A free society by definition is the society in which, each individual, i.e. the basic unit of the structure of society remains free to pursue his personal prosperity and happiness, where he is free to achieve his most using his talent and hard-work and saved resources. Obviously, such a society depends on rational pursuit of self-interest and provides full freedom for the individuals from the shackles of social responsibility or altruistic motives.
Often socialists claim that such a free laissez-faire capitalist society will turn out to be a system of dog race where no one will look for the poor, the impoverished an the depraved. Furthermore, socialists claim that for a poverty-free society, compulsory altruism is most necessary, where the producers and creators who can produce wealth, must be forced to pay for the living of the poor and depraved. All governments throughout the world follow such Robin Hood’s philosophy and rob the producers, creators, entrepreneurs and investors for the name-sake of welfare state by means of compulsory taxation, price control, Universal Equality Programs and other similar dictatorial techniques. Yet, the world suffer the problem of poverty as always and despite all the huge socialistic efforts by the governments whole round the world, situations never improves.

So what can help to eradicate the poverty?

As per World Bank’s estimates, 60% of Indian population was living in poverty in 1981, during the socialistic regime of Indian government.
Since 1991, India enjoyed the streams of economic liberalization and stepped towards the making of a free society. As a result, the current estimates of World Bank suggests that 42% of the total Indian population now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). That is quite a big sweep.
Similarly, in China, since the far changing economic reforms and liberalization were made in the late 1970s, the growth fuelled a noteworthy decline in the poverty rate from 64% at the beginning of reform to 10% in 2004.
Obviously, the data suggests that economic reforms and liberalization is the key to the eradication of poverty. Before 1991, the government controlled almost all industries and production sectors of India but after that, step by step liberalization of industries from public sector to private sector took place and the OECD states the result in following words

Annual growth in GDP per capita has accelerated from just 1¼ per cent in the three decades after Independence to 7½ per cent currently, a rate of growth that will double average income in a decade. [...] In service sectors where government regulation has been eased significantly or is less burdensome – such as communications, insurance, asset management and information technology – output has grown rapidly, with exports of information technology enabled services particularly strong. In those infrastructure sectors which have been opened to competition, such as telecoms and civil aviation, the private sector has proven to be extremely effective and growth has been phenomenal. – OECD¹

Similarly, China confronted economic reforms and liberalization in 1978 and now, as of 2005, 70% of China’s GDP is in the private sector. The relatively small public sector is dominated by about 200 large state enterprises concentrating mostly in utilities, heavy industries, and energy resources.²

Free Market Entrepreneurship is the Key to riddle of Poverty

The examples of China and India clearly show that a free market based on Individual freedom is obviously a solution for the poverty in the society itself.
What impels an entrepreneur, investor, producer or creator in a private sector to remove poverty is not his “altruism”, rather it is his selfishness, his motive to produce and earn more, bigger profits. Yet for making profits, he needs to increase the productivity of the workers. As productivity of workers increases, the poverty reduces.
Social governmental constraints, regionalism, nationalism, license raj, price controls, taxes and subsidies etc only reduces the productivity of individuals and hence causes further poverty.
Examples of Entrepreneur trends eradicating poverty
While the politicians and government of Maharashtra is playing cards of protectionism, regionalism and linguistic discrimination by framing such ridiculous rule like permitting a taxi license only for those who can speak and write Marathi,³ the youth from North East is enjoying various job ventures in private sector freely in Indian metros. For their productive efficiencies, girls and boys from North East are in great demand for jobs in private sector as service providers, sales persons, mall, showrooms or boutique managers etc.⁴
This contrasting difference between the private entrepreneurs and government authorities is because of the fact that private entrepreneurs are motivated by the single aim of satisfying their customers in best possible and productive way for doing which, they need to come above any such linguistic, regional or religious discriminations. On the other hand, government and politicians have nothing to do with customer’s satisfaction or individual rights; what they look for is potential vote bank.
The Astaire Research suggests the hurdles in Indian economic reforms and progress in following words–

A Balance of Payments crisis in 1991 pushed the country to near bankruptcy. In return for an IMF bailout, gold was transferred to London as collateral, the Rupee devalued and economic reforms were forced upon India. That low point was the catalyst required to transform the economy through badly needed reforms to unshackle the economy. Controls started to be dismantled, tariffs, duties and taxes progressively lowered, state monopolies broken, the economy was opened to trade and investment, private sector enterprise and competition were encouraged and globalisation was slowly embraced. The reforms process continues today and is accepted by all political parties, but the speed is often held hostage by coalition politics and vested interests. – India Report, Astaire Research⁵

Another example of entrepreneurs helping the cause of eradicating poverty is the success of entrepreneurs like Vikram Akula⁶ or Irfan Alam.
Irfan Alam an MBA from prestigious IIM-Alhmedabad is the founder and chairman of the SAMMAAN Foundation. His enterprise innovated for the help of the millions of Rickshaw pullers across the country. Most of them are illiterate and poor. Over 90% of them are farm workers who migrate to cities for want of employment at home. They hire rickshaws for which they pay owners Rs 30 to Rs 40 per day and end up with a pittance for themselves.
He managed and persuaded banks to finance rickshaw-pullers. His enterprise SAMMAAN designed rickshaws that can put on hold newspapers, mineral water bottles and other such small items for sale if the passenger needs them. These rickshaws also carry advertisements and the pullers get 50% of the ad revenue, the remainder going to SAMMAAN.
Thus apart from the fare, the rickshaw-puller also earns from the ads and the sales. Gradually they become the owners of the rickshaw after re-paying the bank loan in instalments.
Irfan started off with 100 such rickshaws in 2007. Today, over three lakh rickshaw-pullers from across the country are registered with SAMMAAN. While 10,000 and odd are pedalling the special rickshaws, the process is underway to benefit others.⁷
Conclusion: It is the selfish motive of the entrepreneurs to make profits that entails the solution of poverty. As the governments will start to leave the market and society free of their dictatorial regime, the society itself will reduce the poverty to minimum.

1. “Economic survey of India 2007: Policy Brief”, OECD, pdf [↩]
2. China is a Private-Sector Economy, Economist Fan Gang points to a 70% share of GDP now in private hands, but he acknowledges that much improvement is still needed [↩]
3. Want a taxi permit in Mumbai? Read, write Marathi, Mumbai: The Maharashtra government framed new rules for taxi drivers to get permits in Mumbai. [↩]
4. North East Youth ride high on Reatial Boom, The Economic Times [↩]
5. “The India Report”, Astaire Research. [↩]
6. Vikram Akula, CEO and Founder of SKS Microfinance [↩]
7. Obama invites Bihari Entrepreneur to entrepreneur summit, The Economic Times [↩]

The Article 7 of the Human Rights declaration suggests that

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.¹ “

The law is supposed to be enforced uniformly, and without any discrimination against the guilty based on their economic and social background.
Yet recently, the Indian Apex Court decided to go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On Monday, the Supreme Court said that the courts should consider the economic status of a murderer before sentencing him to death penalty of life sentence even in cases of crimes falling in the category of “rare of rarest”.
The Bench comprising of Justice P.Sathshivam and H.L Dattu said that poor background of the accused should — along with old age and years spent behind bars while awaiting death sentence — be considered as mitigating factors when courts ponder whether life sentence should be used in an otherwise fit case for death penalty.²
It would be fascinating to know why Supreme Court judges are seeking for the populist issues, is the Supreme legal body of India the Apex Court trying to be the champion of socialism?

Significance of the Supreme Court Statement

Reservation for the Poor in Crime
The Supreme Court believes that socio-economic factors might not dilute guilt, but they may amount to mitigating circumstances. That is, if a girl walking on road is raped and murdered by a rich tycoon, than he is surely guilty and must be punished in the harshest manner, but if the rapist murderer belongs to middle class, than the punishment should not be that harsh, furthermore, if the rapist belongs to lower-middle class, than the punishment must be further “mitigated” and if the rapist is a poor (there is no definite definition of poor), than the punishment can only be for the name-sake. After all, he is poor, he should have reservation to be morally depraved, and he should be having freedom to rape or murder, steal, or rob.
The idea behind this is a morally strong, talented, intelligent person is obviously a criminal to some degrees, on the other hand, a lazy, stupid person, who obviously is poor, is certainly innocent to some degrees. Alternatively, the idea can be, to be rich, hardworking and intelligent is a crime in itself.
Obviously, it is akin to show a green flag for all who consider them poor, to be casual about the moral standards and feel free to commit crimes. It is just like showing the shortcut for the poor to be criminals and make money through mean ways.
Apparently, this trend will increase further crime in cities as now; the poor will get a certain “mitigating” security while committing a crime. The police and law bodies are supposed to deal with “poor criminals” with ease.

Consequences of Such Ridiculous Ruling

As now poor have reservation in committing the crime, they can easily innovate and employ themselves in various crimes. Not only they will feel free to commit robbery, theft, rapes or murders for their benefits, they may be employed by the other “richer” criminals to pursue their benefits. Furthermore, any criminal, if he is rich, can easily deal with some poor and pay him a chunk of money to take the responsibility of the crime. The poor will also feel no harm in taking the responsibility of the crime as that will provide him high money and the Supreme Court has already provided him an assurance that his punishment will be much “mitigated”.
Results will be an obvious increase in crimes, further increase in jail maintenance and police expenses, terrorizing environment for middle class individuals and exploitative situations for the poor individuals. The mafia of government, police, politicians and oligarchic corporatists will enjoy the foolery of Indian public that will appreciate the socialistic thought of Supreme Court and Indian government to give priorities for the poor in committing crime, Nonetheless, the Apex Court ruling have provided an easy money making job for the poor. The poor now doesn’t need to be hardworking, morally strong, intelligent and talented for making his life better, he just need to be morally depraved and ready to commit a crime, or to take the responsibility of any already committed crime.

Trailing the Law further

Indian politicians always remain hungry for any such populism so that they may divide the society in various fragments; cause them to struggle within and than rule over them. Yet this time, the Apex Court of India has taken the route of populism. No politician could have thought such a new sector to be divided in various sects of society. SC has already announced the reservation for the poor eventually the High Court of various states may announce a similar quota for Muslims in crime too and then being a Muslim will also be a mitigating factor for punishment for a crime. Well, terrorism is also a crime, so if a terrorist is poor, SC suggests that he should not be punished severely, if High Court of West Bengal announces similar mitigating quota for Muslims, then if a terrorist is a Muslim, he will also not be punished severely.
Quota for crime based on economical state has been announced, sooner or later politicians will again install some committee’s recommendation, suggesting that Muslims should also get reservation in crime, after all Muslims are predominantly minority, no less than poor. After that, politicians may further divide the criminals among their various castes as SC criminals, ST criminals or OBC criminals, with various “mitigating” degrees that would certainly be prescribed by the Supreme Court bench of judges. Ultimately, government and law authority have started encouraging the crime and producing the criminals.
Conclusion:: Socialism, or the idea altruism, that is, the obligatory immorality of having “pity” on the poor ultimately leads to the destruction of not only the poor but also of the whole social set-up. Whenever the government or central collective law authority takes such altruistic step, irrespective of their good intentions, the results come out to be devastatingly opposite. The recent statement of Supreme Court to discriminate the criminals based on economical class will certainly increase the crime in society and will further cause deterioration. The best way a society can assert uniform justice is by providing free or privatized legal services.³

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations [↩]
2. Poverty could mitigate crime, even murder: SC, Times of India [↩]
3. Prospects of Private Judicial System in India, RFL [↩]

The Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, is on the way to amend the Arms and ammunitions policy. The document issued by MHA says “Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development.” How true is it? As in many other issues, the conventional wisdom could be wrong. India has very strict gun control laws. In India, people were prevented from bearing arms by the British under Lord Lytton as Viceroy through the Arms act of 1878 after the mutiny of 1857. Though the Arms act, 1858 was repealed in 1959, Arms Act, 1959 was put in place, supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. As a result, there was improvement in several development indicators, after Independence, but crime rates in India have gone up several times, mostly in urban areas.

With all these gun control laws, we were not able to prevent the terrorist attacks in 2008, Mumbai. A reporter in the location was caught saying he wished he had a gun instead of a camera. Only people loyal to the British were allowed to possess arms. Many freedom fighters were opposed to this rule. Even Mahatma Gandhi opined in his Autobiography:”Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest. “I do believe that when there is only a choice between cowardice and violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonor.”

Proponents of gun control usually argue that gun rights will lead to high crime rates. Firstly, a criminal is a person who violates the law. Is it logical to assume that such a violator will obey gun control laws? A criminal planning to attempt a murder won’t think “Oh, I am sorry. I don’t have a gun. So, I am not going to do this!” In one way or the other, he will get hold of a gun or some other powerful weapon. Vikram Kona writes: “There are around 40 million illegal small arms in circulation in India. Most of them are either illegally smuggled in or manufactured in the illegal cottage industries. Criminals never apply for licenses, nor do they spend a fortune to buy illegal guns. They get them cheaply and easily on the black market, and use them against law abiding citizens with impunity.” Gun control would only disarm innocent, law abiding citizens. Secondly, there is no empirical evidence to prove that gun rights lead to severe crimes. Quite the contrary, in fact! Nations with the highest crime rates are the ones with the strictest gun control laws. The low crime rate of Switzerland is illuminating. Violent crime skyrocketed after gun measures were prohibited in Australia in the last 90’s. When Washington D.C. enacted a ban on handguns, homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. Often, it is argued that Gun controls are the reason for the low crime rate in UK. There are two points to be noted here. Crime rates were extremely low in UK, even before the hand gun ban. Crime rate rocketed after the ban. As it is said, “Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.” A study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States.

It follows from the philosophy of self-ownership and the right to own property that people have the right to defend their lives and property- If necessary, by force. If so, people should have the right to bear arms. It goes without saying that people should be held accountable for their actions too. But, it makes no sense to punish a person before the criminal act is performed. It is absurd to prevent some people from being armed simply because there are people who use guns for wrong purposes. Why should ones rights be determined by the actions of others? Should a person be prevented from driving an automobile as others drive recklessly? (People killed by their own guns are an extremely rare minority) Charles Reese perceptively noted: “To believe that guns cause crime is as stupid as believing that hammers and saws cause houses. Cars and doctors kill a lot more people than firearms, but nobody wants to ban them.” There is even an NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Not for a single moment am I saying that gun rights will prevent crimes. But, people will have a more chance of protecting themselves if they are free to defend themselves. Murderers, thieves and terrorists would think twice before attacking their victims if there is a chance that they are armed. Women and physically weak people could be made strong only through gun rights. It’s ridiculous to expect policemen to be omnipresent. Defending oneself is a skill which anyone can acquire.

It should also be said that a ban of guns won’t eliminate guns from the society. There will always be people who get hold of guns, just like people have access to drugs despite of strict penalty. Such laws can only be enforced selectively. Almost always, people who are not in good terms with the authorities will be punished. The real intention of the people in power is to increase their power through disarming people. Gun control is the greatest threat to individual liberty.

It is very common to hear some environmentalist on any main stream media freaking out about the global warming and rehashing the swan song of environmentalists concerning assumed disasters that await the world if it carry on with its evil ways of fossil fuel consumption: the disappearance of islands beneath the sea, the flooding of coastal cities, more severe droughts and hurricanes, famines, disease, the displacement of tens of millions of people from their traditional homelands and the disappearance of glaciers.
However now the climate is surely changing and in this new climate, those environmentalists surprisingly are accepting their faults, yet they are not ready to take the responsibility.
Recently, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a panel of 2500 of the best climate scientists in the world, accepted that they made a huge goof-up regarding their blow-horns about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.¹
The IPCC, which is a noble winning organization of environmentalist alarmed about the catastrophic threat of melting of Himalayan glacier by 2035, that is, within 20 years, IPCC expected the disastrous end of the Himalayan range. Now when there are no signs of any such apocalyptic change in any new future, they have accepted that it was mistake. The mistake was a result of extreme irresponsibility and carelessness of these climate scientists of the noble winning IPCC organization. First of all, they never studied the Himalayan glaciers with any objectivity and the report they issued was borrowed from a 1996 Russian study, obviously, the study was not at all authentic. Not only that, the Russian study by V M Kotlyakov also predicted a date of 2350 for an expected decrease in Himalayan glacier. The IPCC scientists and climate reporters not only copied a non-authentic study, they also goofed up with the predicted date and made it to 2035. It might be a small typographical error that advanced the apocalyptic deadline by 300 years.
Similarly, the same reputed UN’s union of environmentalists also issued a report regarding the disappearance of Amazon forests based on another baseless report by some advocacy group WWF.² The author of that report on Amazon was also not written by any specialist on Amazon forests, but by a freelance journalist with no authenticity. IPCC never considered the importance to check the validity of such apocalyptical threat before lamenting it as a possible danger to force their socialistic dream of stern governmental actions throughout the world.
Now it is well known through out the world that all these environmentalists keep lying about the shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, rising sea levels and depleting rainforests. Yet nobody in the IPCC, not even the chairman Mr. R.K Pachauri is ready to take the responsibility of such so-called mistakes. Were they intentional?

Changing views of Climatologists

Some of the climate scientists have started trying to search out some feasible excuses to suggest why not all their predicted warnings about the apocalyptic changes in environment are proving to be true. Such a recent study suggests that the Earth did not warm up noticeably over the period of last decade even though the greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically because of a new stratospheric phenomenon 10 miles above our heads. The study suggests that somehow, the water vapour in the stratosphere has been decreased. As the water in atmosphere traps heat, lesser water in stratosphere means lesser heat. That is, although greenhouse gases are continually increasing, the atmosphere has changed itself in such a way that there is no global warming and in fact there is lesser heat. The atmosphere thus, has acted for the benefit of humanity.³
Although it is just an excuse, it suggests that now instead of keep issuing the threats of apocalypse every second day, environmentalists and climate scientists need to stress over searching for better excuses to hide out their deceits.

The Growing Glaciers

Despite all hullabaloo of global warming, the glaciers are growing all around the world. How is that possible that IPCC issues an unauthentic report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, while the scientists from other group make a documentary about how the Himalayan glaciers are ever increasing since the last three decades?
Here is a list of 12 glaciers that have not heard the news about Global warming. They are growing and growing fast.⁴
It is a fact that the fake calls of apocalyptic dangers of global warming are not going to pay the socialist set of environmentalists any success. Yet, it would also be wrong to say that climate is not changing, climate is always changing and so do the human beings and other life forms. We evolve with time we change.
Professor Ian Plimer (University of Adelaide) in his book “Heaven an Earth” explains why CO2 cannot be a cause of global warming; here is a transcript of his scientifically recognized book Heaven and Earth.⁵
Despite the 21st century decrease in global temperature, we are perpetually warned of dangerous global warming. Every evening one can see a disturbing documentary over some news channel showing some absurd claims (just like that of IPCC claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers etc.) all these environmentalists and green activists obviously want us to believe that if we try to live a happy, healthy prosperous life, we will be no better than the devil ready to cause havoc on earth. Obviously, they want the governments to control us and force us to sacrifice ourselves, our progress for the greater cause of saving the environment from the alleged threat of global warming.

Alternative solutions for alleged global warming

In the book Super Freakonomics⁶ the author argues that even if CO2 is causing global warming and if global warming is a real threat, then also it is not necessary that governments all around the world need to enforce draconian laws and cuts in carbon dioxide emission that would cost many trillions of dollars and will force the poor to be poorer. Rather some better geo-engineering solutions can be adopted to keep the earth cool despite the increased concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Just like the present water vapor in the stratosphere can actually cause the globe to cool down irrespective of increased concentration of carbon dioxide, engineers can pump sulphur dioxide in stratosphere by a suspended hose using helium balloons. There can be numerous ways to actually control any global warming if it is occurring at any dangerous rate, but the fact is, since the 21st century, the earth is cooling off.
The environmentalists knows that it would be hard for them to contend at the issue of global warming because the evidences are totally against them and hence they are playing the new trick. Now days, the catastrophe lovers does not shout for Global Warming, rather they call for Climate Change. Climate change is a reality, climate keep changing since ever and forever. Mainstream economists, along with scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisers for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions such as Cap and Trade policy etc.
Conclusion: Global warming is gradually proving out to be another fake call of the socialists just to dishearten the freedom loving individuals and to force common public to suffer under governmental duress and keep thinking that freedom is sinful and progress is evil. We need to save ourselves from such unholy misguiding tirade of socialist environmentalists, economists and media persons who are trying to baffle public to enforce governmental control over their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Update: A good article against Global warming fraud in “Open” : http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

Indian Environment Minister Jairam ramesh says:: There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,” Ramesh told a news channel here.
Stressing that the IPCC’s weakness was that it didn’t do original research and derives assessments from published literature, the minister announced a climate change panel for India. Economic Times

1. Times of India IPCC retracts 2035 alarm on Himalayan glacier melt [↩]
2. The Telegraph After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate [↩]
3. NPR News ,Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming [↩]
4. 12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming, Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing. [↩]
5. Professor Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne [↩]
6. SuperFreakonomics,Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance [↩]

War has a Role in Peace¹

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly–

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India [↩]
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia [↩]
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia [↩]
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org [↩]

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 [↩]

The two major political propagandas of Indian political parties are “Education for All¹” and “Electricity for everyone at every Village”. Despite all the technical advancements government failed to provide electricity for every village of India, not only that, government failed to provide incessant electricity to any city too. India suffers acute electric shortage. Most of the cities suffer brownouts. Generally, any common city or town of India suffers electric cuts for 4-6 hours daily, while some more industrial cities and towns of India (like that of cities of Uttar Pradesh) suffers acute blackouts for even 12 hours a day.
It would be nothing new to stress again that it is impossible for any government to ensure and provide anything like “Free-education” or “Free-electricity” as citizen’s rights in any condition. As it is impossible, governments are bound to fail to meet such promises.
The Destruction of Power Sector under Government
We have seen how the price controls destroys the power of market and producers to supply the required commodity to meet the demands and hence creates shortages². In order to neutralize the effect of price control, government thus tends to exclusively control certain sectors of production completely under the monopoly. As government controls the production and supply of electricity thoroughly in India, it may be assumed that the price control on electricity may not affect the supply because it is the government only, that is producing and supplying electricity and hence government may provide electricity sufficiently at controlled lower prices or even at no price at all. As a matter of fact, government even tries to provide free-electricity for various purposes, yet government suffers acute shortage of electric power and hence fails to meet the demand of electricity. The natural law that price controls brings shortages works even in such exclusively government franchised production sector.
Role of inflation in electric shortages
If there is no inflation and government is providing electricity at lowest minimal prices, government often fails to gain any profit over the power sector and hence suffers acute financial deficits to increase the production of electricity to meet the required demand. Even the minimal possible price for electricity certainly remains much higher than the prices that would have prevailed in free market because not only the electric sector suffers any vital competition to increase production and decrease prices; it actually prohibits any such effort. All efforts to increase production are surmounted by the increase in demand.
If there is a genuine inflation rate, the cost of production of electricity keeps increasing, while the government and regulatory bodies either refuses to increase the price of electric power or allows only insufficient increase in prices. As a result, power sector suffers losses and deficits and ceases to grow rapidly and increase production because it gets no profit to save and invest in further production. Hence, government is forced to provide subsidies and capital for the power sector to keep producing from the compulsory tax collected. As a result, the citizens are forced to pay much higher price for the comparably insufficient and menial electric services than what they would have been paying for much better and sufficient electric services in free market. As the power sector under government regulations remains in deficit and suffer losses, it fails to replace worn-out equipments and service lines at higher prices due to inflation and that increase wastage and forces power sector to actual decline.
Corruption in power sector
Because of the natural losses and deficits in power-sector, government is forced to pay the required amounts to keep the production of electricity from the budgets of compulsory tax collected. This enforces a certain corruption where the more hardworking and able persons who are obviously making higher incomes, are forced to pay much higher prices for the power-sector (or any commodity/service under government monopoly), while the lazy, dishonest and incapable ones are getting the same services of electricity at much lower prices, often at no price at all. This obviously is acute corruption that forces every citizen to actually accept corruption in his own demeanour. As any consumer realizes that he is actually paying much higher prices for the electricity in form of various taxes he is forced to pay than the others, who are paying lesser taxes, he feels cheated, and that increases the tendency of consumer to steal electricity. Often consumers tend to tamper the electric meters and other ways to actually use more electricity and pay less. This seems to be genuine too because they are already paying much higher prices in form of other compulsory taxations. Often, because of controlled prices of electricity people over-consumes and hence waste the electricity. Overall, the power sector is forced to keep suffering great losses, insufficient amount to keep increasing production, to replace worn-out equipments, supplying lines, and almost no amount for development, innovation and inventions to reduce wastage and increase production. The amount that could have been used to increase production of electricity is wasted upon creating better meters to prohibit stealing, which seems impossible because in a way, stealing becomes necessary to reduce the already forced corruption by the government on citizens.
As government is forced to pay for the power sector through the budgets and compulsory tax collected, the amount that could have been used for progress in other sectors is wasted upon the already suffering power sector and that decreases the overall progress.
Will the Nuclear technology reduce the scarcity of power?
It is assumed that nuclear technology may increase the production of electricity and hence reduce the shortage, but it is not possible because the nuclear technology is a replacement for thermal and hydroelectric production. Thus, at one hand the production of electricity will be increased, at other hand, it will be decreased too while the basic reason for the shortage of electricity, that are government monopoly and regulation, price control and inflation, will remain unanswered.
The solution for the acute power shortage India is facing is to reduce the regulation and ultimately culminate the monopoly of government on power sector. If private bodies are allowed to invest in power sector freely with property rights, the production of electricity will increase manifolds; the wastage in supplying electricity will reduce to minimal. Because of competitive free market, the price for electricity will tend to decrease and that will promote the private electric service providers to increase the reach their facilities to more and more consumers at much lesser prices.
Furthermore, the producers and investors, in order to increase their profits will keep investing in innovating and inventing ways to increase progressive technology and production of electricity. As consumers will get their desired electric services at the genuine prices, the tendency to steal electricity will be reduced to minimal and that would further decrease the wastage to much extent.
Conclusion: The new 123 deal is hugely insufficient to solve the shortage of electricity in India. Indian government need to privatize the power sector and let the investors and entrepreneurs to invest in innovative ways and technology (including nuclear technology) to increase production of electricity and hence decrease the actual price of electricity for the consumers.

1. Education For All, Reason For Liberty [↩]
2. Reason of Price Rise and Consequences of Price Control, Reason For Liberty [↩]