One might consider teasing to be fun.Obvioulsy it will be a lot of fun teasing a person in groups.But it might not be the same for the person who is getting teased.
Some people might be sensitive to it while others take it casually and as a part and parcel of life.Though the intension of the person who is teasing is not to mentally hurt the other person most of the times,depending on the mood of the person who is getting teased, he might take it offensively.Even a person who takes thing lightly might snap one final day if he is the one who gets teased all the time.He may enjoy it initially, but it will become a burden if it continues.
Sometimes people might wantedly tease a person in order to take revenge while other times it would have been just for the sake of fun.
Either way, just like there are two sides to a coin, in some cases a strong bond is developed between them which stays on for a very long time and in the other case a deep sense of hatred develops between them. There are these kind of people who likes to get teased as they feel good when they are the centre of all the commotion.
They too would like to keep things within a limit.
Thus to conclude, teasing can be avoided ,but if at all one teases, one must know the boundary and not cross it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The symbiotic relation between the rich and the poor
The 2004 tsunami is a one that made headlines in almost each and every regional newspaper for many days. So high was the death toll which ever kept increasing due to bad rehabilitation facilities due to lack of or rather ineffecient utilisation of the money. Although millions of dollars were sanctioned as relief measures to the affected countries, only a part of it , a very small fraction reached the intended people.This too was possible only because the Indian Government refused to allow foreign relief agencies who would have looted more money under the pretext of helping the people. Hence many more had to lead a life of misery while certain people fed on the money that should have reached them.
A very key point pointed out by Mr P.Sainath illustrating the title was the behaviour of the stock market when the tsunami struck.
It can be seen that within two days , the Stock markets of the countries worst affected by the tsunami reached the highest Sensitive index.The more the country was affected,the greater the deathtoll , the higher the SI was .This is no coincidence. Though the majority affected were fisher folk, the fact that drove the stock markets was reconstruction and rehabilitation, which the companies took advantage of.Thus greater the devastation, greater was the money flow which made the stock markets soar .Throughout the process it is not the rehabilitation part that makes them to invest in these places but on how to gain more profit through these that drives them.This is a typical example of how the rich live at the expense and misery of poor. The stock market being the yardstick to show the economical status of the country soars when the poor are in misery .
At the same time ,where in one place nature destroyed houses, in another many more houses of the poor were destroyed ,many people were thrown from their houses forcefully by the elite rich of the Bombay who were on a quest to remove slums there by striping the residents of the only livelyhood they had.
When the stock market collapsed in May 2004, it created a big hype,made front page of many news papers.The finance minister abandoned the first day of the parliament after one of the most historic elections, to come to bombay and console the millionares .
However in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where in many farmer suicide cases were reported, It took a very long time and many more lives for the Prime minister to come to visit and sort the situation.
This shows the treatment that the rich get and how different it is for the poor .
Hence it basically shows that the rich keep becomming richer by pushing the poor further and further down.
Yes,it is true that a world in which the rich and poor are treated equally is an ideal one .At the same time the poor cannot be illtreated like this.Its is inhuman for one to earn a living through the misery of other.This must change!.
The 2004 tsunami is a one that made headlines in almost each and every regional newspaper for many days. So high was the death toll which ever kept increasing due to bad rehabilitation facilities due to lack of or rather ineffecient utilisation of the money. Although millions of dollars were sanctioned as relief measures to the affected countries, only a part of it , a very small fraction reached the intended people.This too was possible only because the Indian Government refused to allow foreign relief agencies who would have looted more money under the pretext of helping the people. Hence many more had to lead a life of misery while certain people fed on the money that should have reached them.
A very key point pointed out by Mr P.Sainath illustrating the title was the behaviour of the stock market when the tsunami struck.
It can be seen that within two days , the Stock markets of the countries worst affected by the tsunami reached the highest Sensitive index.The more the country was affected,the greater the deathtoll , the higher the SI was .This is no coincidence. Though the majority affected were fisher folk, the fact that drove the stock markets was reconstruction and rehabilitation, which the companies took advantage of.Thus greater the devastation, greater was the money flow which made the stock markets soar .Throughout the process it is not the rehabilitation part that makes them to invest in these places but on how to gain more profit through these that drives them.This is a typical example of how the rich live at the expense and misery of poor. The stock market being the yardstick to show the economical status of the country soars when the poor are in misery .
At the same time ,where in one place nature destroyed houses, in another many more houses of the poor were destroyed ,many people were thrown from their houses forcefully by the elite rich of the Bombay who were on a quest to remove slums there by striping the residents of the only livelyhood they had.
When the stock market collapsed in May 2004, it created a big hype,made front page of many news papers.The finance minister abandoned the first day of the parliament after one of the most historic elections, to come to bombay and console the millionares .
However in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where in many farmer suicide cases were reported, It took a very long time and many more lives for the Prime minister to come to visit and sort the situation.
This shows the treatment that the rich get and how different it is for the poor .
Hence it basically shows that the rich keep becomming richer by pushing the poor further and further down.
Yes,it is true that a world in which the rich and poor are treated equally is an ideal one .At the same time the poor cannot be illtreated like this.Its is inhuman for one to earn a living through the misery of other.This must change!.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
~HONESTY~
"Honesty is the best policy",well said but there are many for which these are only a phrase of english. we think that by telling lies we can get out of situations,and problems very easily but in real we are actually putting our self in very tedious situations from which,getting out is almost impossible.
Telling lie many times become a habit which makes a person unbelievable,so when he is actually telling the truth he will not be believed. But there are situation where bold truth can dis-heart a person.for example one person cooked food for the first time with a lot of effort but ended up with mess,then telling lie just to appreciate his hardwork is not bad,but lie should be in its limit in this case also,as on constant lies your opinion will have no weight age .Some times it could also lead to further dis heartment for person if he gets the right feedback in front of people who are strangers.So one should sugar coat the truth insteed of telling lies
some times children tell lies to there teacher without feeling that if the teacher get to know about the lie it would lead to a negative impression on her ,and the person could feel to be cheated even if it is a small issue this breaks the trust and closes doors toward future references
children many times lie their parents about their well-being in the hostel,to reduce their tension & worry,which again fill in distrust in this true relation,one can always explain the reason of skipping meals etc. to there parents and they will surely understand.
in the end i would like to say that before telling lies we should put ourself in place of that person and think what would he feel.
As as an human we always expect others to be truthful to us but we are truthful to no one!
Telling lie many times become a habit which makes a person unbelievable,so when he is actually telling the truth he will not be believed. But there are situation where bold truth can dis-heart a person.for example one person cooked food for the first time with a lot of effort but ended up with mess,then telling lie just to appreciate his hardwork is not bad,but lie should be in its limit in this case also,as on constant lies your opinion will have no weight age .Some times it could also lead to further dis heartment for person if he gets the right feedback in front of people who are strangers.So one should sugar coat the truth insteed of telling lies
some times children tell lies to there teacher without feeling that if the teacher get to know about the lie it would lead to a negative impression on her ,and the person could feel to be cheated even if it is a small issue this breaks the trust and closes doors toward future references
children many times lie their parents about their well-being in the hostel,to reduce their tension & worry,which again fill in distrust in this true relation,one can always explain the reason of skipping meals etc. to there parents and they will surely understand.
in the end i would like to say that before telling lies we should put ourself in place of that person and think what would he feel.
As as an human we always expect others to be truthful to us but we are truthful to no one!
Monday, November 8, 2010
Globalising Inequality...
Mr. P. Sainath, a Magsaysay award winner and rural reporter for the national daily, The Hindu, is a very capturing orator. Including humour and animation in his talk, he makes his words sound deep and meaningful. The fact that he spends 270 out of the 365 days of the year in villages to get hands on experience is clearly visible, as, he points out extremely trivial and minute points in his speech, which leave the listener speechless.
The point in his talk that I was influenced most about, was, the disparity between the rich and the poor. In our country the rich and the powerful are given more footage rather than the poor which are actually manifold times the number of the former. Actually it is the poor who need more attention and care so that they too get equal opportunities to develop. This is how equality can be achieved in the society. The scenario today is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Thus, instead of bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, the policies are widening the gap between them. One day, a situation will occur when this gap will become so apparent that it will not be possible to replenish it. Thus the poor man will perish, which we know will not be a healthy reflection of the country in the world’s eyes.
A very apt example given by Mr. P. Sainath is that at a time when farmers were committing suicides in Tamil Nadu, a new trend of the high and the mighty was theme weddings, which cost crores of rupees. The money was sent down the drain for mere 12 hours of entertainment. Instead had the money been used in another productive activity it would have been much appreciated.
The message sent across by the speech was that we are accountable for our own failures. If our government is not responsible enough it is time we took the control of the functioning of our nation in our own hands….
Sunday, November 7, 2010
EQUALITY
Why do we need equality? Does it really matter to the more privileged whether or not the poor get their rights?
These are some questions that come up when one thinks about equality. When you look at our society, one might feel that equality as a concept may not really be practical. A ragged beggar begging from the passenger of a Mercedes isn't really an uncommon sight at a traffic signal. India is home to numerous billionares, who are amongst the richest in the world. But living not far from their eyes' reach are also the really poor and the starving, whose number is far greater. But yet it is these people who are ignored, their plight swept under the carpet when it comes to any discussions of growth and development.
What brought about this situation, one might wonder. But more importantly, what are we losing because of the underdevelopment and misery of some of our fellow citizens? First thing that comes to mind is the basic compassion that we as humans feel for the suffering poor. It does hurt to see poor people starving, freezing in ragged clothes on the side of the road, as one is on his way to his place of work. On a more selfish level, one might want to improve the condition of the poor just so one can stay happy, for the sight of suffering doesnot make one feel good. But there's also the economic loss of having a certain section of the population suffering, without basic amenities like food, water and shelter. Such a living is certain to weaken them. They wouldn't be able to take up and perform jobs, further stunting their ability to earn and improve their condition. Living in the lack of proper sanitation, it is also easy for them to acquire various diseases. They are incapable of acquiring treatment for any diseases so acquired, and there's always the risk of their spreading this disease to the whole community around them. Their children born into the same wretched condition, grow lacking education and nutririon. Some people may eventually resort to crime to escape the condition they have come to. Now, if the same people were given the same basic facilities and opportunities as some of their better off fellow citizens, maybe they could have really contributed to the development of society itself. But instead they fall into poverty traps, and are made to fight for their very existence.
Equality in society is absolutely desirable. Each person should be provided with the basic amenities of food, water, shelter, health care and education, and the opportunity to grow to his full potential. Only then can any society really develop, and only then can a society see real growth in science, art and culture as a whole. If you ask me, a developed society is not one where there are many billionares; it is a society in which every man is rich and no man is really poor, and no one breaks the law for he finds that following the law is a more fruitful path for him.
These are some questions that come up when one thinks about equality. When you look at our society, one might feel that equality as a concept may not really be practical. A ragged beggar begging from the passenger of a Mercedes isn't really an uncommon sight at a traffic signal. India is home to numerous billionares, who are amongst the richest in the world. But living not far from their eyes' reach are also the really poor and the starving, whose number is far greater. But yet it is these people who are ignored, their plight swept under the carpet when it comes to any discussions of growth and development.
What brought about this situation, one might wonder. But more importantly, what are we losing because of the underdevelopment and misery of some of our fellow citizens? First thing that comes to mind is the basic compassion that we as humans feel for the suffering poor. It does hurt to see poor people starving, freezing in ragged clothes on the side of the road, as one is on his way to his place of work. On a more selfish level, one might want to improve the condition of the poor just so one can stay happy, for the sight of suffering doesnot make one feel good. But there's also the economic loss of having a certain section of the population suffering, without basic amenities like food, water and shelter. Such a living is certain to weaken them. They wouldn't be able to take up and perform jobs, further stunting their ability to earn and improve their condition. Living in the lack of proper sanitation, it is also easy for them to acquire various diseases. They are incapable of acquiring treatment for any diseases so acquired, and there's always the risk of their spreading this disease to the whole community around them. Their children born into the same wretched condition, grow lacking education and nutririon. Some people may eventually resort to crime to escape the condition they have come to. Now, if the same people were given the same basic facilities and opportunities as some of their better off fellow citizens, maybe they could have really contributed to the development of society itself. But instead they fall into poverty traps, and are made to fight for their very existence.
Equality in society is absolutely desirable. Each person should be provided with the basic amenities of food, water, shelter, health care and education, and the opportunity to grow to his full potential. Only then can any society really develop, and only then can a society see real growth in science, art and culture as a whole. If you ask me, a developed society is not one where there are many billionares; it is a society in which every man is rich and no man is really poor, and no one breaks the law for he finds that following the law is a more fruitful path for him.
Are we even allowed to think that such blatant injustices will lead us to an equal society ?
While discussing about equality and why equality is desirable. The question of reservation was bound to come up . We had discussed what led the constitution drafters to provide reservation to the lower castes, the previous week. We had also discussed the positive aspects of providing reservations to backward classes. So much was said by Sriram sir in support of reservations that we had to accept his arguments (the arguments were quiet strong though) But somewhere we felt that justice had not been done to the topic.
This week when the topic came up all of us except Devbrath were speaking against reservations.
devbrath on one side with Sriram sir to support him and all of us on the other side -not fair because they are the ones who do most of the talking during our discussions.
But this week's topic had hit the jugular vein and even Avinash spoke a full long sentence (breaking his previous record of 5 words)
Most of us supported the idea of giving reservations to the economically backward people who don't get equal opportunities, yet each of us opposed reservations in their present form .
The reason of our opposition being that backward classes are not always the ones who are poor or deprived of equal opportunities.
Devbrath opposed the argument saying that
-----backward people are mostly poor and their all relatives are also poor , even if they are rich
while other classes have relatives who are rich even if the become poor .
So upper classes who have relatives who are rich can get help from the rich relatives
and they can become rich again while, the backward people cant get help from their poor relatives
so if they become poor they can't get rich again----------
(whole of it in one breath ...just imagine!!) Most of us couldn't make much from this rich-poor-poor-rich-rich-poor equation. (but poor kaushik was totally unaware that he would have to explain it)
We quietly accepted what he said, that maybe this is an argument in favour of reservation.
As the discussion proceeded we tried to analyse whether the reservations really serve any useful purpose ? We noted that even though the country is progressing (as in seems from the ever growing sensex at least) the number of backward population seem to be ever increasing
As the people are becoming more and more economically sound(compared to the time
when reservations were put in place) the percentage of population entitled to reservations are ever increasing. This paradox however isn't at all confusing to a fellow who knows about Indian politics.
Many of us gave examples from our experiences that how some people who do not deserve the reservation take undue benefits from it. Though we could have continued the discussion but the mood of Diwali didn't let us.
Sriram sir assigned me the task of collecting statistical data on reservations.
Looking at the data i am a bit perplexed The data says that even though the %age of reservation (15.5% &7.5% respectively)given to SC's & ST's is nearly equal to their population. The OBC population (38.5% on average) is quiet large as compared to the %age reservation(27%) given to them. So why should we have issues with this small bit (which means at least 50%) of reservation.
The simple answer to this is that the question is irrelevant. We are against the whole concept of reservations on the basis of caste. We don't want that down trodden may not be uplifted. What we want is a just system where only those who deserve reservation get it. The same reason why we had advocated reservation for the economically backward classes.
Maybe that as Sriram sir said the other day that when someone from backward class who doesn't deserve the reservation gets the (undue) benefit from it others from the same caste are inspired from his story. But the question that haunts me is that how many undue benefits does it take to uplift the backward classes?
There 's no denying that this system is unjust and the injustices are never redressed .
The question i pose is this :
Are we even allowed to think that such blatant injustices will lead us to an equal society ?
Friday, October 15, 2010
if ( City > Town/Village ) printf(" :) "); else printf("What the hell??");
Warning: Kindly do not make the mistake of taking any hints from the heading as to where this discussion went. It is adulterated heavily with my own opinion. But then...I barely speak in class. :)
Having read Shriyaa's post on "Develoment", I find myself extremely discouraged because my ability to express my thoughts in the form of words is not even close to being as good as hers. Also, as unfortunate as I am, I was allocated the task of writing the summary right before exam week which is why I may not be able to do justice to it. But I'm going to keep the promise i made to myself and try nonetheless.
In the last class, we continued the discussion that had been initiated earlier about the pros and cons of living in a city and a village or a town. As a topic for discussion this one's definitely an improvement, in my opinion, over "If you had the power, what would you like to do to change the society as a whole?" considering the fact that the no. of words that came out of my mouth was the third highest in the room, following Sriram Sir and no points for guessing, Devbrat Rathore, in that order I might add. ;)
After an hour of thinking up points in favour of both cities and towns/villages and slowly elaborating each one of them, what we had( by "we", I mean the 12 people in the room whose brains were actually processing all the information...Pulkit slept through half the class and doesn't qualify :) ), looked something like this...
Cities :
1. More job opportunities and money which eventually leads to a better standard of living.
2. Better facilities for healthcare, sanitation etc.
3. More options for entertainment and pleasure like theatres, malls and eateries.
4. Exposure(?) : That's what it says in my notes but I'm not sure i remember what it was about. Help yourself. :P
5. The kinds of work are diverse.
Towns/ Villages :
1. Comparitively lower levels of pollution of all kinds.
2. Safer to live in. Sir wasn't entirely convinced about this one and hence decided to rethink it. So he went to the person who originally suggested it and that person, unfortunately, was me. To be honest even I wasn't entirely convinced about this point when i blurted it out. But thanks to Devbrat, who gave an example from his own life that lasted 5 long minutes, Sir finally accepted it. Devbrat recalled that when he was living in Bhopal, he once saw a thief in his colony and shouted for help but got no response. He exclaimed that if the same thing had happened in a small town or a village, everyone from the neighbourhood would have gathered to help him.
3. Stronger relationships exist as the people live in a close knit society and interact on a daily basis. They share all their happiness and sorrows with each other.
4. The environment is cleaner and greener than in cities.
5. With lesser work load, emotional support and a general sense of well being, the stress level is automatically reduced greatly.
6. Towns and villages are peaceful. Life is not too fast and you get time for yourself and your family.
After listing these points, the task assigned to us was to analyze how crucial each point was, to figure out what direction would the scales tilt in.
Starting with towns and villages, we examined that pollution directly affects the physical as well as the mental health of a person. Sir asked us to imagine going to work in a city with immense air pollution and horns blaring all around. Someone(Kaushik I think) pointed out that if the money was good, it was not that big a problem. So we ended up not marking pollution as an extremely crucial factor.
Safety, as we realized after some debate, was a result of stronger relationships with the people around you which meant both these points were pretty important. Check!
Environment also turned out to be a crucial enough factor but some might argue that a city might not necessarily be less greener than a town or a village.
Coming to the next point, we were asked to examine whether we'd give up the good money and facilities for a stress-free life to which I happily gave a textbook reply that it is dependent on the level of stress. If the level of stress is high but not so high that it would drive me crazy, I'd go for the money. Check!
On the other hand, the most essential factors in favour of cities, according to Sriram Sir, were Opportunities/Money and the kind of work. No one argued.
At the very end, we compared the crucial points in both cases and reached the conclusion that we cannot clearly say that living in cities is better than living in towns or villages or vice versa. The opinions would differ from person to person. Hence, heading justified. ;)
Writer comments : This small report may seem to be too self centered and pointless. For the former, I'd say that I'm not too visible in the other posts, so I thought that this may be my only chance. Also, I'm writing almost a week(that too exam week) after the class so the so-called "exam pressure" could have affected my memory. There's no justification good enough to get me out of trouble but just this once, I wanted to do this for myself and not just because I had to.
Having read Shriyaa's post on "Develoment", I find myself extremely discouraged because my ability to express my thoughts in the form of words is not even close to being as good as hers. Also, as unfortunate as I am, I was allocated the task of writing the summary right before exam week which is why I may not be able to do justice to it. But I'm going to keep the promise i made to myself and try nonetheless.
In the last class, we continued the discussion that had been initiated earlier about the pros and cons of living in a city and a village or a town. As a topic for discussion this one's definitely an improvement, in my opinion, over "If you had the power, what would you like to do to change the society as a whole?" considering the fact that the no. of words that came out of my mouth was the third highest in the room, following Sriram Sir and no points for guessing, Devbrat Rathore, in that order I might add. ;)
After an hour of thinking up points in favour of both cities and towns/villages and slowly elaborating each one of them, what we had( by "we", I mean the 12 people in the room whose brains were actually processing all the information...Pulkit slept through half the class and doesn't qualify :) ), looked something like this...
Cities :
1. More job opportunities and money which eventually leads to a better standard of living.
2. Better facilities for healthcare, sanitation etc.
3. More options for entertainment and pleasure like theatres, malls and eateries.
4. Exposure(?) : That's what it says in my notes but I'm not sure i remember what it was about. Help yourself. :P
5. The kinds of work are diverse.
Towns/ Villages :
1. Comparitively lower levels of pollution of all kinds.
2. Safer to live in. Sir wasn't entirely convinced about this one and hence decided to rethink it. So he went to the person who originally suggested it and that person, unfortunately, was me. To be honest even I wasn't entirely convinced about this point when i blurted it out. But thanks to Devbrat, who gave an example from his own life that lasted 5 long minutes, Sir finally accepted it. Devbrat recalled that when he was living in Bhopal, he once saw a thief in his colony and shouted for help but got no response. He exclaimed that if the same thing had happened in a small town or a village, everyone from the neighbourhood would have gathered to help him.
3. Stronger relationships exist as the people live in a close knit society and interact on a daily basis. They share all their happiness and sorrows with each other.
4. The environment is cleaner and greener than in cities.
5. With lesser work load, emotional support and a general sense of well being, the stress level is automatically reduced greatly.
6. Towns and villages are peaceful. Life is not too fast and you get time for yourself and your family.
After listing these points, the task assigned to us was to analyze how crucial each point was, to figure out what direction would the scales tilt in.
Starting with towns and villages, we examined that pollution directly affects the physical as well as the mental health of a person. Sir asked us to imagine going to work in a city with immense air pollution and horns blaring all around. Someone(Kaushik I think) pointed out that if the money was good, it was not that big a problem. So we ended up not marking pollution as an extremely crucial factor.
Safety, as we realized after some debate, was a result of stronger relationships with the people around you which meant both these points were pretty important. Check!
Environment also turned out to be a crucial enough factor but some might argue that a city might not necessarily be less greener than a town or a village.
Coming to the next point, we were asked to examine whether we'd give up the good money and facilities for a stress-free life to which I happily gave a textbook reply that it is dependent on the level of stress. If the level of stress is high but not so high that it would drive me crazy, I'd go for the money. Check!
On the other hand, the most essential factors in favour of cities, according to Sriram Sir, were Opportunities/Money and the kind of work. No one argued.
At the very end, we compared the crucial points in both cases and reached the conclusion that we cannot clearly say that living in cities is better than living in towns or villages or vice versa. The opinions would differ from person to person. Hence, heading justified. ;)
Writer comments : This small report may seem to be too self centered and pointless. For the former, I'd say that I'm not too visible in the other posts, so I thought that this may be my only chance. Also, I'm writing almost a week(that too exam week) after the class so the so-called "exam pressure" could have affected my memory. There's no justification good enough to get me out of trouble but just this once, I wanted to do this for myself and not just because I had to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)