An Engima Called Envy….

I have more dollars than you

A typical trait that comes with every living body and  whosoever claims he is not a victim of jealousy he must be lying. Even animals too blessed with this, saints who have given up all material attachments suffer from this ailment. Well this is quite natural and a pure animal instinct like eating, sleeping, sex and fear. I called this a mystery because of the complications attached to this quintessential feature. The more closer the relationship higher the degree of jealousy, and vice versa.

Carlos Slim might have added few more Bugatti’s into his convey, but that does not matter to me, I even do not care if that guy has coughed up few billions in the run-up to world’s richest person. What concerns me more is my closest neighbor bought a Volkswagen hatchback, while I still have a small Suzuki one. People won’t tolerate their own, siblings, children or even parent’s success let alone dearest friends. In case of working spouses one partner can’t digest others promotion in office though they never express their emotion for the sake of family. Why are we so mean, sometime the envy pushes us to limits, we would prefer to see others failure even complete finish off rather than a small success.

The local folklore and idioms are even more satirical, while a popular one suggests, a wife would even prefer death of her husband just to ensure her husband’s other female partners become widow. Another one is a short story where an angel gives a boon to a person “if he desires something, his neighbor would receive double of what he receives”. Ultimately, he asks for half death for himself killing his neighbor calmly. However, the incitement to achieve something for one’s self, could be a peculiar upside of this intimate feeling.

Let’s Share

There is one more kind of jealousy, when two different known but unrelated people can’t tolerate the fact that other person have another friend. In fact they share a different kind of camaraderie, emotionally attached to each other though personally yet to bond. Nevertheless, the main reason behind this wild emotion is non-participation or shareholding. Till the time we consider others’ success as alien to us we would continue to envy them, “Owners’ Pride, Neighbor’s Envy”. The moment success has a share-holding of all, everybody takes the pride and no place of other’s jealousy then. Though the onus lies on the legitimate owner of the success, to make others feel as part of them. This is a good trick though to avoid jealousy within close circles. As long as a spouse’s promotion guarantees family trip abroad that’s really fun.

How much inheritance is enough?

Give What Matters Most

“You give your children enough money to do something but not enough to do nothing.” A famous line from Oscar winner 2011 Hollywood flick, “The Descendants”. Based on a well-known quote from billionaire investor Warren Buffett in a 1986 Fortune magazine interview that 99% of his wealth will be donated to charity either within his life or by his death.

I don’t want them to grow up spoiled. I’m not rich enough for my children to afford services for the super-rich or swanky lifestyles in Meadow Lane, the so-called “Billionaires Lane” in the Hamptons. But I also know that if I left them my fortune, they would not appreciate the value of money.

The most important legacy that we can ultimately leave them is not money but the life lessons that we have imparted to them that will enable them to live their lives well.

In other words as the local idiom goes, a capable heir could earn everything on his own and an incompetent spoiled one looses everything he inherits. And in either case its completely useless to leave your fortune for your children.

 

Joseph Patrick Kennedy, had enough money to spoil his children, however his austere style of upbringing, gifted the world the most loved president of the United States, John F Kennedy. “You will either profit by or pay for what your children become. raise them properly.” will always remain an important parenting lesson.

 

Invariably, the most valuable inheritance could be the values that’s too when come by a live example. Unless we lead by example and set a very high standard for ourselves, all teachings to our children would be completely futile. Imagine, how would it feel to see your unruly children wasting your hard earned money and squabbling to claim their share. Money is never enough, if you want, give them good education.One last point, irrespective of your personal and professional successes, the right measure of your success lies in the fact that how much values you passed on to your children. Then you are as successful or failure as your own off-springs are, on the important parameters of human values.

Feminism the greatest disservice to mankind

Made For Each Other

Feminism, a modern day syndrome in educated middle class women as one of their favorite pass time. In this competitive society fairer sex still enjoys the luxury of a lot of fairness. In an attempt to position themselves in the top of the race they in fact make some hoax cry in the name of woman rights. The issues they claim to be their own, in a way faced by all cutting across gender lines. The actual plights of socio-economic backward women goes completely unheard in the noise of all these fabricated issues.

We may debate, the nature is predominantly patriarchal, however there are few good matriarchal examples as in the honey-bees, based on the fact who calls the shots. The power centre theorem or male/female supremacy logic has its footing in the law of nature “survival of the fittest”. The powerful ones have the lion’s share, here power encompasses both physical and intellectual strength. Nevertheless, the very factors deciding power, had never a gender bias towards male species. These factors are rather strongly inclined towards non-discriminatory notions like hard work, commitment and dedication, with no exclusive rights to anybody.

With similar upbringing both male and female could still fare similarly though the natural ability of a particular gender would uphold when it comes to comparative performance in different departments. The natural, gender specific abilities are better remain unchallenged, that’s how the mother nature has molded us. After all we strongly complement each other with our mutual ability to survive against all odds and make a brighter future for the next generations to come. Does this mean the nature itself never permitted anybody to intervene in between and advocate for any particular gender? Quite rightly, any partiality to further unsettle the the gender equilibrium is equally condemnable. For instance adopting birth control measures for any particular gender child is against the tenets of the nature.

Every atrocity on female today creates a rather vicious environment with loaded comments from self proclaimed women rightists. The media all of sudden turns so hostile as if the campaign is against an alien. Once again a competition starts to catch the limelight and the much sought after media attention. All these efforts were never taken in the positive direction to curb recurrence of these crimes. Just criminal bashing does not help at all. In order to improve the situation on ground, we need to do a detailed root cause analysis and prescribe a medication that cures the disease rather than suppressing the symptoms. Every barbaric act should be deplored in strongest possible way not just a crime against women. I still empathise with a top western feminist’s view that a death is far more traumatic than a sexual aggression.

The very word of feminism stands shattered when we see majority of crime against women are either designed or passively supported by the women themselves. In the context of Indian society most of the domestic crimes are result of female jealousy for each other. A more exhaustive analysis could even substantiate that a male perpetrator is merely a pawn. In a nutshell, all these incidents are not just crime against a gender but the whole mankind. As long as the responsible representatives shy away from their bigger duty to the mankind and continue to do some kind of lip service, we won’t be able stop any crime. We are all subject to humanly vices and sometime we violate the boundaries of decency and even commit a grave crime. This has no gender bias, the crime itself is completely unprejudiced but the criminals are not.

On the other hand a woman crusader would always find a male supporter as a caring brother, an affectionate father, or a supportive male colleague, patronising her cause. Feminism as the cause stands for should be taken in the same light as male chauvinism and non of them render any great service to the mankind. As long as we are a family complementing each other, we need to nourish the bond and work collectively to eliminate possible anomalies. You never know when you can get blamed for an anti-women remark for an unimpeachable statement out of good intention. The pitiable state of feminism has reduced to this level. The scholarly female sympathisers should constructively direct their resources towards a more purposeful cause than some tokenism.

You still find only male specimen in action whenever there is a uncommon adverse situation or an act of god. if you look closer you will find your own male brotherhood working relentlessly for their own family members, the human race as a whole. No gender bias please 🙂

Article 377 and a perspective of Law

Living In Together

From time immemorial, a lot of theories have been planted how the human race came into existence. However, none of them is really convincing to us including stories told by wise scientists, after centuries of research. Myths from both Abrahamic and Indian religions are rather funny, unscientific or inconclusive. To be precise the mystery of “Egg or Chicken First” is still unresolved. Well the fact is that mankind is a product of the same nature as rest of the creatures. And if we study, we could substantiate that there is a set of rule “the properties” that each of us should demonstrate. These properties are extended to even vegetation, water bodies, mountains etc with a little margin for error. In a way, the nature itself conducts how different entities should behave. For instance, animals never connive together to violate the food chain. These properties are in built into us as hard coded instincts. The aberrations in fact results in disastrous outcome a kind of catastrophe caused by the same nature to destroy the unlawful beings. Not sure if this is the cause of extinction for dinosaurs.

Living In Together

However criticised, “The Jungle Raj” too follows a set of rules or the law of nature. Apologies, for dropping the word “law” so unceremoniously but I couldn’t find a good substitute. Little obsessed with animals now I won’t hesitate calling ourselves a big joint family. This would be a utter foolishness to proclaim that only human beings possess attributes like conscience, emotions that otherwise establish human superiority. At the same time this would be completely unfair to underplay human race, subject to millions of years of evolution. Said to be the most civil society well credited to the alien artifacts, they use to manage their lives. So at the outset, its worth mentioning that we too laid down our own set of rules subject to various amendments from time to time. In fact the mythologies dating from far back suggests very astutely inscribed law, finds its trace in our law books across the globe today. The very premise of those rules is in fact ‘harmonious coexistence’ with some optional moral plug-ins.

The common vices wealth and women, the cause of all unlawful activities fall under a single idiom territory. This is the perfect word that could be extended to even animal world to discuss this hypothesis. Territory offers both wealth and women (female), being politically correct, food and sex (to avoid strong remarks from feminists). In fact the whole planet professes patriarchy not alone human race. So a set of rule laid down by our wise forefathers to ensure peaceful life while still enjoying the lawful territory assigned. Well aberrations are still there but these are called law of land in our time. Law of different jurisdictions might change slightly but keeping the very proposition intact and not violating the law of nature, in any case.

While science supports law of nature, commonsense drives our own modern law, interpolated from the above said thesis. Incest, is banned even in animal kingdom as the off-springs produced out of any such relationship, are genetically homogeneous, vulnerable to diseases, psycho-physical deformity and eventual extinction. Incest, encompasses both paternal and maternal cousins that the subject has identical genetic order. Nevertheless, the controversial hybrid off-springs offer higher quality breeds. With half of the planet filled with female species this incest ban (rather a law of nature) alone won’t serve any purpose. So we have a series of moral plug ins suggesting sex ban among related people who still do not share common gene. However, law won’t involve, as long as these relationships are consensual except the society giving an immoral tag.

In contrast, for adults in any forceful sexual act, law provides all protection to the victim. So severe punishments suggested to deter any such act as this would cause chaos in society, completely undermining harmonious coexistence factor. Same logic is applicable to murder, theft, robbery or land grabbing. There are still deviations to the logic where the law takes sou motto cognizance of the crime. For instance an under-aged involved in a consensual sexual act or a person is dead, as these entities can’t judge for themselves. The framework is very robust and the objective is concisely clear to deliver justice.

There are still plenty of examples of absurd law, a person surviving a suicidal attempt is punishable, he should rather be sent for counselling and rehabilitation. Now I am compelled to refer you back to article 377, and seek to understand that whether this law draws inspiration from law of nature or harmonious coexistence theory. Even though, the society can still judge upon the morality factor, for a consensual act among adults, its reluctance is conspicuous fearing a bad precedence by allowing small anomalies (read as LGBTs) into mainstream.

NB: Article 377 deals with all unnatural sexual activities not about LGBT rights.