Right Vision

In a construction site, a worker was asked ‘what is he doing there?’ ‘I am laying bricks’ he said. The same question was asked to another. He said ‘I am building a wall’. The same question was posed to a third worker. Third one said ‘I am constructing a building’. The first one is doing it just for the sake of his wages (money) without any mental involvement to his job or least bothered about the overall development. The second worker is little more involved in his job, but without knowing much of what is he doing or the knowing the final outcome. However, the third worker is highly involved and enjoying of what is he doing. The first worker is an example for ‘complimentary goal’ in which he is complimented for what is he doing and the matter end there itself. The second worker is an example for ‘necessary goal’ in which he felt the necessity of his involvement to a certain extend that gives a necessary compensation in terms of money, self satisfaction and promotion. The third wor

A historical verdict evokes three different responses. Before I explain the responses, I consider it historic, because the verdict does not limit within the legal domains and suggest the parties to move forward with compromising formula of joint possessions or joint holders of the property. It is historic, because the judges thought about the social implications, which is again beyond the legal purview and practices in India. Rarely judges show their vision of social implications on positive direction and therefore, we must appreciate the panel of judges, though one of them categorically dismissed relief to Muslims and awarded the entire property to Hindu parties. It took sixty one years to decide on the title holders, but largely based on the belief, practices and utilization of the property in the absence of valid or clear documents and entitlements. No victory or loss – proclaimed by RSS parivars including BJP. A base for reconciliation – thumped by other political parties and i