Living Beyond Logic

For centuries, human beings have been thinking about how we make sense of the world. As someone who has always leaned towards science and logic since childhood, and coming from a background in medicine and with little knowledge of evolutionary biology and history, reason has been my primary guiding light for understanding things. After all, the reason played the most important role in helping humanity to split the atom, find the exact structure of our DNA/Genes, and create societies based on evidence rather than blind faith. Rational thinking is the backbone of the Renaissance and human progress; it’s behind every vaccine, every bridge we cross, and every step towards equality and reform. However, here is a catch: Unlike in natural science, reason has limited appeal when it comes to the complexities of human emotions, culture, and personal experiences. Reason can explain why gravity pulls us down or how DNA/genetic functions are regulated, but it falls short on things like guilt, sorrow, or why we all hold on to memories that hurt. People don’t always act logically; societies are build on myths, and individuals chase those dreams defying all the logic and evidence. I became interested in existentialism because of this gap where true meaning is less reliant on reasoning. Furthermore, rather than just abstaining from reason, it aims to enrich reason with something deeper and more relatable. As mentioned earlier, the Enlightenment was propelled by Rationalism, which also gave us the scientific method and shaped the humanist principles that are prized in many developed nations and cultures.. We have made many advances in contemporary engineering, technology, medicine, and even human rights by using reason to separate facts from dogma. Even approach towards books and ideas echoed the same for example in my earlier blog posts whether it’s about Venki Ramakrishnan’s book “Why We Die,” explaining aging through science and evolution, or Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s “Why Nations Fail,” analyzing institutions role in human development with data and case studies, reason helps us understand the “how” and “why” of things. It makes the world predictable, improvable. But over time, we realise that while rationalism tells us what exists, it doesn’t always guide us on what to do with that knowledge. It describes reality’s structure but misses the raw feel of living in it. As Blaise Pascal said in 1670, "The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing about." When we ask ourselves, "Why do people stay in toxic relationships when logic tells us to get out?" Why do entire societies still harbor prejudices or give in to extremism despite the overwhelming evidence of their negative effects? Why does losing a loved one make us feel more purposeful in addition to leaving a void in our hearts? Theories that offer some reasoining like like economic incentives, cognitive biases, or evolutionary instincts can help us solve this puzzle, but they all fall short of describing human behaviour. Again tge pure logic alone is insufficient to adequately explain the feelings like the longing, the despair, and the silent hope.. Consider the historical Weimar Republic in Germany, as wrote about it in one of my earlier posts: rational institutions failed amid economic chaos and emotional turmoil, paving the way for something darker. Or in movies like “The Spy Who Came in from the Cold,” where spies navigate moral gray areas that no logical plan can fully prepare them for. As Devdutt Pattanaik points out in his book, Ahimsa: 100 Reflections on the Harappan Civilisation, civilisations aren’t just built on rational blueprints; but myths play an essential part, as they are not mere stories but powerful cultural constructs that shape societies by providing emotional and symbolic frameworks for understanding the world. Logic can plan a city, but it takes narratives, shared beliefs, and a sense of belonging to make it a home. Confronting this human complexity is what made existentialism click for me. It’s not anti-reason; it’s what picks up where reason leaves off, shifting from “What is true?” to “How do we live with this truth?” A simple yet disturbing idea that struck hard was : existence precedes essence, a French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote from his famous 1945 lecture “Existentialism Is a Humanism”. According to Sartre We first exist, struggle into the world, and only then define who we are. There is no predetermined script or divine plan; we must write our own destiny. This freedom, which is fundamental to our humanity, is both exciting and frightening. This study of existential philosophy begins with Søren Kierkegaard, who is considered the father of existentialism because of his life works that examined what it means to be a devoted Christian and still believe in the face of uncertainty. Faith, according to Kierkegaard, is not blind; it transcends reason and is a brave trust that endures from Dostoevsky's troubled souls to Beauvoir's demands for universal freedom. This has been like piecing together a conversation that’s been going on for over a century. It’s helped us make sense of how to appreciate the irrational depths of life, which is part and parcel of everyone's life.. Fyodor Dostoevsky was my first real dive into this world, even before I knew it was existentialism. His characters reason but suffer emotionally, and that’s what makes them so real. In “Notes from Underground”, the narrator mocks at the notion that humans are merely rational machines pursuing utopia. He says, “What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.” Freedom includes the right to mess up, to choose chaos to prove you’re alive. In “Crime and Punishment” , Raskolnikov kills under a “logical” theory that great men can break moral rules for the greater good. But it crumbles under guilt and spiritual breakdown. In our own lives, we have all experienced moments when we made logical choices only to later feel the emotional toll. Dostoevsky demonstrates that ignoring conscience renders reason hollow. Then there is iconoic “The Brothers Karamazov”, where Ivan uses his sharp logic to question God: If innocents suffer, how can the world be just? Yet the book doesn’t end in nihilism; it finds hope in simple tenderness. My favourite quote from the book is when Alyosha tells the boys, “There is nothing higher and stronger and more wholesome and good for life than some good memory, especially a memory of childhood, of home.” No equation explains why those memories save us, but they do. For Dostoevsky, beneath all the rational debates lies compassion—the irrational heartbeat that keeps us going. White Nights is Dostoevsky’s rare purely romantic work —a short Novel that captures the fleeting connection between the narrator and Nastenka during St. Petersburg’s long summer nights. Novel lines like “I am a dreamer. I know so little of real life that I just can’t help re-living such moments as these in my dreams, for such moments are something I have made up, something rare, something precious.” capture the narrator’s existential longing for connection. And the inevitable sorrow of an incomplete ending.. The story also stands apart due to the lack of the darker moral dilemmas that dominate Dostoevsky’s later works. Franz Kafka took Dostoevsky’s inner struggle and turned it into something absurdly tragic. If Dostoevsky questioned moral logic, Kafka questioned whether the world even makes sense. In “The Metamorphosis” (1915), Gregor wakes up as a giant insect, but the real horror lies in how everyone in his own family adapts and moves on. Even in that state, he feels beauty— but it’s the humans, his own people, around him who lose their humanity, when he asks himself, “How about if I sleep a little longer and forget all this nonsense?” Gregor's desire to escape the ridiculous reality he faces is reflected in this line, which captures his first, almost naive attempt to dismiss his terrible transformation as something he could escape by simply sleeping more. Instead of portraying pessimism, Kafka's protagonists persevere until the very end in the hopes of a change of heart, but to no avail. “The Trial” Even more terrifying is, where Josef K. is entangled in a web of nameless regulations and arrested without cause. It’s like modern life on steroids—bureaucratic rules stripping away meaning. “Before the Law stands a doorkeeper. A man from the country approaches this doorkeeper and asks to be admitted to the Law. However, the doorkeeper claims that he is unable to admit anyone at this time.This parable captures Kafka's depiction of existential futility, in which the pursuit of meaning is consistently postponed—a theme that is reflected in contemporary alienation. Kafka's personal yearnings are revealed in his letters to Milena (1920–1923): He wrote, among other things, "I am constantly trying to communicate something incommunicable, to explain something inexplicable, to tell about something I only feel in my bones." “If the world were ending tomorrow. Then I could take the next train, arrive at your doorstep in Vienna, and say: ‘Come with me, Milena. We are going to love each other without scruples or fear or restraint.” Kafka's letters show his desperate wish to seize the moment if unburdened by societal constraints or personal hesitations His absurd world is a protest through sensitivity in his communication (which actually never acknowledged duting his lifetieme ).... In a time when systems dehumanise us, like the surveillance states of Europe during Kafka’s time, Kafka reminds us that holding onto our inner fragility is a form of resistance. In this regard, Friedrich Nietzsche was an outlier in the sense that he acknowledged the death of old certainties, which didn’t despair him, but he challenged us to build anew. His famous line: “God remains dead. And we have killed him.” It can be considered as a wake-up call, but not a celebration. He declared that if we don't develop our own values, we run the risk of becoming nihilistic. The Übermensch, the person who transcends humanity's limitations by sheer willpower, appears in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra": "Man is something that shall be overcome." And many are aware of the line, "What does not kill me makes me stronger," from "Twilight of the Idols". Nietzsche's existentialism, which is marked by optimism, advocates living life to the fullest despite its uncertainties. Through self-overcoming, he leaps to creation where others leap to faith. We can see how holding onto old-fashioned beliefs hinders us when we consider longevity or historical failures. By actively converting obstacles into chances for development, Nietzsche encourages us to create meaning. Sartre, Camus and Frankl: Existentialism emerged in various shades around World War II, set against the backdrop of a world already shattered by the Great War (1914-1918), with clouds of future catastrophe looming large over Europe. Further destruction of the world. In World War 2, the Nazi occupation of the whole of Europe, barring exceptions like the UK and Russia and the Holocaust shaped existentialist ideas further, which got divided into various political camps during the post-war era, when the world was divided into two ideologically opposite camps Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre addressed the disillusioned in light of this. After initially sharing similar ideologies, Sartre and Camus turned into bitter rivals. "Man is condemned to be free, because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does," is a famous quote from Sartre's "Being and Nothingness." Freedom is a burden avoiding it is “bad faith.” Sartre's play “No Exit” captures this idea in a quote: “Hell is other people,” because their presence forces us to face ourselves. Albert Camus, a contemporary French philosopher of Sartre's, spoke to a world devastated by war and chaos, focusing on life’s lack of clear meaning, or in other words, “absurdity.” In simple terms, Camus believed that life doesn’t come with a built-in purpose, but that doesn’t mean we should give up on it either. Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus in 1942, during a time when Europe was at war, and various justifications were offered to justify extermination. Philosophers were forced to confront what “meaning” meant in a world that had gone mad. In order to demonstrate how the struggle itself can give our hearts meaning, Camus uses the story of Sisyphus, who relentlessly pushes a rock uphill, to answer the question, "Why do we keep going if life feels pointless?" In "The Plague," Camus describes a group of people banding together to combat a fatal illness, demonstrating that compassion and support for one another give life purpose even in the face of adversity. Camus teaches us to be brave in the face of absurdity and to enjoy life to the fullest, which includes choosing to be joyful in the face of chaos.. This involves finding light in fleeting moments of our lives, like those in trivial get-togethers and celebrations. During the Nazi occupation of Europe/France, existentialist thinkers faced a good test of their ideas about freedom and meaning. In 1933, Martin Heidegger, a philosopher who was preoccupied with the nature of existence, joined the Nazi Party in the hopes of bringing about a spiritual renaissance. However, he later retreated into silence, which some perceived as a way to escape accountability. In Paris, many intellectuals played it safe, neither supporting nor fighting the Nazis, which Jean-Paul Sartre criticised as “bad faith”, thus avoiding the tough choices freedom demands. Sartre himself, after being a prisoner of war, returned to Paris and wrote works like No Exit, showing how we trap each other in judgment, while insisting true freedom comes from within, not just from defeating the Nazis. In the meantime, Albert Camus joined the French resistance and used phrases like "In the depth of winter, I found in me an invincible summer" to inspire courage and hope. Viktor Frankl lived out his conviction that choosing dignity gives life meaning even in the most agonizing circumstances during the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps. Camus calls for humane rebellion, while Sartre demands accountability. However, the Viktor Frankl story is most appealing. He was a neurologist/psychiatrist by profession and, more significantly, a Holocaust survivor. He wrote in "Man's Search for Meaning" in 1946,that "everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms: to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances." During his lengthy stay in a Nazi labor camp, he made observations that led to the development of logotherapy, which emphasizes the will to meaning over power or pleasure. Quoting Nietzsche, Frankl said "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how." By demonstrating that meaning keeps us going when we are suffering, Frankl transforms philosophy into a therapeutic activity. Our optimism about human progress is reflected in our decision to maintain hope in the face of imperfections. Existentialism, once thought to be primarily a male field, was introduced to the fields of gender and ethics by Simone de Beauvoir.. In “The Second Sex”, she argues that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Freedom must be reciprocal; otherwise, it’s oppression. She stresses that our “facticity”—birth, history, gender—shapes us but doesn’t define us. Authenticity comes from action and relationships. Beauvoir makes existentialism social, reminding me that meaning arises from connections, such as peer bonding in our childhood. Like any other philosophy, Existentialism isn’t like everything neat and clean; it’s a lively debate. Kierkegaard roots meaning in faith; Nietzsche calls it outdated. Sartre advocates for absolute freedom; Frankl and Beauvoir, respectively, add responsibility and gender aspects to it. Camus rejects Sartre’s politics and also dislikes being called an existentialist, insisting that revolt stays humane. Kafka endures without answers. However, these tensions that keep us alive are a testament to the fact that our lives are full of contradictions, after all. Beyond this, existentialism has its own blind spots. It burdens the individual too much with meaning-making, ignoring the limitations imposed by social and economic chains on their choices. Not everyone’s freedom is equal and is largely determined by class, caste, societal position, and so on. It can feel isolating, undervaluing community myths and collective goals that bind us. Without a complete understanding of what constitutes existentialism, it risks leading to despair—Sartre’s nausea or Camus’s absurd leading to paralysis. In our digital age, with endless choices and fake identities, it gets even trickier. Social media amplifies “bad faith,” turning authenticity into a show. The question “Who am I without an audience?” feels more pressing than ever today… Despite this, existentialism restores seriousness in a distracted world. It demands we face meaning head-on. Rationalism and existentialism aren’t rivals, but they complete each other. If Reason maps the world; existence helps us navigate it. Science explains the biology of love; existentialism explores the risk of heartbreak. Economics covers incentives; existentialism probes defying them for conscience. One builds knowledge; the other, wisdom. And for a balanced life we need both…. ~Amol Yadav, October 20, 2025 Note: This is reglection of the absurdity of life that we experience daily, which offers no respite despite our attempts of problem soving or giving rational explanations. The basis of the write-up is my limited reading of a few original writings and a review of the literature of mentioned writers.. In the Compassion of Dostoevsky, the sensitivity of Kafka, the freedom of Sartre, the revolt of Camus, the meaning of Frankl, maybe we might experience deja vu Finally, I would again like to quote Camus from “Return to Tipasa, “In the midst of winter, I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.”

Why We Die

I like all kinds of books, but I have a special interest in books dealing with the matters of evolution and science. “Why We Die – The New Science of Longevity” by Venki Ramakrishnan, was a very engaging and thought-provoking read for me. The title may sound sad, but the book is not depressing. It is filled with curiosity, insight, and even humour. It gives a very clear understanding of aging and death, not just from a scientific angle, but also from a evolutionary, philosophical and practical viewpoint. The Author cited, the twentieth-century Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Perhaps death is nature’s way of allowing a new generation to flourish and reproduce without the older ones remaining to compete for resources, thereby better ensuring the survival of their genes. The author, who is a Nobel Prize-winning biologist, explains that death is not some enemy that comes to take us. It is a natural part of how life evolved on Earth. It brushed my knowledge of medicine, that the cells that carry our genes—called germ-line cells—are technically immortal. They keep getting passed on to the next generation. But the rest of our body, called soma, is like a temporary vessel that dies after its job is done. This idea that we are carriers for our genes and not the main players made me think differently about life and death. The author Quoted linguist Ganesh Devy who said he felt no fear or panic at the thought of dying as we have to regard ourselves as parts of larger entities like family, community, and society, just as all the cells in our body are part of tissues and organs and us. Millions of our cells die every day. Not only do we not mourn their passing, but we are not even aware of it. So even if we as individuals die, our society and indeed life on Earth will go on. Despite this, our brains appear to have evolved a protection mechanism by thinking of death as something that happens to other people, not ourselves. From the book, it is clear that aging is not caused by one single reason, but many small things going wrong inside our cells over time. Our body creates proteins and destroys them constantly, and if this balance gets disturbed, aging speeds up. The author also explains ideas like mutation accumulation, disposable soma theory, and oxidative stress, but in a very easy-to-understand way. He says that ageing is the result of our body collecting chemical damage little by little. I liked how the book balances scientific research with personal stories. For example, Ramakrishnan talks about his 97-year-old father who still does his own shopping, laundry, and even makes homemade Indian dishes and ice cream. This shows that we may or may not increase our maximum life span in short term but we have already improved our quality of life at much older age so much so that living well even in 90s is possible. Author divides long-living people into three types: Survivors (who get old despite disease), Delayers (who get illness late), and Escapers (who avoid major diseases even at 100 years). About 19% of centenarians fall into the third category, which is quite amazing.

One interesting debate in the book is between scientists Jay Olshansky and James Vaupel. Olshansky believes there is a natural upper limit to the human life span (about 120 years), while Vaupel thinks the life span is elastic and can stretch with time and science. Though both are firm on their respective views, Most of the present pieces of evidence support Olshaskys POV. Personally, I agree with the book’s overall message that instead of trying to live forever, we should focus on living healthy and happy till our 90s and beyond. The book includes some lifestyle advice too. Some points were surprising—like drinking tea instead of coffee, avoiding too much iron (even in multivitamins), and flossing daily. Others were expected but important—eating less processed food, doing regular exercise, avoiding obesity, sleeping well, staying mentally sharp, and keeping a positive attitude. Having a family history of long life also helps. The author himself takes blood pressure pills, cholesterol statins, and low-dose aspirin—not to become immortal, but to live healthier. There are interesting parts of the book that talk about animals. Some animals like the hydra and the immortal jellyfish do not seem to age at all. Naked mole rats also break the rules of ageing—scientists found that their chance of dying does not increase with age like it does in humans. This goes against Gompertz’s law, which says the risk of death increases exponentially with age. The bowhead whale can live over 200 years, despite having a high metabolism. These species show that nature still has secrets that science doesn’t fully understand. Unlike asexual reproduction Sexual reproduction evolved because it is an efficient mechanism to produce genetic variation in the offspring by generating different combinations of genes from each parent, allowing organisms to adapt to changing environments. In some sense, you could say that death is the price we pay for sex! The book also talks about Kleiber’s law, which links how fast an animal uses energy to its size. Usually, bigger animals live longer because they burn energy more slowly and avoid predators. But within species, smaller individuals can live longer—for example, small dogs often outlive big dogs. It all depends on hormones, metabolism, and lifestyle. One thing I appreciated very much is that Venki Ramakrishnan doesn’t give false hopes. He says clearly that while life expectancy has doubled in 100 years because of clean water, vaccines, and antibiotics, the maximum human life span has not changed—it still stays around 120 years. No person has beaten Jeanne Calment’s record of 122 years in the last 25 years. So it is common sense to accept death as a part of life and focus more on adding health to our years rather than years to our life. The author mentions that despite improved lifespan, generally speaking creativity and mental sharpness decline with age. After 45, our reasoning, memory, and verbal fluency reduce slowly. Vocabulary stays strong for longer, but fluid intelligence falls. This is why many famous works in literature, science, and invention were created by people in their 20s or 30s. That does not mean old people cannot contribute, but we should be realistic and accept that our efficiency does drop with age. In the quest for longevity, The author expresses concern about inequality. In countries like the USA, the richest live 15 years more than the poorest. In England, the gap in healthy years between rich and poor is even bigger than the gap in life span. In addition Rich and poor have disproportionate number of healthy years during their life span. So if life-extending technologies become real, only the rich may benefit, leading to more unfairness. The final chapters talk about the future. The author says it’s okay to dream of a long life, but we must also be practical. Most so-called anti-ageing pills and products don’t work better than exercise, sleep, and good food. He quotes Michael Pollan’s famous advice: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” He also reminds us of Roy Amara’s law—that we overestimate short-term tech progress but underestimate long-term effects. Maybe in future, there will be real progress, but for now, we must live wisely. In conclusion, Why We Die is a beautiful mix of science, culture, and human emotion. It emphasises how to think about life and aging. It is not a sad book—I will call it a wise book for anyone who enjoys science writing that is thoughtful and accessible, presented in simpler mostly non technical language. We cannot escape death, but we can learn to live better—and perhaps even die with grace. That is the main lesson one can take from this book. ©Amol Yadav

जर्मनी: पुन्हा एका निर्णायक वळणावर

(उद्या दि. २३ फेब्रुवारी रोजी जर्मनीत महत्वपूर्ण निवडणुका होणार आहेत, या निवडणुकांचे निकाल जर्मनी आणि युरोपच्या भवितव्यासाठी दूरगामी ठरतील त्या निमित्ताने....) आज युरोपातील सर्वात मोठी अर्थव्यवस्था असलेला जर्मनी सध्या मोठ्या आव्हानांचा सामना करत आहे. आर्थिक मंदी, राजकीय अस्थिरता, नवीन रोजगाराची आव्हाने आणि त्यामुळे जनतेतील वाढती नाराजी, यामुळे देशातील सध्याच्या पारंपरिक राजकीय व्यवस्थेवर आणि युनियन पार्टी (सीडीयू/सीएसयू) व सोशल डेमोक्रॅट्स यांसारख्या लोकप्रिय राजकीय पक्षांवरचा लोकांचा विश्वास कमी होत चालला आहे. याचवेळी जर्मनीमध्ये डाव्या आणि विशेषतः अतिउजव्या विचारसरणीच्या पक्षांना जनतेचा मोठ्या प्रमाणात पाठिंबा मिळू लागला आहे. १९३० च्या दशकात पहिल्या महायुद्धानंतर अस्तित्वात आलेले वायमार प्रजासत्ताक कोसळले आणि आर्थिक संकट व राजकीय अस्थिरतेमुळे जर्मनीला नाझी राजवटीच्या अधीन जावे लागले. आज जागतिक आणि जर्मनीची परिस्थिती वेगळी असली, तरी काही गोष्टी पुन्हा तशाच नसल्या तरी त्याच दिशेने घडताना दिसत आहेत. त्यामुळे, जर्मनी पुढे कोणता मार्ग स्वीकारणार हा प्रश्न महत्त्वपूर्ण आहे. वायमार प्रजासत्ताकाचा अंत आणि अतिउजव्या विचारसरणीचा उदय: पहिल्या महायुद्धाच्या शेवटी, १९१९ मध्ये जर्मनीने व्हर्साय तहावर स्वाक्षरी केली. या तहाद्वारे जर्मनीवर जेत्या मित्र राष्ट्रांकडून (ब्रिटन, अमेरिका आणि फ्रान्स) कठोर निर्बंध लादण्यात आले. यामध्ये युद्धखोरीबद्दल मोठ्या प्रमाणात आर्थिक नुकसानभरपाई द्यावी लागणे, फ्रान्स, पोलंड आणि नव्याने निर्माण झालेल्या झेकोस्लोव्हाकिया आदी राष्ट्रांना भूभाग गमवावा लागणे, तसेच नौदल व लष्कर इत्यादी सैन्यशक्ती अतिशय मर्यादित करणे यांचा समावेश होता. अशा परिस्थितीत १९१९ मध्ये वायमार प्रजासत्ताकाची स्थापना झाली. जर्मनीमध्ये वायमार प्रजासत्ताकाच्या निमित्ताने पहिल्यांदाच लोकशाही राजवट स्थापन झाली होती. परंतु, कठोर आर्थिक नुकसानभरपाईच्या अटींमुळे जर्मनीची अर्थव्यवस्था कोसळली. सरकार कर्ज फेडू शकले नाही, बेरोजगारी वाढत चालली होती आणि १९२३ च्या सुमारास जर्मन मार्कचे मूल्य एवढे घटले होते की, गाडीभर मार्कमध्ये (चलनात) एक वेळेचे जेवण सुद्धा मिळणे कठीण झाले होते. आर्थिक संकट आणि युद्धानंतरच्या राजकीय अस्थिरतेमुळे लोकांचा लोकशाहीवरील विश्वास उडत गेला आणि कम्युनिस्ट व उजव्या राष्ट्रवादी चळवळींना पोषक वातावरण हळूहळू तयार होऊ लागले. १९२० च्या दशकाच्या मध्यात अमेरिकन गुंतवणुकीच्या (Dawes Plan) मदतीने जर्मनीला काही प्रमाणात स्थिरता मिळाली. १९२० चा उत्तरार्ध ते १९३० चा पूर्वार्ध हा जर्मनीसाठी कला-संस्कृतीचा सुवर्णकाळ होता. त्यानंतर जर्मनी नाझीवादाकडे वळेल असे वरवर पाहिले तर कुणालाही वाटले नसेल. पण बारकाईने पाहिले तर, 'जर्मन श्रेष्ठत्ववाद' आणि 'अनुवंशिक दृष्ट्या ज्यू व इतर बिगर आर्यन श्वेत तसेच सर्व अश्वेत हे हीन दर्जाचे आहेत', हे छद्म विज्ञान (Pseudoscience) आणि अनुवंशशास्त्राद्वारे पटवून देण्याचा प्रयत्न १९२० च्या दशकापासूनच जोरात चालू होता. १९२९ मध्ये वॉल स्ट्रीट कोसळल्याने जागतिक आर्थिक मंदी आली आणि त्याचा फटका जर्मनीलाही बसला. लाखो लोक बेरोजगार झाले. वायमार राज्यघटनेतील प्रमाणशीर प्रतिनिधित्वाच्या (Proportional Representation) कलमामुळे कोणत्याही एका पक्षाला बहुमत मिळणे कठीण झाले आणि युरोपमधील एकेकाळच्या सामर्थ्यशाली राष्ट्रात राजकीय अस्थिरता निर्माण झाली. (हा नियम आजही जर्मनीत लागू आहे, ज्यामुळे तिथे वेगवेगळ्या 'ट्रॅफिक लाइट' आघाड्या सत्तेवर येतात). अशा परिस्थितीत लोकांमध्ये सध्याच्या व्यवस्थेबद्दल (जी अनेकांच्या मते मित्र राष्ट्रांनी जर्मनीवर लादली होती) संताप निर्माण झाला आणि लोक टोकाच्या विचारसरणीकडे वळू लागले. परिणामी, डाव्या साम्यवादी आणि उजव्या नाझी पक्षांची लोकप्रियता वाढू लागली. त्याच काळात, जर्मनीमध्ये एक खोटा प्रचार जोर धरू लागला – "जर्मनी युद्ध हरली नाही, तर देशातीलच काही लोकांनी राष्ट्रद्रोह केल्यामुळे हे घडले." विशेषतः ज्यू आणि समाजवाद्यांना या परिस्थितीला जबाबदार धरण्यात आले. या गोष्टींचे भांडवल करत अ‍ॅडॉल्फ हिटलर आणि नाझी पक्षाने आपला प्रभाव वाढवला. १९२३ मध्ये 'म्युनिक उठावा'तून हिटलरने सत्तापालट करण्याचा प्रयत्न केला, पण तो अयशस्वी ठरला आणि हिटलर तुरुंगात गेला. तिथे त्याने आपले आत्मचरित्र लिहिले. तुरुंगातून बाहेर आल्यानंतर नाझी पक्ष अधिक सक्रिय झाला आणि १९३० च्या दशकात हिटलरला लोकांचा मोठा पाठिंबा मिळू लागला. १९३३ च्या निवडणुकीमध्ये, जरी नाझी पक्षाला संपूर्ण बहुमत मिळाले नाही, तरी तो राइखस्टागमधील (संसदेतील) सर्वात मोठा पक्ष ठरला. त्यामुळे राष्ट्राध्यक्ष हिंडनबर्ग यांनी हिटलरला जानेवारी १९३३ मध्ये चॅन्सलर म्हणून नियुक्त केले. पुढील काही महिन्यांतच, हिटलरने लोकशाही नष्ट केली आणि लोकशाही असलेल्या देशात केवळ २ महिन्यांत हुकूमशाहीची स्थापना केली. दोन घटनांनी ही प्रक्रिया सुलभ केली: १. राइखस्टाग फायर (२७ फेब्रुवारी १९३३): जर्मन संसदेच्या इमारतीला आग लागली. हिटलरने याचे खापर कम्युनिस्ट पक्षावर फोडले आणि त्याचा फायदा घेत सर्व राजकीय विरोधकांना तुरुंगात टाकले. २. एनॅब्लिंग अ‍ॅक्ट (मार्च १९३३): या कायद्यामुळे हिटलरला कोणत्याही संसदीय मंजुरीशिवाय शासन करण्याचे सर्वाधिकार मिळाले. काही महिन्यांतच जर्मनी पूर्ण हुकूमशाही राष्ट्र बनले. या कालखंडानंतर हिटलरने व्हर्सायचा तह झुगारून देऊन सैनिकीकरण सुरू केले, आधी झेकोस्लोव्हाकिया अंकित केला आणि ऑस्ट्रिया जर्मन राईचमध्ये विलीन केला (The Anschluss). दोस्त राष्ट्रांनी या दोन्ही बाबतीत केवळ बोटचेपी बघ्याची भूमिका घेतली (म्युनिक कॉन्फरन्स १९३८). दरम्यानच्या काळात 'रोम-बर्लिन-टोकियो अक्ष' अस्तित्वात आला आणि शेवटी सप्टेंबर १९३९ मध्ये पोलंडवर हल्ला करून हिटलरने दुसरे महायुद्ध सुरू केले. या युद्धात जगभरात अपरिमित हानी झाली, कित्येक राष्ट्रे बेचिराक झाली आणि ७ कोटींपेक्षा जास्त नागरिक मृत्युमुखी पडले. नाझी राजवटीने ६० लाखांहून अधिक ज्यू लोकांचा संहार केला. सरतेशेवटी दुसऱ्या महायुद्धात जर्मनीचा पराभव झाला. १९४५ मध्ये युद्ध संपल्यावर, नाझी पक्ष आणि त्याच्या समर्थकांचा सोव्हिएत रशिया आणि अमेरिका या दोघांकडूनही बिमोड करण्यात आला. न्युरेंबर्ग खटले चालवून ज्यूंच्या मानवी संहारास जबाबदार नाझी अधिकाऱ्यांना शिक्षा देण्यात आली. १९४९ मध्ये जर्मनीला दोन भागांमध्ये विभागण्यात आले – पश्चिम जर्मनी (भांडवलशाही) आणि पूर्व जर्मनी (कम्युनिस्ट). पूर्व आणि पश्चिम जर्मनी हे अमेरिका आणि सोव्हिएत युनियन या दोन गटांतील शीतयुद्धकालीन (१९४५-१९८९) संघर्षाचे महत्त्वाचे केंद्र बनले. पश्चिम जर्मनीमध्ये संविधानाद्वारे पुन्हा 'प्रपोर्शनल रिप्रेझेंटेशन' लागू करण्यात आले, पण नाझी पक्षाचा उदय लक्षात घेता, "एकूण मतांपैकी ५ टक्क्यांपेक्षा जास्त मते मिळाली तरच राइखस्टागमध्ये प्रतिनिधित्व मिळू शकेल," अशी अट टाकण्यात आली, जेणेकरून अतिवादी पक्षांना पायबंद बसेल. दुसरीकडे, पूर्व जर्मनीमध्ये साम्यवादी पक्षाची एकपक्षीय राजवट कायम सत्तेत राहिली. १९९० मध्ये शीतयुद्ध संपून दोन्ही जर्मनींचे पश्चिम जर्मनीच्या नेतृत्वात एकत्रीकरण करण्यात आले आणि त्यानंतर अवघ्या काही वर्षांत जर्मनी पुन्हा एकदा युरोपातील सर्वात मोठी अर्थव्यवस्था बनली. आजचा जर्मनी: नवीन आर्थिक आणि राजकीय आव्हाने आजचा जर्मनी जरी युरोपातील सर्वात मोठी अर्थव्यवस्था असलेला मजबूत आणि लोकशाहीप्रधान देश असला, तरी मागील काही वर्षांपासून आर्थिक आणि राजकीय संकटे नवीन तणाव निर्माण करत आहेत. १. आर्थिक मंदी, महागाईचा फटका आणि वाढते स्थलांतर: • जर्मनीचा आर्थिक विकास दर मागील काही वर्षांपासून, विशेषतः कोव्हिडनंतर मंदावलेला असून लोकांना नोकऱ्या मिळवणे कठीण होत आहे. • युक्रेन युद्धामुळे रशियावरील आर्थिक निर्बंधांमुळे नॉर्डस्ट्रीम पाइपलाइनद्वारे मिळणारा स्वस्त गॅसचा पुरवठा बंद झाला, ज्यामुळे निर्माण झालेल्या ऊर्जा संकटाने महागाई वाढवली आहे. • सर्वसामान्य नागरिकांच्या जीवनावश्यक वस्तू महाग झाल्या आहेत, त्यामुळे सरकारवर मोठा दबाव आहे. • विकसनशील देशांतील, विशेषतः सिरिया युद्धानंतर मध्य पूर्वेतील देशांतून वाढत्या स्थलांतरामुळे, व्यवस्थेवर ताण निर्माण झाल्याची आणि जर्मन/युरोपीय संस्कृतीवर आक्रमण झाल्याची उजव्या गटाची भावना आहे. २. राजकीय अस्थिरता आणि टोकाच्या पक्षांचा उदय: • मागील काही वर्षांत कोणत्याही एका पक्षाला पूर्ण बहुमत मिळालेले नाही. • पूर्व जर्मनीमध्ये आपण अजूनही विकासाच्या मुख्य प्रवाहापासून बाजूला असल्याची आणि शीतयुद्धकालीन वेगळ्या वागणुकीची भावना लोकांच्या मनात आहे. • पारंपरिक राजकीय पक्षांवर लोकांचा विश्वास कमी होत आहे. • उजव्या आणि डाव्या विचारसरणीच्या टोकाच्या पक्षांना मोठा पाठिंबा मिळत आहे. यातूनच नवीन अतिवादी राजकीय शक्ती, मुख्यतः AfD आणि BSW यांचा झपाट्याने उदय होत आहे. युरोपीय संसद आणि प्रांतीय निवडणुकांमध्ये त्यांना, विशेषतः 'अल्टरनेटिव्ह फ्युअर डॉईचलंड' (AfD) या पक्षाला पूर्व आणि दक्षिण जर्मनीतून भरपूर पाठिंबा मिळत आहे. १. अफल्टरनेटिव्ह फ्युअर डॉईचलंड (AfD) – अति उजव्या विचारसरणीचा पक्ष AfD पक्ष २०१३ मध्ये स्थापन झाला. प्रारंभी युरोपियन युनियनच्या (EU) आर्थिक धोरणांविरोधात असलेला हा पक्ष आता आक्रमक राष्ट्रवाद आणि स्थलांतरविरोधी जहाल विचार मांडत आहे. AfD पक्षाच्या प्रमुख भूमिका: • स्थलांतराविरोध: अनधिकृत स्थलांतर रोखणे आणि निर्वासितांना परत पाठवणे. • EU विरोध: काही सदस्य जर्मनीने युरोपियन युनियनमधून बाहेर पडावे अशी मागणी करतात. • राष्ट्रीय अभिमान: नाझी भूतकाळावर भर न देता देशाच्या गौरवशाली इतिहासावर भर देण्याचा प्रयत्न (पण सुप्तपणे हा पक्ष नाझी विचारसरणीचा पाठीराखा असल्याचा अनेकांचा कयास आहे). • जर्मनीने रशियावर घातलेल्या निर्बंधांना विरोध. २. बुंडनीस साह्रा वागनक्नेख्त - Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) – डाव्या विचारसरणीचा पक्ष: २०२४ मध्ये डाव्या पक्षाच्या माजी नेत्या साह्रा वागनक्नेख्त यांनी साम्यवादी पक्षातून फुटून BSW पक्ष स्थापन केला. हा पक्ष मध्यमवर्गीय आणि कामगारवर्गीयांना आकर्षित करत आहे. BSW पक्षाच्या भूमिका: • आर्थिक न्याय: श्रीमंतांवर जास्त कर लावणे आणि गरीब वर्गासाठी अधिक धोरणे आणणे. • विस्तारित जागतिकीकरणाला विरोध: जर्मनीच्या उद्योगांनी विदेशी बाजारापेक्षा देशांतर्गत बाजारावर लक्ष केंद्रित करायला हवे. • नियंत्रित स्थलांतर: खुल्या सीमा नकोत, परंतु नियंत्रित स्थलांतर हवे. • NATO आणि अमेरिकेच्या धोरणांना विरोध: जर्मनीने रशियावर घातलेल्या निर्बंधांना विरोध आणि नाझी भूतकाळ हे जर्मनीसाठी काळे दिवस होते अशी भूमिका. वरील दोन्हीही पक्षांची राजकीय आणि आर्थिक विचारसरणी विरुद्ध दिशेची असली, तरी स्थलांतराचे नियमन, रशियावरील निर्बंधांना विरोध आणि "अमेरिकेच्या ताटाखालचे मांजर होण्याला" विरोध, ह्या काही समान बाबी आहेत. जर्मनी साठी महत्त्वाचे प्रश्न सध्या CDU/CSU युनियन पक्षाचा नेता फ्रेड्रिक मर्ज हा सर्वात लोकप्रिय नेता आहे, परंतु युनियन पक्षाला एकहाती सत्ता मिळण्याची शक्यता नाही. चॅन्सलर ओलाफ स्कोल्झ यांच्या नेतृत्वाखालील सध्या सत्तारूढ असलेला सोशल डेमोक्रेटिक पक्ष ओपिनियन पोलनुसार तिसऱ्या क्रमांकावर आहे, तर AfD दुसऱ्या क्रमांकाचा लोकप्रिय पक्ष आहे. पण BSW सहित इतर कोणताही पक्ष AfD पक्षासोबत सत्तेसाठी आघाडी करण्यास तयार नाही, त्यामुळे या निवडणुकीत तरी AfD सत्तेत येऊ शकणार नाही. जर पारंपरिक पक्षांनी आर्थिक समस्या आणि लोकांच्या तक्रारी सोडवल्या नाहीत, तर भविष्यात AfD आणि BSW हे पक्ष अधिक शक्तिशाली बनू शकतात. महत्त्वाचा मुद्दा हा आहे की: • जर्मनीला पुन्हा आर्थिक स्थिरता मिळवून देऊन पारंपरिक पक्ष समर्थपणे जर्मनीचे नेतृत्व करू शकतील काय? • की वाढत्या राजकीय ध्रुवीकरणामुळे आणखी अस्थिरता निर्माण होईल? इतिहास साक्षी आहे की, आर्थिक संकट आणि राजकीय अस्थिरता यांतून मोठ्या आपत्ती जन्माला येतात. जर्मनीमधील भविष्यातील घडामोडी जागतिक शांतता, लोकशाही मूल्यांची भविष्यातील दिशा ठरवण्यात आणि युरोपियन युनियनची एकसंधता अबाधित ठेवण्याबाबत महत्त्वाच्या ठरणार आहेत. जर्मनी पुन्हा एका वळणावर उभा आहे. आता जर्मन जनतेने घेतलेले निर्णय देशाचे आणि कदाचित, युरोपाचे भविष्य ठरवतील. -डॉ. अमोल यादव (२२/०२/२०२५)

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

This Sunday, I watched the period drama, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, which was released in the year 1965, that was a time when just after the end of world war, the Cold War has began between the Soviet Union and the West; both were allies during World War Two and now their relations have entered into a tense phase. Tensions were building on the background of the ongoing Vietnam War, a proxy war between the East and the West, and memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 were still fresh… As a Cold War history enthusiast, when I came to know about the movie, I was keen to know how the movie has addressed the complexities of the human mind and ruthless methods followed by the powerful systems irrespective of their ideologies, to achieve their ultimate objectives to dominate the narrative and the world order. Many times this comes at the cost of the lives of innocents. The movie did not let me down in this regard and provided a more acute perspective that tells similarities across the completely different systems. After I finished the movie, I kept watching on YouTube the interviews with John le Carré, on whose novel of the same name the movie is based. He put forward his perspective that sums up the role of an individual devoid of agency. The story of the movie set in the Cold War Europe in the 1960s, revolves around a disillusioned British spy (Alec Leamas) sent on a complicated mission in East Germany.

Around 15 years have passed since the end of World War, Germany was divided between the East and the West and Berlin, after being in ruins caused by wartime destruction, city is still not in very good shape. Now Berlin had become one of the most interesting and complex theatres of the Cold War. East Germany particularly the city of Berlin was a hotbed of spies during the Cold War years. What Winston Churchill had termed as the Iron Curtain had descended across Europe but it was physically manifesting only in the form of the Berlin Wall. After failing to reach a consensus on the model of the future government in Germany and to check migration from east to west, the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, which divided the city of Berlin into Eastern and Western halfs. The movie captures the background against heightened tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO powers following the construction of the wall. At the heart of the story are Alec Leamas, the central protagonist, and his girlfriend, Nan Perry. Alec is on a mission to denigrate Mr Mundt in the eyes of his (Mundts's) own government. Mr Mundt was a senior intelligence officer of the German Democratic Republic as East Germany was officially known. As per our knowledge at the start of the movie and knowledge of Alec Leamas, Mundt represents the evil that has killed many British spies sent on a mission to the East. But as the movie progresses Alec’s moral ambiguity becomes more conspicuous and ultimately this leads to his eventual realization that he is merely a pawn in a much larger game. Alec's Journey from a Smart spy to a helpless man is profoundly moving. Nancy's naive and idealistic outlook makes it appear even more vivid. It left us thinking about how innocence or ignorance becomes an impossible luxury in such a cruel world. The film brilliantly captures the bleakness of a time when nations were divided due to ideologies, while the scars of World War II were still fresh in the form of rampant joblessness and poverty, even in the West (Britain). The movie depicts a world where trust is an illusion and morality is being gradually eroded by Cold War espionage. It is awestruck as human beings can live so many lives within a single lifetime, shifting between roles, ideologies, and betrayals, often without ever truly understanding the full picture. The movie Focused on this moral ambiguity, without clear heroes or villains, a hallmark of le Carré’s work. Film is critical of both Western and Eastern systems, emphasising how individual lives are sacrificed to serve impersonal, state objectives. Near the end of the movie, Alec tells Nancy that, “yesterday he would have killed Mundt because he thought Mundt was evil and an enemy, but not today. Today, Mundt is still evil, but he is now a friefnd.” In this existential, seemingly meaningless world, every philosophy ultimately becomes a rationalization for survival.

Why Nations Fail

In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, this year’s Nobel winners in Economics analyse the role of political and economic institutions in shaping national prosperity. The book argues that inclusive institutions rather than extractive ones—lead to sustainable development and overall prosperity.

As per the authors,inclusive institutions are broadly those that; Allow pluralistic decision making,Incentivize innovation,Protect private property, Provide a level playing field, inshort states following western liberal democratic capitalism model. On the other hand, extractive institutions; Benefit a small elite at the expense of the majority, Discourage innovation and entrepreneurship,do not guarantee private property, inshort states with authoritarian dictatorships/socialist/Hybrid regimes. It is a compelling compilation of numerous case studies rich in data from across the globe, effectively illustrating the authors’ arguments.I find the argument that in states with extractive institutions, elites tend to stop 'creative destruction' because it threatens their power and hinders development,to be the most convincing. Another Eurocentric contention put forwarded is that settler colonialism often led to the creation of inclusive institutions, in contrast to colonies, where extractive institutions dominated. However, in my view the book struggles to convincingly explain China’s continued rise, despite the presence of what it terms “extractive institutions.” Also, book overlooks the fact that the extractive institutions established by colonial powers in their colonies often funded the development of inclusive institutions in the Western world.. Authors fail to acknowledge that why some democracies, like the Weimar Republic, failed to achieve prosperity, while the economic growth of South Korea, Taiwan, and the East Asian Tigers primarily occurred under authoritarian regimes, driven by state-led development and industrial policies.

The Human Struggle and Realities of Economic and Political Models

In recent years, my choice of books and movies has become more realistic, prompting me to ask if I am becoming pessimistic or merely seeing the world as it is. The assumption here is that that much of the world’s happiness is derived from critical thinking, which has shaped our societies through different economic and political phases: feudalism with master-servant relationships, imperialism where colonial masters exploited colonies, capitalism as an advanced form of imperialism, and its later antagonist, socialism. Socialism promised a stateless world where all were equal, with no masters and servants—a utopia. However, before that utopia could come into existence, it advocated for intermediate stage of state monopoly over all aspects of life, and this is where it went wrong.As a result Just like the monopolies in feudalism and imperialism, it too became flawed as it has given raise to party-state with party controlling almost everything. This evolution from Feudalism to capitalism of 21st century have influenced our views on freedom—whether at individual level, at societal level or a combination of both. Even if we skip discussing feudalism and imperialism, which can be called as purely exploitative systems, the advent of capitalism was meant to provide more autonomy and flexibility compared to feudalism. Capitalism promotes private property, fair competition, and individual freedom protected by law. Everyone is supposed to have the chance to start an enterprise and succeed. However, in practice, capitalism often ends up being controlled by a select few—those with capital and influence. The so-called “free market” is guided by powerful yet invisible hands, leading to inequalities and limited opportunities for new players.Things become worst in authoritarian states,where most of leading capitalists are cronys of government. This reality of capitalism has been critiqued by many, leading to the rise of socialist ideologies. Socialism, in its strictest form, opposes private property and the profit motive. It seeks to eliminate inequality through state ownership of resources and industries. Yet, this has also resulted in various challenges, including decreased personal freedoms. The High Cost of Socialism The early days of socialism in practice, particularly in the Soviet Union, showcased both progress and setbacks. Between 1920 and 1930, Russia underwent rapid industrialization, urbanization, and improvements in education and health, matching or even in some cases surpassing many Western standards (except may be consumerism) by the 1960s, followed by the decline. Technological achievements, especially in space exploration and defense, were remarkable. However, these accomplishments came at the cost of individual liberties and the suppression of dissent. Stalin’s era in the USSR was particularly harsh. Mass purges, forced confessions, and the repression of opposing voices were common. The Khrushchev era starting with purge of (Cruel) Lavaranti Beria and secret speech in 20th party Congress (1956), leading to destalinization, offered some relief, but remnants of repression, such as the banning of books like Doctor Zhivago and the denouncement of writings and later forced exile of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, persisted. The handling of the Hungarian uprising (1956) and the Prague Spring (1968) showed that the socialist utopia was far from reality. The Cultural Revolution in China produced similar outcomes—development at the expense of cultural and intellectual freedom. The Quest for Control: A Part of Human Nature? Whether a capitalist or socialist system, human nature remains a driving force. People tend to seek personal gain, sometimes at the expense of others. Even in democratic societies like Imperial Britain, which prided itself on promoting freedom and fighting World War II on the premise of democracy, oppressive practices were evident in its colonies, as seen during the Bengal Famine of 1943. This famine alone killed more than 3 million people of hunger, more civilians than the total casualties Britain faced during World War II. In Post war era While capitalism lead to increasing inequalities over last 70 years and exploitation of resources in developing conutries,sometimes dubbed as Neocolonilism. This reveals a stark truth: individuals and governments, regardless of their proclaimed ideologies, often exhibit a desire for control and dominance. George Orwell,originally, a democratic socialist, illustratively highlighted the tendencies of autocratic rule in his two iconic novels Animal Farm and 1984. In novel Animal Farm, the promise of revolution leads to new forms of repression, while 1984 portrays a society where surveillance is omnipresent, and dissent is crushed under the weight of propaganda. Orwell’s works highlight how the quest for power can corrupt the noble ideals and their flag bearers. Experiments like the Milgram study, conducted at Stanford soon after the end of World War II to understand how Hitler could exhibit his authority over the masses. The experiment further proved our susceptibility to the authority. People, even when aware of the moral consequences, often obey authoritarian commands. This suggests that our instinct to conform and follow authority figures can overpower our sense of right and wrong. the 21st century, with the fall of eastern bloc, many countries have adopted democracy on paper, but the challenges have not only persisted but are actually increasing. While in many countries defacto authoritarian rule exist, Many so called true democracies are turning into hybrid regimes. Few countries have fallen pray to mix hardline religious fanaticism with authoritarian governance, as seen with groups like ISIS and the Taliban. Also, the inequality is on the rise, with a widening gap between the global North and South. Moreover, sophisticated mass surveillance systems are being deployed even by nations that claim to champion freedom, as revealed in the Edward Snowden case.As Evident from recently concluded election to EU parliament and state elections in Germany, Europe is witnessing the rise of the ultra-right, challenging the ideals of liberal democracy and leading to a resurgence of nationalism and xenophobia. These developments suggest that the struggle for true democracy, freedom, and equality is far from the over. Signs of Progress and Tradition of Hope Despite these negative aspects, it is essential to recognize the progress humanity has made. Post-World War II, many changes transformed the world for the better. United Nation soon after coming in to the existence decalred Univerasal Human rights, and many countries adopted democratic principles, providing people with political freedoms like the right to vote. In numerous societies, quality of life has improved, with better access to healthcare, education, and job opportunities. Also the human nature isn’t exclusively about seeking power or control. Across the globe, countless examples of cooperation and mutual aid exist. Many of the collective Community support systems, both in formal and informal way, thrive in many societies. For example, during natural disasters, we witness people coming together to help each other, regardless of their differences. In Scandinavian countries, social welfare models of social welfare state, have created societies where citizens enjoy a high quality of life under fully developed calitalism. These nations balance individual freedoms with societal welfare, ensuring access to education, healthcare, and leisure. As a result, they consistently rank high on the happiness index. Historically, in many developing countries, traditional community practices highlight the spirit of cooperation and care. Indian cultural heritage, which has influenced large parts of the subcontinent as well as Southeast and East Asia (the Indosphere), emphasizes non-violence, forgiveness, and extended family systems. Neighborhood networks often provide support during times of need, embodying the best of human nature. Balancing Act The harsh realities of political and economic systems should not push us into pessimism and dark ages of exploitation. instead, they should inspire us to find better solutions. Humans beings though a complex species are capable of change. While competition and survival instincts are a part of us, so also is our capacity for compassion, cooperation, and empathy. Our present task is to build fair and just systems that will nurture and promote the values and ideals that make us kind, empathetic and the supportive human beings. Despite the drawbacks that each system at work has, examples from different societies show that we can create spaces where individuals not only survive but also flourish. Progress is possible when we choose to value both personal freedom and collective well-being as in Scandinavian model. Ultimately, the laws are as good as the values we follow and embrace. By learning from our past and recognizing the spirit of humanity, we can build a future that genuinely allows every person to flourish, finding balance between our individual aspirations and our shared human journey. ~Amol 17/9

Jai Hind Bal Ganesh Mandal

The Ganesh festival, for me, has always been more about the atmosphere than strict religious practices. Since I was in 12th grade, I haven’t been much of a devotee. But I still fondly remember the festive vibe from my childhood, especially a few years before and the year I first moved to Parbhani in the ninth standard. In my village, the festival was small, with only 4-5 major Ganesh mandals. It wasn’t as noisy back then; the celebrations were more about simplicity and togetherness. But the city was different. The first thing that comes to mind when I recall the city celebrations is the blaring music from the loudspeakers. “Sapne Mein Milti Hai” was the hit song of the time, echoing across most mandals. That tune was everywhere! I was also quite surprised to see one of my Muslim classmates as an office bearer of a Ganesh mandal. This was during a communally charged time when the festival in Parbhani had started going in the direction of the hardliners. The variety of decorations in different parts of Parbhani further added to the festive energy. Parbhani also had an old Ganesh mandal named “Bapuji Ganesh Mandal,” inspired by Gandhiji. I found the name fascinating; it seemed to carry a sense of tradition and history quite different from what I had seen in my village. But what really stands out in my memory is our own small Ganesh mandal back in my village, Rampuri. We started it in 1995 when my elder brother was in 9th grade, and I was in 5th. The idea came as a response to another mandal in the village run by some friends from a dominant family. That mandal, with the rather funny name “*** *** Ganesh Mandal,” was quite restrictive. A couple of people controlled everything—what songs to play and who could perform the aarti.

In contrast, our Ganesh mandal was meant to be open and free. My elder brother led the effort, and he made sure that every member had a say. We rotated the aarti among everyone, and each of us could choose songs to play on the loudspeaker. The first step was finding a place, and my father offered a room in our vada. We set up the idol there, decorating it with a simple canopy. Naming our mandal was another interesting part. My brother came up with various names before finally suggesting “Jai Hind Ganesh Mandal.” He felt “Jai Hind” represented India for all. My father added a little touch, calling it “Jai Hind Bal Ganesh Mandal” since we were just kids running the show. For the next ten days, the mandal became our annual playground. We collected small donations from the villagers, travelled along with father to Parbhani to buy an idol, and the mandal became a place where we laughed, played, and formed bonds. This tradition continued until my elder brother left the village for his studies, and I took over the leadership for the next year. The planning and then execution as a team was most enjoyable part. Running the mandal taught us many things, including not judging people by their appearances. Some who had rough reputations turned out to be kind and helpful, becoming our lifelong friends. These experiences stayed with us as we grew up. And so,our story of the “Jai Hind Bal Ganesh Mandal,” as a symbol of unity and childhood ideals, started as a counter to monopolized local tradition. Our small mandal represented freedom and the joy of children coming together—the very values that defined our childhood and left a lasting impression on us. Within each sentence of this story, many faces and memories are hidden, bringing them all back to life.. ~Amol 15/9/2024