes . B really wants to have the mangoes and rates the mangoes at 6 Foos per piece .
Now what is the total wealth of the village :
A's wealth =100 Foos .
B's wealth = 100 Foos.
C's wealth = 100 + 2* 6 Foos = 112 Foos .
Total = 312 Foos .
Wow, the total wealth of the isolated village has changed . Our law of conservation of Wealth has failed!!
Physicists earlier used to follow a law of conservation of Mass , which was found to be inaccurate and came up with a law of conservation of Mass and Energy .
Maybe we need to forget the Law of conservation of Wealth , and start following a law of Conservation of Wealth and Demand , the exact formulation will need more investigation .
Wealth can be created and destroyed, It is not that it can only be transferred from one hand to another .
I hope communists understand this and end their opposition to creation of wealth and subdue their love for transfer of wealth .
Poverty
When I was a child, the sight of poor children used to make me very sad. Actually not only poor children but even their poor parents . Rather I should say poor families . It used to be a really regular phenomena for me . Of course , in India we dont need to wait to see poverty, even if you are in Delhi or Mumbai, leave aside the other interior parts . We have pockets of prosperity but as a whole we are a poor country .
Ya, so I used to compare myself with them . I used to think how priviledged I am, and I used to think what would these poor people be thinking when they would be looking at me . Very frequently I used to harbour a certain guilt conscience because of this . I used to think: Is it that I have snatched from them resources of which they were rightful owners ? Am I the reason for the state they are in! And is this what they think about when I am in front of them.
My mind replied in the affirmative and I convicted myself of this crime. The next question I had to answer is how do I exonerate myself of this . I found an answer to this too . I decided that when I grow up and will start earning I will donate 20% of my income to poor people . The figure of 20 had no basis, just some reasonable figure the child in me came up with .
When I look back at those days of contemplation , the erroneous analysis amuses me . What amuses me is how improper understanding of economics leads a child to become a communist .
Carl Marx talks about two classes in the society , the owners of capital and the sellers of labour .
This differentiation of society in two groups is what his theory of Communism is based on . He tries to explain economics on the basis of interaction of these two groups .
Few questions we need to answer before proceeding:
1) Are these two sets of people really disjoint ?
2) Are these two sets of people really in-interconvertible ?
An individual can be fighting the perpetual 'communist' war only from one side isn't it !!
If these two sets are not disjoint , does Marx want me to believe that there are people who are participating in this war from both sides !
If these two sets are interconvertible , does Marx want me to believe that there are people who are switching sides in this war !
Take me as an example . I am a labourer who sells my labour for money . This money which I earn is convertible in all kinds of things which Marx would want to call 'capital' . I can buy land , houses , shares in companies , using which I can make profits . So now, am I an exploited labourer or a capitalist who exploits ? Marx needs to answer this question !
Ya, so I used to compare myself with them . I used to think how priviledged I am, and I used to think what would these poor people be thinking when they would be looking at me . Very frequently I used to harbour a certain guilt conscience because of this . I used to think: Is it that I have snatched from them resources of which they were rightful owners ? Am I the reason for the state they are in! And is this what they think about when I am in front of them.
My mind replied in the affirmative and I convicted myself of this crime. The next question I had to answer is how do I exonerate myself of this . I found an answer to this too . I decided that when I grow up and will start earning I will donate 20% of my income to poor people . The figure of 20 had no basis, just some reasonable figure the child in me came up with .
When I look back at those days of contemplation , the erroneous analysis amuses me . What amuses me is how improper understanding of economics leads a child to become a communist .
Carl Marx talks about two classes in the society , the owners of capital and the sellers of labour .
This differentiation of society in two groups is what his theory of Communism is based on . He tries to explain economics on the basis of interaction of these two groups .
Few questions we need to answer before proceeding:
1) Are these two sets of people really disjoint ?
2) Are these two sets of people really in-interconvertible ?
An individual can be fighting the perpetual 'communist' war only from one side isn't it !!
If these two sets are not disjoint , does Marx want me to believe that there are people who are participating in this war from both sides !
If these two sets are interconvertible , does Marx want me to believe that there are people who are switching sides in this war !
Take me as an example . I am a labourer who sells my labour for money . This money which I earn is convertible in all kinds of things which Marx would want to call 'capital' . I can buy land , houses , shares in companies , using which I can make profits . So now, am I an exploited labourer or a capitalist who exploits ? Marx needs to answer this question !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)