“Billu Barber”, what do you think is defamatory in that title?
Some groups in India consider it derogatory though.
An association of hairdressers have objected to the title of the new film of SRK productions, terming the use of the word ‘barber’ “objectionable and derogatory”.¹
Now Shahrukh Khan also agrees that the title may be derogatory for some sector of society and hence he agreed to change the title. As it would be expensive to change all the hoardings and posters advertising for the film, Shahrukh Khan proposed sending teams to put a piece of paper on the word Barber, wherever it can be done.
Thus, some association of hairdressers won the issue of censoring the word barber and announcing it as “derogatory”.
Will they try to remove the word “barber” from dictionaries too?
One may wonder what is so defamatory about the word barber, and I am sure no one will get any answer to the question, why using barber in a movie title is derogatory?
Can anyone suggest what is so derogatory about the profession of a barber, or being a barber?
Well, there is no possible answer to that. A barber earns his living honestly; it is obviously respectable and honourable. He is not looting or mooching anyone.
So how it can be derogatory?
It can be derogatory in India though, and obviously, it is unreasonable emotional tactic to keep on worthless censorship and moral policing. It is derogatory in India because Indians still live with the ghost of Caste-system, well maintained by the governmental policies of reservation and vote bank.²
Now just some days ago, a Muslim girl from Pakistan, who came to pursue a course in production from Whistling Woods International Institute in Mumbai, was beaten by a group of Muslim women of Mumbai because of a tattoo the girl casted on her back.³
Those women assaulted her over the tattoo that read ‘Shukr Alham Du Lillah’, meaning ‘Thank you, God’. They were furious about the tattoo sporting the words from Holy Quran, and they wanted to show that Indian Muslims are much more fundamentalist freak than the Pakistanis are. Thus, they terrorised the innocent girl brutally in public. They slapped her many times and abused her, and guess what?
Who apologized for that brutal incidence? Not the culprits, but the innocent victim.
The Pakistani girl, whose name is Saba, apologized and said she was not aware that tattooing something on her back would hurt anybody’s sentiment.
So, this is how freedom and justice works in India.
A girl was beaten up brutally in public, and then she was forced to apologize because she has no right to write something on her back, and the brutal criminal beaters were considered protectors of Islam, and Indian Muslim community.
Physical attack is no crime according to Indians and Indian government police, though if one hurts somebody’s religious emotions or sentiments, they will be punished.
These incidences further prove the reality, that democracy is not freedom but it is tyranny of majority.
Instead of arresting the criminals who abused and assaulted Saba, the police was more engaged in taking a written apology from the victim (Saba) and then assuring her, that no criminal case will be fired against her, now this is Victimization of the Victim.
Is not it a shame, a shame for Indians, and India?
Thus, government is for protecting the groups and gangs and assaulting the innocent individuals.
Unless the Individual liberty and sovereignty will not be established, such incidents will be repeated and re-repeated, and individual liberty and security can be established and professed only by means of property rights, and removal of the rule of majority.
India need to abolish the laws based on emotions and sentiments and to accept, profess and establish laws and regularities based on Reason and Individual Liberty.

1. SRK dropped the term barber, ET News [↩]
2. India in search of Freedom, Equality and Justice, Reason for Liberty [↩]
3. Pak girl beaten up for sporting a tattoo in Urdu by Indian Muslim women, Mumbai Mirror [↩]

Date rape is the most common form of sex-offense.
When one mentions “sex-offense”, people imagine a frugal, helpless girl under the claws of a brutal rapist who kidnaps little girls from their courtyards, rapes, and murder them and leave their dead body to rot.
Now such crimes although happens, but are very rare, but date rape is a mild form of sex-offence which often goes unnoticed, unmentioned and hence unpunished because it is difficult to show that the victim was not consenting.
Pinky Anand, a Senior Supreme Court lawyer¹ , suggests considering Date Rape as a capital, life or first-degree-felony not mere a less serious sex-offense, but the incidents of rapes she mentions to support her suggestion for stringent punishment for the date-rape accused surely does not represent the typical date-rape incidents.
Date rape is a special case of confusion, which often involves a situation of “he said this / I said that”, “he interpreted this, I mentioned that”, and it all happened.
Date rape is a case, where the victim is well known and often friendly with the accused, where she chooses to enjoy, meet, and party with the accused voluntarily. Now, in some such party, under the affect of smoke and a little light alcohol, if they chose to have some little sexy fun, and after the initial stages of approval, girl said “Stop” and the boy failed to stop fast enough, it becomes a rape, a Date Rape.
Now sometimes, in some cases, the boy is really a brute justifiably accused of rape. Sometimes, it may be just a case of ego clash and the girl may not be the victim as she claims to be. Sometimes, initially the girl was ready for the fun, and she actually enjoyed, but after a little nap, when she actually realized what just happened, she goes to defensive mode and claims a rape, sending the college boy who was her earnest friend to prison for an offense, which we consider as the first-degree-felony.
Pinky Anand, while defending the case of girls against the real “sex-predators” ignored such innocuous sex-offenders. While discussing the issue of “Date Rape” she actually never discussed any incident of “Date Rape” although she mentioned the appalling rape case of Mumbai, where a police constable Sushil More raped a young girl. Now that surely was not a Date Rape.
Date Rape as the name suggests is the incidence of sex, at a pre-decided voluntary “date” where the girl actually is not ready for sex. Such cases often happen to be in the groups of college students and often they do not involve any person with any criminal record as a sex-offender, nor a person who is potential future criminal or offender.
So how logical it is to consider a Date-Rape as a first-degree-felony.
Mostly it may not be the case of any crime but just of confusion or a situation of indecision on the part of boy and girl both and after the casual sex happened, girl decided she was against it.
Now can we compare such cases with a case of a police constable forcibly raping an innocent girl who initially came to police constable for some help that she deserved and demanded?
Often rigid laws ignore the difference between situation and degree of supposed crime involved. We cannot treat every case with same tag of rule.
While discussing the issue of “age of consent” we concluded that law should not be dogmatized and fixed, it should remain flexible and every case needs proper individual study.²
Date Rape also involves a more important issue of drugs, which we call as “Date Rape Drugs”.
Date Rape Drugs are those sedatives, tranquilizers or hallucinogenic drugs, which makes it harder to think clearly and evaluate a potentially dangerous situation for a person.
Furthermore, only criminals do not use the Date Rape Drugs, they are used for various legal purposes, that is, we cannot assume government and police to waste the tax-payers money to stop drug usage anyhow, also, banning drugs itself is wastage.
We do know that prosecuting drug dealers does not solve the drug problems.³
Even alcohol is considered a Date Rape Drug.
Now the question is, if a girl decides to drink alcohol herself, and then she engages in a casual sex-activity herself, will it be termed as a rape?
We cannot suggest women and girls to not to go parties, and pubs and dance clubs, or to go to hotels to meet their friends. Can we force youth not to involve in love relations? Can we force girls not to go on dates? Can we suggest women to not to drink alcohol? No feminist will agree to it, nor is it logical.⁴
The only solution is the flexibility of law and the required study of each case with proper situational perspective. We cannot treat every rape case as a first-degree-felony.
More than that, we need to understand that sex is not a crime in itself.
On moral grounds, every one is free for her pursuit of pleasure and happiness, and if it involves sex, there is certainly no moral offense.
I understand that rape in any case is a heinous crime, yet the right way is to treat every other case as a special, looking for each and every situational evidence and justifying that the accused was really offensive, and not merely a victim of confusions and indecision. Furthermore, female should feel the responsibility for her own safety and security.
By exhorting government and legal authorities to treat rape accused equally and stringently, although feminists succeeds in proving that the state and government favours them more than the males, but it solves nothing. On the other hand, it propagates that female herself has no role in securing her own safety that she is helpless and unable to care for her own life and thus she need to be dependent on government, law and society, which again creates a new set of slavery for the female.
Rather the need is females should understand their own responsibility and capacity to safeguard their independence.
When Dame Helen Mirren⁵ suggested that date rape cases should not directly go to courts, rather they should be discussed between the two parties involved, and only in a situation of a proper indecision after discussion they may be forward to criminal courts, she was slammed and vilified, yet, she was right and her suggestion is more helpful to create a viable youth friendly, crime-free environment.
The case of rape by the police constable shows that government or law is actually helpless and unable to protect anyone. The need is the awareness of the woman and the awakening of her sense of self.
By demanding stringent laws against any sort of sex-offence like Supreme Court Lawyer Pinky Anand⁶ suggested, feminist may create some more unjustified cases and further anomaly on the name of equality of sex while demanding favors by government for unequal treatment, but it will certainly not solve the problem of female security nor it will bring upon any justice to them.

1. Pinky Anand a Senior Supreme Court Lawyer, Times of India [↩]
2. Age Of Consent, Reason For Liberty [↩]
3. Drugs: Legal or Illegal, Reason For Liberty [↩]
4. an IHM, Blog [↩]
5. Mirren slammed for date-rape comment, TOI [↩]
6. Pinky Anand a Senior Supreme Court Lawyer, Times of India [↩]

The editorial of Times of India claimed that the rich Industrial countries shifted the demon of cancer to India by banning cigarettes in industrialized countries, hence pushing cigarette companies to India.¹
It all seems nationalistic, like the supporters of ban on cigarettes are the true well-wishers of man-kind, more of Indian man-kind.
What these people forget is smoking is not new to India. Indians are smoking since ages, smoking afeem, using bhang are too common for Indians. They also forget that India is third largest producer and exporter of tobacco.
Again, the editorial of Times of India claims that by the advent of cigarette companies, cancer rates increased in India.²
As a matter of fact, it can not be true. Scientific studies suggest that Cigarettes are much less harmful than local Bidi’s. We all know that Indians consumes Bidis more even now. Thus, if cancer is increasing it is more because of Bidis. To blame cigarette companies for that is ill-sense. Better cigarettes can surely save the smokers from the dangers of smoking filter less and unchecked cigarettes.
So how valid is the Idea of government to announce bans on smoking?
According to the Director of Tobacco Institute of India (TII) Mr. Udayan Lal,

“High rates of taxation on cigarettes are forcing consumers to shift to cheaper and alternate forms of tobacco consumption. As a result, overall tobacco consumption is increasing, as the price of other tobacco products is very low,”³

Thus, by banning or increasing taxes on cigarette companies, government not only increases the rates of lung cancer, it increases the consumption of tobacco too making it a decision causing double disaster.
What if government increase hyper-taxes on tobacco, will it help?
Banning or restricting any thing never helps anybody, yet it increases black-marketing, it increases smuggling, and to counter all that, government will need a new force to control smuggling and black-marketing of Tobacco. In addition, black-marketing always increases consumption because it provides the demanded goods at much less price than the governmental prices.
Thus, even if government announces extreme high tobacco taxes, making even the Bidis too much expensive, it will not help anybody.
Yet it will make many people die of hunger and starvation in poverty.
According to reports, 25% families in and around Mangalore city are dependent on Bidi making⁴)
In India, 34 per cent of tobacco consumption is in the form of bidi. Snuff and chewing tobacco account for 35 per cent whereas 22 per cent of tobacco use is in the form of cigarettes. Bidi making is a large Industry in India, 1.5 million workers were employed in bidi making in 1990. According to the data on the number of workers in the bidi industry released by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the number of bidi workers in the middle of 1997 was 4.4 million. Therefore, between 1990 and end of 1997, the number of workers in the bidi industry grew almost threefold.⁵
Can government force this large Industry and the people involved to go out of business and employment? How logical it is?
Is it the case that by increasing taxes on Cigarette making companies, Indian government is promoting Bidi making Industry of India?
Let us check the validity of such move by government. In order to help national small scale industry of India, it bans or increases taxes on cigarette making companies. It will make smokers to opt for smoking bidis using gutkhas and other local cheap tobacco products which are much more dangerous than Bidis, furthermore it will also force people to keep increasing involvement in vibrant Bidi making industry which itself is hazardous.
Thus, any such move by government is anti-poor, anti-Indian.
In addition, one another move by government is to ban smoking on public places like trains, bus, etc. In general, such bans never help public, although these bans become a way for police to grab money from poor. It provides an incentive for police to catch poor person smoking in general compartment of trains, or on roads etc and harassing him, robbing him some Rs 5/- or Rs10/-.
What if government bans smoking in private property too. If you smoke in your home, you get jailed or pay a fine of Rs1000/-
Overall study shows that any sort of intervention in the tobacco market by government will cause havoc alone and will increase the rate of cancer.
On the principle of individual freedom, those who are worried about the perils of smoking have every right to work to persuade–but not force–others to choose not to smoke. Yet, the anti-smoking movement run by the government is anti-liberty, it is against the principle of Individual freedom, and that is why, in any case, it will never work but will worsen the situations.
May be that is the reason why The Delhi High Court on Friday⁶ struck down the Center’s October 2006 notification banning smoking scenes in films, saying onscreen
Smoking was part of an artist’s creative license. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul strike down the rules framed by the Center saying-

“Director of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in creative act.”

I say, if government gets over its useless drive against cigarettes and cigarette making companies, it will reduce the dangers of Lung Cancer in India. Government must not intervene in Market.

“I like to think of fire held in a man’s hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind–and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”
Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged

1. The Fag End, Editorial Times of India [↩]
2. The Fag End, Editorial Times of India [↩]
3. Express India [↩]
4. Bidi Rolling in Rural Development, Study conducted in Karnataka [↩]
5. Ministry of Labour Report on Bidi workers [↩]
6. “Smoking in films allowed Delhi High Court rules” Times of India, 23rd of January 2009 [↩]

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 [↩]

Grumpy Growl raised a question “whether a person can love books like they love children?”
The question itself explains the fact that love is selfish. We find certain satisfaction, pleasure, and emotional coherency while reading a book or watching a movie, that is why we love it. We cannot love all books though. We love those books that possess the values we are looking for. We seek for the worth and values its content holds.
Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of a person to the virtues, values, and worth of the other person. We value the person, his character, his ideals, his thinking, and we love him, appreciate him for the pleasure we gain in being with him. It comes out to be a proper selfish response. Can we love a person whom we cannot enjoy, in whom we see nothing that can be praised and appreciated?
What book we admire most? That which provides maximum pleasure and satisfaction while reading it. Similarly, that person gains our affection, our admiration most that provides maximum pleasure, emotional satisfaction and moral up gradation in being with him. We seek pleasure in the person we love. Our love, appreciation, affection becomes the price we pay for the person to be with him.
We cannot love any person without discriminating him. We do not love all equally, and the person’s abilities, his virtues, his credibility becomes the scale we discriminate upon. We cannot love a genius and a fool equally, we cannot love a crook and a honest person equally, we can not love a thief, a rapist, a murderer and a self-reliant virtuous man equally. We do discriminate person from person. Not all are equal for us. How difficult it is, even to imagine loving all equally, without any discrimination?
Thus, discrimination comes to us naturally. We like a book, we like another book much more, and some books becomes our all-time favorite. We respect all human in general, we respect some of them whom we personally experience with, more than others, and we start despising some people whom we find out that they do not deserve any respect or trust, and then we even look for the best possible mate for us, we seek the right man/woman for us.
Thus, love is the emotional response of our own self-esteem, our own worth that we seek in other person, our own comfort that we find in being with someone.
Can love be blind?
One falls in love with the personification of the values that formed a person’s character, which are reflected in his most important goals or not-so-noticeable gestures, which create the style of his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, matchless perception. We select the person, and we chose him. Our own sense of life and existence makes it possible for us to choose our friends, our love-mate, our partners.
If love is blind, if love can be just selfless, something, which we cannot discriminate for, which, we can squander along with all equally, than why doesn’t such love stay? As soon as we come to realize that the person we mistakenly fell in love with, is wrong, undeserving, corrupt or mischievous, we start feeling repulsion.
We may make mistakes in choosing the right friends, lover, mates; we commit various mistakes in emotional recognition because the sense of existence, the sense of our own most loved values is not a cognitive guide. Yet, we keep evaluating the person. We keep rationalizing, we use mind to find out if the sudden sort of love we feel for a person is right or not right, if the person deserves it or he does not.

Thus, we do measure the love, we discriminate and we rationalize.
Discriminations can be of various kinds. Discriminating is not wrong, discriminating on irrational basis is certainly wrong. For example, if we discriminate people for their caste, colour or ethnicity or gender, obviously, it is wrong it is irrational. Yet if we discriminate people on the grounds of their characteristic values, their abilities, their decency and attitude, and judge them according to their responses and temperament, it is justified. An employer wishes to employ the most efficient worker irrespective of the workers caste, creed or ethnicity. His aim remains to use resources in most profitable way and for that, he discriminates the applications for the job on his chosen grounds.
Love is a psychological process. We experience the psychological effect of a person, thing or event or activity or a condition, and then we adjudge it and retain the distinguishing characteristic, which helps us in evaluating the object or person or event. We judge its positive values as the source of pleasure and our judgement decides the intensity of our love.
The intensity of love varies according to the hierarchy of evaluation we prefer. As one can evaluate her love for ice-cream, or for reading, or for parties, or for freedom, or for the person they marries. Love, thus includes a vast range of values and hence the intensities. It includes the lower levels of love (“liking”) to higher levels (“affection”) to further higher level (“romantic love”).

If one wants to measure the intensity of love for a particular thing, person, object, or event, he uses the references of hierarchy of his liking, his values he experiences. A man may love a girl, yet he may consider the sexual pleasure he gets from her of higher value than the girl’s own value to him. Another man may love same girl, but may give her up for the fear of the disapproval of his love by others (the girl herself, or his family, or friends). Thus, he rates that fear higher than the value of girl for him, and he chooses to give up the girl. Another man may risk his life for saving the same girl in a difficult situation because he loves her, because all his other values will loose any worth without her. The girl can surely adjudge and measure the intensity of love in these examples.
Love is value aided, but unlike other values, it is not static quantity. It is unlimited response to be earned. Love for one friend is not a threat to love for other or family members. Yet, love is to be earned. Without values, love cannot exist. One can not love her father if he is alcoholic, paedophile, and wife-beater.
Even we can rate our love, our liking for various objects or events. If in a particular situation we have choices to read a book, go to party, write blog, or watch a movie, we rate all things and events, and we engage doing that, which we judge will provide us maximum pleasure, worth and satisfaction.
Thus, love is selfish, and it is measurable, the scales of measurement may differ from person to person depending on his personal values. Hence, a person can surely love a book as he loves children, values and intensities may differ.
Never ever say again that love is blind, mystique and immeasurable.

Recently, Air India sacked 10 air hostesses for being Overweight.
Times of India link.

Some of the feminist may start shouting against the decision. After all, how can a government controlled body like Air India discriminate girls for a job based on weight?
Actually, there is nothing wrong with the decision.
This is the freedom of the employer to employ that worker which will provide maximum profits and will suit for the development of enterprise, it is employee’s liberty,either to accept that criteria or to deny it.
So, if the management of Air India think that the overweight Air Hostesses are not apt for the job, and if there was a mentioned clause about weight criteria before the girls were appointed as air hostesses, then Air India has freedom to sack them on the issue of being overweight than the prescribed norm.
Now this may cause sort of worries in some girls, they may find themselves oppressed by the slim girls. So, should there be a “reservation” for the overweight girls?
Some feminists even claims that the cosmetic products and advertises are also wrong and oppressive. Like for example, Fair & Lovely fairness cream advocates fair skin girls are superior to dark-skin girls and hence it is oppression. So, justice would be, if dark skin girls get some reservation, or if no girl be allowed to be fairer than others?
A chilling dystopian novel Facial Justice by the British writer L.P. Hartley was published in 1960.
The novel dealt with the wrong assertion of the egalitarians that Equality is Just, and Egalitarianism is Justice. The story extrapolates the egalitarian drive as, after the Third World War, “Justice had made great strides.” Economic Justice, Social Justice and other forms of justice had been achieved, but there were still facets of life to triumph over and bring equality. In particular, Facial Justice had not yet been attained, since pretty girls had an unfair advantage over ugly ones. Hence, under the direction of the Ministry of Face Equality, all Alpha (pretty) girls and all Gamma (ugly) girls were required to undergo operations at the “Equalization (Faces) Center” so as all to attain Beta (pleasantly average) faces.
It is a common trend going on these days. School children commit suicides because of the “oppressive school system”. It is “Oppression” that some students get higher marks while some fails. Thus, there should be a grading system. Anybody getting 80% and above, should be graded A+. Alas! So, there is no incentive for a student to master a subject and gain 100% marks. Even if he gets 80%, he will be at the top. In addition, he can never fail. It is the making of mediocre.
So what would be facial justice? To not to let anybody be beautiful.
Every person should have average equally attractive face and body. Every person should have an average mind, with an average sense and taste of all skills. No person should be Superior to others, no person should be a Beethoven, Mozart, Galileo, Einstien, Shakespeare, or Da Vinci.
Every person should have equal economic sense too; there should not be any D.B Ambani, or Vikram Akula, there should not be a Ratan Tata.
What more? No man should be braver than others are. All should be equal. There should not be a Prithvi Raj Chauhan or Shivaji or Maha Rana Pratap, the bravest of all, all should be equally brave or average coward.
There should not be any difference between your husband or boyfriend and the other males. You should love them equally. And so on.
As a matter of fact, Equality does not mean Justice, and to be equal is not just.

Ever wondered how states, societies and so to say civilization came into being. The story behind the marvel in which we live every day, I call it a story deliberately. Story because I don’t have evidences to ratify it as history. History too although is a story, mostly written in hindsight with wisdom of the present almost inevitably modifying the past. Many critiques hold the book ‘Rise and fall of the Third Reich’ as one of the best account of the Second World War era. The reason being, that the book is an excerpt of a war journalist diary, his daily accounting of war. Its unique in many ways because the author himself was equally clueless about what going to happen next, while he was writing his journal. The book has been modified now at many instances to suit the taste and contemporary beliefs also to marry perhaps with the account of history most of us know.
I am however here with a story, the way I believe we would have journeyed this far. None of us have been through this journey; it starts much before authentic history ever came into being. I begin my story with the very basic elements. Man and woman, ones who created it and ones for whom it was created, and the ones who are sadly forgotten at times when we talk of big things like society, civilization and state. Nevertheless without whom there is no story at all, so to say.

In the beginning when men were obviously not organized and were more or less by themselves, hunting and moving around in search of food. The diversity at this stage between men would have been limited, for all had to almost same kind of work to survive. Civilization however was amidst humans were quite some time now. So long as to have its effects percolated into our genes. First distinct role differentiation would have occurred between men and women. Men were traditionally hunters and women were collectors or gatherers. Everyone would agree that women are instinctively better at searching a key or a purse that is lost in a room; they have an amazing knack of finding a needle in a hay stack. As for men they were as I said hunters, and that gifted them with a better sense of direction. You would find that men are better at finding their way back home if lost. More noticeably in no other specie would you find such high variation in characteristics especially body strength. It is perhaps because no one hunts for lioness but herself, while in case of humans the ingress of civility allowed these role diversification.

It is also so in case among men, society has allowed varied kind of genes to survive, because there were very many diversified options to survive in a society. This being the better part, it has allowed parasitism too, men feeding on goods produced by others. To start with it must not have been so; men would have come together form a symbiotic association in which they helped each other to hunt and fend. This initial anarchic form would not have survived for very long, for natural variation between men would have led to emergence of alpha males amongst them. Ones those were natural leaders, ones who were followed most willingly by rest of men. It was natural and for the good part of it being the leader was not exempted from the process of hunting for food and other vital activities that ensured survival. I would call these stages miniarchic in nature, for leaders did not dictate their terms in every walk of life but those were collective efforts were required to ensure safety and improvised hunting techniques.

With advent of agriculture and men settling down at one place, and production of food per say becoming a low key and systematic affair, men ventured into more diverse activities and some took on loot and plunder as their means of survival, almost simultaneously some took providing security as theirs. Both faces of same coin, men however chose to be fed by one vulture than be ransacked by many, thus giving rise to monarchic and feudalistic systems one master or to say one predator who is the king all powerful and to one whom all show their allegiance by paying a part of what they produce. The concept of taxation thus came into picture for ensuring safety and security against external aggressors, who too were mostly funded in almost similar manner.

With time it gave rise to really powerful empires which waged wars on those expenses and afforded really lavish life styles. It had its good influences too on the civilization. Those were the time when productions were limited to very few products such as food articles, utensils clothing etc. Since there was no concept of mass production or industrialization, no individual could have amassed wealth as emperors did by their coercive techniques, it is thus these emperors who financed and supported different fine arts and architecture of medieval ages. Poetry and scholastic endeavors which otherwise could not have become a full time profession in those ages. Men would have at the best practiced these things as hobbies, but would have had to work in fields to earn their living. Yes indeed the age of Monarchy did change the face of the earth, gave us beautiful monuments recorded history, wealth to undertake expedition and exploration and so to name a few.

One thing that almost simultaneously came into being was organized religion. I call it organized because God as a concept must not have been new to humanity. Men would have worshiped from time immemorial, forces and phenomenon’s that they don’t understand. Human consciousness awareness of time, a chain of memories and thought that makes possible for it to remember their past and differentiate their present, also interpolate from thereof the concept of future. Future which they are not aware in its nature but definitely aware in its being, this unknown future again pushes humanity towards need of supernatural, one that will ensure well being for them in the times to come. Though a very harmless concept, a soothing pill for the worrisome mind, it is however this concept that was extensively used in weaving religious institutions in human society. Mostly in conjunction with the existing monarchies either supported or propagated by the kings, in return they gave kings divine rights to rule (read exploit) mankind.

The era kings stretched all through the face of earth without very many exception, popular rule of Greece and Roman empire where masses did have some say in the state of affair for brief periods. What brought down these empires were not masses as popularly assumed. The age of industrialization had opened very many diverse options of enterprise, more so it had allowed possibilities of mass production and generation of wealth and resources as it had not been possible by any one individual in the past. Power does not essentially flow through though the barrel of a gun; there are forms in which power manifest, chiefly military economic and intellectual. With enterprise there rose a lot of people among the masses who were generating money equivalent to what state generated by taxation, and this rising economic power along with the power of intellectuals came together to bring down the rule of monarchies.
Kingdoms were however simultaneously replaced by idea of nationality. It existed as natural barriers and language identity at places others it was simply a transition from colonial rule to nations. It takes not much to build nations, few fiery speeches, and a flag and of course strong military might to crush all elements which are anti nationalistic, we have what we call as nations. It was perhaps the need of the hour, dissolving states was far from an option that existed then and perhaps even now. To replace kings who by now have had got bestowed on them both natural and divine rights to rule, they went ahead with populist rule, it brought in what we call democracy, it had its own fallacy too termed at times as the tyranny of Masses. Majority deciding the fate of things irrespective of their qualification or ability to do so, it however definitely a better option than monarchies and dictatorships so to count.

On the economic front two systems that came forth were capitalism and socialism. Capitalism was a natural outcome of the new era. The way men would have naturally gone ahead to take on the agriculture and other activities like wise in the yester years, men ventured into various kinds of enterprise which opened up its way with industrialization. The major difference being man power which was quintessential in any kind of activity in earlier days was not reduced to simply a very vital resource.

This one phenomenon was not very well understood and thus came about the ideology of socialism, one that deliberated upon equitable distribution of the product all enterprise activities among the people involved. The theory neglected importance of capital and idea of enterprise itself. When it was applied in states, states automatically assumed responsibility of all enterprise. This kind of system still works with variable amount of success in different part of the world, most places it has led to either dictatorial or military leadership taking over to maintain the state led mechanisms.

Capitalism too did not get implemented in its natural laissez faire form, democratic systems too being as mentioned earlier being run by masses with no real clue of what is right and wrong opted for induction of certain socialistic principles into the system that supposedly benefited them. What it actually did again was consolidation and empowering state to interfere in matter that should have been left to individuals.

We today live in this era, and this story is story in making, where we move on from here is yet to be decided. I have a faith that what is just and what is right would prevail. As only that can survive the test of time. I believe an era would come when boundaries will dissolve and states slowly become nonexistent. The way euro has united the whole of Europe in many a ways, economies will merge world into one big society or rather one big market. Where men would be free to indulge in enterprise of their choice, and trade or exchange their products as they desire. But at this moment it is still an uncertain future…a happily ever after presumably.