SRINIVASA RAMANUJAN.

This man is most amazing. Look at his background which did not aid him any way to take the course he did. With hardly any input he came out with mathematical theorems and propositions that even top mathematicians found difficult to understand. And just like Sankaracharya he too died at the age of 32. Both men were geniuses in their own fields. Who knows what he would have achieved had he lived longer. One of my acquaintances mentioned his name to me today and I could not resist reading more about him and I thank Wikipedia for the information which I had abridged and rewritten.

Srinivasa Ramanujan was born at Erode Tamilnadu in 1887. His father Srinivasa Iyengar worked as a clerk in a saree shop and his mother was a housewife and also sang in the local temple in the town of Kumbakonam. He moved with his mother to her parents house at Kanchipuram later. After that the family moved back to Kumbakonam and from there again to Madras. Ramanujan did not like the school in Madras. And he tried avoiding it. In 6 months he was back in Kumbakonam. In 1897 at the age of 10 Ramanujan entered the town higher secondary school where he learnt formal mathematics for the first time.

From that time onwards Ramanujan's mathematical genius flowered. By the age of 11 he completely learnt everything in mathematics from the two students who were lodgers at his home. By the age of 13 he completely mastered the advanced trigonometry of S.L.Loney and also discovered sophisticated theorems on his own. He completed the mathematical examinations in half the allotted time for the examinations. Ramanujan was solving cubic equations when he was just 15 years old and went on to solve the quartic equations.

When Ramanujan was just 16 he borrowed a copy of the book on mathematics by G.S.Carr. This book is generally acknowledged as the key element in awakening the genius of Ramanujan. Next year when he was just 17 he had independently developed and investigated the Bernoulli Numbers and calculated the Euler Mascheroni constant up to 15 decimal places. Ramanujan passed out from the school in 1904 when he was 17 years old. He won a scholarship for his brilliance in school for studying at Govt. Arts College, Kumbakonam. Ramanujan was so interested on mathematics that he ignored all other subjects and failed in most of them. 

In 1905 Ramanujan ran away from home towards Visakhapatnam and stayed at Rajahmundry for a month’s time. He then went back to Madras and enrolled at Pachiyappas college. He again excelled in mathematics but failed in other subjects for 2 consecutive years. He left the college without a degree and pursued an independent research on mathematics. At this time, he lived in extreme poverty and was on the brink of starvation.

In 1909 Ramanujan was married to a 10 year old girl Janakiammal. After marriage he developed a serious swelling of the testicles that could be easily corrected by surgery but neither he nor his family had the money required for the operation. Luckily for him a doctor volunteered to do the operation for free. After the surgery Ramanujan went around Madras door to door to obtain a clerical position. He tutored some students who were giving their FA exam in the Presidency College for living.

In 1910 Ramanujan met Deputy Collector V.Ramaswamy Iyer seeking a job in the revenue department. This man had founded the Indian Mathematical society. Iyer was struck by the value of the genius of Ramanujan and did not want to smother his talent by giving him a job. Instead he gave him a letter of introduction to his mathematician friends in Madras. The friends referred him to R.Ramachandra Rao the Collector of Nellore and the secretary of the Indian Mathematical Society. Ramachandra rao was impressed by the research but doubted if the work was actually done by Ramanujan himself. Ramanujan’s friend persuaded Ramachandra Rao who gave another audience to Ramanujan. Here Rmanujan discussed with Rao his various mathematical theories which converted Rao into believing the genius of Ramanujan. Rao then granted financial assistance to Ramanujan to take care of his daily needs while he continued his mathematical research.

Ramanujan first had his work published in the Indian Mathematical Journal and then continued to write in the journal. He then applied and got selected as a Grade III clerk in the Madras port trust at a salary of Rs 30 per month.

With the help of friends Ramanujan drafted letters to leading mathematicians at Cambridge University. The first two professors to whom the letters were sent returned the papers without any comment. Ramanujan then wrote to G.H.Hardy who initially suspected that it might be a fraud. But later he commented that he had never seen anything like them before. He thought that to invent such theorems is impossibility and therefore Ramanujan must be genuine. Hardy asked a colleague to look after the papers who was amazed at the mathematical genius of Ramanujan. After discussing the papers with his colleague Hardy concluded that Ramanujan is a man of exceptional originality and power.

Hardy invited Ramanujan to Cambridge but the latter refused saying that it is against his upbringing to leave the country and go to a foreign land over the sea. Another associate of Hardy, a mathematics Lecturer from Trinity College Cambridge examined Ramanujan's work and called it amazing and again invited him to spend some time at Cambridge. As a result of this endorsement Ramanujan got a research scholarship of Rs 75 per month from the Board of the Madras University.

Finally Ramanujan left for England in 1914. Ramanujan worked in collaboration with Hardy and his colleague Littlewood for 5 years. Ramanujan was awarded a PhD.(then called BA) in 1916 for his work on highly composite numbers. He was elected as a fellow of the Royal society in 1918 at the age of 31 and was one of the youngest fellows of the Royal Society. Then in 1918 again he became the first India to get elected as the fellow of the Trinity College, Cambridge.

Ramanujan's health worsened in England and he returned back to Kumbakonam in 1919 and died in the same year at the age of 32.

BLACK MONEY IN SWISS BANKS.

I think the quantum of black money in Swiss banks is unduly magnified by the media in India. Everyone has their own estimate but absolutely without any logical foundation. 

First of all why does a citizen need black money and how does he get it into Swiss banks? There are many ways of generating black money but the most important are:

1. Out of book transactions:

2. Manipulation of books of account:

3. Manipulation of sales/receipts/expenditure:

4. Corruption:

5. Manipulation by Way of International Transactions:

Out of the 5 major methods, only the 5th point generates foreign currency that could be stashed away in Swiss Banks.

Logically there is no reason for any Indian citizen to stash away money in Swiss banks when an area like the real estate in India gives them tremendous opportunity to invest the black money clandestinely avoiding all attention. Moreover the real estate sector delivers returns to them which no Swiss bank can match.

Therefore it appears that the money stashed away in Swiss banks is generated exclusively through international trade that cannot be channelized back to India easily. It may also include commissions on international contracts, specifically in areas like Defence.

Let us now examine as to what may be the quantum of black money in India. A.Schneider estimates, using economic variables arrived that the size of India's black money economy is between 23 to 26% of its GDP which is less than the average for Asian countries. The GDP of India is around 5,50,000 crores in 2012-13 at 2004-05 constant prices. If we take Schneiders estimates and consider the black money quantum to be 25%, then the black money in our economy is likely to be Rs 1,37,500 crores.

In early 2011, several reports in Indian media alleged Swiss Bankers Association officials to have said that the largest depositors of illegal foreign money in Switzerland are Indian. These allegations were later denied by Swiss Bankers Association as well as the central bank of Switzerland.

James Nason of Swiss Bankers Association alleged that the black money figures were rapidly picked up in the Indian media and in Indian opposition circles, and circulated as gospel truth. He stated that this story was a complete fabrication. The Swiss Bankers Association never said or published such a report. Anyone claiming to have such figures (for India) should be forced to identify their source and explain the methodology used to produce them.

Government has passed resolution for a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Switzerland to provide means for investigations of black money in Swiss banks. This revision, will allow the government to make inquiries of Swiss banks in cases where they have specific information about possible black money being stored in Switzerland.

In 2011, the Indian government received the names of 782 Indians who had accounts with HSBC. As of December, 2011, the Finance Ministry has refused to reveal the names, for privacy reasons, though they did confirm that no current Members of Parliament are on the list. In response to demands from the BJP release of the information, the government announced on that it would publish a white paper about the HSBC information.

According to White Paper on Black Money in India report, published in May 2012, the Swiss National Bank estimates that the total amount of deposits in all Swiss banks, at the end of 2010, by citizens of India were INR 9,295 crore or US$ 2.1 billion. The Swiss Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed these figures upon request for information by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. Therefore the statement that Swiss banks accounts contain lakhs of crores of black money cannot be substantiated.

P.S.A lot of matter from the above write up has been taken from Wikipedia. It also contains information from other sites. The information is mixed with my own input for arriving at this. .

ANDHRA TELENGANA PROBLEM—GENESIS

The genesis of the Telengana problem has its roots in the Gentleman’s Agreement signed by the representatives of both Andhra and Telengana regions a list of who are given below.

Andhra region                                                            Telangana Region

B. Gopal Reddy                                                           B. Rama Krishna Rao

Chief Minister, Andhra State                                    Chief Minister, Hyderabad state 

N. Sanjeeva Reddy                                                     K.V. Ranga Reddy

G.Lachanna                                                                 M. Chenna Reddy 

Alluri Satyanarayana Raju                                          J.V. Narsing Rao

I am now giving the important points from the Gentleman’s Agreement. There are some other points which did not contribute to the present position, hence they are ignored.

A Regional Standing Committee:

1. There will be one legislature for the whole of Andhra Pradesh. 

2. Telangana region would have a Regional Standing Committee of MLA’s belonging to that region including the Ministers from that region but not including the Chief Minister.

3. The advice tendered by the Regional Committee will normally be accepted by the Government

4. The Regional Committee will deal with following matters:

1) Development and economic planning within the framework of the general development plans formulated by the State Legislature.

2) Local Self Government

3) Public health and sanitation, local hospitals and dispensaries.

4) Primary and secondary education.

5)Regulation of admission to the educational institutions in the telangana region.

6)Prohibition.

7) Sale of agricultural lands.

8) Cottage and small scale Industries.

9) Agriculture, Cooperative Societies, Markets and Fairs.

Unless revised by agreement earlier this arrangement will be reviewed after ten years.

B. Domicile Rules : Telangana is regarded as a unit as far as recruitment to subordinate services is concerned; posts borne on the cadre of these services may be reserved for being filled up by persons who satisfy the domicile conditions as prescribed under the existing Hyderabad Mulki Rules. ( 15 years of Stay in Telangana area)

C. Distribution of expenditure between Telangana and Andhra Regions. The expenditure of the new state on central and general administration should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of income should be reserved for expenditure on the development of Telangana area.

D. Education: The existing educational facilities including Technical Education in Telangana should be secured to the students of Telangana and further improved.

E. Cabinet Quotas: The cabinet will consist of members in proportion of 60:40 percent for Andhra and Telangana respectively. If the Chief Minister is from one region the other region should be given Dy Chief Ministership.

PROBLEMS WITH THE AGREEMENT:

The people from Andhra who have signed the agreement seem to have done so in haste without deliberating about the consequences. . Neither could they visualize that such provisions can lead to dissatisfaction of the Telengana people as those would be impossible to implement.

Because of this agreement it would be a right of the MLA’s of Telengana who are on the SRC to go at variance with the majority opinion of the assembly on many major issues.

The Mulki domicile rules debar a person from the Andhra region to get employed in the subordinate services unless he was domiciled in the Telengana region for 15 years or more. The Mulki rules were challenged in the Supreme Court and was upheld by them in 1972. This sparked off the Jai Andhra movement for a separate Andhra state.

Reserving the seats in the educational institutions in Telengana to the students from Telengana is also difficult to implement once the region develops.

Although Dy CM from Telengana should have been appointed as per the agreement, it was never implemented.

So, I feel that the present crisis is because of those gentlemen who signed the agreement. They are so emotionally attached to the concept of a unified state for the Telugu people that their reason has failed them.

It is interesting to note that the SRC appointed by the then Government was against the immediate merger of Telengana with Andhra region as it felt that the large differential in the literacy of Andhra and Telengana was feared by the people of Telengana and hence the regions should not be merged. It can be done so later when approved by a two thirds majority of the Telengana legislators.

Another point here is that Gauthu Lachanna who was one of the signatories to the Gentlemen’s Agreement from the Andhra side took a leading role in the Jai Andhra agitation demanding a separate Andhra State and was jailed during the course of the movement. Perhaps by then he realized the folly he has committed by signing the agreement in haste. The jai Andhra agitation was ruthlessly suppressed and in the process 8 people died in the police firing.

FRANCIS BACON THE MEAN YET BRILLIANT PHILOSOPHER

Bacon has an amazing personality. After hating him for his misdeeds one finally has to acknowledge the contribution he made to modern philosophy. One can hate his personality but not his intellect.

There were many varieties of philosophers before Sir Francis Bacon, but Sir Francis Bacon is the first scientific philosopher. He is the philosopher that reflected the thinking of the modern world.

The modern era started in Europe before Bacon; Gutenburgh, Colombus, Vasco da Gama, Magellan, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, Vesalius, William Harvey and Shakespeare appeared and made the world a better place to live in. Bacon represents this modern era and gave it a philosophical justification.

In the olden times before the tremendous developments that took place in science most things are accepted without verification but the modern scientific outlook changed that and asserted that nothing be accepted without proof and verification. Bacon is a philosopher that represented this outlook.

It is the age of Queen Elizabeth which is considered to be the golden age in England. Bacon was born into an aristocratic family in the year 1561. His father Nicholas Bacon was the keeper of the great seal of the Queen and a politician. His mother Lady Ann Cook was very proficient in Greek and Latin and was also a philosopher.

The inheritance of genes from both sides has made Bacon both a politician and a philosopher as well. Unfortunately, they have not been complimentary and appeared separately on their own.

Till the age of 12 years, his mother herself taught him studies. He then joined the Trinity College at Cambridge. He was just 16 years old then but with a razor sharp intellect. Till that time Aristotle was considered an authority on many sciences in Europe. Bacon questioned that and entered into spats with professors on the validity of the Aristotilean systems. He said that Aristotle never checked any of his hypotheses with experiment and rejected all of them.

This is one side of Bacon. On the other side his father died when Bacon was just 18 and left him with an annual income of just 300 pounds and a small house. This is sheer poverty for Bacon. He is a spendthrift and lived a luxurious life. He has made making money by whatever means as the goal of his life. Perhaps if one may say, this may be one of the inheritances of the modern age.

Bacons near relative Sir William Cecil was the Prime Minister of Queen Elizabeth. Bacon lobbied with his uncle for a job in the court but his uncle did not oblige him. He then studied law in Greys Inn and became a famous lawyer, contested for the Parliament and won.

All his thoughts are concentrated on making money and political fame. For 12 years he did his best to get into the Queens court with no result. He then sought the help of the Earl of Essex who is great enemy of his uncle William Cecil. Bacon always spent ahead of his income and almost went to prison a number of times and the Earl of Essex saved him. The Earl even bequeathed an estate to him. Despite the Earls efforts he could not get Bacon into Elizabeth’s court. He wrote many books praising the Queen and gave many speeches with no result again.

After sometime a feud arose between the Earl and the Queen. The opponents of Essex charged him with treason and jailed him. Bacon like the cheat he was turned against Essex, testified against him and charged him with a plot to kill the queen and argued against him. Essex was sentenced to death and his head was cut off. Entire England despised Bacon for his mean mindedness, cheating nature and for stabbing his friend in the back.

That is why the famous English poet Alexander Pope remarked that there is no greater scientist, no greater intellectual and no greater shameless cheat than Bacon in the entire world.

Queen Elizabeth died in 1603 AD and James I from Scotland became the king. Bacon is now ready, he praised and praised James in his numerous letters and supported everything the King did in the Parliament. Finally the King yielded and appointed him as Solicitor General, then the Attorney General and finally Lord Chancellor who is the second highest ranked officer in the British Government. He became very rich and politically very powerful.

As usual it is his mean and cheating nature that brought his downfall. In less than 3 years there were hordes of corruption charges against him. He was tried, dismissed from his office and was imprisoned in the tower of London. After some time King James freed him after eliciting a confirmation from Bacon that he would not again come anywhere near the parliament or courts or into any administrative job.

Earlier he was writing his famous books when he was in politics. After being thrown out he lived in exile for 5 years when he devoted himself fully to philosophy. 

It is said that Rishi Agastya drank up all the oceans. Similarly Bacon imbibed all the world's sciences and proclaimed that I have taken all knowledge to be my province. Bacons Essays are a telling commentary of his knowledge and literate skills.

One wonders as to how Bacon after taking in so much knowledge and with all that brilliance became a miserable human being. Knowledge should lead one to light and not into darkness. But in Bacons case it did just the opposite. Yet, the modern world can never forget Bacon and his contribution to the advancement of humanity.

I will try to write about Bacons philosophy in another note sometime.

VEDIC PHILOSOPHY.

A number of us Hindus who go about our rituals do not really know anything much about our actual religion and philosophy. We simply follow the religion without actually knowing its basis.

I feel we should at least know the basic elements on which our religion is built. I am making a very brief write up on it with a hope that at least those who bother to read it would know a little more about it. The Vedas are pure nature worship in the Samhitas which later passes onto something much more deeper in the Upanishads. There is much more that can be written on this topic but I am restricting it only to the very basics lest it should tax the minds of those who bother to read it.

A layman of philosophy considers the Vedas to be one but that is not the case. In fact each Veda consists of 4 parts.

They are:

1. Samhita, 2. Brahmana, 3. Aranyaka , 4. Upanishads.

There are 4 Samhitas and they are the 1.Rik, 2. Sama, 3.Yajur and 4. Atharva. 

A vedic sacrifice needs 4 priests:

1. Hota- Who addresses hymns in praise of the gods to invoke their presence and participation in the sacrifice.

2. Udgata- Who sings the hymns to entertain and please the gods.

3. Adhvaryu- Who performs the sacrifice according to the strict ritualistic code and gives the offerings to the gods.

4. Brahma- The general supervisor well versed in all the Vedas.

Rik is for the Hota, Sama is for the Udgata, Yajur is for the Adhvaryu and Atharva is for the Brahma.

The Samhitas are in poetry and consist of hymns to various Gods.

The Brahmanas are written in prose. They are the elaboration of the complicated ritualism of the Vedas. They deal with the rules and regulations laid down for the performance of the rites and the sacrifices. There is little philosophy in these and the Samhitas.

The appendages to the Brahmanas are the Aranyakas. They mark the transition from ritualistic to philosophic thought. There is a mystic interpretation of the Vedic sacrifices in them.

The concluding portion of the Aranyakas are the Upanishads. These are intensely philosophical and spiritual.

There are said to be 108 Upanishads in all. However, only 10 on which Sankaracharya has commented are taken as important. They are

1. Isha, 2. Kena, 3. Katha, 4. Prashna, 5. Mundaka, 6. Mandukya, 7. Aitareya, 8. Taittiriya, 9. Chandogya, 10 Brihadaranyaka.

The Upanishads regard karma kanda as secondary, being only a help to purify the mind by which one is made fit to receive the real teaching about Brahman.

TWO SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY--CYNICISM AND EPICUREANISM.

I am giving below two diametrically opposing schools of Philosophy; Cynicism and Epicureanism. My preference is towards Epicureanism. Today we may feel that there is little of value in them, but the questioning spirit and the challenge to the known conventions mark both of them. It is only with challenge and questioning of our thoughts clarify concepts. If man is where he is today, it is only because of this spirit. Both these philosophies are some 2500 years old.

CYNICS.

Antisthenes is supposed to have originated this philosophy. In Latin cynicus means pertaining to dog. From thence the term cynic seems to have arisen. Diogenes, the cynic said that people should live like dogs.

Antisthenes is elder to Plato by 20 years and is a disciple of Socrates. By his time Pericles has died and Greece has become a part of Macedonia.

Antisthenes gave up all his worldly possessions. He lived with the common people and dressed and spoke like them. Like the Anarchists he said that there should not be any form of Government. He said that there should not be any property, the institution of marriage and also religion. He developed brashness in speech and cultivated an aggressive behavior. He believed that all men are selfish and there is nothing called goodness in mankind.

Diogenes, a disciple of Antisthenes surpassed his Guru. He used to live in a tub and used to search around Athens with a flame in hand to find the real man. It is said that one day Diogenes was sitting in the sun. Alexander the Great came to know of his fame and came to see him and asked Diogenes what he wanted. Diogenes asked the Emperor to move from the place where he is standing because Alexander’s shadow fell on him. Then Alexander said, “Had I not been Alexander I would have preferred to live like Diogenes.”

As per Diogenes life is bitter, education is a waste, life is a waste, there is treachery everywhere. Kings, subjects, science, happiness, money, fame, honor, patriotism, good, respect, home, food, culture, law and in fact the entire life is a waste as per him. Men should live like animals in intimacy with nature.

But, the Cynics said how does one gets freedom? In renouncing desires they said. All desires should be renounced they said. Desire creates fear. Riches are not permanent. Our ethics, our renunciation, our freewill, our mind are the only ones which are really ours. If this is cultivated then all world is ours.

Diogenes practiced what he preached. He used to go around begging with a bowl. In the 3rd century BC, Cynicism has become a fashion.

EPICUREANS

Another student of Socrates, Aristippus founded a system of philosophy now known as “Epicureanism”. He was born at Cyrine in Africa and his followers are also known as Cyrenaics.

Aristippus is dead against the Cynics. He said that all living beings try from birth to be happy and therefore, happiness is the ultimate goal of life.

He concurred with the Sophists and said that each person is his own measure. What is seen be one might not be seen by another. Your perception is yours and my perception is mine. I might view the external world differently than you. So one can never generalize about the external world. The same thing can be said about happiness too. You might achieve happiness by one method and I, by another. So, we cannot commit anything to a clear definition. There is nothing called higher or lower in happiness and everything is equal. Sensory happiness is as great as mental happiness because even mental happiness occurs only through the sensory organs. Sensory happiness is the best happiness, and the more intense it is, the happier you are.

The greatest philosopher of this school is Epicurus who was born at Samos in Greece. He established a school in Athens and enlightened many of his students on his philosophy and led a simple life. Although Epicurus believed happiness to be the end of human existence, he did not believe in unfettered happiness.

None of Epicurus’s works survive today and his ideas have come to us through the works of the Roman poet Lucretius.

Epicurus’s school had students from slaves as well as prostitutes. The Athenians claimed that his school is a place of debauchery. But it is possible that his students led a disciplined life. As a man Epicurus is very helpful and friendly. He believed that friendship is the sweetest thing in all of creation. He believed that the aim of life is happiness and life has to be lived happily. But his definition of happiness is different. He said that absence of sorrow is happiness, absence of desire is happiness. A calm mind and self-control is happiness. There is no happiness in searching for happiness; in fact happiness is not searching for happiness. Intense happiness is followed by intense sorrow. Therefore both have to be avoided. One has to enjoy happiness without knowing that one is enjoying it. One has to develop self-control for this. He had digestive problems so he believed that good digestion gives happiness and is very strict about eating habits in his school. He resented politics, property, fame etc. and said that one should live away from society in peace.

The external world does not allow man to live peacefully. One has to shed superstitions and meaningless fear too. One should not fear death and also unknown forces. The soul perishes with the body and nothing is left. It is a state where there are no feelings. So why should one fear death? There are Gods but they live far away and do not interfere in our affairs. They can neither help us nor harm us.

The entire universe is made up of atoms. Who created them? They are ever existing and are self-caused. They have motion in them. He also assumed a crude type of Darwinism.

Like the body, mind too is made up of atoms. With the body mind also perishes and nothing is left.

L

RAPE...A UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA???

When the rape of Delhi shot into the national news, rightfully everyone was enraged. I was also one such and was seething in anger. In the process like all others I too started hating the antiquated justice system of India as well as our social milieu that seem to facilitate the rapist.

Immediately after the rape, one of my FB friends Vyom Sharma posted some statistics on rape after reading which I was perplexed and left it at that. But it did remain in my mind subdued.

Today, the poor girl has died and the entire nation is in mourning. At this point, somehow I felt that I should study the phenomena of rape a little more. I was under the false impression that rape is rampant in India on account of a weak justice system which left offenders unpunished. I also thought that male chauvinism that is prevalent in India has a role to play in that.

So I took up Wikipedia for information on rape and the results were shocking indeed. Please observe the figures below. Absolute numbers do not give a clear picture and the number of rapes per 1 lac population is better:

The first figure in the table below shows the number of cases reported in 2009 and the second shows the figures for 1 lac of population in 2010.

JAPAN                           1289                     1.1

CANADA                          576                     1.4

INDIA                           22172                     1.8

SPAIN                            1578                      3.4

RUSSIA                          1007                     3.8

DENMARK                      352                      6.4

THAILAND                     4636                      6.7

GERMANY                    7724                      8.9

FRANCE                      10108                    16.0

UK                               15934                     27.0

USA                             84767                     29.0

BOTSWANA                  1865                     88.5

Reference-Rape Statistics-- Wikipedia.

The irony is that Denmark which has the highest standard of living in the world and where free sex is practiced has a rape incidence of 6.4 per lac which is more than 3 times that of India.

Similarly in Thailand where sex is used for tourism, the incidence is 6.7 per lac.

Just look at figures for the US, it has an incidence of 29 per lac which is some 14 times that of India. In absolute figures too, the US had over 84,000 rapes in 2009 compared to over 22,000 for India. People would be surprised to know that 10% of the rape victims in the US are male.

Look at the high incidence in UK or France. Development seems to be no indicator to the incidence and neither is equality of women a factor.

Botswana has the highest incidence of rape in the world.

The figures prove that rape is universal and does not confine itself to any one country. Psychologists have to search the reasons for this phenomenon. I am shocked at these figures and I am sure all who see my post would find them equally shocking.

Lik

SOCRATES THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER.

Socrates was born in Periclean Athens in 470 BC. His father was a sculptor and his mother was a delivery nurse. He trained to be a sculptor but the trade did not appeal to him. He then learnt Geometry, Astronomy and Philosophy.

One day, Socrates along with his friend visited the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracle asked them as to who they are. Socrates replied, “There is only one thing I know and that is I know nothing”. His friend asked the Oracle as to who is the wisest man in the world. The Oracle said” Know thyself. There is none wiser than Socrates among men”. This made Socrates perplexed. From then onward he made it a mission to find someone else wiser than him so that the Oracle’s words are not correct.

He used to start off early morning and whomever he found on the way he held discussions. He used the method of dialectic developed by Zeno. In this a question is asked, an answer obtained-this answer is rejected by using logic and another question asked. No one could ever defeat him in a discussion.

His first question is “Tau Ti” which means, “What is it?” He always said define your terms first before starting any discussion. He said that defining a thing is knowledge and knowledge is nothing but virtue.

He called himself a Gadfly. He claimed that God made him like that so that he could bite humans and make them think and find knowledge. He also claimed himself to be a delivery nurse, one who delivers right ideas from humans.

Socrates was very ugly. He was short and fat. He had a bald head, big paunch, broad nose, a big mouth, eyes jutting out and a round face. Despite all this, once he opened his mouth people forgot his appearance. Such a wise man is he.

He never bothered about tomorrow and lived only for today. This put his wife and his three children in great difficulties, as he never bothered about them. The moment she saw him his wife used to admonish him and so he avoided going home altogether. He had food when a student invited him for food or else he went hungry.

He is not a drunkard but had liquor when some of his students offered it to him. In drinking too none could beat him. He had one old coat which he wore all the time and he had no sandals on his feet.

He suddenly used to lapse into meditation disregarding where he was. One day early in the morning he stood still at a place in one morning and went into one of his trances. People gathered around him in curiosity. He stood like that till next day morning and after coming out of the state walked off without talking to anyone watching him. There were other instances like this.

There was a tragedian named Agathon in Athens. One day he invited Socrates to a banquet. There a discussion on Love developed. Socrates in his usual fashion rejected all the theories that were presented to him defining love. He finally said Love is the souls yearning for experiencing the great beauty. A lover not only wants to see the beauty but also wants to create it. He also wants it to be permanent in the physical self. That is why man and woman love each other. That is why parents love their children. They not only bear children for perpetration of themselves but they are also their partners in search for their continuous search for beauty, their inheritors and researchers for that purpose.

What is this beauty that we are trying to give permanence through love? It is wisdom, morality, self-respect, bravery, justice, and faith. In one word beauty is truth. It is that which directly takes us into communion with God.

Socrates never wrote down his philosophical theories and that was done by Plato. Plato was a great writer and his prose is mercurial. He used the dialogues to put forth the views. There are four main dialogues of Plato. 1) Symposium- This contains the meaning of love and we described it in the earlier paras.2) Apology-In this Socrates answers the charges leveled against him.3) Crito-In this Crito the student of Socrates advises him to flee the country and the answer given by Socrates.4) Phaedo- In this the death of Socrates is described.

In all the dialogues of Plato, Socrates is the mouthpiece. It is believed by philosophers that Plato has in fact given out his own philosophy in the dialogues from the mouth of Socrates. Socrates is concerned more with ethical questions than metaphysics

Socrates criticized the Olympian Gods and was believed to be an atheist. This was actually not so but he believed that there is only one god and the soul is indestructible.

Socrates was very much against Democracy. He felt that since democracy is dependent on group strength, well thought out decisions could not be taken. After the Peloponnesian wars between Athens and Sparta Athens was defeated and Democracy was replaced by the 30 tyrants. The people rebelled on them again and Democracy was restored. The democratic Government turned against Socrates for his so called Atheism and his repulsion for democracy. They brought the charge of rejecting their gods as well as worshiping other gods on him. They also said that Socrates corrupted the youth and the fit punishment for him was death.

This charge was brought about by Anitus who was the head of the democratic Government that came to power in Athens. His son was a disciple of Socrates and defied his own father. A court of 500 judges tried Socrates and the prosecutor was Miletus. His death sentence was passed with 280 for and 220 against. The sentence was to be carried out with drinking of hemlock, a poisonous drink. As per the laws of Athens at that time for a man who was sentenced to death, there was a provision of seeking another punishment instead. He could have asked for imprisonment, he could have paid the penalty and got released or else he could have left Athens for another country. But he willfully chose death.

The defense put forward by Socrates against the death sentence was told in a beautiful narrative in a dialogue called “Apology” by Plato. In this Socrates said that he is not willing to take an alternate punishment. He said, “ I do not know death is good or bad but paying a fine or seeking imprisonment or seeking banishment form the country are indisputably bad. Why should I opt for them?”

Plato wrote about his death in a dialogue called “Phaedo” which is considered to be a gem in world literature. Socrates was finally executed by drinking of Hemlock.