HOW ARTHASHASTRA DESTROYED MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES: THE SWAMI NONSENSE

Hello World,

This is a multi-part blog-blast-series where I will be vomiting my thoughts on how nonsensical arthshastra is. Yes, we already cut to the chase and the chase is here. We might as well proceed further.

SWAMI: THE LEADER/KING

Let’s start with what’s out there in the public domain on this one. Please have a look at the image below and read the text in it. It is a screenshot of a translation of arthashastra available online.

To put this arthashastra conspiracy in perspective, please find below another image of a similar translation I found [in a paperback book this time].

I am sure by now you would have noticed that both the images present the same translation with just a minor change of words. The ‘reckless’ is replaced with ‘lazy.’ ‘Works’ is replaced with ‘wealth.'

Reckless and lazy are very different words with very different meanings [irrespective of the context].

Wealth and works are also very different words. 

One of these translators, or even both, might have copied from a common source and replaced the words to evade plagiarism issue and related lawsuit. 

I wonder if anyone would even go to court for such nonsense. 

Now to the idea presented in the translation, I think it is absolute bullshit. It starts with saying that if the king is lazy/reckless, his subjects will also be reckless/lazy. So what???!!?? 

Who gives a rat’s ass about a king’s subjects? The king’s primary role is to keep the territory intact, secure and enable the prosperity of the country’s entire population. 

Trump is reckless and lazy. He doesn’t think before he tweets and he wouldn’t take the time to read all that is given to him. They have to break it down and use his name a lot to keep him reading. 

The USA is still the country with the best economy in this world. 

The translation moves on to say, a lazy/reckless king will fall in the hands of his enemies. 

HELL NO!!!! 

Do you know which king falls into the hands of his enemies?

The one with enemies and very badly trained military forces. 

Even when a war is coming to a close, the weaker force will surrender to save its remaining soldiers unless the situation is a do-or-die one. 

Why would arthashastra define how a king should be? Kings existed even before this thing was written. How did kings exist before a ‘how should a king be’ doctrine came into existence?  There must have been a logic that helped kingdoms survive and in some cases even flourish. 

The fact that kingdoms fell and kings perished were largely because the invading army was stronger and in most cases much larger than the losing kingdom.

The fact that this part of arthashastra deals with king and his subjects indicates it is suitable only for monarchy and not democracy. Also, since it talks about the king’s subjects eating into his wealth/works, it blindly conveys the message that the king and his subjects are the prime focus when it comes to the responsibility of the king, in this case SWAMI: THE LEADER.

In other words, it is either outdated or out of sync with anything sensible, or, in my opinion, both, by leaps, bounds and light years. [going universal here, kindly drift along]

Any king’s subjects should be capable of handling the responsibilities given to them in the best way possible. There is no way all SUBJECTS can be the same as the king. For this to happen, they have to be cloned [for physical resemblance] and brainwashed through ‘workshops on policy-making and administration methods.’ [a very popular nonsense prevalent in democracies today]

From a different perspective, if the SUBJECTS  are indeed as the KING, then it only means the SUBJECTS are the Sancho Panza's of a Quixote-of-a-King. To be fair, king a windmill for a monster is reckless and a all-time 'Yes Master' means silly subordination without reasoning. At least with Quixote, Sancho Panza remains with the objective of protecting his master from big risks and embarrassment. 

I think I insulted Quixote, Sancho Panza and Miguel de Cervantes by using them in an analogy involving Arthshastra. Please accept my apologies for that.

If you think arthashastra can be interpreted in many ways, then, it has to be fantasy and not principles of management.

Anyone can come up with 'have a blue skin over your head at all times that can weep for your benefit' as a carefully crafted doctrine for those seeking enlightenment which can then be interpreted as 'the sky we know today.' 

One can't claim 'Principles of Atmosphere' as the title for such crap!!!! It is as simple as that!!!

Stop believing this nonsense please. Just because something is ancient and in sanskrit doesn’t mean it has to be right or relevant. Arthashastra could also have been the result of very good political satire written for the comedy shows of those times. Someone placed it under the wrong section of a new library and the rest of readers just flew with it, driven by their own imagination that said this piece of writing is actually principles of something they never knew. True they did not know, but what they did not know is that arthashastra is political satire and the statements shouldn’t be taken as such.

Anyways, let’s proceed further. I am loving this already. I’ll be honest, I am being a bit sadistic but hey, when it comes to nonsense, all one can do is feel good about criticising it. It is only fair because the subjects and the king will resemble each other and there is a big group of humans out there who believe in this crap.

The arthashastra or what should ideally be the most misogynistic nonsense mankind has ever had written, preserved and for the love of salted crackers, translated into torture tips for screwed up management ideologies, is ruining this world and I am now officially sick of it. 

Meet you again in my next rant of this blog-blast-series.

Best regards,

Trump Memes for Social Media

Hello World,

If you are interested in sharing Trump memes as part of your social media campaign, fell free to check out this gig which offers 150+ Trump Memes for $5.

https://www.fiverr.com/crazymotts/give-you-trump-memes

Click here to get Trump Memes

Best regards,

NORTH KOREA: THE SURPRISING CASE OF SOVEREIGNTY GONE SOUR

Hello World,

SOURCE: http://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/stanford.ucomm.newsms.media/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/21140014/korea.jpg

North Korea, being a nation equipped with nuclear arsenal, is raising concerns through the missile development program which in essence, is expected to serve as the payload delivery mechanism capable of delivering warheads including the nuclear one. Economic sanctions have been imposed on North Korea multiple times and regional powers in the Asia Pacific region have been warned by the United States regarding the escalating security threat perception in the region, owing to North Korea’s repeated missile testing efforts in spite of warnings and sanctions.

To put things in perspective, any sovereign state is entitled to develop its own defence capabilities to protect its territories and interests, while complying with international law and agreements [varies from country to country]. From this perspective of ‘Rights of a Sovereign State’, North Korea is logically entitled to test and develop any military capability without violating any agreements it had signed in that regard.

However, the state of authoritarian administration in North Korea, driven by policies advocating ideologies what might be classified as ‘secluded nationalism’, presents the country in bad light. News reports alleging the North Korean government’s activities often going against its own citizens can be ignored however the economic situation of the citizens tend to substantiate such allegations presented by news reports. This has, over the long term, presented the North Korean administration as volatile in terms of response to issues, both internally and externally. The long-standing strained relationship with South Korea seems to be focal point of the volatility being attributed to the North Korean administration.

While conclusive evidences for violation of regional and global peace treaties [relevant to North Korea] and that of any alleged human rights violation within its borders is yet to be ascertained, the continued efforts to build warhead delivery mechanisms and test launches directed at and/or over regional neighbours tend to substantiate the allegation on the North Korean government’s intentions of building such military capabilities. The only consolation as of now is the South Korean administration’s declaration that no attack shall be carried out on behalf of South Korea without their prior consent. In essence, the regional peace, in this case, is being largely facilitated by countries that otherwise are facing threats from the military activities of North Korea. This calls for a situation, where regional powers, including North Korea will now have to go further with their efforts to develop suitable military deterrence capabilities, missile defence mechanisms being relevant to this situation. Since the recent missile tests by North Korea indicate its range covering its neighbouring countries, the United States military being present in those regions is facing the same security threats being perceived in the region.

Missile defence is gaining prominence as the post-cold-war era is fading out, evolving new territorial defence requirements. Modern defence requirements, unlike those from the past, do not hold air, land, sea and space as standalone territorial domains. The modern defence mechanisms are expected to be integrated and interoperable both across services and militaries at regional and global level. While building deterrence is primary requirement, it is also equally important for regional powers to negotiate their respective political stances, such that long term diplomatic frictions do not escalate into military conflicts, hurting the citizens and economies of those involved and their neighbours. Given the global circumstances, military conflicts in any regions will have its own repercussions across the globe. 

To put this in perspective, from where I come from, we might use the following adage:

“Sothuke singi, soriyardhuku saxophone kekutha?”

This translates into: When the world is struggling to feed all its citizens asking for a saxophone to scratch [an itch] is beyond stupidity. Meaning, why spend so much on military when there are other essential needs still standing unmet. Accidents and diseases kill more than terrorism and aggressor state activity and still we spend more against terror.

Yes, we have had world wars and we continue to spend more on defense than many other essential needs. Military deterrence is a need but honestly not as much as the growing defense budgets indicate. Besides, defence budgets allow the purchase and upkeep of defence capabilities. War funds are a whole different thing. Given today’s economic circumstances, there is no country in the world that can sustain a war economically. Also, given the same global circumstances, any war between any two entities, irrespective of how far they go to battle with each other, is bound to impact every citizen’s plate and what comes on to it, across the globe. 

From that perspective, given that in today’s time, everyone is aware of where every other one stands, it is in the benefit of all to simply have the military tails coiled up so the focus can be to feed the citizens who are hungry and employ those that are not. Enough of the territorial safety mirage and the associated spending to protect geographies where normal humans can’t survive. When one country builds something to defend itself, naturally others follow suit and it is beyond stupidity to call the followers 'aggressors.' We all have our own ways of interpreting our state’s sovereignty. When some believe in repeated missile tests, there is also a bafoon who believes in retweeting propaganda videos and engaging his own presidential press office to defend such nonsense.

I think I’ve made my point.

Best regards,