|
|
|
September 14th, 2008
03:41 am - Great Friends
There are people who come into one’s life only to stay for a while and then there are those who become part of your life. Life just does not seem the same without them – great friends as I’d like to call them. These are the kind of friends who understand you, who know you inside-out. Who help keep you together and believe without a doubt. If you could move a mountain; someone to tell it to. Such friends are few and far between are a treasure. You always think they’re the best and you probably always will.
Sometimes great friends take the hard road, but they always mange to see it through. With friends you aren’t that close, it is easy to part ways on the hard road, but not so with great friends. Great friends support each other all along the way and see each other through. Over time, one develops an unbreakable bond with these great friends, and become emotionally attached to them. Can this emotional attachment be called ‘love’? Love is not something that is exclusive to certain relationships, viz a man and woman, mother and child, parents and children, etc. Most people believe that the word love should only be used to describe the special relationship between courting couples or between husband and wife. The love shared between great friends is more platonic and comes with no strings attached. The Bible says that the greatest love a man can have for his friend is to give his life for that friend. There are however certain expectations that do develop between great friends and great friends do understand these expectations and endeavour to fulfil them. Even if one falls short of these expectations, it is understood by the other, talked about and then forgotten. This is an example of the hard roads that friends could encounter on the journey through life. Family: Man is a social animal and family is important to everyone. A family is the basic unit of society and allows one to have a sense of belonging and provides one with security and an identity in society. It is a given (in most cases) that members of a family love and care for each other. If one has people who care so much, why then does one need to build bonds with those outside of the family unit? Why then do some people outside of the family unit become attached to an individual? These are questions with no correct or wrong answers. Society recognises these de facto relationships and calls those involved in such extra-family relationships as friends. Questions: Why does one need friends? Is it because one’s intrinsic needs are not fully satisfied by the family? Or is it because one seeks a certain acceptance that one finds lacking in the family unit? Does the generation gap between parents and children force the children to build bonds outside of the family unit? If the generation gap is the issue, doesn’t one have cousins within a larger family unit to relate to? Why then does one build these bonds with total strangers to the family? Who is a friend? A friend is someone outside of the family using with whom an individual can identify with and in whom an individual places a certain degree of trust. The degree of trust one places in friends is one of the factors that determine how close these friends are to that individual. Great friends are those select few within one’s circle of friends who one can relate well with. An individual can see himself/herself in these great friends. Great friends are privy to each other’s thoughts, fears, joys, sorrows, etc. The more one shares about themselves with these friends, the stronger is the bond between them. Irrespective of how close one is with one’s immediate family, one does not usually share everything with family members. However, with great friends, there are no inhibitions. Great Friends: An old saying goes: Show me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are. By this it is clear that one moulds oneself by the friends one associates with. And great friends hold a lot of influence in everyone’s life. Great friends know you well and when you open up to them, they are able to offer advice. A great friend’s advice factors a lot in decisions an individual makes. One cannot choose the family into which he/she is born, but one can certainly choose his/her own friends. Over time, a select few become closer friends than others and the closer you get to these friends, the greater are the bonds of care and affection. Given that one can choose friends and then determine who amongst the lot become great friends, does it also mean that one can sever the bonds that redeveloped over time? The answer to this question is ‘technically - yes’ However, in reality, it is no so easy. If friends are really that close to each other, they would attempt to resolve their differences and seek a compromise. Of issues, altercations and schisms: This unspoken fear that the close relationship great friends share could fall apart is what sometimes drives great friends into altercations with each other. The subconscious thought that one can loose friends just as easily as one made them becomes more pronounced when petty, trivial issues surface. Friendships that survive journeys down such hard roads always come out stronger than before the encounter with the hard road. When loved ones pass away, it is normal to mourn their passing and think of all the good times spent with that person. What happens when really close friends suddenly call it quits? Does one grieve the loss, or does one move on? Is it the end, if one whom you consider a great friend does not care for or value your friendship? It is certainly not a good feeling and can get one feeling very rejected and depressed. One feels that all the effort invested into that great friendship is gone – vanished into oblivion. It is sad when great friends part ways, especially when you do not understand why the schism occurred. The feelings of sadness may develop into anger and may heal in course of time. However, at times, the mind wanders back to the times spent with great friends, to the times when once great friends shared joys, sorrows, worries, thoughts, spent time together, made fun of each other and help each other along life’s path ridded with hard roads. When the mind wanders back to these times, one can’t help but wonder what went so wrong and eyes fill with tears.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/charitycam/stars/sad.gif) sad
|
May 26th, 2008
01:28 am - Mag covers
|
March 30th, 2008
01:31 am - Travel IQ
Current Location: Office training room
Current Mood: bored
Current Music: just the drone of the trainer
|
February 20th, 2008
October 24th, 2006
October 1st, 2006
11:10 pm - A rose by any other name...
Introduction What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet. This was what the Bard wrote in the 17th century. However, can the same be applied to everything? In India today, we find so many cities changing their names. The first was Bombay which changed its name to Mumbai, then it was Madras to Chennai, and later, it was Calcutta to Kolkatta. Beginning today, 01 Oct 2006, the former French colony – Pondichèrry – will henceforth be known as Puducherry. Reasons for change Bombay Why did these cities change their names? In the case of Bombay, it was an electoral promise which was acted upon. The political party which won the regional elections had promised the voters that if they were elected to power, they would change the name of Bombay to Mumbai in honour of the local female deity – Mumbadevi. On the contrary, both Madras and Calcutta changed their names not because of some electoral promise, but by the whim of the local governments in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Pondichèrry also fell victim to the same whims that possessed these two local governments. Madras The reason cited by the Tamil Nadu government for the change of Madras to Chennai was based on the history of the city. According to history, around the time that the British East India Company established a trading settlement near the estuary of Ennore, there was a local settlement known as Chennaipatinam. The British later built a fort and a walled city to protect their trade interests in the peninsular. The locals of Chennaipatinam began calling this English settlement as Madrasapatinam. This name later became Madras, which in turn became the name of the entire city. Therefore, from the 1600s, the city was known all over the British Empire as Madras. Having been inspired by the change of nomenclature from Bombay to Mumbai, the government of Tamil Nadu decided to change the name of Madras to Chennai claiming that Chennai was the original name of the city. The government proposed that Madras was a foreign name and that the city was getting rid of its colonial past by changing the name of the city to Chennai. The people did not immediately take to the name change, however, over a period of a few years, the city came to be popularly known as Chennai. Calcutta Similarly, the government of West Bengal claimed that the name of the native settlement in the Sunderbans Delta, on the banks of the river Hoogly was originally called Khali Ghatta. This name, in the local tongue meant: the village of the Hindu goddess Khali. The village was so named because of the existence of a Hindu temple dedicated to the goddess, which was situated near the village. The government's argument was that the British could not pronounce the original name of the village and eventually mispronounced it by anglicizing the name to Calcutta. By changing the name from Calcutta to Kolkatta, the local government was hoping to undo the mispronunciation left behind as a legacy of the British Empire. Pondichèrry Recently, Pondichèrry too decided to follow the example of Chennai and Kolkatta by changing her name to Puducherry. In the local language – Tamil – the name means: new village. According to some unverified historical accounts, the original name of the village, which later became a French colony, was Puducherry. There are several arguments about how the name was corrupted to Pondichèrry. One account states that the French had mispronounced the name calling it Pondichèrry. Another account claims that the French called their settlement Poudouchèrry and during the course of the Carnatic Wars from 1746 and 1763, the French settlement came under the control of the British East India Company. In the Company’s records, it was logged that Lord Robert Clive had occupied the French settlement of Pondichèrry instead of Poudouchèrry. The account purports that the British refused to acknowledge the name Poudouchèrry and instead began calling the town Pondichèrry. According to this tale, the town henceforth bore the name Pondichèrry. An Analysis The common thread linking all of these cities is that they were all major colonial settlements and all four became what they are today as a result of their colonial past. Why then do we want to change the names of these cities to their pre-colonial names? Can this change in nomenclature be attributed to a nationalist and cultural revival? Or is this a pathetic attempt to erase India’s colonial past? Londinium and Lutèce All through history, we have come across cities changing their names; though we do not yet know the exact reasons why these changes occurred. For example, the city we know as London today used to be known as Londinium in Roman times. Londinium was a Roman settlement established around 50 AD. Similarly, in Roman days, the city of Paris was known as Lutèce (Lutetia). Did these cities change their names to their present forms just to deny their part in shaping Roman history? Or did their present names evolve slowly over time due to reasons unknown? Both Londinium and Lutèce were Roman settlements, and may not be in existence today if it wasn’t for the Roman Empire. Was the decline of the Roman Empire the subsequent rise of the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Gauls reason enough to change the names of Londinium and Lutèce to London and Paris respectively? For more information on Londinium and Lutèce, please follow these links: London: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LondonParis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutetia
The Indian Scenario The position that India commands today is a result of the legacy that European colonialism left behind. India as a country did not exist prior to her colonisation by the European powers – predominantly the British. The cities of Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkatta and even Puducherry all owe their existence to colonisation. If the Indian sub-continent was never colonised by the Europeans, these cities might never have become what they are today. They probably would have remained minor towns with a negligible command on the local trade. These cities have become what they are today because they were settled by the European colonists and it was they who promoted the growth of these cities. It appears that by changing the names of these cities, we are denying the English and the French the credit which is due to them. In the cases of Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkatta, the change of their names from what they were known in colonial times has had no major impact on these cities. Therefore, we can also expect that there would be no dire consequences for Puducherry too. I believe that before the names of these cities were changed, the local governments should have conducted referenda and only then decided upon whether to go ahead with the change of name. Of course all these governments were elected to power by plebiscites and are/were therefore vested with the power to take decisions on behalf of the people the governments represent. However, with issues such as this, it would have been better if the choice was left directly with the people jus as it is done in some countries. For example, Ireland decided to join the European Monetary Union – the Euro – only after a referendum. Similarly, Switzerland decided to join the UNO after the Swiss indicated their approval in a popular referendum. By conducting referenda, the government can be certain about what the peoples’ choice is. Conclusion Having discussed this much about changes in names of cities, I would like to conclude by saying that the Bard was probably right when he wrote those famous lines in Romeo and Juliet (Act 2, Scene 2): "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
Current Location: My Livingroom
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/charitycam/stars/happy.gif) relaxed
|
September 28th, 2006
02:31 am - Snakes in the Grass
As humans, we all have needs, worries and problems. How we deal with them defines who we really are. Some may resort to violence, others to verbal outbursts. The ways in which we choose react to stimuli, determine most of what we really are.
No man is an island, everyone needs someone to walk one through troubled times – be it at work, or in one’s personal life – we all are in need of contact with another human. However, beware of those who you befriend at work – they are nothing less than snakes in the grass. You may believe that you have found a sympathetic ear to pour your woes into, but think again. The friends one makes at the workplace can never really be friends in the true sense of the word. At the workplace, each one is vying with all the others for better positions, bigger pay-cheques, and a lot more. At the workplace, one is truly alone – an island. If you would only stop and think for a while about all the conversations you had had with your colleagues, you will certainly find that every interaction can never compare with those that you have with your friends outside of the workplace. At work, one is forced to put-up with some in-duh-viduals, those whom one would normally tend to disassociate oneself with outside of the workplace.
Friends at the workplace
In every piece of conversation at the workplace – however brief it may be – you will find that one of the participants is trying to pry some information out of the other. You may speak your mind to someone at work believing that person to be your friend, but be sure that what you believed was discussed in confidence, was actually communicated to someone who should not have been privy to the conversation. These pseudo friends pretend to listen to you, and do indeed play the part well. They participate in conversations for the sole purpose of learning what one has to say about someone else, or the system and convey that information to the very people who were the subjects of the conversation. The reason why this is communicated up the grapevine is because the person who relates the conversation to another, has something to gain from doing so. The reporter may gain leverage with the management as a trustworthy source of information and office gossip, thus resulting in the former gaining special privileges from the latter.
One often finds that those who sneak on their colleagues advance faster in the professional sphere than others. The management shows its gratitude to such people by promoting them above those against whom they complained. In doing so, the management not only encourages such behaviour, but also nurtures it in those whose intrinsic nature it is not to indulge in such acts.
Good Management vs. Bad Management
Employees at any given organisation may be frustrated about many issues. It is up to the management to identify the causes behind this frustration, and take whatever action is necessary to help the employee through. This is what is expected of an organisation with good management. On the contrary, in organisations where the management promotes instances of employees telling on each other, there will certainly be increased levels of frustration amongst those employees who are affected by the acts of a few. Any organisation which condones and promotes such behaviour does not care for the well-being of its most invaluable asset – its employees.
Employee Satisfaction or Customer Satisfaction?
An employee is a company’s greatest asset. Without employees, no organisation can ever survive. There are some organisations that direct all or most of their attention to satisfying customers without realising that it is only when the employees are satisfied, will the customers be properly and efficiently served. In organisations with poor employee morale, the organisation’s customers will never be fully satisfied with the company’s service offerings. It is then that customers begin complaining, and that in-turn leads to more pressure on the already frustrated employees.
In today’s rush to please the customer, it is the employees who are charged to deliver pleasant customer service who often get overlooked and ill treated. Organisations that focus too much on the customer, often tend to place the customer’s needs above those of its own employees. This does not mean that the customer is unimportant. On the contrary, the customer is the key to the business. The customer is essential to the continuance of the business and it is the customers' needs that determine what direction the business must proceed in. Good customer service is what keeps customers coming back for more. Therefore, employee satisfaction is the prerequisite for keeping customers happy and is instrumental in bringing-in more customers.
When one of the employees or a group of employees cries foul, they are punished by the management. More often than not, employees are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution. As is often the case, the management’s retribution will be swift and harsh. The management of organisations, whose customers are prioritised over employees, does not want to listen to and resolve employee’s problems; instead, they try to wish the problems away by imposing harsh punishment on those employees burdened with issues – issues bred by unfair managerial policies. This is where the snakes in the grass become managerial assets.
The Snake in the Grass
A Snake in the Grass helps the management stay one step ahead of the employees. By virtue of this, this individual becomes an invaluable asset to the management. What the snake in the grass does not realise, is that the management is only using him/her as a tool, as a means to an end. Once this individual outgrows his/her usefulness to the management, he/she will fall out of favour with the management. Hopefully, it is then that these in-duh-viduals would realise their folly. However, by the time that they do, they would have become persona non grata.
A Snake in the Grass is a very dangerous individual to contend with. This individual pretends to befriend another for the sole purpose of gleaning information to pass-on to those who would benefit from that information. The snake does not himself have use for the information, it means nothing to him. The information learned from conversations with others is only a tool which he/she uses to advance his/her prospects within the organisation. Nobody is safe from the snake, and victims are chosen after careful consideration. Once a victim is identified, the snake will relentlessly set upon the task of poisoning the person’s reputation with the management. Once the snake begins informing the management of what the victim said or did – be it true or not, the management forms a very low opinion of the latter and strives to find fault with everything the person says or does irrespective of the accolades the person receives from within the organisation and outside of it.
The snake may be incompetent at the job assigned, but the management will be prepared to overlook it just because the snake is a valuable source of information to them. The information the snake feeds the management may either be true, or totally unfounded. However, the management, in its eagerness to stay on top of things, refuses to validate the snake’s information; believing all of it to be true. The management then proceeds to act on the information provided to them causing the poor victim a lot of psychological and emotional stress. A stressed employee is not a good employee. Once under stress, an employee tends to make a lot of mistakes and receives further reprimand for those mistakes, thus pushing him/her deeper into depression.
Incompetent managers
I once read an article which spoke about employee satisfaction and its relationship to the immediate reporting manager. In all my experiences at various organisations, I have found this to be true. If an employee is dissatisfied, look to his/her immediate manager. The article stated that employees do not leave companies; employees leave managers. Take a group of employees who are performing well in the tasks assigned to them, and place them under an incompetent manager. One will soon note that these employees will begin to exhibit signs of stress. Apart from this, the employees’ productivity will be of lower quality that what it was prior to the introduction of the incompetent manager.
It is these incompetent managers who rely on the snakes to feed them with information on the goings-on within a team of employees. The relationship between an incompetent manager and the snake is a mutually beneficial one. The manager gets to stay ahead of the developments within the team, and the snake gets rewarded for supplying the manager with the required information. An incompetent manager uses the information provided by the snake to subjugate employees into doing what they are told to do; effectively turning a human into a zombie.
The Poison Tree
Being human, an employee will be able to tolerate a certain amount of stress and frustration. However, each person has his/her own limits. When an employee is subject to undue pressure and arrogance from someone who is incompetent, there are feelings of hate and fear that are being nurtured within the employees’ minds. The wrath felt by the employee would be watered in fears, night and morning with tears. It would be sunned with smiles and with soft deceitful wiles. It may take a while for this tree to bear fruit; but when it does, both the incompetent manager and the snake will be exposed. However, this exposure will be expensive for the organisation, because by the time that this happens, most of the good employees would have left to seek better work conditions; and the organisation would be left with the dregs.
Conclusion
There is no fool-proof way to identify a snake. Each individual should realise that the workplace is not place to make friends. In fact the workplace reeks of unhealthy competition. Every organisation will have its own snakes. The best way to avoid these dangerous creatures is to simply mind your own business. If you find yourself falling prey to one whom you suspect is a snake, break-off the so called friendship immediately. Suspicion is sufficient cause to do so. Let me conclude by saying that even the walls have ears and that nobody is safe from an autocratic management.
Current Location: My living room
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/charitycam/stars/angry.gif) angry
Current Music: TV on mute
|
September 27th, 2006
05:47 pm - Someting to fill-up the space :D
Headlines Today
My Last Words...
What will my obituary say?
What the future holds...
What should I name my cat?
How would I be defined in the dictionary?
What will my epitaph say?
Vote for ME!
Current Mood: amused
|
September 13th, 2006
12:05 am - Slavery under the British Raj?
Introduction In India, all school history textbooks, contain chapters detailing the period when India was part of the British Empire. Every text book mentions that Indians were slaves under British rule. The accounts go on to describe how Indians were subjected to acts of oppression and how they yearned to be free. I, however, beg to differ with these accounts, and boldly dare to state that no Indian was ever enslaved by the British Empire. A slave, by definition, is someone who is forced to work against his/her will and is one who receives no payment for the work or services rendered. A walk through history All through history, nations were expanding their powers and subjecting other nations to their rule. This was how the mighty empires of the old world came into being. In ancient times, empires started-out as tiny city-states exerting their military power and influence over the regions surrounding them. As these city-states annexed more territory, they became more powerful and eventually grew into empires. The Indian sub-continent was no stranger to foreign invasion. First came the Aryans, followed by the Persian kings Cyrus and Darius, Alexander the Great in 326 BC, in 1527 came Babur bring the sub-continent under the Mughal rule, then in 1608 came the British East-India Company. There were of course several other invaders who made their presence felt, but I did not mention them here. When the Indian sub-continent was invaded by so many foreigners, why is that that we single-out only the British as oppressors, occupiers and accuse them of subjecting the people of the sub-continent to slavery? Indian Sub-continent, or India? If you would notice in the previous paragraph, I had substituted the term: Indian sub-continent in those places were a history textbook would normally use the name, India. This is because; India never existed as a country prior to her colonization by the British Empire. The sub-continent was divided by various kingdoms, all at war with each other. The largest of these was the Mughal Empire. The country we call India today is a legacy of what the British Empire left behind. Imagine what would have happened if only the sub-continent was not part of the British Empire. The Mughal Empire may still have been in power, but it would have been a week empire, trying to hold itself together. It was the East-India company which united the various kingdoms and most princely states under one common government. However, the revolt of 1857 proved that the East-India Company did not have the ability to govern. Therefore, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation in 1858 decreeing that the East-India Company no longer had control of their lands in the Indian sub-continent, and that all company lands would henceforth be governed directly by the Crown. It is in my opinion that India – as a country – came into existence only after this proclamation was issued.
The British East-India Company On December 31, 1600, Queen Elizabeth I of England granted a royal charter to the British East-India Company to carry out trade with the Indian sub-continent. In the formative years, the company’s primary role was to expand British trade all over the world. It was only later that the company began annexing territory and began performing the dual role of both trader and ruler. The Company’s ships first arrived in Surat in 1608, which was established as a trade transit point. The high profits reported by the Company after landing in India (presumably owing to a reduction in overhead costs effected by the transit points), initially prompted King James I to grant subsidiary licenses to other trading companies in England. But, in 1609, he renewed the charter given to the Company for an indefinite period, including a clause which specified that the charter would cease to be in force if the trade turned unprofitable for three consecutive years. It was probably this clause which spurred the East-India Company to force local traders to enter into business relationships with them. This was often a difficult task, and was made worse by the fierce competition from the Portuguese and the Dutch. Perhaps realizing the futility of waging trade wars in remote seas, the Company decided to explore their options for gaining a foothold in mainland India. The company then began acquiring lands to safeguard their trade interests in the sub-continent. With the acquisition of land, came the building of fortresses, which in-turn led to the establishment of the Company as a military power in the sub-continent. British Trade Molopoly Eventually, over a period of time, the Company came to control most of sub-continent, firmly establishing itself as the sole foreign trader after driving out the Dutch, and suppressing French and Portuguese interests in the sub-continent. Once the Company established a trade monopoly for itself, it assumed the role of governing the lands over which it held control. I must admit that though the Company had unmatched military power, not much can be said about the Company’s ability and skill at governing the territory under its control. The Company failed miserably in the American colonies and the situation in the sub-continent was not very different. The Revolt of 1857 It is true that the British East-India Company levied unpopular taxes on its subjects, and passed even more unpopular laws. This was what led to the revolt of 1857. This uprising against the Company would have been successful if those who participated in it were united. Instead, each Raja, prince and chieftain had his/her own motive and could not see eye-to-eye with each other. It was this division in the ranks that enabled the Company to successfully silence the rebellion. However, the revolt of 1857 was the beginning of the end for the British East-India Company. The uprising prompted the Crown to review the causes of the revolt and put the Company under scrutiny. The rebellion saw the end of the British East India Company's rule in India Queen Victoria’s Proclamation and the Emergence of India In August 1858, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation transferring power out of the Company’s hands. The Company’s possessions in the sub-continent were placed under direct control of the Crown. A secretary of state was entrusted with the authority of Indian affairs and the Crown's viceroy in India was to be the chief executive. The British embarked on a program of reform, trying to integrate Indian higher castes and rulers into the government and abolishing the East India Company. Once under the Crown, the British set about the task of re-organizing the army. The viceroy stopped land grabs, decreed religious tolerance and admitted Indians into civil service, albeit mainly as subordinates. In 1877 Queen Victoria took the title of Empress of India on the advice of her Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. Administrative changes since 1858 In proclaiming the new direct-rule policy to "the Princes, Chiefs, and Peoples of India", Queen Victoria promised equal treatment under British law. For decades the Indian Civil Service was the exclusive preserve of the British-born, as were the superior ranks in such other professions as law and medicine. Post 1858, Indian subjects were allowed to hold posts in the Indian Civil Service primarily because the number of English-educated Indians rose steadily. In 1883, the viceroy George Robinson, First Marquess of Ripon, introduced a bill to empower Indian judges to adjudicate offences committed by Europeans. Later, the Government of India Act of 1909 – also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, gave Indian subjects roles in the central and provincial legislatures. Were Indians really slaves under the Raj? If the textbooks claim that Indian subjects were oppressed and forced into slavery, why then do we find the so-called oppressor allowing Indians into their ranks, giving Indians more power, and greater self-autonomy? It is obvious that the people of India did not want to be under a foreign government; but does that justify branding the British as oppressors and enslavers of India? By virtue of the Mughal emperors being of foreign origin, their subjects should also have been oppressed and enslaved. The Mughals enacted some unpopular reforms and imposed taxes, as did the British. Why is it then that the Mughals were/are not seen as oppressors? The answer to this question is probably because the Mughals established themselves in the sub-continent, whereas the British enacted laws from London. By virtue of this notable difference in administrative policy between the Mughals and the Raj, that the Mughals began to be accepted as part of the sub-continent (the sub-continent has been notorious for assimilating the invader with the invaded), while the British continued to be seen as outsiders. This is probably the reason why the British were never accepted as the rulers of India, and came to be despised by the peoples of India. This would have also been complicated with the reluctance of the British to mingle with the Indians. British families and their servants lived in cantonments at a distance from Indian settlements. Private clubs where the British gathered for social interaction became (for the Indians) symbols of exclusivity and snobbery. It was the British who set India on the road to modernization with the construction of the railway system, the establishment of the post and telegraph system, the constitution of a regular well-equipped modern army, et cetera. If the British did so much for India, I cannot understand why they were hated so much. Conclusion To conclude this discussion, I would like to add that it is my opinion that India’s Freedom Movement was exactly what is was: a movement to gain total self governance without interference from a foreign power. It was only after 1947 that stories began to emerge on how Indians were persecuted under the Raj. For example, history textbooks mention the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, giving detailed accounts on how a peaceful gathering was mercilessly massacred. The history books do not let the readers know that Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer – the British General who ordered the shooting – was court-martialed and found guilty of a mistaken notion of duty. The history textbooks purport to portray only one side of the story. Once must hear both sides of the story before forming opinions on whether Indians were persecuted, oppressed, and enslaved under the British Raj.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/charitycam/stars/okay.gif) okay
|
September 12th, 2006
09:33 am - A Brief History of the Bible
Introduction
The Bible as we know it today is actually a compilation of books, epistles and other stories written at different periods in time.
Focusing our attention on the New Testament alone, we can see that there are several striking differences in the four books that comprise the Gospel.
The oldest of the four recognized Gospels is the one from Mark. There are, of-course, several other books which the Roman Church has refused to recognize – considering them to be lesser gospels.
The Gospels
The Gospel of Mark is more-or-less a historical record of the life and times of the Messiah. Following Mark’s, came the Gospel according to Matthew. These two Gospels are very similar to each other, without many notable differences. The Gospels begin to get interesting beginning with Luke.
In the year 70 Anno Domini, there was a council held in Jamnia. Until this point of time, Christianity was considered to be a sect of Judaism. It was at this council that the first Schism took place between Judaism and Christianity. This resulted in the formation of a new group of people known as Christians. Prior to the Jamnia, those living in the Roman province of Judea were classified as either Jews or Gentiles (non-Jews). The Jews held the belief that the Messiah would be sent only for the Jews. They believed that the Messiah would be a military figure to free them from Roman occupation. It was at the Jamnia that the Jewish elders decided that Jesus was not the Messiah and that they were still waiting upon his arrival. The Christians, however, accepted that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and that he did save them.
Luke began to write his Gospel around the time that the council of Jamnia was in progress. Because he wanted to show that Jesus was the Messiah not only for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles, he wrote his book to portray the Christ as having come to save all of humanity. It is for this reason that you would find the Parables only in Luke. All references to Gentiles can be found only in the Gospel according to Luke. This Gospel became very popular with the growing Christian community, because it was the only Gospel which shows that the Messiah was sent so that the peoples of the world can be saved.
The Gospel according to John is a philosophical study on the life of Christ. Being a philosopher, John attempted to prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and that the Jews are wrong to assume that he is not. Needless to say that John’s Gospel was also written post Jamnia. This philosophical account analyses each of Christ’s activities and draws comparison with each prophesy to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophesy. Another interesting fact is that it is only in John’s Gospel that one would find the seven phrases spoken by Christ on the Cross. John wrote to portray Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah and the Savior.
How the Gospels were chosen
The Roman Twist
As mentioned earlier, there are several other Gospels, which the Roman Church had chosen to ignore. Let us now analyze the reasons behind this.
Around the time that Nero was Emperor of Rome, the influence of the Christian community was growing by leaps and bounds. The Christian ideology of ‘Love thy neighbor’ was in direct opposition to the Roman beliefs that one can survive only by hatred for other people. The Romans considered that Judea was the most troublesome province and Roman generals/governors were sent to Judea as a punishment for falling out of favor with the ruling class in Rome. Therefore Nero was understandably apprehensive of the growing Christian community as it had its epicenter in Jerusalem – the heartland of the troublesome province. Nero then began the systematic persecution of the Christians in order to curtail their growing influence within the Roman Empire. This act served only to swell the numbers of the community. The reason for this unexpected behavior is that the citizens of the Empire were shocked at the way that the Christian martyrs faced death. Those who were persecuted by the Romans embraced their fate with joy, firmly believing that their beliefs were true and that they were dying for that which they believed was true. The non-believers were so awed by this attitude that they began to embrace the new religion in droves; further undermining the power of the Emperor.
Constantine’s Contribution and the Council of Nice
By the time that Constantine became Emperor, most of the Empire was Christian. It was Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He then called together a council of the most learned men of the Empire and charged them with the task of compiling all the teachings of Christ into a single book. Constantine moved the capital of the Empire from Rome to a new site – Constantinople (known today as Istanbul in modern day Turkey). By that time, the once mighty Roman Empire was under sttack by the Huns, the Visigoths, and various other barbarians. The Roman Empire had split into two major parts: The Western Empire, and the Eastern Empire. Constantine controled the eastern part of the empire, which later came to be known as Byzantium. Constantine sent his wife, Helena, to Palestine to find relics of the Christ. She retuned to Constantinople bearing several relics. One of them is said to be the piece of the original cross. Returning to the council convened by Constantine, we know that they debated for several months on which books should be part of the Holy Book and which books need to be omitted. The council also debated the divinity of Jesus. Until this council - the council of Nice – Jesus was considered to be the promised Messiah, a prophet – but very much a man.
The Council of Nice – the first of the Seven Ecumenical Councils
In the month of June, A.D. 325, the first general council of the church assembled at Nice in Bithynia. The council was called by Constantine to settle the prevalent arguments on the Christine doctrine. He resolved to convoke an assembly of scholars, in order to establish the true doctrine, and to allay for ever, this propensity to hostile disputation. The council sat for rather more than two months, and Constantine seems to have been present during the greater part of the sittings, listening with patience, and conversing freely with the different prelates.
If the idea of Christianity was to take shape in the way that Constantine wanted, Jesus could not remain a man – he had to be elevated to divine status. Therefore, the books that were chosen were all carefully scrutinized to ensure that this one idea flowed through all of these books. The council of Nice eventually decided upon a collection of books and called it the Septaugent, because it was compiled by a team of 70 scholars. The Septaugent was written in Greek and later translated into Latin. This became the Bible as we know it today. The Council of Nice denounced the Gnostics and condemned them as heretics. They banned all the Gnostic Gospels and wiped them out from history.
The Symbolum Nicenum
It was at the Council of Nice that the well-known Creed was written. The following is the Symbolum Nicenum (Nicene Creed):
I believe in God the Father Almighty – creator of Heaven and Earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the most widely accepted creed in Christianity. Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant churches.
The Silencing of the Gnostics
The Gnostics were a group of people within the early Christian community who held very radical beliefs about Christ and his teachings. The Gnostics were firm in their belief that Jesus was a Prophet who came here to spread God’s word on Earth. They did not deny his miraculous birth; they only refused to accept that he was divine. It was for this reason that Constantine silenced them.
Constantine’s Appeasement of the Pagans
Constantine wanted to appease the early Christian community by legalizing the Christian beliefs in the Byzantine Empire – an empire formed by Constantine out of the remains of the Roman Empire. Not only did he want to please the Christians, he also wanted to make Christianity attractive to the Pagans. This was why he oversaw the Council of Nice to ensure that the correct books were chosen. The pagans had to have an earthly God to worship. The idea of a single invisible Godly entity was alien to them. They would not have been able to comprehend the Jewish God and his prophets. This was one of the reasons why Jesus just had to be depicted as a god. Constantine, in an effort to appease the pagans, incorporated some of their religious beliefs into the new state-sponsored Christian religion. For example, the Jews observed the Sabbath on Saturday. However, in the then prevalent pagan religion, Sunday was considered to be the day dedicated to the gods. Therefore, Constantine decreed that Sunday would be that day that Christians should observe the Sabbath. Evidence of this change of the day of the Sabbath can be found right in the Bible. When Jesus was pronounced dead by the Romans, Joseph of Arimathea sought permission to have the body taken down, because according to Jewish traditions, all burials must happen before the Sabbath. A body cannot be kept during the Sabbath as it was considered to be unclean. Remember that Jesus is said to have been crucified on a Friday. According to Jewish traditions, the Sabbath begins at dusk on Friday. Therefore, there is clear evidence that the Sabbath is indeed on Saturday. Even to this day, all Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday, not on Sunday.
The Byzantine Church and the Roman Church
Byzantium – a brief history:
With the new rules in place, a new code (the Septaugent) to observe, Constantine declared Christianity to be the official sate religion of the Byzantine Empire and formed the first Church in Constantinople known as the Byzantine Church. Though Constantine promoted Christianity, he never voluntarily converted to Christianity. He remained a pagan to his dying day; and was forcefully baptized on his death-bed.
On studying the amount of wealth that he had accumulated with the state sponsorship of Christianity, Constantine’s successor – Tiberius – decreed that all subjects of the Byzantine Empire must convert to Christianity. Those who refused were put to death. It is from this time onwards that the Church stood to gain power and wealth with the new Christian beliefs and the Septaugent. The power of the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine Church grew to such an extent, that it became one of the richest empires on the face of the Earth. Byzantium’s emperors held firm in their belief that they were the protectors of the Christian faith and that it was God himself who ordained them to protect his flock.
The conflict between Byzantium and Rome:
Parallel to the authority claimed by Byzantium over the Christian faith, there existed another claim from Rome itself. Byzantium was created after the once powerful Roman Empire split into the Western and Eastern Empires. The Eastern Roman Empire came to be known as Byzantium or the Byzantine Empire, while the Western Roman Empire was fast falling into ruins (due to invasions by the Huns, the Visigoths, etc.). It was around this time, that an authority came into existence in Rome, claiming to be disciples ordained by St. Peter. This sect of Christians also adopted the Septaugent (as they stood to gain from it) but challenged the authority of the Byzantine Church. The Roman Church introduced the office of the Pope and staked claim to be the true representation of God’s authority on Earth. The Roman Church and the Byzantine Church were in constant conflict with each other until one fateful day in history. The Turkish Empire was growing in military might and was slowly gnawing at the fringes of Byzantium. Eventually, all that was left of mighty Byzantium was Constantinople itself. In 1448, Constantine XI succeeded to the throne of Byzantium. Threatened, by the collapse of his city, he sought the help of Venice to defend Constantinople. Since the Venetians were followers of the Roman Pope, they conditioned that if they were to offer any military assistance to Constantine XI, he would have to renounce his claim as leader of the Byzantine Church and recognize the Pope as the one true leader appointed by God. To cut a long story short, Constantinople fell in 1453, and the Pope became the leader of the world’s Christians.
The Roman Church translated the Septaugent into Latin and chose to follow this code as the official holy book of Christianity. All the books that were omitted, or banned by Constantine were collected and locked away in the Vatican’s Secret Archives, were they remain to this very day.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/charitycam/stars/determined.gif) pissed off
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
angusrouse's journal
