Gandhi Or YSR

Well now that we have seen YSR working to get a separate Telangana, the outcry is that, he is a gandhi. Well I m not sure. I am thinking what would have Gandhi done for a separate state hood. The first principle of satya-grah is non violence and mass mobilization. Though YSR did mobilize the masses but could not attain non violence. Public property was burnt by mob(TSR supporters), home of politician was attacked and all kinds of hooligan was displayed. Then the question is, why did he succeed. Well his success is not his own success but a cumulative negatives and positives. The weak government in AP could not control the violence. The media blew the issues putting pressure on the center. Though this small movement gathered mass support, it will have a bad effect on overall political situations.

Leaders will assume it as a new Gandhian way to protest. On one hand they will burn buses, and on the other they will fast. The former scares the state rulers of riots and later shows their sacrifice to get emotional benefits. Media get stories from both ends. If I were at the top, I would have certainly requested my supporters to all go on fast and try sacrifice instead of burning buses, try for once and show their will by not acting against police when they thrash them, try and educate the opponents about the need of separate state and include them in agitation and work for people not against them.

But its not easy to be Gandhi but its easier to be YSR.

Good Change

I have started realizing that in a life time things change and change is always good. But what is change and or good change? Here are two terms that are confusing 'change' and 'good'. If we analyze first 'change' over a large period is not even change.It's merely a point in a loop that comes back. Lets take an example, fashion. It keeps repeating itself in the name of change even though its a biggest bandwagon. Conal Sherry explains this as "cromo effect" where people fall into a herd mentality and think that they are progressing for change. However nothing changes from within, its just a perception that I changed makes us feel different. So the feel of being different makes us think that we are superior. We shall come back on this after we look into "good" as a relative idea in society.

"Good" is one of the most used word in the world and it implies welfare. It may be a question that what is good for me, turns out to be bad for you. And so its always a tussle between the new mavericks and old gods to prove that whatever they say is right and "Good". I call old generation to be old gods as they consider their experience to be the best tool which they can use to decree youth for their "Good" future. I call new generation as bunch of rebellions who wants to rebel anything and everything with or without reason, just to prove that they are different and they know their "Good". A so called identity problem.

So the old gods, when are new(rebellions), break some traditions and make new ones. They now want new to follow the ones they made. Just a conundrum where everyone seems to be right and there seems to be no right balance about it. A most common example is parents telling their children that the course they are taking will all be in vane. Now parents think that children are wrong and children think that parents don't know current world. According to later the world has changed while parents think that their prediction will be right because they have seen the world and world has always been same.

So there is a constant tussle between connotations in good and change. When I view two sides, I find both of them just, even though they are contradicting. It's something like this : A tower's shadow is seen on right if sun is on left while same shadow dances to left once sun goes other way. Tower is same in both cases. Though if the viewer turn the side, the left and right may also contradict each other.