6 Important lessons in Life

Lesson 1:  A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower when the doorbell rings. The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next door neighbor. Be…fore she says a word, Bob says, “I’ll give you $800 to drop that towel.” After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob. After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 dollars and leaves. The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs. When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks,… “Who was that?” “It was Bob the next door neighbor,” she replies. “Great!” the husband says, “Did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?”   Moral of the story: If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time, you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.    

 

Lesson 2 A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out. The Genie says, “I’ll give each of you just one wish” “Me first! Me first!” says the administration clerk. “I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat, without a care in the world.” Poof! She’s gone. “Me next! Me next!” says the sales rep. “I want to be in Hawaii,relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.” Poof! He’s gone. “OK, you’re up,” the Genie says to the manager. The manager says, “I want those two back in the office after lunch.”   Moral of the story: Always let your boss have the first say.    

 

Lesson 3 A priest offered a lift to a Nun. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg. The nun said,”Father, remember Psalm 129?” The priest removed his hand. But,changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again. The nun once again said, “Father, remember Psalm 129?” The priest apologized “Sorry sister but the flesh is weak.” Arriving at the convent, the nun went on her way. On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129. It said, “Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory.”   Moral of the story: If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity.    

 

Lesson 4 A crow was sitting on a tree, doing nothing all day. A rabbit asked him,”Can I also sit like you and do nothing all day long?” The crow answered: “Sure, why not.” So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the crow, and rested. A fox jumped on the rabbit and ate it.   Moral of the story: To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very high up.   

 

  Lesson 5:  A turkey was chatting with a bull “I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree,” sighed the turkey, but I haven’t got the energy.” “Well, why don’t you nibble on my droppings?” replied the bull. “They’re packed with nutrients.” The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. Finally after a fourth night, there he was proudly perched at the top of the tree. Soon he was spotted by a farmer, who shot the turkey out of the tree.   Moral of the story: Bullshit might get you to the top, but it wont keep you there.

 

Lesson 6 A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was. The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy. A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him.  

 

Moral of the story: 1. Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy 2. Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend 3. And when you’re in deep shit, it’s best to keep your mouth shut!

 

MURGA AND BAARAT GHAR

MURGA AND BAARAT GHAR.

 

The Sources of Chinese Conduct

BEIJING – Six decades ago, the American diplomat George Kennan wrote an article, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” that galvanized American and world opinion, which soon hardened into the rigid postures of the Cold War. Today, given China’s decisive influence on the global economy, and its increasing ability to project military power, understanding the sources of Chinese conduct has become a central issue in international relations. Indeed, better understanding of China’s foreign policy motivations may help prevent relations between China and the United States from hardening into rigid and antagonistic postures.

Since 2008, discussions among Chinese scholars and strategists on the nature of their country’s foreign policy have focused on two issues: its ideological foundations, and China’s international appeal and standing – its “soft power.”

Mainstream thinking, known as the Chinese School, insists, with the government, on “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” as the bedrock principle of China’s foreign policy. But a minority school argues that China should rely instead on the country’s traditional political thought, emphasizing the universal value of traditional Chinese philosophy. While People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper, consistently attacks that position, the Party itself has been rehabilitating Confucius, the central figure in Chinese traditional thought, going so far as to erect a statue of him in Tiananmen Square.

The Chinese School insists on adhering to Deng Xiaoping’s doctrine of maintaining a low profile in international diplomacy, while the traditionalist group advocates taking on greater international responsibility. The mainstream school defines China as a developing country, pointing to China’s per capita GDP, which ranks only 104th in the world. The traditionalists argue that China should assume responsibility for world affairs consistent with its status as the world’s second-largest economy, behind only the US.

Today, the impact of the Chinese School seems to be limited mostly to official statements, while the traditionalists are gradually gaining policy influence. For example, the Chinese government reiterated its core diplomatic principle of non-intervention in other countries’ affairs during the Libya crisis, yet China accepted the imposition of United Nations’ sanctions on Muammar Qaddafi’s government.

Moreover, China dispatched a warship and four military aircraft to the Mediterranean to help evacuate 35,860 Chinese nationals and 2,100 others from Libya. That measure, the first projection of Chinese naval power so far from home, is consistent with Confucianism, which regards morality as the top priority of policymaking, rather than Marxism, according to which economic interests alone drive foreign policy.

Early Confucian thinkers were writing in a world of small countries competing ruthlessly for territorial advantage. For them, the key to international power was political power, and the central attribute of political power was a morally informed leadership. Rulers, they believed, should act in accord with moral norms whenever possible. And the sphere of concern for any humane ruler should be the whole world, not just the people of one state.

Thus, thinkers such as Mencius, Confucius’s leading intellectual heir, argued that humane authorities should punish immoral rulers in other states who tyrannize their people. Rulers who rely mostly on military or economic might divorced from morality, he argued, cannot achieve long-term success on the international stage.

Although China is building Confucius Institutes across the globe, China’s traditional political philosophy does not often play decisive role in policymaking. China’s policy toward Libya, which differs significantly from previous policy, may or may not have been shaped by it; nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility of it becoming the mainstream of thinking in Chinese foreign-policy circles in the near future. Indeed, Henry Kissinger once told me that he believes that Chinese traditional thought has a greater chance than any foreign ideology (say, Marxism or liberalism) of becoming the dominant intellectual force behind Chinese foreign policymaking.

Domestic politics is always an important factor influencing a country’s foreign policy. At the recently concluded 11th People’s National Congress, the word heard most often in policy discussions was “happiness,” which had suddenly replaced “economic growth” as the official mantra. This change may augur future adjustments in China’s foreign policy as well, for “happiness” is a word used more frequently in Chinese traditional political thought than in Marxist political philosophy.

According to early Confucian thinkers, a key task for rulers is to strive to improve a peoples’ happiness, which is itself grounded in a moral way of life. Because poverty was an obstacle to moral behavior, they believed that the state should be vitally concerned with eliminating it. The idea that the state should pursue economic growth without consideration for moral concerns was anathema to Confucius and his followers.

In February 2010, at “Spring Festival” – one of China’s biggest holidays, marked by family reunions – Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that the government should help people live with dignity and happiness. At a press conference this month, he said that economic reform cannot succeed without political reform, and that corruption currently poses the gravest danger to China.

Such statements sounded new to Chinese ears, because they accentuated politics rather than trumpeting the Party’s usual emphasis on economic determinism.

Today, it is impossible to tell what impact and how much influence Chinese traditional political thought – the traditional concern with moral duty, happiness, and honor – will have on China’s foreign policy. But it is certain that the influence of traditional ideas in Chinese public life is growing. Indeed, no force seems able to reverse this trend in the coming years.

 

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org

 

What are the consequences of mixing religion into politics ?

To obtain the support of the masses, the elite used religion unabashedly. The mixing of religion with politics has always been a dangerous formula. All nations that have chosen this path have become captive to religious forces

Last week, the country officially celebrated the 71st anniversary of the 1940 Pakistan Resolution. This day is also known as Pakistan Day. The truth is that all the Muslim League documents (e.g. Allama Iqbal’s 1930 Allahabad address, Jinnah’s 14 points, the 1940 Lahore Resolution) had only asked for maximum autonomy for the Muslim majority provinces and principalities within the framework of India.

These documents acceded only to the centre’s foreign policy, defence, communication and currency. But, because of the strong centre policies of the Indian Congress, this demand ultimately resulted in the division of India. However, the same demand was raised by the Awami League 24 years after Pakistan was made. And, even today, smaller provinces’ politicians have the same demand, hence their insistence that the 1940 resolution should be implemented in letter and spirit.

The slogan for maximum autonomy for Muslim majority provinces was led by the Muslim ruling elite and the salariat — to borrow the term from Hamza Alavi — for their own vested interests. To pull in public support, the emotive slogan of religion was exploited by the leadership. So while the end objective was to seek maximum autonomy for Muslim rulers and the middle classes of these areas, the means used to achieve this end was religion.

At every official forum and in most of the important documents, the term used was ‘Muslim majority states’ and not ‘Islamic state’. The difference between the two is clear: while a Muslim state is where the Muslims are in majority, an ‘Islamic state’, which we have eventually become, is where laws have to be in accordance with shariah.

The present friction in society is because sloganeering and emotive use of religion to gain the support of the masses during the Pakistan movement, have been dictating the course of the country — the course that is likely to lead us towards another bloody end.

Right from the very beginning, the religious leadership started asserting itself because they were provided space by the Pakistan movement leadership. Acceptance of the Objectives Resolution was the first capitulation. One speech by Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah on August 11, 1947 — often quoted by the liberals — cannot wipe out the umpteen speeches by him and other leaders declaring that the Muslims of India need a separate homeland because they are a separate nation and want to live according to the cannons of Islam.

The question that needed to be asked was, were the Muslims of India not following Islamic teachings when they were living in India for the 1,000 years before partition? Of course they lived in India as Muslims without any challenge from other religions. On the contrary, although Muslims were a minority, they ruled India for over 800 years and it never occurred to them then that they were a separate nation. However, when it came to democracy, where numbers matter and the Hindu majority would have had the upper-hand, the Muslims were reminded — after centuries of convenient amnesia — that they were a separate nation.

So the analogy is that while running away from democracy, the Muslim elite in India acted like a spoilsport brat who, after taking his batting turn in the neighbourhood match, walks away with his bat saying that his mother needs him and hence he cannot field.

Only when the British started reforms to allow limited self-rule powers to the Indians — which would have meant rule of the majority — Indian Muslims’ amnesia was cured. The Two Nation Theory evolved from the basic demand that maximum autonomy should be given to the Muslim majority provinces and principalities. This was motivated by the fear of the Muslim elite that they would lose control of the provinces they ruled. The Muslim elite of the areas where they were in a minority took a leading role in this movement because they were moved by their diminishing share in government services in these provinces before the Government of India Act 1935 was introduced.

To obtain the support of the masses, the elite used religion unabashedly. The mixing of religion with politics has always been a dangerous formula. All nations that have chosen this path have become captive to religious forces.

In what is Saudi Arabia now, the house of Saud used Wahabi Puritanism as justification to establish control over other tribes of the region and on the two most holy Muslim sites, Makkah and Medina. Today, the ruling family finds it difficult to open up Saudi society for any fresh air. For instance, basic fundamental rights are denied to women and all moves even by the ruling family are sabotaged.

In Israel, where land was acquired in the name of religion, any move by liberal Jewish leaders to accept genuine Palestinian demands is resisted by religious extremists.

In Iran, where the democratic revolution against the King was hijacked by the religious lobby, today the religious supra-body overrules any reforms and the democrats are languishing in prison. Many have also been killed.

Thus, Pakistan is no stranger in this company. The religious laws that discriminate and are being misused for settling personal vendettas cannot be changed because again the religious extremists draw their strength from the basic Pakistan movement slogans. Conflict is sharpening between the Arab tribal value system of the 7th century and capitalist social values of the 21st century. This friction is taking a toll on Pakistani society. The faster the human value system progresses, which is the natural course of history, the stronger would be the resistance of the forces of regression. Little do these religious retrogressive forces realise that human history and value systems are not static and that the process of change is continuous. Any attempt to arrest the advancement of history, no matter how violent, is temporary — that is the lesson of history.

 

Put Siachen on table last, not first | Deccan Chronicle

As the United States gets into an Arab quagmire without extricating itself from the AfPak theatre there must also be pressure to find a foreign policy success in Washington D.C., with election year approaching. Consequently, the discourse on AfPak has begun to change. The good and necessary war has become unnecessary and futile as it drains the US treasury and America suffers 500 casualties annually.

Western experts and media now describe how unstable the situation in Pakistan has become and how radicalised that country is today. There is also grudging admission that Pakistan’s rulers have been following a dual if not a multilayered policy on hunting with the US in the effort in Afghanistan and supping with the terrorists of various hues simultaneously both on the western and eastern frontiers. Simultaneously, the subscript is getting more pronounced.

This subscript says that Pakistan is unable to fully cooperate because of its apprehension about Indian designs on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Almost all of the recent writings from the US or the UK end up with the same final recommendation. India and Pakistan must sort themselves out on issues like Kashmir to enable Pakistan to stabilise. The kind of gentle persuasion that was alluded to in the Wikileaks cables must surely be continuing. India-Pakistan talks have recommenced: another dramatic but eventually pointless gesture to inconsequential entities has been made.

Recent writings from Pakistan suggest that among the issues that are considered easily solvable is the Saltoro Ridge (commonly referred to as the Siachen Glacier) and the UN is being inveigled into this. This is not so and anyone who sees the map of the region will understand this. Undoubtedly peace with Pakistan is desirable. However, to try and attain it through magnanimity will only trump realism.

The reality is that the India-Pakistan level of distrust. Pakistan has not called an unequivocal and permanent end to using its jihadist weapon in India and it never will; its prevarication on issues related to investigation in the Mumbai 2008 terrorist attack is the sum and substance of this attitude.

The Indian Army climbed to the Saltoro Ridge in 1984 to cut off Pakistan’s plans to access beyond Saltoro to the Karakoram pass. This would have enabled Pakistan access to Tibet and also threaten Ladakh. Pakistan and China would have access to each other through the Khunjerab pass on the Karakoram highway via Xinjiang and to Tibet through the Karakoram pass. The Saltoro Ridge provided Indian forces with strategic heights looking into Pak-occupied Gilgit and Baltistan. Such an advantage must not be given up for some obscure short-term political gain without a document to establish one’s credentials.

Pakistan’s unwillingness to sign any document that authenticates the Agreed Ground Position Line (AGPL) could only mean that it would seek to break it at first dawn. There is neither a change of heart nor intentions. Kargil 1999 was the latest, and probably not the last, military attempt to alter the ground position in Kashmir in an effort to negate the advantage India had in Saltoro.

In recent years the geopolitical situation has changed. There is greater Chinese presence in Gilgit and Baltistan where apart from building other facilities the Chinese have been upgrading the Karakoram highway since 2005. It is estimated that last August about 11,000 Chinese were involved in infrastructure projects. This would ultimately link with the Chinese-aided port project at Gwadar shortening China’s route to the Persian Gulf from four weeks to 48 hours Simultaneously, the Chinese have been upgrading their own infrastructure in Xinjiang and Tibet north of the Himalayas.

India has repeatedly given up strategic advantages and conceded on the negotiating table what was won on the battlefield. In 1948, when the Pakistani forces were retreating, we did not secure Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Kotli or Skardu. In 1966, we gave up Haji Pir, through which infiltrators keep coming into the Kashmir Valley even today. In 1972, we gave up territory and 93,000 prisoners of war for an agreement that Pakistan never intended to observe.

The only way it would not be perceived as a retreat would be if the Pakistanis first agreed to delineate the AGPL in the Siachen sector, which is a part of the large Saltoro Ridge, authenticate this on maps that would then be signed and exchanged by commanders of the two countries. Pakistan would then project the AGPL in all its maps, making the AGPL an extension of the line of control from Point NJ-9842 that does not go towards the Karakoram pass but due north along the Saltoro Ridge. After this, the two countries would work out the ground rules for demilitarisation. Only after this has been worked out should there be discussion on redeployment and demilitarisation of this sector. Anything short of this will be a sellout.

The issue is far too important to be decided furtively or in a hurry. It is only fair that if we are to retreat, the people should know that this pullback is in the national interest. Siachen has to be last issue on the table and not the first one.

* By Vikram Sood is a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency

 

Hello world!