Topic: The ‘Perspective’ Theory

Topic: The ‘Perspective’ Theory


Human beings are the most intelligent creatures on d Earth, and Human mind, undoubtedly, one of the most fascinating organs of this continuously evolving Human species. We, the Human beings, have consistently pushed the limits and proved “Survival Of The Fittest” proverb of the science. There are ‘n’ numbers of people in this world. Then what is the reason they think in ‘n*m’ number of ways. Probably, due to their different mind-sets, ethnicities, region, family background and many more things. But, again, the question arises, what is the basic reason of the difference in above mentioned things??

The most important reason of the difference of thought process of various individuals, broadly speaking, is their ‘Perspective’. According to me, ‘Perspective’ is the thing which draws the dividing line between eventual shaping up of the personalities of two different Human beings. If we look towards dictionary meaning of ‘Perspective’, it is, “Technique of depicting volumes and spatial relationships on a flat surface”. This definition leads us to an understanding that ‘Perspective’ is analyzing and interpreting the relationships or any other equally placed object in the light of rationalization.

According to me, ‘Perspective’ consists of three basic things; Point of view of an individual, State of mind at the time the point of view was developed and thirdly, rational orientation of the resulting conclusion. Whenever a particular person provides the input to the mind through any sensory impulses, he/she forms a point of view about that particular input. This view is not formed independently. It also incorporates the state of mind of the individual at the analysis time. This state of mind can completely change the point of view which would have developed independently. Thirdly, and most importantly, both of these things contribute to ‘Perspective’ formation of an individual only if the needed rational orientation is provided to the resulting conclusion generated by the intermingling of the first two points. Now, the stand which any individual takes/proposes to take would wholly and solely depend on the ‘Perspective’ of that particular person. Taking into account the topic of decision-making, any person will reach to the end result.

Money vs. Satisfaction:-

The Money vs. Satisfaction debate is one of the most beautiful examples of ‘Perspective’ theory. A person who has seen the depth of poverty in his entire life would surely be aiming at ‘Money’ as his aim. Here, Money becomes the core object of all round Satisfaction. Money, in this case, replaces Satisfaction and the person who is aiming at money will find exponential increase in satisfaction with rapid increase in money input. The ‘Perspective’ which such kind of an individual forms is where he sees Money tending towards Satisfaction and after some time merging the two completely separate entities to form “Monisfaction”. On the other hand, a person who has had all the comforts through his life and never had to strive for anything, always chooses the Satisfaction path. There are many people in this world who have every thing from cars, bungalows, good career, good family and many more things. Such people turn towards Satisfaction in their life. Although the condition where a particular person seeks Satisfaction comes normally after having earned lots of money. It is one of those situations where a human being continuously puts Money over Satisfaction, but again, a change in ‘Perspective’ towards life leads him to put Satisfaction over Money. This is a good case of change in ‘Perspective’ leading to the change in complete personality and approach to the life of an individual.

There are also some exceptions to both the stands. It could be the case that a poor person looks for satisfaction and not money. In that case, it can be said with quite surety that Money never formed a part of satisfaction in what we call as ‘Family Perspective’. The person, right from his childhood, would have not viewed Money as the ultimate purpose. In this case, the particular individual has adopted the point of view, state of mind and rationality through his family completely and the individual’s ‘Perspective’ is nothing but a mere reflection of his ‘Family Perspective’. Similarly, a person who is very rich and lived a life of luxury could also aim Money as his life’s objective. In this case, Satisfaction by some potential amount of money never formed the part of his ‘Family Perspective’ and as he has inherited that ‘Perspective’, he too, never Satisfaction as his highest purpose.

Narrow-minded vs. Broad-minded Approach:-

“That particular person is very Narrow-minded”. As people say to indicate some persons. According to me, the expansion of the area of thinking of anyone’s mind depends on the ‘Perspective’ which that particular person forms for his life. Narrow-minded people are closed individuals. Interlocked in the boundaries of their mind, their thinking and above all their ‘Perspective’, these people oppose liberalization and hence are generally not preferred for any Leadership tasks. It could be the case that their point of view and state of mind always remained at the negative extreme and hence they could not incorporate rational orientation ever into their thinking. In accordance to these facts, the ‘Perspective’ which they form for their life was never complete and therefore, they never open up towards the society.

Just opposite is the case with the so-called “Broad-minded people”. They never close themselves into the walls created by their mind. Their point of view and state of mind include great amount of adaptability and flexibility and hence the needed fuel of rational orientation is always available to run their mind-vehicle with sky-rocketing speeds in any direction. They also favor liberalization openly and that’s the reason they are rewarded with Leadership positions to excel their potential. In this case, the ‘Perspective’ formed is complete and so such individuals have higher affinity towards achieving greater public affection and support.

Love vs. Hate Feelings:-

“I Love You”. The three buzz words which could bring phenomenal changes in the life of two, sometimes three persons. ‘Love’ is also a reflection of the positive infinity of a feeling. Whenever you love a person, your point of view and state of mind are completely overtaken by the power of the feeling which drives your mind. Here is where rational orientation comes into picture to let you differentiate between infatuation and true love. The ‘Perspective’ which you form in this case leads you to break or make a particular relationship with any other person. The future of the relationship completely depends on the future of ‘Perspective’ formed.

Hatred, on the other hand, is a reflection of the negative infinity of a feeling. The state of mind, in which this negative point of view is formed is again governed by rational orientation. In this case, you need to understand the situation rationally if you want to develop a feeling of Hatred against any individual. Here, again, the future of the relationship depends upon the future of the ‘Perspective’ formed. There are also some cases where the feeling of Jealousy works like a spark to ignite the feeling of Hatred into any individual.

India-A Multi-Dimensional Picture

India, my country, your country and our country are the three most important ‘Perspectives’ to look towards this country. There are many people in our nation with the ‘Perspective’ or rather say, view point of ‘Your Country’. This includes the migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other foreign countries which consider India as a non-parent nation. The point of view of ‘Your Country’ combined with the state of mind at the time of migration, lead to the loss of rational orientation and this is the reason, the ‘Perspective’ formed by them doesn’t allow them to become part and parcel of this nation.

Secondly, some people consider India, or to be specific, some portions of India to be only ‘My Country’ and they want all the others to be thrown out of their territory. In this case, the point of view that migrants are causing harm to localites combined with the state of mind of personal profit disrupts the basic framework formation of rational orientation and therefore, the ‘Perspective’ formed by this type of countrymen only help in causing disrespect and hatred towards the members of other community and so destroying completely the structure of India.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the point of view of ‘Our Country’ is what is the need of the hour. The point of view of everyone’s nation spreads the message of secularism combined with the state of mind of Unity leads to a perfect rational orientation which, in turn, will lead India to the actual growth path. This ‘Perspective’ which is formed by combining the Secularism, Unity and Rationality will help us in providing a Democratic Government to the people securing their Sovereignty.


‘Perspective’, thus becomes the most demarcator of views, opinions, decisions and at the end, Conclusions. From Optimism to Pessimism, from Terrorism to Priestinism, from Success to Failure, from Tradition to Modernization, everything is governed by ‘Perspective’. There is only one vital point to be remembered

“Put things in Proper Perspective”

Topic: Are you a Son of the Soil??

Topic: Are you a “Son of the Soil”??
“We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, Equality and Fraternity……………………..”
This is a part of the Preamble of the Constitution of India which is unique and self-explanatory. Taking this into account when you observe the recent issue of “Sons of the Soil” ignited by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) supremo Raj Thackeray, you will be well aware of how much we follow the sacred statement of the Preamble. When Raj Thackeray, separated from his uncle Bala Saheb Thackeray and laid the foundation of MNS, it looked like some sort of revival and innovation in Maharashtra’s political circle. But when he spearheaded a movement against North Indians in Maharashtra, in general and Mumbai, in particular, it became clear that he is on the path of his veteran uncle.(It must be noted that Bala Saheb Thackeray lead a movement against South Indians in his former years). It could be said that what both parties are suffering from is not just vicious parochialism, but it is a fear of change that is deep-rooted and is self-destructive.

One fear, as was expressed by MNS leader Raj Thackeray, is that the ‘invasion’ of Mumbai by outsiders will affect ‘Marathi’ culture, as if ’Marathi’ culture is weak and easily-dominated. As the Preamble of our Constitution shows, India is a multi-cultural, multi-linguistic and multi-dimensional society. We have Bengali, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Tamil, Marathi and several other cultures working like an individual rose in the preternatural bouquet of Indian culture. In the thirties, one could recognize Parsis, Gujratis and Maharashtrians from the dress they wore. What would Mr. Raj Thackeray say about Maharashtrian ladies of this era wearing Salwar-Kameez or Jeans?? In the 1930’s there was not a single ‘Udupi’ restaurant in Mumbai and few people had heard about ‘idli sambhar’ and ‘masala dosa’. Today, there is hardly any restaurant run by Maharashtrians providing a typical ‘Maharashtrian’ thali.

Presently, Bangalore is flourishing with a vast speed and could be called as Mumbai of the South. If Mumbai is called as the financial capital of India, than surely, we can call Bangalore as the scientific capital or IT capital of the country. Top Multi National Corporations (MNCs) of the country recruit people from various parts of the country including Maharashtra. Should Bangaloreans trigger a movement against non-Kannadigas and throw out people from other states?? The reason for Bangalore’s success has been this incredible flexibility and adaptability to other cultures. This implies for both Mumbai

and Bangalore that major part of their profits are fetched by the people who are not of the same ethnicity to which the state belongs. The only difference is Mumbai has Shiv Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, who are more concerned of “cultural security” and “separatism” than their state’s or country’s growth. Raj Thackeray looked ridiculous when he was critical about Amitabh Bachchan and wanted to know what Bachchan has done for Maharashtra. Raj must have not noticed what Bachchan has done for India as a whole, which is more than what all the Thackerays put together have done for the country.

The Shiv Sena built its base by targeting non-Maharashtrians: South Indians, Gujratis, Muslims and by injecting fear through strategic violence. Raj Thackeray is building his base on the same platform. The politics of fear and hate are easiest recourse for politicians with no other ideology. It is a well known fact that MNS, after its split form Shiv Sena, has not done anything which could provide significant national media attention. In accordance to this, the “Sons of the Soil” issue provided that substantial input fire which MNS needed urgently. This thought of MNS, that “if we can’t compete with (so- called) ‘outsiders’, throw them out in order to save our faces” is an utterly immature and capricious one. If this thought turns into a principle, than there will be no movement of people, no interaction between different communities, thus inviting the death of a Sovereign Socialist Secular country and in turn, the dream of One India One People.

If the dejected and defected theory of Shiv Sena and MNS of “Maharashtra only for Maharashtrians” is accepted then we will be destroying the very concept of India and leave a great country floundering. Not extrapolating and exaggerating the situation, but if MNS succeeds in its objectives than we would soon come to know about Maharashtrians been thrown out of North India to work and reside in their so-called parent state disturbing the political and strategic situation of the country and last but not the least affecting the Unity and Secularity of India as a whole. The complete issue of “Sons of the Soil” raises one basic question:

“Is this the passing phenomenon or will it alter the demographics of the State and the Financial Capital???”