differences over learning;

I wandered all through my thought process to put up in a simplest version for dogma’s to the most complex version of DIFFERENCES that exist within the society. But, what makes me wonder is not the conception I have grown with and behold with it but, to put the so simple version into abstract to what I feel and got to go through with.

Well! I m not talking about the dogma’s of the social evils revolving over every other group of socialites. I m not fully satisfied to depend upon the ‘differences’ gained from and within the womb, rather I m worried about the ‘factual conceptions’ formed over the growth period to forcibly accept the existing differences and form a more valid ‘difference of intellect’. Intellect where I quote comes into light, a significance of urge, an instinct to define the level of attainment of parity, either from the so above all ‘classes’ or to just rise above the level of so within existing ‘classes’.

The word ‘class’ in itself is self privileged with the ‘Marxian’ conception to put the light upon the monetary or the economic strata of lifestyle upon which I’m focusing my dialogues. The incident is not new for me from the past 2 months but, the idea of development which I expect is somehow shattered. I m referring to one such incident in which made me realize that although, ‘a poor man is the happiest man, but the most desiring manhood’ I see through. The desires and the unending desires are not one of those for money or land, differences are not existing for a cause of gender or class or caste, neither even the adult individual is felt describing the differences I felt. It is rather the little and few caused upon between the ‘little clad’ to not let the other so learning with the same pace.

What exactly I wonder is of the consequences of not let to grow and grow self. End? Don’t know where it will. Supposition to come out of the act so being performed in society probably can be jealousy or one is just concerned with the self to grow to the fullest and above all. If I stick myself to the latter part, it would not be wrong in putting human into Hobbes conception of human. All I’m in the end stuck up to that, what makes that so human growing under the parity of ‘daily bread’ earning or eating to be so self-centered at ‘her’ ends?

Is it the saturation they have engulfed from the limited source of learning available to them, which undoubtedly is the last and final appeal from them to earn above of what they get to sustain, provided apart from the ‘labor exploitation’ often done.  Saturation itself can be also of the instinct of urge to just land up above from the base to a high expectations from the sources they get and they avail indeed.

The question of resources when arises is just to be considered as a part of limitation as the ‘pre-existing’ differences don’t allow the counterparts to avail them. The flow of learning is broken and just the “elite’’ over here who is blessed with the tag of what she has own the ‘privilege’ of and forces the existing forces to make it rigid and sustainable for within the circumference of her learning.

Flow of resources never stops, rather it increases with the options being rejected from the class above the statistic data of the community I m concerned with. Rejection runs directly as a fashion for the latter to be accepted without questioning the revival. So where does the gap arises that produce the few (of already underprivileged) to just rise at parity and other from same to be rather left behind for exploitation? And mind it, both were blessed with resources, although of rejection but, resources indeed.

I would not mind stating my views in limitations of my abstract experiences that the saturation in itself has made the human existence of such class that the emblem of ‘jealousy’ has overpowered the humaneness to grow under learning with being envious. Debate would not sum up as the flow of obstruction to, “grow with let grow” is still seen prevailing.

Thus the source (I) available as making learn also gets deflected to be a prejudice in judgment and just make learn. Where the obstruction will be broken in future aspects is obviously haunted but, I wish I could make it predictable in the boundaries of ‘diversity’ overhead of human, ruled by ‘differences (of ?)’.

(IR)Rational human..

I was just supposed to be one of those, who just are moving far ahead of me and I m just following them, I m just no one wonder different from them, but just was once one of them. I keep on walking along those dusty garden which were made for me, along those corridors which are all the way haunted till the time I enter those two rooms which try and provide me an insight.

Yes I, me and myself and expect just nothing but a right to reject the separate identity from my own real self, I just wonder at times to whom should I consider along for all what I have been. Oh! Do I even need to point out the level of sympathy? Or let me call your social benevolence, do not shower it over me until I just lay helpless for breaths and the beating sounds attains its emancipation of silence.

Let me wonder to the day of that corridor* where I was made to lie down, asking for me to calm and be at peace. I remember my womb owner and my sperm donor standing next to me. There was a softness still preserved in her hands and the strength I could still in the mighty shoulders on which I have witnessed those ‘’social fares’’. Undoubtedly MY** existence came as a silent consonant in contract with the mob but, for just no reason rather I call it as a way of practicing the human creation by the superficial creature termed as ‘god’.

Alas! I forego all the faces I witnessed at the span of moment, maybe I was just in pair with dark in my sub-conscious. But I still remember the adjacent rooms to my room, “haunted” were they all and scary over one another in comparison. All still owe a special “prodigy” within themselves, a ‘soul’, a creature neglected, an unjustified appearance to human world, a withered shivering hand, a weakening thought process, a never to be regained the level of emotional eternity, a layman living on mercy petitions; passed at times and neglected often and on.

Ah!! I m puzzled with the quotations cited, let me still make a guess for the specific tags which were mentioned to those rooms and yes of course ‘WE’** were the owner of the rooms and belief is that future even owes the rooms to “US” only. Anyways was it something ‘retarded’ or ‘mentally ill’, in both the contexts the meaning is delivered to make the concerns behavior justified as “anti-social”.

Oh! We the elements of rejection still owe the right to breathe free air or even the so termed rationale human has captured the right to put into contexts of ‘citizenship’. May be s/he has, thus even ‘my (our)’** existence has become not extinct but ‘heinous’ to society.

Society;

Can I say had become materialized, as it just gains the best out of productive ONLY?

I can and will say that probably the society is losing all many such ‘special prodigies’. Special, yes indeed all blessed with an approach apart to question and put in thought to all such QUOTATIONS and REASONS for DIFFERENCES.

Smile! Smile! Even we pass the same to you and your rationality.

*psychiatric wards; **I and all psychiatric patients in the wards and rooms.

Ingredients of awesome political speeches

Politics seems no tougher than just mobilizing the crowd, but, the agenda as whole it is the biggest and the most influential aspect and the step in the first stance to produce an individual at the hot seat in the parliament. When it comes to politics in India and the political speeches we often lay its foundation the stone of the pre-independence speeches, and one of the most influential speech of the pre-independent India is of Mahatma Gandhi, the Quit India speech, made on August 8, 1942. The birth of a post independence India speech was made by Pt. Jwahar Lal Nehru, the tryst with destiny speech. It is not the heading of the speech which makes it look alike one of the most famous speeches of Martin Luther king, made in context of the American civil rights movement, or it is not the motive in general of the Quit India speech made by Mahatma Gandhi or if seen globally, the pearl harbor speech made by Franklin D.Roosevelt.  If seen the latterly mentioned speeches are one of the most influential and globally reckoned speeches by the globally reckoned personalities, but, the best part is that both the speeches have a context which differentiates them from each other, one is made in the context of, ‘ahimsa’ and the other in the, ‘warfare’ strategy. This makes us to believe that it is not the context or the definition (which is given often after deliverance) and uncertainly not the personality delivering the speech, as we have seen the both personalities mentioned above are of the opposite circumference in the field of politics (one being a national leader and other the President). This makes us to believe a political speech to be of the outstanding is not to be governed by any of the factors of definition or the heading and even the motion concerned for which the speech is made or delivered. It is the body of the speech and the persona of deliverance of the speech which makes it influential and ultimately leads the deliverer into the boundaries of the parliament house.

Coming to the part of framing a political speech which is to be seen no more easier task than framing a constitution and especially when the deliverance of the speech is to be made in the most ethnically diverse region, where caste(s) system flow irrespective of the time, region no wonder such as Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. The general idea of an influential political speech is to governed by the idea of making a speech more and less rhetoric, in a sense politics is a world where the justification for the words less answerable and rather the more influence is laid on how the deliverer make the words appear to be satisfactory on the grounds of your future actions which indeed makes your ballot box heavier. ‘It is a struggle for power’, a well said quotation by Karl Marx in context of defining politics, but, the struggle begins from the dice set over the stage and your party symbol pasted over it. It’s all what and how the candidate makes the words of speech appear more or less justifiable for future actions and plans.

It is unfortunate but, many people believe that often speeches made by politicians are fake and unsupportive of the empirical arguments. The classics of the speech made by either the Prime Minister of a state like India or a MP, the question is to the speech is often a sarcasm in context of the empirical arguments, no wonder it is either the press or a common activist(s). To an extent the general idea which is to be kept in minds either by the framer of the speech or the deliverer is to pronounce out only factual arguments which are covered with a base of their origin. This not only vaccinates (in a sense) the whole speech but, also proves to safeguard the image of the spokesperson.

Moving further in the context of ensuring a political speech to produce an impact on the mob in a nation like India where the diversity is much more supportive in terms of language, it seems to be an ideology of the political candidate to deliver her/his speech in the local language, no wonder the other supportive factors are to be considered. This not only mobilized the speech but, leaves an impact over crowd which in a direct way expects from the candidates, i.e. the poor. The support may come either in terms of a vote bank or an individual youth as party worker(s) considering the language factor. It even ensures the image of the candidate as one amongst the general and the local crowd.

The time which the biggest player, plays a wonder role in a political speech, when a candidate is to deliver a political speech he firstly has to feel lucky that there are people who came to listen his explanations and promises, considering the part it comes to the duty of the candidate to make and deliver succinct speech. The two most influential parts in making of a political speech are the introductory and the conclusion of the speech, general public either concentrates when the deliverer starts the speech and often when he concludes, with a round of applause in both cases. The political candidate making a speech to general public must make his speech look most influential and concerned in the introductory paragraph, the latter part of conclusion is often to be supported with a quote which is to be made in context of the local mob.

It becomes the foremost duty of any political candidate to support his speech with the concern for the local issues and problems surrounded around her/his constituency. Supporting the above point the candidate must not just walk away after his deliverance, the general criteria must be the round or a consensual time period to be devoted for the grievances which the poor and may be the common local crowd would like to share on the grounds of an appeal to the candidate. The most important factor to be considered in ending a well framed political speech is to make the crowd present aware of your party symbol and the motto of party which is often to be raised over and again in the deliverance of speech.

The well framed structure of political speech depends on one and many factors but, it is all about how you make the crowd influenced and inclined towards your party and yourself by leaving no gaps between the deliverer and the concerned.