My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Love is the best anti-depressant 'medicine' that may promote inner peace

Love the best antidepressant is necessary for the mind as well as food for the body. The more committed you are, you look more healthy both in body and soul.

Most people who experience depression do not love themselves and do not feel loved by others. At the same time some people so focus on themselves that they destroy their attractiveness. As a result, they often sit passively, waiting to get someone who will love them. But love is probably not working that way. To get and sustain love, you must go out to expose and learn a variety of different skills.

There is a mythology in our culture that love is a coincidence. It's part of our cultural vulnerability, such as fast-food, constantly irritating pictures and instant satisfaction. So often we think this is love, while in reality this is is only a 'infatuation' or an erotic madness.

The result could be that when you stand in front of a real love, you feel confused and frustrated because there were so many that did not fit the cultural "ideal". Some of us become demanding and choosy , and we ask others to do what we believe in the ideals of romance without realizing that our ideal is probably unrealistic.

Therefore it is not only possible but necessary to change one's perspective to see the love in his life.

Some simple suggestions include:

* Recognize the difference between sex and love. Love often exists in a state of intense erotic madness. It is beautiful but rarely lasts. Love is often the first stage of mad attraction where all the hormones go up and you feel the life is so beautiful. This state usually lasts for, on the average, six months. This may lead to love. Most love stories emanate from love, but many stories of crazy love do not develop a deep love.

* Realize that love is a learned skill and not something caused by hormones. The Erich Fromm calls it "an act of will. It is important to learn the skills to love because it will feel to be linked with other person, that you love. This reduces the chances of experiencing failures and depression.

* Learn proper communication skills. It allows you to develop confidence and strengthen your connection with your loved one. The more you communicate the better understanding you will develop..

* There are always some basic differences between two people regardless of how close they feel. If the relationship goes well, these differences go to the background. Therefore, the issue is to strengthen one of these differences and negotiate so as not to become a distraction for the other. This is done to fully grasp the roots of others. When these differences are known you will have to negotiate and settle upon them to find common ground for better functionality.

* Be willing to help. Depression keeps people so focused on the self. The more you concentrate on the other, the more you learn to respond to their needs and better contribute to your relationship.

* Expand the capacity to adapt easily to a common reality. The reality of the beloved needs you to be informed as yours. What do I need? People with depression feel that the only reality is their pessimistic view.

* Questioning yourself with the internal messages of personal failure. Sensitivity to rejection is a primary symptom of depression. As a result of low self-esteem, relationship is interpreted as a personal failure.

This is how love can remove your depression and promote inner peace within yourself

Civil Wars can be more devastating for Peace and Mankind than the Tradional Wars between the Countries

Apart from the traditional wars which are fought between the countries, we have another type of war also. This war is fought within th country but between two warring factions , tribes clans, or groups. These groups can be based on race,language,religion or at times the ideological differences. If that happens the government of that country becomes one of the warring faction. And the other group or groups may name their fight or struggle as a revolution. The war of lbreration also falls within the same category.
Now these types of wars cannot e termed as the private violence. The private violence is the violation of law of the land for the personal benefits of the indivual or the group of individuals indulging in such acts. People conducting civil wars always have a broader objective in front of them. They would be either fightin g to overthow the sitting government ( revolution) or to get the freedom,autonomy from the government(liberation) or to get the economic and political rights for a particular region.

The people conducting a struggle to over throw the government call it a revolution. They design their own set of rules and laws that are in contravention with the existing lawful authority. However the those who are in power never recognize such struggles as legal and hustified. The sitting government does not recognize them as legitimate combatants. They are lebelled as the bandits, the agents of the enemy and even the terrorists. A common axiom is : if the revolution succeeds , they become the hero, if it fails the leader of the revolution is treated as traitor and dealt with according to law of the land, which normally culminates into death penalty.
On the other hand the revolutions in general have not yet constituted the legitimate authorities and thus they have their own laws. At times the revolution starts with some aim and ends up with a different aim. More over the leadership of a revolution may not necessarily remain the one that started it. The revolutions can be hijacked by some other person that crop up accidently during the process of revolution.
Many revolutions emerge from within the civil wars. A civil war may start with some objective ie to secure the economic and political rights for the people of a particular area, but it may transform into a revolution , aimng at changing the government. In civil wars the combatants are not clearly identifiable because they do not wear separate insignias . In the French Revolution the Bastille was attacked by the people, that were a composite mass, not clearly defined. Similary the enemies of the revolution were the nobles, even priests. The categories were very vague and uncertain making it difficult to lay down the rules of behavior .
It may be construed from the history that the civil wars are normally more brutal, mere because of the fact that the ruls are neither clearly defined nor are they followed by the warring factions. Take the example of tribal wars in African countires like Congo. The genocide of the opponents is so cruel that it is unyhinkable in the civilized societies. In a bid to carry out ethnic cleansing of the rivals, the whole tribe, including women, children and the old are butchered ruthlessly. Their limbs are amputated and at times they are burnt alive.
The question arises then how to avoid such categoris of wars? It is only through education, economic development and safeguarding the rights of all the people, without any distindtion of race, language or religion , that such catastrophes can be averted.

Why was Saddam Hussain spared by the US after Second Gulf War in 1991?

Saddam Hussain as a Ruler

Saddam Hussain, the former ruler of Iraq, was a dictator of his own kind with no parallel in the modern world. He gained power in Iraq through his political ‘Ba’ath Party’. After assuming power he suppressed his people through the use of ruthless force and brute techniques. The ‘Shiite’ Muslims, though being in majority, were denied their political and religious rights and were always kept away from power. They were not even allowed to celebrate their religious rituals of “Aashur’ in the holy city of Karbala. Similarly the Kurd population in the north Iraq was victimized. They were targeted and bombarded with brute use of force. The Kurds were even subject to the genocide by employing chemical weapons against their civilian population centers. The intelligence network of Saddam was so dreadful and effective that no one in the country could escape its wrath. The voices of dissent were crushed immediately by eliminating the opponents, even if they were from his family and clan.

Saddam attacks Iran

The political party of Saddam Hussain, ‘Ba’ath Party’ that was in power, had a socialist orientation. Hence neither his party nor Saddam Hussain himself had to do anything with Islam or Islamic ideology. Till second Gulf War, the posture of Saddam Hussain was that of a pure secular dictator; however during the war he amended his profile to display as a champion of Islam, just to attract the sympathies of the Muslim world.He invariably got himself photographed while sitting on a mat and saying prayers. At times he would compare himself with Saladin, the great Muslim leader who fought Crusades with the Christian armies of Europe in 10th century. All this was a pseudo behavior as his actions never matched with the values and teachings of Islam. Despite his inhuman behavior and policies, Saddam Hussain was continuously pampered by the West. It is so unfortunate that the western democratic countries vehemently supported a dictator like Saddam, just to fulfill their own aims. A huge amount of military aid was provided to Iraq to make her army as a formidable force to face the Iranian Islamic revolutionary state. The result was obvious. Saddam Hussain attacked Iran in 1980 without any provocation but was supported by the West. Imbued with the spirit of patriotism and inspired the revolutionary teachings of their leader. Ayatulla Khomeni, the whole Iranian nation put up a formidable resistance and achieved success against Iraq, despite heavy odds.

The Gulf War 1991

Saddam Hussain then planned to capture Kuwait in 1990. He based his strategy on the assumption that the West, particularly the Americans will not interfere militarily with his adventure. It is yet not clear to the political and military analysts as to how Saddam could commit such a blunder without taking his benefactors ie the West, into confidence. One opinion is that the Americans themselves prompted Saddam to take this action so that they may have an excuse to interfere and then station their forces permanently in the Middle East. Whatever the case may have been, Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait and occupied it virtually without any resistance. This adventure directly threatened UAE, Behrain, Qatar and even Saudi Arabia. It seemed as if Saddam Hussain was out on a winning spree in order to become the master of the richest lands of the world. Obviously the whole world opinion turned against Saddam and wanted to get rid of this menace. The military alliance created under the leadership of the US was unprecedented. It comprised troops from not only the Western countries but the significant Arab countries like Egypt, Syria, UAE and Saudi Arabia also contributed their troops. Even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan sent their troops to fight against Iraq as the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was being seen as a naked aggression and was to be undone at all cost. Israel was however kept out of war due to political reasons.

The Operation Desert Sabre was virtually a walk over. It was a one-sided battle that broke the myth of Saddam’s military strength. The Iraqi army suffered casualties like sitting ducks. Saddam never used his air force and chemical weapons which he had been threatening to use. The surface to surface Scud missiles proved to be total failure. Most of these missiles were neutralized by the under cover agents of the UK even before the war. The battle became a testing ground for the most sophisticated weapons held by the Western countries which played havoc with the Iraqis, destroying every target with precision and impunity. The morale of Iraqi army descended to its lowest ebb. Most of the soldiers surrendered without fighting. They sold their weapons in Kuwait city to get the fare for their journey back home. Iraqi army even could not carry out a planned withdrawal from Kuwait. The road from Kuwait to Baghdad was littered with the destroyed Iraqi tanks, vehicles and dead soldiers. After having 15000 Iraqi soldiers and 45000 Iraqi civilians dead, Saddam Hussain ordered cease fire and withdrawal from Kuwait.

Aftermath of the War and Strategic Blunder of the Allies

The plan of the allied forces was to retake Kuwait from the Iraqi possession. It was a very limited and short term aim and had its own consequences. The larger strategic aim should have been to remove Saddam Hussain from power. By then it was proved beyond doubt that he was a war criminal at international level and a cruel ruler who had been massacring his own people with impunity. Even George Bush, the then president of the US had declared ‘Saddam as worst than Hitler’. If that was the case, then why were the Iraqi people, the Middle East and the world as a whole left at the mercy of Saddam? The US could have very easily helped Iraqi people to replace the tyrant dictator with a democratic set up as the whole world was having a consensus on this. Had this been done back in 1991, the world would have been different today. The US misconstrued the aftermath of war and thought that the people of Iraq would themselves remove Saddam Hussain from power as no ruler can stay in power after such humiliation. That analysis of the situation was against the ground realities. The nations, whose ego, liberty, personal respect, freedom of expression and freedom of thought is crushed over a prolonged period of time, can never think of rising up to face a dictator in order to get their rights. Only the nations can stand up to face their cruel ruler and usurpers who have the life and spark left in them. Some analysts say that the Americans spared Saddam Hussain purposely so that he could again be used for some malicious plans in the future. But that time never came.


Saddam Hussain remained in power for the next about 13 years. He neither played any positive role nor did he prove useful for the West for his remaining period in power, till we saw the dawn of year 2003 and with it the America’s war on Iraq. Now after seven years of fighting in Iraq, what has the American nation gained or lost, is writing on the wall. The big question is: Did sparing of Saddam Hussain in 1991 help the promotion of global peace or otherwise? The answer is left to the political analysts. However the lesson learn t is that the strategic decisions taken by the super powers always have lasting effects on the world peace.

Nelson Mandela: The Man who Changed History with his Courage and Steadfastness

Nelson Mandela is one of those personalities of the present times who have changed the course of history through their courage, dedication and valor. South Africa a country predominantly inhabited by the natives was being ruled by a tiny minority of white people. Had it been a rule of law or the rule that ensures the human rights of all the people without ant discrimination on the basis of race or color, it would have been acceptable, at least for the time being. But the government there was the worst example of racialism and violation of the human rights.

Nelson Mandela was the person who led his people the freedom. He rose above his personal interests and always kept the interest of his nation as supreme. He was offered attractive incentives as a price of his loyalty and sincerity but he never scummed to those offers. He preferred a prolonged imprisonment over the freedom that was over shadowed with a tinge of slavery. He knew that if he spends his prime age in the prison, his people will have the taste of freedom, and he proved that. This was the forces of his character that carried him along despite heavy odds.

A leader of his unique standing, Nelson Mandela had a deep insight for the regional and global affairs. Many a times he would spread pearls of wisdom during his speeches and informal talks. He was a great proponent of African unity and its freedom. Once he said,” I dream of the realization of the unity of Africa, whereby its leaders combine in their efforts to solve the problems of this continent. I dream of our vast deserts, of our forests, of all our great wildernesses.

Apart from having a knowledge of geo-political scenario, Nelson Mandela had a thorough understanding of the human nature and psychology. He is quoted to have said.” I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear”. Realizing the importance of education for making progress in today’s world he says,” Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.

After having achieved the fist phase of his objectives, Nelson Mandela did not cling to the power, as most of leaders do, rather he retired from active politics happily and handed over the reins of leadership to the younger generations. However despite taking a relief, the personality of Nelson Mandela serves as a beacon of knowledge, guidance and peace and will remain so for decades to come.

Increasing strategic relationship between Iran and Sri Lanka can be a stabilizing factor in the region that may help in promoting peace.

Sri Lanka is a small island country in Indian Ocean situated just at the lower tip of India. It is a multi ethnic and multi lingual country with very small economic resources. The country has retained its independence and sovereignty over the past many centuries. The country possesses an effective profile of a peaceful nation with no political and strategic alignments. Sri Lanka has enjoyed equally good relations with India and Pakistan (although both these countries have many differences and disputes of their own), with Arab countries as well as with Israel.

Unfortunately Sri Lanka got involved in a prolonged counter insurgency war against Tamil Tigers (LTTE), a faction of their own who started war against the central authority of Sri Lanka. This war continued for about twenty six years and took an heavy toll of life, property and the economy of the country. As Sri Lanka depended heavily on other countries for her defense needs, they had to import even the pistol bullets fro abroad. India helped them by sending a peacekeeping contingent in 1980s which failed and had to return back. Pakistan cooperated with Sri Lanka by imparting training to officers of Sri Lankan army and has been providing them defense equipment on credit. The war against terror organization LTTE ended with a total victory of Sri Lankan Army

In order to further improve their economic and defense situation, Sri Lanka has now looked towards Iran who has responded positively. Both the countries have started a new era of mutual cooperation in economic development. Both countries have been giving joint statements regarding nuclear non proliferation. Sri Lanka has recently given statement that Iran has the right to acquire nuclear technology for its energy production. Since 2008 a number of mutual visits have been carried out by the delegations of both the countries and given statements stressing the need of improving bilateral relations. Of late Iran has agreed to extend low interest loans to Sri Lanka for purchase of defense hardware. Iran has also offered to train Sri Lankan military and intelligence officers. Iran has recently signed three MOUs with Sri Lanka with a view to improving trade. At present Iran provides crude oil that meets 80 % of the requirement of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has suggested establishing a nuclear power plant by 2030 for which technical help will be sought from Iran

Iran and Sri Lanka have very few things in common; no common borders, no common religion, culture or language and no common enemy. The boosting up of the mutual relationship seems to be for mutual development and peace. As a foreign minister of Sri Lanka had remarked while on visit to Iran, "ours is a friendship based on mutual trust and understanding…Iran is sincerely committed to the development of Sri Lanka, whom we consider to be a true friend." This proves that bilateral relations can be established without any prejudice to the interests of other countries. This is what the aim in international relations should be ie to promote global peace, not at the expense of others.

The Impressions of a Japanese Child who Survived Nuclear Attack

"Why do wars happen"

What if war breaks out. I thought a lot about this. For one thing, the war would start on any issues in the country. The problem, for example, a country says "Give me money." Or "give us cheap oil." Saying, "No." If I had all that, the war may begin in frustration. In addition, there is a weak nation in a country, if it wanted to rule the country but will be vulnerable to aggression by other countries, the war might begin.

The second example, a country ( country A) and have a great state full of bad people, people without a leader unlike other countries (country B) . the country with good leaders will say to country A, fine, we will help you to run your affairs. country A may say , no thank you, we can do it at our own. this may annoy country B and the war may begin. I think the war happen.

"On War"

I know that war, I learned a lot. To war when we're killing each other is really scary.
I live where there is no war, but the world may have a war. The war can start where I live.
I heard many stories about the war and the atomic bomb in Japan. My teacher taught me many things. If there is war in Japan we learn o educate our children about that, because war separates children from their parents. I want to live with my parents at my home.

War is scary.

"Today's children are of atomic bomb legacy" I'm so innocent about bomb that people died of the bomb and I also died. but that did not do anything wrong, I died at the age of 20. The atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima Osowa and at that time Ms Sadako was just two years old, she lost a grandmother at that time.Ten years later, Ms. Sadako contracted acute leukemia caused by atomic bomb and died before I graduated from elementary school.But she is known as the Children Peace, a child died at a young age because of the bomb just as many others did. The innocent children of the future may also die this way. I think it's unfair to say that had the Japanese surrendered earlier, the atomic bomb would not have dropped.


I looked to UNICEF. After World War II, but I really helped the children of Japan. UNICEF was created in 1946. The children had lost parents, With no house to live, but UNICEF kept helping children to eat. UNICEF was sending medicines and milk for lunch in Japan from 1949 to 1964. It sent material and clothes. Even today UNICEF is doing great job.

The Cooler Side of Nuclearization. Can the World Live Peacefully under the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons?


One of the questions that haunts the peace lovers is that can the world communities coexist mutually with peace despite piling up of nuclear arsenal around them? Unfortunately the history provides the answer in affirmative. We are not at all in favor of countries possessing nuclear weapons, but at least as an interim measure it seems a rather plausible solution to create a sense of security, howsoever it may be a false one.

Testimonies from survivors of the two times nuclear weapons that have been used in World War II are stories of unimaginable cruelty and suffering. Charred corpses, eyes that melted out of the skull and powdered human bodies were results of just some of the atomic bombs the Americans dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Nuclear weapons have been improved since then. Any full scale nuclear war would result in casualties that may be in millions, if not billions and an unlimited destruction of mankind.

The capability of nuclear weapons to unleash total destruction is still the most plausible reason why they have not yet been used.The fear of nuclear war can be seen as the guarantor of the peace that has prevailed between the world's major powers since World War II. Without nuclear weapons the world would probably have been a dangerous place to live.

Balance of Terror - The Cold Peace

With the exception of the first years after the nuclear weapons were developed by the United States, the world in the nuclear age was characterized by less uncertainty. Terror balance between NATO and the Soviet Union, a situation in which there was no doubts about both sides' ability to annihilate the other, urged the parties to do everything they could to avoid war. Cuba missile crisis of 962 is a good example. Had this been a crisis between the two conventional forces, it could soon have developed into a bloody war. The two countries being nuclear power if went to full fledged war would have meant an inevitable counterattack and thus a catastrophic consequences for one's own country and people would have followed. it has been emphasized by analysts that the period between the World War II and fall of the Berlin wall should not be named as the era of cold war, rather a more suitable name would be the cold peace.

Example of India and Pakistan

There is also a good reason to believe that relations between India and Pakistan would have been much more unstable and strained, had both countries not been nuclear powers. Even if India were a nuclear power and Pakistan were not, the balance of power would have severely tilted in favor of India, thereby putting the whole region in a very dangerous situation. In 1998 both countries came to the brink of a full fledged war on Kargil issue, but thanks to the nuclear weapons held by both, the catastrophe was averted. Similarly in 2001 when the Indian parliament in New Delhi was attacked by a few gunmen, the Indian government mobilized their forces and deployed all along the Pakistan border. As a reaction Pakistan also deployed its forces. The armed forces of both countries remained in eyeball to eyeball contact for about one year. However not a single shot was fired from either side, again due to fear of a possible nuclear escalation.

Iraq Catastrophe

Similarly, had Iraq been a nuclear power in 2003, we would probably have not seen the war at all. The world would have escaped the biggest tragedy of the century and over one hundred thousand civilian human lives would have been saved.

My Opinion
Our dream is that we want to see a world completely void of nuclear weapons. However, till the time the human mind gets sufficient maturity to implement that agenda, all the countries that have their own security concerns may be allowed to develop and possess nuclear weapons. This will create a balance of deterrence and will help to avoid spreading of wars. This is how the aim of global peace can be achieved, at least as a short term measure.