Politics has come to acquire a bad odour and generally implies unfair, underhand dealings, exploitation of the poor and the ignorant, though it need not necessarily be so. Since it generally involves the attainment of certain objectives, such as the seizure of power by all available methods, violence often becomes a part of it. Of course, violence need not be a vital or essential part of politics even in the most ill-governed country, but there is no doubt that unscrupulous politicians seldom hesitate to resort to violent methods to achieve their aims. Whenever the practitioners of the art of politics find that normal and socially acceptable methods and practices have not brought them the desired achievements, they stoop to unethical methods, including incitement of sensitive people to violence.

It is tragic reflection on civilization that with the much-publicized progress in various spheres of human activity the resort to violence has also increased. In fact, one of the dominating factors in the postwar years is the growth of the spirit of violence. Even in India, where the apostle of peace and non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, preached that violence is both degrading and derogatory to human beings, the menace has been increasing. Proof of this dismal phenomenon is found in the sharp increase in violent crimes in the country, including murders, stabbings and other manifestations of cruelty. The concept of “might is right” is being practiced with a callousness. That is highly disgraceful and a sorry reflection on civilization.

It is poor consolation that violence has been on the increase not only in India but also all the world over, even in the most civilized countries, such as the U.S A and Britain. Naked, unabashed violence has even been glorified in certain continents; the number and intensity of armed dashes between various classes of people is yet another proof; and so is the increasing number of communal riots, many of which have their roots in politics. In fact, there would be no communal disturbances in the country if the spirit of non-violence were universally accepted as a guiding factor of human life.

It is indeed a sorry reflection on the state of our civilization that more politics has come to imply more violence; what is worse, violence begets violence. When one party adopts violent means to achieve its objectives the other follows suit in the firm, though unwarranted, belief that the only answer to violence is greater violence, not peaceful overtures or non­violent satyagraha which Mahatma so earnestly advocated.

Yet another tragedy of modern civilization is that politicians refute by their actions the sound principle that a State based on force and violence is built on foundations of sand. There can be no social economic or political stability where the entire polity is based on force and violence, not on the people freely expressed and frequently affirmed (through periodic elections) support and consent. Ousters of one group by another are sometimes accompanied by force and violence, together with reprisals in various forms. Violence in politics also takes the form of coercion, which is another form of compulsion, and compulsion involves or implies the use of force or threat of force.

It is not surprising in such circumstances that politics of peace is becoming uncommon, and politics of war is replacing it gradually but surely. Some of those who are very much in politics and seldom hesitate to adopt violence as a means to an end quote Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though moral force is more effective at times, the Mahatma conceded that in certain circumstances, the refusal to fight
violence adequately might smack of cowardice. Why does India maintain a large police force and ever-expanding military forces? The State has to use force to quell riots of various types and has to be in a constant state of
preparedness to meet aggression by hostile countries. Violence then becomes inescapable. Ironically, both peace and politics have become difficult to ensure without adequate preparations for fighting violence. This genuine peace in politics has become uncommon and the spirit of violence is abroad—like an infection that has seeped into all areas of human activity.



 Everybody wants to be successful in his life. But while dreaming success one should not forget the battle, which is necessary for victory. Life is beautiful when the art of living is understood. In this case it has been aptly said.

Life is an art

A mountain of troubles

In your trouble don’t cry

You should only try and try

Struggle hard

And conquer the sky

With your skill

M And power of will.

‘Proverbs like ‘where there is will’ there is a way are often used and experienced in our daily life, when someone wants to get something from his heart he tries to get it with all his efforts and will power. Naturally when we feel the dire needs of life, we definitely struggle hard to achieve it. Nothing is impossible once you try hard. If the will power is strong anything can be achieved. In her book ‘I Dare’, Kiran Bedi says, if you want to achieve something you must struggle. Throw yourself in the volley of your aim. Do not think about the deepness and results of your task, when you will achieve your aim. You will definitely forget about the struggle and pain.

We are often inspired by the example of those who have become success. The strong will power is the only base of your success. Kiran Bedi, the first lady IPS officer struggled hard and became successful and popular in our country. She is a woman like other women. But her strong will power made her stormy personality. Our cricketer super star Sachin Tendulkar has achieved fame and wealth and everything. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a simple person became the prime minister of India. Our new President Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam got the highest post because of his sheer will power. Was it possible for them to become great without strong will power? P. T. Usha has proved that age can’t be an obstacle on the way to success. Besides we read in the Mahabharat that Eklavya completed his education with the help of the statue of Guru Dronacharya because Dronacharya refused to teach him but by sheer will power he learnt the art of archery inspired by the master. One should always remember God help those who help themselves.

Nothing is impossible if you try. With the help of will power one can achieve anything. A small sparrow makes a very beautiful nest with the help of her will power. It is an art, which comes from her will power to protect her children. Will power gives courage and energy to win. The main obstacle in the way of success is tardiness and lack of will power.

Be active,

Ever green and optimistic hope for the sky

You will learn to fly.

Do not blame fate only those who struggle become successful. Many believe in fate or luck. Sometimes one who struggles go on struggling and another person who waits without struggle becomes successful. But it does not happen all the time though fate plays a great role in our success. Will power is also very important and with the help of will power one can conquer fate. But one should not hope for victory before fighting the battle. Luck or opportunity never bothers men who are firmly set on getting ahead. They will create the opportunity themselves and make their way to success. Always remember fortune favours the brave. To achieve success, make progress and gain profit one has to dare and take risks. Kiran Bedi says,

“People who do not carry out the responsibilities of their lives are lathi charged by the time. Success is not cheap.”

To dream is your right

To struggle is your duty.

Will power is your need

To achieve the sky and to fly.

Everybody knows that success does not go to those who never struggle. But while dreaming success one should be always ready for hard work. It is not something, which can be achieved by spending money. But will power, which comes from your soul and heart, is needed if your will power is strong. You will be successful, and a successful person is always found confident. But success demands hard work, struggle, sacrifice etc. Emily Dickinson says, success is counted sweetest by those who never succeed. It is true but success is counted sweetest by everyone who struggles. So struggle hard and be successful, nothing is impossible if your will is strong. You can achieve everything. After all where mere is a will there is a way. Do not be afraid of failure because failure is the first step on the way to success; learn to face problems. Bear your troubles don’t worry and be happy. Remember that if you laugh the whole world laughs with you but if you weep you will have to weep alone With your strong will power and enthusiasm any great thing can be achieved.




The ongoing war between Israel and the Lebanon-based Shia militia Hizbollah assumed unprecedented intensity with no immediate prospect of ceasefire in the offing as the Israeli Cabinet decided on August 9, 2006 to launch a more broad-based ground offensive in Lebanon. In a statement issued after the cabinet meeting, Israel’s Industry and Trade Minister Mr. Eli Yishai said that the Israeli Government had decided to embark on fresh operation, which was likely to last around a month. According to a report released on its website by the Israeli English daily Haaretz, Prime Minister Mr. Ehud Olmert had asked the military to draw up alternative plans, apprehending that a large number of Israeli troops could be killed in case a heavy ground offensive was undertaken. The Israeli military proposed mat the Lebanese territory, a little beyond the Litani river should be targeted first so as to eliminate the Hizbollah’s capacity to launch short-range rockets. Eventually, the Israeli authorities came to the conclusion that additional 30,000 troops might be required for the daunting task.

Earlier, on August8,2006 several thousand terrified residents of the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona fled to the city for fear of being attacked by Hizbollah, in the first evacuation of an entire town since the creation of Israel in 1948. With the crisis deepening beyond remedy Israel appointed Major-General Mosha Kaplinsky as the new commander for the war in Lebanon. Major-General Kaplinsky’s 30-year career has been mostly focused on fighting Hizbollah guerrillas.

Meanwhile, in a statement issued on August 6, 2006, in the thick of the violent clashes between the Israeli Army and Hizbollah militia, Major General Alain Pellegrini, the head of UMFIL, the UN’s monitoring mission in Lebanon, said any attempt to deploy international troops to disarm the Hizbollah by force would turn Lebanon into another Iraq. As he put it, “It is always the same when you have to fight against guerillas. You will have a kind of Iraq situation”.

The French General, who has commanded the contingent of 2,000 armed monitors from eight countries for two years, said Israel’s air campaign had failed to destroy all of Hizbollah’s installations, Israel had not expected the amount of resistance Hizbollah has put up, he said. He was sceptical of the optimism coming from the UN that Israel would accept a ceasefire soon. “It is not yet evident that they will accept a cessation of hostilities rapidly,” he said. “They want to reach their goals and this is not yet done.”

The UNIFIL was set up in 1978 to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli troops who had invaded Lebanon to try to destroy Palestinian guerillas. At that time Hizbollah did not exist. The Bush administration and Israel claim UNIFIL has railed because it has done nothing to prevent Hizbollah from building a network of tunnels and caves in the Lebanese hills and inserting huge caches of rockets, mines and other weapons.

The UNIFIL occupies dozens of posts on hilltops around south Lebanon. They are helped by 50 military observers from the UN Truce Supervision Organization, (UNTSO). Since the end of its last invasion in May 2000, Israel has violated the agreement more often than Hizbollah.

Earlier, within days of killing scores of civilians in Qana, Israel was accused by Lebanese authorities of carrying out its second atrocity in Lebanon in the border village of Houla. Addressing Arab Foreign Ministers in Beirut on August 7, 2006, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Mr. Fuad Saniora said on Israeli attack had killed as many as 40 persons in Houla. Mr. Saniora accused Israel of indulging in “State terrorism”. “If these horrific actions are not State terrorism then what in State terrorism?” On the other hand, the Israel army said it was investigating the allegation, but added that it had warned residents in Lebanon’s southern villages to leave.

Houla has been the scene of heavy ground fighting recently. Hizbollah fighters have claimed to have killed four Israeli soldiers in the vicinity of the hamlet.

Israeli soldiers and the Hizbollah have been fighting ferocious battles at many locations close to the border since July 2006. Mr. Milow Strugar, spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon that is deployed in south Lebanon, has said, “There has been no change in terms of territory. But there has been an intensification of exchanges of fire on the ground in different areas all along the border.” He added that fighting had been intense around the badly hit village of Bint Jbeil and Taibe in the east. On August 6,2006, Hizbollah fighters fired a barrage of rockets that killed 15 Israelis, including 12 soldiers, the largest numbers to be killed in Israel during a single day in the nearly month long conflict. Israel has been focusing on an area around the southern cities of Tyre and Sidon.

On the diplomatic front sharp differences persisted on the draft UN resolution proposed by France and the United States to bring fighting to a halt. Lebanon has already rejected the draft that calls for a “full cessation” of fighting but not for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the country. Syria and Iran have dismissed the text.



From time immemorial, great thinkers and philosophers have been trying to uncover the mainsprings of action in the human mind. Their investigations have led them to explore its inmost recesses to find out what moves it and inspires it to action, whether human nature is divine or demoniac, whether man is essentially peaceful or conflict-loving etc. Barring a few optimists, almost all of them have reached the conclusion that war rather than peace is the natural state of man. Speaking of Hobbes, the greatest political thinker England has produced. Burke has said “A meditation on the conduct of political societies made old Hobbes imagine that war was the state of nature.” Defoe considers the art of war to be “the highest perfection of human knowledge.” In The Prince Machiavelli has observed, “War should be the only study of a prince. He should consider peace only as a breathing time which gives him leisure to contrive and furnishes ability to execute military plans.”

A preference for war is a natural instinct in man. He is a child of conflict—torn all his life between opposing sentiments, passions and forces, battling against a hostile world to protect and maintain his social identity and economic stability. No wonder he is conflict-loves by nature. He began

his life on this earth as a hunter, out to kill in search of food. Gradually the drive of hunger was augmented by similar other drives like territorial dominance, sex, revenge etc., and all these in combination or singly gave rise to hostility when smooth realization of the aim or aims was obstructed. Thus we see that war was just one step ahead of the hunt.

Reading Machiavelli one may fall into the error that war was the favourite sport of princes at which they could play because their subjects were not wise enough. But mat view would have been totally opposed to reality. At that; time it was the princes who harnessed a natural instinct in their subjects to subserve the aim of achieving personal glory. Now the former have been replaced by popular governments ever on the alert to go to war for defending national honour or interests, whatever may be at stake. There is nothing to match a war to knit the people of a country    closer as a nation or to induce mass-hysteria among them.

We can have some idea of the extent of man’s preoccupation with war from the fact that in less than six thousand years of recorded history, he has fought more than 14,500 major and minor wars. Out of 185 known generations, only ten have enjoyed undisturbed peace. And if he still retains his preference for war, it is not for lack of deterrents. Over the centuries, the mechanism of war has been greatly enlarged, so that it is today something vastly different from what it was once. But the growing ferodty and horror of the battlefield have only whetted man’s lust for blood and fire. Each new instrument of destruction he has acquired has produced in him feelings of exultation rather than that fear which could have weaned him from the path of violence. The invention of gunpowder could not frighten him. Likewise poison gases could not stop wars. And science has evolved even more diabolical engines of destruction and thus multiplied the power of war-makers.

Whenever some new and more dreadful weapon was invented, it was claimed that its destructive power would strike terror into the hearts of men and force the nations of the world to abjure war. Such hopes have been expressed time and again, e.g., immediately after the world had witnessed the death and destruction wrought in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the first ever use of atomic weapons in a war. At that time Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain—a man who knew more about \ war and peace than any other man ‘looked forward with great confidence to the potentiality of universal destruction.” Similarly, when the hydrogen bomb had been exploded, it was hoped that the new terror would outlaw war. But such hopes were never fulfilled. Nor are they going to be fulfilled as long as compel men to human nature remains what it is. Even after the destructive capability of nuclear weapons had been demonstrated, there have been no less than fifty big or small conflicts in the world.

That war is a permanent condition of mankind may not have been as clear—say fifty years ago, as it is today. When only one type of war, viz., and the hot war was in vogue, the intervals between wars were utilized as breathers for contriving new strategy. In the present-day world, particularly after world war n, the phenomenon of war has assumed various aspects, i.e., hot wars, not-so-hot wars, cold wars, propaganda wars etc. so that once war breaks out between two countries, they are constantly at it. As a French strategist has said, “There is no longer such a thing as war and peace; just different levels of confrontation.”

Every time men have gone to war, it was proclaimed that it would be a war to end all wars. The allies in the Second World War had also declared that after the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, all nations of the world must abandon the use of force, and strive towards a peace which would afford to all of them the means of dwelling in safety within their boundaries. But like similar pronouncements before it, this declaration too has remained a pious hope. The United Nations has not been able “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. The dream of world peace remains unrealized because man’s protestations of peace are not sincere.

It is a measure of man’s natural preference for the arbitrament of arms that today “there are more military men acting as political leaders than at any time in the twentieth century”.

It would, however, be wrong to conclude from the foregoing that the sole reason for war being the permanent conditions of mankind is man’s natural preference for force. The choice is not only instinctive but also logical. When all has been said and done, war remains the most functional and definitive way of settling international disputes. Once hostilities break out, a fight to the finish is the best way of bringing them to close. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial than harmful if the Arabs and the Jews in West Asia, the Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus, the Indians and Pakistanis in South Asia and the communist and others in South east Asia could be allowed to fight it out to the finish with their own resources?

There is no doubt that war is a horrible thing—particularly today when it almost invariably means total war aimed at not only the destruction of the rival military force but also the destruction of the enemy’s economy. No humane man can applaud the cruelties of war but as long as nation-States exist, they will not be able to renounce it if they have to preserve their national honour and freedom. It is horrible and repellent but inevitable till the dream of a world order has been realized, and if and when that ideal state has been achieved, it remains a moot point whether men will not even then occasionally go to war just for the heck of it.



Conquest of happiness has meant different facets to different generations. Our forefathers took pride in scholarship, a spirit of sacrifice and solicitude for the welfare of others. Gone are those days. Today, we only are for ourselves. We are jealous of the advancement of our neighbours. We end up tense and unhappy.

The term ‘happy’ has a variety of meanings and it stands for lucky, fortunate, content, and glad or apt. Happiness lies within the mind of the individual. No amount of external wealth may be successful in making him happy.

Our forefathers had a life-style, very much different from what we have today. Their life was based mainly on the concept of “simple living and high thinking”. People were satisfied with whatever they obtained after working hard. Excess material wealth did not mean much for them. They indulged in charity, etc. Rather, it was spiritual and mental satisfaction and enrichment, which they aimed at.

The structural framework of our forefathers’ families was different from ours. They lived in a cohesive joint family structure where they were happier than us. They cared for each other. The siblings grew up with their cousins. The bond of love, which they shared, cannot be easily found in the nuclear family of the day. The family provided an emotional cushioning effect against tension and stress.

However, in the nuclear family, we are detached from the feeling towards our kith and kin. At times, even the cousins do not recognize each other, when they happen to meet after a long time. Life has become very self-centred. Disputes in the family may lead to divisions. This may finally destroy the family psyche.

The Joint Family system provided a proper environment for the child to grow up. The values of respect, tolerance, responsibility, integrity etc., were internalized in the child. In the long run, they became better human beings, compared to those in the present generation. Our forefathers felt happiest, if their children became “honest” human beings. But today, we are happy only if we attain our ends. We are ready to resort to any means to attain the end. Our philosophy of life has turned totally Machiavellian.

Today’s generation is totally engrossed in following the West blindly. One does not take pride in Indian culture and indigenous goods. But our forefathers, living in Swadeshi days, took immense pride in wearing khadi. Their self-confidence and self-respect made them contented men. They were never ashamed of being an “Indian”. They believed in being satisfied with whatever their motherland could provide for. This was the key to their happiness.

However today, the common man’s demands are unlimited, due to the effects of globalization and liberalization Consumerism is the key word. The media has played an important role in increasing his demands. Today, to satisfy his demands, he can sacrifice his integrity and sense of sincerity. In this manner, he may be materially “happy”, but his guilty mind will always prick his conscience. This will prevent him from actually being happy or glad.

Our forefathers had a vision to make India the best. To attain his ambition, they were ready to make all sorts of personal sacrifices. Their happiness lay in that of the millions of Indian brothers and sisters.

On the other hand, today, people are ready to migrate to the West, to enjoy a comfortable life. They run away from the evils of the Indian society, without trying to remedy them. Often, they become successful in foreign lands. But in the process, they become alienated from their motherland. The nostalgic feelings of their childhood and the relationships they left behind linger on which cannot make them happy. Distance from their ailing parents is a worrying factor and keep them perturbed. Moreover, it is not easy for them to return, as their children will not be able to adjust to the Indian environment and the way of life. Thus, his is a crisis position and a frame of mind worse than his forefathers.

In the present era, we function like ”machines”, unlike our forefathers; Life has become standardized, routines and monotonous. Social interactions have decreased. People are now glued to the television and computers. They are making friends worldwide, but are not aware of the names of their neighbours. This sort of life cannot lead to happiness. It can only lead to unlimited psychological disasters. A sense of alienation grips them.

In science and technology we have developed far more man our forefathers did. We have made the world a better place, as well as a worse place, to live in, through our several inventions. On the positive side, for example, invention of medicine has prevented diseases. This has made us happier than our forefathers. But negatively, we have invented nuclear bombs, which are lethal to mankind. So, whether we will be happier than our forefathers will only depend on the judicious use of these inventions by human beings.

In our generation, tradition and modernity have intermingled to form our special system. We are happier than our forefathers in being able to lessen the evils of rigid caste system, untouchability, child marriage, etc. But we have failed to totally eradicate them. The electoral politics has made use of caste system, through the issuance of party tickets on the basis of caste, community, religion etc.

India, after independence had tried to provide for a ‘secular’ State, to prevent clashes on the basis of religion. Our forefathers were unhappy, regarding the communal violence in the pre-and post-partition days. The situation has not much changed. The communal clashes in the wake of demolition of Babri Masjid, is a case in point. We are still unhappy. Moreover, criminalization, corruption and politicization of every aspect of society have taken place. The Present scenario is such that it is very difficult to uproot them. So, regarding the evils of our society, we are still unhappy like our forefathers.

Internationally, our forefathers lived in ‘Bharat’, which was being exploited by the British. They visualized India to be among the great powers, morally, intellectually and scientifically. Their vision and hard work have led India, to develop a lot. It is a predominant power in the Indian subcontinent today. Though our neighbours have failed to keep up with democracy, we have been successful in adhering to the democratic norms of periodical elections and parliamentary government expect during the emergency period in the 1970s.

Our food production has increased enormously after the Green and White Revolutions. In most areas, we can sustain ourselves on the food front. Industrial production and export levels have also gone up. These achievements have made us happier than our forefathers. Moreover, we are politically independent.

In recent years, we have gone for liberalization and globalization economy has been exposed to the foreign multi-nationals. Many forefathers would have objected to this liberalization. They would if it is back to the days of colonialism represented by the East India Company. We might have to face the same menace, which our forefathers fought against the ‘drain theory propounded by Dadabhai Naoroji, will again be relevant if multinational companies are allowed to invest in all sectors of the economy. The economic imperialism would soon lead the political one, which will surely make us unhappy.

In fine, we are not happy the way our forefathers were. Traditional teachers took pride in their poverty but scholarship. Despite being poor, they offered food to their students free. They shared poverty and took immense pleasure in communitarian living, higher moral and intellect attainments. Today we dismiss it as folly.

But even with the electronic and other gadgets, we lack the psychological fulfillment our forefathers enjoyed. Demands for commodities beget more needs, but no inner satisfaction. Moreover, in the post-modern world, the distinction between right and wrong is slowly melting away and leading to intense mental tension and unhappiness.