The idea which the question of the topic insinuates, is that, if at all justice can be measured, then it would be a measurement true in consistency, but not a measurement which would have an origin which could be called definite, or certain, to the measure of justice. I can, if I have the capacity, measure out the same justice to many, but, by all accounts, deliberate justice meted out, cannot be called a definite or certain measure of justice, because all circumstances are different by instances. Perhaps, when justice is meted out, then it absolves the person to whom justice is meted out, of all moral responsibility, on the matter of justice meted out. Who is ultimately responsible for justice, is it the person who experiences the effect of justice, or the superficial judge, who gives a judgment which may or may not, be seen as justice by the person experiencing the effect of judgment?
Alfred Thayer Mahan expressed, that naval power, is a means to projecting national interest globally.
Would one want to project national interest globally, and by diplomatic means, through naval power? In the past, navies were the diplomatic means open to nations separated by oceans and seas. These nations, who could not communicate by any other means, communicated diplomatically through the navy. Today, there are other means of communication, and shared interests are not primarily of a military nature for those nations not in a diplomatically uncertain neighborhood. Western Europe comes to mind, in such a scenario, and so does North America.
How exactly, can the navy project national interest globally? The navy is an exercise of military might. Can any navy hope to override the military function by the diplomatic function? Would any navy want to engage diplomatically, a friendly nation, when other channels of diplomacy are open? The United States has experienced, that having the most effective military in the world, cannot make a nation at peace with herself, if she is engaged in military conflict, in different regions of the world. Does it help a nation to engage diplomatically other nations, distant to her in nautical miles, when these nations may disagree diplomatically with her?
The question begs to be asked, which is, is economic power a salve on diplomatic disagreements, which may exist between my nation, and another nation? What is the aim of existence? If only two individuals existed, then would the material used by the two be of interest to one, in relation to the other? The material needs of a human being are not satiated by wanting to use more and more material.
What then, does diplomacy through naval power achieve, in an organic manner, without the influence of time, in relation to history? I regret to express, that naval diplomacy does not promote peace, because peace is not associated with the military, when there is no war. Navies around the world, bring into conjecture, their abilities in the matter of warfare, and perhaps, the abilities and limitations of the navies, become common knowledge, to even laypersons like me. There are, no doubt, well kept secrets in the various navies of the world, but only in the particulars, not in the general information.
I feel, I cannot elaborate on the topic further, as there is nothing left to elaborate for me.
I was watching the program ‘Politically Incorrect’, on NDTV. Mr Mani Shankar Iyer expressed himself on the topic. We see a phenomenon as intrinsically good, or bad. Perhaps the reality is neither good, nor bad. Those who are generating income, have afforded the high prices of essential commodities seen recently. There have been no food riots, nor widespread deaths among the poor. What does this exhibit, as an aspect of the inflation phenomenon? This perhaps indicates, that the inflation is truly evenly spread throughout the economy, or, more or less evenly. In other words, all the sectors of the economy are experiencing more or less the same rate of real inflation. This is making possible, for the common man to afford the essential commodities. At the least, this is showing that the common man is holding in his pocket, money proportionate to the inflation. I admit, that my surmise might, or may be wrong. Perhaps, I have not factored into account the subsidized food availed by the poor, or the NREGA functioning. But, the subsidy is availed by those who live below the poverty line, in other words, those who do not have any work, or those who cannot generate income through work. These people do not belong to the economy, i.e., they are independent of the economy, in their economic contribution to the economy, through work.
I am referring to those people who contribute to the economy, by earning money through work. The economy is growing, so is inflation. The whole economic chain, is experiencing growth in productivity,and inflation, simultaneously. The goods and services being purchased up and down the chain, are showing an even trend. Perhaps, this is aiding the economy, and hence the government. Perhaps, in an economic down-turn the essential commodities are the last to be affected, in terms of reduced consumption. In India, presently, the conspicuous, and essential consumption, are showing reasonably high factors. So, the government wants to curb inflation more for political, rather than economic reasons. The government cannot explain to the opposition, nor to the nation reasons for high inflation, nor does it ignore the opposition or the nation on questions of inflation brought up by them. If the central government falls, or is not re-elected because of inflation, then perhaps, it will not be due to the effects of inflation.
I look at the many nations of the world, through the television media, and the print media. I see no difference in how the U S A, Italy, England, or any other nation is perceived, in the day to day existence, and how India is perceived. True, The U S A has less corruption, as has Great Britain, and Italy has more, but all the nations mentioned are perceived as not different from the other. I don’t want India to be a beacon for other nations. I would rather that India perceive her own greatness, and not through narrow prisms of GDP growth, and similar yardsticks. If 9% GDP growth was a true yardstick of the road to greatness, then India is stopping and starting and stuttering, presently. Do we want India to be measured as a great nation, or should India be a great nation, without any tangible reason, which may change in perception, sooner or later, for the worse?
The greatness of India, was not perceived in the past, (as we also perceive in the present, about the past), because India was said to be ‘The Golden Bird’. In actuality, those who saw India as great, and see India as great, had, or have, no doubt about the greatness of India. But, we as a nation, today, want India to be a great nation, ‘as she once was before’. I do not perceive the U S A as a great nation, as Swami Vivekananda once did perceive the spirit of the people of the United States. Today, the people of the United States, are not driven by the pioneering spirit, and vision, because that spirit and vision is not required. Perhaps, the only preoccupation of the American’s is how to increase the GDP, and reduce the budget deficit, and how to be the leading business community in the world. I find it vaguely nonsense. How are the people of the United States perceived to be above their GDP, their budget surplus,(once they achieve that), and above business ethics? Surely, there is an ethic, above the business ethic? When we follow the business ethic, our lives represent business. How are our lives, less or more, than business commodities, when we follow this ethic?
And, I find, India, too, following this path, to “economic greatness”. We have perhaps, not understood, that we are trying to prove our greatness to ourselves, as we exist, just as the United States is proving her existence to herself, as great, in every existing moment. If India aspires to greatness, then what good is greatness, if it can be acquired, and lost, at the mercy of the winds of change? Or even, if one has to toil, to be great? Is not greatness inherent in a human being, or a nation? Is this search for greatness, the greatest chimera in acquiring greatness? A person is only great if he performs some deed, only performed by selected people, or not at all before him?
Is being great, a state of perception, or a state of existence, regardless of any perception? The people of the world, the more they try to consciously express their greatness, the more the rest are reminded of these people’s mortality.
Either, India is great, or is not. India cannot aspire to greatness, if she is not great already, and those who aspire for India’s greatness, do not see India, as great.
I was watching a program called ‘A page from history’, on India’s former and late Prime Minister, Mr Rajiv Gandhi. The panelists were very well informed, and their efforts were toward expanding the scope of their information using the information which they had. I was pleased to see the professor of history of Jawaharlal Nehru University, take part in the discussion, because I regard the university very highly.
Some ideas occurred to me, during the discussion. It was pointed out, that corruption was seen in the public domain, and to do with the interest of the public, after Rajiv Gandhi introduced liberalization. I have come to perceive, that before liberalization, corruption had nothing to do with the common man. It was perhaps, completely out of the sphere of influence and interest of the common man. The term corruption then, was only heard in the circles of business, which were considered as an identity by government circles. I do not mean petty corruption, but corruption perceived to have been indulged in by big business, (the giver-participant of corruption) and the government, (the taker participant of corruption). How was it known, that there was corruption before liberalization? This was because government officers took bribes, for even the smallest services, and were absolutely immune thereafter, it seemed, from persecution. Now, small services from the government did entail the giving of bribes. But, those in big business, too, used to say, that they had to encounter corrupt officials. They, I assume, also paid the corrupt officials.
But, like I have written earlier, the middle class, curiously, had nothing to do with corruption in high places, unless they encountered it, rarely, before liberalization. After Rajiv Gandhi, it became the business of the middle class, that there was alleged corruption in high places. I can only assume, that the middle class became affected, in some manner, by the alleged corruption in high places. The names of business and government personalities were mentioned, even before Rajiv Gandhi, because liberalization was started by Mrs Indira Gandhi. I believe, one gentleman was responsible for the furthering of liberalization in India, and he was a support to the Government of India, when the government considered liberalization. By the time of Rajiv Gandhi, liberalization was accelerated, by whatever rapidity could be mustered. Liberalization was not a prism, then, by which the majority of India viewed the future in an opaque manner. Mr Gandhi’s differences with Mr V P Singh are well documented, because of the course, presumably, of the perception of liberalization, of the two gentlemen.
It was also pointed out, that Rajiv Gandhi was irreplaceable after his death. I must point out, that there was a time, when neither Mrs Gandhi (Indira), nor Mr Rajiv Gandhi belonged to politics, so then, how were they so irreplaceable after their unfortunate assassinations? I felt hope, when I perceived Rajiv Gandhi for the first time, but, there must have been deep despair after the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi, among her close supporters. We all remember the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Mr P V Narasimha Rao did not want to be Prime Minister. He wanted Rajiv Gandhi to be Prime Minister. I believe he went through the tenure of his Prime Ministership(Mr Rao), wistfully rueing the fact of the absence of Mr Rajiv Gandhi. The answer to the earlier question in the paragraph, is that the rest of the Congress, does not see itself in power, after elections, without the Nehru-Gandhi family. Mrs Sonia Gandhi has changed this sentiment, by bringing into political office people like Mr Chidambaram, Mr Mukherji, Mr Sibal, etc, et al. The party is bigger than Mrs Sonia Gandhi, in her estimation, but not in the estimation of ‘ordinary’ Congressmen./Congresswomen.
The fact of the matter is, only people who understand the significance of the Indian Parliament, should be parliamentarians. Today, the reason why the U P A government is uncomfortable, is the same as to why Rajiv Gandhi was voted out of power. The Congress cannot take the nation along, united. Because of the subservience of the Congress to their President, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, they see rival political factions as threats to Indian security, even though these political factions belong to Indian politics. Somehow, Mrs Gandhi also has come to believe this canard(what I believe it to be), and so has Mr Rahul Gandhi. The reason why Mrs Indira Gandhi was assassinated, was because she believed her party more, above all.
In a democratic nation, many voices need to be heard. But, the democracy practiced, in many nations, may be of a flawed variety. For instance, ideally, in a democracy, the voices of all the sections, and segments of society need to be heard, and regarded. But, in reality, are the voices of the many poor, also as important, as those who are the important figures in economic, and industrial circles?
In fact, it is a great struggle, in a democracy, for any given government, to put all sections of society on an equal footing. Is it possible, for the government, to give an equal hearing to the grievances of the pauper, and the millionaire, alike? If it is possible, and if it is the case, then how is the government implementing this thought?
Does the government, in reality, disregard the local opinion, when it frames policies, for the larger picture? Can the government disregard the voice of the individual, when it makes policies for the greater number? This will lead to the dis-satisfaction of the individual, who will exhibit his dis-satisfaction, because he is dis-satisfied. The state of affairs of the dis-satisfied member of the democracy, will be noted by other members of the democracy, who may note, that their turn to be dis-satisfied, may come sooner or later. The government may, if it chooses, look at these matters lightly, but is the government credible, in the eyes of a dis-satisfied individual?
The question I want to ask is, that should the government make decisions taking into account the grassroots of democracy, which is the individual, and other basic identities, or should it legislate laws from a high ground, for those who are not on the same high ground? Surely, if the government will take into account, the voice of the individual, then the individual has the choice, to deliberate with other members of his community, and a good consensus can be forged.
The government must ensure, that all matters to do with the individual, and basic groups in a democracy, are debated, by that individual and basic groups. This is important for the individual, and government. Perhaps, our system of government does not make this possible, and our government is encouraged to brand all dissent as an undesirable activity on the part of the individual, or basic group.
When a person gets ideas, about his environment, whether spiritual, mental, or physical, then what makes the person feel, at one time or another, that he may have been wrong about some, if not most of his ideas? Is one indulging in flights of fancy, even when one is trying to be very objective, in thought?
What is the cause of thought, in a human being? When it gets ideas about his/her environment, then, is the thought completely imagination, or is the thought also rooted in reality? In my opinion, a thought can only belong to the person who thinks, and he/she/it can only think about the environment, which includes the perception of the self.
Is an intellectual being creative, when he formulates thoughts about his environment? By the word ‘creative’, is intimated, that the intellectual is creating thoughts, and the thoughts are not occuring to him/her/it. In the case of the intellectual, is thought a flight of fancy? What then, causes the intellectual to create thought? What also causes the intellectual to accept the thought as a honest appraisal of his environment? Is thought dishonesty to the self? If not, then how can we feel, that our thoughts were not true, which occurred to us earlier? Some of us, even fight ourselves to feel that our earlier thoughts were not false.
It is true, in the case of thought, that the person thinks, and about his environment. I am coming to believe, that perhaps the human is as objective as can be, when he thinks, in a situation. What makes the human need to think in a situation? Perhaps, and this is a cliche, perhaps it is a need to find personal meaning, in a situation. Is ‘personal meaning’, and ‘objectivity’ far apart, in the realm of thought? Does a person need to believe, or does the person believe, because he cannot help it? Can it be, that the person wants to find personal meaning, and he is also as objective as he can be, in the realm of thought?
I have not found a satisfactory answer.