In Diversity Flourish Unity. In Unity Flourish War.

ঐক্যতা ভিন্নতাৰ প্ৰতিক। Only in diversity, there is unity.

কথাষাৰ কিবা অকৰা টাইপ। Strange to read and accept the obvious meaning. ঐক্যতা আৰু ভিন্নতা বিপৰীত শব্দ হৈ কেনেকে ইটো সিটোৰ প্ৰতিক হ'ব পাৰে। Unity is supposed to reduce diversity, and how does it flourish in diversity.

How could anyone say, unity survives in diversity? ভিন্নতাই ঐক্যতা আনিছে নেকি? আমি কি ইচ্ছা কৰি ভিন্নতাক আৱিষ্কাৰ কৰিছো নেকি?

Could we have unity if there was no diversity?

ধৰ্ম নথকা হেতেঁন আমি একত্ৰিত নহ'লো হেতেঁন নেকি? Couldn't we have agricultural societies without religion and class systems in ancient Mesopotamia? Could we have them today? সম্প্ৰদায় বা সামূহিকতা ধৰ্মৰ অবিহনে সম্ভৱ নহ'ল হেতেঁন নেকি? খেতি-বাতি সামূহিকতাৰ অবিহনে সম্ভৱ আছিল নে? Could we have communities without imposing diversity, which would engage in a mass labour intensive activity like agriculture? Was nation building possible without religion? গাওঁ, ৰাজ্য আৰু দেশৰ সৃষ্টি হ'ল হেতেঁন নে?

বান্দৰৰ দলএটা বোলে ২০-২৫টা বান্দৰতকে বেছি হ'লে তুমূল কাজিয়া হয় আৰু ভাগ ভাগ হৈ যায়। Monkeys fight and find a different leader if the group becomes larger than 20-25 monkeys. If chimpanzees had religion, they would have perhaps moved around in much larger groups. Probably, even had territories and fought with homo sapiens. বান্দৰ জাতিৰ ধৰ্ম বা ভিন্নতা অনা নিয়ম থকা হেতেঁন, মানৱ জাতিৰ লগত সিহঁতে ঐক্য হৈ যুদ্ধ কৰিল হেতেঁন।

মানৱ জাতিয়েও হেনো ২০-২৫ জনৰ ওপৰত হ'লে একেলগে থাকিব নোৱাৰে। সেইকাৰনে, একত্ৰিত কৰিবলৈ কল্পনাৰ সহায় ল'ব লগা হ'ল। বিভিন্ন ভগৱানৰ আৱিষ্কাৰ কৰিব লগা হ'ল। Humans also couldn't live peacefully beyond a group size of 20-25 people. So, even though all spiritual studies say there is just one Supreme  power, but we had to divide that power into many Gods to bring in an imagined order of diversity to unite large sections of the population. ভগৱানক ভিন্ন কৰি বিভিন্ন নিয়মক ভগৱানৰ আদেশ বুলি নিয়মবোৰেৰে সম্প্ৰদায় গঠন কৰা হ'ল। প্ৰত্যেক সম্প্ৰদায়ে নিজৰ মাজত একতা আনিবলে বিভিন্ন বেলেগ সম্প্ৰদায়তকে ভিন্ন নিয়ম বনাবলৈ ললে।

This unity helped in the ruling of a large population by a few monarch/leaders, and also to create a huge homogeneous work force. একতা থাকিলে এটা বিৰাত জনগনক নিয়ন্ত্ৰণ বা শোষন কৰিবলৈ সহজ, আৰু সামূহিক কৰ্ম দ্বাৰা যঠেষ্ট উৎপাদন কৰিব পৰা যায়। জনসংখ্যা বৃদ্ধিৰ লগতে উৎপাদনৰ বৃদ্ধি অতি দৰকাৰ হৈ পৰিছিল। A coordinated work force was essential for a rapidly growing population since agricultural subsistence living started in place of a life of hunting and gathering.

ঐক্যতা ৰক্ষা কৰিবলৈ সৃষ্টি কৰা ভিন্নতাই বহুতো বিয়াগোম যুদ্ধৰ বাট মুকলি কৰি দিলে। Huge groups of people however posed a dangerous threat to world peace. If a group of 20 people fought with another 20 people earlier, now each fighting group had thousands of soldiers. দ্বিতীয় মহাযুদ্ধৰ কাৰক এই ঐক্যতা আৰু তাৰ কাৰক, এই ভিন্নতা। আমাৰ হিন্দু বা অসমীয়া জাতীয়তাবাদী (মোৰও) সত্তাৰ কাৰকো এই কাল্পনিক ভিন্নতা বোৰ। World wars, the strife in Syria, our nationalism, love for a particular football playing nation, or even our Hindu / Muslim consciousness is based on this unity brought in by these imagined diversities.

লৰা ছোৱালীয়ে জন্মৰ আধাৰত এটা কাল্পনিক চিনাকি পায়। জন্মৰ প্ৰাক-মুহৰ্তত যদি দেউতাকে ধৰ্ম সলায় তেনেহ'লে কেচুৱাটোৰ ধৰ্মও বদলি হৈ যায়। If an Indian couple gives birth to a kid in Nz, he gets an automatic nationalism certificate - the passport. Similarly, if a kid is adapted by Brahmin parents, he gets the lagoon. তুলি লোৱা লৰা এটাকো বামুন পিতৃ-মাতৃয়ে লগূন পিন্ধায় এটা ভিন্ন চিনাকি দিয়ে।

আমি বুজা উচিত যে বৈষম্যতা বা ভিন্নতা মানৱ জাতিয়ে সৃষ্টি কৰা বিধ বিধ ঐক্য চিনাকী। It was essential to create diverse identities. এই চিনাকীক লৈ আমি গৰ্ব কৰিব পাৰো, কিন্তু বেলেগ এটা চিনাকীক বেয়া পাব নোৱাৰো। However, we need to realize that the concept of love cannot be restricted to one identity, or within one identity.

ভিন্নতা, ঐক্যতাৰ কাৰনে সৃষ্টি কৰা হৈছিল। Diversity was not created to increase hatred. Hatred became a collateral damage. কিন্তু, ঘৃণা কৰা হ'লো বেলেগ এবিধ ঐক্যতাক, নিজৰ ঐক্যতা ৰক্ষা কৰিবলৈ। এই ঘৃণায়ে আজি সমাজ খনত শান্তি আৰু প্ৰেমভাৱ নাইকীয়া কৰিছে।

For a created / imagined identity, we spread venom on social media, as if it is a real practical identity, giving rise to enhanced hatred. জাতি বা ধৰ্মক লৈ ফেচবুক - টুইটাৰ আদিত ঘৃণা বিলায় ফুৰাটো মূৰ্খামী নহয় নে?

It's biological for two people to fight. দুজনৰ মাজৰ কাজিয়া স্বাভাৱিক। দুটা জাতি বা দুখন দেশৰ মাজৰ কাজিয়া অস্বাভাৱিক আৰু সাংঘাতিক ক্ষতিকাৰক। It is ignorance that makes two nations fight. Probably it is a fight between two leaders where millions may die in ignorant nationalism.

Let's all respect diversity for it has made us the most powerful living being in this earth. ভিন্নতাই আমাক ঐক্য কৰি পৃথিৱীৰ শ্ৰেষ্ঠ জীৱৰ ঠাই দিলে। এই ভিন্নতাক সন্মান জনায় আমি পণ কৰা উচিত যে আমি আন এজন মানুহক বেয়া পাব পাৰো, কিন্তু আন এটা জাতি, ধৰ্ম বা দেশক বেয়া পাব নোৱাৰো। I may hate one particular individual but I must never hate an identity like a religion, caste or a country.

কৃষ্ণ। Amen.

Is Shekhar Gupta above personal animosity and biases? Is ThePrint credible?

I got a serious bad taste when I read "An Apology of a Party: AAP, which set out to save India, is struggling to save itself now" and it is not because I sympathise with AAP, but because it is a write up with a sense of vendetta without real analysis by the editor, who is none other than the omni present old wisdom, Mr. Shekhar Gupta.

This is what I wrote in the comments section. I am not sure if they will publish the same. So I am sharing it on my platform.

This article disappointed me. Coming from the editor and he being Shekhar Gupta disappointed me further. First is the use of the feature image. It is typical to the core of shamelessness to bask in the fame of sensationalism. Why should an upright journalist use an abused photographic identity to uphold a manufactured perception of a Chief Minister? A positive or a neutral feature image was expected out of Shekhar Gupta.

A good wise Shekhar Gupta would have used this kind of imagery.

Secondly, the editor knows, and the sentiment is echoed by the Wire team as well, that Indian judicial system is a big deterrent for honest men willing to target big powers. The big powers use the judiciary to scare the activists and the supposed trouble makers. So he could have, in his analysis, mentioned about that aspect. That this could probably free Arvind Kejriwal to concentrate on AAP.

Thirdly, the editor has dismissed all the positive achievements of AAP in Delhi specially its focus on education and health. In his dismissal of the party, he could have spared a line about their achievements. It seemed to me that the editor is on his ego trip over some squabbles he may have had with Arvind Kejriwal and now he is taking a personal revenge for a good night sleep.

Fourthly, Shekhar Gupta with his experiences in the corridors of power and politics would know that India has dynastic politics and Godman politics. He knew Jayalalitha, MGR, Mamta Banerjee etc to name a few, and it is mostly about one leader or one family that carries any party. It was Prafulla Mahanta for AGP in 1985, and he too had a fair share of allegation of autocratic behaviour. So pinpointing Arvind Kejriwal and comparing him to Modi is an injustice to both Kejriwal and Modi. An autocrat in a party is not necessarily bad for the nation or the state.

Also, the current politics in India is between BJP and the Others. The Others as we speak is getting formed. Parties like AAP or AGP will lose significance temporarily in that power tussle. Today, India is practically bipolar and even a diehard AGP or an AAPtard will vote for Congress or the ante-BJP party in his or her constituency.

Fifthly, any political party with whatever ideology is formed by the society. If the society has 50% dishonest citizens, then any party formed in that society will have a percentage of dishonest citizens. For an anti-corruption party like AAP, the percentage will be lesser, say, 30% dishonest citizens. That is reality and it somehow misses the intellectual faculty of Mr. Shekhar Gupta when he blames a whole anti corruption movement by the youth of the country of utter failure.

Like a clever politician himself (read editor), he writes in his penultimate line, "You can never say never in politics. We may still see the return of AAP.." That is so childish after crafting a sub headline that goes "The foundation on which AAP was built has all but crumbled. And its promise of changing the system and saving India is now a fading memory"

Sad.