This post has been published by me as a team member of Indiana Legends for the SUPER 6 round of Bloggers Premier League (BPL) – The first ever unique, elite team blogging event of blog world. To catch the BPL action and also be part of future editions and other contests, visit and register at Cafe GingerChai









You must have heard this statement before. Celebrities say it, Miss World contestants say it, Diplomats say it, Religious teachers say it and many others say it at one or other point of time in their life. But rarely does one implement it in real life. After all the task seems unrealistic and even impossible!


So why should we even think of loving the whole world in the first place?

Well you may have heard people preaching that we all are one. Everything is creation of God and God resides in everyone so how can you hate others. If people start loving each other the world would be a happier place to live in. But the crime graph is rising rapidly, terrorism is on its peak, Murders are committed on trivial issues and it looks an uphill task to even think that these people have an iota of God in them.


Now to define God is a complicated task. For atheists it is a fictional character. But even they will agree that if there is one he is Omnipresent, Omnipotent and doesn't have any shape or form. At this point of time it is difficult to think of anything we definitely know that exists and have the same characteristics. We will discuss about that later.


Lets do a little test now. Close your eyes for 1 minute. Forget about all the religious teachings you have had till now or have read it in holy books and think about the answer to the following question-




1.) I am the Body.

Lets take example of 1 fictional character Nilesh to answer this one. Nilesh thinks he is the body. If we ask Nilesh "who are you?" , He will answer " I am Nilesh". Now suppose Nilesh looses his legs. Again if someone ask him the question he will answer " I am Nilesh".

The experience of the person doesn't change even a bit no matter how his body his. He wont feel "half" if he has half the body implying that he is definitely something more than just the body.


2.) I am not the body but the body is mine.

Suppose you chose the 2nd answer. Now the question is if you are not the body then "Who are you?" and "Where are you?". You might say I am inside the body in each and every part. But again if someone cut your hair you don't loose a part of yourself which should have happened if you were in every part. Also if someone systematically open up the whole body he can't find anything else except the physical parts. More importantly you don't feel something is tightly fitted in you when you are a child and you do not feel something is loosely fitted when you grow up implying that the "thing" must not be having any form or shape.



Something which doesn't have any form or shape can either exist EVERYWHERE or NOWHERE. So we exist everywhere...eh? But it is the same thing said about God that he is Omnipresent! Now the big question remains that there is nothing which fills the criteria. And the answer is-



Just like God energy is present everywhere. Or shall we say God is energy and energy is God. We are also energy. According to various religions a person doesn't die, its just the body that dies. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.



Once we understand that we all are one and the same thing it might become easier to love others. If we can't love atleast we shouldn't hate people. Some people may associate love with inaction. One legitimate question is - "What to do with the criminals then?" and the answer is - Do whatever is necessary as per the situation but not with the feeling of hatred.


When a mother hits her child she still loves him very much but the action is taken to reform him. Similarly criminals should definitely be punished or jailed so that they could reform or in extreme cases they maybe killed for larger benefit of the society but all these things can be done with good intentions. There is really no need to keep a heart filled with hatred to take action.


Easier said than done but atleast people can give it a try. The earth already weighs 6.6 Septillion Tons. Don't make it heavier by carrying a heart filled with jealousy and hatred. On that note I end this long post with the hope that this world becomes a happier and lovelier place to live in.

The art of politics in the real sense was probably first codified in the book `Arthashastra'. Kautilya aka Chanakya, regarded as the `first great political realist', gave some scintillating answers to many basic yet vital questions of governance that had troubled ruling classes for centuries.



Some important answers mentioned in `Arthashastra' are: When killing of domestic opponent is wise? How one uses secret agents? When one needs to sacrifice one's secret agents? In what cases must a king spy on his own people?



The questions were framed in 4th century BC, that is, nearly 2,500 years ago. What a coincidence! All of them are equally relevant now when smaller parties offer unsolicited support to the government from outside, demand and get all benefits of a coalition partner, share no blame and even join the Opposition in criticising the government for bad decisions, and not the least, pull the rug when it becomes inconvenient.



At a time when these smaller parties had thought they had successfully created an enigma in politics to be in power without being held accountable, someone in the UPA government did go back to basics and scrupulously read through `Arthashastra' to find a perfect antidote for it.



In the present political conundrum, let us attempt reframing the questions for the `Kautilya' in the government: "When is it wise to file a chargesheet against a domestic opponent? How effectively does one use CBI, police and prosecuting agencies to win support of political opponents? In what cases must the government tap the telephones of its own people?



The CBI, which came into existence on April 1, 1963, did a marvellous job in cases that did not involve political figures. It did earn the faith of the common man. But, in the last decade or so, it has lost quite a bit of its stature as an "independent investigating agency" being quietly amenable to the diktats of political masters.



Governments have used CBI's investigations and law officers' opinions to either launch or drop prosecutions against political opponents and coerce support even from the bitterest of rivals.



The CBI probe and chargesheets in disproportionate assets has been used as a common tool against political leaders -- be it RJD's Lalu Prasad, SP's Mulayam Singh Yadav or BSP's Mayawati -- to create a situation where the chieftains despite their differences with the ruling dispensation fall in line to bail out the government in critical situations.



Nothing is permanent in politics which makes strange bedfellows. But given the flippant coalition partners, the government appears to have found the best possible ally, CBI.



CBI refused to file appeal against clean chit to Lalu in a DA case and even contested the Bihar government's locus standi to question it. If the agency does not appeal, and if the state had actually lost a huge amount of money to alleged corruption, then can the state be not regarded as victim and permitted to seek redressal? The Supreme Court thought otherwise.



The disproportionate assets case against Mulayam and his kin kicked up a lot of dust in the courts and political arena after the SC ordered CBI probe into it. Since then, the investigating agency and the law officers have tangoed perfectly to keep Mulayam at a reachable distance in the political game.



After declaring for years before the Supreme Court that it had unimpeachable evidence to prosecute Mayawati in a DA case, the CBI, at a time when political equations were getting a little bothersome, found the perfect opportunity to take the heat off the case by telling the apex court that it was ready to consider the BSP leader's plea for dropping the case in the face of clean chit from Income Tax department.



Such are the games of politics in the coalition era and the CBI becomes a handy tool for the government to seek safety in numbers, which alone counts in the House of People. Does this gamemanship harm the national motto "Satyameva Jayate", meaning truth alone triumphs?




LINK-

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/In-coalition-era-has-CBI-become-govts-best-ally/articleshow/5884049.cms