Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
India on top
Mukesh becomes world's richest, Sensex hits 20k
By IE
Monday October 29, 07:43 PM
Billionaire Mukesh Ambani on Monday became the richest person in the world, surpassing American software czar Bill Gates, Mexican business tycoon Carlos Slim Helu and famous investment guru Warren Buffett, courtesy the bull run in the stock market.
Following a strong share price rally today in his three group companies -- India's most valued firm Reliance Industries, Reliance Petroleum and Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd -- the net worth of Mukesh Ambani rose to 63.2 billion dollars (Rs 2,49,108 crore).
In comparison, the net worth of both Gates and Slim is estimated to be slightly lower at around 62.29 billion dollars each, with Slim leading among the two by a narrow margin.
Warren Buffett, earlier the third richest in the world, also dropped one position with a net worth of about 56 billion dollars.
Ambani's wealth of about Rs 2,49,000 crore includes about Rs 2,10,000 crore from RIL (50.98 per cent stake), Rs 37,500 crore from RPL (37.5 per cent) and Rs 2,100 crore from RIIL (46.23 per cent).
Slim's wealth has been calculated on the basis of his stake in companies like America Movil (30 per cent), Carso Global (82 per cent), Grupo Carso (75 per cent), Inbursa (67 per cent), IDEAL (30 per cent) and Saks Inc (10 per cent).
According to information available with the US and Mexican stock exchanges where these companies are listed, Slim currently holds shares worth a total of USD 62.2993 billion, with more than half coming from Latin American mobile major America Movil. Slim is closely followed by Gates with a net worth of 62.29 billion dollars currently.
SENSEX TOUCHES 20
The benchmark Sensex zoomed past the 20,000-point level during trade on the Bombay Stock Exchange, taking 10 sessions to cover the last 1,000 points, on funds buying in heavy-weight stocks led by Reliance Industries.
The 30-share index spurted in the last five minutes of trade to fly-past the crucial level and scaled a new intra-day peak at 20,024.87 points before ending at its fresh closing high of 19,977.67, a gain of 734.50 points.
The wide-based National Stock Exchange's Nifty rose to a record high 5,922.50 points before ending at 5,905.90, showing a hefty gain of 203.60 points.
The rally was led by capital good stocks and market major and trend-setter Reliance Industries, which surged to a record Rs 2,844 on funds buying, influenced by a similar trend in other Asian stock markets.
Capital goods index shot up by 1,360.51 points at 19,847.66, followed by oil and gas index by 556.19 points at 11,659.65. Metal index was the third best performer, gaining 445.18 points to 17,189.74, while the bank index rose 376.18 points to 10,649.71.
Sensex had crossed 19,000 mark on October 15. It had crossed 10,000 mark on February 6, 2006 and 15,000 mark on July 6, 2007.
With today's landmark Sensex has joined the 20,000 club whose other members are Hong Kong's Hang Seng, Brazil's Bovespa, Mexico's Bolsa among others.
Hang Seng recently crossed 30,000 mark and today closed at 31,560 points, while Bovespa closed at 64,275 on October 26. Mexico's Bolsa index closed at 32,136 last Friday.
SIGNALS FROM STOCK MKTS, POSITIVE
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday said signals from stock markets and foreign investment flows are positive and the government will work toward maintaining an encouraging atmosphere for investors.
"Be it FDI flows, investments in stock markets, investments in our knowledge economy, the signals are all positive. We will work to keep these positive," he said at the
Fortune Global Forum meeting in New Delhi.
Singh's statement comes on a day when the country's stock markets touched a new record, with the benchmark Sensex surging past the 20,000-mark for the first time.
more
By IE
Monday October 29, 07:43 PM
Billionaire Mukesh Ambani on Monday became the richest person in the world, surpassing American software czar Bill Gates, Mexican business tycoon Carlos Slim Helu and famous investment guru Warren Buffett, courtesy the bull run in the stock market.
Following a strong share price rally today in his three group companies -- India's most valued firm Reliance Industries, Reliance Petroleum and Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd -- the net worth of Mukesh Ambani rose to 63.2 billion dollars (Rs 2,49,108 crore).
In comparison, the net worth of both Gates and Slim is estimated to be slightly lower at around 62.29 billion dollars each, with Slim leading among the two by a narrow margin.
Warren Buffett, earlier the third richest in the world, also dropped one position with a net worth of about 56 billion dollars.
Ambani's wealth of about Rs 2,49,000 crore includes about Rs 2,10,000 crore from RIL (50.98 per cent stake), Rs 37,500 crore from RPL (37.5 per cent) and Rs 2,100 crore from RIIL (46.23 per cent).
Slim's wealth has been calculated on the basis of his stake in companies like America Movil (30 per cent), Carso Global (82 per cent), Grupo Carso (75 per cent), Inbursa (67 per cent), IDEAL (30 per cent) and Saks Inc (10 per cent).
According to information available with the US and Mexican stock exchanges where these companies are listed, Slim currently holds shares worth a total of USD 62.2993 billion, with more than half coming from Latin American mobile major America Movil. Slim is closely followed by Gates with a net worth of 62.29 billion dollars currently.
SENSEX TOUCHES 20
The benchmark Sensex zoomed past the 20,000-point level during trade on the Bombay Stock Exchange, taking 10 sessions to cover the last 1,000 points, on funds buying in heavy-weight stocks led by Reliance Industries.
The 30-share index spurted in the last five minutes of trade to fly-past the crucial level and scaled a new intra-day peak at 20,024.87 points before ending at its fresh closing high of 19,977.67, a gain of 734.50 points.
The wide-based National Stock Exchange's Nifty rose to a record high 5,922.50 points before ending at 5,905.90, showing a hefty gain of 203.60 points.
The rally was led by capital good stocks and market major and trend-setter Reliance Industries, which surged to a record Rs 2,844 on funds buying, influenced by a similar trend in other Asian stock markets.
Capital goods index shot up by 1,360.51 points at 19,847.66, followed by oil and gas index by 556.19 points at 11,659.65. Metal index was the third best performer, gaining 445.18 points to 17,189.74, while the bank index rose 376.18 points to 10,649.71.
Sensex had crossed 19,000 mark on October 15. It had crossed 10,000 mark on February 6, 2006 and 15,000 mark on July 6, 2007.
With today's landmark Sensex has joined the 20,000 club whose other members are Hong Kong's Hang Seng, Brazil's Bovespa, Mexico's Bolsa among others.
Hang Seng recently crossed 30,000 mark and today closed at 31,560 points, while Bovespa closed at 64,275 on October 26. Mexico's Bolsa index closed at 32,136 last Friday.
SIGNALS FROM STOCK MKTS, POSITIVE
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday said signals from stock markets and foreign investment flows are positive and the government will work toward maintaining an encouraging atmosphere for investors.
"Be it FDI flows, investments in stock markets, investments in our knowledge economy, the signals are all positive. We will work to keep these positive," he said at the
Fortune Global Forum meeting in New Delhi.
Singh's statement comes on a day when the country's stock markets touched a new record, with the benchmark Sensex surging past the 20,000-mark for the first time.
more
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Arm twisting by the US of A
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said that Washington will be disappointed if the Indo-US nuclear deal were to be shelved at this stage. Kissinger also said that if the nuclear deal falls through, then it could affect India's chances of getting a United Nations Security Council seat and it will instill doubt towards India in the minds of US policymakers.
Karan Thapar: If India backs out of the Indo-US nuclear deal, what would be the reaction in Washington and other major capitals of the world—that’s one of the issues I would raise today with Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and someone they consider the best known holder of that post for perhaps a century.
Dr Kissinger, if the Indo-US nuclear deal goes through how important a landmark it would be in the relationship between the two countries.
Henry Kissinger: I think it would be an important landmark. It would signify India has emerged from its isolation of 30 years, and that in a key field of activity—the nuclear field—it is now re-entering the international community in a cooperative manner. It would signify a role for India on a more global basis than it has performed before.Karan Thapar: So this is the sort of recognition India has arrived. Could any other country, other than America, give this to India?
Henry Kissinger: Well, there are two separate problems. Technologically there may be other countries that may give a part of it, and where one could piece together various aspects from a number of other countries. Politically, in relation to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), I think cooperation between India and the US would facilitate matters in a degree that I don’t believe any other cooperative relationship would.
Karan Thapar: For the sake of an Indian audience, which may not know the details, how much effort would have the Bush administration would have put in, how much political goodwill would they have used to overcome the powerful non-proliferation lobby in America? Henry Kissinger: First, I would like your audience to understand that I am not here to promote a particular agreement. This is an important agreement, which will have to be ratified Indian internal processes for Indian reasons. America has its reasons—and then they have to be compatible.For the American administration it was a very important step. India had been under sanctions, which had developed under previous administrations in America.Therefore, to change the mindset in which an exception is made for India—to some extent—on the proliferation issue, and in which from a position of ostracizing India one moves to cooperation with India that had to overcome significant domestic difficulties—both among experts and within the Congress. The Bush administration considered that a major initiative, of which they are proud. Not primarily for the nuclear issue, but for the cooperation between our two countries.
Karan Thapar: Given what you are saying, if India were now in this late stage to back off from the deal and shelve it, what would be the reaction in Washington?Henry Kissinger: Two separate reactions: first, India will still be considered important and serious efforts would be made to continue a close relationship. But theoretical desires for close relationships would have to be expressed in concrete measures in some point. And undoubtedly there would be a mixture of disappointment and also whether a question to what extent one can calculate Indian reactions to negotiations that are going on other subjects. I think these two would be the two dominant reactions.
Karan Thapar: Would there be voices in America that would hereafter question India’s reliability as a strategic partner? Would there be people who will say ‘they went so far down the road and then they backed off, can we trust them next time around.’
Henry Kissinger: There will certainly be people who will make that argument. There are others would say the relationship is very important and we have to carry on. But it would certainly, in an intangible way, affect calculations because when an American leader goes down a certain road he stakes his prestige on the ability to get it executed, so in that sense it would be a setback. But I want to stress, India must ratify this or not for its own reasons, not for American reasons.
Karan Thapar: But given that President Bush has staked his credibility on pursuing this deal and delivering it, if India is then seen not delivering on its commitments that would be a setback and that would perhaps irritate members of the Bush administration?Henry Kissinger: It would certainly be a disappointment, because the Bush administration has put a lot of effort behind this. But India must do this for its reasons as I have said before, and I think it’s important for both countries to proceed. India and the US have parallel goals in many areas, and therefore it would be unnatural to keep India under a sanctions regime and exclude it from one of the major areas of technological achievement. And this is why this effort was made: to bring India or to enable India to enter this field on a bigger scale than before.
Karan Thapar: India has been canvassing in major international capitals for almost two years to get support for this deal and the Prime Minister has sent special envoys to a variety of countries. Would they share the dismay and disappointment?Henry Kissinger: Well, they would wonder what is going on and what that reflects? Does that reflect an immediate internal Indian problem or does that reflect a fundamental Indian choice, which makes it difficult to cooperate with India on these issues?
Karan Thapar: And those are serious questions that would be raised?Henry Kissinger: Those are issues people would have to answer for themselves.Karan Thapar: And what impact would it have on India’s ambition to be a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council and to be recognised as one of the great powers of our time?
Henry Kissinger: To the extent I am an expert in this field, I would anyway favour India joining the Security Council because of the magnitude of the country. But it would certainly be one argument that opponents might use in what is any event a complicated issue, because of issues of veto, expansion of Security Council and so forth.Karan Thapar: And, in a sense, it would feed India’s enemies. It would create doubt where doubt is needed, and therefore would be unhelpful.
Henry Kissinger: It would give an argument to people who would not like to see an expansion of India’s role or who simply don’t want the Security Council changed for other reasons because it is difficult to change any way.
Karan Thapar: The Left in India say that if this is such a good deal, then it can safely be left to the next American administration. If the next American President is a Democrat—and you know the Democrats quite well—what are the chances that he or she might actually choose to renegotiate this deal?
Henry Kissinger: Well, there are two separate problems. One is what happens if this agreement is delayed, or put off? The second is which of the political parties in America are likely to act? The first thing is the American political process—anything that is not ratified by next July is unlikely to be dealt with before 2009. It is then unlikely to be dealt in 2009 first, because a new administration has to reorganize itself. There are 3,000 jobs that have to be filled, and the Congress has to get organized. That in any event, even if the Republicans come in, would be a delay of at least a year and half.Secondly, it is broadly true that the anti-proliferation group is stronger in the Democratic than in the Republican Party. So a Democratic president would have to deal with that group—that’s another delay. I don’t want to say that friendship with India is a monopoly of the Republican Party, but given the present political constellation what doesn’t happen within this current timeframe will be delayed to two and probably more years.Karan Thapar: You are also suggesting—aren’t—you that if there is delay there is a real likelihood that terms that would eventually be offered to India might not be as good as those on offer today?Henry Kissinger: There will be a need to take into consideration the position as it applies to the new administration, of course.
Karan Thapar: Let's broaden our discussion. Much of the opposition to the deal in India arises out of the fear that embracing America too closely might be dangerous for Delhi to do. In other words, America is a friend best kept at a judicious distance. How do you respond to that sort of thinking?
Henry Kissinger: Well, I belong in America to the realist school of foreign policy. I think countries should do things not for sentimental reasons, but considering their own national interests. And - I expect that from my country - and I expect that from India. So, I don't look at this as embracing the United States. I look at this agreement as something that is in the Indian interests but that enables a common interest to be more easily realised by establishing a pattern of co-operation. But the judgement should be done on the basis - is it in India's interests? Not "I'll be embracing the United States"; it should be done on its merit.
Karan Thapar: The problem is, when you talk about a hard-headed realistic attitude, India's former national security advisor, Brijesh Mishra, told me in an interview a couple of months ago, that there's a real danger, that if India goes down this road and enters the deal, it will be under constant pressure from Washington to tow an American line. And the sort of issues he mentioned were Iran, Iraq, even the general attitude to democracy, the Middle-East... Would America look for political quid pro quos?
Henry Kissinger: I would be - America certainly, as any great country, will try to get Indian support on the issues that concern America - that's a tribute to India's importance. Will it try to blackmail India by withholding technical co-operation? That would be very foolish. And, in my view, hard to conceive, because once one does that - once - the relationship is broken. And we should try to get co-operation with India on Iran and similar matters, but on its merits, not by blackmail.
Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you what Tom Landross said last year. He said, "India must reassure Congress and the American public that it knows full well what it means to be a strategic ally of the United States." To Indians here, that sounds like a not-so-subtle threat.
Henry Kissinger: The only way great countries can cooperate is if they genuinely believe they're pursuing common interests. If one country blackmails the other, even if it succeeds on one issue, it mortgages the future. The problem between India and the United States is how do we conceive our objectives, say, between Singapore and Aden in the whole region. Are there enough common interests to pursue parallel policies? If those interests don't exist, we won't create them through a nuclear agreement, and that is the fundamental issue in Indian-American relations and why I believe that we are moving into a period wherefore each, for its own reasons, will conclude that on many issues cooperation is desirable, not blackmail.
Karan Thapar: So, you're saying to Indians who worry about the embrace, 'Don't worry about imaginary ghosts.'Henry Kissinger: I say to India, “Think through what your objectives are and listen to what we say our objectives are. And then decide whether they are sufficiently parallel.” And you have certainly demonstrated over the decades that you are not embarrassed to disagree when you do.
Karan Thapar: Quite right. You're also saying, “Don't underestimate your capacity to stand up to America.” There is another fear that is expressed and this time the Bharatiya Janta Party - the main opposition party. They say that the deal is, in fact, an attempt to trap India by the backdoor into the NPT. It is an attempt to emasculate India's strategic nuclear weapons programme.
Henry Kissinger: There's no doubt that there are people in the United States who have that view. The Non-Proliferation lobby has its strong view along that line. But in this agreement, the argument that is made in America is the opposite - that it enables India to pursue a strategic programme with much more flexibility. And that is the argument that opponents in America make.
Karan Thapar: So, in other words, once again, “Don't listen to every voice and believe it; judge the Agreement on its merits; think carefully about the conclusions you're coming to because you might be frightening yourself where there's no need to be scared.”
Henry Kissinger: I think the agreement ought to be judged on its merits, on its technical merits, and on its long-term foreign policy merits. And the United States has gone through similar process and has resolved to be in favour of it. And now it's India's turn to complete its process.
Karan Thapar: Very quickly before we end this interview, as a foreign policy analyst, what would you say to a party like the Bharatiya Janta Party which four years ago, when it was in power, used to call America "India's natural ally"? Today, four years later, they want to turn their back on the nuclear deal. What would you say to them?
Henry Kissinger: Well, I will be seeing some of the leaders of that party. I will try to avoid getting involved in the debate on the deal. I would talk as I did then, and as I do to the current government: "Are there parallel interests between India and the United States?" and, "Let's look at this agreement on how we best realise these”, and, "What is the impact of India turning its back”, with arguments like the ones you have mentioned to me, and, "You should make that choice, not us".
Karan Thapar: And would you make the same message to the Prime Minister were you to meet him, would you say the same thing to him?
Henry Kissinger: I say the same thing to everybody.
Karan Thapar: "Think about your interests carefully, judge what you are doing and worry about the consequences that you may not intend."
Henry Kissinger: Well, I have now dealt with India for many decades and India has never been lacking making a hard-headed assessment of its long-term interests. That has been one of the impressive aspects of the Indian performance, and I'm sure that will continue.
more
Karan Thapar: If India backs out of the Indo-US nuclear deal, what would be the reaction in Washington and other major capitals of the world—that’s one of the issues I would raise today with Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and someone they consider the best known holder of that post for perhaps a century.
Dr Kissinger, if the Indo-US nuclear deal goes through how important a landmark it would be in the relationship between the two countries.
Henry Kissinger: I think it would be an important landmark. It would signify India has emerged from its isolation of 30 years, and that in a key field of activity—the nuclear field—it is now re-entering the international community in a cooperative manner. It would signify a role for India on a more global basis than it has performed before.Karan Thapar: So this is the sort of recognition India has arrived. Could any other country, other than America, give this to India?
Henry Kissinger: Well, there are two separate problems. Technologically there may be other countries that may give a part of it, and where one could piece together various aspects from a number of other countries. Politically, in relation to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), I think cooperation between India and the US would facilitate matters in a degree that I don’t believe any other cooperative relationship would.
Karan Thapar: For the sake of an Indian audience, which may not know the details, how much effort would have the Bush administration would have put in, how much political goodwill would they have used to overcome the powerful non-proliferation lobby in America? Henry Kissinger: First, I would like your audience to understand that I am not here to promote a particular agreement. This is an important agreement, which will have to be ratified Indian internal processes for Indian reasons. America has its reasons—and then they have to be compatible.For the American administration it was a very important step. India had been under sanctions, which had developed under previous administrations in America.Therefore, to change the mindset in which an exception is made for India—to some extent—on the proliferation issue, and in which from a position of ostracizing India one moves to cooperation with India that had to overcome significant domestic difficulties—both among experts and within the Congress. The Bush administration considered that a major initiative, of which they are proud. Not primarily for the nuclear issue, but for the cooperation between our two countries.
Karan Thapar: Given what you are saying, if India were now in this late stage to back off from the deal and shelve it, what would be the reaction in Washington?Henry Kissinger: Two separate reactions: first, India will still be considered important and serious efforts would be made to continue a close relationship. But theoretical desires for close relationships would have to be expressed in concrete measures in some point. And undoubtedly there would be a mixture of disappointment and also whether a question to what extent one can calculate Indian reactions to negotiations that are going on other subjects. I think these two would be the two dominant reactions.
Karan Thapar: Would there be voices in America that would hereafter question India’s reliability as a strategic partner? Would there be people who will say ‘they went so far down the road and then they backed off, can we trust them next time around.’
Henry Kissinger: There will certainly be people who will make that argument. There are others would say the relationship is very important and we have to carry on. But it would certainly, in an intangible way, affect calculations because when an American leader goes down a certain road he stakes his prestige on the ability to get it executed, so in that sense it would be a setback. But I want to stress, India must ratify this or not for its own reasons, not for American reasons.
Karan Thapar: But given that President Bush has staked his credibility on pursuing this deal and delivering it, if India is then seen not delivering on its commitments that would be a setback and that would perhaps irritate members of the Bush administration?Henry Kissinger: It would certainly be a disappointment, because the Bush administration has put a lot of effort behind this. But India must do this for its reasons as I have said before, and I think it’s important for both countries to proceed. India and the US have parallel goals in many areas, and therefore it would be unnatural to keep India under a sanctions regime and exclude it from one of the major areas of technological achievement. And this is why this effort was made: to bring India or to enable India to enter this field on a bigger scale than before.
Karan Thapar: India has been canvassing in major international capitals for almost two years to get support for this deal and the Prime Minister has sent special envoys to a variety of countries. Would they share the dismay and disappointment?Henry Kissinger: Well, they would wonder what is going on and what that reflects? Does that reflect an immediate internal Indian problem or does that reflect a fundamental Indian choice, which makes it difficult to cooperate with India on these issues?
Karan Thapar: And those are serious questions that would be raised?Henry Kissinger: Those are issues people would have to answer for themselves.Karan Thapar: And what impact would it have on India’s ambition to be a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council and to be recognised as one of the great powers of our time?
Henry Kissinger: To the extent I am an expert in this field, I would anyway favour India joining the Security Council because of the magnitude of the country. But it would certainly be one argument that opponents might use in what is any event a complicated issue, because of issues of veto, expansion of Security Council and so forth.Karan Thapar: And, in a sense, it would feed India’s enemies. It would create doubt where doubt is needed, and therefore would be unhelpful.
Henry Kissinger: It would give an argument to people who would not like to see an expansion of India’s role or who simply don’t want the Security Council changed for other reasons because it is difficult to change any way.
Karan Thapar: The Left in India say that if this is such a good deal, then it can safely be left to the next American administration. If the next American President is a Democrat—and you know the Democrats quite well—what are the chances that he or she might actually choose to renegotiate this deal?
Henry Kissinger: Well, there are two separate problems. One is what happens if this agreement is delayed, or put off? The second is which of the political parties in America are likely to act? The first thing is the American political process—anything that is not ratified by next July is unlikely to be dealt with before 2009. It is then unlikely to be dealt in 2009 first, because a new administration has to reorganize itself. There are 3,000 jobs that have to be filled, and the Congress has to get organized. That in any event, even if the Republicans come in, would be a delay of at least a year and half.Secondly, it is broadly true that the anti-proliferation group is stronger in the Democratic than in the Republican Party. So a Democratic president would have to deal with that group—that’s another delay. I don’t want to say that friendship with India is a monopoly of the Republican Party, but given the present political constellation what doesn’t happen within this current timeframe will be delayed to two and probably more years.Karan Thapar: You are also suggesting—aren’t—you that if there is delay there is a real likelihood that terms that would eventually be offered to India might not be as good as those on offer today?Henry Kissinger: There will be a need to take into consideration the position as it applies to the new administration, of course.
Karan Thapar: Let's broaden our discussion. Much of the opposition to the deal in India arises out of the fear that embracing America too closely might be dangerous for Delhi to do. In other words, America is a friend best kept at a judicious distance. How do you respond to that sort of thinking?
Henry Kissinger: Well, I belong in America to the realist school of foreign policy. I think countries should do things not for sentimental reasons, but considering their own national interests. And - I expect that from my country - and I expect that from India. So, I don't look at this as embracing the United States. I look at this agreement as something that is in the Indian interests but that enables a common interest to be more easily realised by establishing a pattern of co-operation. But the judgement should be done on the basis - is it in India's interests? Not "I'll be embracing the United States"; it should be done on its merit.
Karan Thapar: The problem is, when you talk about a hard-headed realistic attitude, India's former national security advisor, Brijesh Mishra, told me in an interview a couple of months ago, that there's a real danger, that if India goes down this road and enters the deal, it will be under constant pressure from Washington to tow an American line. And the sort of issues he mentioned were Iran, Iraq, even the general attitude to democracy, the Middle-East... Would America look for political quid pro quos?
Henry Kissinger: I would be - America certainly, as any great country, will try to get Indian support on the issues that concern America - that's a tribute to India's importance. Will it try to blackmail India by withholding technical co-operation? That would be very foolish. And, in my view, hard to conceive, because once one does that - once - the relationship is broken. And we should try to get co-operation with India on Iran and similar matters, but on its merits, not by blackmail.
Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you what Tom Landross said last year. He said, "India must reassure Congress and the American public that it knows full well what it means to be a strategic ally of the United States." To Indians here, that sounds like a not-so-subtle threat.
Henry Kissinger: The only way great countries can cooperate is if they genuinely believe they're pursuing common interests. If one country blackmails the other, even if it succeeds on one issue, it mortgages the future. The problem between India and the United States is how do we conceive our objectives, say, between Singapore and Aden in the whole region. Are there enough common interests to pursue parallel policies? If those interests don't exist, we won't create them through a nuclear agreement, and that is the fundamental issue in Indian-American relations and why I believe that we are moving into a period wherefore each, for its own reasons, will conclude that on many issues cooperation is desirable, not blackmail.
Karan Thapar: So, you're saying to Indians who worry about the embrace, 'Don't worry about imaginary ghosts.'Henry Kissinger: I say to India, “Think through what your objectives are and listen to what we say our objectives are. And then decide whether they are sufficiently parallel.” And you have certainly demonstrated over the decades that you are not embarrassed to disagree when you do.
Karan Thapar: Quite right. You're also saying, “Don't underestimate your capacity to stand up to America.” There is another fear that is expressed and this time the Bharatiya Janta Party - the main opposition party. They say that the deal is, in fact, an attempt to trap India by the backdoor into the NPT. It is an attempt to emasculate India's strategic nuclear weapons programme.
Henry Kissinger: There's no doubt that there are people in the United States who have that view. The Non-Proliferation lobby has its strong view along that line. But in this agreement, the argument that is made in America is the opposite - that it enables India to pursue a strategic programme with much more flexibility. And that is the argument that opponents in America make.
Karan Thapar: So, in other words, once again, “Don't listen to every voice and believe it; judge the Agreement on its merits; think carefully about the conclusions you're coming to because you might be frightening yourself where there's no need to be scared.”
Henry Kissinger: I think the agreement ought to be judged on its merits, on its technical merits, and on its long-term foreign policy merits. And the United States has gone through similar process and has resolved to be in favour of it. And now it's India's turn to complete its process.
Karan Thapar: Very quickly before we end this interview, as a foreign policy analyst, what would you say to a party like the Bharatiya Janta Party which four years ago, when it was in power, used to call America "India's natural ally"? Today, four years later, they want to turn their back on the nuclear deal. What would you say to them?
Henry Kissinger: Well, I will be seeing some of the leaders of that party. I will try to avoid getting involved in the debate on the deal. I would talk as I did then, and as I do to the current government: "Are there parallel interests between India and the United States?" and, "Let's look at this agreement on how we best realise these”, and, "What is the impact of India turning its back”, with arguments like the ones you have mentioned to me, and, "You should make that choice, not us".
Karan Thapar: And would you make the same message to the Prime Minister were you to meet him, would you say the same thing to him?
Henry Kissinger: I say the same thing to everybody.
Karan Thapar: "Think about your interests carefully, judge what you are doing and worry about the consequences that you may not intend."
Henry Kissinger: Well, I have now dealt with India for many decades and India has never been lacking making a hard-headed assessment of its long-term interests. That has been one of the impressive aspects of the Indian performance, and I'm sure that will continue.
more
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Castro claims Bush could spark WWIII
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago
HAVANA - Fidel Castro wrote Tuesday that President Bush is threatening the world with nuclear war and famine — an attack on Washington a day before the White House was to announce new plans to draw Cuba away from communism.
"The danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush's recent initiative to transform foods into fuel," Castro wrote in Cuban news media, referring to U.S. support for using corn and other food crops to produce gasoline substitutes.
The brief essay titled "Bush, Hunger and Death" also alleged that Bush "threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons."
The White House on Tuesday brushed off Castro's comments — particularly his assertion that Bush was pursuing a forceful conquest of Cuba.
"Dictators say a lot of things, and most of them can be discounted, including that," said White House press secretary Dana Perino.
Perino said that Bush on Wednesday would urge other nations to join together in promoting democracy in Cuba.
"It is true that soon the decades-long debate about our policy towards Cuba will come to a time when we're going to have an opportunity here, when Castro is no longer leading Cuba, that the people there should be able to have a chance at freedom and democracy," she said. "That opportunity is coming."
In his essay, Castro predicted that Bush "will adopt new measures to accelerate the 'transition period' in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force."
Cuban officials have long denounced U.S. efforts to produce a "transition" from Castro's government to a Western-style representative democracy.
Ailing and 81, Castro has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery and ceding power to a provisional government headed by his younger brother Raul in July 2006.
While he has looked upbeat and lucid in official videos, he also seems too frail to resume power.
Life on the island has changed little under Raul Castro, the 76-year-old defense minister who was his elder brother's hand-picked successor for decades.
Cuba staged municipal elections on Sunday, the first step in a process that will determine if Fidel Castro is re-elected or replaced next year as Cuban leader
more
HAVANA - Fidel Castro wrote Tuesday that President Bush is threatening the world with nuclear war and famine — an attack on Washington a day before the White House was to announce new plans to draw Cuba away from communism.
"The danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush's recent initiative to transform foods into fuel," Castro wrote in Cuban news media, referring to U.S. support for using corn and other food crops to produce gasoline substitutes.
The brief essay titled "Bush, Hunger and Death" also alleged that Bush "threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons."
The White House on Tuesday brushed off Castro's comments — particularly his assertion that Bush was pursuing a forceful conquest of Cuba.
"Dictators say a lot of things, and most of them can be discounted, including that," said White House press secretary Dana Perino.
Perino said that Bush on Wednesday would urge other nations to join together in promoting democracy in Cuba.
"It is true that soon the decades-long debate about our policy towards Cuba will come to a time when we're going to have an opportunity here, when Castro is no longer leading Cuba, that the people there should be able to have a chance at freedom and democracy," she said. "That opportunity is coming."
In his essay, Castro predicted that Bush "will adopt new measures to accelerate the 'transition period' in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force."
Cuban officials have long denounced U.S. efforts to produce a "transition" from Castro's government to a Western-style representative democracy.
Ailing and 81, Castro has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery and ceding power to a provisional government headed by his younger brother Raul in July 2006.
While he has looked upbeat and lucid in official videos, he also seems too frail to resume power.
Life on the island has changed little under Raul Castro, the 76-year-old defense minister who was his elder brother's hand-picked successor for decades.
Cuba staged municipal elections on Sunday, the first step in a process that will determine if Fidel Castro is re-elected or replaced next year as Cuban leader
more
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Resiliency
Resiliency is the ability to spring back from and successfully adapt to adversity. Resilient people are often flexible in their thinking, endure difficulty with a realistic outlook and use the experience in self- empowering ways.
Experts are not all in ageement about how much of resilience is genetic. So the thought is that resilience can be learned.
Below is the American Psychological Association list of how to build resiliency. The APA Help Center is a great link to surf for psychological issues.
1. Make Connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends or others are important. Accepting help and support from those who care about you and will listen to you strengthens resilience. Some people find that being active in civic groups, faith-based organizations or other local groups provides social support and can help with reclaiming hope. Assisting others in their time of need also can benefit the helper.
2. Avoid Seeing Crises as Insurmountable Problems. You can't change the fact that highly stressful events happen, but you can change how you interpret and respond to these events. Try looking beyond the present to how future circumstances may be a little better. Note any subtle ways in which you might already feel somewhat better as you deal with difficult situations.
3. Accept That Change Is a Part of Living. Certain goals may no longer be attainable as a result of adverse situations. Accepting circumstances that cannot be changed can help you focus on circumstances that you can alter.
4. Move Toward Your Goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly — even if it seems like a small accomplishment — that enables you to move toward your goals. Instead of focusing on tasks that seem unachievable, ask yourself, "What's one thing I know I can accomplish today that helps me move in the direction I want to go?"
5. Take Decisive Actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away.
6. Look for Opportunities for Self-Discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss. Many people who have experienced tragedies and hardship have reported better relationships, a greater sense of personal strength even while feeling vulnerable, an increased sense of self-worth, a more developed spirituality and a heightened appreciation for life.
7. Nurture a Positive View of Yourself. Developing confidence in your ability to solve problems and trusting your instincts helps build resilience.
8. Keep Things in Perspective. Even when facing very painful events, try to consider the stressful situation in a broader context and keep a long-term perspective. Avoid blowing the event out of proportion.
9. Maintain a Hopeful Outlook. An optimistic outlook enables you to expect that good things will happen in your life. Try visualizing what you want, rather than worrying about what you fear.
10. Take Care of Yourself. Pay attention to your own needs and feelings. Engage in activities that you enjoy and find relaxing. Exercise regularly. Taking care of yourself helps to keep your mind and body primed to deal with situations that require resilience.
Posted by Dr. Deb at 9:23 AM 25 comments
Labels: well-being
Experts are not all in ageement about how much of resilience is genetic. So the thought is that resilience can be learned.
Below is the American Psychological Association list of how to build resiliency. The APA Help Center is a great link to surf for psychological issues.
1. Make Connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends or others are important. Accepting help and support from those who care about you and will listen to you strengthens resilience. Some people find that being active in civic groups, faith-based organizations or other local groups provides social support and can help with reclaiming hope. Assisting others in their time of need also can benefit the helper.
2. Avoid Seeing Crises as Insurmountable Problems. You can't change the fact that highly stressful events happen, but you can change how you interpret and respond to these events. Try looking beyond the present to how future circumstances may be a little better. Note any subtle ways in which you might already feel somewhat better as you deal with difficult situations.
3. Accept That Change Is a Part of Living. Certain goals may no longer be attainable as a result of adverse situations. Accepting circumstances that cannot be changed can help you focus on circumstances that you can alter.
4. Move Toward Your Goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly — even if it seems like a small accomplishment — that enables you to move toward your goals. Instead of focusing on tasks that seem unachievable, ask yourself, "What's one thing I know I can accomplish today that helps me move in the direction I want to go?"
5. Take Decisive Actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away.
6. Look for Opportunities for Self-Discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss. Many people who have experienced tragedies and hardship have reported better relationships, a greater sense of personal strength even while feeling vulnerable, an increased sense of self-worth, a more developed spirituality and a heightened appreciation for life.
7. Nurture a Positive View of Yourself. Developing confidence in your ability to solve problems and trusting your instincts helps build resilience.
8. Keep Things in Perspective. Even when facing very painful events, try to consider the stressful situation in a broader context and keep a long-term perspective. Avoid blowing the event out of proportion.
9. Maintain a Hopeful Outlook. An optimistic outlook enables you to expect that good things will happen in your life. Try visualizing what you want, rather than worrying about what you fear.
10. Take Care of Yourself. Pay attention to your own needs and feelings. Engage in activities that you enjoy and find relaxing. Exercise regularly. Taking care of yourself helps to keep your mind and body primed to deal with situations that require resilience.
Posted by Dr. Deb at 9:23 AM 25 comments
Labels: well-being
Friday, October 12, 2007
Albert Einstein on Science vs Religion
Einstein observed that specialization is invariably damaging to Science as a whole;
The area of scientific knowledge has been enormously extended, and theoretical knowledge has become vastly more profound in every department of science. But the assimilative power of the human intellect is and remains strictly limited. Hence it was inevitable that the activity of the individual investigator should be confined to a smaller and smaller section of human knowledge. Worse still, this specialization makes it increasingly difficult to keep even our general understanding of science as a whole, without which the true spirit of research is inevitably handicapped, in step with scientific progress. Every serious scientific worker is painfully conscious of this involuntary relegation to an ever-narrowing sphere of knowledge, which threatens to deprive the investigator of his broad horizon and degrades him to the level of a mechanic ...It is just as important to make knowledge live and to keep it alive as to solve specific problems. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. (Albert Einstein, 1930)
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, 1930)
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. (Albert Einstein, 1934)For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is , and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. (Albert Einstein, 1939)
To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. (Albert Einstein, 1939)
.. free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? (Albert Einstein, 1939)
If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger. In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions. (Einstein, 1954. p43-4)
But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds. (Albert Einstein, 1939)
For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labours they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they well surely recognise with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?
more
The area of scientific knowledge has been enormously extended, and theoretical knowledge has become vastly more profound in every department of science. But the assimilative power of the human intellect is and remains strictly limited. Hence it was inevitable that the activity of the individual investigator should be confined to a smaller and smaller section of human knowledge. Worse still, this specialization makes it increasingly difficult to keep even our general understanding of science as a whole, without which the true spirit of research is inevitably handicapped, in step with scientific progress. Every serious scientific worker is painfully conscious of this involuntary relegation to an ever-narrowing sphere of knowledge, which threatens to deprive the investigator of his broad horizon and degrades him to the level of a mechanic ...It is just as important to make knowledge live and to keep it alive as to solve specific problems. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. (Albert Einstein, 1930)
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, 1930)
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. (Albert Einstein, 1934)For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is , and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. (Albert Einstein, 1939)
To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. (Albert Einstein, 1939)
.. free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? (Albert Einstein, 1939)
If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger. In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions. (Einstein, 1954. p43-4)
But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds. (Albert Einstein, 1939)
For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labours they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they well surely recognise with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?
more
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Conversations with JANICE
The wisest King, Yudhishtir, was once asked "what's the strangest thing in the world?"
And he replied,
"That men die everyday but still each man forgets that he will die too; he believs in his own immortality"
go here
And he replied,
"That men die everyday but still each man forgets that he will die too; he believs in his own immortality"
go here
JIHAD
THE commonly accepted meaning of jihad is religious Holy war against unbelievers in the mission of Allah and his Prophet Muhammad. The term conjures up images of bearded clerics, frenzied fundamentalists, insane suicide bombers, and remorseless turbaned crowds who chant death for the infidels.
These images derive from the religo-political interpretation of the term jihad. Jihad in this sense is perceived as a strategy for the attainment of `certain' political goals.
In the literal sense of the term, jihad means, `an effort, or a striving'. Islamic scholars say that the Quran and Hadith ascribe two meanings to the term: al-Jihad al-Akbar or ``the greater warfare'' which is against one's own demons; and al-Jihad al-Asghar, or the ``lesser warfare'' against infidels.
The perception of jihad in the former sense is subjective and has moral implications. It involves a way of life in which fleeting temptations have no place. Individuals become discerning subjects who comprehend that worldly temptations are ephemeral and have to be fought. It is also the ability to suffer virtuously the afflictions caused by the foe by following the commandments of Allah and to preach, through education, art and literature, the precepts of Islam, the religion of Allah.
The second meaning of jihad is the religious war against `oppressive occupiers' of the homeland of Islam,Dar al-Islam.
An Islamic scholar, Syed Qutb, observes that this homeland is not symbolised by borders but by a community that accepts Shari'a as the law. This jihad is a defensive act; it is a war of last resort dictated by circumstances and compulsions confronting Muslims. In this context, Syed Qutb states: ``Those who state that Islamic jihad was mainly for the defence of the `homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life and consider it less important than their `homeland'.''
Qutb further says: ``The jihad of Islam is to secure complete freedom for every man throughout the world by releasing him from servitude... so that he may serve God.'' Another Islamic scholar, Al-Sayed Sabak analyses the two meanings of jihad and gives them historico-mythological context.
To begin with, Allah commanded his messenger, Prophet Muhammad, to wage ``jihad'' against the infidels of Mecca through Quran that answers difficult questions about life, sufferance, and abstaining from revenge and violence. During this period jihad connoted a struggle for self-purification of human beings by belief in the teachings of Allah and enduring the rigours involved in spreading the religion.
Forceful conversion to Islam was totally prohibited and peaceful struggle for the dissemination of Islamic ideas and ways took precedence. However, when the Prophet's adversaries stepped up the opposition against him and his followers in Mecca and Medina, Allah affirmed that the Muslims had to fight to defend themselves and their duty of advancing Islam.
In this context Jihad acquired a meaning other than the religious-moral one. It was a meaning that sanctioned transformation of Muslims into holy warriors (mujahid) to fight the war of God for the land of God. However, following the victory of the Muslims in the battle of Badr, the Prophet is said to have exhorted his followers to move away from war, as it would entangle them in the realm of lesser jihad.
Greater jihad and not the lesser one should be the goal of the believers, he said. Jihad in its militant, lesser sense is transient and contingent upon circumstances in which it is waged says Muhammad Said Ashmawi, a contemporary Islamic philosopher. The greater Jihad on the other hand is a continuous process that goes on even during the militant phase. In recent discourse, says Ashmawi, politics together with militant interpretation has replaced the notion of greater Jihad; they have presented a lopsided notion of the concept leading to distorted representations and stereotypes about Islam.
The rise of Islamic movements in the world that aspire for political power has invoked jihad in the militant sense of the term for political mobilisation.
Jihad has become a casual term for all acts of violence perpetuated by an Islamic group, individual or a regime. The understanding of the core concepts such as `homeland', `oppressive occupiers' and `jihad as a defensive act' has become highly subjective and distorted. Such groups and individuals need to be reminded about the `Greater Jihad', which the prophet underscored and only through which all the Muslims and indeed all people on earth can find redemption. For the lay and the uninitiated Islam and jihad have become synonyms for violence and bloodshed. Such generalisations need to be countered not only for the sake of Muslim community, umma but also for the benefit of the entire humanity.
These images derive from the religo-political interpretation of the term jihad. Jihad in this sense is perceived as a strategy for the attainment of `certain' political goals.
In the literal sense of the term, jihad means, `an effort, or a striving'. Islamic scholars say that the Quran and Hadith ascribe two meanings to the term: al-Jihad al-Akbar or ``the greater warfare'' which is against one's own demons; and al-Jihad al-Asghar, or the ``lesser warfare'' against infidels.
The perception of jihad in the former sense is subjective and has moral implications. It involves a way of life in which fleeting temptations have no place. Individuals become discerning subjects who comprehend that worldly temptations are ephemeral and have to be fought. It is also the ability to suffer virtuously the afflictions caused by the foe by following the commandments of Allah and to preach, through education, art and literature, the precepts of Islam, the religion of Allah.
The second meaning of jihad is the religious war against `oppressive occupiers' of the homeland of Islam,Dar al-Islam.
An Islamic scholar, Syed Qutb, observes that this homeland is not symbolised by borders but by a community that accepts Shari'a as the law. This jihad is a defensive act; it is a war of last resort dictated by circumstances and compulsions confronting Muslims. In this context, Syed Qutb states: ``Those who state that Islamic jihad was mainly for the defence of the `homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life and consider it less important than their `homeland'.''
Qutb further says: ``The jihad of Islam is to secure complete freedom for every man throughout the world by releasing him from servitude... so that he may serve God.'' Another Islamic scholar, Al-Sayed Sabak analyses the two meanings of jihad and gives them historico-mythological context.
To begin with, Allah commanded his messenger, Prophet Muhammad, to wage ``jihad'' against the infidels of Mecca through Quran that answers difficult questions about life, sufferance, and abstaining from revenge and violence. During this period jihad connoted a struggle for self-purification of human beings by belief in the teachings of Allah and enduring the rigours involved in spreading the religion.
Forceful conversion to Islam was totally prohibited and peaceful struggle for the dissemination of Islamic ideas and ways took precedence. However, when the Prophet's adversaries stepped up the opposition against him and his followers in Mecca and Medina, Allah affirmed that the Muslims had to fight to defend themselves and their duty of advancing Islam.
In this context Jihad acquired a meaning other than the religious-moral one. It was a meaning that sanctioned transformation of Muslims into holy warriors (mujahid) to fight the war of God for the land of God. However, following the victory of the Muslims in the battle of Badr, the Prophet is said to have exhorted his followers to move away from war, as it would entangle them in the realm of lesser jihad.
Greater jihad and not the lesser one should be the goal of the believers, he said. Jihad in its militant, lesser sense is transient and contingent upon circumstances in which it is waged says Muhammad Said Ashmawi, a contemporary Islamic philosopher. The greater Jihad on the other hand is a continuous process that goes on even during the militant phase. In recent discourse, says Ashmawi, politics together with militant interpretation has replaced the notion of greater Jihad; they have presented a lopsided notion of the concept leading to distorted representations and stereotypes about Islam.
The rise of Islamic movements in the world that aspire for political power has invoked jihad in the militant sense of the term for political mobilisation.
Jihad has become a casual term for all acts of violence perpetuated by an Islamic group, individual or a regime. The understanding of the core concepts such as `homeland', `oppressive occupiers' and `jihad as a defensive act' has become highly subjective and distorted. Such groups and individuals need to be reminded about the `Greater Jihad', which the prophet underscored and only through which all the Muslims and indeed all people on earth can find redemption. For the lay and the uninitiated Islam and jihad have become synonyms for violence and bloodshed. Such generalisations need to be countered not only for the sake of Muslim community, umma but also for the benefit of the entire humanity.
Friday, October 05, 2007
CAUTION on internet banking
For those of you who use ICICI Bank / SBI Internet Banking regularly, take care.
DUPLICATE SITE
Genuine Site
SAME IS THE CASE WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA SITE
Hi All,An important piece of information.Surprising both the sites have secured SSL from Verisign !!!! beware !!
This is one of the worst phishing scam ever seen. Here are the both the URLs, they are same, except there is a space (%20) at the end of the phishing URL. The wrong one
contact me by email if u want more details
DUPLICATE SITE
Genuine Site
SAME IS THE CASE WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA SITE
Hi All,An important piece of information.Surprising both the sites have secured SSL from Verisign !!!! beware !!
This is one of the worst phishing scam ever seen. Here are the both the URLs, they are same, except there is a space (%20) at the end of the phishing URL. The wrong one
contact me by email if u want more details
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
discover your passion
Have you ever heard "Do what you love and the money will follow?"I was fortunate to be introduced to an incredible concept that will change how you think about 'living your passions'. Jack Canfield, co-creator of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series, said "it changed the way I've lived the past year." John Gray, author of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, called it "a clear, simple, and effective method to help you identify your core passions." http://www.thepassiontest.com/Passion/Home/PTBook/index.cfm?af=9901 We all know passion is the key to success, but how do you discover your passions? How do you create a passionate, purpose-filled life? The Passion Test is a simple, powerful way to get clear on what matters most to you in your life, and how to align your life with those things. You have a chance, right now, to get over 40 ama*zing gifts by placing an advance order for The Passion Test - The Effortless Path to Discovering Your Destiny by two people that are impacting millions of people's lives all over the world - Janet Bray Attwood and Chris Attwood.I was introduced to them by one of my mentors and I can tell you... This is a fun, easy to read book that could profoundly change the way you live your life. Go check it out now, including the fabulous gifts you'll receive with your order at: http://www.thepassiontest.com/Passion/Home/PTBook/index.cfm?af=9901
Monday, October 01, 2007
International Day of Non-Violence.
India won a small but significant victory at the United Nations on Friday with the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously adopting an Indian resolution to declare Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi’s birthday, October 2, as the International Day of Non-Violence.
The government tabled the resolution at the UNGA on May 31 this year to declare the Mahatma’s birth anniversary as a day of non-violence internationally.
Item 44, a resolution in the Culture of Peace segment at the UNGA to commemorate Gandhi”s birthday, received co-sponsorship from 142 member countries of the UN.
The resolution comes into effect from the 62nd session of the UNGA beginning in September. From October 2 this year and every year subsequently, the date will be commemorated as the International Day of Non-violence, the draft declaration states.
The idea was mooted as a small token of recognition for the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi earlier this year at a conference to celebrate the centenary of Gandhiji’s adoption of the satyagraha (non-violent non-cooperation) as a mode of protest.
The Congress party had hosted an international conference in January with participants from 91 countries and 122 international organizations to commemorate the launch of the Mahatma’s satyagraha.
Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs Anand Sharma was nominated by the government to move the resolution at the UNGA.
He addressed the plenary session in New York on Friday night, his office said.
“The wide ranging support (130 co-sponsors) shows the enormous esteem in which Mahatma Gandhi is held internationally,” MEA spokesman Navtej Sarna said.
A 2006 movie, ‘Lage Raho Munnabhai,’ on how the Mahatma’s ideals influenced positive change in a Mumbai crook, was screened at the UN to considerable acclaim.
more
The government tabled the resolution at the UNGA on May 31 this year to declare the Mahatma’s birth anniversary as a day of non-violence internationally.
Item 44, a resolution in the Culture of Peace segment at the UNGA to commemorate Gandhi”s birthday, received co-sponsorship from 142 member countries of the UN.
The resolution comes into effect from the 62nd session of the UNGA beginning in September. From October 2 this year and every year subsequently, the date will be commemorated as the International Day of Non-violence, the draft declaration states.
The idea was mooted as a small token of recognition for the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi earlier this year at a conference to celebrate the centenary of Gandhiji’s adoption of the satyagraha (non-violent non-cooperation) as a mode of protest.
The Congress party had hosted an international conference in January with participants from 91 countries and 122 international organizations to commemorate the launch of the Mahatma’s satyagraha.
Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs Anand Sharma was nominated by the government to move the resolution at the UNGA.
He addressed the plenary session in New York on Friday night, his office said.
“The wide ranging support (130 co-sponsors) shows the enormous esteem in which Mahatma Gandhi is held internationally,” MEA spokesman Navtej Sarna said.
A 2006 movie, ‘Lage Raho Munnabhai,’ on how the Mahatma’s ideals influenced positive change in a Mumbai crook, was screened at the UN to considerable acclaim.
more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
