My friends,
  My letter to you in the morning, and the adjoining thoughts, have been churning in my head. There was one old bookmarked link I had grazed through once, and had refused to think over again, in a more optimistic mood. Today, I was drawn to re-read it, and think a bit on it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1746948,00.html

  No! Don't listen to Ayn Rand. There's still hope. We can bring up a new
 generation that manufactures love and harmony at the same rate as they
 manufacture money. We can't change the corrupt politicians. But we can
 change their kids who can be gradually shown the falseness of the maxim
 that one can't prosper (live) without dishonesty.

   And don't think Adam Smith's postulates work in India too. Our
 becoming rich doesn't ensure the nation's wealth.
  It needs us to accept that there's something bigger than our individual
 prosperity which needs a conscious design and intellectual and emotional
 inputs. We can do something. We must!

 We can change the world. Come back, you all!  :)  Love,
Sujit

Ritesh Toshniwal wrote:

Dear Sujit,
> 
> Rightly said that we can't do a Rang De Basanti - kill the politicians and
> end the apathy. But we can definitely instill these values in our kids -
> values that are progressive, that don't recognize casteism etc.
> 
> I didn't quite follow your argument about economic prosperity though - our
> becoming rich doesn't ensure nation's wealth. Are you asking every person to
> rise over money matters and see the problem from a high level view - give up
> materialistic views and accept the spiritual or more wise views of humans
> loving humans? Or are you saying that capitalist approach is not good for
> India and it wouldn't benefit India in the long run? Why do you think that
> way? That will be interesting to hear.
> 
> Junta,
> 
> What do you think of the current situation in India? How do you see it?
> 
> Hoping to see some intellectually stimulating thoughts from the thinking
> gurus of our group!  :) 
> 
> Take care.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ritesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

Hi Ritesh,

ABOUT THIS GROUP
---------------------------
 I feel this group does well in keeping us informed of each other --
who's moving to which part of the world, who's getting married and who's
not, who's getting kids, who's switching jobs etc. I am thankful to this
egroup for that. But what's been lacking is a visible sign of the fact
that each one of us is an engineering graduate, stationed advantageously
in profession and society in general. I feel, we all are doing
reasonably well in our lives. We are in a position to build and share
with each other our views about other greater, less trivial things.
Other guys! Please be vocal. Bash me up if I sound offending (though the
fact that I have been generously allowed to be a part of this group
indicates that a bit of frankness won't be taken as an offense. And
after all why do you have scientists? To ruffle up a few feathers, na!).
But do voice your opinions, abashedly.

THANK YOU!
-----------------
 Having said that, I thank you Ritesh a hundred times for responding. I
was thinking that my two letters would be lost after causing some
momentary disquiet. I am hopeful that some good and wise thoughts will
be exchanged on this matter in this group.

THANK YOU AGAIN!  :) 
------------------------------
 By putting forth your questions, you encourage me to be a bit more
explicit about my opinion.  :) 

 You got it right! I do think that our becoming rich doesn't ensure
nation's wealth. Am I asking every person to rise over money matters and
see the problem from a high level view - give up materialistic views and
accept the spiritual or more wise views of humans loving humans? No! Not
every person. Yes, perhaps I am asking you to do that, and Nachiket, and
Shruti, and Raji, and Shailesh, and RiteshP and Suyog and Suvarna ...
and all my friends in this group. Most importantly, I have always been
asking 'ME' to do that! I am asking only those whom I love and feel I
have a right upon; I am asking only those, who, I feel, have the
capability of giving it a serious thought.

STATUS DIFFERENCES AND MERIT
I don't think there's a possibility of an equally rich society in any
foreseeable future. Differences will be there. Those differences will
generally be respected if it's provable that they arise out of
differences in merit. There'll be aberrations: Criminal elements who
don't respect these variances and attempt to violate the equilibrium.
But in such a society which has variances closely commensurate with
merit, such elements will be rare and few, and can be handled by
symptomatic methods: force, appeasement, rehabilitation.


 The whole issue of reservations is such a rage because of one single
reason : the status of merit as the singlemost determining factor of
one's place in society. Reservations are institutionalising the idea of
status being matter of chance, being decided by a vote-hungry corrupt
government for its potential vote-bank. The general faith in the
proportionality of status to merit is going to disappear after this.
Every chap who loses his faith will be a potential criminal. And
tragically, there will be a very big overlap between this set of
potential criminals, and set of the most meritorious and potent members
of the society.



SOCIETY AND BODY
---------------------------
 But if variances are created by chance happenings -- lotteries,
robberies, discovery of oil-reserves by a tiny few, sudden focus of the
developed world on the cheap intellectual labour in the country --
riches do suddenly start flowing into the society, but, it doesn't
trickle through in a healthy manner.

 Similar to a starving chap suddenly hailed with endless source of food.
He will eat and not exercise. He will grow fat and unhealthy.

Similarity:
 I feel, in some sense, we all are cells in the body of our national
society. This body, off late, has suddenly started eating more. Some of
us are at points in the body which have the advantage of getting the
lion's share of this extra intake. It's not our fault. But mind you,
it's not fully our merit too. It's a chance happening. If it continues
happening for too long, soon starving organs will stop cooperating.
Noone will have an argument against this lack of faith in them. The
differences should be provably commensurate to merit. If they aren't, we
can't expect conformance from the disadvantaged ones.

Dissimilarity:
 But unlike cells of the body, we are intelligent creatures who have the
capability to be aware of this obesity and its consequences. The
individual cells, whether starving or overfed, will last only as long as
the body is alive. We can't ignore the fact that the whole body must
consciously get up and work out for staying fit. If this working out
hasn't been in the regular schedule of this body, it has to be inducted
consciously. It just won't happen by itself. Helpless cells are in no
position to make that happen to the body. But human members of the
society do possess the power to start that process in their society.

 The objective of drawing the parallel between the society and the body
was to hint at the fact that riches don't have an inherent property of
getting distributed in the social body so as to cause an increase in the
overall health. Increase in overall consumption will not just not mean
an increase in health, it may even prove detrimental, if healthy methods
of disseminating that extra intake aren't consciously devised by the
responsible members of the society

BRAINS OF THE SOCIETY
----------------------------------
 Unlike brain cells, which never accumulate fat, the brain cells of the
society consider it their right to accumulate and grow obese.

  Now, who are the brains of the society? If we claim that it's we,
then we also must relinquish our rights to grow obese, to accumulate. Am
I talking about renunciation? Am I talking about spiritual
enlightenment? I don't know! But in this social body, every cell has a
choice to take up a role. But definitely I am saying this: Every one
doesn't need to be a neuron; once someone selects that role for himself,
a lot of onus comes in.

 Perhaps the comparison is simplistic. But it does give us many
directions to think in. There're similarities as well as differences. We
need to carefully examine them and be wiser.


CONCLUSION
------------------
 I will dare answer your question on my views about 'capitalism' if I
see that this discussion is indeed evoking interest in everybody in the
group. Otherwise, as they say in all angreji talks 'May be, we will take
it off-line!'  ;) 

 In short, my arguments will sound similar to the above. But will be
more directed towards economy and India.

LOVE
-------
Cheers and love,  :) 
Sujit