You see trees, cars, people etc on day through our eyes. The same things can be seen by you in the dreams (I hope you agree with me that you could see people or objects in dreams). You are seeing things in dream, but your eyes are closed and you are not seeing anything. Have you ever thought how is it possible? For the brain/mind there is no difference whether you see something through your eyes or the same things are fed to the brain by dream or your thoughts?

You see people walking, running, singing etc in the television (TV). You really feel the same way as people walk, run etc when watching the TV. But there is no person in the TV, there is no object/person moving in the TV. It is simply the bombardment of electrons on the florescent TV screen with certain time, velocity, position etc. Does it mean, you are either an intelligent person to interpret it or a fool to belive something which is not real?

Assume that you are from Mars, visiting this earth. You will see everything of human being is centered around sex -the songs, the stories, the movies, the drawings, the morality etc. Still, why no one is not talking about it openly and not so much study is done on it?

There are creature in this earth, which are a-sexual. Meaning, they have only one sex and they reproduce themselves. (One doesn't have to join with another one to reproduce). Human are bisexual. Meaning, they have two sex and they have to join together to reproduce. What could be the reason human are bisexual, why not a-sexual? (Please do not try to answer it with any religions scriptures)

Why one has to face so much hardship, pain, hurt for his/her love? Still, why people are willing to face all these? Why some are even ready to die for it? Why one has to pay so much price for love? Is that the higher the price paid for one's love, the higher the precious it be? Why one loves one person, but not the other person? Does really something called "love" exist or it is an illusion created by oneself?

Elections to make leaders is designed with a basic assumption that "majority is always right". Is this assumption right? Should we encourage this?

A person who is stake-holder of a system, above 18 years old, and does not know anything about the system. Can this person be given a token to select leaders to administer the system? Is it proper for a country like India (which has more number of such people) adopt the method called democratic election to select leaders to administer India? Which needs to be done before using these process and where do we need to concentrate?

You are ruled by laws of a system and you are bound by those laws of that system. Do you think, you would be ruled properly (by those laws) and you would be able to act properly, if you did not know the basics of those laws (which governs you)? Which needs to be done before adopting this ruling system?

A person who had become leader (through democratic process) of a state of 6 crore people and he administered them for years and years. That leader became old. Can that leader be treated against his basic reasonable wish by some of the stake-holders (who were administered by that leader)? Is this the fault of the system or the fault of the stake-holders?

One well educated person is awarded, by different organizations of a system and also by highest authority of the system, for his/her contribution towards the development of that system. After some time, one sub-system wants to punish that person for the same kind of contribution (mentioned above) saying that those contributions are against the law of the sub-system. Where is the fault? Who is responsible to correct this? The sub-system or the big system or the stake-holders of the subsystem or the stake-holders of the big system?

The eligibility of a person to contest, to become leader, was rejected by legal law of a system stating that the person acted against interest of the system and its stake-holders (Here the system is constructed and ruled by laws. Every stake-holder is bound by those laws. Those laws are implemented or practiced by accepted/licenced, so called, "educated" people.) But the stake-holders selected their representatives to make that leader (non-eligible) as leader of the system. Now, who is the fool? Who became the fool? Which one (rejection by legal law or selection by stake-holders)is correct? Is it the ignorance of the stake-holders or the ignorance of the people who implement those laws? Is the whole system wrong or not functioning as it should be? Where needs to be concentrated? Which one should be and must be corrected?

Is the human power (population) of 100 crore (1000 million) strengthens India or weakens India?

Is it proper to control population? Is it proper for a government to insist on how many kid(s) one can have?

A dinner for one person costs Rs 10 ($ 0.2)and Rs 2000 ($ 45)at different places of the same geographical area. In both places all are human beings, with almost same size of stomach, eat for the same purpose i.e., to live. Then why is that drastic price difference for food?

Poor people from hundreds of miles away from Chennai came to Chennai to participate in their political party's function (organized by the party). Because of the fact that the government representatives (suppose to protect the citizens) forgot who they are and what they are not supposed to do, violence broke-out.So we lost more than 6 Indian's lives; more than 100 Indians were injured. Who they are to lose their lives (he/she might be the bread winner of his/her poor family)? What did they gain out of this? (But the party leader and his family -they are part of the political party & function- did not get hurt)) Are these kind of incidents imply that Indian lives are too cheap? Who should take responsibility for this? Who should be and must be punished? Is this the indication of Indian political/democratic system's failure? Where is the problem, in the governing body or in the political leadership? Is this because of the ignorance of common (wo)man about politics? Is this because of his/her over-enthusiasm to participate in their government? Are people being mislead? Are people with out a proper leader to lead them? Where do we need to concentrate to "fix" this kind of problems?

Is killing of people by people wrong? A X person kills a Y person. If the person Y belongs to a place called enemy country, the X person will be awarded for this action stating that the X person defended the nation by killing the Y person. If the Y person is from the same country (and is a neighbor of the X person), the X person will be punished for the action stating that it is an offence and is against the law. Why do we have such a difference? Both cases are killing of lives. Both the Y person and the X person has his/her own family/father/mother and has his/her own wants and needs respectively. Then why the difference? People from Afghanistan come to Kashmir and lose their lives/body saying that they are fighting for freedom. People from Southern/Eastern part of India goes to Kashmir and lose their lives/body saying that they are defending their nation. Every one has their own life and family. What is the underlying principle or idea behind these things?

Why Indians succeed in countries ruled by whites and fail in their own country ruled by their own people? Examples: Rono Dutta has become head of United Airlines, the biggest airline in the world; Rana Talwar has become head of Standard Charted Bank, one of the biggest multinational banks in Britain; Rajat Gupta is head of Mckinsey, the biggest steel baron in the world, with steel plants in the US, Kazakhstan, Germany, Mexico, Trinidad, and Indonesia etc. Is this because of the present political situation/governance? How to put the "fix", if there is any problem with the present scenario?

The Consular Information Sheet - India dated June 14, 2000 published by US State Department (this is provided to the US citizens planning to travel India) says the following about TRAFFIC SAFETY AND ROAD CONDITIONS of India: "Travel by road is dangerous". "Travel at night is particularly hazardous". "Heavy traffic, including overloaded trucks and buses, scooters, pedestrians, and livestock, is the norm" ( exact detail ). What could be the reason that we have such a poor Traffic Safety? Where should we focus to eliminate this Traffic Safety problem?

Economic equality is the master key to non-violent. Working for economic equality means abolishing the eternal conflict between capital and labor. It means the leveling down of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth on the one hand, and a level ling up of the semi-starved naked millions on the other. A non-violent system of government is clearly an impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persists. Rome suffered a moral fall when it attained high material affluence. So did Egypt and so perhaps most countries of which we have any historical record. (This is thought of Mahatma Gandhi) What do you say?

Globalization is an objective reality underlining the fact that we are all passengers on the same vessel, that is, this planet where we all live. But passengers on this vessel are travelling in very different conditions. Overwhelming and hurting majorities are travelling in conditions that resemble the terrible slave trade from Africa to America in our colonial past. That is, 85% of the passengers on this ship are crowded together in its dirty hold suffering hunger, diseases and helplessness. Obviously, this vessel is carrying too much injustice to remain afloat and it pursues such an irrational and senseless route that it cannot call on a safe port. This vessel seems destined to clash with an iceberg. If that happened, we would all sink with it. All nations should remove protection instruments from their domestic markets while the difference in development between countries, no matter how big, would not justify separation from the only way offered without any possible alternative. Today, it is clearer than ever that the debt is not an economic but a political issue, therefore, it demands a political solution. It is impossible to continue overlooking the fact that the solution to this problem must basically come from those with resources and power, that is, the wealthy countries. (This is thought of Fideral Castro) What do you say?

Confirmed reports say: More than a million Iraqis (including over 5,00,000 children) have died due to reasons directly or indirectly connected to the delays or denials involved in the UN sanction committee procedures. Who should take responsibility for this? What needs to be done? Can we name this as a terrorist action?

If all European countries come together and could form a single entity, European Union, why can't the two nations, India and Pakistan, come together for their own benefit? What went wrong during the past 50 years? Where and how to start a new friendship?

I came across a word in Cambridge International Dictionary, "Delhi belly". The meaning it says: "a stomach illness often caught by people visiting India and caused by drinking dirty water or eating food which has not been washed". Should we need to do something to change the image we have in international stage? Or, this is the way we have been living and we will no matter what? What needs to be done?

In western countries like USA, knowing/forecasting about weather condition is so important. Because, it heavily affects almost everything: travel, dress, plan any work etc. Knowing about weather and planning accordingly is a must in USA. This is true from my own experience too. I am not completely convinced on the need for a common (wo)man in India to know about daily weather condition. Still TV channels in India spend time to give information on daily weather to common (wo)man. Is it only because western TV news channels give information on daily weather? Is this an example of foolishly copying western ideas with out understanding the reason/purpose? Even some TV channels in India go to the extreme. They spend time to show the pollution level of the day (just passed). What if the pollution of the day, which you have just spent, is very high or very low? Will you plan not to breath the next day, if the pollution level is too high? Will you plan to change the next day's work, if the pollution level is too high? Does this demonstrate that that TV channel wanted to show: They are the first to do things and do different things with out understanding the real reason/purpose.

If I take anything that I do not need for my own immediate use, and keep it, I thieve it from somebody else. I venture to suggest that it is the fundamental law of Nature, without exception, that Nature produces enough for our wants from day to day, and if only every-body took enough for himself and nothing more, there would be no pauperism in this world, there would be no man dying of starvation in this world. But so long as we have got this inequality, so long we are thieving. I am no socialist and I do not want to dispossess those who have got possessions: but I do say that, personally, those of us who want to see light out of darkness have to follow this rule. I do not want to dispossess anybody. If somebody else possesses more than I do, let him. In India we have got three millions of people having to be satisfied with one meal a day, and that meal consisting of a chapati containing no fat in it, and a pinch of salt. You and I have no right to anything that we really have until these three millions are clothed and fed better. You and I, who ought to know better, must adjust our wants, and even undergo voluntary starvation in order that they may be nursed, fed and clothed. (This is thought of Mahatma Gandhi)

What was best was that nobody should possess more than he could himself use. That was the ideal society should strive to reach. Every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary, to clothe and house himself. But for this very simple performance we need no assistance from economists or their laws. (This is thought of Mahatma Gandhi) What do you say?

They killed five Dalits, at Jhajhar in Haryana, for skinning a cow. They say the Hindu scriptures prohibit such an act. Is a cow's life worthier than that of five Dalits? The Dalits have had to pay an enormous price, for remaining untouchables, for removing carcasses from villages and towns for thousands of years. They had to pay the price of remaining illiterate and insecure for building up the leather economy of India. What do you say?

Dravidian political parties in India are suppose to represent dravidian movement's ideology. They are suppose to work for the welfare of dravidians against those who suppress people by the name of religion and/or other false/foolish beliefs. One interesting thing is, one of the dravidian party is lead by one such person (the birth or existence of these dravidian parties is to oppose such kind of people) Are these parties really fulfilling the real purpose of their birth? Are they misleading people by the name of their political party? What do you say?