A CHRISTMAS GIFT WORTH A SATISFIED SMUG SMILE!

 

A CHRISTMAS GIFT WORTH A SATISFIED SMUG SMILE!

I got an aftershave as a gift on the Christmas day. It is one of the commonest gifts that people get and give on this festive occasion. Look in any of the gift shop windows during this time, you would be sure to find a plethora of perfumes, aftershaves, and such, displayed in brightly colourful, eye-catching packagings. The newspapers and the magazines are bursting with half to full page adverts of big brands. On the television a lot of very creative, sexy and glittery adds start appearing in primetime slots. Online the social media is awash with similar adverts.

 I was incredibly thrilled to get this. My old one was almost run out. I was planning to buy a replacement soon. As I have not got a favourite or “can’t live without” brand, choosing one in the shops becomes very difficult, more so because this is a nonessential item, at least for me. The merchandise available in the stores and online is truly astronomical. I would have spent hours in sampling quite a few of them and then found out that the one I had taken to the counter was so expensive, it would not be a justifiable spend, ethically or financially.  I would be back to the drawing board!

 An essential item is much easier to choose and justify its price than a purely luxury item. Even though financially I can easily afford a really expensive object, I do fill a sense of guilt when the item is not a need.  I am not alone in feeling that. After all, “guilty pleasures” and “buyer’s remorse” are very frequently used British idiom and phrase respectively, not for nothing!

 The feeling of guilt in spending excessively on a Want not a Need, comes from the fact that it reminds one of conspicuous consumerism and the appalling economic inequality. It is also related to a niggling feeling that the money could have been more useful in doing something charitable or of more utilitarian value.

Last year after much rummaging I found an aftershave I liked, it had a classic, crisp fragrance, and the price was not too high. When I was taking it to the till to pay for it, a co-shopper conspiratorially offered a completely unsolicited advice “you would find it much cheaper online, I bought it yesterday on Amazon”.  I did thank him but I am afraid my hesitation betrayed my frustration and annoyance at the time. I put the box back at the shelf and later that evening ended up spending an hour or so on Amazon, the online shopping giant. The aftershave was indeed fifteen pounds cheaper but I spent another eighty pounds on other bargains!

Now you can see, why I was so delighted with this gift. This was like having three gifts in one: an aftershave I like, removal of guilt and the last but not the least, a big chunk of time. What is not to be chuffed about and have a smug smile!

SHAVING PERSISTENT STUBBLES: A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Last Sunday morning while shaving my face I noticed that a few stubbles over the upper lip were still noticeable. I passed my electric razor over them twice again but they proved quite stubborn.  I again tried to mow them down, this time changing the direction of attack, instead of usual side to side I used up and down. This time I managed to get most of them down but about three or four were still keeping their head above the parapet. I cleaned the cutting head of the razor and tried again, this time with rotary motion, clockwise alternating with anticlockwise. This finally worked and my upper lip skin was sore! I spent more than twice the time on removing the few tiny stubbles than what I usually take to do the whole shaving.

How come I never noticed these unruly hair shafts before? It puzzled me. Pondering on this mystery I turned the shower on and started to put the shampoo on my hair.  The divine revelation suddenly came literally crashing on the shower tray in front of me. I had the reading glasses on! These were my work glasses which I only used for close dermatological examination and micro-surgery. They are almost a mini-microscope. I was wearing them earlier to read the calorie and fat information on a packet of crisps. The food companies use the tiniest possible fonts known to mankind. My usual reading glasses are not up to that task. I wonder whether these multinational companies are trying to save a few pennies on ink or trying to hide their list of lethal additives. Anyway I will muse on this in another blog. I am happy for now that the immediate quandary is unravelled.

I do not need to spend that much extra time on getting rid of few stubbles which I cannot see in the mirror without these microscope-glasses and even more importantly my wife cannot see. In a perfect world I would like to invest more time and energy to get rid of these but on close cost-benefit analysis I do not think it is justified. Few years or should I say few decades ago when I had abundance of energy I would have tackled this unruly hairs mercilessly but not now.

The recent slowing of economy has lead to diminished government revenues. It has imposed the dreaded cost benefit analysis in everything from army to policing and health to education. The acceptable number of stubbles is getting alarmingly larger. I sincerely hope that the society and the government choose them with due care and diligence.

  

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS: A PYE IN THE SKY?

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS: A PYE IN THE SKY?

Racial discrimination and religious bigotry are responsible for a great number of cases of human rights violations. These are frequently used as tools to gratify and justify personal greed and egotism.

When an action is inherently right, one does not need the crutch of race or religion but when it is not, the two Rs are invariably invoked.

What about Nations and States? The state boundaries and national identities do discriminate between people and deny basic rights to people who do not belong to their club. Recent mass refugee migration in Middle East and Europe exposed the infringement of universal human rights at a major scale. Majority of people and their governments in the recipient countries did not shout against it and let it happen though individually a great number of people felt sympathy and sorrow at the plight of migrants. But the idea of absolute sovereignty of national boundaries, greatly eased their pain !

This raises a major question. Can the concept of universal human rights really exist while these boundaries created by Race, Religion and Statehood exist?

Thankfully, race as a discriminating factor has been losing its public acceptance in most of civilized societies but religious bigotry is still condoned in many countries publicly without an iota of guilt or shame.

The notion of absolute sovereignty of State is at present accepted as norm and people are ready to kill one another to defend it with vigor and pride. People doing obvious wrongs in its name are hailed right and righteous. Not long ago similar atrocities were proudly done all over the world in the name of race or religion and were similarly glorified.

CLICK HERE@@@TO HEAR THE SONG

Until all these dividing fences are voluntarily taken down, the concept of universal human rights is just a pie in the sky. This will only be achieved when a critical mass of humans evolves enough to really comprehend and put into practice the spirit of SOHAM*  i.e. “I am He”^#.

I know, it seems impossible even to visualize this in the present climate but I am a great believer in the power of evolution.

But for this what hope is there for our progeny?

* Soham is a Sanskrit chanting mantra; the word is formed by a combination of two words – ‘Sah’ meaning ‘He‘ and ‘Aham‘ meaning ‘I’Soham. It is thought to be derived from Mantra 16 of Isha-Upanishad. 

* योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/isha-upanishad/d/doc122468.html

# Beatle song “I am he as you are he as you are me”    https://youtu.be/WU4uaKgCQ9A

HONESTY: THE MISSING LINK IN PROTAGORAS PARADOX

Protagoras was a philosopher and teacher in ancient Greece in mid 5^th century BC. A young man named Euathlus came to him to learn law and rhetoric. He entered into an arrangement with Protagoras that he would pay his fees once he won his first legal case. Protagoras normally took his fees before starting the course. However seeing how keen and bright Euathlus was, he agreed to it.

After the completion of the course, Euathlus started his practice but did not show much eagerness to win a case. Thus, he avoided paying the fees to Protagoras for many years. Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus. He argued, “If I win the case, I will get my money from you. If I lose, you will still have to pay as you have won your first case.”

Euathlus was cleaver. He countered, “If I lose, then I do not have to pay you as stipulated in our original contract. However, if I win then by the judgement of the court I am not obliged to pay you.”

This is Protagoras Paradox. One can lose but still win! In addition, it seems true for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

The problem arose here because none of them was being honest. They were using morality and legality as separate attributes and using one or the other, as it suited them. When the court ordered in their favour, they forgot their moral contract and when courts ruled against them, they clung to the moral contract conveniently ignoring the legal judgement.

In a democracy, the people have to hand over an immense power and control to elected individuals. For democracy to succeed and flourish these elected representatives have to be trustworthy and that they will have to be honest. Honesty does not mean mere compliance with the legal framework of the land or moral edicts. 

Many a leaders now, when caught in a scandal, justify their action on the ground of one or the other. They proclaim themselves right on legal or moral grounds as it suits them.

The daughter in law of a defense minister of a country was paid a certain sum of money from an arms manufacturer who signed a huge contract to supply armoured tanks. A major national newspaper published this accusing the minister for bribery and calling him dishonest. The minister said that neither he nor his daughter in law has done anything illegal. The manufacturer has just paid her for the liaison services that she had provided. He sued the newspaper and won a large compensation. 

Even though he was morally wrong, he justified himself legally. The paper was legally wrong but justified itself morally. This is Protagoras Paradox. It would not have existed if both the parties were honest.

In public life or even in personal life, whom will you trust implicitly: a person who does not do anything illegal but morally his dealings may sometimes be dubious or a person who has high moral standards but may not always be on the right side of the law?

If you look closely, you will find both types of people in your personal and public spheres. I believe people from either camp can be trustworthy and honest. Honesty does not depend on whether one is able to justify his actions legally or morally or even both. I will trust a person implicitly who tells the truth, the truth that he himself believes to be true. Moral and legal rationalization will come into play later when judging the consequence of his action. 

“In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.” — Immanuel Kant, (1724-1804) 

                                                                                                 

"Ah, if only the world was perfect!" -- Me

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGE V/S DUTY AND FAVOUR: DEGRADATION OF CIVIC SOCIETY

I had surgery on my left elbow a few days ago. I was not asleep for the surgery; just my whole left arm was anaesthetised by injecting drugs around the nerves in the armpit.  The surgeon and all the staff were nice and very helpful. At the end of the surgery, one of the nurses telephoned my wife who came and brought me home. This was a government hospital and I did not have to pay for the treatment. 

I just thought how different it would have been if I were in India. Even in a private hospital, one would have needed some extra favour from a minister or a senior civil servant to get half the care.

I am one of those people who feel awkward receiving extra privilege. It does not mean I do not like it or I do not appreciate it. Is this dichotomy peculiar to me or is it quite common? Or bluntly put, am I a hypocrite? To some people the feeling of entitlement to privilege comes naturally, just like breathing, and just like breathing, it does become essential to their existence. I know a colleague of mine who will always look for someone in authority who knows him at the airport even if the check-in counter is not very busy. I on the other hand will not like to jump the queue unless, and here is the hypocrite bit, the queue is chaotic and/or the person behind the counter is a complete dork.  Getting a good service from an airline, if you have paid your dues, is your right. There should not be a need to use someone’s favour to get what is yours by right. I feel similar principle should apply in any other civil environment.

There is another evolutionary reason for not using favours. The people who use privilege are usually influential in society. If they use their rights instead of privilege, the whole institutional machinery will improve and all the members of the society will benefit. On the other hand, if they use their privilege to get what the institute should provide them as its duty, the whole system is gradually downgraded to the detriment of the whole society.  If people use their privilege where they should use their rights, the institutions learn not to provide the services as their duty but as a favour and then because of this shift people need to use privilege more often.  It becomes a viscous circle.

The word privilege is derived from Latin privilegium; from privus meaning private and leg meaning law. In a feudal society may be, but in a democratic society there should be no need for it.

 I do avail and provide privileges. However when I have to do it for something which one should get it by right, I do feel a bit diminished.