Small is Beautiful

Small is Beautiful
Unfortunately the 1st of April fell on a Saturday and not on a week day. In a country where every day life is annotated with mundane lies be that may be in politics or at home. I was relieved of coining a lie of grand desire. But it looks like of all of us are April fools. To begin with we celebrate our local new year on the fool's month just 13 days later which is an irony which number nobody seems to be having a liking. We married on the 13th of a month and when this was raised by a few in the family circles I told them if we celebrate the New Year on the 13th and why not?
On both counts whether after the New Year or after the marriage one is much poorer (broke) money wise but rich in experience of mundane affairs there was no special risk in doing something on a day (13th) when nobody else is interested in doing anything other than wasting time. That leads me to the point of changing time on the stroke of the New Year. For me it another gimmick to keep people's mind away from real things like cost of living but raising a mundane issue which is in any case detrimental to the economy in the long run further escalating the cost of living.
There are few things the real politicians can do but have no inclination.
Think "Small is beautiful".
To begin with increase the purchase value of our money notes.
Another gimmick of JRJ was to print rupees 1000 notes so big that it cannot be put in a purse. It is very big compared to a dollar note it gives a sense of an enlarged image to the owner. At that time parity of a pound note was about 30 rupees and the 1000 rupee note was in fact over 30 pounds. Those days 30 pounds was a big amount of money and one could stay in a cheap motel in London for seven days for 30 pounds with breakfast which I used to do in my short outings. But if you go to London and display a 1000 note at one of the MacDonald's Restaurants one is unlikely to get a shock but not a square meal. This is so even in Another gimmick of JRJ was to print rupees 1000 notes so big that it cannot be put in a purse. It is very big compared to a dollar note it gives a sense of an enlarged image to the owner. At that time parity of a pound note was about 30 rupees and the 1000 rupee note was in fact over 30 pounds. Those days 30 pounds was a big amount of money and one could stay in a cheap motel in London for seven days for 30 pounds with breakfast which I used to do in my short outings. But if you go to London and display a 1000 note at one of the MacDonald's Restaurants one is unlikely to get a shock but not a square meal. This is so even in  that the rupee has gone up (In actual fact depreciated) so much one needs not to write an economic thesis on the very subject.

Proposal 1
So my first proposal for the new regime if they want to appreciate our rupee according to the market value is to reduce its size of the notes especially the 1000 rupee notes so that my small purse can accommodate enough notes of them to do my daily marketing. Since the new regime has no other way of fulfilling the promises and printing notes is the only viable option it will save lot of trees in the rain forest of our own and in the world too.
I am not going to accept the central banks explanation that they need special type of paper and rain forest is not vandalized for the purpose of printing money. This was another megalomaniac (big size notes bigger than dollar notes) thinking of JRJ in addition to the post of presidency.
Anybody who fills this post become megalomaniac whether it is male or female and they never appreciate the concept of small is beautiful. 
So I do not expect to the new regime to change the size of the 1000 rupee note but it will save lot of money to the exchequer supreme of the Central Bank.
Even though the central bank economists want understand my simple erythma (red in the face not arithmetic) that if they print two notes instead of one the paper wastage is reduced by 100%. Since the number of notes printed is not going to go down (in due course) the fringe benefits they get want be reduced. In fact it would be increased by almost 200% in due course by the time urea bill is settled. They should not worry about the perks getting reduced and devalued. In addition this proposal of mine if the central Bank Governor can espouses as of as one of his own original ideas he might even be invited to become the next Governor of the World Bank.
What an upward mobility for a yappy?
I have many such ideas which I would not dispense for economy of words and to portray the beauty of 'small is beautiful'. 
One's prowess has to be dispensed with in small doses lest the upward mobility would be hindered in due course if all the ideas are dispensed all at once.
The Peter Principle comes into operation then.
This is actually a philosophical issue and the philosophers of yesteryear were very economical in their words lest they were beheaded. They also made sure most of the rulers did not understand the contents of the philosophy but only the face value of their utterances. There is no exception in the modern world. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are good examples that come into my mind. 
Rulers are rulers and few of them had been philosophers.
What has happened to the newest set of presidential advisers is that they dispense new ideas at a rate even the president cannot keep pace with (considering his age coming to power).
Thinking small is beautiful is not a weakness but a strength.
What it means is not bowing down to pressure but to reason. 
What is happening today is we are bowing down to economic pressures leaving the strength of our convictions at bay.
Small nation can be strong only we think in that way.

For Buddhists the selflessness should be the greatest assert which should drive the selfish dreams of individuals out of the mainstream and drive for collective needs and responsibilities of the nation.
 
Sadly this is lacking and we are slowly slipping into the cycle of violence and selfish drives.
Selflessness does not mean bowing down to all the terrorist demands but striking a balance to reach a best compromise.
We must not let the international community dictate terms.
What has happened is that the international community has become part of the problem.
Norway is a good example and it has become part of the problem rather than a solution.
Sooner we realize this better is for a viable solution.
The Peter Principle is explained elsewhere and my email is also there in "Scan the Scum" for use. 
There is of course no guarantee that I would reply immediately.

4th of April 2006.