wisdomVsknowledge

Knowledge and Wisdom

     
 About Ghalib

         Mirza Asadullah Beg Khan -- known to posterity as Ghalib, a
 `nom de plume' he adopted in the tradition of all clasical Urdu poets,
 was born in the city of Agra, of parents with Turkish aristocratic
 ancestry, probably on December 27th, 1797. As to the precise date,
 Imtiyaz Ali Arshi has conjectured, on the basis of Ghalib's horoscope,
 that the poet might have been born a month later, in January 1798.

         Both his father and uncle died while he was still young, and
 he spent a good part of his early boyhood with his mother's family.
 This, of course, began a psychology of ambivalences for him. On the
 one hand, he grew up relatively free of any oppressive dominance by
 adult, male-dominant figures. This, it seems to me, accounts for at
 least some of the independent spirit he showed from very early child-
 hood. On the other hand, this placed him in the humiliating situation
 of being socially and economically dependent on maternal grandparents,
 giving him, one can surmise, a sense that whatever worldly goods he
 received were a matter of charity and not legitimately his. His pre-
 occupation in later life with finding secure, legitimate, and
 comfortable means of livelihood can be perhaps at least partially
 understood in terms of this early uncertainity.

         The question of Ghalib's early education has often confused
 Urdu scholars. Although any record of his formal education that might
 exist is extremely scanty, it is also true that Ghalib's circle of
 friends in Delhi included some of the most eminent minds of his time.
 There is, finally, irrevocably, the evidence of his writings, in verse
 as well as in prose, which are distinguished not only by creative
 excellence but also by the great knowledge of philosophy, ethics,
 theology, classical literature, grammar, and history that they reflect.
 I think it is reasonable to believe that Mulla Abdussamad Harmuzd
 -- the man who was supposedly Ghalib's tutor, whom Ghalib mentions at
 times with great affection and respect, but whose very existence he
 denies -- was, in fact, a real person and an actual tutor of Ghalib
 when Ghalib was a young boy in Agra. Harmuzd was a Zoroastrian from
 Iran, converted to Islam, and a devoted scholar of literature,
 language, and religions. He lived in anonymity in Agra while tutoring
 Ghalib, among others.

         In or around 1810, two events of great importance occured in
 Ghalib's life: he was married to a well-to-do, educated family of
 nobles, and he left for Delhi. One must remember that Ghalib was only
 thirteen at the time. It is impossible to say when Ghalib started
 writing poetry. Perhaps it was as early as his seventh or eight years.
 On the other hand, there is evidence that most of what we know as his
 complete works were substantially completed by 1816, when he was 19
 years old, and six years after he first came to Delhi. We are obviously
 dealing with a man whose maturation was both early and rapid. We can
 safely conjecture that the migration from Agra, which had once been a
 capital but was now one of the many important but declining cities, to
 Delhi, its grandeur kept intact by the existence of the moghul court,
 was an important event in the life of this thirteen year old, newly
 married poet who desparately needed material security, who was
 beginning to take his career in letters seriously, and who was soon to
 be recognized as a genius, if not by the court, at least some of his
 most important comtemporaries. As for the marriage, in the predomin-
 antly male-oriented society of Muslim India no one could expect Ghalib
 to take that event terribly seriously, and he didn't. The period did,
 however mark the beginnings of concern with material advancement that
 was to obsess him for the rest of his life.

         In Delhi Ghalib lived a life of comfort, though he did not
 find immediate or great success. He wrote first in a style at once
 detached, obscure , and pedantic, but soon thereafter he adopted the
 fastidious, personal, complexly moral idiom which we now know as his
 mature style. It is astonishing that he should have gone from sheer
 precocity to the extremes of verbal ingenuity and obscurity, to a
 style which, next to Meer's, is the most important and comprehensive
 styles of the ghazal in the Urdu language before he was even twenty.

         The course of his life from 1821 onward is easier to trace.
 His interest began to shift decisively away from Urdu poetry to Persian
 during the 1820's, and he soon abandoned writing in Urdu almost
 altogether, except whenever a new edition of his works was forthcoming
 and he was inclined to make changes, deletions, or additions to his
 already existing opus. This remained the pattern of his work until
 1847, the year in which he gained direct access to the Moghul court.
 I think it is safe to say that throughout these years Ghalib was mainly
 occupied with the composition of the Persian verse, with the
 preparation of occasional editions of his Urdu works which remained
 essentially the same in content, and with various intricate and
 exhausting proceedings undertaken with a view to improving his financial
 situation, these last consisting mainly of petitions to patrons and
 government, including the British.  Although very different in style
 and procedure, Ghalib's obsession with material means, and the
 accompanying sense of personal insecurity which seems to threaten the
 very basis of selfhood, reminds one of Bauldeaire. There is, through
 the years, the same self-absorption, the same overpowering sense of
 terror which comes from the necessities of one's own creativity and
 intelligence, the same illusion -- never really believed viscerrally
 -- that if one could be released from need one could perhaps become
 a better artist. There is same flood of complaints, and finally the
 same triumph of a self which is at once morbid, elegant, highly
 creative, and almost doomed to realize the terms not only of its
 desperation but also its distinction.

         Ghalib was never really a part of the court except in its very
 last years, and even then with ambivalence on both sides . There was
 no love lost between Ghalib himself and Zauq, the king's tutor in the
 writing of poetry; and if their mutual dislike was not often openly
 expressed, it was a matter of prudence only. There is reason to believe
 that Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Moghul king, and himself a poet of
 considerable merit, did not much care for Ghalib's style of poetry or
 life. There is also reason to believe that Ghalib not only regarded
 his own necessary subservient conduct in relation to the king as
 humiliating but he also considered the Moghul court as a redundant
 institution. Nor was he well-known for admiring the king's verses.
 However, after Zauq's death Ghalib did gain an appiontment as the
 king's advisor on  matters of versifiaction. He was also appointed,
 by royal order, to write the official history of the Moghul dynasty, a
 project which was to be titled "Partavistan" and to fill two volumes.
 The one volume "Mehr-e-NeemRoz", which Ghalib completed is an
 indifferent work, and the second volume was never completed, supposedly
 because of the great disturbances caused by the Revolt of 1857 and the
 consequent termination of the Moghul rule. Possibly Ghalib's own lack
 of interest in the later Moghul kings had something to do with it.

         The only favouarble result of his connection with the court
 between 1847 and 1857 was that he resumed writing in Urdu with a
 frequency not experienced since the early 1820's. Many of these new
 poems are not panegyrics, or occasional verses to celebrate this or
 that. He did, however, write many ghazals which are of the same
 excellence and temper as his early great work. Infact, it is astonis-
 hing that a man who had more or less given up writing in Urdu thirty
 years before should, in a totally different time and circumstance,
 produce work that is, on the whole, neither worse nor better than his
 earlier work. One wonders just how many great poems were permanently
 lost to Urdu when Ghalib chose to turn to Persian instead.

         In its material dimensions, Ghalib's life never really took
 root and remained always curiously unfinished. In a society where
 almost everybody seems to have a house of his own, Ghalib never had
 one and always rented one or accepted the use of one from a patron.
 He never had books of his own, usually reading borrowed ones. He had
 no children; the ones he had, died in infancy, and he later adopted
 the two children of Arif, his wife's nephew who died young in 1852.
 Ghalib's one wish, perhaps as strong as the wish to be a great poet,
 that he should have a regular, secure income, never materialized. His
 brother Yusuf, went mad in 1826, and died, still mad, in that year of
 all misfortunes, 1857. His relations with his wife were, at best,
 tentative, obscure and indifferent. Given the social structure of
 mid-nineteenth-century Muslim India, it is, of course, inconceivable
 that *any* marriage could have even begun to satisfy the moral and
 intellectual intensities that Ghalib required from his relationships;
 given that social order, however, he could not conceive that his
 marriage could serve that function. And one has to confront the fact
 that the child never died who, deprived of the security of having a
 father in a male-oriented society, had had looked for material but
 also moral certainities -- not certitudes, but certainities, something
 that he can stake his life on.  So, when reading his poetry it must be
 remembered that it is the poetry of more than usually vulnerable
 existence.

         It is difficult to say precisely what Ghalib's attitude was
 toward the British conquest of India. The evidence is not only
 contradictory but also incomplete. First of all, one has to realize
 that nationalism as we know it today was simply non-existent in
 nineteenth-century India. Second --one has to remember -- no matter
 how offensive it is to some -- that even prior to the British, India
 had a long history of invaders who created empires which were eventu-
 ally considered legitimate. The Moghuls themselves were such invaders.
 Given these two facts, it would be unreasonable to expect Ghalib to
 have a clear ideological response to the British invasion. There is
 also evidence, quite clearly deducible from his letters, that Ghalib
 was aware, on the one hand, of the redundancy, the intrigues, the
 sheer poverty of sophistication and intellectual potential, and the
 lack of humane responses from the Moghul court, and, on the other, of
 the powers of rationalism and scientific progress of the West.

         Ghalib had many attitudes toward the British, most of them
 complicated and quite contradictory. His diary of 1857, the
 "Dast-Ambooh" is a pro-British document, criticizing the British here
 and there for excessively harsh rule but expressing, on the whole,
 horror at the tactics of the resistance forces. His letters, however,
 are some of the most graphic and vivid accounts of British violence
 that we possess. We also know that "Dast-Ambooh" was always meant to
 be a document that Ghalib would make public, not only to the Indian
 Press but specifically to the British authorities. And he even wanted
 to send a copy of it to Queen Victoria. His letters, are to the contr-
 ary, written to people he trusted very much, people who were his
 friends and would not divulge their contents to the British authori-
 ties. As Imtiyaz Ali Arshi has shown (at least to my satisfaction),
 whenever Ghalib feared the intimate, anti-British contents of his
 letters might not remain private, he requested their destruction, as
 he did in th case of the Nawab of Rampur. I think it is reasonable to
 conjecture that the diary, the "Dast-Ambooh", is a document put
 together by a frightened man who was looking for avenues of safety and
 forging versions of his own experience in order to please his oppr-
 essors, whereas the letters, those private documents of one-to-one
 intimacy, are more real in the expression of what Ghalib was in fact
 feeling at the time. And what he was feeling, according to the letters,
 was horror at the wholesale violence practised by the British.

         Yet, matters are not so simple as that either. We cannot explain
 things away in terms of altogether honest letters and an altogether
 dishonest diary. Human and intellectual responses are more complex. The
 fact that Ghalib, like many other Indians at the time, admired British,
 and therfore Western, rationalism as expressed in constitutional law,
 city planning and more. His trip to Calcutta (1828-29) had done much
 to convince him of the immediate values of Western pragmatism. This
 immensely curious and human man from the narrow streets of a decaying
 Delhi, had suddenly been flung into the broad, well-planned avenues of
 1828 Calcutta -- from the aging Moghul capital to the new, prosperous
 and clean capital of the rising British power, and , given the preco-
 ciousness of his mind, he had not only walked on clean streets, but
 had also asked the fundamental questions about the sort of mind that
 planned that sort of city. In short, he was impressed by much that was
 British.

         In Calcutta he saw cleanliness, good city planning, prosperity.
 He was fascinated by the quality of the Western mind which was rational
 and could conceive of constitutional government, republicanism,
 skepticism. The Western mind was attractive particularly to one who,
 although fully imbued with his feudal and Muslim background, was also
 attracted by wider intelligence like the one that Western scientific
 thought offered: good rationalism promised to be good government. The
 sense that this very rationalism, the very mind that had planned the
 first modern city in India, was also in the service of a brutral and
 brutalizing mercantile ethic which was to produce not a humane society
 but an empire, began to come to Ghalib only when the onslaught of 1857
 caught up with the Delhi of his own friends. Whatever admiration he
 had ever felt for the British was seriously brought into question by
 the events of that year, more particularly by the merciless-ness of
 the British in their dealings with those who participated in or
 sympathized with the Revolt. This is no place to go into the details
 of the massacre; I will refer here only to the recent researches of
 Dr. Ashraf (Ashraf, K.M., "Ghalib & The Revolt of 1857", in Rebellion
 1857, ed., P.C. Joshi, 1957), in India, which prove that at least
 27,000 persons were hanged during the summer of that one year, and
 Ghalib witnessed it all. It was obviously impossible for him to
 reconcile this conduct with whatever humanity and progressive ideals
 he had ever expected the Briish to have possessed.  His letters tell
 of his terrible dissatisfaction.

         Ghalib's ambivalence toward the British possibly represents a
 characteristic dilemma of the Indian --- indeed, the Asian -- people.
 Whereas they are fascinated by the liberalism of the Western mind and
 virtually seduced by the possibility that Western science and technology
 might be the answer to poverty and other problems of their material
 existence, they feel a very deep repugnance for forms and intensities of
 violence which are also peculiarly Western. Ghalib was probably not as
 fully aware of his dilemma as the intellectuals of today might be; to
 assign such awareness to a mid-nineteenth-century mind would be to
 violate it by denying the very terms -- which means limitations --, as
 well -- of its existence. His bewilderment at the extent of the
 destruction caused by the very people of whose humanity he had been
 convinced can , however, be understood in terms of this basic
 ambivalence.

         The years between 1857 and 1869 were neither happy nor very
 eventful ones for Ghalib. During the revolt itself, Ghalib remained
 pretty much confined to his house, undoubtedly frightened by the
 wholesale masacres in the city. Many of his friends were hanged,
 deprived of their fortunes, exiled from the city, or detained in jails.
 By October 1858, he had completed his diary of the Revolt, the
 "Dast-Ambooh", published it, and presented copies of it to the British
 authorities, mainly with the purpose of proving that he had not
 supported the insurrections. Although his life and immediate possesions
 were spared, little value was attached to his writings; he was flatly
 told that he was still suspected of having had loyalties toward the
 Moghul king. During the ensuing years, his main source of income
 continued to be the stipend he got from the Nawab of Rampur.
 "Ud-i-Hindi", the first collection of his letters, was published in
 October 1868. Ghalib died a few months later, on February 15th, 1869.
 

Wanted Indian Internet workers. Earn Rs.2000 daily from internet.

Dear Friends, Are you interested to make Rs.20,000 to Rs.1,20,000 A Day ? This is not a get rich quick scheme. This is a legal opportunity to make good money when you do it part time. This opportunity is a proven way to make Rs.20,000 to Rs.1,20,000 A Day . There are already 3,00,000 people around the world grabbed this opportunity and making tons of money every month. If you are interested to know more about this opportunity, visit http://www.earnparttimejobs.com/index.php?id=

Send SMS to India @ 1 Cent / SMS! Packs Start $2 Only - http://cbnk.biz/HL1CS370498HCRWKTC

Instantly Turn your Computer into a Super TV. Enjoy iPod, PSP, IPhone, Movies, Music, MP3, TV Shows! - http://cbnk.biz/HLSTV370498HCRWKTC

Win cash Rs.10,000. SMS BLUFF to 57333 (India Only) Free registration! - http://cbnk.biz/HLDDT370498HCRWKTC

Register (any name) .com website for 1 Year @ Rs.365 Only! Hurry! - http://cbnk.biz/HLDOM370498HCRWKTC

KANDHAMAL

TRIBAL REVOLTS

The horrific ritual of human sacrifice practiced by the Kandhas upto the middle of the 19^th century has been an indelible blot on the community. But the way they offered dogged resistance to the British for several decades, not withstanding their deprivation , they amply deserve kudos for their valiant fight.

The tribals played a stellar role in the Khurda Rebellion commanded by Buxi Jagabandhu against the British in 1817. There had been a smouldering discontent against British rule in the coastal areas of Orissa for several years, on the grounds of agrarian ,economic and political issues. It was a band of 400 Kandhas of Ghumusar, who sparked off the conflagration by entering the Khurda region to fight. Buxi Jagabandhu and his army joined there, and the revolt soon spread to Khurda, Tangi, Gopa, Bolagarh, Banapur, Pipili, Nayagarh and other places. They captured Puri in April 1817 and proclaimed restoration of the authority of the King, who had been deposed by the British. The revolt was so widespread and strident that the British considered their position in Orissa perilous. But gradually the rebellion fell through. Buxi Jagabandhu took shelter in Ghumusar and Boudh for some years from May 1818. The Rajas of Boudh, Ghumusar, Nayagarh and Dasapalla supported him and the Kandhas of these areas gave him protection till he surrendered in 1825.

Ganjam district, including Ghumusar, came under the possession of the British in 1865. The Bhanja Kings of Ghumusor did not brook interference from the British officers in their adminstrative affairs. The kings and the people began to resent the exploitative and oppressive behaviour of the officers. There were rebellion against the British in 1766, 1778 and 1801. Dora Bissoi, commander of Ghumusar force, spearheaded the revolt, off and on, from 1815 to 1835. In all these revolts, the Kandhas of Ghumusar, including the Uttar Ghumusar area of G.Udayagiri, took a leading part. The refractory Bhanja Raja, Dhananjaya Bhanja, was dethroned and the principality was annexed to the British empire on November,3,1835. The deposed Raja and Dora Bissoi fled to Udayagiri area. Rebellion spread like wildfire in the entire Uttar Ghumusar region. The British army had to confront with fierce resistance everywhere. Meanwhile the king breathed his last on December 31, 1835. The rebellion was crushed by the British with utmost brutality, According to John Campbell, " The two years campaign was of unexampled severity" from the reports of G.E.Russel, special commissioner for Ghumusar, a ghastly fact is inferred. "Numbers of : konds were shot like wild beasts, some were seized and hung up on trees. Their villages were everywhere laid in ashes."

Dora Bissoi fled to Boudh Kandhamal area with some of his lieutenants. He surrendered in 1837 and the Raja of Anugul handed him over to the British. Dora Bissoi died in 1846 at Gooty,near Madras, where he was a prisoner.

The Kondhas of Boudh-kandhamal area rose up in arms against the invading British as their land and liberty were at stake. They also resented the interference of the British in their social and cultural activities and religious rituals. In Boudh-Kandhamal Nabaghana Kanhar of Ratabari rose in revolt against the king of Boudh and the British in 1835. The king of Anugul extended his support and cooperation. His two years revolt came to an end when he, due to conspiracy of Sam Bissoi, a British supporter, handed over to the British some Ghumusar insurgents, who had taken shelter under him. His two sons, Bira and Maheswar, surrendered. On account of the organisational skill of Dora bissoi and Nabaghan Kanhar, the uprising had assumed a gigantic proportion in the Kandha inhabited areas. Hence the British government had to requisition military forces from Madras, Nagpur and Bengal Divisions to quell the Kandha rising.

There was some semblance of peace and tranquility in the area for some years. But the Kandhas, under the inspiring leadership of Chakra Bissoi, Bira Konhar and Madhaba Kanhar, made brisk preparation from 1844 to wage rebellion against the British. The rebellion again erupted in 1846 in both Boudh-Kandhamal and Ghumusar regions. It also broke extensively in Angul, Jajpur, Kalahandi, Sonepur and Dasapalla. The rebellion was fierce and sporadic in nature and as the area of operation was the vast expanse of inhospitable Jungle terrain,the insurgents could sustain the rebellion for a protracted period of 10 years, even in the face of superior military strength of the British. The Kandha insurrection fizzled out by 1856. S.C.Macpherson, John Campbell, Mac Vicar and Mac Neil were the military officers of the British army who successfully put down the tribal insurgency and terminated the practice of human sacrifice ,Meriah in the local parlance.

During this period of turmoil two tribal strongholds, Anugul and Kandhamal, were annexed by British in 1847 and 1855 respectively to their empire.

POINT COUNTERPOINT

WHY THE LEFT OPPOSES THE INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL &

WHAT THE GOVY. SAYS

LEFT: The Hyde Act passed by the US congress implies India will be bound into a strategic alliance with the US. This has on adverse consequence for an independent foreign policy, sovereignty and the economic interest of the people.

Annual certification by the President of Us is part of the Hyde Act. This means the US President will have to give a “good conduct” certificate to India before the US fulfills its side of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement. This means the agreement could be terminated in any ground ranging from Iran to climate change to Afghanistan.

GOVERNMENT: President Bush has said he views the clause to which the left parties refer or purely advisory. In any case, this is a US law doesn’t apply to India.

LEFT: under the Hyde Act if this agreement is terminated the US will not help India tide over the “disruption” but will have to work with the 45 Countries in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) countries to stop all supplies.

GOVERNMENT: the 123 Agreement states the US will help India get nuclear fuel from other NSG supplies if the Agreement breaks down (that if India tests) even then multi-layered consultation and extenuating circumstance like a neighbor testing are built into the 123.

LEFT: it is now clear that full access to technology for the fuel cycle will not be available to India. The Prime Minster has essentially confirmed this. The only concession secured is a forward looking language.

GOVERNMENT: something are always left purposely vague in International agreements.

LEFT: the Prime Minster has emphasized the gains made with regard to the right to reprocess spent US fuel. However this is only a national right.

GOVERNMENT: if only you know how much we had to fight for this.

LEFT: given that a majority in parliament does not support the nuclear Co-operation deal, the Govt. should not proceed with the agreement.

GOVERNMENT: International agreements are not subjected to parliamentary ratification. The cabinet committee on Political Affairs has Okayed. We brought it to parliament as a matter of courtesy.

WHAT AND WHEN THE NEXT STEP IN THE DEAL:

# Negations for the safeguards agreement with IAEA must end before November 22 meeting of the IAEA’s Board of government.

# With board approved, before years end, US goes to 46member, NSG on India’s behalf seeking unconditional exemption.

# After NSG waiver between January and February Bush sends 123 Agreement back to US congress for up and down vote.

In other words: if current tensions hadn’t been there deal signed, sealed any time between January and March 2008.

Even after left withdrew the support PM is continue the process...

Unbiased reviews for the
Mitsubishi Galant

HYDE ACT

MOST CLAUSES LEFT IS OPPOSED TO NOT BINDING ON INDIA

What is most important to understand about the Hyde Act is that it is divided into binding & non binding parts. The non binding parts are fluff designed to keep congressman happy. They are not enforced and are acted when the bill become law.

Almost all parts being objected to are in the non binding section. And the evidence of their irrelevance lies in the fact that not one clause of the nonbinding parts is the present in 123 Agreement, the only document India has to act upon the Ferro clause in the binding parts that some have objected to require nothing of India.

The segment of Hyde Act that are causing the entire flurry. All of them are non binding and are therefore irrelevant.

SECTION 102:

# Clause 6D which says nuclear cooperation should be granted to a country if it “will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional non proliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolation and if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons.”

Critic says this along with the more explicit clause B4 will force India to toe the US line on Iran. Both are non binding and neither exits in the 123 Agreements.

SECTION 103

# Clause A5 says US policy on equipment and technologies relating to enrichment, reprocessing and technology and heavy water production should be to “further restrict the transfer of such equipment and technologies, including India”

The US doesn’t give this technology to anyone and India doesn’t need them. Nonetheless123 doesn’t close the door but says future amendments to 123 can be negotiated to that later. India is granted the right to reprocess US nuclear fuel if it wants.

#Clause A6 says US policy should be to “seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment material or technology from other participating govt. in the NSG or any other source if nuclear transfer to that country are suspended or terminated pursuant to the title the Atomic Energy Act of 1954…”

This is contradicted by Article 5, Clause 6; of the 123 Agreement which has a long listed of such reassurances Clause to the Govt. of India for use in safe guarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reacted operation requirement.”

Could have limited India’s ability to have a strategic reserve but is also non-binding and contradicted by Article 5,6iii of 123.

The parts of the binding segment that some critics in India have objected to:

SECTION 104

Clause C7 part of the US President report to congress on the deal should describe “the steps India is taking” to ensure its nuclear regulation are in harmony with missile Technology Control regime NSG, Australian Group and Wassenaar Arrangement… the Proliferation Security Initiative

THIS IS ONLY REPORT OF “STEPS”, IT DOESN’T SAY INDIA HAS TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND IT IS IN 123 AGREEMINT……

India –US Nuclear Agreement

India –US Nuclear Agreement

The India –The US nuclear deal appears so dense and has got so tangle in politics that is became difficult far most people to form an opinion of there own. Then every one the right to know more about the deal and its implication for India.

Why is it called 123?

The name comes from the Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, under which the US has to conclude any bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement.

What are its key features?

# India can have nuclear cooperation and trade with US and other without compromising its weapons program. India need not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty NTP or put its nuclear facilities under full scope safeguards.

# It gives India assured fuel supplies for its civilian nuclear reactors for going under permanent in return for them going under permanent safeguards.

# It allows India to reprocess and recycle spent fuel.

How does it help us tangibly?

# India gets access o more and diversified source of energy. It breaks open a regime that blocked India’s access to high technology after the nuclear test in 1947.

# Doors will now open for high tech and dual use tech in sectors as drivers as IT, Defense, Space, Pharmaceuticals.

What are the Strategic Implications for India?

# India will get recognition .as a state with advanced nuclear technology.

# It won’t be a nuclear pariah

# The deal won’t be offered to Pakistan.

# It gets to keep its nuclear weapons.

What is US INTEREST?

# Raise of India helps US as in the post- cold war world; India an d the US on same side.

# the deal allows India to achieve its target of 20,000 MW of power by 2020. Also its clean energy and saving on carbon emission will be big.

# US firm s can partner India in high-tech ventures which they are forbidden to do at present.

What are the points of opposition in the US to deal?

# The non –proliferation lobby feels its too generous to India.

# That it should not get the right to reprocess spent fuel.

# India will make N-weapons with its own Uranium

# The “wrong signal” will go out to Iran, North Korea & Pakistan.

# It will undermine global non proliferation system.

How is the Hyde Act Relevant?

US, according to its Atomic Energy Act, can’t have nuclear cooperation with a country that has not signed the NPT or submitted itself to safe guards. The Hyde Act gives US administration the waiver to reach a pact with India, which hasn’t signed NTP. But there is a rider that India should work with US to contain Iran’s N-program. Govt. claims those foreign policy perceptions is not binding and deal won’t come unstuck if India ignores it.

What is life!!!

What is life

Life is a challenge : Meet it.

Life is a gift : Accept it.

Life is a sorrow :Overcome.

Life is an adventure :dare it.

Life is a tragedy :face it.

Life is a duty : do it

Life is a game : play it

Life is a goal :achieve it

Life is a mystery : unfold it

Life is a song : sing it

Life is an opportunity :avail it

Life is a journey : complete it

Life is a promise : fulfill it

Life is a struggle :fight it

Life is a love : enjoy it

Life is a beauty : praise it

Life is a sprite :realize it

Life is a puzzle : solve it

ESSAY: WHY DO WE CELEBRATE TEACHER’S DAY!!!!!!!

WHY DO WE CELEBRATE TEACHER’S DAY

Children are the future of the nation. A nation which builds children on the basis of the culture, tradition, history, and with the dream of the glorious future, that nation becomes a strong nation. This future is built by the Teachers. Teacher is the architects of the nation. They have the power, strength, vigor to build anew nation. So in this Araya Bhumi we celebrate the Teacher’s day on the birth day of a greater teacher, philosopher, educationalist, freedom fighter and statesman: Dr Saravapalli Radhakrishan...

In a village of Madras named Trichina Dr S Radhakrishan was born in 1888 5^th September. His father’s name was Vera Swami. Though he was so poor he got a chance to read in mission school. From the childhood he was shy and believer of god. From Madras University he passed M.A in first class. He wrote an essay on ethics of Vedanta at age of 20, which was highly praised by A.G Hogg. In the International journal of ethics. His writing was published regularly. Within few days he became assistant professor of Mysore university. He helped so many poor students.

Radhakrishan said; “we developed negative kind of patriotism when we struggle to rid the country of foreign rule. But a positive patriotism, a dynamic fellow feeling sense of belonging to this greater country, of being proud to belong to it these are yet to come. We have to build these in the minds hearts of men”. He wrote two philosophical papers. The philosophy of R.N.Togor and regain of religion in contemporary philosophy. In 1931 he became the lecture of Andhra University. He made so many reforms in Andhra University, in Hindu University worked without payment. In 1931 he became chancellor of Hindu University. He also gave lectures in Manchester College and Cambridge University on Indian Philosophy. In 1945 he became Ambassador to Russia. In 1952 he became Vice President of India. In 1962 may 12 he became president of India He proved himself in education and politics. He works as a bridge between present and future. He was person with seasonality, punctual, love for knowledge. In built many freedom fighter in the university campus.

The school is the second home of a child. Due to the change of educational methods, social value and new life style, the relationship between teacher and students is not so good so it is time to reset our selves in lights of new educational methods and mutual understanding. A major change in Education system is necessary we have to achieve our cultural goals with in International standard………

essay: What Is Politics!!!

What Is Politics:

What Is Politics

On hearing the word politics, what usually springs to mind are images of
government, politicians and their policies or more negatively the idea
of corruption and dirty tricks. The actual definition seems to have been
obscured and almost lost by such representations and clichés that tend
not to pinpoint the true essence, which defines this thing, called
politics. In order to make an attempt at a definition of politics a
systematic approach is required. To begin with, a brief historical
overview will be considered, to understand the origins of politics.

Following this, different core concepts, which are imperative to a
definition of politics, will be discussed, in the hope to discover a
true and fair interpretation of the word politics.

The word politics comes from the Greek word "polis", meaning the state
or community as a whole. The concept of the "polis" was an ideal state
and came from the writings of great political thinkers such as Plato and
Aristotle. In his novel "The Republic", Plato describes the ideal state
and the means to achieve it. Hence, the word politics originally has
connotations in the ways in which to create the ideal society. An ideal
society is in practice a rather difficult aim and even an impossible aim
to achieve. Politics implies measures which could and should, in the
views of their devisor, be implemented in the hope to create a better
society, than that which is already present. The very fact that Plato
and Aristotle saw imperfections in the societies in which they lived,
prompted them to write their political philosophies. These philosophies
provided the first written recognition of politics. In his writings his
"The Politics", Aristotle states that "Man is by nature a political
animal"(The Politics, 1) in another words, it lies deep within the
instinct of man. It is almost primal. Due to his nature man should
consider and realise his role within the "polis". So according to
Aristotle Politics is not a dreamt up concept, but rather an inherent
feature of mankind.

To begin with, the basest premise that underpins the notion of politics
should be considered in order to arrive at a fair definition. Man is
self-preserving by nature. He thinks and acts, whether that is as an
individual or as a group who share interests, with foremost regard to
his own interests. Self-perpetuation is the number one rule. He
therefore possesses his own interests, ideas and preferences, which may
differ to those of his contemporaries. In the "Blackwell Encyclopaedia
of Political Thought", Miller supports this premise:

"Politics presupposes a diversity of view, if not about ultimate aims,
at least the best ways of achieving them". (Miller, 1987, p.390)

Politics consider this view of man, in that on meeting others whose
interests oppose his own, conflict is bound to occur. What could be the
cause of this conflict in interest? The world has its limits; all
material wealth within it is exhaustible. Who therefore, gets how large
a share, of those resources, which are present on the earth in limited
supply? If man were permitted to act on and pursue his own selfish
interests, snatching that, which he desires, a society would quickly
become under rule of violence. Politics is a way of combating the
degradation of society into a violent and unstructured mess by reducing
it to be governed by the primitive instincts of man in order to resolve
conflict. Leftwich states in his essay entitled "Politics: people,
resources and power" from his book "What is Politics?"

"...politics compromises all the activities of co-operation and
conflict, within and between societies, whereby the human species goes
about organising the use, production and distribution of human, natural
and other resources in the production and reproduction of its biological
and social life." (Leftwich, 1984, p.64-65)

Politics therefore may be defined a means to resolving this conflict
through various means, which will be tackled later in this essay. If
however one was to take this premise of the existence of opposing
opinions as false, conflict between individuals should never occur and
politics would not be required to resolve problems. To justify politics
however, this premise must be true and through simply considering, the
society in which we live it is evident, that conflict exists. In his
definition of politics in the "Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political
Thought" Miller advocates this view, stating that if "people (were to)
agree spontaneously on a course of action...they (would) have no need to
engage in politics."(Miller, 1987, p.390)(Added) Thus, politics exists
due to the broad spectrum of ideas and opinions within any society.

To resolve conflicting opinions, a consensus must be agreed upon by all
parties affected. Also in "The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political
Thought", Miller cites three methods which are a feature of politics
when resolving disagreements within society, these three elements are
"persuasion, bargaining and a mechanism for reaching a final
decision"(Miller, 1987, p.390). This means that politics tries to act as
a peacemaker by offering solution(s) to conflict to the parties involved
by means of discussion with them. The outcome will most probably require
the yielding of at least one of the parties implicated in order to meet
at a compromise. The mechanism is the way in which the parties make
their final decisions based on the scenarios with which they have been
provided. This may take the form of a vote.

How is it that the final decision made though compromise is enforceable?
For surely in order for politics to be of any use as a pacifier in
strained relations it must carry some sort of authority and power.

Politics implies power. Dahl, in Modern Political Analysis, states that:
"a political system as any persistent pattern of human relationships
that involves, to a significant extent, control, influence, power or
authority." (Dahl, 1984, p.9-10)

Certain members of a society must have the authority over other member's
in order to enforce civil discussion in the first place. It seems to
follow that for certain individuals to exert more power than others they
must have the support of a large proportion over those which they have
authority. Going back to the premise that man is at heart a selfish
creature, it must be true that even those in power are immune to the
effects of pursuing their own goals to a certain extent. Politics could
therefore be defined as a power struggle between those in influential
positions. Power can only be obtained by obtaining the support from as
many groups and individuals as possible. This can be achieved by
providing tempting solutions to conflicts that already exist in a
society, whether this be in a honest or dishonest way. By appealing to
members of a society with solutions to their problems and promises to
act in their interests, a group or individual can gain support and
ultimately authority over other groups and individuals. Politics could
thus be defined as a calculating art of power gain or power retention or
more simply as power struggle.

The ultimate power is found in government. Miller continues to name the
state as "the chief arena of politics, in the modern world. (Miller,
1987, p.391)

It is within this institution that all of the aforementioned takes
place. Thus, politics could be defined as the workings of government as
a guarantor to a peaceful society. The government is run by the
politicians, it is the politicians who form the ideas to hopefully
settle conflict in the society they govern. However it seems that if
politics are the working of government those societies and communities,
which do not possess a government, are devoid of politics. In Britain,
we have a government so we tend to relate the politics as the workings
of that government. However, in every community and corporation where
there is hierarchy politics must exist. In a company for example, a boss
makes decisions and resolves conflict. In a tribe, a leader makes
decisions to keep internal conflicts to a minimum and ultimately ensures
the survival of his tribe. Thus politics is present in every community
and is used to manage workings and disagreements that may occur within
any co-habitation. John Horton, contributor in Leftwich "What is
Politics?" supports this view. Horton quotes from "Rationalism in
Politics and other Essays"(1962) by Michael Oakenshott;

"Politics I take to be the activity of attending to the general
arrangements of a set of people whom chance or choice have brought
together. In this sense, families, clubs and learned societies have
their politics" (Leftwich, 1984, p.112)

Here Oakenshott acknowledges the existence of politics in all kinds of
human societies and communities, because of co-habitation. Horton
however goes on to name the state as being as possessing certain
features which make it particular from those other examples of politics
listed by Oakenshott. These features suggest the mandatory and
authoritarian nature of the state, when compared to those politics that
exist in say a sports club. Politics occurs in all kinds of communities.

Whether it be the sports club or the state government and is concerned
with devising a method of organisation and attempting to implement that
method of organisation within that community over which it acts. It is
present in these communities as a necessary measure to avoid conflict
due to those inevitable diversities in opinion and therefore ultimately
needed to promote as peaceful an existence as possible.

In the process of establishing the core concepts of this affair called
politics, it is plain to see that a brief definition is virtually
impossible. Politics is not simply an object or a single stranded idea.

It is not a concise term but rather a complicated notion, which embraces
premises, opinions, and qualities of human nature, actions and
institutions. It seems to arise in those situations where humans live in
coexistence whether that be by choice or otherwise. Any attempt at a
definition would be to confine and customise politics to suit ones own
particular views. Nevertheless, in fitting with the title of this essay
an attempt at a definition shall be made.

Politics is the means to creating a more organised and peaceful society,
by providing methods to resolve conflict that naturally occurs between
men, by means of civil discussion and rational compromise. It thus stems
the need for violence in tense situations and ultimately looks to avoid
the degradation of a community into utter chaos. Authority is the
underlying feature of politics and ensures its enforceability. Power
underpins its very existence; it is a prerequisite for politics exist.

Without authority, politics simply is not feasible. The most visible and
widely accepted example of politics is the workings of the governmental
institutions. However, although at first glance one may not be aware of
it, politics in its various forms is present wherever and whenever
humans form a community. Referring back to the views of Aristotle,
politics is an intrinsic feature of mankind.

What is discipline? How it’s necessary in every field? Man should learn discipline from nature. Discipline in civic life, in defense in, play field. It is necessary in social and political life. It is must for student. Discipline is essential in national life. It helps society nation Conclusion

ﷲ NEED OF DISCIPLINE IN EVERY FIELD Discipline suggests strict obedience to orders or rules. It is way of following certain rules of conduct even if they do not satisfy ones’ reason. It is a strict control over man’s sense of freedom which if left unbridled may cause social disorder. So, discipline is essential in every walk of life .And without it life becomes an unnecessary burden. Discipline is the life breath of civilized life. It must practice from our every child hood. Home is the first school where a child learns the way of discipline. If the home atmosphere is health and peaceful it will have a good impact on Child’s mind and make him disciplined .And if the members act in their own way with disobeying elders then the home becomes a hell for the child. School is the second stage for a child to learn discipline. The good name of the school lies in its disciplined atmosphere. If the young students get every scope for all round development, they won’t resort to discipline. School is the right place to train students in the way of discipline. England won the Battle of Waterloo because English soldiers had learn discipline at Eton and Harrow schools. Discipline is every essential in civic life. Every citizen should follow the laws of the state .this way of civilized practice will ensure them the smooth functioning of the society. Discipline helps a civilization grow to zenith of glory .The great Harappan CULTURE IS the result of the ways of discipline in the past .if there is indiscipline in the society the whole civilization will collapse like a house of cards. Discipline is a part and parcel of defense life .discipline is necessary in the play field, too. In a team all players should forget their differences and play a team spirit. Discipline is very important in our social life. We supposed to follow certain laws of conduct in the society. We should try to make FRIENDLY ADJUSTMENTS in pity things like boarding buses obtaining tickets at the counter and so on. We should always think of our duties before we talk of our rights. If we are not tolerant there is chaos in our social life. Discipline is the life breath of political life. If a political party is torn by its internal rift and if political leaders are not disciplined, they cannot carry people with them. Discipline is a must in democracy. With out it democracy will be a running vehicle without brakes. Student should also practice discipline in his life. In order to achieve in his life should be devoted to studies first. If he is indulged in unnecessary sticks, assaulting teachers, resorting to malpractices in the examination, teasing girl defying authorities, he sure to find himself in trouble. A disciplined student is an asset to the institution and to the nation as well. Discipline is also in national life. A vast country like ours needs discipline in every field. But is matter of regret that, during the last few years India has been a prey to indiscipline .There have been lots of strikes, demonstrations, riots, accidents, looting ,bomb blast, and so many other anti social activities all over the country. There has been a gradual degradation of our national character. Some selfish political parties and so called political leaders are responsible for indiscipline in the country. Only for their self interest they create caste feeling communal feeling, language feeling among the people. Discipline is the every spirit of a good life. Some people misunderstand it and argue that it is negation of freedom and independent judgment. But they are wrong. A disciplined nation will certainly make its mark in every field. An undisciplined nation on the other hand, is sure to collapse like house of cards. It should grow slowly and steadily in every person, each students should take up the responsibility of instilling the sense of discipline in every and thus help the society grow disciplined. Like the discipline in nature. The sun rises in the east, the summer comes after the winter tree suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and leave out oxygen to help us alive all this reflects discipline. It the right way to control our natural impulse by our power of reason. If everybody learns the way discipline, the whole country will be turned into a heaven on earth.