Yogi Adiyanath – The next Modi??

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

I recently wrote an article on living with Narendra Modi’s past and the approach for the future. Can’t forget or forgive so, have to live with it. One of the points was to oppose him on the policy front. I didn’t have to wait long as he appointed  Yogi Adityanath as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Here is my take on the situation.

Yogi Adityanath is not just a Hindu lover but a fundamentalist who wants the country to have one religion which is Hinduism. I have personally seen his mansion inside the Goraknath Temple in Gorakhpur in UP. It looks like a secret service building with strong men with firearms in Saffron standing outside. You need to wonder why a Yogi needs so much security.

I want to break this blog down to two parts. Part 1 is on the facts about Yogi Adiyantha and part 2 is why I think he was selected.

Facts

  1. Born Ajay Singh Bisht, he is a product of the Ayodhya Temple / Babri Masjit demolition movement which happened in early 1990s.
  2. Mahant Avaidyanath, who was the head of the Gorakhnath Temple, rechristened him to Yogi Adiyanath and made him the successor.
  3. Adiyanath was first elected to parliament in 1998 and has been a member of the parliament from Gorakhpur since then.
  4. He has got a series of criminal cases against him including the below
    1. Rioting – He was charged for the Gorakhpur riots in 2007 (smell Gujarat 2002!!!!)
    2. Attempt to murder
    3. Armed with deadly weapons
    4. Criminal intimidation
    5. Tresspassing of burial places
    6.  Promoting enmity based on religion, race, place of birth, residence etc
  5. He supported Donald Trump’s muslim ban and wanted India to do the same
  6. He wanted people who don’t do yoga to leave hindustan or drown in the sea
  7. He shared stage with a person who requested hindus to dig up graves of muslim women to rape their corpses
  8. He formed a group called Hindu Yuva Vahini, which is a nationalist hindu organisation with extremist views.
  9. He led a ‘purification’ drive for conversion of Christians to Hinduism

Breakdown

I read an article in Rediff.com on whether selecting Yogi Adiyanath is similar to Advani selecting Modi. Advani hoped Modi will stay under him and it back fired. As much as there are similarities, my opinion is different.

Narendra Modi is a smart operator. Much like Vajpayee, he has two parts to his personality. The first one is administerial which claims of being inclusive and focuses on development. The other one which is religious. He gets the right religious people to ensure traditional divide and rule policy continues to work. People like Yogi Adiyanath fits into the latter.

Modi has a strong bond with people who don’t have a family. If you look at the Haryana, Assam and Uttrakhand all have chief ministers who haven’t married. It is lot easier for you to maintain your extremist positions and bridge the divide between  your personal and public lives if you are single. Modi definitely sees that in Adiyanath.

Adiyanath has a strong follower base in UP. He has won consistently since 1998. If BJP harbours thoughts of getting re-elected in 2019, then the state of Uttar Pradesh is extremely crucial. Modi needs a strong person over there who will by hook or crook get him seats.

If you put Modi and Adiyanath’s CV side by side, you will definitely find starking similarities. Both are hardcore hindutva supporters, firebrand orator, ability to incite violence, strong ability to create unrest and stay in power and above all association with the Sangh parivar. In effect, Modi could be grooming a successor for him at the national level in 10 years time.

So, unlike many people I want to give credit to Modi on this move. I don’t think it was done out of compulsion but it is a calculated move with elections in mind. This is also a move that should concern progressive. Yogi Adiyanath could become a serious contender at the national level unless there is a ground up movement to identify alternatives.

References

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/yogi-adityanath-up-assembly-polls-communal-bjp/story/1/16253.html

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/yogi-adityanath-uttar-pradesh-chief-minister-gorakhpur-bjp/1/907812.html

http://www.elections.in/political-leaders/adityanath-yogi.html

http://thepoliticalfunda.com/Politics/Detail/List_of_serious_criminal_charges_against_new_UP_CM_Adityanath21571

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/top-five-controversial-comments-by-yogi-adityanath/articleshow/57707151.cms

http://www.inuth.com/india/politics/heres-the-few-crime-records-of-ups-next-cm-yogi-adityanath/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Adityanath

 

It is critical to fight religious faith

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

I always get asked why I am so vocal against religion and just leave it as is. At the outset not raising one’s voice seems to be the most logical and neutral point. However, if I dig deep, I get a totally different point. What they want me to do, is not to raise concerns on the atrocities happening. For example, women are second class citizens in most religions. Should I not vehemently oppose that? What if women have become tuned to it? Still, it doesn’t mean the covenant is right. This so-called neutral viewpoint is a very malicious way that people are using to essentially silence any opposition to their atrocities. Here are my thoughts on why it is paramount for us to oppose and obliterate organised faiths.

Discrimination as a right

People of faith feel violated anytime they are called out on discriminating others. They claim to actually be discriminated when asked to treat people equally. They feel it is against their religious freedom. The irony is, all fighting religions unite when it comes to promoting discrimination.
Let me give you examples of the same. Every religious organisation says it is discrimination if they are asked to treat people of LGBTQ community equally. I want to cast everyone’s mind to the infamous baker in the US who wanted to not sell his cakes to gay weddings. In India, the upper caste people dislike to called out on their discrimination. Most of them still believe God has given them the power to do certain activities and the rest have to merely obey. Anytime the topic of niqab or burqa comes up as a way to discriminate women, it is seen as an intrusion into the private affairs of a religion. The list can go on, but left to themselves there is no semblance of hope that people of faith will treat everyone fairly. In fact, they see it as a divine right to discriminate.

Request for special rights

Religion always wants special rights, kind of right which you don’t give any other concept. If anyone says he or she is a person of faith, there is an implicit expectation is to get respect. Further, there is a difference between tolerance and privilege. We seculars want tolerance, we do not want privilege for the religious. We do not want faith to hold rights like building temple anywhere, right to inflict it on others. You never see an atheist standing in the middle of the street holding a microphone and abusing faith. For one, most of them are inherently rational and have enough shame to not do such things. Second, it is annoying and intrusive to everyone else. However, when a religious person does that people listen. Above all, there is an expectation to not question it.

Extraordinary Claims without any evidence

Every religion makes extraordinary claims but none provides any evidence. The closest someone has come is a question, “Do you think all this just popped into existence?”. Even if let’s say we grant 80% of most religious books are true(which they aren’t), that still doesn’t prove the remaining 20% as true as well. Every scientist has proven someone else wrong but hasn’t disrespected them for that. Listen to scientific research presentations, you will see researchers caveating their work and talk only about one subject with confidence. Religion claims to answer everything while answering nothing. From creation to evolution, from civil code to military rules, religion claims to have an answer tp everything. The bigger problem is there are hundreds of religions and no two is mutually compatible. Claims of faith and truth are non-overlapping magisteria.

Creating a false equivalence with science

Religions have started putting them in the same bracket as science. I am sure many readers have seen pamphlets of “Judeo-Christian Science”, “Vedic Science”, “Islamic Science”, “Scientology” etc. There are two malicious approaches in creating this equivalence.

1. Religion is an alternate theory which holds equal weight.
2. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive but religion encompasses science.

Let me take evolution and explain the ones above. The first group consists of people who claim their Creationism is a theory which has the same authenticity as evolution. The second group of people are ones who say God helped created the laws due to which evolution happened. I personally find the first one repulsive and the second one dangerous.

Preventing knowledge development

Religion adheres to practices which prevent development. For example, they have been against immunisation, contraception, stem cell research, space research to name a few. They are against people gaining more knowledge and improving their critical thinking. These two are the pillars of development which will negate the theories presented by religions.

Adherence to Bronze age civil codes

The people who do the Triple Talaq, the genital mutilation of both boys and girls, the excommunication of LGBTQ community, the extortion by grooms under the name of dowry are not psychopaths but normal individuals. These are people who feel they are on the moral side when they do this. I would like to quote Steven Weinberg, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”. Some of these practices are inexplicable but for the divine will.

In conclusion, religion doesn’t stay peacefully indoors. It has corrupted the society and like a virus wants a free pathway to continue doing the same. The most neutral stand is to contain its impact and ensure it doesn’t inflict any more damage on the lives of millions of innocent people.By fighting religion, I am in effect doing exactly that.

Organised Faith doesn’t have legs to stand on its own. The core principle of logic is one cannot assume the existence of ‘A’ to prove the work of ‘A’. The only way the existence of God can be proved is by assuming the existence of God. This is a fallacy, which has to be eradicated. There is no reason to believe God exists or any good can come from these beliefs. People have claimed a modicum of success by showcasing the charitable work done by religion or by raising questions which science hasn’t answered yet. When a secular person does any charitable work, he has no expectation of eternal support so does it purely out of good will. However, when a religious person does a similar deed, one cannot say the same. Religion suppresses the critical faculties of its followers, so they end up doing what it asks, irrespective of whether it is good or bad. Anyone who claims any religion as peaceful is lying. There are people who are peaceful in spite of being religious or following a religion. No religion is inherently peaceful or non-damaging.

 

 

My fascination to “The Village Schoolmaster”

~ Venki ~ 1 Comment

Art has something that transcends logic as I know it. As I grew up, few poetries have stuck with me without me realising it. I wasn’t a good student and found my literature teachers intolerable. However, I did manage to read a bit of poetry in English and Tamil, two languages which I understand.

As I reflect on my fascinations, interests, admirations, I am intrigued by how these relate to Oliver Goldsmith’s village schoolmaster. Here is the poem for people who don’t know or want to enjoy the lyrical beauty. I will then write about lines which meant a lot to me.

”
Beside yon straggling fence that skirts the way
With blossom’d furze unprofitably gay,
There, in his noisy mansion, skill’d to rule,
The village master taught his little school;
A man severe he was, and stern to view,
I knew him well, and every truant knew;
Well had the boding tremblers learn’d to trace
The days disasters in his morning face;
Full well they laugh’d with counterfeited glee,
At all his jokes, for many a joke had he:
Full well the busy whisper, circling round,
Convey’d the dismal tidings when he frown’d:
Yet he was kind; or if severe in aught,
The love he bore to learning was in fault.
The village all declar’d how much he knew;
‘Twas certain he could write, and cipher too:
Lands he could measure, terms and tides presage,
And e’en the story ran that he could gauge.
In arguing too, the parson own’d his skill,
For e’en though vanquish’d he could argue still;
While words of learned length and thund’ring sound
Amazed the gazing rustics rang’d around;
And still they gaz’d and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
But past is all his fame. The very spot
Where many a time he triumph’d is forgot.
“

 

Admiration for comedy

Comedy is a natural healer, an involuntary reaction and something which pushes boundaries. Comedy requires some special skills where you have to think deeply about an incident, exaggerate it to the right proportion and deliver it well to the audience. It is hard to be a dumb comedian especially if you writing your own scripts.

Love for learning

Life is a losing struggle from the time we were born. This is true for species to the stars. If I am going to lose everything that I get, I would rather gain happiness through knowledge than economic wealth. The truth is always deeper and more fascinating than what is apparent to our senses.

Arguing for life

Every new discovery requires our DNAs to reprogram. It isn’t easy. The best way to learn is by winning the war of ideas. The war of ideas is won by winning smaller battles like debates. Debates are inherently interesting and challenging.

Fascinated by people with knowledge

I can’t emphasise more on my fascination towards people with knowledge of multiple subjects. The people I admire, my father, Christopher Hitchens, Karl Marx, Professor Steven Hawking, Noam Chomsky and list goes on, were all people with knowledge on diverse subjects, with the ability to connect them and articulate a well thought out point.

In conclusion, art transcends generations and pushes boundaries. As I see growing intolerance towards art, communities taking offence and curtailing their free spirit, I wonder if we will slowly limit the pervasiveness of this wonderful subject. That is exactly why it is important to fight for liberty and freedom.

 

Amazing proof of bad design – evolution

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

The study of evolution was a quantum leap in our species understanding our origin. It has paved way for us to go back in time and look at the past. Growing up, I always associated evolution with Charles Darwin and natural selection. As I started digging deep, I realised to realise that neither was Charles Darwin the first person to talk about evolution nor was natural selection the only methodology. I would definitely like to read and write more on that.

The theory of evolution is inherently counter-intuitive to our species. Ironically as we have evolved, we have increasingly believed in creation than evolution. It feels more natural to us. This video is one of the very few where we see a practical demonstration of the legacy available in public domain. Borrowing the phrase from John Milton, I imagine myself traversing through time at a bidding speed from being a fish to a reptile to a mammal. The legacies left behind in my body through the DNA just fills my heart with pleasure.

 

Commentators killing the game of Cricket

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

As a kid, I loved waking up at 4:00 in the morning to watch cricket matches happening in Australia. More than the match itself, it was the voice of Richie Benaud that captivated me to wake up so early. Then there were Bill Lawry, Tony Greig, Geoff Boycott and Michael Holding and India’s Harsha Bhogle. However, if you look at the current crop ignoring the people left from the above list, it is abysmal. It is badly partisan, devoid of any analysis and insights that I feel like watching the matches on mute. I want to explain this using the latest India versus Australia series which is currently in progress.

Cricket is a spectator sport and spectators love to see passion. What the spectators also love to see is sportsmen get along well outside the field. The comradarie between Vivian Richards and Ian Botham, Sachin Tendulkar and Steve Waugh, Virat Kohli and Dale Steyn are few that come to my mind immediately. These are people who play with passion and leave everything on the field. The incident between Steven Smith and Virat Kohli is one such as well. It makes the game more exciting, passionate and driven. There is a clear line where members get physical or there is a case of cheating. No such incident actually happened.

As I say that about players no one wants to see commentators fighting over incidents like this. It is like going to a boxing match and end up watching the support staff fight. It is not interesting and doesn’t add any value to anyone. This is exactly what happened when Sunil Gavaskar and Ian Healy started talking. Both of them took sides of their respective home countries. The worse part of the defense was when they claimed their side to be totally innocent and the opponent totally corrupt. Firstly, both of them are well respected cricketers to behave in such childish fashion. Secondly, assuming they are paid to do this so that they can increase their ratings, it doesn’t work. It only drives people away.

I want to see non-partisan insights about the game. I know such commentators are few and far but the media outlets should at least try. Unless the intention is to kill the sport, they are not doing it right. Not all ex-cricketers are great commentators. Commentators should be non-partisan, have good understanding of the game and above all decent communication skill. Till this situation changes, I am going to watch the matches on mute.

Can’t forget or forgive so, have to live with it

~ Venki ~ 1 Comment

One of my friends spoke about how his Grandmother can never look beyond what happened during the partition of India and Pakistan. It takes a very long time even generations and huge effort to go beyond those horrors. Like the Solitary Reaper, the memories lingered long after the incident.

“……
Some natural sorrow, loss, or pain, 
That has been, and may be again?
…..
I listened, motionless and still; 
And, as I mounted up the hill, 
The music in my heart I bore, 
Long after it was heard no more.”

I find this consistently true and cry for social empathy. There are quite a few examples of the same I see globally, from Immigration Crisis, Civil Wars to war-shattered economies. I want to particularly concentrate on the current Modi fervour in India and the Gujarat riot of 2002.

I am strictly looking at this from the eyes of the victims and the impacted. I do not want to consider the viewpoints of people who have scavenged on the misery of the victims to make a name for themselves. I recently read posts where people from rest of India, especially the young folks want people to get over this issue. I also see people using that to dismiss everything that Narendra Modi has done post that. There is less merit in both these cases. Let me take the first point.

Can’t get over the issue

The victims are still living the life that they didn’t imagine. This was a politically motivated riot exploiting the religious divide in people. Most of the victims irrespective of their religion were actually not in favour of violence. I can say this because they were innocent kids. Most of them were regular fathers, mothers, uncles and aunts we meet every day. They were brutally killed in this political struggle. Modi who was then the Chief Minister of the state didn’t do much to prevent it. Even if his claim of innocence is true as far as instigating and perpetuating this, it is definitely not true as far as being inept at handling such a situation. It is not a line item expected in the CV of an able administrator as he is portrayed. For rest of India, this was a news flash. I can say this with confidence as that is how Tamil Nadu looked at it. We were more bothered about the failure of Rajini movie Baba than the Gujarat riots. It is not for anyone to ask the victims or his detractors to forget or forgive Modi.

Dismiss everything that Modi does

The systemic flaws in the India government mean it depends on an able administrator to lead the country. At present, there is no one visible who is able to provide stability and leadership other than Narendra Modi. There are policies where I agree with him and there are policies where I don’t, but that is at a policy level and not at an individual level. There are policies which actually benefit the people and bring economic growth to the bottom 20%. The pundits and journalists will dismiss that at their own peril. As rational human beings, we need to fight policies and the situation now. India needs to create more leaders so that we can replace Modi with someone better. No other party is doing that and that is exactly why the Modi’s party is winning some big states. The families of the victims get this point and they have just learnt to live with that burden. The burden of seeing the person who wrecked the lives flourish.

Overall, it will be insane to expect the impacted to ignore or forget what happened in Gujarat. It is worse to ask victims and their sympathisers to forgive. Rest have to share their feelings and acknowledge the situation. At the same time, it is of no use trying to dismiss the current actions using past results. It will not help the victims, it will only give a short term boost to your image.

The secret conservative policy, is there one?

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

The first few weeks of the new administration in the US has seen a lot of uproar in the media. The key media personnel and the citizens are reacting like some of these were unexpected. Given there is a Republican senate, representatives and white house. Here are a few examples of note.

  • Obama Care – Trump Care
  • 3 million illegal voters
  • De-regularising wall street
  • Revoking EPA
  • More regularisation for progressive ideas
  • Reduce spending on government departments
  • Wiretapping claims of Obama – Microwaves turning to cameras

These moves are nothing more than classic republican, libertarian or political conservative moves. This speech has varied at all in spite of having nil evidence of it working for the common people. Let’s just dig deep into this.

Regulate the poor and free the rich

The conservatives always talk about having small, non-interfering government. What exactly they mean here is, they want the government to not interfere in the business of the rich but instead regulate the poor. There is a reason why the taxation policies are heavily biased towards people who do not early daily or monthly wages. No conservative government removes regulations to liberate labour force. They will regulate more to protect the rich. I will write separately about the naturalisation of this movement, but for now, let me just summarise this order. The conservatives tap on to the selfish nature of people by extending microeconomic principles to the macroeconomic arena. Here are few examples.

  1. Trickle down economics – People are poor because they are lazy. If you extend support to the rich, they will instigate growth. Feels logical for most. doesn’t it?
  2. Sell hope where everyone can become rich like an extension of liberty. In reality, richness only exists when you have a segment of the society as poor.

Rich have to get richer

It is extremely despicable when we watch Paul Ryan talks about the need to provide more to the top 1% of the economy at the expense of the bottom 80%. However, Paul Ryan is not that different. If you think about the policies of the conservative governments globally, you will see the following pattern.

  1. Deregulate them to ensure they get richer at the expense of the society. Just look at regulations which republicans want to repeal
    1. EPA – Laws which protect the environment. You have to look at the world through the eyes of a stockbroker to not bother about the environment.
    2. Dodd  Frank – Regulation which ensures (at least partially) that we will not have another financial crisis. This will ensure that Wall Street can go back to its merry bad ways again.
    3. Offshore drilling ban in the Arctic – Regulation which will ensure we don’t endanger the A species and trigger an avalanche. Also, this will have a massive impact on the climate.
  2. Cut spending on key portfolios where private industries will be able to make more money. The portfolios which get funded are ones where government money cannot be syphoned out to private sectors e.g. Education, IRS, Space research. The ones which get funded are Military, infrastructure where huge contracts can be given to big corporations.
  3. Confuse the citizens between debt issue and revenue issue. A person who earns a monthly salary of $6000 pays more in tax than a person who makes the $60,000 amount in profit.  The government then talks about having a debt issue. Government debt is not bad, it is a hope that economy will grow. Most governments have an income problem where the rich don’t pay their fair share. Like Political Scientist Mark Blyth says, democracy is like asset insurance. Rich can’t default on their premium payments.
  4. Tax breaks for the rich – The biggest reason to repeal Obama care is not because it didn’t work for the poor, it is because it made the rich pay a bit more. There is never a thought of reducing taxes for the working population. No one has done that so far. Does anyone wonder why?

Voter base has to get smaller

As a society gets bigger and more informed, the chances of them falling for the bad story above gets lesser and lesser. Further, considering the policies are divisive, if you conduct an unbiased election, then the chances of victory for republicans also reduces. That is why historically all republican members speak about voter fraud and more scrutiny. The more the voter percentage the lesser the chance they will win. The story of 3 million illegal voters is not new, it is age-old technique to make it difficult for miniorities, poor to register to vote. It is not like Republicans want small state. They want to replace democracy with either Aristocracy or Technocracy.

Quash diversity as it creates opinions

The conservative base has always been anti-minority, anti-immigration, anti-LGBT, anti-woman and anti-change. The reason is inclusivity will bring in diversity and diversity will bring in alternate opinions and alternate opinions will bring challenges. Any such challenge will threat the world order I have created where the rich reign supreme. This is a way to recreate the feudal system.

Faith is awesome

There is a reason why conservatives love faith. Faith gives everything that any dictator ever wanted.

  1. A world order which cannot be questioned
  2. Enough reasons to enslave and discriminate minorities
  3. Prevent people from using their critical faculties

In conclusion, the conservatives parties don’t have a great hidden policy which will change. Their policies have always been pro-rich. The rest of the policies are means to make the rich richer.

 

Unpacking Forms of Government

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

One of my friends recently asked me a question. What is the difference between democracy and other forms? Why do you need an election? What is the choice I am making as a citizen? I promised to unpack the first question for him through this blog. It is my attempt at unpacking this and I am extremely sure I have made some blunders. So, I am happy for people to correct me.

Firstly, I want to avoid the confusion between forms of government and the names. If you look at the names of countries like the People’s republic of China, Republic of China, Republic of India, Republic of Korea, Commonwealth of Australia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, United States of America, it doesn’t essentially tell us anything on the nature of the government.

Secondly, I also want readers to not confuse forms of government with party names. For example, the Democratic Party, Republican Party, People’s democratic party, National Democratic Alliance etc do not represent forms of government. I will write a separate blog on the philosophies of these parties.

Thirdly, the form of any government is never singular. It is a collection of different ideologies and types. We will now start to dissect it to make sense. I have classified government under different paradigms.

1. Head of the State

Head of the state is someone who takes part in diplomatic relations and is officially the head of the executive. The head of the state in most instances serves as the protector of the constitution and the commander in chief. In most countries, especially republics and constitutional monarchies, they turn out to be mere figure heads. Head of the state should not be confused with the head of the government.

Monarch

This is the oldest political institution. The head of the state is the king or the queen of the dynasty rule. e.g. Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Australia, Norway, Canada

Direct Representative

This kind of institution is where the head of the state is directly elected by the people. In most instances, these people are also the head of the government. e.g.The  United States of America.

Indirect Representative

In this format, the head of the state is chosen by the representatives of the government. e.g. India, China, Singapore, North Korea

Commonwealth

This is a fairly unique situation where countries agree to have a common head of state, invariably belonging to one of the member nation. e.g. Australia, Canada etc

2. Source of Power

There will be an entity which wields power in any society. Another way to look at governments is the source of those power

Autocracy – Rule of one

An Autocracy is a form of government, where power is with just one person. It is quite a utopian state as even the most autocratic of governments have people sharing the power. The forms of Autocratic governments are

  1. Dictatorial – North Korea
  2. Absolute Monarchy – Saudi Arabia

Democracy – Rule of all

Democracy as the very name suggests means that the power belongs to the entire population. This doesn’t mean that the entire population essentially rules. It is invariably the opinion of the majority. According to Democracy, no individual has more power than the other. This should not be confused with the execution of the powers. For example, countries like the US, Australia, Canada, UK, India are all democratic as far as the source of the power is concerned.

Oligarchy – Rule of few

Oligarchy is a government where the power is retained by the few people. A few forms of government

  1. Bureaucracy – Power is with administrators and other officials
  2. Theocracy – Power is with heads of religion
  3. Technocracy – Power is with experts
  4. Aristocracy – Power is with a small bunch of privileged

3. Economics

The economic ideologies are arguably the most discussed and least understood side of any government.

Capitalism

This ideology is based on private ownership and maximising individual wealth and profit. The core of capitalism is an unregulated market for good and services, which will enable the best make maximum profit. It gets  further classified into

  1. Free Market Capitalism or Laissez-faire
  2. State Capitalism eg. China
  3. Welfare Capitalism – eg.Singapore

Communism

Communism is derived mainly from the ideologies of Karl Marx, where there is no individual ownership. All good and services are produced for the collective development and get shared as the state deems appropriate.

Socialism

Socialism is an economic system where individuals in a society live for the benefit of each other. There is still an element of private ownership and individual wealth, however, the core is not to maximise profit for the individuals. Unlike many, I don’t look at Socialism as a happy side of both Capitalism and Communism, but an independent economic system derived from principles of collective good.

4. Executive Power

The executive power defines who has the control over the government. This is required to make legal and policy decisions in a state. As with most of the other classifications, a state can fall into multiple category

Republic

A Republic form of government is one where the state is considered to be a public property run by a set of elected officials. The officials can either be elected by people as in the USA, Australia or India or by a single party like North Korea or China.

Monarchy

Most monarchs in the world don’t have executive power like the United Kingdom, Spain, Netherlands. There are very few absolute monarchs who hold executive power. They include Saudi Arabia and Brunei. Swaziland is a unique country whereby it has diarchy. As the name suggests, there are two heads of the state with absolute power.

Constitutional

These are states where the constitution holds precedence over anything else. The constitution also provides guidelines on the power distribution, civil rights, duties and also details how to make amendments to the constitution.

Anarchy

Anarchy is a form of government where there is practically no order. This is a very unstable state. It generally happens as a result of a regime change.

Direct Democracy

This kind of government is one where the executive power lies with the entire population. Every decision made is collective. Apart from few examples like plebiscites or referendums, there is no evidence of this form in the modern world.

5. Distribution of power

The last classification is on how power is distributed across the state.

Central

This form of government is one where there is one central body and the power is fully at that central body. In countries like China, Singapore the power is fairly centralised.

Federal

In this form of government, the powers are shared between the central body and states. Countries like the USA, Australia, India have a federal structure.

Commonwealth

As the name suggests, this is a system where a group of territories operate on common interest and welfare of the people. Countries like Australia call themselves commonwealth, though the word has lost its original meaning these days.

Feudal

Feudal system existed during the medieval period. In this form, there were a lot of representatives (lords, knights, nobles) running parts of a larger empire. These representatives held administrative control over their territory but were answerable to the monarchy.

Example countries

Here is my classification for some of the countries.

Classification USA India China North Korea Cuba Norway Saudi -Arabia UK
Popular Thought  Democracy Democracy  Communist Communist  Communist  Socialist  Monarchy  Kingdom/Democracy
Head of the state Direct Representative Indirect Representative Indirect Representative Indirect Representative Indirect Representative Monarch Monarch Monarch
Source of power Democracy Democracy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Democracy Autocracy Democracy
Economics Welfare Capitalism Socialism State Capitalism State Capitalism Communism Socialism Welfare Capitalism Socialism
Executive Power Republic Republic Republic Republic Republic Republic Monarchy Republic
Distribution of power Federal Federal Central Central Central Central Central Federal

My references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government

and loads of others

Origin and Mysteries of the Universe

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

Few people explain Universe, its origin as we understand it and the mysteries around it better than Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Here are few of my favourite videos from these geniuses. Irrespective of your level of understanding of science, I sincerely recommend watching the below. These videos were not uploaded by me, so if you do miss it in your location just search for them, I am sure someone has got it for your country.

First one is Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Inexplicable Universe

 

The second one is Stephen Hawking on  “Did God Create the Universe?”. The explanation of energy to mass conversion, the zero sum game and the universe popping into existence using principles of Quantum mechanics, is just too good.

 

 

I also recommend watching the Master of the Universe series by Stephen Hawking.

Trump exploits victims in his speech

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

It is a growing trend and quite a dangerous one, to pay on people’s emotions to justify and cover up deep flaws.Trump in his speech to the Congress, did exactly that. The mainstream media were obsessed with him being presidential but totally missed his rather outrageous sinister attempts. I have given below the links to videos where people actually did talk about this.

Here are the people he exploited in his speech.

  1. Megan Crowley and her father John for FDA deregulation
  2. Denisha Merriweather for private schools
  3. Jamiel Shaw, Susan Oliver, Jenna Oliver, and Jessica Davis for illegal immigration
  4. Carryn Owens for military spending
  5. Antonin Scalia for justifying  Neil Gorsuch

Let me start by congratulating Trump on this idea. It works and I have seen it succeed a lot in India. People vote for candidates who make them cry a lot. People also forget their misery and the parties responsible, when they see bigger catastrophes in other people’s lives. It works like a charm. It is also a strategy which cannot be contested. Hillary Clinton did that successfully at DNC by using the father of dead US soldier, Khizr Khan. In both the instances though people who used the example were also responsible for the death. Trump ordered the mission in Yemen which was responsible for the death of Ryan Owens. Hillary Clinton voted for the war which resulted in the death of Humayun Khan along with countless others.