Adrift

Sir, I agree with you. 100% percent. But I think in that small `locality` is law is established first then it will turned the tide on our side. If this countries Justice Institutions are fixed then I`m 101% sure that they will SLOWLY but surely fix everything. I know what you should do. Help me buiild my school. Then develop that village, then make it better than the rest. The `model` village of Pk. dont shun me as an idealist, i`m a crazy guy in a crazy world. :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``There will be a day when we will find a leader who unlike others won`t vow to change things unless this leader has the whole country under his/her control. That leader would start implementing their program from one small neighborhood--showing us how one locality can be made safe, clean, organized, civil, and democratic. That leader would build their reputation of good governance from small things.``

You expect to find a leader like all that...among punjabis???

Let me wish you good luck my friend ;)

Cemendtaur:
Your message has good intent: ``That leader would build their reputation of good governance from small things.``

But would that person qualify as a leader if he sees not the larger picture? One locality does not a country make. We all have `cocoons` in our countries, but to do we miss the woods seated beneath the shade of our trees?

Iraq is going through a transition it is itself not in command over. They will support an Al Sadr for the same reason they `supported` the Americans -- their minds have become occupied territories.

Violence is always seen as a means, not an end. The same is with non-violence. And what is non-violence on a larger political scale? One leader`s ideology cannot translate into non-violence `reaction`. A Mahatma Gandhi could not do anything about Chauri Chaura and the Jallianwalla Baug massacre. These may not have immediate relevance to what you are saying, and every region has it own peculiar constraints. But `small` leaders when they take over the country start playing `big` games...and violence is a big-time sport.

Btw, idealism isn`t about shunning, but accepting the existence of something and going beyond...

F

You seem to have your fundas clear dude!

Full marks to you. But try to understand the theory behind your friends sentiments ``Line up all the mullas and the corrupt politicians and just shoot them,`` this means- heavy deterrence perhaps in the form of collateral damage atleast- if the mullahs kill then you kill them- then they would run for cover like OBL and beg for mercy and peace. You need to hit these fanatics hard to let them see reason.

..and the only way to protect oneself from being the conquered is to become strong so you might become one day the Conquerer instead...

cement sahab/sahiba....

history is just a succession of conquests by the strong over the not-so-strong for different given reasons...has always been like that...since Cain killed his brother Abel and will always be like that until the final Hour...you can say that history has been a long travelled path of death and destruction...

Mr. C.

it is time we dropped anchor on this adrift boat.

It is time to hope, pray and work towards world peace in our

individual capacity.


Ras

why will you be the first person to work with that leader and not be the leader yourself? if change is all around us, why not become change? i look forward to living in an idealist`s world.

We come from two unparallel cultures, yet I must confess that
I nodded my head through the better half of your article.
You are correct in your call for the stop of violent action,
because it is impossible to build a sound, peaceful society that
emerges from a puddle of blood. That is just a contradiction in
itself.
However it does happen. People don`t want passive leaders,
because like it or not, someone is more willing to listen to you
when you have a gun pointed to their head than when
you are pleading to them to change their policies.
This is my opinion: the masses of people will follow
radical non violent direct action, or radical violent direct action,
but never something in between.
I believe both are equally effective, obviously though the first being
the most beneficial.
Examples of people who have brought dramatical change
through non violent direct action are Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said ``Non-violent direct action seeks to create
such crisis, and establish such creative tension, that a community
that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to
confront the issue``
I like the example of eutopia you give, but such eutopia will only
be established when the means of change are done through
non violent measures.