Archive for October, 2007


I know many of us will disagree with me on this, or probably will dismiss me as being to idealistic, but these days wealth has gone way up in our list of goals, even higher than happiness or right or wrong. The news channels have been talking about the new richest person in the world the last few days, thanks to the appreciating rupee. With regard to that, the reporter asked some commuters whether the individual in question is a role model for us. I won’t discuss the replies the reporter got. Its a matter of personal opinion. But to put forward this particular question when all that has been achieved is creation of personal wealth. The media was not even heralding the creation of wealth as a corporation.

Has everyone put other aspects of human life way below in their priorities, that someone deserves to be considered for a “role model” just for achieving a more luxurious life for oneself? Have we become too selfishly self centred and indifferent to others that what matters most is our own well being? What was more disappointing was that none of the responses pointed out that wealth does not qualify a person as a role model! (to add to this the corporation in question has been involved in many incidents which fall in the grey areas of what is permissible under law)

In todays age of distrust, injustice and crime, we should start considering what has been traditionally considered to be good and desirable. I don’t mean go back to the conservative school of thought and forget about the liberties of the modern society. But I would like to insist on the traditional values of selflessness, brotherhood, compassion, creativity, and in general anything driven by the will to good for others. We should change our priorities, our morals, our goals but only for the better.


Are ‘no’ and ‘yes’ equal and opposite?

Its sort of an odd thing to write about, but I ‘ll start anyway. A recent disagreement made me think are they just two words in the dictionary with completely opposite meanings or there’s more to it? Rather than beating around the bush I ‘ll start with an example. Lets say you are in a situation where a group of people need to agree to something. Does one no put a stop to the whole process, does it move on but with a limp or is it that it doesn’t matter at all! It seems to me it depends on what your standing is in the group.

We can look at this in many different ways. Since a decision would involve at least two different individuals, we should consider how by differing your choice you can change an outcome and more importantly how your difference in opinion with some one else affects the final decision. If you are someone of note, your no carries more weight and is often immobilizing to the process. Where as if you are someone of less consequence your no can merely be noted as a form of disagreement and just that, nothing more. Or it can be as ineffective as a mosquito bite if you are of no consequence.

A very good example to all these if-thens would be the UN. There are those with a permanent membership in the Security Council, they are the members of consequence I have been referring to. Then there are the other members, who for a period get to vote, and then comes the rest of the world who can’t do a thing even if they outnumber the members in the council. All they can do is pass a resolution in the general assembly which is not even binding!! (the mosquito bite) On the other hand the strength of the permanent members go to the length of actually being able to veto something.

So on the basis of what I speak of above it can be safely concluded:

  1. in the context of a veto, a no is definitely not equal to an yes
  2. coming from someone of less consequence, a no borders on the line of actually being part of the decision making process given the veto powers are “just”
  3. and for entities of no consequence, a no or an yes are, as is written in any of the great English dictionaries of our time, just two words, one the antonym of the other.

All of this is nothing but just a thought.