Wednesday, 23 December 2015
fw taylor and the soprano mafia
The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States, from the 1890s to 1920s .[1] The main objective of the Progressive movement was eliminating corruption in government. The movement primarily targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (Trust Busting) and corporations through antitrust laws. These antitrust laws were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors.
Many progressives supported Prohibition in the United States in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A second theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism".
Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,[4] economics,[5] and political science.[6] In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.
Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later, it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.[7] The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[8] and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[9] Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".[10][11]
Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933. It was promoted by the "dry" crusaders, a movement led by rural Protestants and social Progressives in the Democratic and Republican parties, and was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League, and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Prohibition was mandated under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Enabling legislation, known as the Volstead Act, set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. For example, religious uses of wine were allowed. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law; however, in many areas local laws were more strict, with some states banning possession outright. Nationwide, Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.
Prohibition marked one of the last stages of the Progressive Era. During the 19th century, alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addiction, and a variety of other social ills and abuses led to the activism to try to cure the perceived problems in society. Among other things, this led many communities in the late 19th and early 20th century to introduce alcohol prohibition, with the subsequent enforcement in law becoming a hotly debated issue. Prohibition supporters, called dries, presented it as a victory for public morals and health. Anti-prohibitionists, known as wets, criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant, and Catholic life. Although popular opinion believes that Prohibition failed, it succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in half during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s, suggesting that Prohibition did socialize a significant proportion of the population in temperate habits, at least temporarily.[1] Some researchers contend that its political failure is attributable more to a changing historical context than to characteristics of the law itself.[2] Criticism remains that Prohibition led to unintended consequences such as the growth of urban crime organizations. As an experiment it lost supporters every year, and lost tax revenue that governments needed when the Great Depression began in 1929.[3]
Many progressives supported Prohibition in the United States in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A second theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism".
Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,[4] economics,[5] and political science.[6] In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.
Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later, it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.[7] The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[8] and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[9] Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".[10][11]
Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933. It was promoted by the "dry" crusaders, a movement led by rural Protestants and social Progressives in the Democratic and Republican parties, and was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League, and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Prohibition was mandated under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Enabling legislation, known as the Volstead Act, set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. For example, religious uses of wine were allowed. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law; however, in many areas local laws were more strict, with some states banning possession outright. Nationwide, Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.
Prohibition marked one of the last stages of the Progressive Era. During the 19th century, alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addiction, and a variety of other social ills and abuses led to the activism to try to cure the perceived problems in society. Among other things, this led many communities in the late 19th and early 20th century to introduce alcohol prohibition, with the subsequent enforcement in law becoming a hotly debated issue. Prohibition supporters, called dries, presented it as a victory for public morals and health. Anti-prohibitionists, known as wets, criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant, and Catholic life. Although popular opinion believes that Prohibition failed, it succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in half during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s, suggesting that Prohibition did socialize a significant proportion of the population in temperate habits, at least temporarily.[1] Some researchers contend that its political failure is attributable more to a changing historical context than to characteristics of the law itself.[2] Criticism remains that Prohibition led to unintended consequences such as the growth of urban crime organizations. As an experiment it lost supporters every year, and lost tax revenue that governments needed when the Great Depression began in 1929.[3]
The American Mafia, an Italian-American organized-crime
network with operations in cities across the United States, particularly
New York and Chicago, rose to power through its success in the illicit
liquor trade during the 1920s Prohibition era. After Prohibition, the
Mafia moved into other criminal ventures, from drug trafficking to
illegal gambling, while also infiltrating labor unions and legitimate
businesses such as construction and New York’s garment industry. The
Mafia’s violent crimes, secret rituals and notorious characters such as
Al Capone and John Gotti have fascinated the public and become a part of
popular culture. During the latter part of the 20th century, the
government used anti-racketeering laws to convict high-ranking mobsters
and weaken the Mafia. However, it remains in business today.
Immigration and Prohibition law of unintended consequence
same as right to education (ravindrana)
During the late 19th century and early 20th century, waves of
Italians, mostly farmers, craftsmen and unskilled laborers, flocked to
America in search of better economic opportunities. In New York
City alone, the number of Italians soared from 20,000 to 250,000
between 1880 and 1890, and by 1910, that number had jumped to 500,000
immigrants and first-generation Italian Americans, or one-tenth of the
city’s population, according to historian Thomas Repetto. The majority
of these immigrants were law-abiding, but, as with most large groups of
people, some were criminals who formed neighborhood gangs, often preying
on those in their own communities.
During the 1920s Prohibition era, when the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages, Italian-American gangs (along with other ethnic gangs) entered the booming bootleg liquor business and transformed themselves into sophisticated criminal enterprises, skilled at smuggling, money laundering and bribing police and other public officials. During this time, the Sicilian Mafia in Italy, which had flourished since at least the mid-19th century, was under attack from the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945). Some Sicilian Mafiosi escaped to the United States, where they got involved in bootlegging and became part of the burgeoning American Mafia. The Mafia in the U.S. and Sicily were separate entities, although the Americans adopted some Italian traditions, including omerta, an all-important code of conduct and secrecy that forbid any cooperation with government authorities.
During the 1920s Prohibition era, when the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages, Italian-American gangs (along with other ethnic gangs) entered the booming bootleg liquor business and transformed themselves into sophisticated criminal enterprises, skilled at smuggling, money laundering and bribing police and other public officials. During this time, the Sicilian Mafia in Italy, which had flourished since at least the mid-19th century, was under attack from the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945). Some Sicilian Mafiosi escaped to the United States, where they got involved in bootlegging and became part of the burgeoning American Mafia. The Mafia in the U.S. and Sicily were separate entities, although the Americans adopted some Italian traditions, including omerta, an all-important code of conduct and secrecy that forbid any cooperation with government authorities.
The American Mafia Gets Organized
In the late 1920s, a bloody power struggle known as the
Castellammarese War broke out between New York City’s two biggest
Italian-American criminal gangs. In 1931, after the faction led by
Sicilian-born crime boss Salvatore Maranzano (1886-1931) came out on
top, he crowned himself the “capo di tutti capi,” or boss of all bosses,
in New York. Unhappy with Maranzano’s power grab, a rising mobster
named Lucky Luciano (1897-1962) had him murdered that same year. Luciano
then masterminded the formation of a central organization called the
Commission to serve as a sort of national board of directors for the
American Mafia, which by then consisted of at least 20 crime families
across the country. New York, which had become America’s organized-crime
capital, had been divided into five main Mafia families; everywhere
else the Mafia operated, there was just one crime family per city. The
Commission’s role was to set policies and mediate disagreements among
the families. Each of the five New York families received a vote on the
Commission when it was established, while the heads of the families in Chicago and Buffalo also got one vote each.
The U.S. Mafia: Hierarchy and Rituals
Typically, each American Mafia crime family was organized around a
hierarchy headed by a boss, who ruled with unquestioned authority and
received a cut of every money-making operation taken on by any member of
his family. Second-in-command was the underboss and below him were the
capos, or captains, who each controlled a crew of 10 or so soldiers (men
who had been “made,” or inducted into the family). Each family also had
a consigliere, who acted as an advisor and ombudsman. At the bottom of
the chain were associates, people who worked for or did business with
the family but weren’t full-fledged members.
Becoming an official member of a Mafia family traditionally involved an initiation ceremony in which a person performed such rituals as pricking his finger to draw blood and holding a burning picture of a patron saint while taking an oath of loyalty. Italian heritage was a prerequisite for every inductee (although some crime families required such lineage only from the father’s side) and men often, though not always, had to commit a murder before they could be made. Becoming a member of the Mafia was meant to be a lifetime commitment and each Mafiosi swore to obey omerta, the all-important code of loyalty and silence. Mafiosi were also expected to follow other rules, including never assaulting one another and never cheating with another member’s girlfriend or wife.
Becoming an official member of a Mafia family traditionally involved an initiation ceremony in which a person performed such rituals as pricking his finger to draw blood and holding a burning picture of a patron saint while taking an oath of loyalty. Italian heritage was a prerequisite for every inductee (although some crime families required such lineage only from the father’s side) and men often, though not always, had to commit a murder before they could be made. Becoming a member of the Mafia was meant to be a lifetime commitment and each Mafiosi swore to obey omerta, the all-important code of loyalty and silence. Mafiosi were also expected to follow other rules, including never assaulting one another and never cheating with another member’s girlfriend or wife.
The Mafia’s 20th-Century Dominance
With the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, the Mafia moved beyond
bootlegging and into a range of underworld activities, from illegal
gambling to loan-sharking to prostitution rings. The Mafia also sunk its
tentacles into labor unions and legitimate businesses, including
construction, garbage collection, trucking, restaurants and nightclubs
and the New York garment industry, and raked in enormous profits through
kickbacks and protection shakedowns. Instrumental to the Mafia’s
success was its ability to bribe corrupt public officials and business
leaders, along with witnesses and juries in court cases. By the mid-20th
century, there were 24 known crime families in America, comprised of an
estimated 5,000 full-fledged members and thousands of associates across
the country. Prior to the 1960s, some government leaders, including FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover,
voiced skepticism about the existence of a national Italian-American
organized crime network and suggested instead that crime gangs operated
strictly on a local level. As a result, law enforcement agencies made
few inroads in stopping the Mafia’s rise during this period.
Taking Down the Mafia
In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, which proved to be a powerful tool in the
government’s war on the Mafia, as it allowed prosecutors to go after
crime families and their sources of revenue, both legal and illegal.
During the 1980s and 1990s, RICO laws were used to convict numerous
high-level mobsters. Some Mafiosi, faced with long prison sentences,
broke the once-sacred code of omerta and testified against their fellow
mobsters in exchange for a place in the federal witness-protection
program. At the same time, Mafia membership declined as insular
Italian-American neighborhoods, once a traditional recruiting ground for
mobsters, underwent demographic shifts and became more assimilated into
society at large.
By the start of the 21st century, the American Mafia was a shadow of its former self. However, the Mafia remained active in some of its traditional ventures, including loan-sharking and illegal gambling, and its involvement in labor unions and legitimate industries such as construction hadn’t been completely eliminated. Contributing to the Mafia’s continued survival may be the fact that following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, significant resources devoted to investigating organized crime (which had already seen cuts prior to 9/11) were shifted to counterterrorism work.
By the start of the 21st century, the American Mafia was a shadow of its former self. However, the Mafia remained active in some of its traditional ventures, including loan-sharking and illegal gambling, and its involvement in labor unions and legitimate industries such as construction hadn’t been completely eliminated. Contributing to the Mafia’s continued survival may be the fact that following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, significant resources devoted to investigating organized crime (which had already seen cuts prior to 9/11) were shifted to counterterrorism work.
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
bitch please
Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856 – March 21, 1915) was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency.[2] He was one of the first management consultants.[3] Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement and his ideas, broadly conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s). Taylor summed up his efficiency techniques in his 1911 book The Principles of Scientific Management.
His pioneering work in applying engineering principles to the work done
on the factory floor was instrumental in the creation and development
of the branch of engineering that is now known as industrial engineering. Taylor was also an athlete who competed nationally in tennis and golf.
In the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin was very impressed by Taylorism, which he and Joseph Stalin sought to incorporate into Soviet manufacturing. Taylorism and the mass production methods of Henry Ford thus became highly influential during the early years of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, "[...] Frederick Taylor's methods have never really taken root in the Soviet Union."[26] The voluntaristic approach of the Stakhanovite movement in the 1930s of setting individual records was diametrically opposed to Taylor's systematic approach and proved to be counter-productive.[27] The stop-and-go of the production process – workers having nothing to do at the beginning of a month and 'storming' during illegal extra shifts at the end of the month – which prevailed even in the 1980s had nothing to do with the successfully taylorized plants e.g., of Toyota which are characterized by continuous production processes (heijunka) which are continuously improved (kaizen).[28]
"The easy availability of replacement labor, which allowed Taylor to choose only 'first-class men,' was an important condition for his system's success."[29] The situation in the Soviet Union was very different. "Because work is so unrhythmic, the rational manager will hire more workers than he would need if supplies were even in order to have enough for storming. Because of the continuing labor shortage, managers are happy to pay needed workers more than the norm, either by issuing false job orders, assigning them to higher skill grades than they deserve on merit criteria, giving them 'loose' piece rates, or making what is supposed to be 'incentive' pay, premia for good work, effectively part of the normal wage. As Mary Mc Auley has suggested under these circumstances piece rates are not an incentive wage, but a way of justifying giving workers whatever they 'should' be getting, no matter what their pay is supposed to be according to the official norms."[30]
Taylor and his theories are also referenced (and put to practice) in the 1921 dystopian novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.
france
In France, Le Chatelier translated Taylor's work and introduced scientific management throughout government owned plants during World War I. This influenced the French theorist Henri Fayol, whose 1916 Administration Industrielle et Générale emphasized organizational structure in management. In the classic General and Industrial Management Fayol wrote that "Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he examines the firm from the 'bottom up.' He starts with the most elemental units of activity – the workers' actions – then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy..."[20] He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the principle of unity of command."[21] Fayol criticized Taylor's functional management in this way: In Shop Management, Taylor said[22] « ... the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, ... receives his daily orders and help from eight different bosses... these eight were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop disciplinarian. »[22] Fayol said that this was an unworkable situation and that Taylor must have reconciled the differences in some way not described in Taylor's works.
In the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin was very impressed by Taylorism, which he and Joseph Stalin sought to incorporate into Soviet manufacturing. Taylorism and the mass production methods of Henry Ford thus became highly influential during the early years of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, "[...] Frederick Taylor's methods have never really taken root in the Soviet Union."[26] The voluntaristic approach of the Stakhanovite movement in the 1930s of setting individual records was diametrically opposed to Taylor's systematic approach and proved to be counter-productive.[27] The stop-and-go of the production process – workers having nothing to do at the beginning of a month and 'storming' during illegal extra shifts at the end of the month – which prevailed even in the 1980s had nothing to do with the successfully taylorized plants e.g., of Toyota which are characterized by continuous production processes (heijunka) which are continuously improved (kaizen).[28]
"The easy availability of replacement labor, which allowed Taylor to choose only 'first-class men,' was an important condition for his system's success."[29] The situation in the Soviet Union was very different. "Because work is so unrhythmic, the rational manager will hire more workers than he would need if supplies were even in order to have enough for storming. Because of the continuing labor shortage, managers are happy to pay needed workers more than the norm, either by issuing false job orders, assigning them to higher skill grades than they deserve on merit criteria, giving them 'loose' piece rates, or making what is supposed to be 'incentive' pay, premia for good work, effectively part of the normal wage. As Mary Mc Auley has suggested under these circumstances piece rates are not an incentive wage, but a way of justifying giving workers whatever they 'should' be getting, no matter what their pay is supposed to be according to the official norms."[30]
Taylor and his theories are also referenced (and put to practice) in the 1921 dystopian novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.
france
In France, Le Chatelier translated Taylor's work and introduced scientific management throughout government owned plants during World War I. This influenced the French theorist Henri Fayol, whose 1916 Administration Industrielle et Générale emphasized organizational structure in management. In the classic General and Industrial Management Fayol wrote that "Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he examines the firm from the 'bottom up.' He starts with the most elemental units of activity – the workers' actions – then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy..."[20] He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the principle of unity of command."[21] Fayol criticized Taylor's functional management in this way: In Shop Management, Taylor said[22] « ... the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, ... receives his daily orders and help from eight different bosses... these eight were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop disciplinarian. »[22] Fayol said that this was an unworkable situation and that Taylor must have reconciled the differences in some way not described in Taylor's works.
समर शेष है - रामधारी सिंह दिनकर
Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' (23 September 1908 – 24 April 1974) was an Indian Hindi poet, essayist, patriot and academic,[1][2]
who is considered as one of the most important modern Hindi poets. He
remerged as a poet of rebellion as a consequence of his nationalist
poetry written in the days before Indian independence. His poetry exuded veer rasa, and he has been hailed as a Rashtrakavi ("National poet") on account of his inspiring patriotic compositions.[3] He was a regular poet of Hindi Kavi sammelan on those days and is hailed to be as popular and connected to poetry lovers for Hindi speakers as Pushkin for Russians.[4]
The present Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi wrote a message appreciating the translation of Rashmirathi into English by the Mauritian cultural activist Leela Gujadhur Sarup.[5] As a mark of respect for him, his portrait was unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of India by the then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh on his centenary year, 2008.[6][7] On 23 November 2012, the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee gave away Rashtrakavi Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' Sahitya Ratna Samman to 21 prominent writers and social workers at a function organised in Rashtrapati Bhavan.[8] On the occasion, the President recalled the contribution of Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' in the freedom struggle and his service to Hindi literature.[8] Poet and former Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke of Dinkarji in high esteem.[9] Others who have praised his literary genius include Shivraj Patil, Lal Krishna Advani, Somnath Chatterjee, Gulab Khandelwal, Bhawani Prasad Mishra, and Seth Govind Das.[10]
Dinkar initially supported the revolutionary movement during the Indian independence struggle, but later became a Gandhian. However, he used to call himself a 'Bad Gandhian' because he supported the feelings of indignation and revenge among the youth.[11] In Kurukshetra, he accepted that war is destructive but argued that it is necessary for the protection of freedom. He was close to prominent nationalists of the time such as Rajendra Prasad, Anugrah Narayan Sinha, Sri Krishna Sinha, Rambriksh Benipuri and Braj Kishore Prasad.
Dinkar was elected three times to the Rajya Sabha, and he was the member of this house from 3 April 1952 CE to 26 January 1964 CE,[11] and was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1959.[11] He was also the Vice-Chancellor of Bhagalpur University (Bhagalpur, Bihar) in the early 1960s.
During The Emergency, Jayaprakash Narayan had attracted a gathering of one lakh people at the Ramlila grounds and recited Dinkar's famous poem: Singhasan Khaali Karo Ke Janata Aaati Hai (Devanagari: सिंहासन खाली करो कि जनता आती है; "Vacate the throne, for the people are coming").[12]
The present Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi wrote a message appreciating the translation of Rashmirathi into English by the Mauritian cultural activist Leela Gujadhur Sarup.[5] As a mark of respect for him, his portrait was unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament of India by the then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh on his centenary year, 2008.[6][7] On 23 November 2012, the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee gave away Rashtrakavi Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' Sahitya Ratna Samman to 21 prominent writers and social workers at a function organised in Rashtrapati Bhavan.[8] On the occasion, the President recalled the contribution of Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' in the freedom struggle and his service to Hindi literature.[8] Poet and former Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke of Dinkarji in high esteem.[9] Others who have praised his literary genius include Shivraj Patil, Lal Krishna Advani, Somnath Chatterjee, Gulab Khandelwal, Bhawani Prasad Mishra, and Seth Govind Das.[10]
Dinkar initially supported the revolutionary movement during the Indian independence struggle, but later became a Gandhian. However, he used to call himself a 'Bad Gandhian' because he supported the feelings of indignation and revenge among the youth.[11] In Kurukshetra, he accepted that war is destructive but argued that it is necessary for the protection of freedom. He was close to prominent nationalists of the time such as Rajendra Prasad, Anugrah Narayan Sinha, Sri Krishna Sinha, Rambriksh Benipuri and Braj Kishore Prasad.
Dinkar was elected three times to the Rajya Sabha, and he was the member of this house from 3 April 1952 CE to 26 January 1964 CE,[11] and was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1959.[11] He was also the Vice-Chancellor of Bhagalpur University (Bhagalpur, Bihar) in the early 1960s.
During The Emergency, Jayaprakash Narayan had attracted a gathering of one lakh people at the Ramlila grounds and recited Dinkar's famous poem: Singhasan Khaali Karo Ke Janata Aaati Hai (Devanagari: सिंहासन खाली करो कि जनता आती है; "Vacate the throne, for the people are coming").[12]
समर शेष है
- रामधारी सिंह दिनकर (Ramdhari Singh Dinkar)
ढीली करो धनुष की डोरी, तरकस का कस खोलो
किसने कहा, युद्ध की बेला गई, शान्ति से बोलो?
किसने कहा, और मत बेधो हृदय वह्नि के शर से
भरो भुवन का अंग कुंकुम से, कुसुम से, केसर से?
कुंकुम? लेपूँ किसे? सुनाऊँ किसको कोमल गान?
तड़प रहा आँखों के आगे भूखा हिन्दुस्तान।
फूलों की रंगीन लहर पर ओ उतराने वाले!
ओ रेशमी नगर के वासी! ओ छवि के मतवाले!
सकल देश में हालाहल है दिल्ली में हाला है,
दिल्ली में रौशनी शेष भारत में अंधियाला है।
मखमल के पर्दों के बाहर, फूलों के उस पार,
ज्यों का त्यों है खड़ा आज भी मरघट सा संसार।
वह संसार जहाँ पर पहुँची अब तक नहीं किरण है,
जहाँ क्षितिज है शून्य, अभी तक अंबर तिमिर-वरण है।
देख जहाँ का दृश्य आज भी अन्तस्तल हिलता है,
माँ को लज्जा वसन और शिशु को न क्षीर मिलता है।
पूज रहा है जहाँ चकित हो जन-जन देख अकाज,
सात वर्ष हो गए राह में अटका कहाँ स्वराज?
अटका कहाँ स्वराज? बोल दिल्ली! तू क्या कहती है?
तू रानी बन गयी वेदना जनता क्यों सहती है?
सबके भाग्य दबा रक्खे हैं किसने अपने कर में ?
उतरी थी जो विभा, हुई बंदिनी, बता किस घर में?
समर शेष है यह प्रकाश बंदीगृह से छूटेगा,
और नहीं तो तुझ पर पापिनि! महावज्र टूटेगा।
समर शेष है इस स्वराज को सत्य बनाना होगा।
जिसका है यह न्यास, उसे सत्वर पहुँचाना होगा।
धारा के मग में अनेक पर्वत जो खड़े हुए हैं,
गंगा का पथ रोक इन्द्र के गज जो अड़े हुए हैं,
कह दो उनसे झुके अगर तो जग में यश पाएँगे,
अड़े रहे तो ऐरावत पत्तों -से बह जाएँगे।
समर शेष है जनगंगा को खुल कर लहराने दो,
शिखरों को डूबने और मुकुटों को बह जाने दो।
पथरीली, ऊँची ज़मीन है? तो उसको तोडेंग़े।
समतल पीटे बिना समर की भूमि नहीं छोड़ेंगे।
समर शेष है, चलो ज्योतियों के बरसाते तीर,
खंड-खंड हो गिरे विषमता की काली जंज़ीर।
समर शेष है, अभी मनुज-भक्षी हुँकार रहे हैं।
गाँधी का पी रुधिर, जवाहर पर फुंकार रहे हैं।
समर शेष है, अहंकार इनका हरना बाकी है,
वृक को दंतहीन, अहि को निर्विष करना बाकी है।
समर शेष है, शपथ धर्म की लाना है वह काल
विचरें अभय देश में गांधी और जवाहर लाल।
तिमिरपुत्र ये दस्यु कहीं कोई दुष्कांड रचें ना!
सावधान, हो खड़ी देश भर में गांधी की सेना।
बलि देकर भी बली! स्नेह का यह मृदु व्रत साधो रे
मंदिर औ' मस्जिद दोनों पर एक तार बाँधो रे!
समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याघ्र,
जो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध।
- रामधारी सिंह दिनकर (Ramdhari Singh Dinkar)
ढीली करो धनुष की डोरी, तरकस का कस खोलो
किसने कहा, युद्ध की बेला गई, शान्ति से बोलो?
किसने कहा, और मत बेधो हृदय वह्नि के शर से
भरो भुवन का अंग कुंकुम से, कुसुम से, केसर से?
कुंकुम? लेपूँ किसे? सुनाऊँ किसको कोमल गान?
तड़प रहा आँखों के आगे भूखा हिन्दुस्तान।
फूलों की रंगीन लहर पर ओ उतराने वाले!
ओ रेशमी नगर के वासी! ओ छवि के मतवाले!
सकल देश में हालाहल है दिल्ली में हाला है,
दिल्ली में रौशनी शेष भारत में अंधियाला है।
मखमल के पर्दों के बाहर, फूलों के उस पार,
ज्यों का त्यों है खड़ा आज भी मरघट सा संसार।
वह संसार जहाँ पर पहुँची अब तक नहीं किरण है,
जहाँ क्षितिज है शून्य, अभी तक अंबर तिमिर-वरण है।
देख जहाँ का दृश्य आज भी अन्तस्तल हिलता है,
माँ को लज्जा वसन और शिशु को न क्षीर मिलता है।
पूज रहा है जहाँ चकित हो जन-जन देख अकाज,
सात वर्ष हो गए राह में अटका कहाँ स्वराज?
अटका कहाँ स्वराज? बोल दिल्ली! तू क्या कहती है?
तू रानी बन गयी वेदना जनता क्यों सहती है?
सबके भाग्य दबा रक्खे हैं किसने अपने कर में ?
उतरी थी जो विभा, हुई बंदिनी, बता किस घर में?
समर शेष है यह प्रकाश बंदीगृह से छूटेगा,
और नहीं तो तुझ पर पापिनि! महावज्र टूटेगा।
समर शेष है इस स्वराज को सत्य बनाना होगा।
जिसका है यह न्यास, उसे सत्वर पहुँचाना होगा।
धारा के मग में अनेक पर्वत जो खड़े हुए हैं,
गंगा का पथ रोक इन्द्र के गज जो अड़े हुए हैं,
कह दो उनसे झुके अगर तो जग में यश पाएँगे,
अड़े रहे तो ऐरावत पत्तों -से बह जाएँगे।
समर शेष है जनगंगा को खुल कर लहराने दो,
शिखरों को डूबने और मुकुटों को बह जाने दो।
पथरीली, ऊँची ज़मीन है? तो उसको तोडेंग़े।
समतल पीटे बिना समर की भूमि नहीं छोड़ेंगे।
समर शेष है, चलो ज्योतियों के बरसाते तीर,
खंड-खंड हो गिरे विषमता की काली जंज़ीर।
समर शेष है, अभी मनुज-भक्षी हुँकार रहे हैं।
गाँधी का पी रुधिर, जवाहर पर फुंकार रहे हैं।
समर शेष है, अहंकार इनका हरना बाकी है,
वृक को दंतहीन, अहि को निर्विष करना बाकी है।
समर शेष है, शपथ धर्म की लाना है वह काल
विचरें अभय देश में गांधी और जवाहर लाल।
तिमिरपुत्र ये दस्यु कहीं कोई दुष्कांड रचें ना!
सावधान, हो खड़ी देश भर में गांधी की सेना।
बलि देकर भी बली! स्नेह का यह मृदु व्रत साधो रे
मंदिर औ' मस्जिद दोनों पर एक तार बाँधो रे!
समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याघ्र,
जो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध।
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
Tuesday, 15 December 2015
Saturday, 12 December 2015
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Saturday, 28 November 2015
Friday, 27 November 2015
Thursday, 5 November 2015
The Great Maratha's #modernindianhistory
So before we look at the genesis, the waxing and waning of one of the great of empires that India has witnessed, we should place them in the context of modern Indian history.
Maratha empire dominated the period of modern indian history from middle of 17th century to the early 19th century. This was also the time period of rise of British, fall of great Mughals, Battle of plassey, third battle of Panipat and also the demise of kingdom of Mysore. ie fall of Tipu sultan. The Maratha kingdom Jawaharlal Nehru in discovery of India says was the only kingdom that could challenge the British other than Mughals and Mysore but this did not happen and with their demise in 1818 the British ascendancy or supremacy was unchallenged. Lets see how one of the greatest empires came into being and what were its strengths and weaknesses, the fascinating political and military stratagems that the empire witnessed and employed and how it finally fell prey to British conquest.
Maratha's were the military and landed aristocracy in the Bijapur empire that was annexed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. It was here that the founder of this kingdom Shivaji Bhonsle claimed suzerainty- the region being western deccan area and the time being 1630. Since the kingdom of Bijapur was gone, shivaji claim as the chattrapati and the ruler of that area brought him into conflict with Aurangzeb. The Bijapur kingdom had already been annexed by the mughal king.
This story is somewhat like king A defeats King B and the latter concedes defeat but from the defeated kings regime rises one of the able military general's and proclaims that no we have not lost. Come again losers!!
So came Aurangzeb with all the might of the mughal empire, and mind you the mughal empire was at its helm during this time. Although the wars with Maratha kings would not yield any substantial ground for expansion to the mughal regime and would even cost them money and men but it would do little to affect the mughals. People often criticise Aurangzeb as being the nero of mughal empire.
See, although i respect the sentiments behind the statements but the fact of the matter is Aurangzheb left the empire larger in area than he had got from Shah jahan, his father. Moreover how else could he have dealt with the Maratha's that were challenging his supremacy in the deccan. If Aurangzheb is to be blamed it should be his policy of conflict with Rajputana rulers and his policy of religious intolerance etc. The actual decay of mughals began after the death of Aurangazheb when the succession of weak rulers came to have the kingship.
coming back to Shivaji and Aurangzheb. By 1660s Shivaji had expanded and made pune the capital city of Marathas. However in 1666 he was captured by Aurangzheb and tortured to death.
Now Shivaji had 2 sons. doesnot matter who. But both the sons died. What remained were their own sons. One was Shahu and the other was Shivaji -2 each from a different father. ( shivaji 2z mother was Tara Bai This is not the Tara Bai Shinde who wrote the Stri Purush Tulna during the socio religious reform movements of the 19th century). So these two grandsons of Shivaji were to fight for the throne of marathwada. And this minor battles outcome would have immense significance for both maratha kingdom and India. Lets see how
So Tara Bai who claimed her infant son Shivaji -ii to the throne supported by few of the nobel/military generals was brought into conflict with Shahu who had come back released from Aurangzhebs imprisonment. Now Shahu won the battle and went on to become the unquestioned head of the empire however he owed he victory in large measures to a man called Balaji Vishwanath. (Not the one on quora, but it should suffice to say that great men share similar traits and i guess similar names too)
Shahu made Balaji Vishawanath his Prime Minister (Not like our PM who claims he is the pradhan sewak). Now before we look into the formation of the confederacy we have to look at the administrative and structural aspects of the maratha empire.
So the Maratha state was a military state were power and military victory ruled the roost. Unlike in other kingdoms where a kings authority was often challenged by powerful nawabs and landlords, (such a Bengal Oudh Mysore) here it was the military generals that were the powerful lot. The military generals had their own area and army and used to independently declare war and peace. This was more like Mughal's Mansabdari system but on a more miniature scale.
However under the prudence of the wise Peshwa the military generals decided to remain united but with as much individual authority and autonomy as possible. So a confederacy was formed where
1.Bhonsle
2.Gaekwad
3.Holkar
4. Sindhia
accepted Shahu as their king and decided to rule their own provinces in his name. They were largely autonomous. The confederacy insured that in times of danger the powers shall unite together to ward of the enemy. (Much like NATOs article 5). Such a fine arrangement based on the principle of unity in diversity, decentralisation and not to mention sabbe bhavantu shukhina.(all remain happy)
And later we shall see that the maratha empire was not defeated in one go ie confederacy VS east india company rather individually breaking their unity.
So the Maratha kingdom flourished and prospered and the able peshwas continued to guide the kingdom and the confederacy. The decline of the Mughal Empire following the 27-year Mughal-Maratha war (1680–1707) had led to rapid territorial gains for the Maratha Empire. Under Peshwa Baji Rao, Gujarat, Malwa and Rajputana came under Maratha control. Finally, in 1737, Baji Rao defeated the Mughals on the outskirts of Delhi, and brought much of the former Mughal territories south of Delhi under Maratha control. Baji Rao's son, Balaji Baji Rao (popularly known as Nana Saheb), further increased the territory under Maratha control by invading Punjab in 1758. This brought the Marathas into direct confrontation with the Durrani empire of Ahmad Shah Abdali. So before we go on to the Third battle of Panipath 1761. Have a look at the extent of Maratha empire
In 1757 - it is like the most pivotal year in the whole history of modern India. India lost from both east and west and both times to a different foreign power. In the east it was the British that conquered Bengal in the Battle of Plassey. In the west it was Ahmed Shah Abdali that conquered Punjab and kashmir from the mughal empire.
Now the Marathas having conquered Delhi, malwa, rajputana etc invaded Punjab in 1758 and that brought them into direct conflict with the durrani empire in 1761.
So that was that. Having lost the the third battle of Panipath in 1761 to ahmed shah abdhali the maratha fortune would now begin to wane. It is said that the support of Shuja ud daulah (the same guy who would later fight the pivotal battle of Buxar 1764) won the Abdhali guy his victory. Shuja supported Afghans for he believed in the army of Islam (More like the fiyadeens/ mjahideens of today) Moreover Marathas got no support or what so ever from their allies such as Rajputs jats and sikhs. Now the peshwa died of heart attack and one of his sons died in the battle. It is said that it was one of the bloodiest battles of the 18th century and almost every family in maratha region lost one or two male members.
( This also happened during the english civil war as aptly described by Scarlett ohara in Gone with the wind. The thing is in such battles men are gone and as a result women are forced out into the open - marriage to a man becomes a much sought after affair due to the latters dearth - the whole institution of family is kind of toppled and consequently the society too becomes very very different)
Anyways, Madhorao , the next peshwa somewhat seemed to have revived the maratha empire, but this was marginal. Now after this peshwa the fortunes of maratha empire will begin to sway. After Madavrao died his brother became the peshwa. However this was challenged by his uncle Raghunath Rao who wanted the coveted rank for himself. But this did not happen as the coterie of officials around the peshwa Narayanrao b/o Madhavrao supported him and not his uncle. Nana phadnavis one of the most popular officers of the day and also in contemporary times too supported the same.
FIRST ANGLO MARATHA WAR 1775-1782
Now a a rather dramatic tale over the fight for throne ensues. The uncle Raghunath rao, although not successful in becoming the peshwa was able to have the reigning peshwa killed ie Narayan rao was killed sadly. But the political vacuum as anticipated by the former did not arise, for the deceased peshwa had left a heir in the womb of his wife. So Raghunath rao's planning and conspiracy were foiled even after narayan raos death and his posthumous son was made the king. Damn!!
If the first anglo maratha war was a testimony to the maratha unity, the second one was symptomatic of their disintegration and fragmentation. Some peshwa Baji rao 2 tried to play of one member of the cofederacy against the other. In this attempt he got killed the brother of Holkar king. This made Holkar an arch enemy of the peshwa who swore on peshwas life. The sindhia and bhonsle too did not say anything.
Therefore in an attempt to save his life, the reigning cowardly peshwa took british help and signed subsidiary alliance with the british raj. Now this infuriated the sindhia's and the Bhonsles and they
Maratha empire dominated the period of modern indian history from middle of 17th century to the early 19th century. This was also the time period of rise of British, fall of great Mughals, Battle of plassey, third battle of Panipat and also the demise of kingdom of Mysore. ie fall of Tipu sultan. The Maratha kingdom Jawaharlal Nehru in discovery of India says was the only kingdom that could challenge the British other than Mughals and Mysore but this did not happen and with their demise in 1818 the British ascendancy or supremacy was unchallenged. Lets see how one of the greatest empires came into being and what were its strengths and weaknesses, the fascinating political and military stratagems that the empire witnessed and employed and how it finally fell prey to British conquest.
Maratha's were the military and landed aristocracy in the Bijapur empire that was annexed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. It was here that the founder of this kingdom Shivaji Bhonsle claimed suzerainty- the region being western deccan area and the time being 1630. Since the kingdom of Bijapur was gone, shivaji claim as the chattrapati and the ruler of that area brought him into conflict with Aurangzeb. The Bijapur kingdom had already been annexed by the mughal king.
This story is somewhat like king A defeats King B and the latter concedes defeat but from the defeated kings regime rises one of the able military general's and proclaims that no we have not lost. Come again losers!!
So came Aurangzeb with all the might of the mughal empire, and mind you the mughal empire was at its helm during this time. Although the wars with Maratha kings would not yield any substantial ground for expansion to the mughal regime and would even cost them money and men but it would do little to affect the mughals. People often criticise Aurangzeb as being the nero of mughal empire.
See, although i respect the sentiments behind the statements but the fact of the matter is Aurangzheb left the empire larger in area than he had got from Shah jahan, his father. Moreover how else could he have dealt with the Maratha's that were challenging his supremacy in the deccan. If Aurangzheb is to be blamed it should be his policy of conflict with Rajputana rulers and his policy of religious intolerance etc. The actual decay of mughals began after the death of Aurangazheb when the succession of weak rulers came to have the kingship.
coming back to Shivaji and Aurangzheb. By 1660s Shivaji had expanded and made pune the capital city of Marathas. However in 1666 he was captured by Aurangzheb and tortured to death.
Now Shivaji had 2 sons. doesnot matter who. But both the sons died. What remained were their own sons. One was Shahu and the other was Shivaji -2 each from a different father. ( shivaji 2z mother was Tara Bai This is not the Tara Bai Shinde who wrote the Stri Purush Tulna during the socio religious reform movements of the 19th century). So these two grandsons of Shivaji were to fight for the throne of marathwada. And this minor battles outcome would have immense significance for both maratha kingdom and India. Lets see how
So Tara Bai who claimed her infant son Shivaji -ii to the throne supported by few of the nobel/military generals was brought into conflict with Shahu who had come back released from Aurangzhebs imprisonment. Now Shahu won the battle and went on to become the unquestioned head of the empire however he owed he victory in large measures to a man called Balaji Vishwanath. (Not the one on quora, but it should suffice to say that great men share similar traits and i guess similar names too)
Shahu made Balaji Vishawanath his Prime Minister (Not like our PM who claims he is the pradhan sewak). Now before we look into the formation of the confederacy we have to look at the administrative and structural aspects of the maratha empire.
So the Maratha state was a military state were power and military victory ruled the roost. Unlike in other kingdoms where a kings authority was often challenged by powerful nawabs and landlords, (such a Bengal Oudh Mysore) here it was the military generals that were the powerful lot. The military generals had their own area and army and used to independently declare war and peace. This was more like Mughal's Mansabdari system but on a more miniature scale.
However under the prudence of the wise Peshwa the military generals decided to remain united but with as much individual authority and autonomy as possible. So a confederacy was formed where
1.Bhonsle
2.Gaekwad
3.Holkar
4. Sindhia
accepted Shahu as their king and decided to rule their own provinces in his name. They were largely autonomous. The confederacy insured that in times of danger the powers shall unite together to ward of the enemy. (Much like NATOs article 5). Such a fine arrangement based on the principle of unity in diversity, decentralisation and not to mention sabbe bhavantu shukhina.(all remain happy)
And later we shall see that the maratha empire was not defeated in one go ie confederacy VS east india company rather individually breaking their unity.
So the Maratha kingdom flourished and prospered and the able peshwas continued to guide the kingdom and the confederacy. The decline of the Mughal Empire following the 27-year Mughal-Maratha war (1680–1707) had led to rapid territorial gains for the Maratha Empire. Under Peshwa Baji Rao, Gujarat, Malwa and Rajputana came under Maratha control. Finally, in 1737, Baji Rao defeated the Mughals on the outskirts of Delhi, and brought much of the former Mughal territories south of Delhi under Maratha control. Baji Rao's son, Balaji Baji Rao (popularly known as Nana Saheb), further increased the territory under Maratha control by invading Punjab in 1758. This brought the Marathas into direct confrontation with the Durrani empire of Ahmad Shah Abdali. So before we go on to the Third battle of Panipath 1761. Have a look at the extent of Maratha empire
In 1757 - it is like the most pivotal year in the whole history of modern India. India lost from both east and west and both times to a different foreign power. In the east it was the British that conquered Bengal in the Battle of Plassey. In the west it was Ahmed Shah Abdali that conquered Punjab and kashmir from the mughal empire.
Now the Marathas having conquered Delhi, malwa, rajputana etc invaded Punjab in 1758 and that brought them into direct conflict with the durrani empire in 1761.
So that was that. Having lost the the third battle of Panipath in 1761 to ahmed shah abdhali the maratha fortune would now begin to wane. It is said that the support of Shuja ud daulah (the same guy who would later fight the pivotal battle of Buxar 1764) won the Abdhali guy his victory. Shuja supported Afghans for he believed in the army of Islam (More like the fiyadeens/ mjahideens of today) Moreover Marathas got no support or what so ever from their allies such as Rajputs jats and sikhs. Now the peshwa died of heart attack and one of his sons died in the battle. It is said that it was one of the bloodiest battles of the 18th century and almost every family in maratha region lost one or two male members.
( This also happened during the english civil war as aptly described by Scarlett ohara in Gone with the wind. The thing is in such battles men are gone and as a result women are forced out into the open - marriage to a man becomes a much sought after affair due to the latters dearth - the whole institution of family is kind of toppled and consequently the society too becomes very very different)
Anyways, Madhorao , the next peshwa somewhat seemed to have revived the maratha empire, but this was marginal. Now after this peshwa the fortunes of maratha empire will begin to sway. After Madavrao died his brother became the peshwa. However this was challenged by his uncle Raghunath Rao who wanted the coveted rank for himself. But this did not happen as the coterie of officials around the peshwa Narayanrao b/o Madhavrao supported him and not his uncle. Nana phadnavis one of the most popular officers of the day and also in contemporary times too supported the same.
FIRST ANGLO MARATHA WAR 1775-1782
Now a a rather dramatic tale over the fight for throne ensues. The uncle Raghunath rao, although not successful in becoming the peshwa was able to have the reigning peshwa killed ie Narayan rao was killed sadly. But the political vacuum as anticipated by the former did not arise, for the deceased peshwa had left a heir in the womb of his wife. So Raghunath rao's planning and conspiracy were foiled even after narayan raos death and his posthumous son was made the king. Damn!!
Narayanrao's widow, Gangabai, gave birth to a posthumous son, who was legal heir to the throne. The newborn infant was named 'Sawai' Madhavrao (Sawai means "One and a Quarter"). Twelve Maratha chiefs, led by Nana Phadnavis directed an effort to name the infant as the new Peshwa and rule under him as regents.
Raghunathrao, unwilling to give up his position of power, sought help from the British at Bombay and signed the Treaty of Surat on 6 March 1775. According to the treaty, Raghunathrao ceded the territories of Salsette and Bassein to the British, along with part of the revenues from Surat and Bharuch districts. In return, the British promised to provide Raghunathrao with 2,500 soldiers.
The first anglo maratha war happened between the British and the maratha confederacy from 1775 to 1782. However none of the parties emerged victorious. The war ended in status quo.
SECOND ANGLO MARATHA WAR 1803-1805
If the first anglo maratha war was a testimony to the maratha unity, the second one was symptomatic of their disintegration and fragmentation. Some peshwa Baji rao 2 tried to play of one member of the cofederacy against the other. In this attempt he got killed the brother of Holkar king. This made Holkar an arch enemy of the peshwa who swore on peshwas life. The sindhia and bhonsle too did not say anything.
Therefore in an attempt to save his life, the reigning cowardly peshwa took british help and signed subsidiary alliance with the british raj. Now this infuriated the sindhia's and the Bhonsles and they
Friday, 30 October 2015
indian manufacturing --emerging problems
Indian manufacturing sector stands presently at 16 percent of the gdp and for a nation that claims to be a superpower India needs to up it game and increase this share to 40 percent at least. For we cannot simply keep relying on other nations for commercial/civil and military imports. A nation that is self sufficient in terms of its vital needs say such as security concerns can make decisions and policies more independently and strategically.
Say if we were not importing defence equipment from Israel then we would not have to neglect or turn a bind eye to Palestine and their suffering. Indian support to Palestine could have had huge reverberance in the middle east and the image of our country as a nation supporting pluralism would improve. But we cannot do that, for we are both reliant upon US and Israel for our needs.
Another good example from history, would be the Bangladesh liberation war of 1971. So India was a food deficient country on the eve of its independence as a result we were quiet reliant on USA's PL-480 program to feed our nation. However, during the 60's (or for that matter during the entire period of cold war era) USA was a staunch ally of Pakistan, this meant that if India helped liberate East Pakistan then repercussions could come in the form of banning of essential food imports from US which could badly affect the country and the stability of the government in power. MS Swaminathan says that if it was not for the rich dividends of the green revolution of lates 1960s then India would not have been able to act so decisively and probably we would not have a Bangladesh. Phew!! things could have been pretty grim for India in that case surrounded by a hostile nation on both sides. Things have not changed much today, we need technology and manufacturing to penetrate agriculture sector again so that our productivity increases and we are able to both diversify and increase our yield. Presently, the problem of food inflation i would say is as much threatening as the problem of naxalism if not more, to our nations socio economic development.
Further Economics 101 dictates that it is draining on the nations resources when imports exceeds exports ie a high current account deficit and fiscal deficit are bad for the over all macro economic stability.
So lets see what are the present problems that manufacturing in india is facing
Say if we were not importing defence equipment from Israel then we would not have to neglect or turn a bind eye to Palestine and their suffering. Indian support to Palestine could have had huge reverberance in the middle east and the image of our country as a nation supporting pluralism would improve. But we cannot do that, for we are both reliant upon US and Israel for our needs.
Another good example from history, would be the Bangladesh liberation war of 1971. So India was a food deficient country on the eve of its independence as a result we were quiet reliant on USA's PL-480 program to feed our nation. However, during the 60's (or for that matter during the entire period of cold war era) USA was a staunch ally of Pakistan, this meant that if India helped liberate East Pakistan then repercussions could come in the form of banning of essential food imports from US which could badly affect the country and the stability of the government in power. MS Swaminathan says that if it was not for the rich dividends of the green revolution of lates 1960s then India would not have been able to act so decisively and probably we would not have a Bangladesh. Phew!! things could have been pretty grim for India in that case surrounded by a hostile nation on both sides. Things have not changed much today, we need technology and manufacturing to penetrate agriculture sector again so that our productivity increases and we are able to both diversify and increase our yield. Presently, the problem of food inflation i would say is as much threatening as the problem of naxalism if not more, to our nations socio economic development.
Further Economics 101 dictates that it is draining on the nations resources when imports exceeds exports ie a high current account deficit and fiscal deficit are bad for the over all macro economic stability.
So lets see what are the present problems that manufacturing in india is facing
Thursday, 29 October 2015
incantations and invocations to set of the journey.
The title of our first post here might seem beguiling for a blog that intends to revisit general studies for Civil service exams. But hold behold, observing and celebrating the religious fervor -extraordinaré that is currently pervading and parading our nation, we thought this act might make us more relevant and more current than the plethora and multitude of information that abound the vast and umpteen number of times chartered territory of civil service preparations. Having said so lets not forget that even ISRO goes for a pooja before the launch of any of our beloved PSLVs, however the gods, quite inscrutably, seem conspicuously biased towards the older sibling (pslv) showering no blessings or grace upon its younger but a more ambitious brother - the GSLV. But lets not get carried away, for the rest of this blog is only dedicated to General studies so we can carry this talk of space and technology in our post on the relevant topic. Having blabbered enough let us get on to some serious business and give u all beloved readers an idea of this blog and what it aims to achieve.
Muriel Rukeyser had said that the universe is made up of stories not atoms, and oh my oh my!! such holy words she said. Treading similar paths, the aim of this blog would be to unravel this colossal, serpentine and much arduous work of gs preparations in a rather easy and fun loving manner. Simply put we intend to write articles so as to make things more simplified ,interesting and interlinked, because it's not facts and figures that UPSC is after but ideas, ingenuity, understanding and other related things. This mighty field of general studies that covers almost everything under the sun and even things outside it as humorously mentioned by a fellow preparant, is quite a tough nut to crack. And our attempt through this humble blog would be make life more easier ( dont know how qualified it is of us to say that ) and little on the fun side.
So every day we would post articles related to topics in the GS syllabus for CSE as prescribed by UPSC and by the end of it we hope to finish everything from rocket science to world war to schools of indian philosophy to indian polity and all that is needed (mind you we have used the word needed not wanted!!) for prelims and mains.
We are a group of 3 guys, who have taken upon us this cudgel, if you will, to revisit gs preparation from a fresh and a more compelling and absorbing perspective. Before putting the pen down and getting down to business we would like to quote chacha Nehru when in one of his letters from ahmednagar imprisonment (he also penned his amazing book Discovery Of India here) he wrote " Whether we were foolish or not… we aimed high and looked far."
We don't know how visionary or far, this aim is, but as the urdu couplet goes
manzil mujhe mile na mile iska gham nahi/manzil ke justaju me mera karwa to hai.
To fir hamare pyare mitro, with the incantations and invocation done we wish you courageous guys the very best and hope the bloody battle of this exam finds you always in good spirits irrespective of results.(We shall also discuss the doctrine of Nishakama Karma of Bhagwat GITA- ethics paper?)
Until next time
Urs faithfully.
AAo comrades tumhe dikhaye Jhaki UPSC prep ki
is mitti pe janam liya ye mitti hai balidan ki.!!!
translated
come on dear comrades let us revisit the holy land of UPSC prep
for this is where we were born and where we ought to be martyred!!
the contributor to this blog are
sushant singh (presently pursuing the ever allusive last attempt)
Jagath Seth (IPS)
Khadim bose(IFOS)
Muriel Rukeyser had said that the universe is made up of stories not atoms, and oh my oh my!! such holy words she said. Treading similar paths, the aim of this blog would be to unravel this colossal, serpentine and much arduous work of gs preparations in a rather easy and fun loving manner. Simply put we intend to write articles so as to make things more simplified ,interesting and interlinked, because it's not facts and figures that UPSC is after but ideas, ingenuity, understanding and other related things. This mighty field of general studies that covers almost everything under the sun and even things outside it as humorously mentioned by a fellow preparant, is quite a tough nut to crack. And our attempt through this humble blog would be make life more easier ( dont know how qualified it is of us to say that ) and little on the fun side.
So every day we would post articles related to topics in the GS syllabus for CSE as prescribed by UPSC and by the end of it we hope to finish everything from rocket science to world war to schools of indian philosophy to indian polity and all that is needed (mind you we have used the word needed not wanted!!) for prelims and mains.
We are a group of 3 guys, who have taken upon us this cudgel, if you will, to revisit gs preparation from a fresh and a more compelling and absorbing perspective. Before putting the pen down and getting down to business we would like to quote chacha Nehru when in one of his letters from ahmednagar imprisonment (he also penned his amazing book Discovery Of India here) he wrote " Whether we were foolish or not… we aimed high and looked far."
We don't know how visionary or far, this aim is, but as the urdu couplet goes
manzil mujhe mile na mile iska gham nahi/manzil ke justaju me mera karwa to hai.
To fir hamare pyare mitro, with the incantations and invocation done we wish you courageous guys the very best and hope the bloody battle of this exam finds you always in good spirits irrespective of results.(We shall also discuss the doctrine of Nishakama Karma of Bhagwat GITA- ethics paper?)
Until next time
Urs faithfully.
AAo comrades tumhe dikhaye Jhaki UPSC prep ki
is mitti pe janam liya ye mitti hai balidan ki.!!!
translated
come on dear comrades let us revisit the holy land of UPSC prep
for this is where we were born and where we ought to be martyred!!
the contributor to this blog are
sushant singh (presently pursuing the ever allusive last attempt)
Jagath Seth (IPS)
Khadim bose(IFOS)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)