Talisman of Mahatma Gandhi – Radical Egalitarianism

“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?
Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.”
- One of the last notes left behind by Gandhi in 1948, expressing his deepest social thought.¹

We all have seen and read it at the very first pages of any of our school text books. We have been taught of that amulet so deeply as some Vedic Mantra, Ayat of Quran, Gospel of Bible or words from Guru Granth Sahib. It has been our religion, our mantra, the Mahatma Gandhi’s Talisman.
Have we ever realized its essence? Or have we been indoctrinated of the Gandhi’s talisman through our school text books, obviously authorized by the government boards of education?
Since our school days, Gandhi Ji inspires us all to think before we act, to check our words before we speak them, to control our senses before we see anything. We have been taught, not to see bad, not to say bad nor to do bad. Yet, we have never been allowed to decide what is good or what is bad, for Gandhi ji and most of the enlightened ideal leaders never accepted us to be intelligent enough to decide for our own self whether something is good enough to say, or do or see. We are obviously not entitled to decide for our own self, whether something is good enough to do, we are not enlightened and free enough to realize the narrow difference between good and bad. Hence, we need help to conjecture what is good to do and what should not be done, and Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman obviously is the key to our help.
Gandhi ji says that some act or something is good or aesthetically beautiful only if it is beautiful enough for all.² If whatever you do is good for you only, but it is not good for others, or all, it can not be said good. Majority cannot decide good or bad. The idea of good or bad, is essentially relative. Something can be good for one, but bad for others, and if the majority is authorized to decide what is good, than obviously, the minority is forced to accept it as good, without any option to oppose that. Hence, Gandhi certainly was not exclusively supportive of the Majority rule; obviously, he was not a supporter of enslavement of minority against the majority rule. He was proponent of the freedom and savior of minority against the majority. That is why he supported the idea of organized anarchy

“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organised form. The individual has a soul but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its very existence”. — Mahatma Gandhi³

Yet, was Mahatma Gandhi supporting the idea of freedom of the individual, the smallest minority, to decide for his self and his pursuit of good and happiness?
Was Mahatma Gandhi an existentialist, individualist, supporter of Individual rights and ability to be free and independent to rule and decide for his own life? Was Mahatma Gandhi a Libertarian? No, he was not, his idea of “organized anarchy” constitute a meaningful government and bureaucracy.
Based on Indian ethos and values, Gandhi added some powerful features for containing consumption and promoting social justice and equity. These are:
1) Village governments in which the village assembly controls resources and decision-making;
2) Decentralised production systems to curb distress migration to urban centres;
3) Self-sustaining local economies providing resilience to regional and global economic turbulence;
4) A low expense clean election system;
5) National governments accountable to local governance as a check against arrogance of the state;
6) Industry as trusteeship of the people, reinvesting in production of goods and services and not indulging in ostentatious consumption; and
7) Religions integrated as a positive force at the grassroots level.⁴
Gandhi was not a Libertarian; rather he was a socialist, a deep rooted supporter of the philosophy of Kant, the very basis of Marxism and Socialism. He was not an Individualist, nor he was supporter of Lockean law of homestead and property rights, he was not capitalist. Yet, he did not want the majority to rule over government and dictate for what is good or what is bad. In a sense, Gandhi was Minarchist, yet was he an Objectivist?
Who if not the majority elected government be the dictator for the individual to learn and act for what is good or beautiful for all?
According to Gandhi ji, materialism was corrupt and despicable thus, he was against the theory of capitalism, which gains its roots from the Lockean principles of Property rights. Gandhi ji also supported Marxism and defined class competition as the evil of society, he was a radical egalitarian and hence he considered the theory of Division of Labour as a poison to society.
According to Gandhi ji, one should not be self-righteous, self-dependent and self-interested while performing any action, rather, before acting, one must consider whether his act would be of any good for the poorest, weakest person one knows. That is, no one should be free to decide for his own pursuit of happiness, rather he should consider and chase the happiness of the poorest and weakest person one knows. Gandhi ji dreamed of the rule of weaklings and deprived, where the stronger and better workers, producers, creators are willfully subjected to serve the weakest, most depraved person one knows. Obviously, Ahimsa was his second most important mantra, as he knew that stronger could not be enforced to serve the weaker by means of violence, rather it could be done only by means of democratically renouncing self-interest, self-reliance, selfishness. Gandhi ji was the saint of selflessness. He wanted every one to devote his life willfully and peacefully with utmost devotion, for the improvement and goodness of the weakest of the person by means of Trusteeship⁵ .
Argumentatively, if every one becomes as spiritual as Gandhi was and determines to be selfless, always willing and acting only to serve the good of the Most poor and weak person he knows, it would be very easy to make the dream of Egalitarianism to be true. If every strong and better person were working willfully to fulfill the good of not his self, but of the poorest person, the materialistic, capitalistic, or individualistic difference between the stronger or weaker would be nil. For this, he proposed the idea of Trusteeship⁶ .
Gandhi ji’s Talisman, which we Indians have been indoctrinated throughout our student life, is actually the mystical potion of spiritual socialism that tends everyone to willfully and peacefully accept his duty to serve the poorest person one knows. Gandhi ji simply declined the importance of Individual life, and his right to pursue his happiness, his good, rather he inspired everyone to willfully accept the servitude of the weakest person one knows and to devote his actions for the goodwill of the poorest person.
Here comes the undeniable hypocrisy and psychological illness. How can one be selfless? How can one devote himself to think before acting, not his good, his profit, but the good of the other, the poorest? Gandhi ji’s talisman becomes a psychological poison for an individual because he naturally is selfish and tends to serve his own good. Gandhi ji’s talisman enforces him philosophically to consider himself a wrong-doer.
Conclusion: Gandhi was a Radical Egalitarian⁷ , his philosophical idea was socialism, yet he was a supporter of anarchism and opposed majority rule of state government. He was proponent of Non violence, yet, he wanted to destroy class differences and hence Division of Labour and capitalism but peacefully through spiritual indoctrinations. If capitalism and Individual freedom can be sacrificed for the cause of socialism, than one may call Gandhi a libertarian, otherwise he was not a Libertarian.

I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community. Mahatma Gandhi⁸

1. Gandhi’s talisman [↩]
2. A tribute to an unlimited legacy, Gandhi’s concern for individual welfare lead him to distinguish between man’s basic needs and human acquisitiveness. As a result of his democratic temper, Gandhi argued that a thing could be considered beautiful only if it could in principle be made available to all. Tested against that principle, the Mont Blanc pen is a moral and aesthetic failure. Why Mont Blanc Pen is a moral and aesthetic failure? because not “ALL” can afford it. [↩]
3. Realizing Gandhian Democracy, People First India [↩]
4. Realizing Gandhian Democracy, People First India [↩]
5. Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi [↩]
6. Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi [↩]
7. Freedom Versus Egalitarianism, Reason for Liberty [↩]
8. Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi [↩]

Long ago at the shores of Indian Ocean, there used to be a country. It was an officially democratic nation whose ruler caste (whom we now a days know as Politicians) were very happy and prosperous. As the nation was officially Democratic, no one was actually puzzled against the extreme prosperity of the politicians, the rulers of that nation. The general population was also presumably satisfied at their standards.
Many people were happy because they could get the rationed LPG fuel cylinder while standing in the queue, while some others were happy because they could get the Gas cylinder easily at a little higher price through black marketing. Most of the people were happy because they could earn two-time bread for their living and could arrange a little bit of clothing. It was a god blessed nation and as it was a secular democratic state, every religion held specific importance; the populace was religiously superstitious and god-fearing. Nobody used to believe that they are the soul earner of their living, rather they considered it as God’s blessing, and hence there were seldom any agitation for individual rights. Religion became the very power of politicians to proclaim there right to rule over the populace.
Gradually, the ruler started feeling that the “religion” is loosing its effect in the nation and that became the cause of worry for the politicians. As all “religions” were equally important tools for the politicians to rule, they realized that if the religions loose their glory, people might start feeling agitated, demanding and querying. Thus it seemed necessary for the politicians to plan and act to ascertain the importance of religion, they sincerely wanted to establish the ruling power of that nation as the protector of all religions. The think-tank of politicians was engrossed to plan the possible ways to reassert the sanctity of religion.
At last, the think-tank of ministers conjectured the importance of a very old building situated at a historical town (Ajodhya) of the country. The building was hugely dilapidated and nobody used to care to visit it. It was in a sense, unimportant for the present populace with no significance. It was believed that once upon a time, that building was a great temple, a religious place. Once, an infiltrator came and attacked that religious temple, destroying it, he ensued to make a new religious building, a Minaret and named it after his own name (Babri Masjid).
The general population was indifferent about that historically disputed religious place. There were already plentiful religious temples, minarets, gurudwaras and churches. Yet, a section of the ruler caste (the politicians) determined to make a new temple at the place of that dilapidated worthless minaret. They thought, it would bring huge applause and happiness in the masses and that will again establish a religiously sanctimonious rule over the nation. The other section of the ruler caste (politicians) used the opportunity to overplay the tool of other religion, debated about saving the already dilapidated Minaret, and proposed of renewing it. The debate grew gross and took the form of agitation accompanied with violence. Consequentially, the common men of the nation found themselves divided over the issue of religions and that became a further triumph of the politicians. At last, the old ramshackle building was attacked and destroyed. Nobody could say if the common men felt any happiness or satisfaction at the destruction, yet all sections of ruler cast (the politicians) were exuberant about the instruction, it provided them a further cause to establish their power to rule.
Thus, the ramshackle of a building that was generally of no importance for the common people of the nation suddenly became the most important issue for the public. Everyone was forced to think about it. The issue of making a temple became the hottest debate. Some people were sad for the destruction of a meagre minaret, some were happy for the hope of making of already redundant temple. The division of public grew angry and caused huge bloodshed. Women were raped, children were butchered, villages were burnt, and people were murdered. The religions were reclaiming their glory at the expense of blood of common men.
The prime ruler of the nation established a Commission¹ to examine the destruction of the minaret. The building was no longer of no importance; it suddenly became the potent farm of political ventures and profitable vote banks.
Gradually, the issue of the destruction of minaret started fading. People again found themselves busy for living their own life peacefully, trying to improve their living standards and finding ways of prosperity. They again started seeking for their happiness. The issue of temple and minaret again became obsolete. Yet, the rulers felt that it is not good and they should try to venture at the use of the tool of religion to reclaim their right to rule. Thus, they remembered about the Commission and the report of the Commission over the destruction of that minaret that was Commissioned decades ago.²
The report was announced publicly in the biggest house of public representatives (Sansad Bhawan) openly. At the report ³, the different sectors of the ruling caste (the politicians) again started debating to show how much they care for the general public and how happy the common men would be about there representatives fighting for their religious sanctity. Yet, the public was further smart this time. Common men saved themselves from the trap of the ruling caste (the politicians) to divide and rule the public. The common men already had found ways to prosperity and happiness elsewhere. The public was religious even then and used to pray every morning, but they were smart enough to ignore any debate over the obsolete dilapidated building any further. Thus, the ramshackle of that building, which was forced to be the reason of violence and agitation within the populace, again became unconcerned, unnoticed and unable to divide the public and cause further violence and bloodshed.

1. Liberhan Commission, wikipedia [↩]
2. Babri Demolition meticulously planned: Liberhan Commission, Indian express [↩]
3. Liberhan Commission report, PDF file [↩]

Pakistan is an Islamic nation, the Pakistan government and judiciary follows Islamic laws, they ban and censor things as per Islam.
Tourism is one of the major sources of income for Pakistan but because of all those raucous of terrorism and military rule and wars, tourism is deeply hurt.
In order to revamp the tourism industry, a Senate panel has asked the government to send the newly-inducted Tourism Minister, Maulana Attaur Rehman, on a visit to verdant beaches in South France and Switzerland to get modern ideas of promoting tourism industry that contributes immensely to Pakistan’s economy.
The thing to be mentioned is, beaches of France and Switzerland are famous for the topless and one-piece bikinis. The exhibitionism and freedom of expression on those beaches is at extreme peaks, and that is one of the main reasons for the success of those beaches as the major tourist attraction whole round the world.
Pakistan also has a huge shoreline, so can Pakistan ministry adopt the “modern” and innovative ways to strengthen tourism and give any sort of competition?
Exhibitionism is almost impossible in Pakistan especially under those Islamic laws.
Moreover, Islam prohibits Liquor, thus alcohol is completely banned in all governmental resorts and hotels.
The new Tourism Minister Maulana Rehman recently decided to ban the sale of liquor to foreigners in government-owned hotels and motels because according to him, it is immoral. How will he get the idea of exhibitionism on beaches?
According to the Pakistan law, Muslims cannot buy liquor, but government had issued license for Non-Muslims to buy alcohol if they want. Yet with the new decisions of Tourism Minister Rehman, no government hotel or motel can sell alcohol anymore. In addition to that, Maulana Rehman wants to restrict private hotels too and apply ban on alcohol thoroughly.
As per Rehman, no religion allows the consumption of alcohol, hence even foreigners has no religious sanction to buy alcohol. I am sure he is completely aware of the term Atheist. As Pakistan is an Islamic republic, Rehman stresses that they cannot allow consumption of Liquor, although he agrees that he cannot restrict five star hotels, but he enjoys that idea too.
Other ministers of Pakistan does not agree with Mr Rehman though,

“Sir, you need to immediately visit St-Tropez and beaches in France as Pakistan has coastal areas that could be built on similar lines to attract foreign tourists,” Senator Enver Baig advised the minister. The proposal was readily endorsed by other participants of the meeting held on Wednesday.¹

The Minister believes that visiting foreign beaches will broaden Mr Rehman’s “intellectual” horizon.
Obviously, peeping on topless beach-goers will certainly increase the “intellect”.
Anyways, what do you think about the ban of alcohol in Gujarat?
Gujarat also has a big shoreline that can easily be converted to well-maintained private or government supported tourist line.
Recently after the Mumbai terrorist attack, Indian Intelligence pointed out the doubt that terrorist might have entered Indian coastal lines through Gujarat sea area.²
If Government allow and inspire private investors to develop Gujarat coastal area, that will provide enough reason to keep a keen eye at Indian shores with a proper safety need to abort any such further attempt by terrorists or attackers.
In addition, it will create jobs and options to produce wealth and that will reduce poverty. As the private investors on the Gujarat shoreline will be earning from it, they will provide or innovate a better and proper safety net to protect their consumers and visitors and foreign tourists.
Yet, the problem of Gujarat coastal lines will face the same situation as the Pakistan Ministry is facing. Alcohol is completely abolished in Gujarat. When in 2007, CM Modi tried to relieve bans on alcohol, congress politicians opposed the move, claiming it is against Gandhiji’s moral and disrespect for all Gujarat if government allows sale of alcohol.
Should we send all such Indian politicians to seashores of south France too along with Mr Rehman? They may also experience the increase of “intellect” then.
Indians exclaim about there pseudo-secularism pompously, but the reality is, India is no better than any theocracy like Pakistan where the political goons keep teaching and preaching Morality and culture every now and then.

1. Tourism, Islam, ban on liquor and advice to visit foreign beaches, The International News [↩]
2. Terrorist knocking on Indian Doors, Reason for Liberty [↩]

We all live under governmental rule, we both Indians and Pakistanis.
We both suffers the mutual tensions, terrorist strikes, and war like situations, we have suffered during previous wars.
Why do we fight and what for?
Indian government and Indian media are claiming that Pakistan sponsored Mumbai Attacks.
The general question, which arises in mind is, just some months ago, Pakistan was facing the worst economic disaster when Pakistan was forced to beg money from International banks, China, America and other nations. How can a nation in such a dire situation support such drastic moves? Why will a national government support any such adamant step in a period of economic disaster when that nation itself is suffering from extreme poverty and chaos?
Answer lies in the mysteries of Military Keynesianism.¹
Keynesian economics is what we call as Mixed economics or government controlled economy. According to Keynesian economics² the state should encourage economic growth and perk up stability in the private sector – through, interest rates, and taxation and public projects etc. That “etc” holds the key to our answer.
Military Keynesianism is a government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military in an effort to increase economic growth. Almost all Mixed economies of the world, from America to India to Pakistan to China follow Keynesian economics. Military Keynesianism is based on a false observation and wrong interpretation of John Maynard Keynes on the Great Depression and World War II. The observation suggests that to face an economic recession, government should increase spending to counter the sharp decline in market and investment. Without increased spending, the downturn will stay deeper and longer. During the Great Depression, when US increased its spending in Military and joined in the war actively, US saw success against the depression. This observation created the myth of Military Keynesianism that suggests that during a depression, military spending and wars help in bringing an economy out of the recession.
Political economist Robert Higgs³ blows out this idea out delicately as -
nearly every other lion of the mainstream economics profession, failed to notice that by the very empirical-test standard the profession considers sacrosanct, this theory was decisively refuted by the events of 1945-47⁴ -or perhaps the mainstreamers believe that after their model had, as they see it, proved its mettle so beautifully on the upside from 1940 to 1945, its abysmal failure to predict from 1945 to 1947 need not be taken seriously.
In his article⁵ Higgs exposes the illness of Military Keynesianism, which tends a nation to go for wars.
He mentions–

For decades, secretaries of defense helped to justify their gargantuan budget requests by claiming that high levels of military spending would be “good for the economy” and that reduced military spending would cause recession. So common did this argument become that Marxist critics gave it the apt name military Keynesianism. On both the right and the left, people believed that huge military spending propped up an economy that, lacking this support, would collapse into depression. Such thinking played an important part in the political process that directed about $15 trillion (in today’s dollars) into Cold War military spending⁶ between 1948 and 1990. Nor did the argument disappear even after the Soviet Union unsportingly left the playing field.
Military Keynesianism has enough surface plausibility that it garnered a substantial following in certain quarters even before Keynes’s General Theory gave it apparent intellectual respectability. In his 1944 book As We Go Marching⁷ John T. Flynn noted as a fact “this devotion of the conservative elements to military might,” and he emphasized that “militarism is the one great glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements in the community can be brought into agreement.” He understood, however, that military public-works spending has far graver consequences than ordinary Keynesian pyramid building. “Inevitably, having surrendered to militarism as an economic device, we will do what other countries have done: we will keep alive the fears of our people of the aggressive ambitions of other countries and we will ourselves embark upon imperialistic enterprises of our own.” Flynn deserves high marks as a prophet.

Thus, it shows why it is possible for Pakistan to support terrorism, wars and havoc even in a situation when it is economically devastated. Just before Mumbai attacks, Pakistan was begging money from international communities to pay for its charges.
As the general thinking of Mixed economy governments is that government spending helps economy, it is quite possible that Pakistan planned it all.
Now one may say that Pakistan was already spending allot on Afghanistan border along-with America. We all know that Pakistani people just do not support US and its anti-terror strikes. In order to gain public confidence and gather the military power properly devoted for an aim, Pakistan needed to create a situation. After Mumbai attacks, Indian government got enraged and started making international pressure on Pakistan, and Pakistan got a chance to move its forces towards Indian borders. Now public has more important issue to handle for instead of opposing and criticizing Pakistani government. Against India, they are all united, and that brings confidence in government. Thus, more than anything, the reason behind all Pakistani military efforts since long past is the Keynesian mixed Economy, government regulated economy based on Military Keynesianism.
Is India immune to this Keynesian mixed economy madness?
We all know Indian government and politicians like our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is staunch Keynesian economist. As he said in his interview.⁸

It clarifies that in any recession or downturn, a government, be it Indian, or Pakistanis, or Chinese, or US government, may go for wars and mass murders, and what would be the reason? Just to bring economy out of recession or depression or deflation.
Such is the effect of Mixed economy government controlled economy.
In His article, Higgs clarifies that these entire Keynesian hypothesis is nothing but a myth. Austrian economists have been opposing all this madness since always, yet American government almost always followed the Military Keynesianism idea and so is Indian government is hell bent to do it. The recent tension on borders and Media are just phase of it. Just some days ago, Indian government announced the draconian UAPA law which is no better than the Patriot act. India is demanding missiles from US. How logical it is to go for an Arm’s race? Should government waste tax-payers money in such infertile activities?
Does spending on worthless unproductive things help anybody?
After 9/11 attacks, Paul Krugman⁹ suggested that there will be favorable effects of the terrorist attack.
Yet that is how almost all government’s act. After 2001 recession in USA, US troops engaged in severe attacks on Iraq. Was it Keynesian Mixed economy effect?

The U.S. is likely to increase further spending on defense and on rebuilding the infrastructure that has been destroyed. This would ultimately create a positive sentiment in an already lethargic American economy, says Oommen A. Ninan¹⁰ .

Again there is recession, and Obama is a Keynesian. He knows he cannot keep US military fighting in Iraq, thus, he has announced stronger troops in Afghanistan.
In such a situation, is there possibility for Indian government to waste money on such needless wars? While discussing Indian Reserve Bank Dilemma, we showed how fear of recession is senseless as it clears out all “non-productive-activities” and helps the market to revamp and gain stability. We further discussed that injecting money in market would be a wrong cause as it would further increase the percentage of bad assets. We discussed how “Bail Outs” never help an economy but further increase the burden. We, the citizens of India and Pakistan do want peace, yet is it possible?
It is quite obvious that any governmental intervention in economics causes harm alone. Yet, the biggest harm to human kind can be wars terrorism and Military Keynesianism.

1. Military Keynesianism, Wikipedia Link [↩]
2. Keynesian economics, Wikipedia Link [↩]
3. Robert Higgs, Independent.org [↩]
4. Military Keynesianism was refuted in 1945-47, Independent.org [↩]
5. Higgs,Independent.org [↩]
6. Cold War military spending between 1948 and 1990, Independent.org [↩]
7. As We Go Marching, John T. Flynn [↩]
8. he says here,sikhtimes.com [↩]
9. Paul KrugmanHis article [↩]
10. Oommen A. Ninan, The Hindu [↩]

Is it that any action done for the others good is necessarily selfless? More so, is every action done in interest of self, selfish? Our understanding of terms selfishness and altruism are often derived from the general social view that we are carrying about them. Further linguistic limitations make us misinterpret concepts and therefore the completely related idea. What does each word stand for in our mind, and how our idea about a word manipulates our idea and understanding of a concept using that word, is a subject of study itself. My endeavor here is not to point out the linguistic limitations but to put in perspective few terms that are widely used and misinterpreted. Firstly ‘selfishness’, a classical vice which was given a whole new perspective by Author and Philosopher Ayn Rand, and secondly ‘altruism’ the classical virtue which modern philosophies went about challenging to its very existence.

Altruistic paradox is unlikely a new term for most readers, especially those who have some inclination into objectivist or rather post/pro Darwinian philosophies if I am asked. I would however start with an attempt to firstly state what this paradox is all about in its classical sense. A psychological overview based on certain studies, which were done specifically to prove or disprove this theory. Finally, I shall attempt to put in perspective the term ‘selfishness’ as brought out in Objectivist philosophy.

Before the Darwinian theory of evolution came forth, the most accepted theories on origin of man were religious philosophies. All of them invariably pointed towards an intelligent design of universe and man. They held man as the finest creation of God, and qualities like altruism and love for fellow being intrinsic qualities that were embedded in man heart by the divine creator himself. Darwinian Theory of evolution changed this perception forever, with scientific proofs backing his theory he put forth the various laws of evolution. His theories of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ brought forth aggression and continuous competition between the species and more visibly within the species as most intrinsic and instinctive behavior. He argued that each living entity aggressively struggles for ones survival and further procreation. Implication of the theory was therefore that Altruism among humans is simply a paradox and our actions are not motivated by any higher altruistic goals but very selfish instincts.

Human behavior as understood by the present day psychology however transcends both these arguments. The studies that were conducted to understand various behavioral aspects of humans both clinical methods and psychoanalytic have revealed various interesting facts about these debated behavioral aspects. Altruism has been found as a behavioral trait in many species like squirrels monkeys and humans. Female Squirrels for instance make distress calls and assess its male counterparts based on their response. Guerrillas and monkeys are known to respond when the members of their clan are attacked at times some members even risking their life for the group. Discovery is rather filled with documentaries showing mothers of various species risking their lives to save their offspring. These behaviours are not in contradiction with the Darwinian Theory of evolution. Theory of Natural selection gives room to nature to select certain characteristics that aid in a species successful survival. Nature seems to encourage altruistic traits in species where offspring need a lot of support and care before they are on their own. Humans too invariably fall in that category, invariable all females have tendency to prefer protective and caring males because such instincts are more beneficial towards protection and care of offspring. Females being the one with limited capacity to procreate tend to be choosy in this regard.

What nature promotes is certain characteristic traits that are altruistic in nature overtly, but serves a very selfish purpose of self procreation covertly. Nature favors genes and not individuals based on traits that help survival the best. A classical example being the species of Black widow spider, the female has the tendency to feed on male during intercourse. Invariably the male is killed in the process and male spiders are afraid of female for this reason. It is thus that the male whose sexual drive far exceeds its intrinsic fear of death attempts mating and therefore procreates. Its fearful counterparts though live longer but in longer run vanish. Similarly, in case of species where offspring need more care and protection genes, which have more tendencies to emotionally, attach and take care stands better chance.

Such findings however do not put in perspective the philosophical and religious concepts of altruism. One that holds in esteem sacrifice of individuals for the society defines selfless love and other altruistic conceptions. These behavior trends that are found human society has its root origin in another phenomenon called social conditioning. Human mind is subjected to rhetoric conditioning by the society. Cognitive development of personality of individuals have so much bearing on the environment that he has been brought up that you can make a man most willingly carry out suicide bombing. Similarly, men can be conditioned to pity and piety, altruistic behavior patterns like sacrificing oneself for nation, for ones religion, for ones society, family and so and so forth. William MacDougall, one of the founders of social psychology had pointed out how our growth of self consciousness and self regarding sentiments is influenced by the approval and disapproval by fellow men

Almost all that animals are capable in some degree of learning to modify their instinctive behaviour in the light of experience, under the influence of pain and pleasure, and in young child, also this kind of learning leads to first step beyond pure instinctive behavior.

In this way, the child’s idea of his self early comes to be an idea, not merely of his body and of certain bodily and mental capabilities, but also of system of relation between his self and other selves. Now the attitude of other person is presented towards him are more or less freely expressed by them in praise, reproof, gratitude, reproach, anger, pleasure or displeasure and so forth.

The child’s self consciousness is, then, nourished and molded by the reflection of himself that he finds in minds of his fellows

The strength of the regard men pay to the public opinion, the strength of their desire to secure approval and avoid disapproval of the fellow men goes beyond all rational grounds.

Idea that I am trying to bring forth here is that behavior trends that we tend to hold in high esteem as self less and altruistic is nothing more than a learned behavior that confirms with the self regarding sentiments that he has over the time molded to confirm. Behavior of certain nature gives his ego a boost, confirms with his image in the society and reaffirms the image that he has in his mind, the so called man in the mirror. You may even find criminal tendencies originating from such self regarding sentiment where in the criminal finds losing touch with his self if he does not continue committing crime.

Other classical examples are study on changing attitudes of children towards Negroes (study during apartheid era). The child who initially is very comfortable and loving with his coloured nanny, with time starts distancing and even abusing the same lady. In Indian context, there are instances where child of upper caste reared on the milk of lower caste women, grows up to regard her as untouchable. Social conditioning can thus explain a plethora of behavior trends that does not confirm with instinctual human behaviour.

Coming to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, she was a lady born and brought up in Soviet Russia. She had seen the extents to which men can be exploited on the name of community and society. She had seen in her life men getting sacrificed both willingly and unwillingly to this irrational order. Her endeavour in her work was to free the man to whatever extent possible from the clutches of society. His protagonist were therefore always highly individualistic and to an extent antisocial beings.

Without dwelling into the whole epistemology of her philosophical derivations, if her philosophy were to be summarized, it would be thus. Objectivism holds reality to be absolute and objective in nature. That is A is A and 2+2 = 4, she allows no scope of relativity or perceptual bias in this regard. Secondly, she holds reason as the sole tool to make sense of the world around us, and what we derive using this tool has no biases or mystic vision. One thus need not depend on mosses or Jesus, Muhammad or Krishna or for that matter Ayn Rand to make sense of reality. No commandments or religious dictum need to be followed. What needs to be followed is purely your rational judgement. What man can perceive objectively is his self and his judgment are therefore with his context, his actions as value he derives out of it.

What we derive from here is our argument of selfishness. Well consider this scenario, you have a piece of cake in your hand and you are feeling a bit hungry, a very hungry visibly distressed kid comes in front of you and starts begging for it. What do you do? Your action can be turning away from there and having your piece of cake, or giving it to the kid. If the gleam on the face of that kid when he gets the cake is more valuable to you that satisfaction that you would have by consuming it, you can go ahead and give it to the kid. Now if you friends are standing next to you and you want to impress them, well that is again your choice, and your valuation of the action. There is no selfless in the act, it is yourself only that is deriving the pleasure and satisfaction from the action. It is but by no means correct that your friends force you to give away your cake when you wanted to have it. In such scenario in heart of heart you are not happy with what you did, or rather were made to do. In similar manner, a soldier fighting for his nation must exercise the same volition and rational judgment, and if his action suits his self, he is justified in his actions. It may be deemed as altruistic by fellow countrymen but by no logic self less. It is indeed if it was self less you have taken from the soldier the very pleasure and purpose of his life.

It is this simple fact that is not understood by many and they go about making heroes and villains out of people without judging the rationality of their actions. The society tends to push its agenda and perception bit too harshly on the individuals. It is this coercive nature of collectivism where in actions by individuals are labelled as good or bad without respecting the individuals volition and choice is what she most vehemently objected and fought. She held the state, society and the collectivist mentality that it these institutions endorse as the root cause of most vices. She rallied with the word selfishness, instead of some benign alternative perhaps because it suited her fiction writer mannerism of invoking controversy. If we do not shy to attribute her credit, she has in a single word challenged the very foundation of social moral codes. It is amazing how a single word can have such massive impact on our collective consciousness. How by declaring a classical vice having its root in holiest of books of our civilization as the new age’s virtue she altered the very perception of millions across the globe.

The Pope has declared that saving the world from homosexual behaviour is as important as saving the rainforests.
In a Christmas message, Benedict XVI stressed the importance of traditional marriage and condemned gay acts as against God’s will.
He also attacked transsexuals, saying: ‘It is not man who decides who is a man or woman but God.’
Daily mail UK

Obviously one may say Pope is right for the reason being both the threats of environmentalists about global warming, and religious dictator’s threat about homosexuality are pretty idiotic, wrong and Bad Science (BS).
Actually, I have a lot of respect for Roman Catholics, I know they can often be, warm, honest and intellectually sophisticated people, and as a group, they are not near the lumped together image of dry, sour and fanatic 19th century Christians who have said goodbye to reason or understanding.
That’s why it makes me both sorry, outraged and angry when Pope Benedict targets any kind of homosexual/transgenders/transvestite practices (bisexuality isn’t mentioned but no doubt included) in his Christmas message and punches home the traditional position that all non-straight sexual practices are unwanted, and adds that they pose a major threat to the human race – and then he still professes that the Church loves homosexuals if only they’d abstain from gay/lesbian sex and recognize their error and sin. *deep sigh*
The twist about homosexuality actually threatening mankind – because people would no longer be producing kids? Or by way of the breakdown of the traditional family? – is a new twist, that kind of neo-con slag I have never heard from a pope before.
Sex is essentially for procreation, and homosexuality or “blurring of the borders between male and female” is a threat to the cultural and demographic future of mankind. This is unusually glib rhetoric even for a major religious leader. I mean, after a number of pedophile scandals among the priesthood one might start to question if celibate priests and an insistence on straight sex only is always the right way. None of this here though, just down into the trench.
Moral policing is the worst kind of tyranny a religious authority can divulge in.
According to Joseph Ratzinger “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,”

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

By terming homosexual inclination as an “Objective disorder”, he was telling people that although each individual does not freely choose homosexuality, it is nevertheless inherently and objectively wrong. That is not only Homosexuals but also the orientation of being emotionally, psychologically, and physically attracted to members of the same sex — that is objectively wrong. Not a “sin,” but still wrong.

Now what is it if it is not provoking certain discrimination just like apartheid against a sect of society?
Same goes with the governments opposing homosexual relations or interfering in individual private life of citizens. As for example, Indian Penal code still considers sodomy as a criminal offence without any certain reason for that.
It is like banning an activity without considering the question of consent or non-consent.
I find it hard to believe that, based on the scientific information that homosexual and bisexual behavior has been found in most animal species, that the such sexual preferences amounts to the ‘auto destruction of mankind’.
We have had homosexuality throughout human history and we are not extinct yet. Unlike the myriad of species, we have managed to wipe from the face of the earth.
There are plenty of other problems facing the planet and people on it. The Catholic Church’s stance on protecting people from AIDS is as medieval and unhelpful as using gays, lesbians and transgender people as the ultimate bogey man. To me, it looks like a Wizard of Oz type ploy (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) to distract people from the Church’s increasing irrelevance.

There’s an old saying that in polite social circles one should never discuss religion, politics, or sex. Well, I never promised to be polite here so, since this article isn’t about politics, I guess that just leaves sex and religion, still, I’ll try to stay as “polite” as possible.
Sex and religion will always be interwoven with judgments; it’s just a fact of life, but what about the facts of life?
In India even after all tries by the various states governments to launch sex-ed at school level, sex education remained a bubble of controversy, and not only the religiously motivated groups and political parties but the school teachers opposed sex-ed on behalf of culture and religion. Irrespective of the fact that India is facing a huge trouble in the face of HIV and other STDs, and it is the nation with extreme numbers of cases of child molestation, rapes and unwanted pregnancies the people just couldn’t accept the idea of sex education. But it is not about India.
Recently in Australia where in a most odd pairing, Catholics and Muslims united to protest again explicit, forms of sex education in government schools. At present (all) children in government schools get secular sex ed.
I feel sure most people would agree that sex education of children is a sensitive but important aspect of their learning. However, let’s be clear we’re not talking simple birds and bees stuff here, it’s full on, hands on (often on quite literally) learning—everything from homosexuality, to what is a transvestite, to how to put on a condom correctly.
I guess the extreme Muslims’ view on sex, and more particularly sex for women is simple. A woman exists for the pleasure of her husband—that’s it, that’s pretty much all any good Muslim needs to know. I feel quite certain, too, that full sex education isn’t going to be on any Catholic school curriculum anytime soon. Although, I actually find the thought of a nun waving a piece of phallis shaped plastic around kind of kinky. It’s like an image straight from the pages of some sleazy men’s’ magazine, isn’t it? I guess nuns in full habit are often depicted as deranged and depraved sex fiends in porn. Yes, there’s something outrageously cheeky and titillating about the forbidden combination of nuns and sex, isn’t there? It’s like nuns are some kind of divine beings for whom sex and all things sexual just simply don’t exist.
Ah, but I digress…
So what exactly is sex education anyway? Well, certainly it’s about knowing the anatomy and physiology of human body; the actual act of sex; reproduction and, more relevant particularly in today’s sexualised world, it’s also about prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

Every week, in America alone, approximately 8,000 teenagers and children contract sexually transmitted diseases. Sexually active teen’s ages 15 to 19 have the highest STD rates of any age group, and nearly half of the 18.9 million new STD cases in 2000 were among youths ages 15 to 24. (Again in America, around 3,000 girls fall pregnant every week and the ratio is similar in Australia.) While gays and lesbians are quite simply just another (excuse this pun) fact of life. So, surely, the full scope of sex education is a good thing. It’s not as if sex education is, as some people seem to think, equivalent to giving kids some kind of inferred permission to engage in sex.
On the other hand, certainly everyone is entitled to raise their children, within the common boundary of what’s acceptable to the community, with the same morals and social values as themselves?
We live in a society where sex is everywhere. It’s used to sell everything from cars to choc milk. It’s there on everyone’s TV. It’s in every newspaper, magazine, and posted on every billboard. It’s talked about. It’s laughed about. You just can’t avoid it. So, I suppose it’s only fair and reasonable that some parents may want to make an effort to protect their children from, and at least have some control over, what they consider a deviation from their own good values and judgments.
Yes, politics, religion and sex… An atheist has the right to bring their child/children up without a belief in a god or gods. While a left winger is entitled to raise their child/children to be accepting of socialistic ways. Whether or not you agree or disagree with these things, they’re still freedoms everyone is entitled to. We tend to take them very much take for granted, so why should sex education be different?
Sex education is a health issue. I suppose, if you really wanted to, you could make it an elective course, allowing parents to opt out for their children. It may be a stupid thing for them to do (at least in my opinion) but they could do it.
As for the Church, theoretically more babies mean more followers. But how, then do you explain the marked decline in Catholics around the US, at least. And getting new priests (and, I assume, nuns) from this country is a serious problem for them.
It is my belief that better education combined with increased availability of information, through the Internet, cable TV, even cell phones, allows people to learn about other religions, or arguments against religions, and gives them more options. Unfortunately, it seems that many of those who are turning their backs on religion are placing their faith in UFO’s, Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) and lake monsters, instead.
As for my school-days, I didn’t need anything graphic forced down my throat by the state/school system to understand what sex and STD’s etc were about and I sure didn’t need to waste time on it when I did go to school taking a class specifically for it.
I know not all children have good parents that taught them anything about the basics to being alive or procreation, and personally if your an orphan or fosterchild etc and raised by the state then by all means force feed away.
I personally believe this would be a non-issue if the courses on sex ed were “parent selected” electives in all high school curriculum’s, allowing those that did not wish to be assaulted with such to educate themselves and or their own children.
Unfortunately most liberal education systems and governments believe that the “people are incapable of self responsibility and or teaching their own children and go to great lengths to keep such activities from occurring.
Churches and protesters of such things have no business disrupting schools with demonstrations when it’s the government that’s responsible. Their time would be better spent attempting to buy off the politicians responsible for backing the legislation. After all that’s how the offending courses got put into the schools to begin with, (someone convinced or paid off a politician).
I know this sounds like I am against sex education…I am not, what I am against is the “State” forcing sex education on children whose parents don’t want them to receive the “States” version of it.
Once again about the Muslim’s views on sex, People tend to hate and fear that which they don’t understand. They also tend to hate those who are markedly (and sometimes even just barely) different from themselves. They tend to forget that those others will view them with the same fear and hatred, and for the same reasons: they are different.
In the US, and in much of western Europe as well, people tend to think of themselves as enlightened, modern, civilized people, and we tend to think of the followers of Islam as barbaric, medieval brutes. They, on the other hand, think of themselves as devout, civilized and enlightened, and think of US citizen as despotic, hedonistic, heretics.
Who’s right?
Sexuality in any culture or religion which is male dominated is going to be biased against women, simply because those men will have, to one degree or another, taken the reins of power into their own hands, yet cannot help but view the sexual attraction of women as a threat to that power. As women gain more real power, like they have in the West, men tend to lose that fear of their sexuality, seeing them more and more as equals, in the boardroom and the bedroom. Admittedly, even in US, people are not quite at that point yet, but they are much farther along than most Muslim countries. And part of the reason that Muslim and Catholic leaders protest against sex education is that it demystifies female sexuality to some degree, allowing the young to see women more as equals and less as property.
This de-mystification can also all to easily lead to emasculation of a society and a trans-valuation away from natural bio-ethical truths.
Religious fundamentalism is all too often close minded.
The Islamic and the Christians both suffer from overt “fundamentalist” idealism and un-yielding dogmas that lead to direct confrontation.
The problem is not in the cultural identity of the individual. It is in the individual religious zealot’s resolution to continue along a chosen path without regard to logical observation that is the real culprit. Both east and west has too many examples to list.
It is a short sighted mistake to assume that a patriarchal society is also by default a misogynist one. Well established gender roles give structure to a chaotic environment and are often a necessity in economically poorer regions for survival.
Every culture in history that has lost touch with its biological orientation gender identity has fallen into decadence and decline.