Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

Life is a horrible dream


Life is a horrible dream to rise to a beautiful reality.

I believe in afterlife. I am not scientifically sure of afterlife. If there is no such thing I lose nothing by believing in it. If there will be an afterlife, my hope won’t be at loss.
The expectation of a more blessed and glorious life after this fretful life is a consolation. Man lives on such consolations. Every dream of a better tomorrow is an uncertainty and an abstract platform on which we live today.
That is why I believe in after life.

I have no intention of passing on a negative message to the readers by calling life on this earth ‘a horrible dream’. My intention is contrary to it. It is to encourage with a hope for a better tomorrow.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

How did Kingship evolve?


This is a theory existing among scholars those who study human history. I do not pledge accuracy. This may not be the final truth. Some others may have another theory. Still this story narrates the most probable theory on the evolution of Kingship.

In the Old Testament part of the Bible there is a Babylonian King called Nimrod. The name ‘Nimrod’ has been proverbial from the earliest times as a mighty hunter. He was the first who claimed to be a "mighty one in the earth." Babel was the beginning of his kingdom, which he gradually enlarged. Nimrod is supposed to have begun the tower of Babel.

It is fine to believe that Nimrod himself was a hunter. He might have been a mighty man with extraordinary physical strength. Physical strength was the most valuable asset in the ancient times, as intellect and talent are today.

Man in his early ages lived a nomadic life. The life style of man evolved through various stages since then. The nomadic life was uncertain and uncomfortable. It was a restless life. So man decided to stay in one place for longer time. He chose fertile lands and moderate climate and permitted other people to live aside. He tolerated his co inhabitants for he realized the strength of unity of men.

The enemy of men was not other men, for all men were struggling to survive. The enemies of men were wild animals. So in the wisdom of the ancients they built their huts closely together at one place and maintained their arable farm at a length. They stayed together and worked together.  

They kept watch in the night to warn them of the attack of wild animals. At every siren from the night watch, all men in the village woke and attacked the enemy chasing them out of their village. The common enemy bound them together in all efforts. All men had to come together against the common enemy. All men in the village were considered as warriors. It was the beginning of today’s compulsory military service.

As this situation continued, the more mighty men stood in the forefront became a special warrior group and later they we lead by the still more mighty man. This man was the most ferocious warrior among all men in the group. He was unequalled in strength, courage and war tactics among all men in the village. So he became the leader all of warriors, all men in the village and hence the leader of the village itself.

Gradually and naturally he demanded and received respect and obedience. He was granted with special privileges by the villagers. As long as his might remained the best he was unchallenged. Might was the greatest asset of the time.

The privileges grew. His authority grew. His commitments grew.

A wise hunter leader of the village, tired of chasing animals every night, formulated a better war tactic - offence is better than defense.
Attacking and chasing away wild animals when they come to attack the village is only defense. Offence is going into the forest and attacking wild animals in expectation of an attack in the night. It rendered more and lasting peace to the village and rest to the leader. So he went into the nearby forest to a considerable length and attacked and chased away wild animals. Continuous offensive attack by the leader kept the wild animals away from the village for considerable period of days. A repeated and occasional attack into the forest kept wild animals away from the people.

Thus he established a new theory of offense above the old method of defense.

All these developments in the formation of leadership kept the leader busy and engaged every day that he could no longer go for work in the farm.
Hence the duty to feed, clothe and shelter the leader came down to the people. The people were happy because they could shift the responsibility of protection of their family and village to the leader and live peacefully. They were only happy to set apart a small portion of their income for the well being of the leader.

Thus Kingship evolved from hunter to King.

Professor Jacob Abraham                                                                            

Like this blog?
Leave a comment below
Subscribe to my blogs
Tell your friend

Thursday, 6 June 2013

Attitude towards enemies


What is our attitude towards our enemies?
I mean, what is our main concern, the destruction of the enemy or our prosperity?
Both may be our concerns. But what is our main concern?

Let us take a situation.
He was our honest friend whom we trusted over our life and expected to be our life supporting friend. We thought that until death we will not part.
Unexpectedly without any provocation from our part, he turned against us. He might have misunderstood some of our intentions. Or he might have stumbled upon some fanciful idea to turn against us for a gain. On his way to his own new fancy, he left us and created all sort of mental and physical torture to us.
He might have gained something from his new move or he might have got lost.

What concerns us first is the loss and damages came over our life. Our reputation marred, we suffered financial loss, time wasted, peace left us and we had to go through a number of sleepless life.
It took so many months and perhaps years to regain what we lost.
The greatest damage happened to us is the loss of faith in human beings.
And all these and more happened because of our new enemy.

Our natural response is a wish for revenge. Since we are a law abiding citizen, we do not take the law into our hands. So we wait to see punishment falling on him. Only destruction of our enemy can console our wounded heart.
Every day we wake up to hear his destruction. Every talk ends with a wish or his fall. All news of his setbacks is a joy to our soul. We go to sleep sad because our new enemy is still alive and healthy.

What is our main concern: the destruction of our enemy or our own prosperity?

For me it is my prosperity. I do not care what happens to my enemy.
It he prospers in his new venture let it do well for him. If he fails in his new adventure, it is up to him. His prosperity or fall does not affect my life in any manner.
When he was my friend, everything happened in his life affected me too. Since he becomes my enemy, his life is no longer related to me.

His ill fortune does not affect my life. His fall is his own and it does not better my life. His failures are no more related to me. Punishments that fall upon him do me no good.
Nothing in his life is going to better my life.
Then why should I wish for his destruction.
I would rather think about ways to better my life.

Instead of waiting for the destruction of our enemy, let us work hard to rebuild our life. We are not the first in this world to get cheated by treacherous friends. We are not the last.
The punishment on the enemy has never done any good to the victim of treachery.
Only the prosperity in our life can better our life.

So let us spend all the rest of our time to rebuild our damaged life. Let us be concerned only about our prosperity. Our prosperity affects our life. Only it can better our life.

Professor Jacob Abraham                                                                            

Like this blog?
Leave a comment below
Subscribe to my blogs
Tell your friend

Saturday, 1 June 2013

What is a country – geographical area or the people?



In Sophocles’ Antigone, Cretes, the King of Thebes and the protagonist in the play asks the question, “What is State?” For him the King is the State and others in the play believe that the people are the state.
This is an age old question ancient as States.
Definitely, the King is not the State, for such kings have been overthrown by the people. History always has proved that the people are the State.

While I was writing another blog on the “Absurdity of war”, I came across a statement of mine saying that the people are the country. Is it so?
There are vast areas of land in the frontiers and some corners of countries which are not occupied by people. It is uninhabited area with forest or snowy mountains. Such areas are not suitable for habitation. Still does any country consider it unimportant and ignore the territory so that the neighboring country may occupy it? No. what does it mean? People are not the country?

What a country without people? What a country stands for? For who does a country exists?
There is no country without people. No country can exist without citizens.
A country stands for its citizens, for protecting the interests of its citizens.
A country exists for its citizens, if they reject the country it become extinct.

So people are the blood and vein of a country. A country belongs to the people. In fact a country comes into being because of its citizens.
The existence of a country is declared by its citizens.  It is run by the people, maintained by the people and protected by the people.

What is a country?
A country is a geographical area inherited by a group of people and with specified borders for protection, growth and governance.

It is a geographical area inherited by a group of people. It is not an occupied area. When a country occupies another country, the area is called as, “the occupation of ……..(such a country)” or “the colony of …… (such a country)”. It means that the geographical area inherited by a group of people always remains a separate country that belongs to the inheritors.

No country can be bought by money. It has to be inherited.
It should be a geographical area inherited by certain generations by the same group of people.
Only such a country can anyone call as “our country”.

Anybody who has such a history of inheritance can call the geographical area as “my country”.
The period of inheritance and the number of generations that lived there cannot be specified universally. No law exists for defining such a period. It is related to the history of inheritance of people in that particular geographical area.

Then what about the uninhabitable areas in countries?
These areas, though uninhabited and uninhabitable are inherited by the people of the country. They own such areas for generations.

What shall we conclude?
A country is a geographical area inherited by a group of people and with specified borders for protection, growth and governance.
No country is the King or the rules. The people are the country.
Even if anyone argues otherwise, history won’t let him.

Professor Jacob Abraham                                                                            

Like this blog?
Leave a comment below
Subscribe to my blogs
Tell your friend

Friday, 31 May 2013

Absurdity of war



George Bernard Shaw, the dramatic genius of the 20 century had a dislike for war. In his famous play, Arms and the Man, he exposed the absurdity of war. The World Wars has already disillusioned the war from its romantic concepts. The War poets of the 20 century described war with all its horrors. People all over the world have tasted the bitterness of war. Today none really wants war.
Still war happens. Countries fight each other; countries even fight against themselves.

Who wants war? If no man wants war, who is behind all these wars? I do not have an answer for a secular audience. In the spiritual realm, we attribute all these to the evil force in the world.

Every nation has an enemy nation; some nation has more than one enemy nation. In most of the case, the enemy country is the neighbor. Our country is also not different.

I do not understand it.
Asharaf is a man living in my neighboring nation. (Name and situation are only fictional). Since the country he lives is an enemy country, Asharaf is an enemy to me. A country is nothing but the people. A geographical area is not the real country.
I have never seen Asharaf and Asharaf has never seen me. So far we have no disputes between us. I am not jealous of the prosperity Asharaf enjoys. Asharaf has never heard of the prosperous life I lead in my country. In fact we have never seen or heard of each other.
Still Asharaf is an enemy to me and I am enemy to Asharaf.

What made us enemies? I will never, never find an answer. There is no reason for the enmity.
Who told us that we are enemies? Everybody says. The newspaper, TV, Internet, Politian, historians, sociologists, cricket players and all and all.
So we are enemies.
Or why I fight against his country and he fight against my country.
Fighting against our countries is fighting against us.

Auden has exploded the myth of war in his war poem, Strange Meeting.
A solider dies and goes straight into Hades. There he is greeted by the skeleton of another soldier. The second solider greeted him calling ‘friend’. The first solider looked into the eyes of the second one and recognized him as the one whom he killed yesterday. They have realized the truth that they were never been enemies in their life. Then why the first solider killed the second one?
This is the absurdity of war.

Why my nation is fighting against our neighboring nation? If Asharaf who lives in our neighboring nation is not an enemy, why should I fight against him and kill him?
If Asharaf is not my enemy, who else is there in his country?

The answer the political leaders may give is that we fight because the neighboring nation is fighting against us.
I throw all my questions to the neighboring nation. I am sure that Asharaf is also asking all these questions to his national leaders and to my nation.
We will never be answered.

So till then, we fight. We remain enemies. We may kill each other before we find an answer.

Professor Jacob Abraham                                                                            

Like this blog?
Leave a comment below
Subscribe to my blogs
Tell your friend