Money Relations Vs Blood Relations

Money Relations Vs Blood Relations

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 4th Oct. 2016

Money Talks. Especially on the commercial news media. This is on open display now. Especially during the frenzied up debates on Terror, rebuttal and its aftermath. Most people with a money component in relations have spoken viz. Actors, exporters-importers, authors, sportsmen and even sports authority bosses etc. apart from the usual politico-strategic community, Chutbhaiya politicians (is a state or industry or community) and local dada –s (strongman in guise of political netas). The people who may have relatives in the ‘enemy’ territory (taking the current phraseology in vogue) seem to be curiously absent from such debates. Now these can be from usual Muslims or even some Hindus or Sikhs/Christians (given the cultural bonding). However, the political class behooves upon themselves as representative of this class with a responsibility to be pushing even their interests’, even if a minority, howsoever small. It might be curious that on percentage basis such community might be a larger proportion of total population in Pakistan, given the size of India. However such people have been curiously absent in debates, whichever side of news or commercial news media is picked up. And no global media would talk about it either although a lucrative scoring point, but of course with high stakes. The only other community that has not been covered is that of the doctors and patients, reflecting the nature of interests being protected or highlighted.

While the Indian news media has mostly played on the lines of public perspectives, the global perspectives have however been ignored including the myth hereunder either explicit or subtle. Like the theme of muslim brotherhood, which has been built out of some resolutions being passed somewhere. Even though the Arab muslims would have markedly different treatment from Muslims from within the Arab world and outside. There may be a category of Arab from the rich world vis-à-vis say an Egyptian and then subsequently others. In fact is rather more open & developed Arab world, the treatment meted out for Indian might be the same irrespective of say religion. However the ‘special relationship’ of the politico-strategic variety keeps getting sold to the gullible population on the back of some ‘alms’ that some leaders might be able to canvass for, usually on the back of some political compromises and/or understanding. Of course, some leaders might be able to build up a global image on the back of such act of charity. Then we of course have the ‘clergy’ willing to play the ball for its own reasons. Curiously this may have only resulted in some greater bloodshed with the regions dominated by politico-religion community, rather than being a cause of ‘development and prosperity’, however again the commercial news media would not slip a word about the same. This is because it is trade and investment on back of upliftment of technological capabilities that have resulted in development and prosperity of regions rather than ‘alms’, and that has been the reason why emerging nations have yearned for trade and market access instead of ‘aid’ lately.

That said, the theme balancing between the media of the two countries to remain fixed of domestic political compulsions is reflected in a healthy manner. The Dal-chawal issues (where both nations import Dal and compete to export Chawal) of the population is bided good-bye. That both countries have usually been reluctant in promoting people to people ties is also known but why is that entrepreneurs immigration into each other is at nadir (not talking about investments from corporate here) when they are promoting ‘development and prosperity’ in their domestic arena. If investing entrepreneurs ready to bet big time in a country are allowed to migrate and settle, it might send far stronger signals and nations might have some successes to showcase but have not been considered for rather unknown reasons certainly not liberalism at its core. Altough the political class would continue to call itself a messiah as usual. The same thing however has not applied to Don and other smaller goonda elements though and political class has indeed acted like messiah here. So the author thought to bring out the points usually not taken up in the ‘game’ by the mass media, as usual…

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

In the intricate web of human relationships, the dynamics between money relations and blood relations often present a fascinating and sometimes conflicting interplay. Blood relations, rooted in the unbreakable bonds of family, are typically characterized by a deep emotional connection and a sense of inherent responsibility. These ties are formed not by choice but by birth, and they often come with a built-in support system that can be counted on in times of need. On the other hand, money relations, which are based on financial transactions and economic interests, can be more tenuous and are often formed out of mutual benefit or necessity. While money can bring people together and facilitate cooperation, it can also strain or even sever relationships, especially when conflicts over resources arise. In many cultures, the importance of blood relations is emphasized over money relations, as the former is seen as a foundation for moral and social stability. However, in a rapidly globalizing and economically driven world, the lines between these two types of relations are increasingly blurred, leading to complex situations where financial dependencies can sometimes outweigh familial bonds. Ultimately, the balance between money and blood relations is a delicate one, often requiring careful navigation to ensure that the pursuit of financial gain does not come at the expense of the emotional and ethical fabric that binds families together.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Money Relations Vs Blood Relations

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 4th Oct. 2016

Money Talks. Especially on the commercial news media. This is on open display now. Especially during the frenzied up debates on Terror, rebuttal and its aftermath. Most people with a money component in relations have spoken viz. Actors, exporters-importers, authors, sportsmen and even sports authority bosses etc. apart from the usual politico-strategic community, Chutbhaiya politicians (is a state or industry or community) and local dada –s (strongman in guise of political netas). The people who may have relatives in the ‘enemy’ territory (taking the current phraseology in vogue) seem to be curiously absent from such debates. Now these can be from usual Muslims or even some Hindus or Sikhs/Christians (given the cultural bonding). However, the political class behooves upon themselves as representative of this class with a responsibility to be pushing even their interests’, even if a minority, howsoever small. It might be curious that on percentage basis such community might be a larger proportion of total population in Pakistan, given the size of India. However such people have been curiously absent in debates, whichever side of news or commercial news media is picked up. And no global media would talk about it either although a lucrative scoring point, but of course with high stakes. The only other community that has not been covered is that of the doctors and patients, reflecting the nature of interests being protected or highlighted.

While the Indian news media has mostly played on the lines of public perspectives, the global perspectives have however been ignored including the myth hereunder either explicit or subtle. Like the theme of muslim brotherhood, which has been built out of some resolutions being passed somewhere. Even though the Arab muslims would have markedly different treatment from Muslims from within the Arab world and outside. There may be a category of Arab from the rich world vis-à-vis say an Egyptian and then subsequently others. In fact is rather more open & developed Arab world, the treatment meted out for Indian might be the same irrespective of say religion. However the ‘special relationship’ of the politico-strategic variety keeps getting sold to the gullible population on the back of some ‘alms’ that some leaders might be able to canvass for, usually on the back of some political compromises and/or understanding. Of course, some leaders might be able to build up a global image on the back of such act of charity. Then we of course have the ‘clergy’ willing to play the ball for its own reasons. Curiously this may have only resulted in some greater bloodshed with the regions dominated by politico-religion community, rather than being a cause of ‘development and prosperity’, however again the commercial news media would not slip a word about the same. This is because it is trade and investment on back of upliftment of technological capabilities that have resulted in development and prosperity of regions rather than ‘alms’, and that has been the reason why emerging nations have yearned for trade and market access instead of ‘aid’ lately.

That said, the theme balancing between the media of the two countries to remain fixed of domestic political compulsions is reflected in a healthy manner. The Dal-chawal issues (where both nations import Dal and compete to export Chawal) of the population is bided good-bye. That both countries have usually been reluctant in promoting people to people ties is also known but why is that entrepreneurs immigration into each other is at nadir (not talking about investments from corporate here) when they are promoting ‘development and prosperity’ in their domestic arena. If investing entrepreneurs ready to bet big time in a country are allowed to migrate and settle, it might send far stronger signals and nations might have some successes to showcase but have not been considered for rather unknown reasons certainly not liberalism at its core. Altough the political class would continue to call itself a messiah as usual. The same thing however has not applied to Don and other smaller goonda elements though and political class has indeed acted like messiah here. So the author thought to bring out the points usually not taken up in the ‘game’ by the mass media, as usual…

This article offers an exceptional deep dive into the complexities of political policy. The writer's writing style is both analytical and accessible, making intricate policy discussions understandable and engaging for a broad audience. Their ability to translate dense political mechanics into relatable prose is a significant asset, demonstrating a profound understanding paired with strong communication skills. The structure is meticulously organized, systematically breaking down the policy in question and exploring its various facets with a methodical yet engaging approach. This allows readers to grasp the nuances and implications thoroughly. Furthermore, the outstanding clarity of the policy analysis is a defining feature. The arguments are presented with such precision, and the potential outcomes so plainly articulated, that the article becomes an invaluable guide for anyone seeking to understand the real-world impact of political decisions.