Jnana - pure knowledge

One common question every CET aspirant will ask is - How is the college? When someone poses this question, it is not clear what they expect. The college can be gauged by various parameters. It can be the infrastructure, teaching standards, campus recruitment rate, hostel facilities, academic environment or any other particulars. But in most cases people do not ask these specific questions. Instead they expect one word answer. It is difficult to put the collective characteristics of colleges in one attribute such as good, fine, ok etc.

This is a typical problem that we have to encounter every now and then. Any organization develops its own culture over a period of time. As mentioned in the title this culture is referred as “image”. Every corporate and educational institution develops this image in a peculiar way. The public perception about any organization is developed by a mix of reasons.

Traditional organizational behavior literature tells us that the initial members of any organization are responsible for cultivating a culture in that place. The vision and mission statement of the organization are designed to lead them in the future. This is often the basis for the culture of that organization. The initial practice enforced by the founding fathers goes a long way in establishing the cultural face of that organization.

While it is easy for companies to establish a mission statement and vision document, the same cannot be applied to educational institutes. In fact, all professional colleges seem to have goal. While imparting quality education is their primary goal, we have to understand that they too are business establishments. So they also have to make profits to survive in the fiercely competitive education business. In this process, it is natural for them to give less importance for all these things like vision, mission statement etc.

This is the root cause for the problems that emerge later. Colleges find it extremely difficult to differentiate themselves from others. They all teach the same syllabus prescribed by the university, they all should have facilities as required by AICTE and the academic requirements are prescribed by various government bodies. So they all tend to give same set of ‘services’ to students. Beyond all these similarities, colleges are in need to develop a sense of uniqueness. That uniqueness which is also a necessity is what is referred as ‘culture’ of that institute.

It is quite interesting to observe that a group of people coming together tend to develop a distinct identity for their group. It should be noted that the identity of the group is quite different from the sum total of individual identities. It may have contributions of all of them, but still the identity of group is distinct and more dominant from individual identities. Do people of a group contribute for group identity or whether group identity forces people to change theirs? - may be a good question to ponder on.

Colleges nevertheless will have an identity and culture. It can be used to develop our initial perceptions bout the place. It should not be a dominant factor influencing our decisions about the place. We should understand that people working there decide the culture of that institute. When you become part of that place, you can contribute in your own way to the culture of the college. The same applies even to the culture prejudice we have about companies.

“CET CELL “- Whoever has coined this term, God bless him, has got this one right. CELL is the right word to describe the CET counseling building. Every year at this point of time, you see the same emotions. Faces change but the tension remains same. Dhoti-clad elderly people from North Karnataka, arecanaut chewing gentlemen from Canara districts, men with suits, family members anxiously waiting outside and students worrying about colleges….oh! These things never seem to change.

It may be simple for us now to comment on the childish behavior of students and funny queries of parents in the time of counseling. But every one goes through the same once in his lifetime. It is perfect time for us to think about one thing that we are obsessed with these days. - The question of choice.

Girish Karnad in his famous play “Yayati” comments that people can never be happy with the choice they make. If we are at crossroads and choose to go in one path, then we should move ahead. Instead of appreciating the beauty that may be found in the chosen path, many tend to think about the path which they have left behind. Their journey then becomes less enjoyable.

It is natural to be spoilt by choices. Take any buying decisions today. We have so many choices. Economists will tell us that having choices will actually help the customer. That is because if there are more competitors, the price will come down. Ultimately, the customer wins. It looks like having choice is the perfect recipe for a good society. But how far is this true?

Decisions can be made only if we have good information in hand. Many may feel that intuition can play a bigger role in decision making. But think- in today’s information age, are we able to get “true” information about anything. Let us confine our discussion to the colleges. The hapless people in the CET run around carrying the survey carries by some private organization. These rankings and its uselessness is already discussed. So where can those poor people get right information to take good decisions?

This analogy can be continued to the choices that we have to make while buying every other item. Take anything – TV, Cell phones, Computer, Vehicles, Home appliances, Clothes – we have lots of choices. But how do we pick from the lot? How do we take a decision? Is it purely based on facts? If so, can we mange to get them? Even if we get the data are we assured that they are accurate? Or should we try to forget all these logic based decision making and go by our intuition?

Perhaps the entire marketing community may be struggling hard to find answers to these questions. There are some interesting researches done in this area. Someone found that dishes with typical prefixes sell more than ordinarily named dishes. (Eg: Grandma’s grilled chicken, it seems, is more appealing than grilled chicken) We cannot arrive at conclusions so easily. May be the background of a person, his socio-economic status, the influences that act on him, the kind of exposure he has to the world – all play important role in helping people make good decisions.

As far as choosing a college in CET CELL it can be an interesting topic. How do people prepare for months taking suggestions from everyone and how they change all that in split-seconds is really amazing. It will be discussed sometime later.

The ill-effect of globalization is gripping the world. There is a sense of uneasiness everywhere. There is a growing fear that the world is moving towards becoming a singular entity where there are no differences. Though equality is a high placed principle, the absence of plurality is frightening. One cannot imagine a world where everyone eats sees drinks and thinks in a same way.

Globalization is threatening the fabric of diversity of cultures. The far ranging effects of globalization policies will not be felt in economics of improvised countries but in the deterioration of local cultures in every part of the world. The erosion of traditional value system and slow poisoning of young minds is what we should fight against. The amnesia about our heritage which globalization brings with it is our main enemy.

The proponents of globalization often point out the improved lifestyles of people, increased buying power and choice, easy access to credit and possession of sophisticated gadgets as the gifts of globalization. The voluminous employment generation is often considered as the boon of globalization. The availability of internationally recognized food products is heralded as a great revolution. What we have to oppose is this tendency of lauding anything which comes from foreign countries.

The opposition against Pepsi (and other similar products) is symbolic one. By boycotting the usage of Pepsi we have to send strong signals. In this era of increased customer focus, intelligent buying decision is the best strategy we can employ against globalization. Our ability to stand still despite the glamorized marketing techniques should be our main strength. That is the only way to oppose globalization at an individualistic level.

We have to oppose Pepsi not because of lab reports or any other technical grounds. The credibility of such technical reports is mired in controversy. We have to oppose Pepsi at a different level. We have to oppose it because it is available even in remote villages where there is no proper drinking water. We have to oppose it because it has taken the market away from local competitors in an unethical way.

Another reason why we have to oppose Pepsi is economic reason. The money we spend on Pepsi does not stay in India. People who are following the developments of Pepsi have argued that the manufacturing cost of Pepsi does not go beyond Rs 3/bottle. That means it loots the hard earned money of our countrymen and passes it to its home country. Isn’t it a strong reason enough to boycott Pepsi?

Most important reason why we should say NO to Pepsi is this. People from small towns and middle class junta in cities see drinking Pepsi as a privilege. People do not drink Pepsi to quench their thirst but to make a statement. It is this artificial social highness which is induced by Pepsi that we have to fight. If people drink Pepsi as any normal drink we have no problem. But if they drink it just to make a statement then we oppose it.

These are testing times for anti-globalization supporters. Globalization has become a reality and it is hard to go back. Only one thing that can be done now is empowering people with facts and enabling them take right decisions.

The keen observers of Indian politics are confused lot these days. It is quite common for Indian voter to get confused about the political parties and their leanings. Though it is often repeated that there are no permanent foes or friends in politics, the speed with which these equations change here are mind-blowing. Today there seems to be no credibility among political parties in India.

Take the case of Left parties. They are the ones who hold the control of the central government. But they are extending support without participating in the governing activities. What do they achieve from this? One thing is clear- they are not accountable for anything that goes on in that level. They even get the freedom of condemning the decisions taken by it. The recent call by them to have a country wide strike opposing the hike in fuel prices and disinvestment in BHEL is baffling. That too the announcement was done after the leaders from left attended the meeting scheduled to discuss the same. What do we infer from this? Should we think that left supported price hike but simply calls for the strike for the sake of doing it? Confusing!

The RSS leader Sudarshan appreciates the leadership of Indira Gandhi. Now we have been thinking that RSS provides support to BJP which in turn bashes Congress on every occasion. Akali Dal which was formed to safeguard the interests of Sikhs after the 1984 Sikh riots is the partner of BJP. But RSS hails Indira Gandhi who probably caused the biggest humiliation against Sikhs. How should we interpret this?

Sudarshan says he likes the courage of Indira Gandhi to carve Bangladesh. We were thinking that RSS had its roots in the Savarkar’s principle of “Akand Bharath”. That is the precise reason why they hate the creation of Pakistan. But now he says that creation of Bangladesh is fine. So similarly the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion also should be acceptable for them. But that does not look so, after we saw the recent row about Advani’s remarks about Jinnah. So what does RSS believe in? Again confusing!!

The election in Bihar was a true eye-opener. In the center Lalu, Paswan and Congress are true friends. But in the state elections they were fighting against each other. Worse was after a fractured verdict, they could not form an alliance. It was quite strange that they work together in center but could not come close at home. The same applies to JD(S)-Congress alliance in Karnataka. Are coalition parties friends or foes? Its difficult to explain this strange romance to an outsider. Truly confusing!!!

There are many more issues that are really confusing. Mayawati, we were told, is against the upper cast people. In fact Kanshiram projected her as a leader of the downtrodden community. Recently we hear that she attends the Brahmin Sammelan. What is shocking is that she announces that she was never against them and extends invitation to Brahmins to join her party. Where is anti-manuwadi Mayawati?

These developments are only a tip of iceberg. As one gets deep into understanding the Indian political system, things get more complicated. Is this a reflection of the lacuna in our political thinking? Is this the compulsion of political parties to stay alive in this multi-party system? Is it high time for us to think about alternate political structure? Thinking on these lines makes us more confused!!!!

People often make a mistake by categorizing globalization just as an economical theory. We should understand that opening up the economic doors of a country has profound influence on the culture of that country. Economics cannot be discussed in isolation. One necessary discussion that is missing in this direction is the question of survival of languages.

Globalization demands that world be viewed as a singular entity. The open trade needs a culture which is open also other related issues. It is not the cultural co-existence that we are talking about. The growing religion intolerance in today’s world proves that co-existence is rarely possible. Globalization, it seems needs a uni-cultural world. That implies that only one language can survive in this capitalistic world.

The recent row about introducing Kannada in primary schools should be understood in this respect. It is a crime not to teach English to students who come from poor background. It is high time the intellectuals here understand that there is no way other than this. All the huge cries about saving the language by enforcing them ONLY on poor students are absurd.

Let us seriously rethink about our language policies. Here the students studying in Government schools are made scapegoats for all experiments. What happened to our efforts to teach science to these students in Kannada? Did we get encouraging results? No, in fact we ruined many lives because of this experiment. Students who studied science in Kannada had hard times adjusting when they joined college. Add to this was the inferiority complex they developed because they did not know English. Who is responsible for all these mess?

For ages we have denied English education to the poor. It is because they do not have this power of language they are suffering till today. This stubborn attitude of Government not to teach English in its schools has favored the establishment of so many English schools. Parents have no option but to send their wards to these schools whose only aim is to make money. Less said is better about the infrastructure, faculty quality and other things. Many of these “convent schools” swindle parents to give hefty money as donations. Their only USP – they teach English.

People argue that we can come up life even after learning in Kannada. After all, our parent’s generation did not go to English medium schools. But then the quality of schools in those days cannot be compared to the schooling standards of this day. And the dependency on English is growing every day. It may also be argued that science and technology does not have a language and so can be learnt in any language. But any sensible person will agree that there is no future in these areas unless one masters English language.

Another notable point which we miss is that we are experimenting on poor. People who are well-off can afford English education. We are not concerned about them. We are talking about poor people both in urban and rural areas. They are the people who do not aim big. We have to empower them at least to feed themselves and take care about their family. In this era where society is increasingly dependent on knowledge based industries, they have to be empowered with English. It will be a serious crime on our part if we do not impart this kind of education to them.

In India, the use of the phrase “Common man” has become a cliché. Apart from R K Laxman’s cartoon he does not seem to exist anywhere. But still all political parties assure that they are the best people to safeguard his interests. In this scenario, it becomes important for us to rediscover the “common man”.

In a globalized economy in which we are living today, the rules are fast changing. The concerns about changing lifestyles are raised everywhere. Before a decade, common man was having a government job, was staying in a rented house, was using mass transport for his travel and was a simple man. His life was far removed from the complexities of the world. He was happy in his small and simple world. But this image of the common man does not exist anymore.

Few people in the common man bracket take up government jobs these days. Every other guy owns a vehicle. Thanks to the easy loans, he is dreaming about his own home. Definitely no one sticks on to the same job for entire lifetime. Our persecution about common man is wrong. He does not seem to exist anymore. The middle class is not what it was before. With the explosion of information and access to variety of electronic gadgets, their world is fast changing.

These developments have empowered the common man with knowledge. With the newfound knowledge, he is now capturing the world. It is not uncommon now to see that people from the middle class families making it big not only in education but also in films, politics, music and fashion. When did this change happen? Weren’t the common people debarred from dreaming big lot so long ago?

Quite hesitantly the credit for this dramatic change should go to globalization policies that we have adopted. Whatever may the allegations we have against it, one thing is clear. The world has changed. Common man is not out of this influential force, which has grabbed the world. The easy access to all information resources, free flow of credit, reduced restrictions from the government has enabled common man to step his foot in that world which was earlier forbidden to him.

But eating the forbidden fruit has its own problems. On one hand, he is having access to global information and lifestyle but on the other hand there is a reality. A reality with which he has to live everyday, a reality far removed from the glamorous lifestyle projected in his TV screen. This is the tragedy which globalization has brought in with all the famed advantages.

Today all beauty products are selling well. Theaters, theme and amusement parks are packed. Restaurants are doing good business. All things associated with high life style are made accessible even to common man. Credit cards, cell phone, plush cars, farmhouses, specialty clinics, and high-end hotels – all see him as lucrative customer. They are ready to extend credit to him with low or no interest. What else does our common man need? He is truly the king in the present world.

But is this true? The realities of hyped credit policies are well known. The long-term effects of the changing life styles are already seen. Never ending traffic, long queues in clinics, increasing rates of suicides due to depression all speak the volumes about the changes in the life of common man. Isn’t it high time our common man rediscovers himself?

Everyone looks up to somebody and think they should be like them in their lives. Every one of us have our own heroes. But as someone rightly pointed out – “At some point of time our heroes will let us down”. It is true in the case of the people who accept some great personalities as their role models.

Take the case of film stars, sports persons, politicians, social workers – whom we look up as role models. At some point we forget that they too are humans. When our favorite hero delivers continuous flops, when our favorite sports person fails to deliver, when our ideal social worker is clogged in controversies – we start thinking again. Our favorite list changes and again we choose some other person as our role model. The story continues.

Do we need a role model in our lives? We definitely do. But who that should be? - is the question which has to be answered. A film star whose whereabouts are not known, an unknown star player of a winning team, an ideal looking politician whose working style is not known – cannot become our role models. It may be argued that in this age of information, all details of a person can be easily known. Whatever it may be those people who are completely unknown to us cannot be good role models to us.

It may look old-fashioned, but it is true that people who are around us alone can make good role models. People who work sincerely without expecting any returns can be found around us. They work silently without any media attention. It can be the neighborhood shop keeper who promptly returns back the change, the postman who delivers the (age-old) letters without failure, the news paper delivery boy who comes regularly without bothering the weather conditions and so many like these – can be ideal role models to us. But do we care?

The word role model rings many names in our minds. We start thinking about a successful person and think we can emulate their success in our life. But what we fail to understand is the fact that the conditions under which they struggled and succeed cannot be repeated in our lives. If one says that Vishweshwaraiah became a famous Engineer by studying under street lamp that does not mean that we have to do so.

Buddha may have gained ultimate knowledge by meditating for years under a banyan tree. That does not imply that we should be repeating his experiment to gain the same knowledge. In fact people who were his followers also could not reach his height. People who were with Gandhi did not become “Mahatmas”. This demonstrates that blindly following someone also does not lead us to our destination.

There is never dearth of persons who can be role models in our lives. People with whom we interact on a day-to-day basis also possess some excellent traits. It is up to us to recognize those qualities in them and try to adopt them in our lives. It is fascinating to hear that Steve Jobs walked miles to get his free meals in Hare Krishna temple. We listen to him because he is successful now. Do we care about those who go through the same ordeal even today?

This week saw the two celebrities come out as winners in their own way. One was the “moonwalker” who made the world dance to this tunes while the other made people sit up and take notice of him, no matter what he did. Both had the same fairy-tale like lifestyles and both were successful in their chosen area and ruled it like none other.

Michael Jackson symbolizes a culture; a culture obsessed with material success. The success he got was a hard-earned one. He can be an ideal subject for psychological class room. There is a general feeling that he can no more be appreciated as a hero of a downtrodden society, which he represented at initial stages of his career. His decision to shun his black skin can be considered as a commentary on modern day society.

[MJ may be having serious problems establishing his identity. Perhaps when he stands before a mirror, his reflection may always question him about his true identity.]

Whatever may the truth behind the allegations against him, his sprit to fight against them was commendable. What was more surprising was the support his fans gave him throughout his trial. How can so many around the world stand so firmly behind someone? - is the question which many sociologists may find hard to answer. Now that he is acquitted from all charges, we can expect that he will continue doing what he is best at – entertaining people through his singing and dancing.

The story of Tyson is not very different. Public can recall at least three fights which was dubbed as the “comeback” fight of Tyson. But after reaching the peak of his career quite early in his life he followed it with dramatic fall. Like MJ his stories beyond his professional life also made quite news. But what set apart Tyson from MJ was his bad-boy image which rose from his professional arena. On a contrary, MJ has a clean slate in his professional life.

Another commonality between MJ and Tyson was that both belonged to that race which tried to make a mark in the racial-divide ridden America. The paths employed by them were quite distinct. It is quite another question as to who succeeded in this effort. But the present situation has made both of them heroes, quite in their own ways.

While it was a moral and legal victory for MJ after fighting numerous allegations against him, for Tyson it was a different kind of victory. His acceptance at the end of the fight that he can no longer do this was a demonstration that he has matured a lot and has learnt his lessons. Instead of fighting and losing to individuals who are no where comparable to him, it is better he has decided to quit. This will make his retirement a gracious one.

What will these men pursue now? While MJ has not told anything, it is quite simple for him to decide. With the new found status, he can be assured that his new album will sell a few million copies more. But the announcement of Tyson came as a surprise. He wants to be a missionary. Can a person who bit off the opponent’s ear be a messenger of peace? - is a question which only time can answer. Whatever may be the future of these men, it is quite clear that the recent episodes have demonstrated that true spirit can assure victory against all odds.

It’s again the admission time and magazines are busy with an annual ritual. The issue of ranking (rating) the institution has become clear strategy for magazines to increase their sales. Hapless students who are unsure about their choice make good customers for them. But the validity of these ranking is questionable and its implications far too much then expected.

It is clear that the education system is huge business in India. Every year numerous institutes spring up with promises that touch skies. With the threat of foreign institutes opening its operations directly in India looming over their heads, these institutes here are gearing up to face the competition. But the route taken by them to accomplish this is far from satisfactory.

Education is a low-risk business in India. The investment is comparatively low and the restrictions almost non-existent. The governing bodies are corrupted to the extreme which makes getting approval for new institute easy. With so many institutes competing each without any definite USP they continuously look out for quality parameters.

Any institute which has an objective to climb up in the quality ladder will focus primarily on the infrastructure – both physical and academic. Due to various reasons the institutes now seem to worry more about the physical infrastructure than the academics. In the absence of any authorized ranking mechanism, there is lot of scope for others to come with their own rating system.

There exist two important quality checks for educational institutes. One is ISO certification and other is the certification by NBA (National Board of Accreditation). Both certifications work at different levels and have their own drawbacks. ISO is not essentially about quality but about keeping “promises”. The guiding principle of ISO is “Say what you do. Do what you say”. This makes it non-comprehensive kind of certification. If certain important quality measures are not included in the ISO document specification, the institute can skip that and still be awarded with ISO. This is a serious lacuna in the system.

While NBA is more comprehensive and more focused towards educational institutes, being a Government body brings its own problems. That the accreditation by NBA is mandatory for all institutes now has made it less ordinary. The ranking of NBA cannot be the USP for any institute. Every other seems to have one. This will force the institutes to come out with something different which can help it stand tall in the crowd.

Many institutes use the results and placement data as main marketing strategy. But that can hardly be criteria to rank them. A college which has only 4 branches with 60 students each can boast itself as superior just because it has 100% results. The number of students placed also cannot be a parameter since a college with large number of students can boast of large number of placements. If percentages of students who are placed are considered, then the smaller colleges definitely will have upper-hand.

The rankings that are published in magazines are far from perfect. Definitely an invisible hand will be in operation to guarantee the places for certain institutions in top 10. In Karnataka, BITES attempted to rate the professional institutes. But their rating system is dipped in controversy. Their system of giving weights to the CET ranks of students who gain admission to colleges take away the advantage from small institutes. That is because they usually get students from lower ranking (or is it higher ranking!!!).

The ideal formula to rate institutes should consider the improvement a student makes during his/her stay in a particular institute. Another lacuna in these ranking systems is that it gives scant respect to the environment, living conditions, academic freedom, support to co and extra curricular activities. A comprehensive ranking system should consider all these parameters and should not rely on individual parameters like results, placement record etc.

Just when the ink dried on the article about Advani’s resignation (click here to read that article) there is shocking news that he has withdrawn it. For the keen observers of Indian politics, it should be the same story which unveils every now and then. But the crucial question is – who gains from this drama of resignation?

Definitely, the man who anchored it lost the advantage. Advani stands as loser in this one which had all ingredients of a melodrama. His image has taken a backseat and his authority in the party is questionable. The “loh purush” tag does not fit him anymore.

There are some definite lessons which BJP has to learn. It was surprising that the second level leaders of the BJP never voiced their opinion in this issue. May be they thought it is best left to the elders in the party to resolve the issue. But the strong reaction of the sister organizations throughout the episode made it clear as to who runs the show in BJP.

BJP has lost a historic opportunity to clear the blunders it committed in the past. The loser is also the country, which hoped that a true secular party will emerge from this crisis. But alas, similar to the Umabharathi episode this one too ended with the main character feebly submitting to the pressures of the Sangh.

When leaders like Mayawati who had made “Manuvadis” as her prime political targets now openly romancing the Brahmins, there is no hope in this country. The BJP, it seems, is not keen to come out of its image. With all these developments the political scene in the country has become more muddled. With no leader with strong conviction, the country stands a loser.

When India prides itself as the largest democracy in the world, it should also see the problems it is facing. It is understandable that democracy is the only political structure that suits this country which has so many diversities. But then democracy is linked to secularism. Even though India has been successful as democratic state, it is still experimenting with secularism.

The problem regarding this started with the partition. When Pakistan was formed in accordance with the two-nation theory, certain questions remained unanswered. If Pakistan was “Islamic republic” then India’s existence was supposed to be “Hindu republic”. But the founding fathers of this nation did not think so and they were right. We declared ourselves as “Secular republic”.

The need for the recognition of India as “Hindu” nation was heard feebly then. The Hindu Maha Sabha was voicing this opinion from those days. The emergence of the political wing of these like-minded groups namely “Jan Sangh” kept this tempo going. The rise of BJP as a powerful voice finally fuelled this caused to the heights. This extreme right-wing political party has always declared the establishment of “Akand Hindu Rastra” as its goal.

The political turmoil in 90’s combined with the failure of Congress in providing stable Government in the center increased the strength of BJP. Demolition of Babri Masjid and events which followed it gave it a reason to solidify its base. Combined with the grass root level support provided by VHP and RSS cadets, BJP slowly became a power to reckon with. Riding on the popularity of “Ram Janm Bhoomi Yatra”, it rose to power in the center.

But once it was governing the country, it seems to have understood the complexity of the problem. It is other case while it was in opposition to announce the building of Ram Mandir. Perhaps while it was in power, it recognized that it was governing not only the Hindus but the entire nation. The caste based politics can garner votes but it cannot guide governance.

The irony in politics, especially the democratic electorate, is that you have to rule not only your supporters but also your enemies. You may win elections due to majority support. But you have to care for minorities while you are in power. The hate-politics can be a trick while in opposition but once in Government, you have to shed it.

This is the precise lesson which BJP learnt while in office. The secular nature of this nation is so strongly rooted; it is difficult to uproot them by any ideology. Any political party which wants to establish itself should swear by this principle of secularism. Perhaps BJP understood this very lately but when it did that, there was a dilemma.

BJP has always credited its existence to the support of Hindu organizations. It derives its ideologies from them. But now it has learnt that it can no longer rely on these religious sentiments to rule the nation. “To be or not to be” with its ideological parents seems to the problem of BJP today.

The recent controversy involving L K Advani should be seen with this perspective. The elders in the party seem to have recognized the fact that if they have to rule this country, they should be secular. Advani being the party chief has tried to bring this image change to the party. But this is not received with enthusiasm by their friends. So what is the future of BJP? There certainly seems to be differences in the party. This is not the peculiar problem faced only by BJP. Even in Left parties, there was this ideological dilemma. One set of people who favored electoral politics have separated themselves from the others who believe in establishing ideal state through revolution.

BJP finds itself in similar situation but the choices are different. It has to either stick to the hindutva politics, which it has been doing from years or accept secularism as its guiding principle. In the interest of nation and to provide a true alternative to Congress, it will be best to accept later. It is the best opportunity that it has got in these many years to redefine itself. Let BJP emerge stronger from this crisis with new outlook that believes in the secular credentials of this country.

Also read: Secularism in India

This is the era of coalition Governments in India. Both the central and our state governments are formed out this political inevitability. Starting with the V P Singh and Chandrashekar Governments, the center is always ruled by the temporary coalitions. The only exception in these years was the P V Narasimharao’s government during 1991.

We must accept that the days of single party rule in India is over. Neither the Congress nor the BJP can ever dream of forming the Government on its own in the center. With the emergence of powerful local parties, it is almost impossible for anyone to form Government without their support. But there have been some serious setbacks due to this unprecedented development.

Consider the national political scene. Can we identify at least one politician who can be labeled as national leader? Due to the rigid regionalization of political issues, leaders are busy safeguarding the interests of their particular states. This compels them to limit themselves to the state politics. In present situation, it is impossible for any one to identify as national leader.

The second drawback of coalition Governments is that the sate which does not have a powerful regional party tends to lose its position in the national scene. Consider Tamilnadu where there are two strong regional parties. Invariably any one party continues to stay in power regardless of who forms Government in the centre. So the interests of the state are always protected.

This is not the case with Karnataka. There is a big void in political scenario here. The state is still waiting for a credible and strong political party which can be identified with the state. Until this happens, the state tends to lose major advantage on all important aspects which involves inter-state disputes.

While it is undeniable that coalition Governments pose more threat to the political stability of the country, it is unavoidable. So there is an urgent necessity in Karnataka to come up with a strong regional political force which can safeguard the state’s interest. May be this coalition politics is the best prescription for the diversity in India and the complexity which is involved in governing it.

The recent victory of Bangarappa in Shimoga constituency is supposed to be the starting point for SP in state. But we have to remember that the story of SP in Karnataka has only one actor in the scene. It starts and ends with Bangarappa. Alas, SP is not the alternative Karnataka is looking forward to.

The emergence of JD(S) is a remarkable story. Its unprecedented growth in last few months demonstrates that it can be a viable political alternative in Karnataka. But as with all regional parties, it also suffers from family domination. If Devegowda can ably nurture the political ambitions of other leaders in the party apart from his sons, this one gives a glimmer of hope. The fate of JD(U) and other parties like DSS, Raitha Sanga are not encouraging.

“The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives” —Albert Einstein

Finding the relation between truth and beauty has always fascinated humans. The Indian texts said “Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram”. The emphasis was that there is no distinction between truth and beauty. But we have to consider that this phase was given in a spiritual context. For a person who sees a spiritual energy in all worldly objects, there is no difference between the two.

What is truth? Is it an un-provable and universally observable fact? If we are not able to see the truth will it become otherwise? Should everyone agree upon something for it to become truth? These are questions which every faith has tried to answer. Depending on which philosophy you are referring to, you may land up getting different answers which may be contradicting each other. But what everyone agrees is that there is some “Universal truth”. The purpose of human life, they say, is to find that truth.

When we try to relate truth to the observable world, we face problems. There will be competing views regarding who has observed the truth and who didn’t. Beauty is one thing. Since it as concept associated with the physical object there is serious doubt whether we can associate beauty with truth.

“Beauty is Truth,--Truth Beauty,--that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (John Keats). This famous statement is quite controversial. While the saying “truth beauty” can be accepted without any hesitation, the same cannot be said about the reverse i.e. “beauty is truth”.

If we accept that beauty is indeed truth, then we will land up with different versions of truth. Considering the fact that truth is Universal and it is always the same irrespective of the observer, beauty cannot be truth. The problem here is that we interpret beauty in our own ways. That interpretation will be influenced by our beliefs and many other issues which can be summed as our personality.

As observed earlier, truth is beyond personal interpretations. Truth cannot be otherwise just people someone does not accept it. But the same cannot be said about beauty. It is heavily dependent on the observer’s perception and hence cannot qualify as truth.

But if truth is interpreted as individualistic concept then beauty also can be truth. But that truth is limited to self. It cannot be “universal truth”. If the goal of truth is to bring happiness to self, then beauty is the highest form of truth. This concept is aptly summarized by Keats as follows -

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness;

Click here to read the earlier article : Proof and Truth – the distant relatives

Humans are supposed to be “social beings”. It is understood that the companionship is the central point of human existence. Relationships rule our lives. Our true self is defined by our relations. But this relations and togetherness should have certain restrictions. Too much closeness can be suffocating.

Humans by nature are solitary souls. But relations are unavoidable for their existence in the society. Parents, family, caste, religion etc impose certain relations on us. We also choose some relations in our lives like friends and companions. When we form new relations we should know the limitations of relations.

Any relation starts with doubt and suspicion. It takes times to evolve. Accepting someone to share what is yours is really difficult. Someone will occupy your personal space and this can be really intimidating for many. Opening yourself for the new comer in your life may be really difficult. With mutual understanding and comradeship this will evolve. But after a relationship is steady we have to be cautious.

There is always a fear of over-stepping the limits in relations. Both partners should understand the importance of giving space to each other. The extra urge to share everything in life can really spoil a good relation. It is necessary to understand that there is personal space for everyone in a relation.

Let there be spaces in your togetherness

Love one another but make not a bond of love

Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.

Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.

Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,

Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they tremble with the same music.

And stand together, yet not too near together:

For the pillars of the temple stand apart,

And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow

(Khalil Gibran in Prophet)

So for a relation to be successful, togetherness is not the only mantra. It should be combined with the understanding of personal space. One should entertain a new relation only when he is ready to do this. To respect the individuality of the partner and nurturing that small space in togetherness is the key for a successful relation. Relations should grow by sharing a common space and not by steeping over each other’s personal space.

As a leading columnist of a popular Kannada weekly recently observed, Indian mythology does not provide a romantic pair equivalent to the stature of Laila-Majnu, Romeo-Juliet etc. While we discuss mythology we are limiting ourselves to Ramayana and Mahabharatha. Surprisingly these two epics which speak volumes about human relations do not give us any romantic heroes.

There is another interesting issue regarding this. In both epics, people who (sincerely) love are evil characters. No hero character displays love publicly. This can be a mere reflection of the societal values that were accepted during those times.

In Ramayana, Rama marries Seetha just because he won the challenge. We can say that he “won” Seetha rather than marry her. He got the right to marry her. There is no reference that they married because they loved each other. What if Seetha loved one among those unfortunate souls who could not win the contest? This can be a good topic for feminists to comment on the status of women those days. But for us the important point is that love did not find a central place in deciding the marital partnership between them.

Surprisingly, the character who epitomizes love in Ramayana probably is Ravana. Whatever his credentials may be but he loved Seetha. His effort to get Seetha forms the crux of the epic. But Ravana is depicted as evil character. In the divide between Aryans and Dravidians which later got political colors, his image further deteriorated. History has failed to recognize Ravana as a genuine lover boy.

When we compare Ravana’s character with Krishna we find many similarities. Even Krishna is supposed to have “affairs” with Gopikas who were married. His romance with Radha has attained special heights and has been described as spiritual. On ground we can find that both Ravana and Krishna possessed similar characteristics. But Krishna is worshipped when Ravana is damned for his behavior.

Krishna probably is the poster boy of love in Mahabharatha. But, he can rarely be a role-model in this aspect. His behavior (especially his relation with Gopikas) if emulated in the present world may cause much tension. On the other hand we can accept Arjuna as a romantic hero. His adventures with Subhadra and many other may the greatest heights of love in our epics.

Consider the case of Kamsa, Jarasanda and Duryodana in Mahabharatha. All these characters were lover boys who were again the evil characters in the epic. Somehow in both the epics, the people who linger for love are not given due respect. Their wish to get their love-ladys is condemned. The surprising element is that the Hero who finally gets the lady never seems to have love for her. He merely wins her in the contest as in the case of Rama and Arjuna (with Draupadi)

As said earlier, this may be because of the accepted societal norms of that day. We will be doing a serious mistake if we try to analyze those situations through microscope which is tinted with present day theories. Those issues should be discussed after understanding the situation which was prevalent in those days. But since love is understood as universal and timeless theory, there are some serious questions regarding the failure of Indian epics to come up with one character similar to Romeo-Juliet.