Iraq - inherently volatile ......

We need to understand the inherent characteristic of the region before we dissect the situation post US. The region is very well known for its ethnic division and religious conflict. As we all know the Shi’as and the Sunnis are always at each other’s throats. Historically Iraq is known for political instability. Saddam Hussein was the only leader who could forge the entire country with the help an iron fist. He was termed wicked and cruel for his ways of quelling the ethnic strife. Here we need to observe that it was only because of a strong centralized leadership the country could be pacified. He may have been called hundred names by the western media but we can’t ignore the fact that he was successful in uniting the country. For his misfortune he ended up rubbing the wrong side of the big brother, the US. It is a very different issue whether he possessed WMDs or not, the target was oil. The coalition forces were done with the Taliban affair and thought that they will score some brownie points. They were able to bring done Saddam Hussein but the cost of this so called WMD hunt was way too heavy on both sides. 
The US and its allies made the world believe that they are doing Iraq a favor by bringing down the diabolical regime of Saddam. Here the US failed to learn from their past blunders like in Vietnam. They thought by having superior tech and firepower they can make the world dance to their tunes but in reality it is very important to know the regional geopolitics and nature of the people. By bringing down the dictator they broke the one forge which held together the oil rich country of Iraq. It is very natural that a region which is rich in natural resources will be politically volatile. Everybody will want to control and have a piece of the cake. The US thoroughly failed to understand the need for a formidable leadership. As Iraq is a deeply religious country it did not take a while for the rogue elements like Al Qaeda to play the Jihad card and start blowing up things. The very presence of US itself was a challenge for the law and order as it is very easy for these groups to recruit by saying US is a form of Satan which has to be annihilated. 
The way the US and its allies entered Iraq, itself sealed the fate of Iraq as they were bombarding the place from all directions. It may have finished off the opposition but the antagonized the people, it became cake walk for the insurgent groups to sympathize and recruit them by promising revenge in the name of Islam. The US gave out the launch pad for these rogues as in any case they wouldn't be bearing the brunt, it is the people of Iraq who had to go through the agonizing period of internal strife in the following years. In all this why would US and its allies care about the people, their interest was to fetch the oil and they fulfilled it, strategically the unity and peace in Iraq would be least of their botheration. Beyond the oil the security contractors and the war industries would mint money due to this instability. If we see the current situation the US may have withdrawn but they leave their stamp, they have left behind a decade long internal security nightmare. It is very obvious that when there is no strong leadership and there is power vacuum the religious and ethnic squabble would resume and presumably Shi’as and Sunnis are at it again. Nearly 7000 thousand people have been killed in the sectarian violence and the holy places like AL Askari Shi’ite mosque was not spared. 
Basically, whether there was US or not, even if Saddam had died a natural death the country would have been in a similar condition. We may talk of democracy but we need to understand in a land where the ethnic groups are just waiting to take a shot at each other require an iron fist. US may claim that they have liberated the country whereas the liberation has proved death to thousands of Iraqis. Iraq has never seen a proper democracy even after it was declared a republic in 1958. All it witnessed was coup after coup until Saddam became the whole and sole ruler. It takes a generation for a political idea like Democracy to sync into a country as volatile as Iraq. Democracy is far fetched dream especially when groups like Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda are actively fueling the religious tension. There are different ethnic groups like Assyrians, Kurds, Arab etc. who will be waiting for an opportunity to take control for stakes are really high as there is OIL for taking. 
In the current situations, Noor Al Maliki headed government is largely perceived as a Shi’a regime and have alienated the Sunni Arab section of the people. The way the government was elected is absolutely not of any consequence as the idea of democracy does not mean anything to the people. They can’t even relate it any period of history when they had democracy. Al Qaeda on the other hand has been very successful in exploiting the situation, it has become a cake walk for them as people have no perception of the peace. They just want to stake claim on power to rule. 
It is absolutely puerile to think that once the US forces leave Iraq things are going to stabilize. If we see the neighborhood, there are hawks eager as always to make sure that their Interests are secured. Iran has played a very cunning role, it knows that if the power goes into the hands of the Sunni Arab faction they may lose their hold on the region. Arabs and Iran have always been hostile and even in Iraq they are bound to continue their feud at the cost of the peace and security of Iraq. Al Qaeda will continue to fuel strife as long as the people see beyond the religion which at present seems like distant dream. Meanwhile the fact that the US is calling the shots also doesn't help as it is used as a decoy to draw in as many recruits as possible. In all the chaos US ceremoniously withdrew in 2011 leaving behind a small contingent of 4000 troops in two if its bases, they may have handed over the responsibilities to the Iraqi forces which does not help. The so called Iraqi forces is not yet capable to take over the mantle of law and order. The lack of national leadership who could unite the country also poses to be a great challenge. People need a leader with whom they can identify irrespective of their ethnic and religious affiliations. Leadership is irreplaceable especially while building a nation and unfortunately Iraq lacks it, for example Nasser may have been a dictator but he was a popular leader and led the country from front making Egypt a force to reckon with in the Arab world. If is for the people to realize that the division among themselves will spell death, they need to get enlightened, they need a movement like the Arab spring to bring the nation together, until them the rogues like Mahdi army and Al Qaeda will rule the roost. 

A need for introspection

Quite often we find ourselves as students clamoring about how we are mistreated by the lecturer. It has been nearly two and half years since i entered UG, as per my observation, we as students will be treated as we treat or approach the professors.

It not a surprise  to see ourselves cursing or accusing a teacher of being overly strict. Here we need a bit of introspection. We always complain that a lecturer shouldn't shout and discipline us like a primary school as we are not small kids. Have we even thought that if we had kept our mouth shut there was no need for the lecturers to screech their throats?  In a class the need for discipline arises only when there is disturbance, why should we make the class a chaos? Only when we ourselves breach the discipline there is need to sharpen the tongue. It is always better to make sure we do not have a stain on our own cloth before accusing others of being dirty.

We can expect the faculty to heed our pestering only if we respect and honor the position of a professor. Apart from teaching and other arbitrary duties of the college, a professor is not charged with any duty of bearing with our tantrums. We may go on and on with our criticisms for not doing their job, anything outside the syllabus is no more than a favor we get from them. I am not denying that there may be genuine reason for the criticism but we as students should be more circumspect. We get to point fingers only when we are at a higher ground, morally. It is disappointing to say that we hardly make use of those initiatives by the faculty and accuse them of showing no interest in our welfare. We get to accuse people only if we have done our bit. As students we need to capitalize on every inch of opportunity we get, on the contrary it is very shameful to admit we slack over chances which could have enhanced our abilities.

I strongly believe in filling the pot holes as we go on building a road towards greater wisdom. It is a sign of inefficiency to let the doubts go unanswered. The doubts are very natural when we learn anything new. A lot of students shy away from interaction with the professors thinking that if they question they may end up antagonizing the professor. We need to be were careful about our tone and language especially in an open class. Language holds the key to a healthy interaction, we should be mindful of the words we are using. We cannot expect anybody to be polite if the sentences are what we use are full of slangs or even if it is a direct question on the person’s ability. We need to restrict the question only towards a particular intrigue. Even in our case, can we imagine being polite to a classmate who questions our ability, it is very human to have ego, there is no reason why we should overstep and hurt somebody especially in an open class where the center of gravity is around the lecturer. In my experience a valid question has never gone unanswered while the audacious and uncouth ones have attracted the wrath. The most preferred form of sentence is interrogative sentence which is constrained only to ambit of a particular subject.

I am not in any way suggesting the faculty is perfect, there may be shortcoming on their part too. The point here is that we need to be accountable for our words. It is very irresponsible on our part if we are oblivious of our inherent duties and always point fingers at the other side. It is nothing more than passing the buck on. It calls for some maturity to understand the constraints of a lecturer. We can’t expect them to treat us like peers. We are not their peers. There has to be a greater degree of respect.

When we on our part are courteous and well mannered, we get that moral right to point fingers and say this is not done. But when we lose the sense of manners and civility, there is no reason why the faculty should heed to our inquisitions.

Whoever the lecturer is civility and manners come first. We are going to venture out into a professional world where it is not easy to get a second chance. It is always better to learn while we are in college itself as we step out we will not have that cushion like in college where we are dismissed saying we are immature. 

The best way is to be on top of what we are supposed to do rather than whine for about the ire what we are bound to attract for slacking.  

The Paradox of our Academic phase of life..

College is known to be the place where we learn to develop ourselves, our behavior, our character and our personality as a whole. This is the phase where we should get matured in our thinking, look at things with an open mind instead of filling ourselves with negativity and block ourselves with a narrow thought process. 

Being in the college we need to learn to see things in a broader context. Just because something is very controversial and is deemed obscene doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. We are supposed to be matured adults, instead of just disapproving the very expression of the so called provocative issue.

We are supposed to develop a reasoning ability, through which we can critically and rationally analyze any subject. Just by getting emotional because of sentimental factors will not take us anywhere. Before criticizing any issue we need to understand and analyze what is being spoken about. Usage of a few inflammatory words should not make us go berserk. When all the importance is given to these words instead of comprehending the statement and its context shows how immature and narrow minded we are. 

Being in a college, self expression is very important aspect of an individual's personality, how are we going to evolve ourselves when we are bound by the phrase 'sentiments will get hurt', why should a student be silenced merely because of the sentiments of the few who do not want to evolve themselves rationally.
If a student is denied the permission to put forth his / her opinion on an issue which is deemed notorious, then when are we going to learn to tackle far more unsettling junctures in our future as responsible citizens? We need to setup and learn to deal with sensitive issues. Shying away from a demanding situation is beneficial to nobody, an issue controversial or not should be dealt with one or the other day, suppressing and restraining a student wont help matter. Just by shying away from issues like homosexuality wont help or solve anything.
Students should be encouraged to speak their mind without any frills as this will give them confidence to air their opinion with confidence especially in a democratic setup and make others at least think about the matter. The way of expression is also very important which should be nourished at this level as these so called controversial topics should be aesthetically put forth without giving any room for unnecessary conflicts due to ambiguous statements . The students should also be instilled to respect ones opinion and if they have any objections it should be done in a logical and rational manner instead of just taunting in a crowd. The level of maturity in an individual can be enriched only when he or she tries to objectively interpret the point of contention through the mode of reasoning. rather than getting agitated because of gregarious factors, which  shows how emotionally motivated we are and being in a phase where we are being shaped to be the future of the society, they have to evolve beyond the emotional factors otherwise they are going to continue the same manner in the society in which they will play a major role.
Mob mentality is something which plagues our educational environment, a man when in a mob loses the thinking capability and is bound to lose his individual opinion. People in a mob tend to blind themselves when the mob flares up because of a few appealing words. Being in an academic environment the students should brace themselves to have their own firm opinion unlike an unruly mob in a political rally where they shout the slogans without even knowing its meaning. Due to this mob mentality, the actual message or an opinion of an individual gets lost as he / she is not allowed justify their stand. In a class room where the mob gets excited and starts blabbing and clapping, how can we expect a rational understanding as they don't want to try and listen to the reasoning? When a mob derides an individual, the key message and opinion is lost in the mockery. This extremely deters an individual's confidence to speak out. Indian parliament is very good example for mob mentality where the members of opposition start taunting a minister before he / she completes a sentence the speech. Only when a person is allowed to complete the address, we will be able to know the actual message. But a mob is such that it is too excited to listen to the viewpoints of the speaker. When a mob doesn't even listen where is the question of comprehending and analyzing the matter.
When they flare up solely by hearing a few provocative terms instead of grasping the context then the chances are that they are going continue the same way even when they go out into the society. As we all know today's young are the future of our society. If they do not develop their skills of critical and rational analysis, what is the point of their so called education? Education is supposed to develop our personality as a whole, but when in the phase where we are supposed to shape ourselves, we are leashed, our expression and comprehending capacities are curtailed, how can we expect our youngster to bring about a new energy and thought process in the society?
As responsible citizens when we see everything in a narrow and sentimental color, especially in a democracy where we make the key decisions, we are bound to be entrapped and misused by a few people who know to play with the mob sentiments for their own interests. It becomes very easy to manipulate people when they are extremely sentimental. To avoid such hazardous mousetraps we have to hold on to our opinions with a rational analysis at an individual level instead of piggy backing on the crowd. 

Revolutions V/s Evolution

In the world when the change happens, it happens through two ways,

 Revolution and Evolution 

Revolution is a abrupt or a sudden change in a stagnant system which has remained unchanged over a long period of time. 

Evolution is a process of evolving, things change over the period of time, its a long process and continuous process. 

When the process of evolving stops in a system or a society it starts making people long for a change. The long urge for a change leads people to take extreme step to change things in one go. Though the revolution is a short term process it has its own repercussions. Sudden and fast changes in a stagnant system may sound lucrative but when changes happen suddenly there is an issue of adaptability. Sudden changes always makes people unsettled. When there is a change there are always new idea in the system, just because people wanted change doesn't mean they will tolerate the new entrants in the system. So people's reaction to the sudden changes may not necessarily be positive. People take their own time to adapt to the new changes. Sometimes people's reaction may be against the new change. This negative reaction leads to the instability in the system. In a system where there is an unstable phase, there is always a section of people who want to make use of instability to serve their own interests. If we see the three major revolutions in the history, this has been the case, it may be French Revolution where France ended up being taken over by Napoleon or Russian Revolution where Lenin took over Russia or Industrial Revolution where the rich became richer while the poor had to pay the price. Revolution comes with a cost, to be specific an immediate cost. Even in the most recent revolution in Egypt, after the overthrowing  of Hosni Mubarak, the military rule was imposed now the people are agitating against one more tyrant in the form of military.Unless the people are ready to handle this instability the revolution is more of a bane than a boon. 

Evolution on the other hand is a very slow process over a long period of time. Here the changes may not happen suddenly but its a process of evolving, as the time passes the system evolves itself. Evolution happens across several generations. In the process of evolution no one is left behind as in the process of evolution people evolve with the system. So the chances of instability is very thin in the case of evolution. People are better prepared for the changes in evolution. If we see First war of Indian Independence in 1857 and The freedom movement in 1940s, we can notice the difference as in 1857 India was not ready for such a movement as there was no unity among the Indian states so it actually backfired but led to the evolution of a far more united India and a stronger freedom movement in 1940s. It took nearly 100 years for a stronger freedom movement to evolve but it was far more fruitful when compared to 1857. Just like the  Charles Darwin's theory of evolution of species where the human species has got its present state after evolution over a long period of time. For example if a monkey had lost its tail over night it might have found it hard to adapt to its environment as the tail had its own use, but now since the tail has disappeared overnight it will be in a conflict with environment. As the theory says the monkey has lost its tail to become human by a process of evolution over a long period of time. Evolution is a continual process and the stagnation in which leads to a revolution.  

Evolution may be kick started with a revolution, revolution takes place due to the stagnation in the process of evolution. 

It is up to the people how they want their society to be shaped up by, either by a revolution or by a process evolution.

People have to decide for themselves whether they are ready for total change. For a revolution of any sort  people have to be well prepared to a sea change. 

Montek Singh Ahluwalia's Response

Lately there has been a lot of noise about the poverty line and Montek Singh Ahluwalia has become the punching bag for everybody from our lecturers to my dentist, Lets have a look at his response in his interview.

A mould to achieve economic ends

When I say economic ends that doesn't mean only mediocre economic want, i am pointing out the superlative economic benefits.
The mould  or a pattern here mentioned is of the mass appeal, and this mass appeal is gained through various ways like politics, entertainment, religious preaching etc.

The most obnoxious of these all is the so called religious preaching, Karl Marx once remarked Religion is the opium of the masses. It has been proved right time and again. 
People are ready to do anything to gain favor from the so called god and this makes it a cake walk to those who want manipulate people and meet their economic ends. 
Religion or a faith works as a opium on people, just like a drug which gives relief when there is a pain. so when people are distressed and confused mentally they turn to faith. The so called god men exploit this situation which is perfect for them. When people are distressed they are very vulnerable and are ready to accept anything superficial. 
It also acts as an instrument to unite people against a common detractor. Whenever there is a threat from outside people try to use it as uniting instruments, as gregariousness is a nature of man. They try to use religion as a common factor among them. This is when the so called preachers com into picture. They try to exploit this aggression against the detractor and bring people together. But their motives are always beyond unity, even after the people are successful in getting rid of the detractor they continue to hold a great deal of influence on people. To fight this external threat people need something to unit and something to push them together thats when the preachers take advantage of it. 
This has been proved time and again, every time there is a conflict involving a muslim dominated country suddenly it becomes the so called jihad, they all turn to religion, just like in Afghanistan, when the soviet's pushed down south to Afghanistan, suddenly everything  became religious and the fight against the soviets was called a jihad, but it was no more than an assertive action taken by the soviets as part of the cold war suspecting that Afghanistan is being taken over by the US as then it was a buffer state between the two blocs. They just wanted to use Afghanistan as a base to spread their influence in the Persian gulf for oil . But it was made into a religious war by making soviets into the enemies of the Islam which is questionable as they were against the very concept of religion. This gave a platform for taliban to come up, the people are divided, they are distressed by war, they are poor and they are thirsty for a common faith. So taliban used these factor to gain ground and exploited the vulnerable people to control the vast natural resource and most importantly the opium and the trade routes, apparently this was their chief motive.
It happened again in South africa as well, when the black Africans were becoming aware of their rights, the white predominantly dutch ruling community made apartheid a part of bible, they started preaching apartheid as part of Christianity. Again when the people saw a threat they turned to preachers.   

This happened in USA also, after the defeat in the civil war, various groups like KKK( kuk klux klan) came into existence, only to protect the interests of the white community using the same old tried and tested method of religious preaching. It became so popular that even the celebrated president Woodrow Wilson was alleged to be a member of theses groups. 


Its the same in India also, in fact our constitution itself has given such freedom in its article 27. At the time of freedom we have seen people like Jinnah, Iqbal, Sawarkar, Madan Mohan Malaviya  capitalizing on religious sentiment to unite people but at the end it can proved that their motives were beyond unity or independence. If we go back a little bit, Shivaji also used the same sentiment to strengthen his influence on the people but at the same time what he wanted was the political autonomy to reach the rich Deccan. He had pledged not to make a pact with any muslim kingdom but he had to shake hands with the nizam when the emperor at Delhi lost his cool. That shows the religion means nothing but an instrument to their other motives.   

This is true in present day also, if we see the present political situation in Karnataka, the mutts are like the driving force behind the political parties, they serve as the vote banks for the political parties because of the kind of influence they have on the people. Since this is the mechanical era, when the people get tired of their mechanical lives they turn to these so called spiritual ways of dealing with their stress. This vulnerability is exploited by the so called spiritual gurus, indirectly controlling the people minds and their pockets. 
One question to these mutts is that what is their business in politics, as they play a very big role as they have a very deep influence on people either in the name of caste or religion. People should be aware of the hidden agendas before they get carried away by the so called swamis. 
The classic example in the present day is the young and dashing Nityananda, clearly his motives were beyond preaching spirituality or yoga,the possession of huge property itself says it all, he exploited the vulnerability of the people. People who went to him were those who were distressed but had a fat pockets.  




People shouldn't go weak on their knees just because of the spiritual, they have to keep their conscience alive. 

Article 27 of Indian Constitution

Article 27 of Indian constitution states 

Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religions denomination.


Article 27 has its root in the article 26 but what it actually mean in reality is 
The so called spiritual and religious institutions do have to pay taxes for the donation they get.
They dont have to declare their wealth annually.
They dont have to pay taxes for the business they do. 
They dont have to have an audit and they dont have to disclose the results of the audit they have internally. 
They dont come under the authority of CAG.
Since they dont disclose their balance sheet no body know what they do with all the money. 


The super rich swamis or mutts are nothing but the reflections of this article which gives them the freedom of not answering to any authority when it comes to financial matters. 
How justifies is it to give the so called religious institutions such superlative freedom. Here i am not questioning their integrity if some people get offended just by a few simple questions, but i am just pointing out the need for accountability. I am just asking why should there be no transparency. Once anybody gets this kind of freedom, they tend to loose their focus. not to mention money has that power to make men dance to its tunes. 
I am not saying they are misusing their wealth, they may be doing a lot of social work in the form of school, hospitals  old age homes etc butt here my point is they have to show their balance sheet after doing all the sacred work. I mean, if the get 100 rupees as a donation and they do some good work like building a temple out of, they have to give a total balance sheet of what percent f this 100 rupees did they spend and from  where exactly did they get this 100 rupees and if they spend all of it how are they maintaining their administrative machinery. Not only do they get hefty donations they do fussiness worth crores but neither do they pay any tax nor do they give a quarterly financial report like all other companies who publish the quarterly financial report and send hem to their share holders. In the same way isnt it a moral obligation of these institutions to give the balance sheets to at least the donors, which includes every other person who put a coin into the box kept in front of every other temple, on other words every other person who visits a temple!!! the only difference between the donor and the share holder is that the donors dont  expect year bonuses  like the shareholders. 
When it comes to donors, it is very important to know the source from where they get such kind of money to just give it away. these institutions have became like home grown tax havens like Switzerland. When the question comes from where these institutions get such mammoth amount of wealth they will just say donations  but from where do these donors get such money when our country is not exactly filled with billionaires. Since these institutions are free from taxes they have become like the bank pvt banks who keep money for the rich 'donor' who want to just evade tax in the name of charity. And they dont mind give a piece of this wealth to the watch dog in the from of so called sacred religious institutions who have saved a major amount of their wealth from the tax dogs. 
Since these institutions are tax free and are already billionaires why the govts are funding them. I am not saying they dont do any humanitarian work, if they are doing good work what is their problem in publicly declaring their assets and producing a quarterly financial report like all other companies do. 
How fair is it to leave these billionaire institutions to go tax free while half of the country starves and when the whole country is full scams these so called religious and sacred institutions who are perceived to serving the people go with out a open audit. 


Isn't there a need amend this article??