chief editor - brennencollege.ac.inbrennencollege.ac.in/ml/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/brennrn... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
2Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Chief Editor
M. Vijayalakshmi, Principal
Editor
T. Ravindran, Department of Physics
Editorial Board
K. V. Surendran, Department of English
M. Ramakrishnan, Department of Philosophy
P. N. Sathyanathan, Department of Chemistry
V. Kumaran, Department of Hindi
S. Vijayamma, Department of Hindi
Type Setting and Printing: Computer Centre, Government Brennen
College, Thalassery
For Private Circulation only
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:www.brennencollege.org
3Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Editorial
Government Brennen College, one of the premier institutions of
higher education in Kerala, was founded by Edward Brennen, a master
attendant of Thalassery Port. It developed out of the Free School
established in 1862 by Brennen. It was elevated to the status of a Second
Grade College with F. A. classes in 1890. The College has been identified
as a Centre of Excellence by the Government of Kerala. It is affiliated to
Kannur University. The College was accredited by NAAC with B++Grade in
2004.
The College offers Degree Programmes in sixteen disciplines and
Post Graduate Courses in nine subjects. The departments of English,
Malayalam, Hindi, Sanskrit and Economics, Physics and Philosophy are
approved Research Centres of Kannur University. The College works with
a mission of making distinctive and distinguished contributions to the cause
of higher education. It was a long cherished dream of the College to bring
out a Research Journal. The dream was fulfilled in June 2004 when the first
number of ‘Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies’ was published.The
present number of the journal contains research articles from different
disciplines. The journal is intended to encourage and develop research
activities among students and teachers. Suggestions for improvements
are most welcome.
Editor
1Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
CONTENTS
1. On Feminist Literary Theory
K. V. Surendran 1
2. ¨ÉÉxÉ´É <iÉxÉÉ PɨÉÆb÷ CªÉÉå Eò®úiÉÉ ?
´ÉÒ.EÖò¨ÉÉ®úxÉ 13
3. xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉoùι] õ iÉlÉÉ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’
BºÉ.Ê´ÉVɪɨ¨ÉÉ 20
4. Electrical Conductivity in Solids
K. M. Remya and T. Ravindran 29
5. The Potential Role of Aerosols in Retrieving the
Dynamics of Atmosphere
K. M. Praseed, K. Rathnakaran, Sheela M Joseph and
M. K. Satheesh Kumar 37
6. “The Buddha is in Every One”
The Ecoethics of Buddhism
M. Ramakrishnan 49
7. A Reappraisal of Sartre’s ‘Subject’ in its Relation to
Postmodernism
Vijayakumari Valappil 55
1Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Women’s studies are distinguished by their focus on women, women’s
experience and the nature of relationships between the sexes. By placing
women at the centre of intellectual inquiry, women’s studies offer a new
perspective on the world. Though women’s studies have a specific focus
on women, they are critical instruments to study reality from the stand point
of women. They treat women as a category in a multidisciplinary approach
in order to incorporate women’s experiences and understandings. They
begin with the explicit concern for the removal of gender subordination
and discrimination. Women’s studies developed as part of a political project
seeking to establish the rigorous and scholarly study of women in order to
change their position. As multi - disciplinary studies, they aim at providing
a holistic view of society, through an objective and critical inquiry and at
filling the deficiencies in the understanding of social reality. In this paper
an attempt is made to look at feminism both as a literary theory and as a
political movement.
The basic view of feminism is that Western civilization is pervasively
patriarchal or male- centred. It is organized and conducted in such a way
as to subordinate women to men in all cultural domains: familial, religious,
political, economic, social, legal and artistic. It is also held that while one’s
sex is determined by anatomy, the prevailing concepts of gender are largely
cultural constructs with patriarchal biases. There is a further claim that
patriarchal ideology pervades those writings which have been considered
great literature. Thus the most highly regarded literary works focus on
male protagonists like Oedipus, Ulysses, Hamlet, Captain Ahab and so on.
K. V. SURENDRAN
Post Graduate Department of English and Research Centre
ON FEMINIST LITERARY THEORY
2Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Feminism as a philosophy of life seeks to reform the deep rooted
causes of women’s oppression. In other words, it is raising the consciousness
of an entire culture. One of the main issues is the question of gender and
its social and cultural implications. Simone de Beauvoir in the Second Sex
observes that women’s behaviour patterns that are associated with females
are creations of society. However, she goes on to say that there is an
“irreducible biological difference between men and women” (13). Most
feminists feel that the woman’s capacity for pregnancy and child birth has
had some influence on their psyche and their social position. Shultamith
Firestone, a radical feminist, argues in The Dialectic of Sex that the biological
capacity to reproduce is the main reason for women’s social oppression
(197-198).
One can perhaps argue that feminist criticism was inaugurated in
the 1960s. But it was the result of two centuries of struggle for women’s
rights marked by works like Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman (1792),John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women (1869)
etc. Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own and numerous other essays on
women are also to be mentioned here. A much more radical critical mode
was launched by Simone de Beauvoir through her path breaking work The
Second Sex (1949). In Sexual Politics (1969) Kate Millet represents Western
social arrangements and institutions as covert ways of manipulating power
so as to establish the dominance of men and the subordination of women.
A major interest of feminist critics has been to reconstitute all the
ways we deal with literature so as to do justice to female points of view,
concerns and values. A number of feminists have concentrated on what
Elaine Showalter calls gynocriticism, that is, a criticism which concerns itself
with developing a specifically female framework for dealing with works
written by women. An important goal of feminist critics has been to enlarge
and reorder the literary canon. Helene Cixous posits the existence of an
incipient ‘feminine writing’ (ecriture feminine) which has its source in the
3Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
mother, in that stage of the mother-child relation before the child acquires
the male-centred verbal language.
The term ‘first wave’ feminism is used to refer to the late nineteenth
century movements that led to the enfranchisement of women, in Britain.
The women’s right movement emerged in America with the Seneca Falls
Convention of 1848. Women came forward to claim the rights of liberty
and equality. Women were denied the vote in Western democracies what
made Mary Wollstonecraft argue: “I really think that women ought to have
representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any
direct share allowed them in the deliberations of government” (166).
Since 1969 there has been an explosion of feminist writings which
almost displayed the urgency and excitement of a religious awakening.
The ‘second wave’ of feminist movement started in the nineteen sixties.
The women not only agitated for political equality but also concerned
themselves with their position in the work place, and in the family. This
phase of feminism came to be perceived as simply anti-family, anti-
marriage, anti-children and so on. Women were actually opposing the
excessive restraints that marriage and motherhood imposed upon them.
The second wave of feminism encouraged the individual’s right to discover
the kind of person he or she is and to try to become that person without
conforming to any norms laid down by society.
Showalter is of the view that the third phase of feminist criticism
demanded a revision of the accepted theoretical assumptions about reading
and writing that have been based entirely on male literary experiences.
Post modernism heralded an era of theory, which stated that the human
subject had disappeared from fiction. Feminism is in the process of
assembling an identity out of the recognition that women need to discover
and must fight for a sense of unified selfhood. “Feminism does not want to
establish the woman author as an icon. Yet, since the woman author has
4Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
barely entered literary history feminism cannot risk losing her” (Eagleton,
Working with Feminist Criticism, 75).
It is difficult to call oneself a feminist without classifying the type of
feminism one believes in. According to Freedman, feminisms can be
loosely classified into three categories – Radical feminism, Liberal feminism
and Marxist feminism. Radical feminists claim that the roots of women’s
oppression are biological. Liberal feminists, who do not advocate radical
changes would like to alter the lives of women through legal measures.
Marxist feminists view the oppression of women as historically a direct
result of the institutions of private property. Apart from these there are
other types of feminisms like Ecofeminism, Semio feminism, Cultural
feminism, Black feminism and Post colonial feminism.
It should be noted that these feminisms do not move in water tight
compartments. Thus Eco feminism and Marxist feminism share certain
common views. Eco feminism is a critique of capitalist domination and
exploitation. It picks out the patriarchal aspects of the existing social system
as the main target of attack. In Ariel Salleh’s words, the movement puts up
fight against “the eurocentric patriarchal capitalist exploitation of natural
resources of women and of indigenous people” (12 - 13). Its emphasis is
on the emancipatory agenda of exposing the oppressive dimensions of
patriarchy and liberating women as well as nature from the irrational
excesses of patriarchal capitalist system. In spite of recognizing feminism
as an ally in the battle against patriarchal domination eco feminists accuse
the feminists of being in ‘complicity with the Western androcentric
colonisation’.
Though feminisms are multiple, the basic ideology, which underlies
them, is the same. “The secondary status of women in society is one of the
true universals, a pan – cultural fact”, observes Sherry Ortner (21). But
within feminism itself there are a lot of ideological issues on which there is
5Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
no common consensus. The various feminisms, however, share some
assumptions that constitute a common ground.
Feminist theory is not monolithic in approach. It is interdisciplinary
in nature. Linguistics, Psychoanalysis, Marxism, Structuralism, Post
colonialism and New Historicism have provided feminist critical theory with
important analytical tools. Until recently, feminist and post colonial theory
have followed ‘a path of convergent evolution’ (Ashcroft et al., 1995, 249).
Both theories have concerned themselves with the study and defence of
marginalized ‘others’ within respective structures of domination. They
began with an attempt to invert prevailing hierarchies of gender/ culture/
race.
Both Feminist theory and post colonial theory try to reinstate the
marginalised in the face of the dominant. They question forms
incorporated in literature. Both theories engage in the process of re-
reading classical texts. Also, both the theories look forward to the future
envisaging societies in which inequalities are minimized. It is a fact that
women’s experience and women’s writing cannot be totally cut away from
the other world. “The radical demand that would yoke women writers to
feminist evolution and deny them the freedom to explore new subjects
would obviously not provide a healthy direction for female tradition to take”
(Showalter, A Literature of Their Own, 318).
Leela Gandhi observes that there are three areas of controversy
“which fracture the potential unity between post colonialism and feminism”
(83). They are the debate surrounding the figure of the ‘third-world woman’,
the problematic history of the ‘feminist –as –imperialist’ and the colonialist
deployment of ‘feminist criteria’. The issue of ‘double colonisation’ is often
associated with third-world woman. The representation of the average
third-world woman as “ignorant, poor, uneducated, tradition-bound,
domesticated, family–oriented victimised, facilitates and privileges the
self-representation of Western women as educated, modern, as having
6Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
control over their own bodies and “sexualities” and the “freedom” to make
their own decisions”, observes Talpade Mohanty (1994, 200). Women
loyally accepted their share of the white people’s burden and lightened
the weight of it with their quite humour, their grace and often their youth,
says Barr (1976, 103). The traumatic nationalist negotiation of the ‘woman
question’ establishes a direct and problematic enmity between ‘brown men’
and ‘white women’.
Early feminists were concerned with social and political upheaval.
With the advent of the nineteen eighties there was a breakthrough in
feminist critical theory. Feminist critics examined representation of women
in standard literary works. They held that representation of women were
also strictly literary devices. As has been observed by feminist critics the
experience of feminist critical enlightenment transformed all that went
before it. It was an intellectual revolution aimed at violating existing
paradigms and discovering a new ‘world’.
Feminist criticism has mirrored feminist politics in accepting its
diversity. It accepts within itself divergent and contradictory views. “There
is no Mother of feminist criticism, no fundamental work against which one
can measure other feminisms ... It is not limited or even partial to single
national literature, genre or century, it is inter- disciplinary in theory and
practice” (Showalter, quoted in Meaney’s (Un) Like Subjects,1). But Third-
world feminists have objected to being included in Western feminism when
their experiences have been different. According to them, Western
feminism suffers from ethnocentric bias in presuming that the solutions,
which white women have advocated in their oppression are equal to all.
The woman as the racial other was doubly marginalized by both imperial
ideology and native hierarchies.
Showalter has distinguished between two forms of feminist criticism.
The first type is concerned with woman as reader. This is referred to as
7Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
“feminist critique”. The second type deals with woman as writer. Showalter
refers to this as “gynocritics”. Feminist critique concerns itself with the
way women read literature produced by men. Gynocritics deals with
“.....scholarship concerned with woman as the producer of textual meaning,
with the history, themes, genres and structures of literature by
women”(Showalter, “Towards a Feminist Poetics”, 128). The concept of
gynocritics helps one to understand what women have felt and
experienced. Its concern is woman as writer – woman as producer of
meaning. It focuses exclusively on female culture. It assumes that there
must be a connection between the writer’s gender and her/his literary out
put. “Gynocritics is ... historical in its orientation, it looks at women’s writing
as it has actually occurred and tries to define its specific characteristics of
language, genre and literary influence within a cultural network that
includes variables of race, clan and nationality” (Showalter, “Women’s Time,
Women’s Space”, 36).
The ‘Images of Women’ approach to literature has proved to be an
extremely fertile branch of feminist criticism. In this approach, the act of
reading is seen as a communication between the life (‘experience’) of the
author and the life of the reader. “When the reader becomes a critic, her
duty is to present an account of her own life that will enable her readers to
become aware of the position from which she speaks. Such an emphasis
upon the reader’s right to learn about the writer’s experience strongly
supports the basic feminist contention that no critism is ‘value-free’. As
Toril Moi observes “the image of women in literature is invariably defined
in opposition to the ‘real person’ whom literature somehow never quite
manages to convey to the reader” (44). She is of the view that feminists
must be able to account for the paradoxically productive aspects of
patriarchal ideology as well as for its obvious oppressive implications.
Anglo – American feminist critics have been mostly indifferent or
even hostile towards literary theory, which they have often regarded as a
8Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
hopelessly abstract ‘male’ activity. This attitude is gradually changing. One
of the first texts to break the theoretical silence among feminist critics was
Annette Kolodny’s “Some notes on defining a ‘feminist literary criticism’”
where she treats the study of women’s writing as a separate category.
However, Kolodny’s intervention in the theoretical debate does not pay
much attention to the role of politics in critical theory. Feminists must also
conduct a political and theoretical evaluation of the various methods and
tools on offer, to make sure that they don’t backfire on them. Toril Moi
affirms that “the central paradox of Anglo – American feminist criticism is
that “despite its often strong explicit political engagement, it is in the end
not quite political enough; not in the sense that it fails to go far enough
along the political spectrum, but in the sense that its radical analysis of
sexual politics still remains entangled with depoliticizing theoretical
paradigms” (86).
The new generation of French feminist theorists have rejected
Simone de Beauvoir’s existentialist feminism entirely. Turning away from
Beauvoir’s liberal desire for equality with men, these feminists have
emphasized difference. It is largely due to the efforts of Helene Cixous
that the question of an ecriture feminine came to occupy a central position
in the political and cultural debate in France in the 1970s. One of her most
accessible ideas is her analysis of ‘patriarchal binary thought’. Under the
heading ‘Where is she?’ Cixous lines up the following list of binary
oppositions:
Activity / Passivity
Sun / Moon
Day / Night
Father / Mother
Head / Emotions
Intelligible / Sensitive
Logos / Pathos
9Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Each opposition can be analyzed as a hierarchy where the ‘feminine’ side
is always seen as the negative, powerless instance. Cixous denounces such
an equation of femininity with passivity. She proclaims woman as the source
of life, power and energy and hails the advent of a new, feminine language
that ceaselessly subverts these patriarchal binary schemes which oppress
and silence women. Against any binary scheme of thought Cixous sets
multiple, heterogeneous difference, the concept of which, is to be read along
with Derrida’s concept of differance. In the opposition masculine /feminine,
each term only achieves significance through its structural relationship to
the other. ‘Masculine’ would be meaningless without its direct opposite
‘feminine’ and vice versa. All meaning would be produced in this way.
However, for Derrida meaning is achieved though the ‘free play of the
signifier’.
A major concern of the feminists has been sex differences and
similarities in language use, in speech and non verbal communication. In
Man Made Language Dale Spender asserts: “The English language has
been literally man made and... it is still primarily under male control...This
monopoly over language is one of the means by which males have ensured
their own primacy, and consequently have ensured the invisibility or ‘other’
nature of females, and this primacy is perpetuated while women continue
to use, unchanged, the language which we have inherited” (12). The
question of sexism is a question of the power relationship between the sexes,
and this power struggle will be part of the context of all utterances under
patriarchy. The fact that feminists have managed to fight back have already
made many people feel uncomfortable in using the generic ‘he’ or ‘man’,
have questioned the use of words like ‘chairman’ and ‘spokesman’.
Kristeva, the French feminist will be remembered for her
commitment to thorough theoretical investigation of the problems of
marginality and subversion and her radical deconstruction of the identity
of the subject. Her theory of language allows us to examine both women’s
10Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
and men’s writing from an anti-humanist, anti-essentialist perspective. She
had a feminist vision of a society in which the sexual signifier would be free
to move. The fact of being born male or female no longer would determine
the subjects position in relation to power.
It should be admitted that whereas feminist theory was a marginal
and suspect intellectual activity in the 1980s , today it is an established
part of the academic circles across the world where Simone de Beauvoir’s
dictum ‘One is not born but rather becomes a woman’ is still relevant. As
Toril Moi rightly remarks “although economic, social, political and
ideological oppression exists, and although such oppression deprives
women of freedom, there is no reason to draw the conclusion that women
can’t work towards change” (178). Feminist theory needs to know how to
find its way back to the ordinary and the everyday and where the political
battles are actually fought. Feminists have to speak from their marginalized
positions and try to make their voices heard in the academic circles.
It has often been argued that women’s writings contain with in itself
a dual tradition. Even self-professed feminist authors sometimes seem to
conform to andocentric norms. The women writers seem to be facing a
dilemma whether they should “sacrifice freedom as an artist to a political
task or to give up self-exploration and accept the truth of the dominant
culture” (Nair, 54). Of course, what is of paramount importance is aiming
for a culture that allows women writers the freedom to articulate their
repressed desires. Consequently, such writers should be able to build up
a female culture as distinct from the accepted male cultures which only
pretend to include within itself female concerns and questions. Beyond
that, a day should come when bride burning and female foeticide should
be things of the past and there should be peaceful coexistence of the males
and females without ever raising the issue of one up man ship.
11Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
WORKS CITED
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., Tiffin, H. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and
Practice in Post colonial Lliteratures, Routledge, London. 1989.
Barr, P. The Memsahibs: The Women of Victorian India, Secker & Warburg,
London: 1976.
Beauvoir, Simon de. The Second Sex. Trans. and Ed. H.M. Parshley, New
York: Vintage, 1980.
Eagleton, Mary. Working with Feminist Criticism. Cambridge: Black well,
1996.
Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution.
New York: Bantam, 1971.
Gandhi, Leela. Post Colonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
UP, 1998.
Meany Gerardine.(Un)Like Subjects: Women, Theory, Fiction. London:
Routledge, 1993.
Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual Politics. London: Routledge, 2002.
Nair, Priya. S. “Female Literary Identity and a dual tradition. A Reading
of the Novels of Margaret Atwood, Angela Carter and Shashi Deshpande”.
Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. Kannur: Kannur University, 2006.
Ortner, Sherry, “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” Feminism: The
Public and the Private. Ed. J. Bhandes. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998.
Salleh, Ariel. Eco feminism as Politics. London: Zed Books, 1997.
Showalter, Elaine: “Women’s Time, Women’s Space”, Tulsa Studies in
Women’s Literature 3, 1984.
_______________ “Towards a Feminist Poetics”. Contemporary Criticism:
An Anthology.Ed. V.S. Sethuraman. Chennai: Macmillan India, 1989.
________________A Literature of Their own: British Women Novelists from
Bronte to Lessing. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1997.
Spender, Dale. Man Made Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1980.
12Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Talpade Mohanty, C. “Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and
colonial discourse”, reprinted in Colonial Discourse and Post Colonial
Theory: A Reader. Eds Patrick Williams & Laura Christman. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1994.
Wellstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Ed. Carol
H. Poston. New York: W.W. Norton, 1975.
13Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
EÖòiÉÚ½þ±ÉiÉÉ ºÉä ºÉƺÉÉ®ú Eäò |ÉÉEÞòÊiÉEò {ÉÊ®ú Éä¶É EòÉä näùJÉxÉä ÉɱÉä xÉx½äþ ¡Úò±É ºÉä |ɦÉÉiÉEòɱÉÒxÉ ÊEò®úhÉ
Eäò ºÉÉlÉ {ÉÆJÉ ¡èò±ÉÉiÉÒ ½Öþ<Ç +ɪÉÒ ÊiÉiɱÉÒ xÉä {ÉÚUôÉ - “CªÉÉ iÉÖ É ¨ÉÖZÉä WÉ®úÉ ¶É½þnù nÚÄù ? <ºÉEäò ¤Énù±Éä iÉÖ ½þÉ®úÒ
´ÉƶÉ-{É®Æú{É®úÉ B´ÉÆ {ÉÒføÒ EòÉ +´É¶ªÉ näùJɦÉÉ±É ¨Éé Eò°ÄüMÉÒ*”
¨ÉÆnù ½þ ÉÉ Eäò ºÉɨÉxÉä ʺɮú ZÉÖEòÉiÉä ½ÖþB =ºÉ {ªÉÉ®äú ¡Úò±É xÉä =kÉ®ú ÊnùªÉÉ - “BäºÉÉ ¨Éé xÉä xɽþÓ Eò½þÉ
lÉÉ ÊEò ¨Éä®äú ¶É½þnù EòÒ SÉÉä®úÒ ¨ÉiÉ Eò®úxÉÉ* iÉÖ É ºÉä ªÉÉ iÉÖ ½þÉ®äú Ê®ú¶iÉänùÉ®úÉå ºÉä ¨Éé xÉä iÉÊxÉEò ¦ÉÒ +ÊxÉSUôÉ xɽþÓ
|ÉEò]õ ¦ÉÒ EòÒ lÉÒ* iÉÖ ½þÉ®äú ʱÉB xɽþÓ ½þÉä iÉÉä ¨Éé ®úÉäWÉ ÊEòºÉEäò ʱÉB ¶É½þnù ºÉä ¦É®ú{ÉÚ®ú ½þÉä VÉÉiÉÉ ?” ÊiÉiɱÉÒ
ºÉ½þ¹ÉÇ ¡Úò±ÉÉå {É®ú =iÉ®ú +ɪÉÒ* ®ÆúMÉ +Éè®ú ºÉÖMÉÆvÉ Eäò {ÉiÉÉç ¨Éå ¶É½þnù ¦É®úEò®ú ¡Úò±É xÉä ÊiÉiɱÉÒ EòÉ º´ÉÉMÉiÉ-
ºÉiEòÉ®ú JÉÖ±Éä Ênù±É ºÉä ÊEòªÉÉ* BEò xÉä nÚùºÉ®äú EòÉä ¨ÉxÉ ºÉä º´ÉÒEòÉ®úÉ* xÉx½åþ ¡Úò±É ºÉä ¶ÉÖÊGòªÉÉ +nùÉ Eò®úEäò
|ÉiªÉÖ{ÉEòÉ®ú Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå =ºÉEäò {É®úÉMÉ-EòhÉÉå EòÉä ºÉ¤É Eò½þÓ º´ÉÒEòÉ®ú Eò®ú +{ÉxÉä VÉÒ´ÉxÉ-±ÉIªÉ EòÒ {ÉÚÌiÉ Eò®úxÉä
EòÒ =iºÉÖEòiÉÉ ºÉä ÊiÉiɱÉÒ +{ÉxÉä {ÉÆJÉ ¡èò±ÉÉiÉä ½ÖþB nÚùºÉ®äú ¡Úò±É EòÉä ±ÉIªÉ ¤ÉxÉÉEò®ú =b÷ MɪÉÒ*
¡Úò±É +Éè®ú ÊiÉiɱÉÒ Eäò ªÉÖMÉ-ªÉÖMÉÉå ºÉä ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉÉ ªÉ½þ ºÉƤÉvÉ .......vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÒ ºÉÚI¨É VÉÒ´ÉxÉ-¸ÉÞÆJɱÉÉ
EòÒ EòÊb÷ªÉÉå EòÉä ]Úõ]äõ ʤÉxÉÉ ºÉÖ®úÊIÉiÉ ®úJÉiÉä ½ÖþB +É{ɺÉÒ ºÉƤÉxvÉ B´ÉÆ Ê¨ÉjÉiÉÉ EòÉ =kÉ¨É +Éè®ú ºÉ®ú±É =nùɽþ®úhÉ
½èþ*
“- ¨ÉÖZÉä VÉÉä EÖòUô SÉÉʽþB ´É½þ iÉÚ näùxÉÉ +Éè®ú iÉÖ ½þÉ®äú ʱÉB ¨Éé ¦ÉÒ*”
´Éxɺ{ÉÊiÉ +Éè®ú VÉÆiÉÖ+Éå Eäò ¤ÉÒSÉ EòÒ ªÉ½þ ´ÉèÊ´ÉvªÉ¨ÉªÉ ʨÉjÉiÉÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¨Éå VÉÒ´ÉxÉ EòÒ
ÊxÉ®ÆúiÉ®úiÉÉ EòÉä PÉÊxɹ]õ B´ÉÆ ºÉÖoùfø ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB |ÉEÞòÊiÉ EòÉ VÉÉnÚù ½èþ ªÉ½þ* +Éè®ú BEò ºÉÚI¨É =nùɽþ®úhÉ -
<ºÉ Eò½þÉxÉÒ Eäò xÉɪÉEò-xÉÉʪÉEòÉ BEò |ÉEòÉ®ú EòÉ ¡ò¡ÚÄònù +Éè®ú {ÉkÉä JÉÉxÉä ÉɱÉÒ SÉÓ]õÒ ½èþ* {ÉkÉä JÉÉxÉä ÉɱÉÒ
SÉÓ]õÒ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ ¦É®ú {ÉkÉä EòÉ]õ-b÷ɱÉiÉÒ ®ú½þiÉÒ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +¡òºÉÉäºÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ªÉ½þ ½èþ ÊEò Eò]äõ ½ÖþB {ÉkÉä EòÒ fäø®ú
¨ÉÉxÉ´É <iÉxÉÉ PɨÉÆb÷ CªÉÉå Eò®úiÉÉ ?
ÉÒ.EÖò¨ÉÉ®úxÉ˽þnùÒ Ê´É¦ÉÉMÉ
14Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
EòÉä {ÉSÉÉxÉä ¨ÉÉjÉ BxÉWÉÉ<¨É ¤ÉäSÉÉ®úÒ SÉÓ]õÒ Eäò ¶É®úÒ®ú ºÉä ÊxÉEò±ÉiÉÒ xɽþÓ* Jɤɮú {ÉÉEò®ú BEò |ÉEòÉ®ú EòÉ ¡ò¡ÚÄònù
SÉÓ]õÒ Eäò {ÉÉºÉ {ɽÖÄþSÉiÉä - “iÉÖ ½þÉ®äú {ÉkÉä Eäò fäø®ú EòÉä {ÉSÉÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB ½þ É iÉèªÉÉ®ú ½èþ* ¤Énù±Éä ¨Éå ¤ÉäPÉ®ú ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä
½þ Éå BEò UôÉä]õÒ ZÉÉå{Éb÷Ò ¤ÉxÉÉEò®ú näùxÉÉ*”
¡ò¡ÚÄònù EòÒ ªÉ½þ ¶ÉiÉÇ SÉÓ]õÒ xÉä JÉֶɽþÉ±É ºÉä º´ÉÒEòÉ®ú EòÒ* iÉÖ®ÆúiÉ +iªÉÊvÉEò ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ B´ÉÆ ´ÉÉiÉÉxÉÖEÚò±É
EòÒ ºÉÖÊ´ÉvÉÉ ´ÉɱÉä BEò +SUôÉ ´ÉÉi¨ÉÒEò ¡ò¡ÚÄònù Eäò ʱÉB iÉèªÉÉ®ú ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ* =ºÉä ¨ÉÉ®úxÉä Eäò ʱÉB +ÉB
ºÉʦɪÉÉå EòÉä SÉÓ]õÒ xÉä ¦ÉMÉɪÉÉ* ¡ò¡ÚÄònù EòÒ iÉÆnÖù¯ûºiÉÒ EòÉ +iÉÒ´É vªÉÉxÉ ¦ÉÒ ®úJÉÉ* <ºÉEäò ¤Énù±Éä ¡ò¡ÚÄònù xÉä
SÉÓ]õÒ Eäò uùÉ®úÉ EòÉ]õ ÊnùB MÉB {ÉkÉä Eäò fäø®ú EòÉä +{ÉxÉÒ Eò®úɨÉiÉ ºÉä VɱnùÒ ½þÒ {ÉSÉÉxÉä ªÉÉäMªÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ ÊnùªÉÉ*
ªÉÉå +É{ɺÉÒ Ê¨ÉjÉiÉÉ +Éè®ú {ÉÉ®úº{ÉÊ®úEò ºÉ½þªÉÉäMÉ ºÉä SÉÓ]õÒ +Éè®ú ¡ò¡ÚÄònù EòÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ JÉÖ¶ÉÒ ºÉä EòÉ]õiÉä
®ú½äþ* +ÉVÉ ªÉÉ Eò±É ºÉä xɽþÓ ¤ÉαEò ºÉèEòb÷Éå ´É¹ÉÉç ºÉä ªÉ½þ xÉÉiÉÉ Ê¤ÉxÉÉ ÊEòºÉÒ ´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ºÉä {ªÉÉ®ú B´ÉÆ Ê¨ÉjÉiÉÉ
ºÉä VÉÉ®úÒ ®úJÉÉ*
<ºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú {ÉÒiÉä-Ê{ɱÉÉiÉä ¡Úò±É +Éè®ú ÊiÉiɱÉÒ SÉÓ]õÒ +Éè®ú ¡ò¡ÚÄònù ºÉä +ÉMÉä ¤ÉføxÉä ÉɱÉÒ <ºÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ-
¶ÉÞÆJɱÉÉ ¨Éå BEòɪÉEò nù®úÉ®ú {ÉènùÉ Eò®úiÉä ½ÖþB BEò GÚò®ú ´ÉMÉÇ <ºÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¨Éå +{ÉxÉÉ iÉÉhb÷ É-xÉÞiªÉ Eò®úxÉä ±ÉMÉÉ
..... +Éè®ú EòÉä<Ç xɽþÓ ´É½þ ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ ½þÒ ½èþ VÉÉä <Ç ÉÉxÉnùÉ®ú, ºÉƺEòÉ®ú ºÉä ºÉÆ{ÉzÉ +Éè®ú ªÉÖMÉ EòÉ =kÉ¨É ={ÉVÉ Eäò
°ü{É ¨Éå PɨÉhb÷ Eò®úxÉä ÉɱÉä ½éþ* |ÉEÞòÊiÉ EòÒ º´ÉºlÉ +κ¨ÉiÉÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÖÊxɪÉÉnù ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉÒ ±ÉäxÉ-näùxÉ ´ªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ Eäò
Ê´É{É®úÒiÉ +ÉVÉ +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¨ÉÉxÉ´É ºÉ¤É EÖòUô SÉÚºÉiÉä ½ÖþB =ºÉEäò ¤Énù±Éä ʤÉxÉÉ EÖòUô ÊnùB, PɨÉhb÷ ºÉä SɱÉxÉä ÉɱÉä
VÉÉxÉ´É®ú ¤ÉxÉ MÉB* +{ÉxÉÒ ºÉÖJÉ-ºÉÖÊ´ÉvÉÉ Eäò ʱÉB |ÉÉEÞòÊiÉEò ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ EòÉä, ÊVÉiÉxÉÉ ½þÉä ºÉEäò, ±ÉÚ]õxÉä Eäò ʱÉB
xɽþÓ Ê½þSÉEòxÉä ÉɱÉä <ºÉ vÉÚiÉÇ {ÉÖjÉ Eäò +iªÉÉSÉÉ®ú B´ÉÆ PɨÉhb÷ ºÉä +ÉVÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÉ¡òÒ EÆòMÉÉ±É ¤ÉxÉ MɪÉÒ ½èþ*
ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÒ xɽþÓ iÉÉä ªÉ½þ ±ÉäJÉÉ-VÉÉäJÉÉ WÉ®úÉ näùÊJÉB - ={ɱɤvÉ ´Éè¦É´É B´ÉÆ =ºÉEòÒ ±ÉÚ]õ-¨ÉÉ®ú Eäò ʽþºÉÉ¤É Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú
¨Éå World Wild Life Fund xÉä ºÉxÉ 2002 ¨Éå BEò ʴɺiÉÞiÉ ¤ªÉÉä®úÉ |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ lÉÉ* =ºÉEäò +xÉÖºÉÉ®ú
=iÉxÉÉ ¶ÉÖ¦É xÉ ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉÉ EÖòUô ¤ªÉÉä®úÉ -
+ÉVÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ EòÉ ªÉ½þ ±ÉÚ]õ-¨ÉÉ®ú VÉÉ®úÒ ®úJÉä iÉÉä 2050 ½þÉäiÉä ´ÉHò ¦ÉÚ-ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ EòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉƶÉ
ʽþººÉÉ MÉÉªÉ¤É ½þÉä VÉɪÉäMÉÉ* =ºÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ iÉEò nÖùÊxɪÉÉ EòÒ ½þWÉÉ®úÉå-Eò®úÉäb÷Éå iÉEò +ÉxÉä ÉɱÉÒ +ɤÉÉnùÒ EòÉä ¤ÉºÉÉxÉä
Eäò ʱÉB <ºÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ Eäò ºÉ¨ÉÉxÉ Ê´É¶ÉÉ±É B´ÉÆ Ê´ÉºiÉÞiÉ +Éè®ú BEò vÉ®úiÉÒ JÉÉäVÉEò®ú ÊxÉEòɱÉxÉÒ {Ébä÷MÉÒ*
15Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
+ÉVÉ ½þÒ vÉ®úiÉÒ Eäò 200 Eò®úÉäb÷ ½äþC]õ®ú =´ÉÇ®ú B´ÉÆ ={ɪÉÉäMÉÒ |Énäù¶É ʨÉ]Âõ]õÒ Eäò ¤É½þ VÉÉxÉä ºÉä >ðºÉ®ú-
¤ÉÆVÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ* vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÒ ºÉiɽþ {É®ú ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉÒ ={ÉVÉÉ>ð ʨÉ]Âõ]õÒ EòÉä ºÉÖ®úÊIÉiÉ ®úJÉiÉä ½ÖþB ½þ®äú SÉÉnù®ú ºÉä
+ÉäføEò®ú ®ú½þxÉä ÉɱÉÒ ´Éxɺ{ÉÊiɪÉÉå EòÉ SÉɱÉÒºÉ |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ +¤É xɹ]õ-§É¹]õ ½þÉä MɪÉÉ ½èþ* ºÉ¤É |ÉEòÉ®ú EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ-
®úÒÊiÉ, ÊxÉªÉ¨É +Éè®ú ÊxɪÉÆjÉhÉ EòÉä ½þ ÉÉ ¨Éå =b÷ÉiÉä ½ÖþB ¶Éä¹É ®ú½þxÉä ÉɱÉÒ ´ÉxÉ ¦ÉÚ欃 ¦ÉÒ +ÉVÉ ÊnùxÉ ´É ÊnùxÉ xɹ]õ
½þÉä ®ú½þÒ ½èþ*
<ºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú ´ªÉÉ{ÉEò ´ÉxÉ-=x¨ÉÚ±ÉxÉ +Éè®ú {ÉÊ®úκlÉÊiÉ-Ê´Év´ÉÆºÉ ºÉä ¨ÉÉjÉ MÉiÉ BEò ºÉnùÒ ¨Éå 200 ºÉä
WªÉÉnùÉ {ÉIÉÒ-ºÉ¨ÉÚ½þ B´ÉÆ ºiÉxÉÒ ´ÉMÉÇ <ºÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ ºÉä +|ÉiªÉIÉ ½þÉä MÉB, ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä ÉɱÉÉå ¨Éå 200 ºÉä WªÉÉnùÉ ´ÉMÉÇ +¤É
´ÉƶÉxÉÉ¶É EòÒ ÎºlÉÊiÉ {É®ú ½éþ* vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÉä ºÉnùÉ Eäò ʱÉB xɹ]õ ½þÉä MÉB {Éäb÷-{ÉÉèvÉÉå EòÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ ½þWÉÉ®úÉå ½éþ*
ºÉƺÉÉ®ú EòÒ {ªÉÉºÉ ¤ÉÖZÉÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB VÉÒ´ÉxÉ-VÉ±É ¦É®úEò®ú ¤É½þxÉä ÉɱÉÒ xÉÊnùªÉÉå ¨Éå +ÊvÉEòÉÆ¶É +ÉVÉ
<ÊiɽþÉºÉ B´ÉÆ Ê´É¦ÉÚÊiÉ EòÉ +Æ¶É ¤ÉxÉ MÉB ½éþ* ºÉ¨ÉÖÆnù®ú EòÒ ÎºlÉÊiÉ ¦ÉÒ <ºÉºÉä ʦÉzÉ xɽþÓ ½èþ* +ÊxɪÉÆÊjÉiÉ EÚòbä÷-
EòSÉ®äú EòÒ VɨÉÉiÉ Eäò EòÉ®úhÉ ºÉ¨ÉÖÆnù®ú ¦ÉÒ +ÉVÉ BEò ¤Éb÷Ò EÚòb÷É-vÉÉxÉÒ ¤ÉxÉ MÉB ½éþ* +iÉ& ªÉÖMÉÉå ºÉä =ºÉEäò
ÊEòxÉÉ®äú EòÒ ´Éxɺ{ÉÊiÉ B´ÉÆ VÉÆiÉÖ-VÉÉxÉ´É®ú ¨Éå ºÉä +ÊvÉEòÉÆ¶É +ÉVÉ MÉÉªÉ¤É ½þÉä MÉB ½éþ* +±ÉÉ´ÉÉ <ºÉEäò ¤ÉføiÉÒ
½Öþ<Ç MɨÉÔ Eäò |ɦÉÉ´É ºÉä ºÉ¨ÉÖpù EòÉ iÉÉ{É B´ÉÆ {ÉÉxÉÒ EòÒ ºÉiɽþ BEò ºÉ¨ÉÉxÉ >ÄðSÉÒ =`öö ®ú½þÒ ½èþ* wÉÖ ÉÉå Éå ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä
¤É¡Çò +ÊvÉEòÉÊvÉEò Ê{ÉPɱÉiÉÉ ®ú½þiÉÉ ½èþ* ¨ÉUôʱɪÉÉå EòÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ ¨Éå MÉiÉ SÉÉ®ú-{ÉÉÄSÉ ºÉnùÒ ¨Éå ½Öþ<Ç ÊMÉ®úÉ´É]õ Eò®úÒ¤É
{ÉSSÉÉºÉ |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ ½èþ* <ºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú ºÉ¨ÉÉxÉ °ü{É ºÉä ºÉ¨ÉÖpù B´ÉÆ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¤ÉÆVÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉiÉä ®ú½þiÉä ½éþ*
<ºÉ +nÂù¦ÉÖiÉ ±ÉäJÉÉ-VÉÉäJÉÉ ºÉä {ÉiÉÉ iÉÉä ªÉ½þ SɱÉiÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò 2050 ¨Éå ¨ÉÉxÉ´É-®úÉ榃 EòÉä VÉÒxÉä Eäò ʱÉB
+Éè®ú BEò vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÒ +ɴɶªÉEòiÉÉ {Ébä÷MÉÒ* +ÉMÉä ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÒ ºÉÚÊSÉiÉ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ ÊEò ºÉxÉ 2050 BEò BäºÉÉ
nÚù®únù¶ÉÔ WɨÉÉxÉÉ xɽþÓ VÉÉä BäºÉÉ ÉɱÉÚ É ½þÉä VÉÉiÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò ºÉÚªÉÇ Ê{ÉPɱÉEò®ú ÊMÉ®ú VÉɪÉ, vÉ®úiÉÒ ¤ÉÉfø Éå bÚ÷¤É VÉɪÉ
+Éè®ú ºÉƺÉÉ®ú ¨Éå +Éè®ú BEò ʴɺ¡òÉä]õ ½þÉä VÉɪÉ* ¤ÉαEò ªÉ½þ ½þ É ¨Éå ºÉä Eò<ǪÉÉå EòÉä º´ÉºlÉ B´ÉÆ ¾þ¹]õõ-{ÉÖ¹]õ ¶É®úÒ®ú
Eäò ºÉÉlÉ VÉÒxÉä, ½þ ÉÉ®úÒ +MɱÉÒ {ÉÒføÒ EòÉä ºÉEÖò¶É±É ®ú½þEò®ú VÉÒxÉä EòÉ ÊºÉ¡Çò SÉɱÉÒºÉ ´É¹ÉÇ Eäò ¤ÉÉnù Eäò WɨÉÉxÉä
EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½èþ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ªÉ½þ xÉÉVÉÖEò ½èþʺɪÉiÉ +{ÉxÉä nù½þ±ÉäVÉ {É®ú +É {ɽÖÄþSÉxÉä Eäò ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚnù ¨ÉÉxÉ´É +¤É ¦ÉÒ xÉÓnù
ºÉä VÉÉMÉÉ xɽþÓ* ¤ÉäSÉÉ®úÉ ¨ÉÉxÉ´É ªÉ½þ VÉÉxÉiÉÉ xɽþÓ ÊEò º´ÉÉlÉÇ B´ÉÆ ºÉÖJÉ ±ÉÉä±ÉÖ{É VÉÒ´ÉxÉ Eäò ¨ÉÚiÉÇ EòÒ ªÉ½þ ±Éb÷É<Ç
+{ÉxÉÒ ÊxÉVÉÒ {É®úUôÉ<Ç ºÉä ½þÒ ½èþ - ªÉ½þ ɽþ VÉÉxÉiÉÉ xɽþÓ* +¤É ¦ÉÒ Éä +ÉVÉ BEò-BEò Eò®úEäò nÖùÊxɪÉÉ EòÉä ½þb÷{ÉxÉä
¨Éå ´ªÉºiÉ ½éþ*
16Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
<ºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú Eäò +iªÉÉSÉÉ®ú Eäò ®úlÉ Eäò {ÉʽþB Eäò xÉÒSÉä nù¤ÉEò®ú ]Úõ]õxÉä ÉɱÉÒ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ-EòÊb÷ªÉÉÄ +Éè®ú
+|ÉiªÉIÉ ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä {Éäb÷-{ÉÉèvÉä B´ÉÆ VÉÆiÉÖ-VÉÉxÉ´É®ú, MÉÉªÉ¤É ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä ´ÉxÉ, xÉnùÒ +Éè®ú JÉäiÉ .... EÖòUô ¦ÉÒ =ºÉ Eäò
ʱÉB ¨ÉÚ±ªÉ´ÉÉxÉ xɽþÓ* ªÉÖMÉÉå ºÉä ¨É½þºÉÚºÉxÉä ÉɱÉÒ MÉ®ú ÉÒ Eäò EòÉ®úhÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ EòÉ º{ÉÆnùxÉ ºÉÚJÉEò®ú xɹ]õ ½ÖþB ¤Ébä÷-
¤Ébä÷ xÉMÉ®ú, ´ÉxÉ-ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ Eäò =x¨ÉÚ±ÉxÉ ºÉä vÉ®úiÉÒ ºÉä {ÉÉåUôÒ MɪÉÒ xÉÊnùªÉÉÄ, ¨ÉÉèiÉ Eäò <ÆiÉWÉÉ®ú ¨Éå ºÉ¨ÉÖpù ºÉä >ð{É®ú
JÉbä÷ uùÒ{É EÖòUô ¦ÉÒ =ºÉEòÒ ËSÉiÉÉ EòÉ Ê´É¹ÉªÉ xɽþÓ* =ºÉEäò ʱÉB ªÉ½þ ºÉ¤É Eò½þÓ nÚù®ú PÉ]õxÉä ÉɱÉÒ PÉ]õxÉÉBÄ
½éþ* +{ÉxÉä SÉÉ®úÉå +Éä®ú EòÒ ºÉÖJÉ-ºÉÖÊ´ÉvÉÉ+Éå +Éè®ú ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ Eäò ¤Éɽþ®ú EòÉä<Ç ¦ÉÒ ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò EòɪÉÇ-Eò±ÉÉ{É +ÉVÉ
=ºÉEäò ʱÉB xɽþÓ Eäò ¤É®úɤɮú ½éþ* ¨Éé, ¨Éä®úÉ {ÉÊ®ú ÉÉ®ú, ¨Éä®úÉ PÉ®ú - <ºÉEòÉä UôÉäb÷Eò®ú PÉ®ú Eäò +½þÉiÉä Eäò ¤Éɽþ®ú
EòÒ nÖùÊxɪÉÉ SÉEòxÉÉSÉÚ®ú ½þÉäxÉä {É®ú ¦ÉÒ =ºÉä EòÉä<Ç ËSÉiÉÉ xɽþÓ*
Eò½þxÉä EòÉ ¨ÉiÉ±É¤É vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÒ º´ÉºlÉ +κ¨ÉiÉÉ Eäò ʱÉB JÉiÉ®úxÉÉEò ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä ºÉ¦ÉÒ ÊGòªÉÉ Eò±ÉÉ{É
=ºÉÒ ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ Eäò EòÉ®úhÉ PÉÊ]õiÉ ½þÉäiÉä ½éþ VÉÉä ºÉƺÉÉ®ú Eäò ºÉ¤ÉºÉä =kÉ¨É ¦ÉÒ ½èþ* =ºÉÒ |ÉEòÉ®ú ¨ÉÉxÉ´É EòÒ |ÉMÉÊiÉ
Eäò ʱÉB ÊxÉnù¶ÉÇxÉ ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä ªÉÉiÉɪÉÉiÉ B´ÉÆ +É´ÉÉºÉ EòÒ ºÉÖÊ´ÉvÉÉBÄ ¦ÉÒ +ÉVÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÉä ¤ÉÆVÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ* ªÉ½þ
+VÉÒ¤É ¤ÉÉiÉ ½èþ ÊEò ´É½þÒ ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ <xÉ ºÉ¤ÉEäò ʱÉB ÊVɨ¨ÉänùÉ®ú ½èþ*
+ÉMÉä PÉ®ú ......... ´É½þ ºÉƺEÞòÊiÉ, ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ, ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò xÉÒÊiÉ EòÉ nÚùºÉ®úÉ {ɪÉÉÇªÉ ½èþ* ËEòiÉÖ +ÉVÉ
´Éä ʴɱÉÉʺÉiÉÉ B´ÉÆ ±ÉÚ]õ ÉÉ®ú EòÉ ¨ÉÉ{Énùhb÷ ¤ÉxÉ MɪÉä ½éþ* WÉ°ü®úÒ Eäò ʱÉB xɽþÓ; ʴɱÉÉʺÉiÉÉ B´ÉÆ ¡èò¶ÉxÉ EòÒ
=¨¨ÉÒnù ½þÒ PÉ®ú Eäò ÊxɨÉÉÇhÉ EòÉä |ɦÉÉÊ´ÉiÉ Eò®úiÉÉ ½èþ* PÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉÉiÉä ºÉ¨ÉªÉ |ÉÉSÉÒxÉ EòÉ±É Eäò ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ xÉä vÉ®úiÉÒ
Eäò ´Éè¦É´É EòÉ ±ÉÚ]õ ÉÉ®ú Eò¨É ºÉä Eò¨É Eò®úxÉä Eäò ʱÉB vªÉÉxÉ ÊnùªÉÉ lÉÉ* PÉ®ú Eäò ʱÉB SÉÉä®úÒ EòxÉ®äú ÉɱÉÒ lÉÉäb÷Ò
ºÉÒ Ê¨É]Âõ]õÒ Eäò xÉÉ¨É {É®ú =ºÉxÉä vÉ®úiÉÒ ¨ÉÉÄ ºÉä ¨ÉÉ¡òÒ ¨ÉÉÄMÉÒ lÉÒ ; PÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB EòÉ]õ ÊnùªÉä VÉÉxÉä ÉɱÉä
{Éäb÷ +Éè®ú =ºÉEäò ÊxÉ´ÉɺÉÒ VÉÆiÉÖ ´ÉMÉÇ ºÉä =ºÉxÉä IɨÉÉ ¨ÉÉÄMÉÒ lÉÒ* =ºÉÒ |ÉEòÉ®ú PÉ®ú Eäò ʱÉB UôÒxÉ ±ÉÒ MɪÉÒ
½þ ÉÉ, {ÉÉxÉÒ +Éè®ú +ÉMÉ ºÉä ¨ÉÉ¡òÒ ¨ÉÉÄMÉÒ lÉÒ* ºÉ¦ÉÒ VÉÆiÉÖ-VÉÉxÉ´É®ú Eäò ʱÉB ºÉ¨ÉÉxÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä ¦ÉÚ-´Éè¦É´É
+{ÉxÉÒ ÊxÉVÉÒ ºÉÖJÉ-ºÉÖÊ´ÉvÉÉ Eäò ʱÉB SÉÉä®úÒ Eò®úiÉä ºÉ¨ÉªÉ ´É½þ Eò¨É ºÉä Eò¨É ±ÉäxÉÉ - ªÉ½þÒ =ºÉEòÒ ¶ÉiÉÇ lÉÒ*
<ºÉEòÒ ´ÉVɽþ {ÉÖ®úÉxÉä PÉ®ú EòÒ ´É½þ ºÉ®ú±ÉiÉÉ +Éè®ú ºÉÉnùMÉÒ =ºÉEòÉ ÊxɶÉÉxÉ lÉÉ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +ÉVÉ ............
®úÉVɺlÉÉxÉ Eäò +vÉ ¦ÉÚJÉä ¤ÉäSÉÉ®äú MÉÉÄ É´ÉɱÉÉå EòÉä +{ÉxÉÒ Ê¨É]Âõ]õÒ B´ÉÆ ´ÉiÉxÉ ºÉä ¦ÉMÉÉEò®ú ´É½þÉÄ ºÉä JÉÉänù ±Éä
VÉÉxÉä ÉɱÉä ºÉÆMɨɮú É®ú ºÉä ¤ÉxÉä ¤Ébä÷-¤Ébä÷ ¶ÉÉxÉnùÉ®ú ¦É´ÉxÉ B´ÉÆ +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉBÄ*
17Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
=ºÉÒ +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉ Eäò SÉÉ®úÉå +Éä®ú ¤Ébä÷-¤Ébä÷ nùÒ´ÉÉ®ú ÊVɺɺÉä ½þ ÉÉ ¦ÉÒ +ÉiÉÒ xɽþÓ* +½þÉiÉä Eäò nùÒ´ÉÉ®ú
+Éè®ú +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉ Eäò ¤ÉÒSÉ EòÒ UôÉä]õÒ ºÉÒ Ê¨É]Âõ]õÒ ¦ÉÒ +ÉVÉ EòÉxÉGòÒ]õ Eò®úEäò {ÉCEòÉ, ºÉÉ¡ò-ºÉÖvÉ®úÉ +Éè®ú
ÊSÉEòxÉÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ ÊnùªÉÉ ½èþ* BEò ÊiÉxÉEòÉ ¦ÉÒ ´É½þÉÄ =MÉxÉÉ xɽþÓ, BEò ¤ÉÚÄnù {ÉÉxÉÒ ¦ÉÒ vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÒ +Ænù°üxÉÒ {ÉiÉÉç
¨Éå VÉÉxÉÉ xɽþÓ .......* +iÉ& {ÉÖ®úÉxÉä WɨÉÉxÉä näù¶É ¨Éå +MÉ®ú BEò +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉ EòÉªÉ¨É ½þÉäiÉÒ iÉÉä +ÉVÉ näù¶É
¦É®ú <¨ÉÉ®úiÉå B´ÉÆ +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉBÄ ½éþ - UôÉä]õÒ +Éè®ú ¤Éb÷Ò ±ÉÉJÉÉå <¨ÉÉ®úiÉ* ½þ®ú BEò ÉEòÉxÉ Eäò ºÉÉlÉ ÉɱÉä +½þÉiÉä,
nùÒ´ÉÉ®ú B´ÉÆ EòÉxÉGòÒ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ +ÉÄMÉxÉ ½þÉäxÉÉ ½èþ - ªÉ½þÒ +ÉVÉ BäºÉÉ BEò +ʱÉÊJÉiÉ ÊxÉªÉ¨É ¤ÉxÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ*
ªÉÉå ¤ÉäSÉÉ®úÒ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¨ÉÉÄ +{ÉxÉÒ UôÉiÉÒ {É®ú ½þWÉÉ®úÉå ¨ÉEòÉxÉÉå EòÉ ´ÉVÉxÉ ±ÉäEò®ú, =ºÉEòÒ ¤ÉÉäZÉ ´É½þxÉ
Eò®úEäò =ºÉEòÉ ¦ÉÉ®ú B´ÉÆ +ÉPÉÉiÉ ºÉ½þ xÉ ºÉEòxÉä Eäò ½äþiÉÖ +Éè®ú +ÊvÉEò nÖù¤ÉÇ±É B´ÉÆ lÉEòÒ ¤ÉxÉ MɪÉÒ ½èþ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ
ʴɱÉÉʺÉiÉÉ ºÉä {ÉÉMÉ±É ½þÉäEò®ú =ºÉEäò {ÉÒUäô VÉÉiÉä ´ÉHò vÉ®úiÉÒ Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú ¨Éå ºÉÉäSÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB ¡Öò®úºÉiÉ +ÉVÉ ÊEòºÉÒ
EòÉä xɽþÓ*
½þ®ú BEò +Énù¨ÉÒ +ÉVÉ ½þÉäb÷ Eò®úiÉä ½ÖþB PÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉ´ÉÉiÉä ½éþ* {Éb÷ÉäºÉÒ EòÉ PÉ®ú +MÉ®ú 2000 ¡Úò]õ EòÉ
½èþ iÉÉä +{ÉxÉÉ 3000 ºÉä Eò¨É xÉ ½þÉäxÉÉ* =ºÉä ºÉÉäxÉä EòÉ Eò¨É®úÉ SÉÉ®ú ½éþ iÉÉä +{ÉxÉä ʱÉB {ÉÉÄSÉ SÉÉʽþB* Eò¨ÉÉ<Ç
EòÉ +ÉÊJÉ®úÒ <EòzÉÉ ¦ÉÒ PÉ®ú EòÉä |ÉÉèfø B´ÉÆ ¶ÉÉxÉnùÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä ¨Éå ´Éä iÉèªÉÉ®ú ½éþ*
+ÉVÉ {ÉèºÉä xɽþÓ ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä MÉ®úÒ¤ÉÉå Eäò ʱÉB ¦ÉÒ =vÉÉ®ú näùxÉä EòÉä +ÉVÉEò±É Eäò ¤ÉéEò iÉèªÉÉ®ú ½þÉäEò®ú +ÉMÉä
+ÉiÉÒ ½èþ - ±ÉÉJÉÉå °ü{ɪÉÉå EòÉ =vÉÉ®ú* <ºÉʱÉB UôÉå{Éb÷Ò ºÉä +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉ iÉEò VÉÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB EÖòUô ½þºiÉÉIÉ®úÉå
B´ÉÆ SÉäEòÉå EòÒ nÚù®úÒ ¨ÉÉjÉ ½èþ*
ªÉÉå VÉÆMɱÉ, {ɽþÉb÷, JÉäiÉ B´ÉÆ xÉnùÒ EòÉä ¨ÉÉ®úEò®ú MÉÉb÷xÉä Eäò ={É®úÉÆiÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¦É®ú +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉBÄ JÉb÷Ò
½þÉä VÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ - ʦÉzÉ-ʦÉzÉ +ÉEòÉ®ú, °ü{É-®ÆúMÉ Eäò +xÉÊMÉxÉiÉ ¨ÉEòÉxÉ*
=ºÉ +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉ Eäò ºÉɨÉxÉä +{ÉxÉÒ ºÉÆiÉÉxÉ EòÉ ½þÉlÉ {ÉEòb÷Eò®ú MÉ´ÉÇ Eäò ºÉÉlÉ ¨ÉÉÄ-¤ÉÉ{É Eò½þiÉä ½éþ
- “¤Éä]äõ +ÉVÉ +É{É ±ÉÉäMÉÉå EòÒ ¶ÉÉxÉnùÉ®ú ËWÉnùMÉÒ Eäò ʱÉB ½þ ÉxÉä SÉÉä®úÒ Eò®úEäò, Ê®ú·ÉiÉ ±ÉäiÉä, =vÉÉ®ú ±ÉäEäò ªÉ½þ
¤ÉxÉ´ÉɪÉÉ ½èþ*”
¤Éä]äõ Eäò |ÉÊiÉ {ªÉÉ®ú Eò®úEäò ºÉ¤É Eò½þÓ EòÉxÉGòÒ]õ-ºÉÆMɨɮú É®ú ʤÉUôÉEò®ú VÉÒ´ÉxÉ EòÒ SÉäiÉxÉiÉÉ EòÉ
ºÉiªÉxÉÉ¶É Eò®úEäò ºÉÉ¡ò EòÒ MɪÉÒ ªÉ½þ vÉ®úiÉÒ <ºÉ xɪÉÒ {ÉÒføÒ Eäò ʱÉB ½þ ÉxÉä ºÉÆÊSÉiÉ Eò®ú ®úJÉÒ ½èþ*
18Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
±ÉäÊEòxÉ WÉ®úÉ ªÉ½þ {ÉÚUÚÄô - ¤Éä]äõ Eäò ¦ÉÚJÉä {Éä]õ ¦É®úxÉä EòÒ IɨÉiÉÉ CªÉÉ <xÉ ºÉÆMɨɮú É®ú Eäò ¤É®úɨÉnäù ªÉÉ
EòÉxÉGòÒ]õ ÊEòªÉä MɪÉä +ÉÆMÉxÉ EòÉä ½èþ ? {ªÉÉºÉ ºÉä ºÉÆiÉÉxÉ EòÒ VÉÒ¦É ºÉÚJÉiÉä ´ÉHò BEò ¤ÉÚÄnù {ÉÉxÉÒ näùxÉä EòÒ IɨÉiÉÉ
+ÉVÉ ÊEòºÉ +vÉÖxÉÉiÉxÉ ¨É¶ÉÒxÉ EòÉä ½èþ ? =xÉEäò ®úÉäxÉä ÉɱÉä ¡äò¡òbä÷ EòÉä ¶ÉÒiɱÉiÉÉ |ÉnùÉxÉ Eò®úxÉä ¨Éå +ÉVÉ EòÉ
EòÉèxÉ-ºÉÉ ªÉÆjÉ EòɨɪÉÉ¤É ½èþ ?
½þ ÉÉ, {ÉÉxÉÒ, ¦ÉÉäVÉxÉ ........... ºÉƺÉÉ®ú ¨Éå ¨ÉÉxÉ´É +Éè®ú ¤ÉÉEòÒ ºÉ¤É VÉÆiÉÖ-VÉÉxÉ´É®úÉå EòÒ +κ¨ÉiÉÉ EòÒ
¤ÉÖÊxɪÉÉnù ½þÉäxÉä ÉɱÉÒ <xÉ iÉÒxÉ SÉÒWÉÉå EòÒ ={ÉVÉ B´ÉÆ ={ɱɤvÉ Eò®úÉxÉä EòÒ IɨÉiÉÉ ¨ÉÉjÉ BEò º´ÉºlÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ
EòÉä ½èþ* =ºÉÒ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¨ÉÉÄ EòÉä +]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉ, ¶ÉÉìË{ÉMÉ FÆò{±ÉCºÉ, ºÉÚ{É®ú ½þÉ<´Éä +ÉÊnù ¤ÉxÉÉEò®ú iɽþºÉ-xɽþºÉ Eò®ú
näùiÉä ½éþ* ʤÉxÉÉ ÊEòºÉÒ ¯ûEòÉ´É]õ ºÉä Ê´ÉEòÉºÉ +ÉxÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä ªÉ½þÉÄ ºÉ¤É Eò½þÓ ºÉÚ{É®ú ½þÉ<´Éä SÉÉʽþB*
{ÉÊ®úκlÉÊiÉ +Éè®ú iÉuùÉ®úÉ ¨ÉÉxÉ´É ®úɶÉÒ Eäò +κiÉi´É Eäò ʱÉB ={ɱɤvÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ ¨Éå 40 |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ
ºÉÆ{ÉÖι]õ ºÉä ºÉÆ{ÉzÉ ´ÉxÉ-|Énäù¶É +Éè®ú =iÉxÉÉ ½þÒ JÉäiÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®úÒ Eäò ʱÉB ¤ÉÉEòÒ ®úJÉxÉÉ ½èþ - Ê´ÉEòÉºÉ EòÉ +vªÉªÉxÉ
näùxÉä ÉɱÉÉ ªÉ½þÓ +ÉÆEòb÷É ½èþ* ¶Éä¹É ®ú½þxÉä ÉɱÉä ¨ÉÉjÉ 20 |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ {É®ú ºÉb÷Eò B´ÉÆ PÉ®ú ºÉʽþiÉ ºÉ¦ÉÒ UôÒxÉUô{Éb÷
EòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú ½èþ* ËEòiÉÖ +ÉVÉ ½þ ÉÉ®äú näù¶É EòÒ ½þɱÉiÉ CªÉÉ ½èþ ? ºÉÚ{É®ú ½þÉ<´Éä Eäò ºÉÉIÉÉiEòÉ®ú Eäò {ɽþ±Éä ½þÒ
UôÉä]õÒ-¤Éb÷Ò ±ÉÉJÉÉå ºÉb÷EòÉå EòÉä ʨɱÉÉEò®ú 25 |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ vÉ®úiÉÒ UôÒxÉ ±ÉÒ MɪÉÒ ½èþ ; +Éè®ú BEò 25 |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ
PÉ®ú, ¨ÉEòÉxÉ, nÚùEòÉxÉ °ü{ÉÒ EòÉxÉGòÒ]õ ´ÉxÉ Eäò ʱÉB ½þÉä MɪÉä* <xÉ nùÉäxÉÉå Eäò ¤ÉÒSÉ ¨Éå ¡ÄòºÉEò®ú ½þ ÉÉ®úÉ ´ÉxÉ
ʺÉEÖòb÷Eò®ú ʺɡÇò 10 |ÉÊiɶÉiÉ iÉEò ºÉÒʨÉiÉ ½þÉä MɪÉÉ* JÉäiÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®úÒ Eäò ʱÉB, JÉɺÉEò®ú Eäò®ú±É EòÒ ¦ÉÚJÉ
ʨÉ]õÉxÉä EòÉ SÉÉ´É±É {ÉènùÉ Eò®úxÉä Eäò ʱÉB +ɴɶªÉEò JÉäiÉ EòÒ ½þɱÉiÉ Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú ¨Éå <¶ÉÉ®úÉ xÉ Eò®úxÉÉ +SUôÉ
½èþ*
{Éb÷ÉäºÉÒ MÉÉÄ É ºÉä SÉÉ´É±É +Éè®ú iÉ®úEòÉ®úÒ ±ÉMÉÉiÉÉ®ú +ɪÉåMÉä - ªÉ½þ ºÉÉäSÉEò®ú +MÉ®ú ªÉä ±ÉÚ]õ-¨ÉÉ®ú ½èþ iÉÉä
+É{É EòÉä MɱÉiÉ¡ò½þ ÉÒ ½þÉä MɪÉÒ ½èþ* CªÉÉåÊEò =vÉ®ú EòÒ ÎºlÉÊiÉ ¤Énù±É MɪÉÒ ½èþ +Éè®ú ´É½þÉÄ ¦ÉÒ ¨ÉEòÉxÉ B´ÉÆ
+]Âõ]õÉʱÉEòÉBÄ ¤ÉxÉxÉä ±ÉMÉÒ ½èþ* ªÉ½þ +ɶÉÉ Eò®úxÉÉ ´ªÉlÉÇ ½èþ ÊEò SÉÉ´É±É +Éè®ú MÉä½ÚÄþ ºÉä ¦É®úÒ MÉÉÊb÷ªÉÉÄ ºÉÒ¨ÉÉ {ÉÉ®ú
Eò®úEäò +ɪÉåMÉÒ* ´É½þÉÄ Eäò Eò®úÉäb÷Éå ¨ÉWÉnÚù®úÉå EòÉä +{ÉxÉä {Éä]õ {ÉɱÉxÉä EòÒ +xÉÉVÉ {ÉènùÉ Eò®úxÉä Eäò ¤ÉÉnù ½þÒ ´É½þÉÄ
ºÉä =x½åþ ªÉ½þÉÄ +ÉxÉÉ ½èþ*
BEò +Éä®ú +ɤÉÉnùÒ ÊnùxÉ ´É ÊnùxÉ ±ÉÉJÉÉå Eò®úÉäb÷Éå iÉEò ¤Éfø VÉÉiÉÒ iÉÉä nÚùºÉ®úÒ +Éä®ú ªÉ½þÉÄ ={ɱɣvÉ
ʨÉ]Âõ]õÒ BEò <ÆSÉ ¦ÉÒ ¤ÉføiÉÒ xɽþÓ* ½þÒ xɽþÓ =ºÉEòÉ {ÉènùÉ´ÉÉ®ú ¦ÉÒ |ÉÊiÉÊnùxÉ Eò¨É ½þÉäiÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ½èþ* +ÉxÉä ÉɱÉÒ
19Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
{ÉÒføÒ EòÉä VÉÒxÉä ±ÉɪÉEò SÉɴɱÉ, {ÉÉxÉÒ +Éè®ú ½þ ÉÉ EòÉ »ÉÉäiÉ BEò BEò Eò®úEäò EòÉxÉGòÒ]õ Eò®úEäò ¨ÉWɤÉÚiÉ ÊEòªÉä
VÉÉ ®ú½äþ ½éþ* =ºÉÒ ®úɺiÉä ºÉä |ÉMÉÊiÉ +Éè®ú ʴɱÉÉʺÉiÉÉ EòÉ ªÉ½þ VÉÖ±ÉÚºÉ ÊxÉEò±ÉiÉÉ ½èþ*
+Éè®ú BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ - ºÉÉ®úÒ vÉ®úiÉÒ EòÉä ¨ÉÚ±ªÉ {É®ú ±ÉäxÉä ªÉÉäMªÉ +¨ÉÒ®ú ±ÉÉäMÉ ªÉ½þÉÄ iÉÉä Eò<Ç ½èþ ±ÉäÊEòxÉ CªÉÉ
=xÉEòÒ ºÉÉ®úÒ ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ JÉSÉÇ Eò®úxÉä {É®ú ¦ÉÒ ªÉ½þÉÄ ¨ÉÖ]Âõ]õÒ ¦É®ú SÉɴɱÉ, BEò ¤ÉÚÄnù {ÉÉxÉÒ ªÉÉ BEò xÉx½þÒ-ºÉÒ ½þ ÉÉ
=i{ÉzÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉÉ ? VÉ´ÉÉ¤É +MÉ®ú xɽþÓ ½èþ iÉÉä ¨ÉÉxÉ´É +{ÉxÉÒ ºÉÆ{ÉÊkÉ Eäò xÉÉ¨É {É®ú CªÉÉå <iÉxÉÉ PɨÉÆb÷ Eò®úiÉä
½éþ?
ºÉiªÉxÉÉ¶É Eäò UôÉä®ú {É®ú JÉbä÷ ½þÉäiÉä ´ÉHò ºÉÆ{ÉzÉiÉÉ {É®ú MÉ´ÉÇ Eò®úxÉä ´ÉɱÉä ½äþ ¨ÉÉxÉ´É ....... vÉ®úiÉÒ Eäò
+ÉÊJÉ®úÒ {Éäb÷ EòÉ]õ ÊnùªÉä VÉÉxÉä {É®ú, +ÉÊJÉ®úÒ VÉÉxÉ´É®ú {É®ú iÉÒ®ú ±ÉMÉxÉä {É®ú, +ÉÊJÉ®úÒ xÉnùÒ ¦ÉÒ +{ÉxÉÉ ¤É½þÉ´É
¤ÉÆnù Eò®úEäò ÊxɶSÉ±É ½þÉä VÉÉxÉä {É®ú, +ÉÊJÉ®úÒ JÉäiÉ Eäò ]ÖõEòbä÷ ¦ÉÒ Ê¨É]Âõ]õÒ ºÉä {ÉÉäiÉ Ê±ÉªÉä VÉÉxÉä {É®ú .........
iɦÉÒ +É{ÉEòÒ ºÉ¨ÉZÉ ¨Éå +ɪÉäMÉÉ ÊEò iÉÖ ½þÉ®úÉ ªÉ½þ vÉxÉ JÉÉxÉä EòÒ SÉÒWÉ xɽþÓ, ʤɱEÖò±É ´É½þ JÉÉxÉä ªÉÉäMªÉ xɽþÓ,
JÉÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB ´É½þ EòÉ¡òÒ xɽþÓ, EÖòkÉä ¦ÉÒ ´É½þ JÉÉiÉä xɽþÓ*
20Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ ¤ÉҺɴÉÓ ºÉnùÒ Eäò ʽþxnùÒ Eäò |ÉÊiɦÉÉvÉxÉÒ EòÊ´É ½éþ * ±É¤PÉ|ÉÊiɹ`ö ʽþxnùÒ ºÉÉʽþiªÉEòÉ®úÉå
¨Éå =xÉEòÉ +ÊuùiÉÒªÉ ºlÉÉxÉ ½èþ * ºÉÉʽþiªÉ Eäò ºÉÞVÉxÉÉi¨ÉEò IÉäjÉ ¨Éå xÉä®ú¶É VÉÒ EòÉ ªÉÉäMÉnùÉxÉ +¨ÉÚ±ªÉ ®ú½þÉ
½èþ * ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ ¨Éå +É{ÉEòÉ EòÉ¡òÒ +ºÉ®ú {Éb÷É ½èþ * ´Éä xɪÉÒ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ Eäò +OÉnÚùiÉ ¦ÉÒ ®ú½äþ ½éþ *
=xÉEòÒ ®úSÉxÉÉ+Éå EòÉ BEò +±ÉMÉ ºÉÉèxnùªÉÇ ¶ÉɺjÉ ½èþ, ÊVɺɨÉå xɪÉÒ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ Eäò xɪÉä |ÉÊiɨÉÉxÉÉå EòÉ xɪÉÉ
+ɱÉäJÉ ½èþ * EòÊ´É xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÒ xɪÉÒ +xiÉoùùι]õ ®ú½þÒ ½èþ * =xÉEòÉ oùι]õEòÉähÉ +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEò
+Éè®ú BäÊiɽþÉʺÉEò ®ú½þÉ ½èþ * ¡ò±ÉiÉ: =xÉEòÒ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ xɪÉÒ oùι]õ ºÉä ºÉÆ{ÉzÉ ½Öþ<Ç ½èþ * <xÉEòÒ JÉÚʤɪÉÉå {É®ú
oùι]õ{ÉÉiÉ Eò®úEäò b÷Éì. ºÉxiÉÉä¹ÉEÖò¨ÉÉ®ú ÊiÉ´ÉÉ®úÒ EòÉ EòlÉxÉ ½èþ - “xɪÉÒ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ Eäò ºÉ¶ÉHò ½þºiÉÉIÉ®ú xÉ®äú¶É
¨Éä½þiÉÉ xɪÉä ¨ÉÉxɴɨÉÚ±ªÉ, ¦ÉɴɤÉÉävÉ +Éè®ú ÊSÉxiÉxÉ EòÒ ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò ¦ÉÚʨÉEòÉ ±ÉäEò®ú xÉ´ÉÒxÉ |ÉiÉÒEòÉå, ={ɨÉÉxÉÉä,
+|ɺiÉÖiÉ Ê´ÉvÉÉxÉÉå +Éè®ú ˤɤÉÉå Eäò ¨ÉÉvªÉ¨É ºÉä +{ÉxÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þxÉä ¨Éå JªÉÉÊiÉ|ÉÉ{iÉ ½éþ *” 1
+ÉÊnù EòÊ´É ºÉä ±ÉäEò®ú +¤ÉiÉEò Eäò EòʴɪÉÉå iÉEò EòÒ ®úSÉxÉÉ+Éå ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ {ÉÊ®úEò±{ÉxÉÉ ½èþ *
EòÉʱÉnùɺÉ, ¦É´É¦ÉÚÊiÉ, ºÉÚ®ú, iÉֱɺÉÒ, |ɺÉÉnù, ÊnùxÉEò®ú, vɨÉÇ ÉÒ®ú ¦ÉÉ®úiÉÒ VÉèºÉä ÊVÉiÉxÉä ½þÒ |ÉÊiÉÊxÉÊvÉ EòʴɪÉÉå
EòÒ Eò<Ç ºÉÞι]õªÉÉÄ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÉå ºÉä ½Öþ<Ç ½éþ * <x½þÓ ®úSÉxÉÉ+Éå ºÉä {ÉÉ`öEòÉå EòÒ YÉÉxÉ iÉÞ¹hÉÉ ¶ÉÉxiÉ ½Öþ<Ç iÉÉä EòʴɪÉÉå
EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ ¦ÉÒ ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ |ÉÉ{iÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòÒ ½èþ * b÷Éì. Eò¨É±ÉÉ|ɺÉÉnù {ÉÉhbä÷ªÉ EòÉ EòlÉxÉ ½èþ
- “´ÉºiÉÖ+Éå EòÉ +ɺ´ÉÉnù ªÉÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ |ÉlɨÉiÉ: ʴɶÉä¹É ´ªÉÊHò ¨Éå ½þÒ VÉx¨É ±ÉäiÉÉ ½èþ +Éè®ú EòɱÉÉxiÉ®ú ¨Éå
´É½þ ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ VÉxÉ Eäò YÉÉxÉ EòÒ ºÉÒ¨ÉÉ ¨Éå |É´Éä¶É Eò®úiÉÉ ½èþ * VÉMÉiÉ Eäò |ÉÊiÉ ºÉVÉMÉ-oùι]õ +Éè®ú ¤ÉÖÊrù, ®úSÉxÉÉ
EòÒ ºÉ¨ÉOÉ ºÉ|ÉÉhÉiÉÉ EòÉä +ÉEòÉ®ú näùEò®ú +iÉÒiÉ ºÉä +ÉMÉiÉ iÉEò =ºÉEäò =qäù¶ªÉ, ={ɪÉÉäMÉ +Éè®ú ¨ÉÚ±ªÉ EòÉ
ʴɺiÉÉ®ú Eò®úiÉÒ ½èþ * +iÉ: ÊEòºÉÒ ¦ÉÒ ºÉÞVÉxÉ EòÉ ¨ÉÚ±ªÉ ªÉÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ - ¶ÉÉävÉ ¨ÉÉxÉ´É ¨ÉxÉ EòÒ YÉÉxÉÉi¨ÉEò
={ɱÉΤPÉ ½èþ *” 2
xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉoùι]õ iÉlÉÉ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’
BºÉ.Ê´ÉVɪɨ¨ÉÉ˽þnùÒ Ê´É¦ÉÉMÉ
21Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
{ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò +ÉJªÉÉxÉ EòÉä ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ ºÉxnù¦ÉÇ ¨Éå føɱÉxÉÉ Ê¨ÉlÉEò ½èþ * VÉxÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ EòÒ ´ÉɺiÉÊ´ÉEòiÉÉ
ʨÉlÉEò ¨Éå nù̶ÉiÉ ½þÉäiÉÒ ½èþ * VÉxÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ Eäò ªÉlÉÉlÉÇ EòÉä nù̶ÉiÉ Eò®úÉEò®ú, ºÉɨÉʪÉEò ªÉÖMÉÒxÉ ¨ÉÉxªÉiÉÉ+Éå EòÉä
{ÉÊ®ú±ÉÊIÉiÉ Eò®ú ʨÉlÉEò ½þ Éä¶ÉÉ +Ê´ÉÊ®úiÉ ½þÉäiÉä ½éþ * {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò +ÉJªÉÉxÉ EòÉä ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ ºÉxnù¦ÉÇ ¨Éå ±ÉÉEò®ú
{ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò {ÉÉjÉÉå EòÉä +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¨ÉÉxÉ´É EòÒ ¦ÉÚ欃 {É®ú JÉb÷É Eò®úEäò |ɺiÉÖiÉ, EòÉ´ªÉ {ÉÊ®úEò±{ÉxÉÉ, nù®ú+ºÉ±É
¸Éä¹`ö EòʴɪÉÉå EòÒ ºÉÉlÉÇEò ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ EòÒ {ÉÊ®úSÉɪÉEò ½èþ *
+ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¨ÉÉxÉ´É ¨ÉxÉ +ÊxÉζSÉiÉiÉÉ +Éè®ú +ɶÉÆEòÉ ºÉä OɺiÉ ½éþ * BäºÉÒ +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ªÉÖMÉ SÉäiÉxÉÉ EòÉä
=VÉÉMÉ®ú Eò®úxÉä EäòʱÉB xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ xÉä +{ÉxÉÒ EòÉ´ªÉEÞòÊiÉ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ EòÉ ºÉÞVÉxÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ *
<ºÉ¨Éå {ÉÚhÉÇ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú Eäò ºÉÉlÉ EòÊ´É xÉä ʨÉlÉEò EòÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * ¸ÉÒ |ɨÉÉänù ÊjÉ´ÉänùÒ EòÒ ®úÉªÉ ¨Éå
“ ¸ÉÒ xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ VÉ¤É ¦ÉÒ EòÉ´ªÉ ªÉÉ EòÉ´ªÉÉi¨ÉEòiÉÉ {É®ú Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú Eò®úiÉä ½éþ iÉ¤É EòÉ´ªÉ Eäò ¤É½þÉxÉä ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ EòÒ
ºÉÚI¨É {Éb÷iÉÉ±É ¨Éå ¦ÉÒ ´ªÉºiÉ ½þÉä VÉÉiÉä ½éþ *” 3 xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ xÉä ºÉVÉÇxÉÉi¨ÉEò ºiÉ®ú {É®ú +{ÉxÉÒ ºÉÉ®úÒ ÊSÉxiÉɪÉå
¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ Eäò |ÉÊiÉ ºÉ¨ÉÌ{ÉiÉ EòÒ ½èþ *
®úɨÉɪÉhÉ EòlÉÉ {É®ú +ÉvÉÉÊ®úiÉ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ Eäò ¨ÉÉvªÉ¨É ºÉä xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ
xÉä ´ÉiÉÇ ÉÉxÉ ¨ÉÉxÉ´É Eäò ¶ÉÆEòÉEÖò±É ¨ÉxÉ +Éè®ú Ê´Éb÷ ¤ÉxÉÉ+Éå ºÉä Ê´ÉSÉʱÉiÉ +´ÉºlÉÉ Eäò |ÉÊiÉ +{ÉxÉÒ VÉÉMÉ°üEòiÉÉ
ÊnùJÉɪÉÒ ½èþ * ®úÉ¨É Eäò ºÉƶɪÉÒ SÉÊ®újÉ EòÉä ºÉiÉEÇòiÉÉ ºÉä ÊSÉÊjÉiÉ Eò®úiÉä ºÉ¨ÉªÉ EòÊ´É EòÉ oùι]õEòÉähÉ ®úɨÉɪÉhÉÒªÉ
ʨÉlÉEòÉå uùÉ®úÉ ºÉɨÉʪÉEò ªÉÖMÉ ¤ÉÉävÉ ´ªÉÆÊVÉiÉ Eò®úxÉÉ ½èþ * <ºÉʱÉB {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò +Énù¶ÉÇ ÉÉxÉ ®úÉ¨É Eäò ºlÉÉxÉ {É®ú
BEò ºÉÉvÉÉ®úhÉ ´ªÉÊHò Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå ®úÉ¨É +ÉiÉä ½éþ * b÷Éì. =nùªÉ´ÉÒ®ú ¶É¨ÉÉÇ ‘=´ÉҶɒ Eäò ¨ÉÉxªÉiÉÉxÉÖºÉÉ®ú “|ɤÉxvÉ
EòÉ´ªÉ Eäò ®úÉ¨É ºÉ´ÉÇlÉÉ ¨ÉÉxÉ´ÉÒªÉ ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ +Éè®ú +xÉÖ¦ÉÚÊiɪÉÉå Eäò ´ÉɽþEò ½éþ * EòÊ´É xÉä =xÉEòÉ +´ÉiÉÉ®úÒ ¨ÉÖJÉÉè]õÉ
=iÉÉ®úEò®ú ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ Eäò ÊxÉEò]õ ±ÉÉ ÊnùªÉÉ ½èþ * ” 4
ªÉ½þ ®úÉ¨É ÊEòºÉÒ ¦ÉÒ |ÉEòÉ®ú EòÒ º´ÉÉlÉÇ {ÉÚÌiÉ EäòʱÉB VÉxÉ Ê´ÉxÉÉ¶É EòÉ ¦ÉÉMÉÒnùÉ®ú ¤ÉxÉxÉÉ xɽþÓ
SÉɽþiÉÉ * ªÉ½þÉÄ {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò ʨÉlÉEòÉå uùÉ®úÉ ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ ºÉxnù¦ÉÉç EòÉä ÊxÉ°üÊ{ÉiÉ Eò®úxÉä EòÒ EòÊ´É EòÒ SÉɽþ
oùι]õMÉiÉ ½èþ * <ºÉʱÉB ®úÉ¨É {ÉÚUôiÉä ½éþ -
“ ´ªÉÊHò EòÉ ´ÉxÉ´ÉɺÉ
{ÉÊ®úVÉxÉ +Éè®ú {ÉÖ®úVÉxÉ EäòʱÉB
+ʦɶÉÉ{É CªÉÉå ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä ?
22Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
´ªÉÊHòMÉiÉ ¨Éä®úÒ ºÉ¨ÉºªÉɪÉå
CªÉÉå BäÊiɽþÉʺÉEò EòÉ®úhÉÉå EòÉä VÉx¨É nåù* ” 5
ºÉƶɪÉÉi¨ÉEò |É´ÉÞÊkÉ Eäò +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú ®úÊSÉiÉ <ºÉ ®úSÉxÉÉ ¨Éå +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ªÉÖMÉ Eäò ºÉƶɪÉÒ B´ÉÆ JÉÎhb÷iÉ
´ªÉÊHòi´É EòÉä ®úÉ¨É Eäò SÉÊ®újÉ uùÉ®úÉ |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ * EòÊ´É xÉä ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú ´ÉèªÉÊHòEò B´ÉÆ
ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò oùι]õ ºÉä ¨ÉÉxÉ´É EòÉ Ê´É¶±Éä¹ÉhÉ ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ ºÉä ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ±ÉäxÉä ¨Éå +ºÉ¨ÉlÉÇ ®úÉ¨É Eäò ¨ÉxÉ
¨Éå nùÉä Ê´É®úÉävÉÒ ¦ÉÉ´É ]õEò®úÉiÉä ½éþ iÉÉä ´É½þ JÉÎhb÷iÉ ´ªÉÊHòi´É´ÉɱÉÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ½èþ -
“nùÉä ºÉiªÉ
nùÉä ºÉÆEò±{É
nùÉä nùÉä +ɺlÉɪÉå
´ªÉÊHò ¨Éå ½þÒ
+|ÉɨÉÉÊhÉiÉ ´ªÉÊHò {ÉènùÉ ½þÉä MɪÉÉ ½èþ * ” 6
¨Éä½þiÉÉ VÉÒ xÉä <ºÉ |ɤÉxvÉ EòÉ´ªÉ ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ -oùι]õ ºÉä ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ SÉäiÉxÉÉ EòÉä =VÉÉMÉ®ú
Eò®úxÉä Eäò ºÉÉlÉ ½þÒ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ EòÒ ¶ÉÉ·ÉiÉ ºÉ¨ÉºªÉÉ+Éå +Éè®ú ¨ÉÚ±ªÉÉå EòÒ |ÉÊiɹ`öÉ ¦ÉÒ EòÒ ½èþ * ªÉÖrù EòÒ ºÉ¨ÉºªÉÉ
Eäò ºÉxnù¦ÉÇ ¨Éå ®úÉ¨É |ɶxÉÉiÉÖ®ú ½éþ iÉÉä +xªÉ {ÉÉjÉÉå Eäò uùÉ®úÉ iÉEÇò EòÉ ºÉ¨ÉÉvÉÉxÉ ªÉÖÊHò ºÉʽþiÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ * ªÉ½þÒ
iÉÉä EòÊ´É EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ EòÒ ºÉÉlÉÇEòiÉÉ ½èþ * ªÉ½þ ®úSÉxÉÉ ªÉÖMÉÒxÉ ºÉxnù¦ÉÉç EòÉä +ÉvÉÉ®ú °ü{É ¨Éå OɽþhÉ Eò®úEäò
ʱÉJÉÒ MɪÉÒ ½èþ * ºÉɨÉʪÉEò ªÉÖMÉ ¤ÉÉävÉ EòÒ +ʦɴªÉÊHò ¦ÉÆÊMɨÉÉ ºÉä {ÉÚhÉÇ <ºÉ ®úSÉxÉÉ EòÒ ¨ÉÚ±ªÉ´ÉkÉÉ iÉEÇò ®úʽþiÉ
½þÒ ½èþ * |ɦÉÉEò®ú ¶É¨ÉÉÇ EòÉ ¨ÉÚ±ªÉÉÆEòxÉ Ê¤É±ÉEÖò±É ºÉ¨ÉÒSÉÒxÉ ½èþ - “ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ xÉ®äú¶É EòÒ BEò
BäºÉÒ EÞòÊiÉ ½èþ ÊVɺɨÉå ®úÉ¨É Eäò ¨ÉÉvªÉ¨É ºÉä +ÉVÉ Eäò ºÉƶɪÉOɺiÉ ´ªÉÊHòi´É EòÉä ÊxÉ°üÊ{ÉiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ *
<ºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú xÉ®äú¶É EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ EÞòÊiɪÉÉÄ |ÉEÞòÊiɤÉÉävÉ ºÉä |ÉÉ®Æú¦É ½þÉäEò®ú +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¤ÉÉävÉ Eäò =ºÉ ¶ÉÒ¹ÉÇ {É®ú
|ÉÊiÉι`ööiÉ ½èþ VɽþÉÄ ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ {ÉÊ®ú Éä¶É ¨Éå º{ÉÆÊnùiÉ, ʴɦÉHò ¨ÉÉxɺÉ, ]Úõ]õiÉÒ ¤ÉxÉiÉÒ ¨ÉÉxªÉiÉɪÉå, ¦ÉʴɹªÉ
EòÉ ºÉÚªÉÉænùªÉÒ Ê´É·ÉÉºÉ +Éè®ú xɪÉä ¨ÉÚ±ªÉÉå EòÒ ºlÉÉ{ÉxÉÉ Eäò ºÉxnù¦ÉÇ ¨ÉÖJÉÊ®úiÉ ½þÉä =`öäö ½éþ * ” 7 ºÉɨÉʪÉEò
VÉÒ´ÉxÉ oùι]õ EòÒ ´ªÉÉJªÉÉ EäòʱÉB <Ç·É®úÒªÉ {ÉÉjÉ {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò ®úÉ¨É EòÉä ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ +ÉvÉÉ®ú ¨ÉÉxÉEò®ú, xÉ®äú¶É VÉÒ
xÉä ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ ¨Éå VÉÉä ¨ÉÚ±ªÉ |ÉÊiɹ`ööÉ EòÒ ½èþ, ´É½þ =xÉEòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ oùùι]õ EòÉ =kɨÉ
MÉÖhÉ ½èþ *
23Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ ¨Éå ®úÉ¨É EòÉä |ɶxÉÉå ºÉä ´ªÉÉEÖò±É B´ÉÆ Ê´É¦ÉÉÊVÉiÉ ªÉÉ JÉÎhb÷iÉ ´ªÉÊHòi´É´ÉɱÉä
|ÉYÉÉ{ÉÖ û¹É Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ * <ºÉ¨Éå ®úÉ¨É +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¨ÉÉxÉ´É EòÉ |ÉÊiÉÊxÉÊvÉi´É Eò®úiÉä ½éþ *
½þ ÉÉ®äú VÉÉxÉä ¨ÉÉxÉä ʨÉlÉEò ¨Éå ®úÉ¨É ¶ÉÊHò, ¶ÉÒ±É +Éè®ú ºÉÉèxnùªÉÇ ºÉ¨ÉÎx´ÉiÉ näù´ÉiÉÉ ½èþ ¨ÉMÉ®ú ªÉ½þÉÄ xÉ®äú¶É VÉÒ xÉä
®úÉ¨É Eäò SÉÊ®újÉ ¨Éå ºÉƶɪÉOɺiÉiÉÉ +Éè®ú uùxuùOɺiÉiÉÉ EòÒ +ʦɴªÉÆVÉxÉÉ EòÒ ½èþ * {É®Æú{É®úÉMÉiÉ ®úɨÉEòlÉÉ ¨Éå
°ü{ÉÉʪÉiÉ ®úÉ¨É Eäò SÉÊ®újÉ ¨Éå <x½þÓ ´ÉèªÉÊHòEò ʴɶÉä¹ÉiÉÉ+Éå Eäò WÉÊ®úB +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEòiÉɤÉÉävÉ EòÉä ÊxÉ°üÊ{ÉiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ ½èþ * ªÉ½þ EòÊ´É EäòʱÉB +iªÉxiÉ EòÊ`öxÉ EòÉ¨É lÉÉ, CªÉÉåÊEò ®úÉ¨É Eäò ´ªÉÊHòi´É Eäò ºÉÉlÉ VÉÖb÷Ò ½Öþ<Ç ¸Éä¹`öiÉÉ
<iÉxÉÒ MÉÊ®ú ÉɪÉÖHò lÉÒ * ®úÉ¨É Eäò ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ SÉÊ®újÉ ¨Éå ¤Énù±ÉÉ´É näùEò®ú EòÊ´É xÉä ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ {ÉÊ®ú Éä¶É Eäò
+ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¤ÉÉävÉ EòÉ ºÉÞVÉxÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ EòÒ ¦ÉÚʨÉEòÉ ¨Éå EòÊ´É xÉä Eò½þÉ ½èþ - “ EÞòÊiÉ
¨Éå ®úÉ¨É +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò |ÉVÉÉ EòÉ |ÉÊiÉÊxÉÊvÉi´É Eò®úiÉä ½éþ * ªÉÖrù +ÉVÉ EòÒ |ɨÉÖJÉ ºÉ¨ÉºªÉÉ ½èþ * ºÉƦɴÉiÉ: ºÉ¦ÉÒ ªÉÖMÉ
EòÒ <ºÉ ʴɦÉÒʹÉEòÉ EòÉ ºÉ¨ÉÉÊVÉEò B´ÉÆ ´ÉèªÉÊHòEò vÉ®úÉiÉ±É {É®ú ºÉ¦ÉÒ ªÉÖMÉÉå ¨Éå ¦ÉÉäMÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ®ú½þÉ +Éè®ú <ºÉʱÉB
®úÉ¨É EòÉä ¦ÉÒ BäºÉÉ ½þÒ BEòi´É näùEò®ú |ɶxÉ =`öɪÉä MɪÉä * ÊVÉºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú EÖòUô |ɶxÉ ºÉxÉÉiÉxÉ ½þÉäiÉä ½éþ =ºÉÒ |ÉEòÉ®ú
EÖòUô |ÉYÉÉ{ÉÖ û¹É ¦ÉÒ ºÉxÉÉiÉxÉ |ÉiÉÒEò ½þÉäiÉä ½éþ * ®úÉ¨É BºÉä ½þÒ BEò |ÉYÉÉ |ÉiÉÒEò ½èþ * ” 8
{ÉÖ®úÉhÉ SÉÊ®újÉ ®úÉ¨É EòÉä EòÉ±É EòÒ ºÉÒ¨ÉÉ+Éå ºÉä ÊxÉEòÉ±É Eò®ú ºÉÉvÉÉ®úhÉ ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå |ɺiÉÖiÉ
Eò®úxÉä ¨Éå, ¨Éä½þiÉÉ VÉÒ EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ -oùι]õ xÉä ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ {ÉÚhÉÇ nùÉʪÉi´É ÊxɦÉɪÉÉ ½èþ * <ºÉ¨Éå EòÊ´É xÉä
ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ +ɪÉÉäVÉxÉ ºÉä ¨ÉÉxɴɨÉxÉ EòÒ º´ÉºlÉ ÎºlÉÊiÉ EòÉ |ɺiÉÖiÉÒEò®úhÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * ®úÉ¨É EòÉä ºÉiªÉ nù¶ÉÇxÉ
näùEò®ú, ºÉƶɪɨÉÖHò ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä EòÉ EòɪÉÇ <ºÉ¨Éå +xªÉ {ÉÉjÉ Eò®úiÉä ½éþ, ÊVÉxɨÉå ½þxÉÖ ÉÉxÉ, ±ÉI¨ÉhÉ, ʴɦÉÒ¹ÉhÉ, nù¶É®úlÉ
+Éè®ú VÉ]õɪÉÚ EòÒ +Éi¨ÉɪÉå |ɨÉÖJÉ ½éþ * ªÉ½þÉÄ ¦ÉÒ xÉ®äú¶É VÉÒ EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ {ÉÊ®úEò±{ÉxÉÉ ºÉÉlÉÇEò ºÉÉʤÉiÉ ½Öþ<Ç
½èþ * ʴɦÉÒ¹ÉhÉ EòÉ Eò½þxÉÉ ½èþ -
“ ªÉÖrù
¨ÉxjÉhÉÉ xɽþÓ
BEò nù¶ÉÇxÉ ½èþ ®úÉ¨É !
+ÎxiÉ¨É ¨ÉÉMÉÇ ½èþ
º´Éi´É +Éè®ú +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú +VÉÇxÉ EòÉ *
ÊEòºÉÒ ÊEòºÉÒ ªÉÖMÉ ¨Éå
ªÉÖrù ½þÒ
+ÎxiÉ¨É ºÉiªÉ, nù¶ÉÇxÉ ½Öþ+É Eò®úiÉÉ Ê¨ÉjÉ *” 9
24Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
{ÉÊ®úiÉÉ{É, {ɶSÉÉiÉÉ{É, ´ÉänùxÉÉ, nÖùJÉ +ÉÊnù ºÉä {ÉÒÊb÷iÉ ®úÉ¨É Ë½þºÉÉ B´ÉÆ |ÉÊiÉ˽þºÉÉ ºÉä {ÉÚhÉÇ ªÉÖrù EòÉä
]õɱÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½éþ * <ºÉ¨Éå ÊxÉʽþiÉ ºÉiªÉ-+ºÉiªÉ, ¶ÉÖ¦É-+¶ÉÖ¦É, ¶ÉÉÎxiÉ-+¶ÉÉÎxiÉ {É®ú ´Éä Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ÉÉxÉ ½éþ,
ºÉƶɪÉOɺiÉ ½éþ * iÉ¤É nù¶É®úlÉ EòÒ |ÉäiÉÉi¨ÉÉ =x½åþ ºÉ¨ÉZÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ -
“ {ÉÖjÉ ¨Éä®äú
ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ ªÉÉ ¶ÉÆEòÉ xɽþÓ
Eò¨ÉÇ ½þÒ =kÉ®ú ½èþ
ªÉ¶É ÊVɺÉEòÒ UôɪÉÉ ½èþ
=ºÉ Eò¨ÉÇ EòÉä ´É®úÉä *” 10
ºÉɨÉʪÉEò {ÉÊ®úκlÉÊiɪÉÉå Eäò |ÉÊiÉ ºÉVÉMÉiÉÉ ºÉä Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú Eò®ú ºÉ¨ÉºªÉÉ{ÉÚÌiÉ Eäò |ÉÊiÉ VÉÉMÉ°üEò BEò
xÉ´ªÉ ´ªÉÊHòi´É ‘½þxÉÖ ÉÉxÉ’ ¨Éå nù̶ÉiÉ ½èþ * ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÒ xÉ®äú¶É VÉÒ EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ -oùι]õ, ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ {ÉÊ®úEò±{ÉxÉÉ Eäò
IÉäjÉ ¨Éå ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ ½þÉÊºÉ±É Eò®úxÉä EòÒ ºÉ¤ÉÚiÉ ½èþ * +xÉÖÊSÉiÉ EòɪÉÇ Eò®úxÉä ÉɱÉÉå EòÉä ʨÉ]õÉxÉä EäòʱÉB +ÉèÊSÉiªÉ{ÉÚhÉÇ
Eò¨ÉÇ EòÒ +ɴɶªÉEòiÉÉ {É®ú ½þxÉÖ ÉÉxÉ VÉÒ WÉÉä®ú näùiÉä ½éþ -
“ºÉÆ¦É´É ½èþ
½þ ÉÉ®äú EòÉ®úhÉ ½þÒ
+xÉÉMÉiÉ ªÉÖrùÉå EòÒ xÉÓ´É {Ébä÷
{É®ú
<ºÉ b÷®ú ºÉä
CªÉÉ ½þ É xªÉÉªÉ +Éè®ú +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú UôÉäb÷ nåù !
xɽþÓ
xɽþÓ ¨É½þÉ®úÉVÉ !
ºÉ¨ÉªÉ ½þÒ Eò®äúMÉÉ |ÉÊiÉEòÉ®ú
½þ®ú¤ÉÉ®ú
+xÉÖÊSÉiÉ EòÉ *” 11
25Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
®úÉ¨É ºÉÉvÉÉ®úhÉ ¨ÉÉxÉ´É EòÒ ¦ÉÉÎxiÉ +xÉäEò ¶ÉÆEòÉ+Éå, ºÉƶɪÉÉå ºÉä ÊvÉ®úÉ ½Öþ+É {ÉÒÊb÷iÉ ½èþ * BEò
ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ iÉi´É EòÉä +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ºÉxnù¦ÉÉç ºÉä VÉÉäb÷Eò®ú EòÊ´É xÉä +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ EòÒ BEò ¨É½þi´É{ÉÚhÉÇ ={ɱÉΤPÉ
Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ EòÉ ºÉÞVÉxÉ ÊEòªÉÉ * ªÉ½þÉÄ =xÉEòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ{É®úEò oùι]õ {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò ʨÉlÉEòÉå
EòÉä |ɺiÉÖiÉ Eò®úxÉä EòÒ +{ÉäIÉÉ ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ ºÉxnù¦ÉÉç EòÉä ªÉÉJªÉÉ näùxÉä EòÒ +Éä®ú ÉÖb÷Ò * ªÉÖrù +Éè®ú ºÉÆPɹÉÇ ½þ Éä¶ÉÉ
½þÉäiÉä ®ú½þiÉä ½éþ * ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ªÉÖMÉ EòÒ ={ÉVÉ ½èþ * ®úÉ¨É Eäò ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ SÉÊ®újÉ Eäò ¨ÉÉvªÉ¨É ºÉä EòÊ´É
xÉä <ºÉÒ ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÉä +ÊvÉEò =VÉÉMÉ®ú ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò |ÉVÉÉ EòÉ |ÉÊiÉÊxÉÊvÉi´É Eò®úxÉä ÉɱÉä ®úÉ¨É Eäò SÉÊ®újÉ
¨Éå ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ +ÊxÉ´ÉɪÉÇiÉÉ WÉ°ü®ú ½èþ *
ªÉÖrù +Éè®ú ºÉÆPɹÉÇ ½þ®ú ªÉÖMÉ ¨Éå ®ú½äþ ½éþ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ªÉÖMÉ Eäò Ê´Éb÷ ¤ÉxÉÉ¨ÉªÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ Eäò
+xiÉuÇùxuù EòÒ |ÉÊiÉv´ÉÊxÉ ½èþ * ªÉ½þ ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ ®úÉ¨É Eäò SÉÊ®újÉ ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ {ÉÊ®ú Éä¶É ºÉä +ʦɴªÉHò ½þÉäEò®ú +ÊvÉEò
ºlÉɪÉÒ ½þÉä MɪÉÉ ½èþ * CªÉÉåÊEò ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ EòÉ ®úÉ¨É <Ç·É®ú xɽþÓ ¤ÉαEò +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ÉÉxÉ´É EòÉ |ÉiÉÒEò
½èþ * b÷Éì. ®úɨÉEò¨É±É®úÉªÉ Eäò Eò½äþ +xÉÖºÉÉ®ú “®úÉ¨É ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ ½éþ +Éè®ú BEò ɽþÉxÉ SÉÊ®újÉ´ÉɱÉä ɽþɨÉÉxÉ´É * =xÉEòÉ
¨ÉÚ±É º´É¦ÉÉ´É Eò¯ûhÉÉ, |Éä É +Éè®ú +˽þºÉÉ EòÉ ½èþ *” 12 ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ {ÉÊ®ú Éä¶É Éå {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò ®úÉ¨É EòÉä ÊuùvÉÉOɺiÉ
+ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¨ÉÉxÉ´É Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå ÊSÉÊjÉiÉ Eò®ú EòÊ´É xÉä ºÉ¨ÉEòɱÉÒxÉ |ÉɺÉÆÊMÉEòiÉÉ EòÉ ÊxÉ´ÉÉǽþ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * xÉ®äú¶É
VÉÒ EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ xÉä ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ ªÉÉäVÉxÉÉ ¨Éå ¤É½ÖþiÉ ½þÒ ºÉiÉEÇòiÉÉ ºÉä EòɪÉÇ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ -
“+xªÉ |ÉɪÉζSÉiÉ Eò®åú ¨Éä®äúʱÉB
nÖùJÉ ¦ÉÉäMÉä,
...........
´ªÉÊHò EòÉ ´ÉxÉ´ÉɺÉ
{ÉÊ®úVÉxÉ +Éè®ú {ÉÖ®úVÉxÉ EäòʱÉB
+ʦɶÉÉ{É CªÉÉå ¤ÉxÉ VÉÉªÉ ?
´ªÉÊHòMÉiÉ ¨Éä®úÒ ºÉ¨ÉºªÉɪÉå
CªÉÉå BäÊiɽþÉʺÉEò EòÉ®úhÉÉå EòÉä VÉx¨É nåù ?”13
®úÉ¨É Eäò ÊuùvÉÉOɺiÉ ¨ÉxÉ ºÉä {ÉÊ®úiÉÉ{É +Éè®ú {ɶSÉÉiÉÉ{É EòÒ v´ÉÊxÉ ªÉÉå ÊxÉEò±ÉxÉä {É®ú ½þ É +SÉ®úVÉ ¨Éå {Éb÷ VÉɪÉåMÉä
ÊEò EòÊ´É EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ EòÒ ¶ÉÊHò ÊEòiÉxÉÒ ¨Éʽþ ÉɨɪÉÒ ½èþ ?
26Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ ªÉÉäVÉxÉÉ Eäò uùÉ®úÉ {ÉÉè®úÉÊhÉEò ®úÉ¨É EòlÉÉ ¨Éå +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¤ÉÉävÉ
+Éè®ú ªÉÖMÉÒxÉ ¦ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉ®úÉ EòÒ +ʦɴªÉÆVÉxÉÉ Eò®úEäò EòÊ´É xÉä BEò SɨÉiEòÉ®ú ÊnùJÉɪÉÉ ½èþ * +xiÉ ¨Éå ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ ÊxÉ´ÉÞkÉ
½þÉäEò®ú ®úÉ¨É ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ±ÉäxÉä EòÒ, κlÉÊiÉ iÉEò {ɽÚÄþSÉ VÉÉiÉä ½éþ iÉÉä EòÊ´É EòÉ¡òÒ ºÉ¡ò±É ½þÉä VÉÉiÉä ½éþ * xÉ®äú¶É VÉÒ
EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ ºÉä ¡Úò]õiÉÒ ½Öþ<Ç +xÉxiÉ ¶ÉÊHò ¨Éå VÉxÉ ¨ÉÆMÉ±É EòÒ ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ½þÒ ºÉ´ÉÇ|ɨÉÖJÉ ½èþ * |ɺiÉÖiÉ ®úSÉxÉÉ
Eäò WÉÊ®úB =x½þÉåxÉä Eò¯ûhÉÉ, {É®úÉä{ÉEòÉ®ú, +Éi¨ÉiªÉÉMÉ, ºÉiªÉ {É®ú +Êb÷MÉ Ê´É·ÉɺÉ, +Énù¶ÉÇ EòÒ {ÉÊ®ú®úIÉÉ, ÊxɨÉDZÉ
|Éä É +ÉÊnù EäòʱÉB =VV´É±É où¹]õÉxiÉ ªÉjÉ iÉjÉ |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ * <ºÉ¨Éå ®úÉ¨É Eäò ºÉ¨¨ÉÖJÉ xªÉÉªÉ +Éè®ú
+ÊvÉEòÉ®ú |ÉÉÎ{iÉ EäòʱÉB ªÉÖrù Eäò +±ÉÉ´ÉÉ +Éè®ú EòÉä<Ç ¨ÉÉMÉÇ ¶Éä¹É xɽþÓ ®ú½þ MɪÉÉ iÉÉä ¦ÉÒ ´Éä +{ÉxÉä EòÉ´ªÉ Eäò
|ÉÊiÉ Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ÉÉxÉ ½éþ -
“ ¨Éé ¦ÉÒ ªÉÖrù EòÒ +ÉÊxÉ´ÉɪÉÇiÉÉ EòÉä ¨ÉÉxÉiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ
ÊEòxiÉÖ
+{ÉxÉä ®úɹ]Åõ Eäò |ÉÊiÉ
CªÉÉ ªÉ½þÒ EòiÉÇ ªÉ ½èþ ¨Éä®úÉ
=ºÉ {É®ú ½þÉä ®ú½äþ
<ºÉ +ÉGò¨ÉhÉ ¨Éå ºÉÉlÉ nÚÄù ?” 14
ªÉ½þÉÄ xÉ®äú¶É VÉÒ EòÒ oùι]õ |ÉVÉÉ{ÉɱÉEòÉå EòÉä =ºÉÒ +Éä®ú SÉäiÉÉ´ÉxÉÒ näùxÉä EäòʱÉB ¨ÉÖb÷iÉÒ ½èþ ÊEò ÊEòºÉÒ
¦ÉÒ ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ±ÉäxÉä Eäò {ɽþ±Éä nÚùºÉ®úÒ ¤ÉÉ®ú ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ +Éè®ú ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò nùÉʪÉi´É Eäò |ÉÊiÉ vªÉÉxÉ®úiÉ ®ú½þxÉÉ +{ÉxÉÉ
EòiÉÇ ªÉ ½èþ * xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÒ ±ÉÉäEò¨ÉÆMɱÉ-EòɨÉxÉɨɪÉÒ EòÉ´ªÉoùι]õ EòÉ xÉÚiÉxÉ |ɺÉÉ®úhÉ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’
EòÒ ¨É½þi´É{ÉÚhÉÇ ={ɱÉΤPÉ ½èþ *
+ɨÉVÉxÉiÉÉ Eäò nÖùJÉ +Éè®ú ºÉÆPɹÉÇ EòÉ |ÉÊiÉÊxÉÊvÉi´É Eò®úxÉä ÉɱÉÉ ½þxÉÖ ÉÉxÉ, +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ªÉÖMÉ Eäò
ÊxÉ®úlÉÇEòiÉÉ ¤ÉÉävÉ ºÉä {ÉÒÊb÷iÉ Ê´É¦ÉÒ¹ÉhÉ, +xÉÖVÉ ½þÉäiÉä ½ÖþB ¦ÉÒ uùxuùOɺiÉ ®úÉ¨É EòÉä ªÉÖrùÉäx¨ÉÖJÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä Éå |ɪÉixÉ®úiÉ
±ÉI¨ÉhÉ +ÉÊnù EòÉä ʨÉlÉEò Eäò ºÉ½þÉ®äú EòÊ´É xÉä ÊVÉiÉxÉÒ EÖò¶É±ÉiÉÉ ºÉä +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò ¦ÉÉ´É ¤ÉÉävÉ ¦É®ú ÊnùªÉÉ ½èþ, ´É½þ
EòÊ´É EòÒ Ê¨ÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ EòÉ º{ɹ]õ +Éè®ú ºÉÖxnù®ú |ɨÉÉhÉ ½èþ * {É®Æú{É®úÉMÉiÉ ®úÉ¨É EòlÉÉ Eäò {ÉÉjÉÉå EòÉä,
´É½þÉÄ ºÉä EÖòUô nÚù®ú ±ÉÉEò®ú JÉb÷É Eò®ú ÊnùªÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä ¦ÉÒ ½þ ÉÉ®äú ¨ÉxÉ EòlÉÉ EòÒ ºÉSSÉÉ<Ç {É®ú ºÉƶɪÉOɺiÉ ½þÉäEò®ú
Ê´ÉSÉʱÉiÉ xɽþÓ ½þÉäiÉä * nù®ú+ºÉ±É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ VÉÒ EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ EòÒ JÉÚʤɪÉÉÄ ½þÒ <ºÉEòÉ EòÉ®úhÉ ½èþ *
27Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
b÷Éì. ¨É½þÉ´ÉÒ®ú˺ɽþ SÉÉè½þÉxÉ EòÉ EòlÉxÉ ªÉ½þÉÄ vªÉÉiÉ´ªÉ ½èþ - “ ‘ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ’ ¨Éå ÊuùvÉÉ +Éè®ú +ÊxÉhÉǪÉ
EòÒ ¨ÉxÉκlÉÊiÉ ¨Éå bÚ÷¤Éä, ºÉ¨ÉªÉ EòÒ vÉÉ®úÉ Eäò ºÉ¨ÉIÉ +{ÉxÉä +É{É EòÉä Ê´É´É¶É +Éè®ú +ºÉ¨ÉlÉÇ {ÉÉxÉä ÉɱÉä ®úÉ¨É +{ÉxÉä
{É®Æú{ÉÊ®úiÉ °ü{É ºÉä ¤É½ÖþiÉ EÖòUô ʦÉzÉ ½þÉäxÉä Eäò ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚnù ªÉÊnù ½þ Éå +ʴɷɺÉxÉÒªÉ xɽþÓ ÊnùJÉɪÉÒ näùiÉä iÉÉä
<ºÉEòÉ ¨ÉÖJªÉ EòÉ®úhÉ ªÉ½þÒ ½èþ ÊEò ªÉ½þÉÄ ¦ÉÒ ®úÉ¨É EòÒ ¤ÉäSÉèxÉÒ EòÉ |ɨÉÖJÉ EòÉ®úhÉ =xÉEòÉ +Énù¶ÉÇ ÉÉnùÒ
ÊSÉxiÉxÉ ½èþ *” 15
ʨÉlÉEò Eäò +xnù®ú +ºÉÆ¦É´É ªÉÉ +SÉ®úVÉ EòÒ |ÉiÉÒÊiÉ ½þÉäxÉ´ÉɱÉÒ PÉ]õxÉɪÉå ½þÉäiÉÒ ½éþ * +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò
´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEò oùι]õ ºÉä <ºÉEòÉ ¨ÉÆlÉxÉ Eò®úEäò EòÉ´ªÉ ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEò EòÒ +´ÉvÉÉ®úhÉÉ EòÉä ={ÉäIÉhÉÒªÉ ¨ÉÉxÉxÉä ÉɱÉä
iÉÉÌEòEò ½þÉäiÉä ½éþ * ±ÉäÊEòxÉ <ºÉEòÉ ºÉ`ööÒEò =kÉ®ú Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ EòÉ´ªÉÉå EòÒ ºÉÞι]õ, ´ÉÉEò<Ç =xÉ
»É¹]õÉ+Éå EòÒ EòÉ´ªÉ oùι]õ Eäò SɨÉiEòÉ®ú Eäò ʤÉxÉÉ +Éè®ú EÖòUô ¦ÉÒ xɽþÓ ½èþ * |ÉÉSÉÒxÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®úhÉ +Éè®ú +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEò
´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®úhÉ ¨Éå ÊxÉʽþiÉ ¤Énù±ÉÉ´É EòÉä {ÉÚhÉÇiÉ: ºÉ¨ÉZÉEò®ú, +ÉvÉÖÊxÉEòiÉÉ EòÉä |ÉSÉÒxÉiÉÉ ºÉä |ɦÉÉÊ´ÉiÉ Eò®úEäò
ºÉVÉÇxÉÉi¨ÉEò ¤Énù±ÉÉ´É näùxÉÉ EòÊ´É EòÒ ºÉIɨÉiÉÉ ¨Éå ÊxÉʽþiÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½èþ * EòÉ´ªÉ ¨Éå ʨÉlÉEòÒªÉ {ÉÊ®úEò±{ÉxÉÉ näùxÉÉ
+iªÉxiÉ nÚù¦É®ú EòÉ¨É xÉ ¨ÉÉxÉEò®ú ÊEòºÉÒ ¦ÉÒ ÊnùCEòiÉ Eäò ʤÉxÉÉ ºÉ®ú±ÉiÉÉ ºÉä EòɪÉÇ ÊxɦÉÉxÉÉ ¸Éä¹`ö EòʴɪÉÉå
EäòʱÉB +{ÉxÉÉ EòÊ´ÉEò¨ÉÇ ½þÒ ½èþ * +{ÉxÉä EòÊ´É Eò¨ÉÇ EòÉä ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ ºÉä ÊxɦÉÉxÉä ¨Éå ºÉ¨ÉlÉÇ +xÉäEò EòÊ´É
+ÉvÉÖÊxÉEòEòÉ±É Eäò ¨É½þiÉ {ÉÖhªÉ Eäò tÉäiÉEò ½éþ * <xɨÉå xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÉ ºlÉÉxÉ ÊxÉÌ´É´ÉÉnù °ü{É ºÉä
ºÉ´ÉÉæ{ÉÊ®ú ½èþ *
ºÉÆnù¦ÉǺÉÆEäòiÉ
1. b÷ÉÆ ºÉÆiÉÉä¹É EÖò¨ÉÉ®ú ÊiÉ´ÉÉ®úÒ-xɪÉä EòÊ´É BEò +vªÉªÉxÉ {ÉÞ-11
2. b÷ÉÆ Eò¨É±ÉÉ |ɺÉÉnù {ÉÉÆbä÷ªÉ-UôɪÉÉ´ÉÉnùÉäkÉ®ú ˽þnùÒ EòÉ´ªÉ EòÒ ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò +Éè®ú ºÉÉƺEÞòÊiÉEò
{ÉÞ¹`ö ¦ÉÚ欃 {ÉÞ 13
3. ¸ÉÒ |ɨÉÉänù ÊjÉ´ÉänùÒ - xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ BEò BEòÉÆiÉ Ê¶ÉJÉ®ú- {ÉÞ 36
4. b÷ÉÆ =nùªÉ´ÉÒ®ú¶É¨ÉÉÇ =´ÉÒ¶É - +ɹÉÇEòÊ´É xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ- {ÉÞ-73
5. ¸ÉÒ xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ - ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ {ÉÞ-20
6. ´É½þÒ - {ÉÞ-23
7. ¸ÉÒ |ɦÉÉEò®ú¶É¨ÉÉÇ - xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÉ EòÉ´ªÉ -ʴɨɶÉÇ +Éè®ú ¨ÉÚ±ªÉÉÆEòxÉ {ÉÞ-25
28Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
8. ¸ÉÒ xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ - ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ -{ÉÞ-25
9. ´É½þÒ - {ÉÞ-71
10. ´É½þÒ - {ÉÞ-54
11. ´É½þÒ - {ÉÞ-69
12. ¸ÉÒ®úÉ¨É Eò¨É±É ®úÉªÉ - xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ EòÒ >ðv´ÉǪÉÉjÉÉ {ÉÞ -78
13. ¸ÉÒ xÉ®äú¶É ¨Éä½þiÉÉ - ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ EòÒ BEò ®úÉiÉ {ÉÞ 19-20
14. ´É½þÒ - {ÉÞ 72
15. b÷ÉÆ ¨É½þÉ´ÉÒ®ú˺ɽþ SÉÉè½þÉxÉ - xɪÉÒ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉ EòÒ |ɤÉxvÉ SÉäiÉxÉÉ {ÉÞ-72
29Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
ABSTRACT
Electrical properties of metal and semiconductors have been studied.
Current-voltage characteristic shows Ohmic behavior for metal and non-
Ohmic behavior for semiconductor at high fields. Temperature
dependence of electrical conductivity is linear for metal and activated
behavior for semiconductor.
EXPERIMENTAL
Constant current source,
temperature controller, digital
thermometer are designed and
constructed to study the
electrical properties of the
materials. Constant current
source supplying current from
0-30 mA is designed and
constructed to measure low
resistance sample. Figure 1
shows circuit diagram of
constant current source. Current
is set by the potentiometer. Difference in the input is amplified by
differential amplifier µA 741 which drives the emitter follower. Voltage
across the 1 Ù resistor provides current feed back. Buffer amplifier
amplifies the voltage across the current resistor whose output goes to
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY IN SOLIDS
K. M. REMYA and T. RAVINDRAN
Department of Physics
30Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
differential amplifier. Gain of the amplifier determines the regulation.
Variation in load resistance changes the voltage drop across the current
resistor which is the input to the buffer amplifier. Output of the buffer
amplifier is given to the differential amplifier whose difference is amplified
and maintains constant current across the load. Current changes by less
than 0.1 % when load changes from 10 MÙ to 1 Ù.
Temperature controllers are mainly classified into ON-OFF
proportional and proportional-integral-differential (PID) controller
according to different ways of power input to heater. The simplest controller
is ON-OFF. Voltage given to the heater is constant until temperature of the
bath is equal to the set temperature. When the temperature exceeds the
set temperature, voltage goes
to zero. In a proportional
controller, output to heater is
proportional to the difference in
system temperature and set
temperature. Output to heater
is proportional to the error
signal. In PID controller, voltage
proportional to the integral of
the error signal is supplied to the
heater.
Temperature controller
designed and constructed is a
proportional controller. Circuit
diagram is shown in figure 2.
Pulse width of the square wave
signal generated by the IC 555
timer can be varied by
adjusting the potentiometer.
31Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Output is high during the
time interval T1 = 0.693
(R1+R2)C and output is
low during the time
interval T2=0.693R1C.
Signal drives the
Darlington pair which
consists of transistors SL
100 and 2N 3055. Resistance of the Nichrome heater coil is 4 Ù. Power
delivered by the controller is 20 W.
Sensors commonly used are platinum resistance thermometer,
thermocouple, diode sensors and thermistors. Figure 3 shows the circuit
diagram of a digital thermometer. Copper-constantan thermocouple is
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
Voltage (Volts)
Cu
rre
nt
(mA
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
Voltage (Volts)
Cu
rre
nt
(mA
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
9.75 9.8 9.85 9.9 9.95Voltage (Volts)
Cu
rre
nt
(mA
)
Figure 5. Current-voltage
characteristic of InAs and copper
Figure 6. Current-voltage characteristicof n-channel silicon
Figure 7. Current-voltage characteristic
of forward biased p-n junction.
Figure 8. Current-voltage characteristic
of reverse biased p-n junction.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Voltage (m V)
Cu
rre
nt
(mA
)
InAs
Copper
32Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
used to measure temperature from 0 0C to 200 0C. Thermo e-m-f is almost
linear in this temperature range. Thermo e-m-f is about 35 µV/0C at
room temperature. Thermo e-m-f generated is amplified by differential
dc amplifier. The amplified signal is given to ICL 7106 analog to digital
converter which drives seven segment display. Accuracy of 0.1 0C is
obtained.
The Experimental setup for temperature dependence of electrical
conductivity is shown in figure 4. Temperature dependence of resistance
is measured by passing constant current through the sample and voltage
developed across the sample is measured.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Current-voltage characteristics of copper, InAs, n-type silicon and
forward and reverse biased p-n junctions are shown in figures 5, 6, 7 and
8. Current-voltage characteristics show Ohmic behavior for copper and
non-Ohmic behavior for
compound semiconductor InAs at
high fields, n-channel silicon (FET
BFW10), forward and reverse
biased p-n junctions (emitter base
junction of transistor BEL 100N).
Figures 9 and 10 show
temperature (T) dependence of
electrical resistivity of copper, n-
channel silicon, forward and
reverse biased p-n junctions and InAs. Resistance increases with increase
in temperature for copper and heavily doped n-type silicon. Forward,
reverse biased p-n junctions and compound semiconductor show
decrease in resistance with increase in temperature.
33Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Materials are classified
according to electrical
properties as metal,
semiconductor and insulator.
Band structure of a metal
consists of a partially filled
band. Electrons acquire
additional energy from field
and move to higher energy
states. Partially filled band is
called conduction band. Overlapping of valance and conduction band
also leads to metal. Resistivity of a metal (~10-6 Ùcm) is ñ = ñ 0 + ñ
1(T) , ñ
0 is
the residual resistivity at absolute zero and ñ1(T) is temperature dependent
arising from scattering of conduction electron by lattice vibration. In a
semiconductor valance band is completely filled and conduction band is
empty. Resistivity is in the range of 10-2 to 103 Ùcm at room temperature
and is strongly temperature dependent. Energy gap of semiconductor is
relatively small from 1 eV to 4 eV. Thermally excited electrons (~25 meV)
from the valance band to the conduction band acquire additional energy
from field and move through the crystal. Zener tunneling occurs for large
fields. Current is carried by electrons and holes. Insulators have resistivity
above 1014 Ùcm. Energy gap for insulator is large (~6 eV).
Electrical resistance of a material arises from scattering of electrons
from lattice vibrations, impurities and defects. In a pure crystal, conductivity
is infinite because Bloch electrons in a periodic lattice will not get scattered.
Current-voltage characteristic shows Ohmic behavior for metal for a large
range of electric fields. Nonlinearity is observed at low fields in
semiconductors and diodes. Non-Ohmic conduction [1] arises from
variation of mobility with field, space charge limited currents [2], Poole-
Frenkel effects [3] and Schottky emission [4] from electrodes in
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
25 45 65 85 105
No
rmalize
d resis
tivi
ty
Temperature (0C)
Figure 10. Temperature dependence of normalized electrical resistivity of reverse bias, forward bias p-n junctions (emitter-base junction of transistor BEL 100N) and InAs.
Reverse bias
Forward bias
InAs
34Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
semiconductors. Nonlinearity in diode is due to the potential barrier
created at the junction.
Material properties are modified by adding impurities to the pure
crystals. Donor or accepter
impurities are added to the pure
silicon or germanium crystals to
manufacture diodes and transistors.
Donor and acceptor impurities
occupy lattice sites and overlap
their wave function to form
impurity levels near to the valance
or conduction band (0.1 eV) (figure 11). Electrons in an impurity atoms
move around in hydrogen like orbitals. At room temperature most of the
electrons in the donor levels are
thermally excited to the conduction
band. Hence conductivity is mainly
determined by impurity electrons.
Figure 12 shows enegy level
diagram for metal-metal contact,
metal-semiconductor contact and
p-n junction. In a semiconducting
device metal-semiconductor
contacts are manufactured such that
the contacts are nonrectifying.
Contact potential is constant
independent of the direction and
magnitude of current. Such
contacts are called Ohmic. Applied
voltage changes the potential
barrier across the p-n junction. In a
35Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
metal-semiconductor contact electrons flow from metal to semiconductor
in such a way that Fermi levels match . A potential barrier is formed in the
semiconductor junction called Schottky barrier.
A p-n junction is formed in a single crystal semiconductor by adding
donor impurities into one side and acceptor impurities into other side. The
junction acts as a rectifier. Metal contact to the diode is Ohmic. Applied
potential (V) changes the potential barrier across the junction. In the
forward bias, electric current (I) is due to electrons and holes.
I=Isexp(eV/kT-1), where I
s is the sum of generation currents. In the reverse
bias, recombination current is Inr
=Inr0
exp(-eV/kT) where Inro
is the
recombination current due to electrons in thermal equilibrium. The
temperature dependence of electrical conductivity (ó) of metal is linear.
Temperature dependence of semiconductor is ó=ó0exp(-E
g/2kT) , where
Eg
is the energy gap. The dependence of reverse saturation current on
temperature in a p-n diode (silicon) is I0 =KT1.5exp(-E
g/2kT) where K is a
constant.
When applied field is small drain current increases linearly with
voltage in n-channel silicon. Increasing the field, current varies nonlinearly,
attains constant current region and then avalanche break down occurs. In
the constant current region channel is pinched off. Temperature
dependence of electrical resistivity shows increase in resistance with
increase in temperature. In a heavily doped semiconductor resistance
increases with temperature because of decrease in carrier mobility with
temperature.
CONCLUSION
Electrical properties of metal, compound semiconductor, doped
semiconductor and diode are studied. Current voltage characteristic shows
Ohmic behavior for metal. The behavior is non-Ohmic for semiconductor
at high fields, doped semiconductor and diodes. Positive temperature
36Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
coefficient of resistance is observed for metal and heavily doped
semiconductor. Forward bias p-n junction, reverse bias p-n junction and
compound semiconductor InAs show negative temperature coefficient of
resistance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors are grateful to P. Dharmanandan for technical assistance
and NAAC for the support and cooperation for the research activity.
REFERENCE
1. T. Ravindran and S. V. Subramanyam 1991 Bull. Mater. Sci. 14
1205.
2. A. Rose 1955 Phys. Rev. 97 1538.
3. C. J. Adkins, S.M.Freake and E. M. Hamilton 1970 Philos. Mag. 22
183.
4. P.R. Emtage and W. Tantraporn 1962 Phys. Rev. Lett. 8 267.
37Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Atmospheric aerosols play important roles in climate and atmospheric
chemistry: They scatter sunlight, provide condensation nuclei for cloud
droplets, and participate in heterogeneous chemical reactions. Two
important aerosol species, sulphate and carbon particles have large natural
sources that depend in a highly complex fashion on environmental and
ecological parameters and therefore are prone to influence by global
change. Reactions in and on sea-salt aerosol particles may have a strong
influence on oxidation processes in the marine boundary layer through
the production of halogen radicals, and reactions on mineral aerosols may
significantly affect the cycles of nitrogen, sulfur, and atmospheric oxidants.
Atmospheric aerosols are particles of solid and liquid phase
dispersed in the atmosphere. These particles are mainly sand dust from
the desert, suspensions result from volcanic eruption, carbon and soot
generated from industries and vehicles and sea salt precipitated during
evaporation. Subsequently, these particles or aerosols are well confined
in the atmosphere over a height of 3 km from the earth’s surface. As a
result, these fine particles interrupt the solar radiation received on the
surface of the earth to a larger extent, which in turn affect the solar energy
reaching on earth’s surface. The scattering of sunlight by aerosol can reduce
the solar flux, which results in the cooling of the surface of this planet. But
some of the aerosols have their chemical property to enhance the
greenhouse effect which warms earth and its atmosphere. These sporadic
changes in the atmosphere can induce substantial variation in the global
THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF AEROSOLS IN RETRIEVING
THE DYNAMICS OF ATMOSPHERE
K.M.PRASEED, K.RATHNAKARAN, SHEELA M JOSEPH AND
M.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
Department of Atmospheric Science , Kannur University
38Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
climate. Most aerosols are in the troposphere, but large volcanic eruptions
can inject aerosols and trace gases much higher into the stratosphere.
Aerosols in the stratosphere may remain for years while in the troposphere,
precipitation and interactions with Earth’s surface remove aerosols in ten
days or less. Aerosols are too small to be individually visible, but you can
often see their combined effect when the sky is hazy or looks dirty. Brilliant
orange skies at sunrise and sunset may also be indicators that aerosols are
present. Aerosols influence our weather and climate because they affect
the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface. Volcanic aerosols in the
stratosphere have changed the surface air temperatures around the world
for years at a time. Biomass burning causes large local increases in aerosol
concentrations that can affect regional weather. Taken together with other
atmospheric measurements, aerosol measurements help scientists to
understand and predict climate and to comprehend atmospheric chemistry.
Aerosol concentrations vary significantly with location and time. There are
seasonal and diurnal variations as well as unpredictable changes due to
events such as large dust storms and volcanic eruptions. Aerosols are highly
mobile; they can cross oceans and mountain ranges. It is generally agreed
that, because of higher concentrations of aerosols, skies in many parts of
the world are hazier than they were one or two centuries ago, even in rural
areas.
Aerosol Optical Thickness (AOT, also called Aerosol Optical
Depth) is a measure of the extent to which aerosols affect the passage of
sunlight through the atmosphere. The larger the optical thickness at a
particular wavelength, the less light of that wavelength reaches Earth’s
surface. Measurements of aerosol optical thickness at more than one
wavelength can provide important information about the concentration,
size distribution, and variability of aerosols in the atmosphere. This
information is needed for climate studies, for comparison with satellite data
and to understand the global distribution and variability of aerosols.
39Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Investigating Aerosols
Scientists have many questions regarding aerosols. How do aerosol
concentrations change with the seasons? How are aerosol concentrations
related to the weather and climate? How does smoke from large forest
affect sunlight reaching Earth’s surface? How long do volcanic emissions
stay in the atmosphere and where do they go? How is air pollution related
to aerosols? How do large industrial facilities and agricultural activities
affect aerosols? How do aerosols affect a satellite’s view of Earth’s surface?
Global measurements are needed to monitor the present distribution of
aerosols and to track events that alter aerosol concentrations. Their study
can lead to a better understanding of Earth’s climate and how it is changing.
Devices which measure the solar flux at these two discrete wavelengths
are known as a Sun Photometer which essentially contains a light filter,
detector and electronics to convert the solar intensity into voltages. The
conventional sun photometer has two channels, each of which is sensitive
to a particular wavelength of light green light at about 505 nanometers
(nm) and red light at about 625 nm. Green light is near the peak sensitivity
of the human eye; hence, a visibly hazy sky is likely to have a large aerosol
optical thickness at this wavelength. Red light is more sensitive to larger
aerosols. Data from a single channel enables the calculation of AOT in a
particular wavelength range but it does not provide information about the
size distribution of aerosols. Combining data from more than one channel
provides information on size distribution. Knowing the size distribution helps
identify the source of the aerosols.
Measurements taken with the sun photometer are in units of volts.
These values must be converted to aerosol optical thickness. There is a
Looking at the Data section for advanced a student that includes the
equation for converting sun photometer measurements into aerosol optical
thickness. A typical aerosol optical thickness value for visible light in clear
40Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
air is roughly 0.1. A very clear sky may have an AOT at green-light
wavelengths of 0.05 or less. Very hazy skies can have AOTs of 0.5 or
greater. It may be easier to understand the concept of optical thickness
when it is expressed in terms of the percentage of light that is transmitted
through the atmosphere, according to this formula:
Percent transmission = 100 x e-a
where a is optical thickness at a
particular wavelength. This
calculation gives the percentage of
light at a specific wavelength that
would be transmitted through the
atmosphere if the sun were directly
overhead. For example, an optical
thickness of 0.10 corresponds to the
percent transmission is about 90.5%.
Table 1 gives percent transmission as
a function of optical thickness.
Calculating Aerosol Optical
Thickness
The sun photometer output in
the form of a voltage can be calculated directly to the aerosol optical
thickness (AOT). This calculation is quite complicated but it is essential to
retrieve the abundance of aerosols present over a specific location. The
simplest equation for determining the AOT is:
Where:
ln is the natural (base e) logarithm Vo is the calibration constant
for your sun photometer. Each channel (red and green) has its own
Optical Percentage Thickness Transmission
0.10 90.5%
0.20 81.9%0.30 74.1%0.40 67.0%0.50 60.7%0.60 54.9%0.75 47.2%1.00 36.8%1.25 28.7%1.50 22.3%2.00 13.5%2.50 8.2%3.00 5.0%3.50 3.0%4.00 1.8%5.00 0.7%
AOT=[ln(V0/R2)-ln(V-V
dark)-a
R(p/p
0)m]
m
41Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
constant; R is the Earth-sun distance expressed in astronomical units (AU).
The average Earth-sun distance is 1 AU. This value varies over the course
of a year because the Earth’s orbit around the sun is not circular. An
approximate formula for R is:
(1- e 2)
[1+
e
cos(3600
·
d/365)]
where e is the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, approximately equal to
0.0167, and d is the day of the year. (Eccentricity is a measure of the amount
by which the Earth’s orbit differs from a circle.) Note that this equation
predicts that the minimum value for R occurs at the beginning of the year.
The actual minimum Earth-sun distance occurs, in fact, in early January. V
and V dark
are the sunlight and dark voltage from the sun photometer. It is
the contribution to optical thickness of molecular (Rayleigh) scattering of
light in the atmosphere. For the red channel is about 0.05793 and for the
green channel it is about 0.13813. P is the station pressure (the actual
barometric pressure) at the time of the measurement. Po is standard sea
level atmospheric pressure (1013.25 millibars), m is the relative air mass.
Its approximate value is:
m= 1/sin(solar elevation angle)
where solar elevation angle can be obtained from the Making a Sundial
Learning Activity or by using aclinometer. The calculation of AOT uses a
series of equations to more accurately calculate the Earth-sun distance.
For relative air mass, it uses those same astronomical equations to calculate
solar position from your longitude and latitude and the time at which you
took your measurement. Then it uses the calculated solar elevation angle
to calculate relative air mass, using an equation that takes into account the
curvature of Earth’s atmosphere and the refraction (bending) of light rays
as they pass through the atmosphere.
R =
42Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Aerosols and Climate
Fig.2 The schematic diagram shows
the influence of aerosols in changing
the climate
Over the past decade, there
has been intense interest
concerning the role of aerosols in
climate and atmospheric chemistry.
The climatic effects of aerosols had
already been recognized in the early to mid-1970s, but the focus of scientific
attention shifted during the 1980s to the impact of the growing atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases. Scientific interest in
the climatic role of aerosols was rekindled after the proposal of a link
between marine biogenic aerosols and global climate. The main sources
of biogenic aerosols are the emission of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the
oceans and of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs) from terrestrial
vegetation, followed by their oxidation in the troposphere. Carbonyl sulfide
(COS), which has a variety of natural and anthropogenic sources, is an
important source for stratospheric sulphate aerosol and therefore indirectly
plays an important role in stratospheric ozone chemistry. These sources
are susceptible to changes in physical and chemical climate: The marine
production of DMS is dependent on plankton dynamics, which is influenced
by climate and oceanic circulation, and the photo production of COS is a
function of the intensity of ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation. Air-sea transfer
of DMS changes with wind speed and with the temperature difference
between ocean and atmosphere. The amount and composition of terpenes
and other biogenic hydrocarbons depend on climatic parameters, for
example, temperature and solar radiation, and would change radically as
a result of changes in the plant cover due to land use or climate change.
Finally, the production of aerosols from gaseous precursors depends on
43Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
the oxidants present in the atmosphere, and their removal is influenced by
cloud and precipitation dynamics.
Consequently, the fundamental oxidation chemistry of the
atmosphere is an important factor in the production of atmospheric aerosols.
In turn, aerosols may also play a significant role in atmospheric oxidation
processes. The oxidation efficiency of the atmosphere is primarily
determined by OH radicals (7, 8), which are formed through photo-
dissociation of ozone by solar UV radiation, producing electronically excited
O(1D) atoms by way of
where h
n
is a photone of wavelength
l
and by
Laboratory investigations have shown that reaction (1) can occur in a spin-
forbidden mode at wavelengths between 310 and 325 nm (9), and even
up to 410 nm. In the latter case, calculated O(1D) and OH formation at
low-sun conditions at mid-latitudes will increase by more than a factor of 5
compared with earlier estimates. Globally and diurnally averaged, the
tropospheric concentration of OH radicals is about 106 cm-3, corresponding
to a tropospheric mixing ratio of only about 4 x 10-14. Reaction with OH is
the major atmospheric sink for most trace gases, and therefore their
residence times and spatial distributions are largely determined by their
reactivity with OH and by its spatiotemporal distribution. Among these
gases, methane (CH4) reacts rather slowly with OH, resulting in an average
residence time of about 8 years and a relatively even tropospheric
distribution. The residence times of other hydrocarbons are shorter than,
as short as about an hour in the case of isoprene (C5H8) and the terpenes
(C10H16), and consequently, their distributions are highly variable in space
and time.
O3 + h
n
(
l
£
320 or 410 nm)
fi
O(1D) + O2 (1)
O(1D) +H2O
fi
2OH (2)
44Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Black Carbon (BC)
Black carbon particles are one of the prominent aerosols found in
the atmosphere which can rapidly change the scattering and absorption
of solar flux. Thus this change can induce a significant variation in the
scattering albedo by which atmospheric dynamics will be varied from
time to time. Black carbon, brown carbon, and mineral dust are three of
the most important light absorbing aerosols. Their optical properties differ
greatly and are distinctive functions of the wavelength of light. Most optical
instruments that quantify light absorption, however, are unable to
distinguish one type of absorbing aerosol from another. It is thus ever,
instructive to separate total absorption from these different light
absorbers to gain a better understanding of the optical characteristics of
each aerosol type. While agreeing with the common consensus that BC is
the most 20 important light absorber in the mid-visible, it was
demonstrated that brown carbon and dust could also cause significant
absorption, especially at shorter wavelengths.
Aerosols scatter and absorb shortwave solar radiation, generally
resulting in cooling and warming of the planet, respectively, if the two
phenomena are treated independently. When globally averaged, the vast
amounts of highly scattering sulfate particles in the atmosphere (a product
of fossil-fuel combustion) are believed to have a net cool- cooling effect
on the earth’s surface. On the other hand, strongly absorbing soot carbon
aerosols lead to a warming of the planet. Other important light absorbing
aerosols in the atmosphere include brown carbon and mineral dust.
Aerosol absorption can be represented by the classic Beer-Lambert Law,
which relates the intensity of incident (I0) and outgoing (I) light by an
exponential:
I = I0e-lc
45Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
where l is the path length, and c is the concentration. The product of l and
c in the exponent is defined as the absorption coefficient (bap), which
can be measured by in-situ instruments such as the Aethelometer in units
of inverse length. If c represents the mass concentration of absorbing
particles (e.g. µg/m3), is then the mass absorption cross-section, or Mass
Absorption Efficiency (MAE), often in units of m2/g; MAE can vary greatly
depending on the type of light absorbers. Analogously, the scattering
coefficient (bsp) is the product of the scat- scattering cross section and
the concentration of scattering particles. Since all aerosols scatter light,
scattering coefficient is often used as a proxy for particle concentration.
The fraction of light extinction (sum of scattering and absorption) due to
scattering is defined as the single scatter albedo an intensive property
determined by the particle composition while independent of the total
aerosol concentration. The statistics of IPCC 2005 (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climatic Change) revealed the fact that India has the fourth
place in the release of black carbon in the world. It has been estimated
that BC could exert a positive radiative forcing of 0.2 Wm-2 and this in
turn would be sufficient enough to change the climate rapidly. The
complexities in exploring the atmosphere leading to the following aspects:
Radiative forcing
Radiative forcing is the change in the balance between solar
radiation entering the atmosphere and the Earth’s radiation going out.
On average, a positive radiative forcing tends to warm the surface of the
Earth while negative forcing tends to cool the surface. Radiative forcing
is measured in Watts per square meter, which is a measure of energy. For
example, an increase in radiative forcing of +1 Watt per square meter is
like shining one small holiday tree light bulb over every square meter of
the Earth.
Greenhouse gases have a positive radiative forcing because they
absorb and emit heat. Aerosols can have a positive or negative radiative
46Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
forcing, depending on how they absorb and emit heat and/or reflect light.
For example, black carbon aerosols - which have a positive forcing - more
effectively absorb and emit heat than sulfates, which have a negative
forcing and more effectively reflect light. The following are estimates of the
change in radiative forcing in the year 2005 relative to 1750 for different
components of the climate:
The radiative forcing contribution (since 1750) from increasing
concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases (including CO2, CH4,
N2O, CFCs, HCFCs, and fluorinated gases) is estimated to be +2.64 Watts
per square meter - over half due to increases in CO2 (+1.66 Watts per
square meter), strongly contributing to warming relative to other climate
components described below.
• The radiative forcing contribution from increasing tropospheric
ozone, an unevenly distributed greenhouse gas, is estimated to be
+0.35 Watts per square meter (on average), resulting in a relatively
small warming effect. This forcing varies from region to region
depending on the amount of ozone in the troposphere at a particular
location.
• The radiative forcing contribution from the observed depletion of
stratospheric ozone is estimated to be -0.05 Watts per square meter,
resulting in a relatively small cooling effect.
• While aerosols can have either positive or negative contributions
to radiative forcing, the net effect of all aerosols added to the
atmosphere has likely been negative. The best estimate of aerosols’
direct cooling effect is -0.5 Watts per square meter; the best estimate
for their indirect cooling effect (by increasing the reflectivity of
clouds) is -0.7 Watts per square meter, with an uncertainty range of
-1.8 to -0.3 Watts per square meter. Therefore, the net effect of
47Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
changes in aerosol radiative forcing has likely resulted in a small to
relatively large cooling effect.
• Land use change (including urbanization, deforestation,
reforestation, desertification, etc) can have significant effects on
radiative forcing (and the climate) at the local level by changing the
reflectivity of the land surface (or albedo). For example, because
farmland is more reflective than forests (which are strong absorbers
of heat), replacing forests with farmland would negatively contribute
to radiative forcing or have a cooling effect. Averaged over the Earth,
the net radiative forcing contribution of land use changes, while
uncertain, is estimated to be -0.2 Watts per square meter (IPCC,
2007), resulting in a relatively small cooling effect.
Based on a limited, 25-year record, the effect of changes in
the sun’s intensity on radiative forcing is estimated to be relatively
small, or a contribution of about +0.12 Watts per square meter. Thus
the atmospheric perturbation imparted by the aerosols, trace gases
and greenhouse gases play a vital role in determining the climate
change over a period of time. Owing to the industrial and
anthropogenic activities the concentrations of these species are found
to be increasing that makes the atmospheric dynamics more
complex. With this view, World Meteorological Organisation has
decided to conduct aggressive research all over the world to collect
information from all over the globe to validate the variations in the
weather and climate. Subsequently, the Indian counterpart, ISRO
has taken keen steps to establish Environmental Observatories all
over the country to provide data with high resolution and by which
we hope to map the dynamics of the atmosphere with more precision
in the days to come.
48Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
References:
1. Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000a: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by
soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.
2. Anderson, T.L., et al., 2003: Climate forcing by aerosols: a hazy
picture. Science, 300, 1103–1104.
3. Holben, B.N., et al., 2001: An emerging ground-based aerosol
climatology: aerosol optical depth from
AERONET. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D11), 12067–12097.
4. Ramachandran, S., V. Ramaswamy, G. L. Stenchikov, and
A. Robock, 2000: Radiative impact of the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic
eruption: Lower stratospheric response. J.
Geophys. Res., 105(D19), 24409–24429.
5. Ramanathan, V., P.J. Crutzen, J. T. Kiehl, and D. Rosenfeld,
2001a: Atmosphere: aerosols, climate, and the hydrological
cycle. Science, 294, 2119–2124.
49Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
The origin of Buddhism had been linked with the legend of the
transformation of Prince Siddhartha into the Sage of the whole mankind.
His philosophy contained the message of nonviolence and compassion
that embraced all beings, and it was based on a fine blend of metaphysics
and ethics that paved the way to man’s salvation not by negating life but
by understanding and imbibing the bona fide values of austerity and
sacrifice. Buddhism takes these values as essential for making this world
the home of all and for all, and the ‘all’ here is used in an all embracing
sense with reference to all living and non-living beings. This vision implies
an ecoethical perspective that is shared by other classical Indian systems,
yet at the same time unique in its own way.
In this paper, the focus of inquiry is the ecoethical dimension of
Buddhism as significant in our world of mounting ecological disasters and
crises. It is relevant here to see how the present day Seers in the Buddhist
tradition view and interpret the message of the guru in the context of our
fast changing life and world. With our emphasis on the ecoethical
dimension, we are concerned here more with the message of Buddha for
one and all than the methodological metaphysics in his philosophy. The
prescription for self-realization and self-transformation is vital to this way
of understanding Buddhism as put in this Doka of Zen Master Ikkyu,
“THE BUDDHA IS IN EVERYONE”
THE ECOETHICS OF BUDDHISM
M. RAMAKRISHNAN
Department of Philosophy
“It is easier to carry an empty cup
than one that is filled to the brim.”
Lao-Tzu
50Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
A monk asks Master Pai-Chang,
“Who is the Buddha?”
Pai-Chang answers,
“Who are you?” 1
This typical piece of Buddhist vision reveals, as we meditate upon
further and further, that in order to discover the truth of human nature the
first thing is to look into oneself as the mirror of all the world. Nothing
essentially distinguishes me/you from the rest of the world, and hence
nothing is there to make one superior to the other. So neither the individual
man nor the human species stands apart from or above other individual
human beings or other living species.
Spiritualism with a Difference
In the conventional histories of Indian philosophy, the rise of
Buddhism has been analyzed mainly in terms of the tension between the
orthodox Vedic schools and the heterodox anti-Vedic schools, and
accordingly Buddhism formed a vital component of the latter. Buddhism is
also analyzed as a prominent version of India’s ancient spiritualist tradition,
but certainly it is spiritualism with a difference because in place of the
Brahmancentric means to salvation prescribed by the Vedic schools,
Buddhism had emphasized a homocentric concept of liberation by realizing
man’s essential link with the whole cosmos.
According to Monier Williams, “The Buddha recognized no supreme
deity. The only God, he affirmed, is what man Himself can become. In
Brahmanism God becomes man, in Buddhism man becomes a God” (57).
Hence the radical nature of Buddhism in relation to the preceding systems
of thought can be analyzed from different angles with reference to different
norms. A recent study concludes that the Buddhist opposition to the yajña
tradition of ancient India was motivated by the intention to expose the
folly of the wasteful use of natural resources like firewood and ghee (Gadgil
51Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
and Guha 81). The authors attempt to reassert the ecological import of
Buddhism, both scriptural as well as socio-cultural with a view to delineate
its environmental ethics and ecological traditions.
Buddhism developed systematic and coherent doctrines based on
the concept of intrinsic interconnectedness in nature. This essential ethical
principle emerged out of a coherent synthesis between a well-defined
metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. So, Buddhism in its earliest and
most original form put forth its doctrinal framework in the Four Noble
Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and Fivefold Principles called Panca-Δla.
They embodied the Buddhist prescriptions to meditate upon and realize
the essential identity of man with nature.
Buddhism laid emphasis on mindfulness and meditation as essential
for the immediate perception of the nature of reality. The most fundamental
ideal of ecological significance is the theory of interdependent co-arising.
It explains the inherent cause-effect relation in natural phenomena and at
the same time relates the occurrences in human life to Kârmic causality.
Buddha placed mind in the center of man’s being in the world. The
Dhammapâda explains mind as preceding all things and producing all
things. Speech or act that emerges from a defiled mind is the source of all
suffering, and so from pure mind follows all well being like a “never-parting
shadow”.
The Metaphysics of Emptiness
The Buddhist explanations of reality in terms of interdependent co-
arising are the key to Nagarjuna’s ‘doctrine of emptiness’. The metaphysics
of emptiness is to be comprehended in its proper perspective as implying
the denial of any distinct independent self including that of the human being.
Everything in the world is dependently arisen and therefore everything is
empty in its essential being. This further entails the denial of any superior
independent status for human being. The notion of emptiness substantiates
Kârmic
52Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
the necessary interconnection and interdependence between all natural
phenomena. The true meaning of this concept is explained thus:
The theory of dependent origination and its corollary namely the
doctrine of nothingness in fact lead to the denial of an anthropocentric
sense of separate self, and in effect to the projection of a decentered self
in terms of a wider nature-based ontology. It does not instigate the sense
of insecurity and inferiority, but instead it widens the base of man’s self-
knowledge and self-manifestation as an integral part of nature. This is
nothing but the realization of one’s own Buddhahood in relation to the infinite
number of human and nonhuman Buddhas arising and existing in mutual
dependence in this world.
One in All and All in One
In this background, the Buddhist metaphysics is to be understood in
contrast with the Atman-centric ideology of the Brahminical tradition of
India. This becomes clearer as we look at the rich iconography and
mythology related to the different stages of the development of Buddhism.
The Jâtaka Stories of Buddha’s previous births present a wide variety of
animals, plants and other nonhuman beings. This proves the ecoaesthetic
You find that it is no longer necessary to uphold the fantasy
of a solid, lasting self; reality works perfectly well without one
and, in fact this self has only ever managed to get in the way and
cause trouble. The fear that denial of the self would give us no
ground to stand on is realized to be in itself groundless, like the
discovery we make as children when we find we can swim and
are, at that moment, freed from the terror of drowning. Thus the
instinctive insistence upon a separate self is seen to provide an
utterly false sense of security; for in undivided world everything
miraculously supports everything else. (Batchelor and Brown35)
53Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
inclination to conceive the essential non-distinction between human and
nonhuman beings.
In the early Buddhist texts, human beings were called upon to know
the grasses and trees, the worms and moths, the ants, and the four-footed
animals, the serpents, the fish and birds. The Avatamsaka Sûtra describes
the nature of earth as one without the thought of oneness or differences.
Nature’s body is composed of all lands and the Buddhas living in them. In
the words of Uisang, a Korean monk:
In one is all, in many is one
One is identical to all, many is identical to one.
In one particle of dust are contained the ten directions.
And so it is with all particles of dust.
It is known very well that the core of Buddhist ethics is formed by
the strict taboo on violence or ahimsa, and this is certainly an all-embracing
prescription. Ahimsa includes not only the abstention from doing harm
but also the positive moral expression in terms of loving-kindness and
compassion to all living beings. So the enlightened human being or Buddha
is the one who embodies the following ecological vision:
Thus as a mother with her life
Will guard here son, her only child,
Let him extend without bounds
His heart to every living being.(quoted in Batchelor and Brown 4)
As the mother’s love and concern for her child is unconditional
selflessness, man’s compassion towards nature should be unlimited. Human
empathy should embrace every living being and the lifeless also.
54Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
NOTE
1.Quoted in Osho. Zen and the Art of Meditation. New Delhi: Diamond
Pocket Books, 1997.
WORKS CITED
1. Batchelor, Martine, and Kerry Brown. Buddhism and Ecology. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.
2. Gadgil, Mahav, and Ramachandra Guha. The Fissured Land- An
Ecological History of India. Delhi: Oxford U P, 1992.
3.Williams, Monier. Indian Wisdom. Delhi: Indian Reprint Publishing Co.,
1974.
55Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Jean Paul Sartre was the foremost intellectual of the twentieth century
and a master thinker of freedom. He is often seen as a philosopher of a
world that has passed, a child and relic of modernity whose voice ramp out
amidst the alienation and horrors of the twentieth century. Now, it is not
detectable in the sound waves of our contemporary postmodern condition.
Sartrean existentialism was seen as the principal target for the (post)
structuralist revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Levi Strauss, Foucault and
others criticized Sartre for relying on a humanist and idealist theory of the
subject. Sartre in tern criticized (post) structuralism for dissolving human
freedom by holding history hostage to the play of impersonal forces.
However, since Sartre’s death in 1980, interpretations of his work
have begun to probe the underbelly of this standard account. In recent
years, a fundamental reappraisal of Sartre’s work in its relation to post-
structuralism and in a wider sense to post modernism has been gradually
emerging. Sartre’s two main works of philosophy, Being and Nothingness
and Critique of Dialectical Reason, predate the main wave of (post)
structuralist texts in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They can be seen in effect
to prefigure many key (post) structuralist themes such as the decentered
subject, the rejection of a metaphysics of presence, the critique of bourgeois
humanism and individualism etc.
In this paper, I am looking at Sartre’s approach to the ‘subject’, the
radically free consciousness of Being and Nothingness before considering
A REAPPRAISAL OF SARTRE’S ‘SUBJECT’ IN ITS
RELATION TO POSTMODERNISM
VIJAYAKUMARI VALAPPIL
Department of Philosophy
56Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
the deconstruction of the subject undertaken by (post) structuralists in the
1960s and 1970s. Then Sartre’s theory of the subject is compared with post
structuralist approaches to the subject put forward by Foucault and
examines the common features and similarities between the two. Sartre’s
idea of a contingent non-essential subject has much in common with the
decentered subject theorized by post – structuralists and post modernists.
The Cartesian subject founded on the certainty of the cogito is the
main reference point and critical target. From the basic starting point of an
indubitable thinking subject, Descartes proceeds to sketch a dualistic
philosophy that finds a binarist logic which lies at the heart of the antinomies
of modern western philosophy (subject/object, reason/ emotion, body/
soul, self/world, freedom/necessity) etc. All the French post-structuralists
criticized this binarist system of reasoning that emerges from the thinking
and disengaged Cartesian subject.
Sartean phenomenological and existential work, Transcendence of
the Ego (1936) to BN 1943) is commonly seen as a prime example of the
(modern) humanist tradition in French Philosophy which is attacked by the
post-structuralists in the 1963. They have put forward their own form of
theoretical anti-humanism as a corrective. Sartre’s theory of the ‘Pour-soi’
(for-itself) in BN has been interpreted in this light as an essentially Cartesian
construct deviated from the material, social, historical and linguistic
configuration. Sartre’s popular conception of absolute freedom in BN was
criticized by the poststructuralists arguing that he had reduced the impact
of circumstance and situation to no more than a function of individual
freedom. In BN, Sartre states, “What we call freedom is impossible to
distinguish from the being of ‘human reality. Man does not exist first in
order to be free subsequently; there is no difference between the being of
man and his being free. (30). He further says, “man cannot be sometimes a
slave and sometimes free, he is wholly and forever free or he is not free at
all” (516)
57Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
In BN, Sartre insists that all situations are equally transcendable by
the individual. However much they impact upon us, we are always free, by
dissolving their significance, to sidestep or ‘nihilate’ the force of this impact.
For Sartre, the weight of circumstances and objective conditions that
situations bring to bear on consciousness do not dissolve its freedom but
form the very basis of that freedom. Thus he says there can be a for-itself
only as engaged in a resisting world. Outside of this engagement, the notions
of freedom and determinism, of necessity, lose all meaning (621). According
to Sartre, it is only the constitutive power of the individual project which
causes there to be an organization of things in situation (509). He says,
whatever situation I am born or thrust into, this simply defines the particular
terrain in which I am free to determine the meaning of my life (245-6). He
tries to illustrate this is the prospect of being faced with a steep mountain
slop. The brute given of the mountain face (its slippiness, inaccessibility
the severity of its contours) constitute what Sartre calls the coefficient of
adversity” in things (482). We cannot change this, but he insists this forms
a precondition rather than a limit on freedom since freedom consist in
transcending the ‘given’. If I am an artist contemplating the aesthetic form
of the mountain instead of climber practically oriented towards it, my project
would screen its unscalability and effectively put this aspect ‘out of
circulation’ the crag is not revealed as scalable or unscalable, it is
manifested as beautiful or ugly (488).
The general term Sartre uses to describe the weight of our social
and material configuration is facticity. This involves our being thrown into
world that pre exists us and into a web of situations that are not all of our
choosing. In BN, he says facticity encroaches upon us only to the extent
that we integrate it into our personal project – I am always able to disengage
myself from the world where I had been engaged (39). The transient
surface aspects of me such as the language that I speak, the historical
situation of my race and culture, my gender, my childhood which I can
choose to exclude from my personal project and thus can withdraw from.
58Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
Even the existence of a rigid class structure in which one class is
systematically oppressed by the other has merely ‘significant value’ for
the individual class member (BN 421).
In BN, Sartre sets out to liberate intentionality from the confines of
the cogito and to release it into the world the concrete, that is, ‘man within
the world in that specific union of man with the world (3), In BN, Sartre
considers the force of circumstances and raise the possibility that the pour-
soi is not the impermeable sanction of freedom. Ascribing the case of the
factory workers, Sartre declares a state of affairs for them in which facticity
had encroached upon and effectively paralyzed their freedom to such a
degree that for the individual worker, to suffer and to be are one and the
same for him’. Again he puts the impermeability of the pour-soi into double,
when he considers the existence of others. He states that ‘to live in the
world is to be haunted by my fellow men and to find myself engaged in a
world in which instrumental complexes can have a meaning which my free
project has not first given them (509-10). The qualities others ascribe to us
can constitute a determinant factitious character.
In BN, the concept of the radical theory of subjectivity and bad faith
can be considered to keep a distance from a simplified Cartesianism. Many
years later, in an interview he confessed that I consider myself a Cartesian
philosopher, at least in BN. His idea of pour soi in many ways constituted a
radical break from traditional French Idealism and its abstract view of the
individual as a spiritual or immaterial essence divorced from concrete
determinations.
Sartre argues that the ‘I’ of selfhood cannot be a substantial entity
that sits behind my acts and thoughts unifying them. But it is itself, the result
of the synthetic unification of a pattern of actions, the ego is not the owner
of consciousness, it is the object of consciousness. Since the ‘I’ does not
correspond to any kind of inner sanction or to an original pre-given subject,
it must be created. According to Sartre, we do this either by describing
59Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
past acts under a certain description to which we impart the characteristics
of identity, of purity, of permanence or by reference to a particular non-
existing state of affairs, a future ‘I’ or ideal self or original project –
‘consciousness confronts its past and its future as facing a self which it is in
the mode of not being (34). In this way, ‘I’ can refer ambiguously to the
past (character) or to the future (ideal self) – it is a temporal construct, a
particular relation to being’ (BN 216) which is impermanent and fluid. It is
only when consciousness nihilates itself i.e., takes a thetic, positional
awareness of itself as an object, that the unity of the ‘I’ is constructed,
negation is the cement which realizes this unity. In Existentialism and
Humanism Sartre says that his philosophy in BN is a humanist philosophy
of action, of effort, of combat, of solidarity. He maintains that, it is a form of
agency without substantiality which has nothing to be, and everything to
do. Sartre makes it clear that self understanding arises not from private
introspection, the deciphering of a self that stands behind or prior to the
act (as in Cartesian model), but by observing how we are, reflected in the
world of tasks which constitutes the image of myself (200). In this way,
Sartre’s existential subject diverges from the Cartesian subject in that it is
constituted outwardly by its engagement and actions in the concrete world
rather than inwardly within the private sanction of the soul.
Sartre’s concept of Bad faith can be seen to represent in general a
movement away from a purely static and oppositional account of pour-
soi/en-soi to a more dialectical or conjunctive approach in which he views
human reality as both body and consciousness, materiality and
transcendence. Sartre argues that bad faith lies in the attempt to cancel
out completely one of these dimensions through a form of self deception
or lying to oneself. To think of ourselves as pure transcendence in the
Sartrean system is a prime act of Bad faith.
According to Ronald Aronson, it is possible to discern ‘two contrary
impulses in Sartre’s early philosophy “one leading towards the world and
60Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
the other away from it (1980, 89). In the latter impulse, the pour soi is seen
as absolutely free and able to escape its facticity at any time. Sartre breaks
away from this in other places and moves towards a more dialectical
understanding of subject and object in which the subject is engaged,
immersed and permeable to the world, both transcended and material.
The Post modern Subject
Postmodernists present the subject as fragmented, decentered and
multiple, dispersed throughout different subject positions or identities that
are constituted by modern mass consumer and media dominated societies.
In the postmodern world, identities are no longer maintained primarily in
one’s role as a producer, but in the consumer choices and ‘sign-values’ one
subscribes to. For both affirmative and sceptical postmodernist, the subject
is held to be inherently objectionable as an ideological construct of
modernity, the source of an unacceptable subject –object dictionary where
it assumes a dominating and oppressive role – ‘man as master of the
universe, dominating, controlling, deciding’ (Vattimo 1988). Foucault states,
this instrumental conception of the subject in which the individual is given
‘an exact and serene mastery of nature’ does not give rise to the constitution
and affirmation of a free subject but is tied instead to a progressive
enslavement to its our instinctive violence (1977b,163)
Sartre and the decentered subject:
Sartre’s existential subject has been commonly viewed as antithetical
to the decentering strategies of the poststructuralists. Schrifft argues that
Foucault was distancing himself from the phenomenalist existential
especially of Sartrean subject. By returning to a Nietzschean account of
the subject, Foucault replaces the Sartrean project of an authentic self with
the Nictzschean project of relatively constructing oneself. In so doing, he
displaces both the valorized, free, existential subject and retrieves a more
61Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
ambivalent subject whose constitution takes place within the constraints of
institutional forces that extend its grasp and even at times its recognition.
With regard to the Satrean and Foucaultian ‘subject’, the Sartrean
subject is not just a thinking, rationalizing consciousness which gives
meaning to things, but is also engaged- an actor immersed in the world of
things. Thus it incorporates both freedom and necessity transcendence and
facticity. Similarly, Foucalt’s conception of the subject is not always uniform
or consistent but oscillates between poles of unbearable lightness and
heaviness. In his archaeological phase, Foucault characterizes thought as
constrained by linguistic conditions to the extent that we cannot even render
an account of the limits a particular thought is constrained in. Later he
suggests that the practices of philosophy in reflection are themselves ways
to free our thoughts- thought is a freedom in reflection to what one does,
the motion by which one detaches oneself from it, establishes it as an object,
and reflects on it as a problem (1984, 388). Later, Foucault goes on to
reinstate philosophy as a privileged discourse, arguing that the role of the
philosopher is to make oneself permanently capable of detaching oneself
from oneself (while) altering one’s thought and that of the others (1988,263-
64). Foucault’s ‘ethical’ subject in this way,bears some similarity to the
Sartream subject.
The encumbered genealogical subject which Foucault describes in
Discipline and Punish also bears some similarity with Sartrean subject.
Foucault emphasises how power is co extensive with the social body (1980,
141) permeating all discourse and practice. His main interest in this respect
is to show how power plays upon the individual to produce specific effects
in this. Foucault sees the power relations of modern society produces a
subject who is the carrier of prevailing norms trained through requires of
insidious leniencies, petty cruelties, small acts of cunning, calculated
methods, techniques, “sciences” (1977 a ,308). In the place of the old
‘body politic’, modern society now revolves around a politics of the body
62Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
‘under which individuals’ are gradually progressively ,really and materially
constituted (1980,97).Once the body has been trained through techniques
of discipline and surveillance, Foucault is keen to emphasize that the subject
himself becomes the career of norms by which he measures himself.
Foucault illustrates that the power is not just exercised by the law of
repression, but operates by producing psychological and social conformity.
Individuals themselves are complicit in their own subjection- they are not
just empty skeins which pours itself into, but conscious, psychological beings
who interpret themselves according to the context and relations of power
within which they are situated. For Foucault, experiences of subjectivity
are self interpretations based on concrete interactions with the world. In
the modern carceral society these concrete interactions enmeshed in
networks of power that validate certain self interpretations and obstruct
others. A certain kind of subject is produced as it comes to know itself by
means of stable, identifiable points of reference conditioned through inter
subjective practice. Hoy points out that for Foucault, the network of power
relations is more like a ‘structural grammar’ than ‘causal process’ for it
conditions action but does not determine which specific actions will take
place (1986,142). We are the products of power in the sense that our self
interpretations are conditioned by it, it is through self interpretations that
we come to regard ourselves as originators of our own actions.
In common with post structuralist theories of the subject, Sartre takes
the ‘I’ to be no more than a synthetic construct of consciousness which is
impermanent and fluid. For Sartre, the intuition of the ego a perpetually
deceptive mirage (1957, 69). In Being and Nothingness , Sartre continues
this theme, where he argues at length against the idea of an authentic or
‘deep’ self which is pre-given or original, insisting that the Pour-soi is
fundamentally a relation (121) , a ‘perpetual differing’ (BN713) and
diasporique (182). This is reemphasized in The Family Idiot where Flaubert’s
self is theorized through out as an imaginary construct rather an original
63Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
source. In this respect. Sartre hints at the authentic self which is similar to
that of Foucault’s ethical self. Both of them revolve around the idea that the
self must be created through action and self interpretations rather than
discovered through introspection and withdrawal as in Cartesian model.
Like the post structuralist subject, Sartrean subject originates not
from a transcendental subject, instead from a non essential, non identical,
historical, decentered, impermanent and contingent. The Sartrean subject
is not the autonomous, self sufficient foundation as it has often being
portrayed, but is divided, non egoic and never self identical and as such,
can be seen to pre-figure ‘the decentered subject’ and the rejection of a
‘metaphysics of presence’ taken up in later years by post structuralist like
Foucault and Derrida.
The difference between Sartrean and Foucaultian subject is
produced in ontological-individual rather than in socio-linguistic terms. In
Sartre’s and Foucault’s conception of the gaze (BN &Discipline and Punish)
Where both thinkers ruminate on the subjectifying force of observation in
which the subject is thrown into an objective apprehension of itself. In BN,
working from ontological assumptions, Sartre chooses only negative
examples of the gaze (Voyeur at the keyhole whose overriding apprehension
of himself is dominated by shame) and draws individualist and universal
conclusions from it. For Sartre the gaze is essentially alienating and
conflictual – the observation of a nameless ‘unknown other’ who casts
objective judgement on me. Foucault’s account of the normalizing gaze in
Discipline and Punish avoids ontological conclusions, but relates the
significance of the gaze to its social and historical context. The prison guard
and the self conscious prisoner are positioned in a network of relations in
which they are not equal participants. A fundamental asymmetry flows
between them due to the arrangements of the social field in which they
find themselves- first, because observation is a one way process (due to
the architecture of the prison) and second, because the guard stands in a
64Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
relation of authority to the prisoner upon whom he passes punitive
judgement according to predefined norms. In this sense, the gaze is an
institutional gaze anchored in definitive power relations within a specific
social and historical milieu.
Sartre and Foucault theorized the gaze in different terms, but they
are agreed on its importance in the formation and constitution of the subject.
There is another difference that we can see between the Sartrean
project of an authentic self and the Foucaultian project of “creatively
constructing one self.” Post structuralists criticized Sartre’s Pour-soi as a
repetition of the Cartesian subject. This judgement ignored other emphases,
which placed his existential subject at a distance from the disengaged,
abstract and immaterial Cartesian subject. Later Foucault recognized this
and applauded Sartre for moving beyond the entrenched Cartesianism of
his time, for avoiding the idea of the self as something which is given to us.
(1983, 64). The notion of a nonessential contingent subject intrinsic to
Sartre’s existentialism is the one which unites his work with the post
structuralists.
Many of the themes that we have seen above were taken up,
extended, developed or modified by post structuralists. Certain aspects
of Sartre’s early work fixed themselves lightly, while Foucault focused on
the ‘heaviness’ of the subject. “In later years this situation would be reversed
with Sartre’s emphasis becoming much more deconstructive and that of
the post structuralists more reconstructive”. In this respect, Sartre and post
structuralist conception of the subject start out from different positions but
eventually converse, both resting upon a conception of the subject as
decentered, opaque material and historical. In this respect, Sartrean subject
can be recast as a spurious target for the deconstructive critiques of
Foucault and other post structuralists. Sartre’s existential epithet –
65Brennen Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2008
‘existence precedes essence’ captures the anti-essentialist emphasis of the
decentered post modern subject.
References:
1. Aronson, Ronald- Jean Paul Sartre-Philosophy in the world, London: New
Life books, 1980
2. Farrel fox, Nik-The New Sartre, Continuum, London, 2003
3. Foucault. M, The order of the things: An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences, trans. A. Sheridan-smith, New York: Pantheon 1970
4. Foucault. M, Language, Counter Memory, Practice:Selected Essays and
interviews ed. C. Gordan. Oxford, Blackwell, 1997b
5. Foucault. M, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans, A.
Sheridan, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977a
6. Foucault. M, ‘How We Behave with H. Dreyfus and P. Rainbow, Vanity Fair’
November, 1983
7. Foucault. M, The Foucault Reader, ed. P. Rabinon, New York: Pantheon,
1984
8. Foucault. M, Politics, Philosophy, Culture:Interviews and other writings,
trans. A. Sheridan Smith, New York: Routledge, 1988
9. Hoy D. Foucault: A Critical Reader, ed.D. Hoy, Oxford: Blackwell,1986
10 Sartre J. P., Being and Nothingness: An Essay in phenomenological
Ontology, trans. H. Barnes, London: Philosophical Library, 1957
11 Schrift A., Nietzsche’s French Legacy: A Genealogy of poststructuralism
London, Routledge, 1995
12. Vattimo G., The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Post-
Modern Culture, London: Polity press, 1988