Do The Self-help Books Really Help?

I remember reading a book titled 'Power of Thinking Big' by Anthony Robins (or someone with a similar name). It explained in a very lucid manner that anybody could really become anybody only if he dared to think big. There were stories, similies and examples - a lot of them. I was impressed by the book to the point of euphoria. I was feeling that I am the next Lincoln (or Nepolian!). But in 2 days life was as usual for me. I then came across a number of such books; I read them with a lot of hope, and each time I was at my optimistic high regarding my future. I would think that 'Yeah! Look at this. This was the thing I needed to change my future.'

But in vain.



Now the question is - 'Does this genre of 'Self-Help books really matter? Do these books really help us in anyway to improve ourselves and our lives?'

What do you think?

Disaster Of Tire-Reef & Lessons to Learn

Solutions in case of social & environmental problems are often too simplistic - no matter, how deliberately they are planned. When policy-makers start with a wrong solution, they do the deliberations for a wrong solution. And the 'deliberately planned wrong' solution fails obviously.

Case in oint is a Tire-reef which was 'planned' near an American beach, and which now is turning out to be an environmental disaster. None of intended benefits accrued & a lot of unintended, unanticipated damages are piling up.

Read this story in USA Today.

"A mile offshore from this city's high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.
The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder."

The lesson for all decision makers, from this blunder, is - If you have found a right solution, still strive for one more, and one more. Now chose the best. (For, life is too complex to anticipate everything.)

My Readings & Rural Attraction

May be owing to my childhood years, when atleast a quarter of an year would be spent in a village, I have a very strong attraction towards rural India. Rather the folklore, customs and traditions, conflicts which are a trademark of rural life. A very vivid, rich & colorful life is out there in rural India.

This fascination of rural India is also reflected into my reading habits. My favorite writers in Indian literature are not who write about metropolitan life or hassles of a city dweller. I rather like Sri. Naa. Pendse and Go. Ni. Dandekar (Marathi), Mahashweta Devi (Bengali), S.L. Bhyrappa and K. Shivram Karanth (Kannada) and notably Premchand (Hindi). All these writers have very beautifully portrayed rural Indian life, especially a rural India in transition in first half of century, when the city-ward migration has just begun. Their works depict the rural fabric getting disturbed due to the arrival of all that we see as established today - the so called 'modern' things (Indian standards of modernism). One more thing I which i have observed about my reading habits is that I really like the literature about the Western Ghats region of India - Konkan & Coastal Karnataka especially. The Marathi I mentioned have written numerous books about the life in this region. Sometimes I have this irrestible feeling that This is the region where I belong...

Saddam Hussein Hanged - Why India is Sad?

Just read the news about execution of Iraq's ex-Everything -Saddam Hussein. He is reported to be hanged in the wee hours today.

My curiosity for this 'end of era' affair is due to something else however. Being from India, I am alwasys amazed why we Indians are sympathetic towards Iraq or Saddam, or towards Venezuela, or Cuba, or Russia? The tone of Indian newspapers was alright not exactly symapthetic towards Saddam. But they were not very jubiliant about the hanging either. There tone was - 'Saddam was a bad dictetor, but...' Now what I am hearing is an emphasis on Bush was 'Sleeping' (a toned down version of 'Snoring') while Saddam was being hanged.

I wonder if this sympathy is because these nations are taking on mighty (& 'Sucking') USA? Indian image on International stage has been always of a powerful nation who backed those whom nobody backed (particularly against West). One more reason can be in Indian history. India has always been known as the Jewel Of East. India was envy of all world till British came and sucked out all the Indian ethos. This history is not a distant past. The world powers from ancient times that I can recount are - Roman, Egyptian, Greek, British and American. This is besides India. India was a world power, right from anciant times throughout the history, upto may be Europian reneissance. And today even if everybody says that India is again on course of reclaiming top spot, at present moment she is not the One. Does this makes India a jealous country? Jealous of those who are on top now? The top which for long belonged to India?

Is Love A Weakness?

Today I read about a book by Styron (?) called Sophie’s Choice. There is a movie starring Meryl Streep, which is based on this novel. The protagonist of this novel has to make most difficult choice in her life. In a Nazi concentration camp, she has to decide which one of her two children is going to survive. It is really the most difficult choice any human being can make, when it comes to life and death of his near and dear ones. I wonder what she would have done if the choice was to decide which one of the three (Sophie & her 2 children) would survive? Further, should she be blamed, had her choice been that she would survive? I think she would not have been able to handle the guilt complex that would have been followed.

I recently saw the movie – ‘Batman Begins’, in which, a character says – ‘…you are week because there are so many things which are dear to you.’ That is true beyond doubt. Human power of making choices crumbles when it comes to the things which are close to his heart.

Vande Mataram! But who are you, to make me sing it?

I once said to my friend that playing National anthem in cinema halls before each show is useless. My friend actually could not understand what I said. This is for him.

Farce Of Anthem in Cinema Halls: People deliberately come late to avoid standing silent during the play of national anthem, making a ridicule of the whole affair. Again, why the heck should I stand while the national anthem is played? Do I need to prove my love for my country by (just) standing up? Common folks! A human loves anything that is his! And by the way, is this supposed to be some kind of test for testing one's patriotism? Then I may say this is a damn foolish test. (I hate this word patriotism which has been hijacked by some perverted Political minds, who actually don't contribute a dime towards the country.)

Here is an editorial in Times Of India on 23 August, 2006. I do not agree to each point in this article, but it echoes my feelings to some extent. Here we go-

"The HRD ministry was wrong, in the first place, to issue a directive that all students must sing Vande Mataram on September 7 to commemorate 100 years of India's national song. Wearing one's patriotism on one's sleeve, and introducing compulsory rituals in its name, serves little purpose. When Arjun Singh later retracted to say that singing Vande Mataram on September 7 was voluntary, not compulsory, it wasn't out of a newly discovered respect for liberal principles, but because of a counter-blast coming from Imam Syed Bukhari. According to Bukhari, Indian Muslims ought to love the nation enough to lay down their lives for it, but it doesn't follow that they should worship the nation, as Vande Mataram enjoins them to do. Bukhari may reprise another oft-played tune — that of Muslim victimization — and his claim to speak on behalf of all Indian Muslims may be questioned.

But shorn of that there is something in his objection to Vande Mataram that Muslims as well as non-Muslims can sympathize with. ( I disagree with this. There is nothing objectionable in Vande Mataram. I, however, object to making it compulsory.)

Worshipping the nation is going to solve few contemporary problems — in fact a narrow view of national interests compounds many of today's crises. Twentieth century nationalism could be out of sync with the requirements of a globalized 21st century. Take greenhouse gases and other forms of environmental pollution, which, by their very nature, transcend national boundaries. Fixing them will require international agreements, but the US bucked the Kyoto Protocol regulating greenhouse gases. The result may be runaway climate change that will affect all countries, the US included. Washington displays similar unilateral inclinations in the war against terror, leading to better coordination between terrorists than the democracies they attack. The WTO cannot take trade liberalization forward due to domestic farmers' lobbies in rich countries. BPOs face similar obstacles. Asia is supposed to be resurgent, but different nationalisms are coming into conflict over Japanese premier Junichiro Koizumi's frequent visits to the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo, commemorating Japan's war dead, never mind that they include some war criminals. While Tokyo takes a hard line on North Korea, Beijing says that any declaration of independence by Taiwan's parliament will trigger an invasion of that country. If conflict breaks out on any of these fronts Asia's resurgence would be over — although the hopeful thing is that the economies of China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are so interdependent as to preclude conflict.

Such interdependence looks threatening to many in India, who evoke an unreflective and overly emotional nationalism as a charm to ward it off.

If we are moved by them India will fail to capitalize on the manifold opportunities that globalization offers, while its destabilizing effects will still be with us.

International Relations Community

(On discussion about religions and inter-religious conflicts etc. See the discussion at http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=18389&tid=2478630576498548954&na=2&nst=42)

Hinduism is more a way of life. Religon in English is not the same as Dharma in Sanskrit. And Hinduism is not a Religion in true English sense of term, but it is a Dharma. Hinduism is therefore most tolerent and accomodating of all religions. Or in better words, Hindu people are more tolerent and accomodating. From ancient past, Shakas, Kushanas, Greeks(who stayed back after Alexander returned),Muslims, Turks, Mongols, Parshis, Jews(never persecuted in India) came to India and were wholeheartedly accepted. They in turn enriched Indian culture making it a Composite Culture. You may term it a Melting Pot or Salad Bowl but India is one glaring example of how humanity, love and peace can be lived on ground and that too for so many years.

More interesting however, is to examine the links between Geography-Resources and the inter-religious interactions. We see that India, with her abundant resources and very favourable climate has long been a magnet for people from all over the world. And the resources- water, sunlight, rich soils and climate meant that more and more people could be accomodated without any need for conflict. with the development of transportation and communication, this attraction about India is naturally lowered, because resources can be transferred for the people. Now again world is fihting for Oil, which is again scarce. Besides there is the gap between standards of living and level of development also.

Thus I think that today's fights are not between Christiens and Mislims or Jews and Muslims. These are conflicts for resources. Such conflicts are often magnified by the egoes and insecurities of the people who take decisions for their followers.