What is competition about? The desire to excel or the desire to beat everyone around you? Do both mean the same? I am not sure. Probably why I decided to write this post. I love this materialistic world, because it offers a myriad of pleasures that you can not resist. On the other hand, it drives me crazy, because I am under constant pressure to perform, to deliver, to show off, to exude confidence even when I am feeling low. Human beings are a rare species. We are ingrained with some thing called competitive spirit, which means no matter what we do, irrespective of whether we like what we are doing or not, we are still driven with a passion to be the best. I wonder why none of us has any desire to be at the last. I have not known a single guy who has the desire to be at the bottom in any field. Its funny, because I have underestimated the human competitive spirit. Its far more manipulative that I have ever given it credit for.
Now lets look at a hypothetical world, where people become happy if they stand last. Irrational? probably, but just imagine for a moment. All people at the bottom of the field are gonna make merry and all those at the top are gonna cry. Things suddenly start to become extremely simple. You don't have to do anything to be at the end. Because, while there can be only one 'first', there can be many 'lasts'. People don't do anything, people stand at the bottom and everyone is happy. Its a win-win situation. Isn't that utopia? Everyone is happy. In this real world, there is definitely lot of progress, because people try to compete with each other. But sadly, there is only one winner, and only one utopian!
And, by the way, I did not make any attempt to make this post any better than what its intended to serve.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Choice and nationality
Of late, there has been considerable debate among the sports fraternity, about the dedication of Indian cricketers to the game and to the country itself. While I do agree with the majority opinion that most of them are driven by self-motivated interests, the debate threw at me some questions befitting a much larger picture. Many eminent writers would have written many articles on patriotism and whether it is or is not required for a person to serve the nation. I have of course, never read much about it, but have chosen to delve upon it today. Considering myself to be a naive thinker on this topic, I expect my arguments to be quite rudimentary.
In this post, I choose to address the question of nationality. How are two nations actually different? Lets consider the simple case of two adjoining nations. Are they different because of the boundary lines or are they different because the people under the two nations are loyal to their respective governing bodies. For example, consider India and Pakistan without any governing bodies. Is it then, possible to distinguish an India from a Pakistan? Does the boundary matter in such a case? Its the same with any state. Two states are different only because the people within each state are loyal to their respective governing bodies. So the only way a governing body exists is because of the loyalty of the people to that governing body. This is actually quite obvious, but probably the line of argument isn't so. So for the sustainability of a governing body it is necessary that the body ensures that people remain loyal to it, and hence invoke the principle of patriotism. After all if there wasn't a concept called patriotism, the governing bodies wouldn't exist. So in other words, when one says that their country is great, they are actually praising the governing body. This is quite ironical because in general, even in cases where the governing bodies are democratically elected, they are often criticized. So, there is a constitution to which all citizen repose faith in, and thereby convince themselves that they are actually praising the constitution rather than the governing body when they shower praises on their country. In line with the arguments given above, it is my opinion, that it is absolutely necessary for a governing body to motivate the people whom it governs to be patriotic to its nation, solely for its own survival. This does not mean, that a particular person or a group of persons are driving this notion, but rather it is the whole system that drives it purely because it has to sustain. It is the indeed the oxygen to the governing system.
It is therefore in my opinion, sensible to love people around you, but it is probably not necessary for people to be (madly) passionate about the nation. The problem of course, comes that if one is not passionate about one's nation, he/she would be passionate about some other nation, purely as a matter of choice, complicating matters of governance.
In this post, I choose to address the question of nationality. How are two nations actually different? Lets consider the simple case of two adjoining nations. Are they different because of the boundary lines or are they different because the people under the two nations are loyal to their respective governing bodies. For example, consider India and Pakistan without any governing bodies. Is it then, possible to distinguish an India from a Pakistan? Does the boundary matter in such a case? Its the same with any state. Two states are different only because the people within each state are loyal to their respective governing bodies. So the only way a governing body exists is because of the loyalty of the people to that governing body. This is actually quite obvious, but probably the line of argument isn't so. So for the sustainability of a governing body it is necessary that the body ensures that people remain loyal to it, and hence invoke the principle of patriotism. After all if there wasn't a concept called patriotism, the governing bodies wouldn't exist. So in other words, when one says that their country is great, they are actually praising the governing body. This is quite ironical because in general, even in cases where the governing bodies are democratically elected, they are often criticized. So, there is a constitution to which all citizen repose faith in, and thereby convince themselves that they are actually praising the constitution rather than the governing body when they shower praises on their country. In line with the arguments given above, it is my opinion, that it is absolutely necessary for a governing body to motivate the people whom it governs to be patriotic to its nation, solely for its own survival. This does not mean, that a particular person or a group of persons are driving this notion, but rather it is the whole system that drives it purely because it has to sustain. It is the indeed the oxygen to the governing system.
It is therefore in my opinion, sensible to love people around you, but it is probably not necessary for people to be (madly) passionate about the nation. The problem of course, comes that if one is not passionate about one's nation, he/she would be passionate about some other nation, purely as a matter of choice, complicating matters of governance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
