All of us know that Ramayana is all about Sri Rama’s story.
Kaikeyi asked for boons ordaining Rama to go to the forest, Sita humbly following Him, her falling in love with a deer, Ravana taking her away, Rama waging a war with Ravana and eventually getting Sita back.
Beyond this, Ramayana is a great benefit to our everyday life too. How? If we read Ramayana carefully, chapter by chapter, we can realize the import of the story in our daily life, as conveyed by the great Maharshi.
The first part of the epic talks about a prosperous Ayodhya. The overflowing Sarayu river, the abundance of grains, the devoted king and the devoted subjects, the affluence of the people – all these signifying a wealthy and prosperous land of Ayodhya is clearly depicted.
One day, Dasharata addressed the masses and expressed his wish to crown Rama and retire from his regal duties. The citizens rejoiced. Rama was then informed about the crowning ceremony scheduled for the following day. The whole city was agog with this happy news – decorations and preparations for the crowning ceremony were on.
Hearing this news, Kaikeyi’s aide, Manthara (Kuni) rushed to Kaikeyi ‘Hey! Did you hear that Kausalya’s son Rama is going to be crowned?’
Kaikeyi, being a noble person at heart immediately gifted her with a necklace. ‘Rama is like my own son! I love him even more than Bharata. What difference does it make crowning Rama or Bharata?’
Manthara said, ‘Oh! My dumb Mistress! Don’t you realize that if Rama becomes the king, even Kausalya’s servants will disrespect you? You will be trampled once Rama is crowned. Bharata will be doomed!’ Saying thus, she poisoned Kaikeyi’s mind so much so that the latter merely submitted to her - ‘What should I do now?’
Manthara said ‘Long ago, when you assisted Dasharata in a war, he granted you two boons. Exercise them! One, let Bharata be crowned. Two, have Rama exiled for 14 years.’
Kaikeyi was ready to ask these boons.
That night, when Dasharata came to her harem, she lay there as if in abject misery. As instructed by Kuni, she asked Dasharata for the two promises. It was a blow to the king.
Dasharata pleaded with her to take back her request. He beseeched her, ‘Let Bharata rule. But don’t separate Rama from me. You know I can’t live without him.’ Kaikeyi was stubborn. Begging with Kaikeyi all through the night, Dasharata was completely wrecked by grief and swooned.
At dawn, Kaikeyi summoned Rama and explained Dasharata’s promise to her. ‘Your dad has given me a word that you shall go to the forest!’ she said.
If we read this part of the story, we find that the whole town was plunged into grief. Rama leaves for the forest and the entire Ayodhya follows him. Wails of sorrow sound in every home and there is inauspiciousness all over. The queens Kausalya and Sumitra wail, Vasishta cries, the whole kingdom is in tears as they see Sita following Rama to the forest.
As Rama leaves the kingdom, he halts on the bank river Sarayu for the night. The citizen who have followed him, lie down to sleep. Rama sheds tears seeing their pitiable plight – Such a flourishing and happy kingdom as Ayodhya now bears a deserted and orphaned look! The scene is now transformed into a gloomy one. There is inauspiciousness all over. The king, who ruled for 60,000 years, passes away. The queens are widowed. Bharata renounces the kingdom and is disturbed because of the false blame on him.
In a moment, the whole scenario has turned topsy-turvy. Who is the reason behind this? Is it God? Fate? The king’s misconduct? No! It is thanks to the woman with a hunchback (Kuni) named Manthara.
Introducing an insignificant character called Manthara, Valmiki shows how she could cause a whole kingdom, its king, princes and everyone to crash.
Any organization or setup should be wary of the fact that it could be shaken to its roots by sinister designs of even lowly employee from an insignificant corner.
This important management precept which is a part and parcel of our everyday life is being eloquently taught to us by Ramayana.
Regard
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
A nuclear Talibanistan?
Our view of Pakistan's role in the Afghanistan war has undergone an ominous but necessary series of shifts. At the outset of the war in October 2001, Pakistan correctly was seen as a necessary ally - both politically and geographically - as the primary conduit for our entry and lines of communication into Afghanistan.
Over the years, we came to understand that Pakistan's intelligence service was playing a double game - helping us, but also supporting the Taliban, while Pakistan's northern area had become a safe haven for both the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Thus, Pakistan came to be seen as part of the problem that the Obama administration reasonably has taken to calling the “AfPak” war. Gen. David H. Petraeus told a Senate committee that he saw Pakistan and Afghanistan as “a single theater.”
Now another perception shift is starting to take hold: The increasing instability of the Pakistani government makes Pakistan - more than Afghanistan - the central challenge of our AfPak policy.
Last week, David Kilcullen, a former Australian army officer who was Gen. Petraeus' senior counterinsurgency strategist and is now a consultant to the Obama White House, said Pakistan could collapse within months.
“We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses, it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now,” he said.
Mr. Kilcullen said time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink. “You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes ... the Kabul tail was wagging the dog,” he said.
Afghanistan was a campaign to defend a reconstruction program. “It's not really about al Qaeda. Afghanistan doesn't worry me. Pakistan does,” Mr. Kilcullen said. He said maybe we can manage Afghanistan and Richard Holbrooke can cut an international deal, but there is also a chance that Washington will fail to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan will collapse and al Qaeda will end up running what he called “Talibanistan.”
“This is not acceptable. You can't have al Qaeda in control of Pakistan's missiles,” he said.
“It's too early to tell which way it will go. We'll start to know about July. That's the peak fighting season ... and a month from the Afghan presidential election.”
Gen. Petraeus himself recently said that “extremists ... pose a truly existential threat to [Pakistan].”
The radical Islamist threat to the already weak and unstable Pakistani government has become acute because of reconciliation of former adversaries: Mullah Omar (leader of the Taliban fighters who have left Afghanistan for their new stronghold in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province) and Baitullah Mehsud (leader of the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan) .
According to last week's Der Speigel, “In late February, flyers written in Urdu turned up in the Pakistani-Afghan border region announcing the formation of a new platform for jihad. The Shura Ittihad-ul Mujahideen (SIM), or Council of United Holy Warriors, declared that the alliance of all militants had been formed at the request of Mullah Omar and [Osama] bin Laden.
”There is a new quality to this .... These groups are now the Pakistani face of al Qaeda,” the German newsmagazine reported.
The problem is that the united radical Islamists are expanding the combat zone inside Pakistan, threatening the state itself. Our drone attacks on the united Taliban (and al Qaeda) are driving the radicals deeper into Pakistan, including its major cities. Also, the attacks inevitably also kill Pakistani women and children (or are claimed by the radicals to have done so), which serves as a recruiting tool for new jihadists.
Thus Mr. Kilcullen was quoted by Der Speigel: “I am against the drone attacks. Even if we could kill half of the al Qaeda leaders, what does it help us if we cause an uprising by the population of Pakistan?”
Mr. Kilcullen's quote raises the strong inference that because the Obama administration has increased the George W. Bush administration's level of drone attacks into Pakistan and Gen. Petraeus' top counterinsurgency adviser publicly opposes the attacks, there must be a major policy fight going on within the administration.
Military strategy disputes are understandable. We have no good choices. Because of the overstretched condition of our military, we have too few troops available to deal with Pakistan, which itself has an active and reserve military manpower of 1.4 million.
Yet Pakistan's military seems insufficient to deal with the radical Islamists. After the Taliban took over the Swat Valley in the middle of Pakistan, seized an emerald mine to help finance their war with America and Pakistan, and established Shariah law, the Pakistani government was so weak it accepted a cease-fire with Maulana Fazlullah, a local thug and terrorist.
With our own Army too small, our NATO allies unwilling to help and Gen. Petraeus' senior counterinsurgency adviser worried that the Taliban and al Qaeda may be able to take over nuclear Pakistan, we are left with a policy of temporizing and crossing our fingers.
Tony Blankley is the author of “American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century” and vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington.
Over the years, we came to understand that Pakistan's intelligence service was playing a double game - helping us, but also supporting the Taliban, while Pakistan's northern area had become a safe haven for both the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Thus, Pakistan came to be seen as part of the problem that the Obama administration reasonably has taken to calling the “AfPak” war. Gen. David H. Petraeus told a Senate committee that he saw Pakistan and Afghanistan as “a single theater.”
Now another perception shift is starting to take hold: The increasing instability of the Pakistani government makes Pakistan - more than Afghanistan - the central challenge of our AfPak policy.
Last week, David Kilcullen, a former Australian army officer who was Gen. Petraeus' senior counterinsurgency strategist and is now a consultant to the Obama White House, said Pakistan could collapse within months.
“We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses, it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now,” he said.
Mr. Kilcullen said time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink. “You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes ... the Kabul tail was wagging the dog,” he said.
Afghanistan was a campaign to defend a reconstruction program. “It's not really about al Qaeda. Afghanistan doesn't worry me. Pakistan does,” Mr. Kilcullen said. He said maybe we can manage Afghanistan and Richard Holbrooke can cut an international deal, but there is also a chance that Washington will fail to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan will collapse and al Qaeda will end up running what he called “Talibanistan.”
“This is not acceptable. You can't have al Qaeda in control of Pakistan's missiles,” he said.
“It's too early to tell which way it will go. We'll start to know about July. That's the peak fighting season ... and a month from the Afghan presidential election.”
Gen. Petraeus himself recently said that “extremists ... pose a truly existential threat to [Pakistan].”
The radical Islamist threat to the already weak and unstable Pakistani government has become acute because of reconciliation of former adversaries: Mullah Omar (leader of the Taliban fighters who have left Afghanistan for their new stronghold in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province) and Baitullah Mehsud (leader of the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan) .
According to last week's Der Speigel, “In late February, flyers written in Urdu turned up in the Pakistani-Afghan border region announcing the formation of a new platform for jihad. The Shura Ittihad-ul Mujahideen (SIM), or Council of United Holy Warriors, declared that the alliance of all militants had been formed at the request of Mullah Omar and [Osama] bin Laden.
”There is a new quality to this .... These groups are now the Pakistani face of al Qaeda,” the German newsmagazine reported.
The problem is that the united radical Islamists are expanding the combat zone inside Pakistan, threatening the state itself. Our drone attacks on the united Taliban (and al Qaeda) are driving the radicals deeper into Pakistan, including its major cities. Also, the attacks inevitably also kill Pakistani women and children (or are claimed by the radicals to have done so), which serves as a recruiting tool for new jihadists.
Thus Mr. Kilcullen was quoted by Der Speigel: “I am against the drone attacks. Even if we could kill half of the al Qaeda leaders, what does it help us if we cause an uprising by the population of Pakistan?”
Mr. Kilcullen's quote raises the strong inference that because the Obama administration has increased the George W. Bush administration's level of drone attacks into Pakistan and Gen. Petraeus' top counterinsurgency adviser publicly opposes the attacks, there must be a major policy fight going on within the administration.
Military strategy disputes are understandable. We have no good choices. Because of the overstretched condition of our military, we have too few troops available to deal with Pakistan, which itself has an active and reserve military manpower of 1.4 million.
Yet Pakistan's military seems insufficient to deal with the radical Islamists. After the Taliban took over the Swat Valley in the middle of Pakistan, seized an emerald mine to help finance their war with America and Pakistan, and established Shariah law, the Pakistani government was so weak it accepted a cease-fire with Maulana Fazlullah, a local thug and terrorist.
With our own Army too small, our NATO allies unwilling to help and Gen. Petraeus' senior counterinsurgency adviser worried that the Taliban and al Qaeda may be able to take over nuclear Pakistan, we are left with a policy of temporizing and crossing our fingers.
Tony Blankley is the author of “American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century” and vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington.
An Unconscionable Act
The news reports of the Supreme Court appointed SIT’s charges against a leading activist, Teesta Setalvad are truly disturbing. She is charged with adding morbidity to the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat by “cooking up macabre tales of killings”. One has to see the full SIT report to come to terms with how grievous the charges are. On the face of it the SIT is credible. But by all news accounts Teesta Setalvad has done the cause of justice irreparable harm. And her actions, as described, will undermine the capability of civil society to have any imprimatur of impartiality in investigating riot cases.
If true, she has not only done deep disservice to the victims of the Gujarat riots; she has also undermined the credibility of so-called secular interlocutors. It confirms the suspicion many have, that often those speaking in the name of secularism do not subscribe to the very values they claim to be fighting for: truth, justice, impartiality and the rule of law. Their secularism is in the service of beating down opponents rather than discovering the truth. “Tutoring witnesses”, concocting horror stories in a politically charged situation is a serious crime; of a piece with what the supposedly “bad” guys do. After all, their politics depends upon falsely whipped-up paranoia, tampering with the system of justice, engaging in a pornography of violence and having scant regard for the truth. The fact that this is done in the name of victims, for a supposedly just cause, does not excuse it. It makes it worse.
This story should have been a big front page story. It deserves much more coverage and discussion. Of course, this is not the first time Teesta Setalvad’s role has come under the scanner. Her role in the Zahira Sheikh case was a matter of some concern, and there has been a widespread perception in legal struggles that her advocacy sometimes makes the cause of justice more, not less difficult. One cannot speculate about the circumstances under which she engaged in this self undermining rhetorical overkill. On the face of it, it was all so needless. The events in Gujarat were horrific enough -- there was no need to spoil the case with appalling falsehoods.
The good news is that in the case of Gujarat, at least some wheels of justice are turning. But the SIT’s findings against Teesta Setalvad are a salutary reminder, that the rule of law and the cause of truth should not be allowed to be subordinated to any ideology: communal or secular.
If true, she has not only done deep disservice to the victims of the Gujarat riots; she has also undermined the credibility of so-called secular interlocutors. It confirms the suspicion many have, that often those speaking in the name of secularism do not subscribe to the very values they claim to be fighting for: truth, justice, impartiality and the rule of law. Their secularism is in the service of beating down opponents rather than discovering the truth. “Tutoring witnesses”, concocting horror stories in a politically charged situation is a serious crime; of a piece with what the supposedly “bad” guys do. After all, their politics depends upon falsely whipped-up paranoia, tampering with the system of justice, engaging in a pornography of violence and having scant regard for the truth. The fact that this is done in the name of victims, for a supposedly just cause, does not excuse it. It makes it worse.
This story should have been a big front page story. It deserves much more coverage and discussion. Of course, this is not the first time Teesta Setalvad’s role has come under the scanner. Her role in the Zahira Sheikh case was a matter of some concern, and there has been a widespread perception in legal struggles that her advocacy sometimes makes the cause of justice more, not less difficult. One cannot speculate about the circumstances under which she engaged in this self undermining rhetorical overkill. On the face of it, it was all so needless. The events in Gujarat were horrific enough -- there was no need to spoil the case with appalling falsehoods.
The good news is that in the case of Gujarat, at least some wheels of justice are turning. But the SIT’s findings against Teesta Setalvad are a salutary reminder, that the rule of law and the cause of truth should not be allowed to be subordinated to any ideology: communal or secular.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Is punishment necessay for discipline?
WITH recent instances of corporal punishment stirring up a hornet’s nest, the issue has hit a raw nerve. While it is true that corporal punishment cannot be used as a means to enforce discipline in a civilised society, there are questions that, perhaps, need to be addressed.
How do you handle a classroom when you have 70 students to take care of ? Even one rowdy or disobedient student can cause enough disruption to ruin a class. In such cases what are the ‘classroom guidelines’ that a teacher should go by?
Most educators feel that punishment and discipline doesn’t go hand-in-hand. Instead, it can be achieved by re-enforcing positive qualities in children.
To start with, Lilly Vishwanathan, advocacy manager, project on corporal punishment, Plan India, feels that there is a need to foster a primarily pro-active attitude, empathy from teachers, encouragement techniques and so on — both at the adult level and in adult-student relations.
However, most teachers admit that initially they warn students, but when things get out of hand, they are forced to take ‘action.’
Monika Chopra, a PGT in chemistry from N C Jindal School, Punjabi Bagh, says, “We have a system where we write a note for parents in students’ diaries. Once the student gets three remarks in his/her diary, the parents are called. They, along with the teacher, talk to the child and arrive at a solution.”
Sharing an instance of good practices, Chopra cites an example of a class IX student, “This child was indisciplined and never followed instructions in class. We could figure out that he had a strong desire for stage and public speaking. So, we made him the class mo nitor as well as the house prefect. This worked and we saw a marked improvement in his behaviour and academic performance.”
On the other hand, Deepak Dahiya, a teacher with the Delhi Government School, Roop Nagar, says punishment may be necessary. He says, “I do believe in punishing students to ensure discipline, but one should know where to draw the line. Since our students are first generation learners, we have to teach them everything — behavioural issues, discipline and learning.” He adds, “But once I have punished them, I use various therapies to help the child understand why I punished him, so that he doesn’t repeat it again.”
TIPS FOR BUILDING POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN
Teachers can use a variety of strategies to build positive relations hips with children and prevent violence within the school environment. To do so, they can:
• Listen to children and encourage them to listen to others
• Teach with enthusiasm. Students engaged in work that is challenging, informative, and rewarding are less likely to get into trouble
• Set norms for behaviour in the classroom and refuse to permit violence. Learn and teach conflict resolution and anger management skills
• Invite parents to talk about and share their children’s progress and any concerns they have
• Encourage and sponsor student-led anti-violence activities and programmes ranging from peer education, Bal Panchayats, and mediation to mentoring and training
• Work with school authorities, parents and children to develop and implement a `Safe School Plan,’ including how teachers and other school staff should respond in emergencies
• Enforce school policies that seek to reduce the risk of violence.Take responsibility for areas outside, as well as inside, your classroom
• Encourage students to report crimes or activities that make them suspicious
How do you handle a classroom when you have 70 students to take care of ? Even one rowdy or disobedient student can cause enough disruption to ruin a class. In such cases what are the ‘classroom guidelines’ that a teacher should go by?
Most educators feel that punishment and discipline doesn’t go hand-in-hand. Instead, it can be achieved by re-enforcing positive qualities in children.
To start with, Lilly Vishwanathan, advocacy manager, project on corporal punishment, Plan India, feels that there is a need to foster a primarily pro-active attitude, empathy from teachers, encouragement techniques and so on — both at the adult level and in adult-student relations.
However, most teachers admit that initially they warn students, but when things get out of hand, they are forced to take ‘action.’
Monika Chopra, a PGT in chemistry from N C Jindal School, Punjabi Bagh, says, “We have a system where we write a note for parents in students’ diaries. Once the student gets three remarks in his/her diary, the parents are called. They, along with the teacher, talk to the child and arrive at a solution.”
Sharing an instance of good practices, Chopra cites an example of a class IX student, “This child was indisciplined and never followed instructions in class. We could figure out that he had a strong desire for stage and public speaking. So, we made him the class mo nitor as well as the house prefect. This worked and we saw a marked improvement in his behaviour and academic performance.”
On the other hand, Deepak Dahiya, a teacher with the Delhi Government School, Roop Nagar, says punishment may be necessary. He says, “I do believe in punishing students to ensure discipline, but one should know where to draw the line. Since our students are first generation learners, we have to teach them everything — behavioural issues, discipline and learning.” He adds, “But once I have punished them, I use various therapies to help the child understand why I punished him, so that he doesn’t repeat it again.”
TIPS FOR BUILDING POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN
Teachers can use a variety of strategies to build positive relations hips with children and prevent violence within the school environment. To do so, they can:
• Listen to children and encourage them to listen to others
• Teach with enthusiasm. Students engaged in work that is challenging, informative, and rewarding are less likely to get into trouble
• Set norms for behaviour in the classroom and refuse to permit violence. Learn and teach conflict resolution and anger management skills
• Invite parents to talk about and share their children’s progress and any concerns they have
• Encourage and sponsor student-led anti-violence activities and programmes ranging from peer education, Bal Panchayats, and mediation to mentoring and training
• Work with school authorities, parents and children to develop and implement a `Safe School Plan,’ including how teachers and other school staff should respond in emergencies
• Enforce school policies that seek to reduce the risk of violence.Take responsibility for areas outside, as well as inside, your classroom
• Encourage students to report crimes or activities that make them suspicious
Monday, April 6, 2009
Talibanization of INDIA ?
Muslim organisations are up in arms over an alleged comment on Monday by a Supreme Court judge, who reportedly cited "Talibanisation" while turning down a Muslim student's plea to sport a beard in school. Now, the debate over the Muslim beard -- commonly considered an Islamic virtue rather than an immutable tenet - has come full circle.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a Muslim mass organisation, filed a broader case last month in the highest court, angling for a far-reaching ruling to allow Muslims to keep beards unconditionally, like Sikhs. The Jamiat case is likely to be one of the most fascinating courtroom duels over an Islamic emblem outside the Muslim world.
Here's why. It is not often that an Indian civil case rests largely on the validity of anecdotes from the Islamic world.
Evidence in support of the beard ranges from 1,000-year-old Islamic injunctions from the Hadith (Prophetic traditions) to the Hukum ul Islam, a famous treatise in Arabic. The English translation was specially procured from London's Dar At-Tawheed Publications.
"Our contention is that it is essential for Muslims to keep a beard in the light of the texts and traditions," Anis Suhrawardy, the lawyer representing Jamiat leader Arshad Madani said. Just in case the court rules in favour of the Jamiat, India could become the first non-Muslim country to uphold the Muslim's unfettered right to sport a beard.
Few Muslims think that keeping a beard could amount to supporting the Taliban's extremist character. "I don't dispute a particular judgement but if keeping a beard is akin to being a Taliban, I am proud to be one," Jamiat leader Mahmood Madani told HT. Two previous cases over a right to keep a beard, both involving employees in the armed forces, prompted the special leave petition filed by the Jamiat.
In defence organisations, a person is allowed a beard if it was sported on joining service. Most Muslims agree that the beard has great religious significance but it is commonly treated as non-essential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)