Some are of the opinion that art and literature are supposed to fight against the ills and evils of the society, whereas some others say, art and literature are personal expressions meant for entertaining the people.

• How do you look at these two view points?

It has always been a controversy whether art and literature have some social roles, or they are for their sake only. I feel that art and literature have a social role to play by criticizing the evils and bad practices of the society. This can be done in an entertaining way too.

When it comes to their responsibility of fighting against the evils of the society, it is right to look at the history of the world. We can cite innumerable examples to prove that art and literature have been instrumental to initiating changes and remedying social evils. For example, Indian freedom struggle was a success because the thinkers, artists and writers of those times had been able to project the evils of aggression, and people were able to respond to the calls of the freedom fighters.

However, there is no denying the fact that art and literature are personal expressions. It is true that people go creative and produce arts and literatures in order to express their feelings and thoughts. These feelings and thoughts have some social relevance and all their contributions naturally reflect the society they live in. The cartoons of R.K Lexman, the renowned Indian cartoonist, are typical examples. He has been able to express his feelings and fears he had of his society through his hilarious cartoon strips.

To conclude it, it is right to say that art and literature have always been powerful enough to make changes in the society. Obviously, they have helped eradicate several social evils. Of course, there are a few that are just for entertaining people.

265 Words Ajaypeesdoc

Conservation of wild animals and maintaining of their habitat are claiming a sizeable amount of money every year. But it is argued that wild-life as such does not contribute much in accordance with the size of money it consumes every year.

How do you look at this argument?

I for one am of the opinion that the money nations around the world allocate for the upkeep of wildlife and their habitat is the wisest of allocations in several different counts. The argument that wildlife does not contribute proportionally is premature.

Let me prove the point by citing a small example from our surroundings. The much talked about topic across the world is excessive carbon emission and its myriad ramifications on the Planet. Unfortunately, the only solution is protecting the existing green cover. So, we need forests. Forests are the habitat of wild animals, and they both do a great job in maintaining the ecological balance of the whole Planet. Obviously, no amount will be a bigger amount if spent in this direction.

On the other hand, the argument that animals and their habitat need to produce visible material benefits in terms of the money spent is childish. We need to do ask a few simple enough questions ourselves. Firstly, what all things money is able to generate and what all things wild life and their life are able to generate? Can we re-generate forests as old as thousand years? Can we bring back an endangered species? Do we have enough money to buy out an Amazon jungle or a Silent Valley? I am sure the argument is proved unfounded.

In short, allocation of funds for the upkeep of the wild and their habitat is much worthwhile than anything else. Man has great limitations, but nature does not have any. So it would be wiser if we protect our wild life and their habitats.

270 words
Ajaypeesdoc




Some people believe that all healthcare innovations a nation happens to achieve- both medicinal and diagnostic- need to be accessible and affordable for all the needy regardless of the latter’s (the needy) socio-economic statuses.

• How far do you agree or disagree with this view?

It is affordability and accessibility that make healthcare worthwhile. In this respect, I find it right to observe that all healthcare achievements must reach the needy. A condition contrary to this is unfair in more ways than one.

The one and only thing that makes me support the view is that a healthcare instrument that is not affordable or accessible to the needy is as useless as there is no such instrument at all. For example; let us take the case of a lifesaving medicine being wanted by a person of poor socio-economic status. If such a medicine is not there at time of crisis, he or she is going to die. This is not due to the fact that medicine is not able to save the life; rather it is because the medicine is inaccessible or unaffordable. It makes me ask, ‘which medicine is more costly than a human life?’

A situation contrary to this may be counterproductive. The argument is that when medicines and diagnostic facilities go handy only for the better off, life itself becomes a commodity equated in terms of money. This is not only dangerous; rather it is asocial and inhuman too. Because medical innovations in the long run will be exclusively for the rich, and the supply chain management of healthcare will turn out to be in terms of the buying power of the needy: poor is the buying power, so is the medical care one is likely to get. It is devastatingly dangerous.

So it is fair to argue that all medical breakthroughs must be accessible and affordable for all regardless of one’s being rich or poor. Else, human life will go for bargains by medical and diagnostic giants. That is what I feel.

Ajaypeesdoc. 280 words 22.8.011

For many poor nations, spending on their defense is always on the rise. This, in turn, forces them to compromise on many other pressing priorities like food, shelter, health, education, energy and the like.

• How worthwhile is it to spend more on security than on other things?
• What reasons do you attribute to escalating defense spending?

There is nothing new in the fact that defense consumes the most from the national exchequer of poor nations. Yes, it is of some use in terms of security, but should it be at the cost of basic human existence? I am afraid not.

Maintaining security as such is the supreme responsibility of a Nation State. There is no compromise on it. It is expected that not only money and material, but every citizen is bound to stand against aggression which is likely to topple the peace of the State. In such a context, it is mandatory to spend enough to ensure that the Nation is free from threats. For example, a nation cannot exist with perennial threats from outside. Here defense is primary, and food, shelter, health, education, energy and the like are secondary.

However, exorbitant spending on defense is caused by some factors; both imaginary and real. Coming to the former, it is to meet certain security breaches that might happen rather than those ones that are going to happen. For example, let us take the case of two poor economies like India and Pakistan. They think that there may be attacks from across their borders any moment.

When it comes to the real reasons, firstly, it is the rising competition between rich and poor nations in military terms. Secondly, for many rich nations, war is their business, and they perpetrate rivalries across the world. This makes poor nations accumulate military arsenal. No wonder, they are compelled to spend more on defense capabilities than on other priorities like food, shelter, health, education or whatever.

In short, it is right to say a nation cannot exist without security, and there needs enough spending for it. Should it be at the cost of other priorities like food and shelter? It is a moot question all nations need to ask themselves. A proportional approach sounds good to me.

285 words Ajaypeesdoc. 22.8.011
Most of the metropolitan cities these days happen to enjoy longer night life than it was some 10/15 years before and some say cities are not going to sleep anymore in the days to come.

• What reasons do you attribute to this increasing night life?
• Do you think days and nights are going to be same for the cities of tomorrow?

Today, man is living in a 24x7 world where the distinction between day and night seems to be thinning. This is getting reflected more in the metros than elsewhere. And the line that divides these two may go invisibly thinner tomorrow.

Let me see why metros stay up longer these days. Today, it is time that matters most for many, though not for all. In such a context, cities are places where the monitory dimension of time is getting exploited much better and faster than elsewhere. For example, cities are centres of opportunities and, obviously, people have to stay awake to cash in on these opportunities. Time sensitive call center jobs, professions of three-shift-days, businesses that target night timers, improved travel facilities and those ‘nightertainments’ do keep cites stay up for longer hours today.

If things go on like this, a prediction is possible to the tune of, say metros of tomorrow are hardly going to sleep. It does not mean that the whole urban landscape is going to be awake all night long; rather greater number of people and businesses are likely to be staying up longer than it is today. For example, night shopping, late-night socializing, early morning entrepreneurships and the like may become more common in the metros of future, making the-day-night-divider still thinner.

In short, what is going to happen in the days to come is that there will be more practical ways of exploiting time so as to make human life easier and more worth living. In such a state of mind, I think, there is hardly going to be any distinction between metro days and nights.

Ajaypeesdoc. 270 words
22.8.011