Knowledge Society
- A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
- A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam is a distinguished scientist. He took
charge as President of India in july 2002. His name is associated with
the development of India's first satellite launch vehicle SLV-3 and the
'Agni' missile. He was bestowed upon with many great honoraries 'Padma
Bhushan' (1981), 'Padma Vibhushan' (1990) and 'Bharata Ratna' (1987).
The Present Extract from 'Ignited Minds', throws light how India can be
made a Knowledge Society. So, it must rediscover itself in this aspect,
and then it can achieve the quality of life, strength and sovereignty of
a developed nation.
Abdul Kalam says that knowledge has many forms. it is
available at many places. It is acquired through education, information,
intelligence and experience. It is also available in academic
institutions, in craftsmen, vaidyas, and in skilled people like artists
as also in our housewives. Besides our heritage and history the rituals,
epics and traditions are also vast resources of knowledge. There is an
abundance of unorthodox and earthy wisdom in our villages. There are
hidden treasures of knowledge in our environment, in the oceans,
bio-reserves and deserts, in the plant and animal life. in our country
every state has a unique core competence for a knowledge society.
According to Abdul Kalam, knowledge has always been the
primary mover of prosperity and power. India used to share its knowledge
through the traditions of guru-sishya. During the last century the
world has changed from being an agricultural society to an industrial
society. In the twenty first century a new society is emerging. In this
society, knowledge is the primary production resource instead of capital
and labour. A nation becomes a knowledge society when it deals with
knowledge creation and knowledge deployment.
The knowledge society has two very important components.
They are driven by societal transformation and wealth generation.
Information Technology plays a significant role in wealth generation.
The Planning Commission of India has taken a lead role in this
direction. To become a Knowledge Superpower by the year 2010, is a very
important mission for the nation. By evolving a focused approach to
intellectual property rights then India is sure to make her dreams
fulfilled by 2010.Thus, Abdul Kalam stresses the need for developing societies through the acquisition of knowledge and utilization of technology. Poverty can be removed only through a balancing of past heritage and present day knowledge.
Principles of Good Writing
-Leslie Alexandr
HillLeslie Alexandr Hill was an outstanding writer. His essay "Principles of Good Writing" offers valuable tips regarding the secrets of successful writing. He has pointed out the rules and regulations to be observed in sharpening one's writing skills.
To write well, a writer should be able to write clearly and logically. It is possible only if one thinks clearly and logically. A writer should practice clear step-by-step thought to achieve clarity of thought and expression.
A writer should increase his vocabulary and improve his powers of expression. For this he should read widely and carefully. He should use a good dictionary to help him with the exact meaning and use of words. Only practice makes writing possible. A writer learns to write by writing. One should not wait for inspiration. It is rare even with the most famous writers. Writing is 99% hard work and 1% inspiration. So it is better to get into the habit of disciplining oneself to write.
If a writer keeps his eyes and ears open, he finds plenty of things to write about around him. If a writer reads the newspaper carefully, it provides him many examples of human joy and tragedy. They can give him ideas for articles, essays or short stories.
A writer should keep a notebook to note down the new ideas otherwise he often forgets them. He should develop a warm human understanding of people to be a successful writer. He must write interestingly to appeal all kinds of people. However, he must write about present only. His readers should believe him in his sincerity.
Presentation is of very great importance in good writing. The main body of his piece of writing should present the ideas promised in the first paragraph. At the end he must write a neat, satisfying conclusion. A good writer should try to create impression with his own style. Avoiding Jargon and the similar super fluities, one should write clean and plain English which is the fashion today.
Leslie Alexander Hill’s clarity of thought and
expression, the logical development of the illustrative examples and the
appropriate use of vocabulary make it a model essay.
Man's Peril
- Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell was a prolific writer.He is one of the greatest masters of English Prose. His brilliant intellect and profound knowledge are clearly revealed in his writings. His singularity of thought and clarity of expression are evident in the present selection. In this lesson, "Man's Peril", he warns nations and the general public to set aside their conflicting ideologies and save the beautiful earth from total destruction.
Bertrand Russell appeals to all concerned as a human being, a member of the species man, whose continued existence is in doubt. This is Man's Peril. A war with the hydrogen bombs put an end to the human race.
In his view, it seems that the 'general public' have not realised the real impact of a war with atomic bombs. A hydrogen bomb is 25,000 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. So the stark, dreadful and inescapable problem before us is whether we shall put an end to the human race or if we shall give up wars. He explains in great detail the role of ordinary people in the peace process and requests the ‘general public’ to be more aware and assertive so that the fate of the nations need not be decided by despotic leaders alone.
On both sides of the Iron Curtain there are political obstacles to emphasize the bad effects of war. Each side of the Iron Curtain resembles duelists.Though they are afraid of their lives, it is cowardice on their part drawing out any compromise formulae. Here neutral play an important role to prevent the outbreak of a world war.
According to geological time, man has so far existed only for a very short period. But he has been doing well for the last 6,000 years. If we remember humanity and forget everything else, the way lies to us to a new paradise. Otherwise, we have to face universal death. Hence, Russell asserts that the role of the ordinary people in the peace process and the only 'wisdom of the ordinary citizen' can ensure progress and prosperity and pave the way for 'Universal Peace'. So we can save our planet from total destruction.
Shooting An Elephant
-
George Orwell
Eric
Arthur Blair, better known by his pseudonym, George Orwell, is today best known
for his essays. Among his most powerful essays is the 1931 autobiographical
essay "Shooting an Elephant," which Orwell based on his experience as
a police officer in colonial Burma.
In
"Shooting an Elephant," by George Orwell, the author recounts an
event from his life when he was about twenty years old during which he had to
choose the lesser of two evils. Many years later, the episode seems to still
haunt him. The story takes place at some time during the five unhappy years
Orwell spends as a British police officer in Burma. He detests his situation in
life, and when he is faced with a moral dilemma, a valuable work of an animal has
to die to save his pride.
Orwell is an unhappy young policeman
who lives in mental isolation. He hates British imperialism, he hates Burmese natives,
and he hates his job. He is completely alone with his thoughts since he cannot
share his idea that "imperialism was an evil thing" with his
countrymen. Orwell sees the British rule as "an unbreakable tyranny, as
something clamped down upon the will of prostate peoples" because he
observes firsthand the cruel imprisonments and whippings that the British use
to enforce their control. Nor can he talk to the Burmese because of the
"utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East." This
"utter silence" results from the reasoning behind imperialism that
says, "Our cultures are different. My culture has more power than your
culture. Therefore, my culture is superior in every way, and it will rule
yours." If one is a member of a superior culture, one must not make jokes,
share confidences, or indicate in any way that a member of the inferior culture
is one's equal. A wall, which is invisible but impenetrable, stands between the
British and the Burmese. His hatred for the Burmese is caused by their bitter
feelings against the oppressive Europeans. Orwell says, "I was an obvious
target and was baited," and when he is tripped during a soccer game,
"the crowd yelled with hideous laughter," which seriously assaults
the ego of this young man. He says that "I was stuck between my hatred of
the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who
tried to make my job impossible." Helping to oppress the Burmese causes
him to feel guilty and to hate his job "more bitterly than I can perhaps
make clear." While standing in this quagmire of hatred, Orwell encounters
one of the defining moments of his life.
An innocent chain of events forces
Orwell into a position in which he must choose between two undesirable options.
When he goes to check a report that a tame elephant under the influence of
"must" has broken loose and is causing damage, Orwell takes a medium
caliber rifle which is "much too small to kill an elephant, but I thought
the noise might be useful in terrorem." Upon finding that a coolie has been
killed by the elephant, Orwell trades his .44 rifle for a much larger gun
simply for self-defense. This is a critical mistake; the Burmese who are
following him assume that, since he now has an elephant gun, Orwell has decided
to kill the elephant. The crowd quickly grows to over two thousand natives,
which rattles Orwell. As he says, "It is always unnerving to have a crowd
following you." This is especially true for a young representative of the
Queen who knows the crowd will be critically watching his every move. When he sees
the elephant, Orwell knew with perfect certainty that he should not to shoot
him. The bout of "must" is leaving, and the elephant is peacefully
eating grass. Orwell did not in the least want to shoot him and knew that to do
so would be to destroy a valuable and useful creature. On the other hand, the
huge crowd of Burmese silently demanded a show; they expected a
"sahib" to act decisively without wavering. One option is to walk
away, let the elephant live, and suffer the ridicule of the natives. The other
option is to ignore his conscience and shoot the elephant. Orwell is backed
into a corner and has to choose between the life of the beast and his own
reputation.
The elephant must be slain so that
Orwell's pride can live. Walking closer to the elephant can get Orwell killed,
and worse, some of the Burmese might laugh if that happens. Considering the
laughter, Orwell says, "That would never do." Leaving without
shooting the elephant is also not an option: "A sahib has to act like a
sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite
things," implying that the Burmese will see him as weak if he seems to
change his mind about slaying the beast. The British have created a proud image
that they demand the Burmese respect, but they are trapped by having to live
within that image. Orwell ignores his conscience and shoots the elephant, and
he compounds his sin by botching the execution. Bullets shot into the wrong
spot cause the poor animal to die "very slowly and in great agony."
In spite of Orwell putting "shot after shot into his heart and down his
throat," the elephant lives thirty minutes after its "tortured
gasps" force Orwell to leave. Many years later, Orwell still seems bothered
by the fact that pride, not necessity, caused him to destroy the animal.
Each person must make difficult
judgments in the course of everyday life. Decisions that seem trivial at the
time may affect one's life for years. Sometimes the choice is whether to meet
the expectations of others or to meet the expectations of the conscience. One's
maturity is measured when one encounters the elephant and decides to shoot it
to please the crowd, or to not shoot it and appear to be weak. Either choice may
follow one to the grave.
Shooting An Elephant
George Orwell
George Orwell –pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair is a
well known essayist. His prose style is very clear. In this essay, ‘Shooting An
Elephant’ he describes the shooting of an elephant in Burma. He brings out
futility of Imperialism and his dislike for tyranny. Orwell halted on the road.
He saw the elephant. He thought that it was a serious matter to shoot a working
elephant. It was eating peacefully. He appeared no more dangerous than a cow. The
author did not like to shoot him. He decides to watch him for some time.
There were many people who followed the author. They
blocked the road for a long distance. They were all happy. They were certain
that the elephant was going to be shot. The author was in a fix. The big crowd
was watching him as they would watch a magician who was about to perform a
trick. He knew that the natives would not like him as he was a stranger to that
place. Unwillingly he moved forward with his rifle. He thought that he was
pushed forward by the people.
Orwell understood if the white man turned a tyrant,
he would destroy his own freedom. So he should act according to the wishes of
the natives. He wanted to watch the behavior of the elephant closely. He knew
that a white man should not be frightened, before the natives. If he was
frightened the big crowd would be angry with him. He loaded his rifle and shot
the elephant. There was a big roar of joy from the crowd. The wounded elephant
began to sink slowly. The author fired again into the same spot.
The elephant did not die. It slowly climbed to feet.
It stood upright. The author fired a third time. The shot was very dangerous to
the animal. It tried to rise but its legs could not help. It made a loud cry.
Its belly was towards the author. It was suffering very much. When it fell
down, the ground seemed to shake. Thus, George Orwell killed the elephant. He
killed it only to please the crowd. The incident made him understand the
futility of imperialism in the East.
No comments:
Post a Comment