Would it just be a day dream?

At least to me the reasons attributed to Brexit and the subsequent success of the idea in a referendum are neither convincing nor acceptable. It is a negative decision indicating the impact of the negative and parochial attitude of a group of cynical politicians drawing majority support. In referendums of this type unanimity and not majority should be the deciding factor.The establishment of EU was such a great achievement for humanity just on the heels of merger of East and West Germany inducing people to anticipate a similar happening in Korea which is presently not feasible. I am sure well meaning people around the civilized world would feel sad over any disaggregation or disintegration, be it EU or Srilanka or any part of the world. Separation is several times easier than unification because it is more instinctive, primitive and retrograde. It is like entropy. Evolution and civilization should teach us, more understanding, tolerance and consideration not only for fellow human beings but even for fellow living beings and differentiate us maximum from the early Neanderthal humans.
A country like Britain with all its hegemony of the past should not become parochial and try to split away for selfish reasons. If you resort to referendum mode, no country can function. Fellows in government in Democratic countries should act as knowledgeable representatives of the people and take positive decisions.They should not go to people with a referendum for every decision. Maybe they take this as a plank in fighting the next election. Election should act as a referendum where more than one individual from a party with a choice of plans/ ideas contest and whoever wins finally implement the changes. Divisive and negative forces are more powerful and influential with the masses. Forces of unity; understanding; appreciation and concern have to fight a long battle but need to succeed. When people don't want territories of a country like Ireland/ Scotland to separate from U.K.why they want UK to separate from EU. The noble and far-reaching concept of one world, one people and one government seems just a day dream and next to impossible with even a vestige of the existing generation. Compassion should be the only religion to unite us all.

FROM SURREALITY TO REALITY

    Most of you won't agree to what I feel. Still I would like to bring out my feelings. As times change, fashions change; attitudes change; vocations and avocations change. But certain hackneyed beliefs and unwanted emotions once useful do not change but continue to haunt us. It's time we initiate a change in common thinking.
Countries and border limitations should at present be only for administrative and management purposes. In course of time, restricted movement of people and materials should vanish. No one should have a right to stop someone from entering or leaving a place in any part of the world. Freedom should be real. Most restrictions and limitations are essentially the result of negative thinking that is very difficult to eliminate with most people. This does not amount to a claim to do away totally all rules, regulations and laws. People often do not remember that any regulation or law is in place only to facilitate humanity and not to trouble. Many forget that rules are for us and we are not for rules.  In many places in the world, when any new rule or regulation is thought of, people worry more about misuse than use and put in clauses and restrictions to effectively prevent misuse. Although, in terms of numbers the mis or abusers will be small, negative attitude makes us think only of them than those who would use and be benefited. Negativity is essentially the result of the atmosphere and outlook with which we are brought up from childhood for generations. It's not easy to change to a total positive outlook easily or suddenly.
Though much is talked about globalization, it remains much within the realm of economics and business. No one is serious about globalization in the real sense. Some one being an Indian or American or Australian is merely an accident mostly by birth. Although, legally even by domicile you can, but will still be referred to by birth/ origin. What does it matter whether I am an Indian or American or Indian American or American Indian? What does it matter if my skin color is black or brown or pale? All feel hungry and eat; all feel tired and sleep; all think, feel and react.I am always upset about people talking nationalism and culture. Which nation is bad? Which culture is worthless? Why should I feel proud of my culture being antique? What advantage do I get? Parochialism is the easiest way to fool people especially an important tool in the hands of politicians to meet their needs. I'm at a loss to find even literate people falling an easy prey to such frivolous claims on national spirit; antique culture; richness of language etc., I can not appreciate taking credit or feeling proud of something that doesn't involve any input from me. Apart from living here what is my input for the nation or culture ? Why should I consider my country,my religion, my culture and my language to be superior to others when everyone in this world equally has a right to do so ? I look forward to a future where everyone considers everyone else in the world as equal in every sense and do not discriminate on the basis of region; religion; language or skin color. Let us mutually respect others in entirety. Pride talk about culture, language and land could have been useful those days to unite groups of people and to take them forward evolutionarily . We have now reached a stage of probing possibilities with people willing to immigrate to other planets. To continue with outdated concepts of self pride based on anything and that too with things for which you are least responsible such as culture, language etc is retrograde. Only those who suffer from inferiority complex need to take refuge by claiming superiority in something or the other. Let us move from surreality to reality.

Resistance to change

In India and probably many other poorer countries, often there is a resistance to change and unwillingness to take risks. It could be due to a certain uncertainty and fear for new things. This is called neophobia. For instance when gas stove and cooking gas were introduced, people were scared of accepting it for quite sometime. This is true of everything new in the market. Even tubeless tyres took quite a long time to be accepted. I can go on with innumerable examples. But the point is, people in general are unwilling to experiment with new things until the usefulness is proved, for fear of wasting money. It's not mere poverty but often due to the concept of prudence and frugality inculcated from childhood. Some could even have neophobia.
When people resist change even in things they use, how can we expect them to accept major changes in policy governance etc. This is probably the reason for some politicians who offered"change" as the main plank in their campaigns during the bygone election in Tamil Nadu to have failed miserably. Faith, reassurance, confidence and proven virtues in the electorate's favor decide electoral victory. Elitist opinion is pessimistic, as according to them the claimants lack all the above virtues and choosing one or the other would be a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea or jumping from frying pan into the fire. The entire system of governance needs radical changes and the process of elections too has to change. Since political parties and the elected positions have become regular professions by themselves instead of being an avocation for people, why not make every one desirous of entering politics and contesting election to undergo special training program designed for the specific needs of politics? It's not enough to set up ombudsman bodies like"Lok Ayukta" . In the past in India, several commissions to enquire into alleged corruption and nepotism were appointed but nothing tangible resulted. Even when a court of law convicts some one, either the person escapes through managed appeal judgement or undergoes a notional punishment after which he/she  enjoys the ill-gotten wealth. Why can't the ill-gotten wealth be confiscated? There are some very influential and powerful people who have practiced scientific corruption and earned wealth that can take care of several generations of their families. Yet they are regarded next to God by the vulnerable sections of society who are happy with the few pieces of bones thrown to them,not from their pockets but out of taxpayers money when they ruled. How to change the politics, politicians and political system of this country which is chronically sick due to indiscipline; dishonesty and extreme selfishness. A miracle has to occur or we have to wait for the future generations to rise in revolt against the misdeeds of the earlier generations. Till then we have Hobson's choice during elections and change for the better would have to remain a dream.

Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Politicians particularly in India survive only due to the extremely short lived memory of people. Proliferation of political parties in this country is rivalled only by bacteria. Most if not all the parties are personality based and not on any policy or principle. In India, the number of political parties is more than the number of castes and communities, because each community or caste or religion is represented by as many people with some influence in their group. Each emerged as a leader in the locality and initially attaches to a political party especially the one in power, to start wielding influence over the local government officials, police etc. Based on popularity, the political party gives them position and makes them contest elections. The moment one feels that he/ she has a following, demands are made to the parent party. If the parent party is unable to oblige, a new party with a name and flag similar to the parent organization is formed and starts functioning as a letter head unit most of the time while trying to make feeble noises when possible. All this is to demand a price for the ensuing election.   If only one could recall what all a leader said or wrote over a period of time and what he/she does today, nothing could be more shocking. Politicians seem to have developed a philosophy of their own, in which nothing is wrong as long as it serves their purpose. Alignment during election has no basis other than winning some seats. Promises made through manifesto and also during campaign need to be forgotten once election results are announced. During campaign, they appear to be bundles of virtues while their opponents are evil personified.
It is time that democracy is meaningfully functional and not ludicrously functional. In India, we tend to abuse freedom and make a mockery of democracy by allowing literally hundreds of parties without any policy or principle different from others and making criminals contest elections and become so called leaders. They use all foul means including bribing voters. The political parties vie with each other in announcing freebies if they come to power, out of exchequer and not from their pockets. They print their pictures and give their names for what rolls out of the taxpayers coffers. They do not want to empower the people by giving them jobs and earning for their needs. They want to retain them as beggars so that they will always be dependent and be their slaves. Since all laws of the land have to be made by such people we have no redemption. The only ray of hope is the activism of the election commission and judiciary who even if it is out of their way, take laws into their hands in the interest of the country and its gullible public to set things right to the extent feasible. I really don't know whether there is light at the end of the tunnel or the smart political class will effectively prevent activism of the autonomous election commission and the judiciary.
.

Familiarity breeds contempt

Anything common, anything frequent and anything abundant looses its interest, it's attraction and it's value. If something has to retain its interest, value and glamour it has to be somewhat rare and infrequent. Take typically the case of aluminum and gold. Why gold is so valuable than aluminum? Simply the question of abundance. Aluminum is twice as abundant as iron. But you may not be aware that it was more precious than gold and silver in the 19th century because it was so hard to obtain then. It is said tat Napoleon III reserved a prized set of aluminum cutlery for very special guests at banquets while less favored guests used gold knives and forks. In 1884, USA just to show off its industrial prowess, capped the Washington monument with a six pound pyramid of Aluminium. But things changed as its availability increased.
Emperors, Kings and for that matter popular actors and important people should appear in public less frequently, to retain their importance and value. If they are seen all the time everywhere, people loose interest to even look at them. This is applicable to many things. If everyone walks naked, there would be no interest in life. It's true for blogs and other posts as well. That's why, I decided to write less frequently. In fact, a friend of mine used to forward jokes, interesting information, pictures and videos which I used to immediately see, respond and even forward to others, but as it started coming more frequently and every day, I slowly stopped opening and lost interest. This is what is understood by saying " familiarity breeds contempt ". Now a days, you need to be always and in everything short and sweet. If you write voluminously in the name of blogs, no one would like to read. So let me stop here.

Why modern medicine?

Health care was born when humans evolved. It has also evolved with human evolution. Many of us do not realize that we are evolving day by day and as the process is so slow and subtle it is difficult for us to realize. But evolution of health care is visible. Some ancient systems are still in vogue with limited utility as modern system happens to be inadequate for certain diseases and disorders. Some of the ancient Indian systems like Ayurveda are useful to fill the gaps for the time being because they have developed through trial and error and we don't have treatment in modern medicine. The major problem in these is that they use extractions/ decoction /concoctions of one or more plants and other substances. These or so complex that you cannot elucidate the individual chemical components . We cannot understand the nature of the active compound and we don't even know whether it is one or more chemical that brings the desired result. Sometimes, it's believed to be a synergistic effect. But the problem is, if something goes wrong or there is some allergic or unwanted reaction, we would not know the antidote. After all, allergy is very specific and personal to an individual. Further, we need to establish the scientific basis and through specific and valid clinical trials prove the efficacy of the treatment for universal application and acceptance. Some treatment systems use heavy metals and toxic components which they claim safety out of faith in the past. We don't know whether different methods of toxicity testing including long term bioaccumulation using preclinical trials were established. Among the so called alternate systems the most puzzling is Homeopathy. The very basis or foundation of this is unscientific and unacceptable to me. I fail to get convinced with the concept that greater the dilution more will be the potency or efficacy. People with faith in this system fail to realize that it is their faith that cures them and others like them and not the substance in their "medicine". For people of this type, I would like to give some personal examples. When I was in school, one day the younger brother of my classmate who was three years old, had swallowed the entire contents of a small cylindrical bottle in which the round small sugar balls ( containing homeopathy medicine of high potency) meant for his father was kept. The family upon realization of this, got panicked and rushed him to the clinic of the reputed Homeopathy doctor in my town those days, who coolly told the scared parents, that no problem, no harm would be done as the medicine will not affect those who don't have the complaint and would act only on those who suffer. Are you not stunned by this statement? This resulted in my stand that the cure claimed by so many including my wife with homeopathic treatment, is nothing but placebo effect or faith cure. Another proof  for my belief in faith cure was again my experience with my last son when he was a child about thirty years ago. He used frequently get sick with fever. I used to give him some medicines and he will not recover. Then I used to take him to our family doctor and he will prescribe the very same medicine after discussing with me. He will get cured immediately. Further, it has been proved that many of the illnesses are psychosomatic in nature. Except Infectious, genetic and some physiological diseases, most of the physiological problems are psychosomatic. We normally think that only depression and the consequent illnesses are psychosomatic. But several others are also psychosomatic and I have several instances personally known to me. You should not misunderstand that such illnesses are imaginary and not real. The illnesses are real but only the cause is psychological. For example, long back, it was established by a scientific study that if you hypnotize a person and tell the person is having food and depending on the type of food the person is told, the stomach started secreting acid and all other enzymes needed to digest the food are released in the gastrointestinal tract. So, psychosomatic origin of the illness and placebo effect are difficult to discover and make people to accept. My view is that there should be a serious effort to create as much scientific evidence as possible for effective and proven treatments in traditional medicine by following established procedures in modern medicine.

Is there a right to kill ?

I am tempted to again get into the confusing and controversial concept of rights. The right to live does not automatically confer the right to die because birth and death are not part of one's rights. You cannot be born when, how and where you wish and this should be applied equally to death as well. But, the stretch between birth and death namely life that is, the way of living is somehow considered your right. You cannot be dictated as to how you should live. Therefore, the right to live with dignity or otherwise cannot be stretched to include a right to live or die. I am also of the opinion that a “living will" which is quite legal for your property, is not acceptable for euthanasia. Writing a will is legal for the wealth acquired by you but not to end your life which is not acquired by you and hence not your right! That is why suicide is not legal. . When suicide for a specific reason by an individual is not permitted how can we have death penalty? A judge is also a human and is therefore likely to err in judgement. How can the judgement of a death sentence be accepted which cannot be reverted after execution? Any punishment is often said to deter the punished from repeating the crime. If he is hanged to death how can it be a deterrent to him? I have never heard of a death sentence deterring others from committing that crime. Even accidents which kill people, fail in a country like India to deter people from driving without obeying rules. A harsh life imprisonment if fully implemented may deter some people. Same arguments of right to death have been raised for euthanasia and it has so far not been permitted in many countries including those which punish criminals with death sentences. But those who have seen the sufferings of terminally ill patients, who have no chance of recovery, will definitely agree to euthanasia.  If at all, a law for euthanasia is to be enacted, the most important class should be that the individual to be euthanized is above the prevalent maximum age of over 10% of the population. It may vary. Now, it can be fixed as eighty years in countries like India. Just as the government fixed frequently the prevailing market value of several things like land, an expert committee could decide on this from time to time and passive euthanasia may be permissible for those above this age subject to conditions. Let us not pass a law for euthanasia without thorough analysis on different counts. I ventured writing this because recently I read about this in the editorial column of a reputed Indian Newspaper.