Awesome Beauty!

Is God the giver and maker of such good and beautiful voices?

Japan's Tsunami: Nature's Fury!

Is GOD responsible for maximum number of human death in the world?

Syria: This is What Lust for Power Does

The Assad family has been in power in Syria for over 40 years; Bashar for 13 years, and his father before him for 30 years. This is not democracy! Well, democracy is possible in Muslim dominated State as it is happening in Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia etc. though imperfect it may be. One advantage with democratic system is that you can vote a person out if and when he or she is found to be inefficient or corrupt. This is not possible when it's a family that rules or intend to rule as long as the family line continues. 

Suppose Assad prevails finally, what is going to be left of Syria? A deep political divide over the dead bodies of over hundred thousand people, a battered economy and an ostracised political institution. A man who loves his country would not want his nation to reach this state. So what is keeping Assad in power all these days? I can imagine one thing: the lust for power! Even if it means ruling over debris, this man wants to retain his power. Had he left the "throne" last year, his country would not have plummeted this far. 

But what makes Russia take such a stand? Being a democracy, Russia should prefer democracy. But it does not want to lose a friend, even if the friend is not a democratic state. Well, one can understand if it does not want to create political instability and so chooses not to disturb the 'peaceful' state in the first place. But when there is a chance to negotiate for a democratic state of affair to prevail, why not go for that? Again, the answer is power; it does not want to lose power! After all having one friend less is to lose some power. 

It's unfortunate when powerful people/nation are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of people to maintain their status. But this reveals a lesson that human heart has the potential to get corrupt, to go for power at any cost. If the person is infinitely wise and absolutely just, it does not pose problem being so powerful. But mortal human are not so. Therefore, democratic form of government is the most plausible form of government for the present generation. In democracy there is a system when one's power can be kept in check through election. This is not so in totalitarian system; and so often the term 'totalitarian regime'.

NB: But this may also raise a question whether it's the totalitarian system in heaven. I guess, it's yes, because God who is infinitely wise and absolutely just is in total control. But because it's a just reign, it's not a regime and because God is infinitely wise, there has to be total orderliness. So in a way, heaven is where God reigns where justice and peace prevail.

Pictures of UNC's Political Tour, 2013

33 Kv Sub station at Saluk, Chakpikarong reported as 50% completed

First Leg of Political Tour of UNC undertaken between 5th-7th April, 2013 at Chandel District. Some of the tribes inhabiting the Cdl districts are Anal, Lamkang, Maring, Monsang, Moyon, Tarao, Thadou... The present MLAs are D. Korungthang (Congress, Tengnoupal A/C) and Victor Nunglung (Naga Peoples Front, Chandel A/C)

Second Leg of UNC Political Tour undertaken between 16th-19th April, 2013 at Ukhrul District, Manipur. The district has a Rajya Sabha MP Mr. Rishang Keishing (Congress) and three MLAs: Victor Keishing (Congress, Phungyar A/C), Samuel Risom (NPF, Ukhrul A/C) and M K Preshow (Congress, Chingai A/C). All the three MLAs belong to the Tangkhul Naga tribe.

50 bedded hospital at Tamenglong District

Khonsa-Tamenglong Road

District Sports Complex inaugurated on 12th Dec. 2010

Third Leg of UNC Political Tour undertaken between 23rd-25th May at Tamenglong District, 2013. The MLAs of Tamenglong District are Kikhonbou Newmai (Congress, Tamei A/C), Janghemlung Panmei (MSCP, Tamenglong A/C) and Gaikhangam (Congress, Nungba A/C). Zeliangrong tribe is the predominant tribe in the district.

Senapati District Sports Complex at Karong at a cost of Rs 15 crores. All 15 crores drawn!

Water supply scheme at Senapati (2008-2009) at a cost of Rs 3 crores; reported as completed.

The fourth and final leg of UNC Political Tour undertaken between 27th-29th May at Senapati District 2013. Senapati District is inhabited by Chiru, Kharam, Koireng, Kom , Mao, Maram, Poumai, Thadou, Thangal, Zeliangrong... The MLAs of the district are Dr. Alexander Pao (NPF, Karong A/C), L. Dikho (NPF, Mao A/C),  Francis Ngajokpa (Congress, Tadubi A/C), Yanthong Haokip (Congress, Saikul A/C), Nemcha Kipgen (MSCP, Kangpokpi A/C) and Ngamthang Haokip (Congress, Saitu A/C). 

UNC launched a survey of the developmental progress in the Naga inhabited areas of Manipur state to investigate the claim of the state government. This tour was undertaken as state government claims that the tribal areas in the state have not been neglected as opposed to UNC's claim that the Nagas and the tribals in general are not given their due share. The Nagas in Manipur have been demanding for a more political and economic autonomy to safeguard their economic interest and political identity- pending Indo-Naga political solution.

The state has 60 MLAs, out of which 19 seats are reserved for the tribals.Though Kangpokpi is a General seat, the MLA is a tribal. Thus altogether there are 20 tribal MLAs  out of 60 MLAs in the state; out of 20,  11 MLAs belong to the Naga community. The party-wise break-up for the 11 MLAs is as follows: 6 Congress; 4 NPF and 1 MSCP. The state is ruled by the Congress, with Ibobi Singh as the Chief Minister and Gaikhangam as Deputy Chief Minister!

NB: The pictures are not copyrighted and does not violate the Copyright Laws; and they are available in public domain like newspapers and Facebook page of UNC.

Holy Land, Whom Does It Belong To: Jews or Palestinians?

                              Gary Burge, Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, US.

An Idea of Justice: A Book Review

Introduction

I endorse what one reviewer says about the author: one of the most influential public thinkers of our time. And I want to add that Prof. Sen is a very modest intellectual figure, a fine human being. One may not always agree with what he says, but it's hard not to admire his honesty and his love for humankind. He's one person I deeply respect and admire! 

 Critique of Rawls
 

The book is a rather thick one – over 400 pages, without the bibliographies. But it's not a deep philosophical treatise that would render the mind of an amateur reader go round and round. But to understand well what he says, I think one needs to have a fair idea of Rawl's idea of justice. It is so because he critiques Rawl's approach to obtaining justice while advancing his view on how a more just society can be obtained. This is how Rawls' idea of justice go about. Let us take a hypothetical condition where members of a certain polity come together to deliberate what kind of principles they would want to govern their collective life. (This is social contract theory). The members don't have ideas about what their ultimate desire in life is or their social and economic status etc. The 'veil of ignorance' has covered their knowledge about their respective social and economic status. This 'veil of ignorance' is applied so that whatever set of principles is obtained by the members in the hypothetical polity, it will be just; no one would be in a position to tailor the principles to suit their individual's interest; all members are equal, and in such equal and ignorant condition, they choose two set of principles:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantage, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. (TJ, 32)

Rawls contention is that if this set of principles, obtained by way of unbiased deliberation of the members, guide political institution then justice would prevail. Sen challenges this approach saying that trying to identify the perfect set of principles is just not possible. People will have difference of opinion about what right principles or just institution are, and therefore Rawl's approach will not succeed, Sen argues. Sen further adds that people in the past did not agree with themselves about what just society looks like before they proceeded to remove injustice. I don't find this point that Sen raises quite convincing. Because one might say that one can work towards removing injustice, say, slavery while at the same time work to identify the perfectly just institution!

There are two more points that Sen raises as critiques of Rawl's approach, and I think the two points are closely related. In Rawlsian method the deliberation to identify the set of principles takes place within a particular political community, a nation-state. ( Rawls tries to refine this process in his later book Political Liberalism to include deliberation across different political units, but I think it is still problematic). Sen argues that when the quest for justice is confined to just one political unit, even if it's just hypothetical principles, then that kind of principle is not applicable across inter-national scenario; when issues of different nation-states intersect. For example, Sen would ask, how will Rawl's approach deal with the issue of international terrorism? A contract theorist might reply – a sovereign global state will deal with inter-national matters. But since there is no sovereign global state, the problem with what a Rawlsian suggests still persists. UN cannot do the job because it's sovereignty is not like the sovereignty of a nation-state!
 

Sen also raises another problem for Rawls. In Rawlsian method the deliberation of the members is assumed to be taking place within a political unit in an impartial and fair manner. Sen calls this as closed impartiality. How much ever impartial we try to be, Sen argues, we have our own parochialism. No peoples group or region or political unit is free from parochialism. So we need interaction with people outside of our own community to tell us our parochialism and our flaws. Sen calls this as open impartiality. Rawls' approach suffers from what is called closed impartiality; but what we really need is open impartiality. The latter is superior, argues Sen!

Capability Approach

In the capability approach, Sen argues, the three points that he raises against Rawl's method are overcome. But what exactly is capability approach? In Rawls' approach the quest for justice is about setting just institutional structure; whereas in Sen's approach the quest for justice is about enhancing the capability of a person – enhancing the freedom of a person to choose the kind of life a person has reason to value. Rawls talks about liberty, but Sen would argue that liberty is not quite the appropriate category wrt a discourse on justice if a person is unable to go to vote because she requires wheelchair to “walk” and she has no wheelchair nor paved road to “walk”. In this case her capability to “walk” is absent; and so seeking justice needs to consist of enhancing her capability. 
 

For Sen the quest is about capability, not functioning. Let me differentiate the two; and this is a very important point. Let us say there are two people who are fasting: A. Gandhi and G. Mogambo. Gandhi is a political activist and he is fasting in order to seek a change in Army Act; whereas Mogambo is fasting because there is famine in his region. In term of 'functioning' both of them are fasting. However, in term of 'capability' the two are different: Gandhi can give up his fasting and choose to eat whereas Mogambo does not have the choice to give up fasting; he is forced to fast because of famine. Let me also give another example. For a proponent of capability approach what is of concern is whether a person has the capability to vote or not, not really whether one is voting or not. Due to religious reason a person from a religious community like Amish Mennonites may not vote. An Amish Mennonite may choose to vote if she wishes to but in order to respect his freedom of religion, the choice is left open to her. If the concern of a proponent of capability approach is 'functioning', one would have to seek that she votes. However the concern is 'capability' and therefore the choice is left open to her.

 A Brief Remark!

 I think Sen is largely successful is filling the lacunae that social contract theorist leave behind. Sen's approach is simple and yet touches the lives of ordinary people. The book has some repetitive points but I take them to be something which the writer is trying to reinforce his thought. And one great thing about the book is that it is made available at a much cheaper rate compared to many other books published by reputed publishers. What the book does not address is the idea of the good. One might say that because of the fact that people of different philosophical and religious persuasion have different opinions about what the good life is, therefore it's best to take just the 'overlapping consensus', the strand of belief that is common to all the social and religious groups. But can a moral and political philosophy really avoid this subject matter of the good life? Didn't some people group take slavery or infanticide to be a good thing? When Sen argues that substantive freedom must extend even the slaves, won't some people in the 19^th century in North America argue back that he must not say anything like that.

The other day Irom Sharmila was produced before the Court saying her fasting amounts to an attempt to commit suicide. Sharmila says that she wants to live, not to die. But she also says that her fasting is against the AFSPA that gives immunity to the army even if the act of the army officer violates the dignity of a human person. As a thinker seeking to influence the public policy, would Sen argue that the Court was mistaken for being concerned with the “functioning” of Sharmila and therefore needs to change its legal position or rather say that it was right for the Court to be concerned with her “functioning”?

But being concerned just about capability, I think, leads a person onto some sort of libertarianism. Should the state ever say this act or way of life of an individual is wrong? If I am allowed to use my capability even to harm my own well-being, where does that lead us onto? So coming back earlier point – Can we really be silent on the idea of the good life in a discourse of moral and political philosophy?

These are some issues I think Sen and his well-wishers must grapple with. Capability approach is still evolving as its proponents admit, and we'll have to wait and see how it evolves further...