The Arguments within

जहाँ हम भारत वर्ष के नागरिक अभी तक इसी सच को समझने में लगे हैं की कैसे राजा-रजवाड़ों के ज़माने अब अतीत में जा चुके हैं , आधुनिक युग प्रजातंत्र का युग है , - प्रजातंत्र व्यवस्था के सर्वप्रथम पालक - ब्रिटेन - में राजा-रजवाड़ों की व्यवस्था को बहुत चतुराई से प्रजातंत्र से संगम कर के प्रयोग किया गया है की जिस से की धर्म , नैतिकता और सत्य को किसी भी प्रकार के कूटनैतिक शिकस्त से संरक्षण हमेशा के लिए मिला रहे ।      ब्रिटेन प्रजातंत्र (democracy) होने के साथ-साथ एक 'राज-तंत्र' (monarchy) राष्ट्र भी है । जहाँ भारत एक 'गणतंत्र' (republic) व्यवस्था का पालक है , और देश का 'प्रथम व्यक्ति , देश प्रमुख' एक चुनावी क्रिया से तय किया हुआ व्यक्ति होता है , जिसे हम "राष्ट्रपति" कह कर संबोधित करते है , ब्रिटेन में देश का 'प्रथम व्यक्ति , देश प्रमुख' वहां पर सदियों से चले आ रहे राज शाशक , वहां के सम्राट होते है ।    ब्रिटेन में संसद भवन नाम की व्यवस्था वहां के पारंपरिक शाशक , यानि सम्राट (महाराज /अथवा महारानी , जैसे मौजूदा में महारानी एलिज़ाबेथ ), की शक्तियों को दि

I think it is important to understand how a 'Service' differs from a 'Profession'.    Word 'Service' has different meanings in different context. In the broadest of meanings of ' Service or Profession ', everything that a person does is , in a way, a service to his society.  'Profession or service' (used alternately) refers to any job outside of the two most commonest method of earning food seen in nature - Hunting and Agriculture. In this very broad meaning, All people who are not a Hunter or an Agriculturist (A farmer) are a 'Professional or service' class of human.     But when it comes to Economics of modern times as the context, a person can be ' dealing in certain goods ' , or he could be ' dealing in services '. Thus, for an example, a person can be selling wheat, rice, grains, general provisions, cars, vehicles. These are 'goods', and he would call himself a 'businessman'. Another person could b

Anonymous political donations are not as much a problem if they are meant to service the question of "who". But anonymous political donations MUST NOT become means to round about the question of "from where" did the money come. People may want to hide their political preference out of neighbourhood reasons too. It could be as simple reasons as avoiding a dishormony in your neighbourhood while living in a locality where mostly the rival political camp dwells. The avoidance of question "who" can cater to these situations. The tricky aspect is that of using the tool of anonymity which has actually found legs on the above mentions situations, to buy out the political system itself. the political party must mention how much of anonymous donation has come to it, and must be able to assist the electorate in decoding it the outfit is secretly being bought out by someone taking cover of the anonymity.

Believe it or not, the core problem from a philosophical point of view, is that of lacking ethics. Ethics surround themselves around the rise of Conscitiousness wherein a man may decide 'by' himself , and 'for' himself what is right and what is wrong. The first flow of a Conscitiousness is by demonstration of one's own Free-will, and by honouring others free-choice. ' 'You have to CHOOSE to accept it'' said the message to Ethan Hunt everytime it came him, in the movie ''Mission Impossible 4''.  A 'Choice' is the exercise of Free-will, and it is the foundation tenet of all contracts - business or otherwise. India is a rural society and mentality, still suffering from the feudal Narcissism, incapable of progressing a business if the free-will exercises itself to refuse or reject the contract offer. Indians proceed on, as a cultural habit, to apply force - coerce or apply duress into accepting the contract. In their own knowl

Do you agree that all the prayers and request made to person above you in your organisational hierarchy, should be seen as contributory to your performance of your duty, and not your personal needs or requirements?  There are two possible ways of judging the inter-personal relationship of requests, and prayers made to you.     (A) Some people see it as their own 'performance of duty' to decide on the request and prayers of their subordinates.    (B) Some people see it as their 'power' (as if a power of God's representation on earth) to decide on the fate of their subordinates.   Which one do you think is the correct approach? A sea of difference exist between the attitudes of these two kinds of people. (A) is a conscious being, himself risen through ranks wherein he too had made request , and prayers in his young days. He understands the human aspects of emotions and reasons for why it should be accepted with great dutifulness. He knows how the other view will

How are Mental Ability problems different from the Personality Disorder problems? Consider a case, wherein an imaginary person named Mr Lallo is asked a question "If, on a bench, Ramesh is sitting next to Mohan, Mohan is on the left of Shyam, and Rajesh is on the right of Mohan , what is the position of each person sitting on the bench? " What if Mr Lallo answers this question with arrogance, " What is this non-sense. you are not telling in the question who is sitting where then how can I tell you? You should only know who is sitting where. Don't ask me. I am not here to answer to these silly questions of yours. The question is incomplete. It does not mention who is sitting where , so how can I answer that!."  Consider the complete situation above and then reason out for yourself,--What in your good opinion is the actual problem? Is this a problem of Arrogance (a personality disorder issue) or a problem of lacking Mental Ability? Or, the arrogance has becom

How do you read (make sense) of the news of 'Desh Shanti' affairs?   An oil slick was discovered in the Persian Gulf region, about 10 miles long. A 'MARPOL' special area where oil discharge is completely prohibited via the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) law, accepted and ratified by all the member nations of the world, the local authorities in the region would surely take concern of this oil slick. Iran, being one of the concerned nations, would be very much lawful to take up the investigations, no matter the oil slick is in territorial waters , or the contiguous zones ( the in-physical-contact areas to one's territory). The Iranian authorities would , as a matter of fact, send out messages to all the ships in the area to 'confirm if they have suffered any oil leakages'.     There begins the 'low mental ability in the matters of law' situation. The language of message, the legal verbose, would be a standard 'threatening' languag

अपशब्दों से ही मिलती जुलती क्ष्रेणी दो अन्य व्यक्तव्य भी है - अपमान-जनक (insulting ) शब्द, और आपत्ति-जनक (objectionable ) शब्द ।   अपमानजनक शब्द सीधे-सीधे मनोविज्ञान से सम्बन्ध रखते हैं । यह सत्ता-प्रतिद्वन्द से प्रेरित होते है । इन्हें Disparaging शब्द भी कहा जाता है । इनके उदाहरण है - "तुम कभी भी कोई काम ठीक से नहीं करते । " (तर्क संगत दृष्टि में ऐसा कोई मानव है ही नहीं जिसने सब कुछ गलत किया हो । स्पष्ट रूप से इन वाक्यों में किसी की एक गलती पर उसे जीवन परयान्त गलती करने का इलज़ाम दे दिया गया है । ) भाषा के कुछ स्वरुप तो मूल से ही व्यक्ति की मनोवैज्ञानिक सत्ता को चुनौती देते हुए बने है । जैसे "क्या बे , तू क्या कर रहा है ।" कुछ उपभाषाओँ में तो ये सांस्कृतिक है की साधारण वार्तालाप में वह चुनौती पूर्ण शब्दों का प्रयोग करते है । इन उपभाषाओं में सम्मान के शब्द कमजोरी और आत्मविश्वास की कमी का प्रदर्शन माने जाते हैं ।     अपमान जनक शब्द मूलतः तो कोई अपराध नहीं है , मगर किसी घटना अथवा अपराध में इनके योगदान पर कार्यवाई होती है । अपमानजनक शब्दों के प्रभाव में आपसी र

अपशब्द क्या हैं, और उनका भाषा विज्ञानं की दृष्टि से क्या योगदान होता है ?  साधारणतः वाक्य में, अथवा किसी वार्तालाप में बिना किसी तर्क के प्रवाह से, यों ही अर्थहीन तरह से प्रेषित करे गए वह शब्द जो हमे किसी मलिन (गन्दा ) ,अशिष्ट वस्तु का स्मरण कराते हैं , वह अपशब्द होते है ।     यहाँ कुछ विचार आवश्यक है । सबसे पहले की (अप )शब्द का प्रयोग वार्तालाप के विषय से किसी स्पष्ट तर्क से नहीं जुड़ा होना चाहिए । अर्थात अगर शब्द किसी तर्कसंगत रूप से विषय से सम्बन्ध रखता है तब वह अपशब्द नहीं है,भले ही वह किसी मलिन वस्तु का स्मरण कराता हो ।    साधारणतः यौन , यौन क्रिया , प्रजनन प्रक्रिया आदि से सम्बंधित शब्दों को अपशब्दों के लिए प्रयोग करा जाता है । हालाँकि फिर इस प्रकार के प्रयोग के लिए इन शब्दों के किसी स्थानीय रूप का प्रयोग होता है , स्थापित भाषा के स्वरुप का नहीं । स्थापित भाषा के स्वरुप वाला शब्द का प्रयोग वैज्ञानिक , चिकित्सीय अथवा न्यायायिक तथ्य के सन्दर्भ में किया जाता है ।    भाषा में अपशब्दों का प्रयोग मानव मनोविज्ञान से सम्बन्ध रखता है । मनुष्य अपशब्द का प्रयोग बहोत अधिक भावुक हो जान

There is a very subtle kind of censorship which we the Indians practise through the title of 'Indian Culture'. This censorship is on some matter; matter which is something neither derogatory, nor abusive, nor sexually offensive, might not be offending to the religion per se, nor a threat to the establishment of community, society and a nation. It is about acceptance of the 'Power that be', a submission to that Realpolitik powers which govern our day today actions, and which don't let our lives change the way we want.     We don't describe this power in our words and speeches, but we do complain when this power is offended. It is a secretive power the threads of are sown in us by our Education System when the education inculcates in us a Compliance attitude, instead of the cultivation of a consciousness. We raise the alarm of 'feelings hurt' when the threads of this power existing in us in the form of our beliefs, meet the force of reason. We are emotion

पारदर्शिता (Transparency ), गोपनीयता (/गुप्तता) (Secrecy ) और व्यक्तिगत (/ एकंकता ) (privacy ), तीन अलग-अलग शब्द विचार हैं । विधि -विधान में इनकी कोई निश्चित परिभाषा नहीं दी गयी है , मगर इनको तीन अलग अलग विचार के रूप में ज़रूर स्वीकृत करा गया है । किसी कृत्य में कौन सा विचार लागू होता है , यह तय करना मुश्किल कार्य माना गया है । इसलिए अतीत के उदहारण पर निर्भर होना सबसे सुरक्षित तर्क माना जाता है ।    अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मानदंडो से चले तो यह माना गया है की हर कार्य जो जन व्यवस्था से सम्बन्ध रखता है , वह पारदर्शिता में होना है । यह सभी के संज्ञान में होगा , सभी के साक्ष्य में होगा ।    मगर राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा से सम्बंधित कार्यों को गोपनीयता के दायरे में रखने की छूट दी गयी है । ख्याल यह रखना है की गोपनीयता के यह संसाधन दुरूपयोग न हों , पारदर्शिता से सम्बंधित कार्यों को जन -संज्ञान से छिपाने के लिए ।    गुप्तता व्यक्तिगत कार्यों के लिए दी जाती है ।  एक छोटा उदहारण ले ।   पहने गए कपड़ों से सम्बंधित जानकारी गुप्तता के दाएरे में आती है । कपडे क्या है और उनसे शरीर छिपाया जा रहा है , यह सभी को मा

It is in accordance with the flow of logic, the principles of natural justice and in all the democractic laws that the one who is presenting a claim has also to bear the burden to prove that claim. But there is a catch in this. Catch is that in our day today discourse, by a semantic turn of the statement- the language and the grammar- a 'claim' can be made to appear like a mere doubt, a suspicion or even simpler - a trivial cross-examination. The effect of this 'twisting' by usage of the Linguistic is that the 'burden of proof' appears shifted , away from the one who maybe challenging an evidence while appearing to be merely a doubting Thomas, or a cross-examining lawyer. In the field of Journalism, the news-men apply this effect of converting what may be an solemn legally valid evidence, into a 'claim' or an 'accusation', by presenting that news matter in the form of a doubt, or a suspicion. This, they can do under the cover of another valid

यह सभ्यता और भाषा ज्ञान से कहीं अधिक मानसिक क्षमताओं का विषय है की यदि कोई व्यक्ति इस प्रकार की अभिव्यक्ति रखता है तब समस्या क्या है । कई सारी बौद्धिक विषमताएं भाषा और उसके अनुचित प्रयोग से ही प्रत्यक्ष होती हैं । साधारण तौर पर कुछ अस्पष्ट अभिव्यति , सामाजिक तौर पर अस्वीकार्य अभिव्यक्ति इत्यादि को अनदेखा कर दिया जाता है । मगर राजनीति और राजपालिका के कार्य में यह एक विकट असक्षमता हो सकती है । निति निर्माण, अथवा जन संचालन के कार्य में यह बहोत बाधा , अथवा विपरीत कार्य भी करवा सकती है । अभी हाल के दिनों में दिए गए कुछ बयानों में 'भाषा और सहज संज्ञान' (language and cognitive inability) की विषमताओं के कुछ उधाहरण मिले ।  "गरीबी मात्र एक मानसिक स्तिथि है । "  "सैनिक तो सेना में जान देने ही जाता है । " "मुझे अफ़सोस है की मैंने उसके पति के कहने पर उसका तबादला किया । "

What exactly are we fighting up against? We have called it , first, the illiteracy, then ignorance, then lack of education, then lack of knowledge about the Common Law.  But the truth is that the problem is much more in the core. It is the lack of mental aptitude (aka Stupidity). We feel it, yet we are not able to know it. Our world, and our governments are working astonishingly mistaken in this regard. They are introducing more laws, in a deep thought, only to fight away what is truely 'the lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'( aka Stupidity).   Our laws are simply gaining on the weight, a kind of belly fat, whereas the health of our society is continuously deteriorating. The laws are not working because the implementations are not rigorous. Infact , they are often finding meanings and interpretations so twisted and contrary to their purposes, that they are effectly being made to work just opposite to the cause. The Complaint Books in the public offices have become

There is an intrinsic connection between the theme of Independence, Freedom and Economic Liberty. It is here that the reasoning of why your argument that ''Let's be thankful to our company, our MNC, for giving us the employment which is so essential to our survival'', finds its limitation. It is here that the fight begins for saving an Employment from turning into slavery. The fundamental premise laid down in the Constitution of India, even expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution, promises to 'secure to all its citizens' the ''Justice : economic, social and political'', and ''equality of status and opportunity''. All employments are considered to be economic activities. So, the country and its government promises and guarantees in some sorts, to you, your means of survival, although it may or may not not be a highly prosperous one. This is done to ensure your economic freedom so to be able to fight for your rights from

I think it is important to discuss at some point how the notation of 'refuse to sign' works in document and law. Law recognises that It is possible that people may start abusing the otherwise acceptable notation of 'refuse to accept/sign' to fulfil their own sinister motives. The validity of 'refuse to accept' is acceptable only as a timebeing, until some proven method to make communication with the person is documented. Infact this notation, 'refuse to accept' has a direct bearing on Mode of Communication. Sometimes, it maybe that we are demanding of someone to signature or accept the document which that person , by his own company/national law is not authorised to accept. Hence, 'refusal to sign' will come in favor of the person who is refusing to sign that paper. It maybe that the paper is not legally understood by the person who is being given that paper. Then , too , the 'refusal to sign' will stand with the person who is refusing t

(reference from a Facebook discussion ) the coercion is still happening, as what many of us would have protested out. However, the '8 witness issue' can be proceeded in a court case. That is why I say that 'many' witnesses will be required, meaning to say not just one, two ,three, ''a select chosen few'',.... but many, perhaps the whole of ship's crew. Infact , it is possible to challenge the witness of the entire ship crew too, if the lawyers start examining as to what actions did the master take after obtaining the witness signature of ''his chosen 8 crew'', or even the entire crew. master must involve the Shipping Master now, instead of acting all be himself - the victim, the investigator and the judge . The case which I am following, mentioned here in the JOBSHIPS forum, I guess it is still easy to catch on the master to be at fault, only because he has not done certain actions in accordance with the logical procedures. In general