Hamas-Israel War and the Rights of Palestinians | An Analysis of Indian Perspective

Hamas-Israel War and the Rights of Palestinians | An Analysis of Indian Perspective

Hello and welcome to the Discourse.

On October 6, 2023, Palestine-based terrorist group Hamas launched thousands of missiles and seized villages near Gaza. Hamas fighters crossed out of Gaza, taking hostages and killing Israeli civilians. The leaders of Hamas declared that the attack was a response to the Israeli treatment of Palestinians at the al-Aqsa Mosque last week. However, the terror attack on Israel appeared to be a well-planned strategic operation. Another terror outfit Hezbollah, supported by Iran helped Hamas in planning out the attack on Israel to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.

Over 1000 innocent Israelis including fourteen American citizens were killed in the attack by Hamas. The terrorists of Hamas entered Israeli villages and cities, captured innocent people, killed them, or took hostages. Among the captives are soldiers and civilians, including women, children, and older adults, mostly Israelis but also some people of other nationalities.

On Tuesday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately gave a responsible response in favor of Israel and criticized the terrorist attack by Hamas.

In response, Israel formally declared war and ordered the largest call-up of reservists in the country’s history. On Monday, Israel’s defense minister announced a “complete siege” of Gaza. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly.” Israel attacked Gaza and killed hundreds of Hamas terrorists, and hundreds of innocent Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas.

Nothing can justify the inhuman attack on Israel but there is nothing that can justify the innocent butchering of already depleted people of Palestine too. Israeli air strikes couldn’t distinguish between Hamas Terrorists and the innocent people of Palestine.

On Monday, a Hamas spokesman threatened to broadcast the execution of an Israeli hostage for every unannounced strike, saying, “The enemy does not understand the language of humanity and morals, so we will address him in the language he knows.”

On Thursday, Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said that India believes in its long-standing support for the establishment of a "sovereign, independent and viable" state of Palestine.

Indian position on the current situation is pretty clear. We cannot support any terrorist attack on the innocent people of Israel, nor can we support any organized attack by a recognized state on the innocent people of Palestine.

War, Peace, and the State

War is no trivial subject. It’s violence on the widest scale. At their best, wars can throw off the worst tyrannies and liberate the oppressed. But they can also bring about the worst atrocities. This is why it is necessary to properly examine the situation and always stick to the principles of humanity. It is necessary to have a fine understanding of when violence is justified. There is a difference between war and crime. Killing even a known criminal without due course of legalities is considered a huge crime. So what changes in a war?

Murray N. Rothbard wrote an essay titled "War, Peace, and the State" outlining that the difference between war and all other questions of crime and punishment is simply a matter of scale. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, to resist and repel any invasion of their person or property; to extract restitution or exact punishment in response to an invasion, or to help someone else do the same. However, any violence committed against an innocent third party in response to a crime is itself a new crime.

Let us consider a hypothetical situation. Rahim attacks the farmland of Ram and tries to burn the crop. Ram has every right to defend his property, to repel Rahim and try to catch him. While doing so, if Ram kills Rahim, even that would be justified because Ram certainly has the right to self-defense. However, let’s assume Rahim succeeds in burning the crop and then runs away and hides in a neighboring village. Outraged, Ram decides to complain against him and offers enough proof to the security agency against Rahim. Now the security agency must capture and punish Rahim. But neither Ram nor the security agency has any right to repel Rahim by bombing the neighboring village and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. The fact that wars are often fought between groups does not change the fact that attacking innocent people is a crime.

Israel declared all Palestinians living in Gaza as human animals and blocked electricity, food, water, fuel, and supplies of other necessities. Is it justified? No, It is not justified to punish innocent people for the crime of Hamas. It is against morality. Israeli airstrikes are killing hundreds of Hamas terrorists but they are also butchering hundreds of innocent citizens of Palestines, their women, and toddlers and while doing so, Israel is committing the same crime that Hamas did.

Do Palestinians Support Hamas:

Hamas has been the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip since 2006. They won the 2006 presidential and legislative elections. The election was judged by international observers to have been "competitive and genuinely democratic". In fact, the EU said that they had been run better than elections in some member countries of the union, and promised to maintain its financial support.

In 2009, the Wall Street Journal interviewed Mr. Cohen a Tunisian-born jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades.

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” said Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals, and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction. Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah.

Israel’s experience echoes that of the U.S., which, during the Cold War, looked to Islamists as a useful ally against communism. Anti-Soviet forces backed by America after Moscow’s 1979 invasion of Afghanistan later mutated into Al Qaeda.

Now when Israel understands that it cannot control Hamas, it is ready to kill innocent Palestinians who have nothing to gain from the war. Yes, Palestinians have a soft corner for the terrorists of Hamas. Most probably, they are friends, or family members of the common men of Palestine. Killing someone’s friends and family motivates them to fight back—not roll over and put down their weapons. When innocent Israelis were murdered by Hamas, Israel decided to go to war. Now when innocent Palestinians are being killed by Israeli airstrikes, it won’t weaken Hamas, rather it will embolden them. The innocent and mostly secular common Palestinians too, out of grief and loss will start supporting Hamas. The same thing happened after 9/11 when to take revenge on Osama Bin Laden, the U.S. and Britain attacked Iran, and then Afghanistan, killing millions of innocent Iranians and Afghans. America’s wars in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya, and especially the covert war against the Syrian government from 2011–2017 created support for Ladenian political and religious radicalism and violent conflict throughout the region and into northern and western Africa and gave rise to various other more deadly groups like ISIS and Boko Harem.

The same thing happened with Pakistan. In the garb of fighting the ‘War against Terror’, the Pakistani army harassed and murdered thousands of Afghanis in Afghanistan. Now when American and British troops are out of Afghanistan and Taliban rules again, Afghanis have a bitter memory of Pakistan and they consider Pakistan an enemy state. Outfits like TTP continue to kill innocent people in Pakistan. Killing innocent people in the name of war never brings any good. When the Indian government under Rajeev Gandhi sent the Indian army to Sri Lanka to fight LTTE terrorists, the Indian army did certain atrocities against innocent civilians and that became the cause of revenge of LTTE against Rajeev Gandhi.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu termed Hamas as human animals, but along with those animals, Israeli forces are killing innocent Palestinian humans too. It will bring no good to anybody but will strengthen the regime of terror and immorality. Indian government rightly put forth its views by supporting Israelis in their time of need but also standing for the rights of innocent Palestinians as a sovereign nation.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the Ethics of Liberty. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

The Expedition of Humphry Clinker by Tobias Smollett | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Expedition of Humphry Clinker is an epistolatory novel written by Tobias Smollett that was first published in 1771. It is a satirical novel designed to point out flaws in English society during the 1700s. The story is presented in the form of letters written by six characters: a Welsh Squire named Mathew Bramble; his sister Tabitha; their niece Lydia and nephew Jeremy Melford; Tabitha's maid Winifred Jenkins; and Lydia's suitor Wilson. The novel exaggerates the mannerisms and motives of the characters in order to highlight the personal prejudices, contradictory beliefs, and discriminatory values held by people during the 18th century.

Being an epistolatory novel, it is written mainly in the immediate past tense, but the characters occasionally use the present and future tense in their letters.

Characters of The Expedition of Humphry Clinker:

Mathew Bramble is a Welsh squire who openly claims to be a misanthrope, however, often proves to be a sympathetic charitable person. He continuously tries to improve the lives of people around him. Mathew is suffering from Gout, rheumatism, and hypochondria. A hypochondriac is a person who obsesses about their health and often diagnoses themselves with illnesses based on their observations. Mathew is unmarried and his former name was Mathew Lloyd. During the journey, he continues to write letters to Dr. Lewis, his physician. Tabitha Bramble is the younger sister of Mathew. She is a forthright, outspoken woman who is tired of being overlooked in favor of younger, prettier women. She is very attentive towards the business of Brambleton-hall as she feels that her estate’s success can help her win a desirable husband. She does so by writing letters to Mrs. Gwyllim, the housekeeper at Brambleton Hall while she is traveling. She is a foolish and cantankerous spinster who wishes to marry a high-class rich man. Jeremy Melford is Mathew and Tabitha's nephew, an intelligent young man. He is over-protective of his younger sister Lydia Melford. Jeremy writes letters to his friend Sir Watkin Phillips of Jesus College, Oxford while Lydia writes letters to her friend Miss Letitia Willis at Gloucester. John Thomas is a carriage driver and footman of the Barmble family.

Humphry Clinker is a poor stableman who joins the Bramble family on their journey. He impresses the Bramble family with his good nature and devotion to God. He is a naive but good-hearted man who values the importance of forgiveness. Winifred Jenkins is Tabitha’s maid. She is a young beautiful girl who appears to be more intelligent than Tabitha and Lydia. She falls in love with Humphry. Winifred too writes letters to other servants at Brambleton Hall. Lt. Obadiah Lismahago is a proud, selfish, argumentative man who is not very rich but pretends to be. His interactions with Mathew, Tabitha, and Humphry mellows him down and he improves in his nature. Mr. Dennison is a rich old man who has known Mathew for a long. Mr. Dennison has a son George Dennison who became estranged from his parents after refusing a marriage they had arranged for him. He is a kind, intelligent gentleman with a flair for poetry and acting. He temporarily discards his true name and takes up the last name of his friend Charles Wilson.

Summary of The Expedition of Humphry Clinker:

Mathew Bramble is a Welsh squire who is suffering from Gout that causes great pain and stiffness. His physician Dr. Lewis advises him to travel to Bristol which is known for its curative mineral waters. His family members, younger sister Tabitha, niece Lydia Melford, and her elder brother Jeremy Melford accompany him. Tabitha decides to take her maid Winifred along with them to help during the travel. Two days before their departure to Bristol, Jeremy catches some letters written by a young poor man Wilson which reveals that Lydia is in a love affair with him. Jeremy is against this relationship because Wilson is a poor man and he fears that Lydia won’t lead a happy life with him. He questions Wilson about the letters who refuses to explain his relationship with Lydia. Angried, Jeremy calls Wilson for a duel with the pistol. When Mathew Bramble comes to know about this escalating argument, he intervenes and both Jeremy and Wilson get arrested. Mathew and Tabitha try to explain to Lydia that Wilson is a poor actor with no apparent family name and fortune and thus he is an unfit suitor for someone of Lydia’s social status. Jeremy continues to fume and to calm him down, Lydia promises that she will not keep any contact with Wilson.

The family travels to Bristol and Wilson follows them in the guise of a peddler. He tries to meet Lydia to explain to her that Wilson is his temporary name and in reality, he belongs to a rich family. However, he fails to meet Lydia and encounters Winifred instead. He tells Winifred about his reality but Winifred forgets his real name. Despite spending some time in Bristol, Mathew feels no improvement and his health. Rather, he feels that the damp environment of Bristol is worsening his situation. Thus, the family decides to move to Bath which is a seaside city known for its sea-bathing resorts. Mathew hopes that the saltwater may cure him. In Bath, Mathew meets many of his old friends including James Quinn, the famous actor. However, his health doesn’t improve. He comes to know that the water in the city's bathhouses passes through an old graveyard. He further learns that the residual water from the bathhouses is transferred to city inns and cafes where it is served to customers. Mathew is appalled by these revelations and decides to leave the city immediately. They decide to head to London. On their way, they meet an accident near Marlborough when their career overturns. Tabitha gets outraged and admonishes the carriage driver. John Thomas gets offended and immediately leaves the job as he gets bitten by Tabitha’s dog Chowder. This forced Mathew to hire a new footman. He hires a local peasant and stableman named Humphry Clinker who becomes the carriage driver. Humphry is very poor he doesn’t even have a pair of pants. Matthew learns that Humphry was born out of wedlock and currently lives in abject poverty. He buys Humphry new clothes. Tabitha objects to such spending but Mathew decides to take Humphry with him throughout their travel to London.

Lydia and Jeremy are happy to live in the beautiful and busy city of London but Mathew finds little comfort. Mathew knows that Humphry has no formal education but he is surprised when he learns that Humphry gave sermons at the Methodist Church in London and got appointed there. This upsets Mathew because he supports the church of England. Soon after, Humphry gets arrested on suspicion of being a highway ruffian. The constable in charge of the case is certain that Humphry is innocent even though another man identified him as the robber. The accuser thought he would receive a reward for naming a potential suspect. Jeremy tries to help Humphry while a local man Edward Martin comes forward and argues for Humphry. Humphry is sent to jail for a day before his trial. Meanwhile, Mathew and Jeremy find out about the man who was robbed. The victim claims in the court that Humphry is not the man who robbed him. This episode alerts Mathew about the robberies on the roads and he decides to promote Humphry as the guard of the carreer. Since Mathew fails to find any cure in London, they decide to move to York. At Harrogate, some robbers attack the carriage of the Bramble family. Humphry faces the robbers with bravery and he also gets help from Edward Martin who was travelling in the same direction. After that, Martin asks Mathew to help him find an honest job and Mathew agrees to help him. At York, the Bramble family meets their distant relatives and Tabitha comes in contact with a wealthy man Mr. Micklewhimmen, and tries to woo him but learns that he is a charlatan who pretends to be suffering from physical infirmities to get special attention. She criticizes him and gets rid of him.

Mathew decides to move to Scarborough and hopes that bathing in the sea will help him but he fails to get any cure at Scarborough too. However, the other family members enjoy their time at Scarborough. Mathew decides to take a bath in the sea and removes his clothes before going into the water. But he finds that the sea water is unusually cold and this startles him. Meanwhile, Humphry who was observing him, feels that Mathew is struggling and drowning. He jumps in the water and drags Mathew out of the sea by picking up his ears. Mathew gets embarrassed as he finds himself naked in front of a score of onlookers.

The family soon leaves Scarborough and they decide to move to Stockton where they meet Edward Martin again. Edward reminds Mathew of his promise to help him find an honest job. Mathew convinces him to find work in the East Indies. They meet a retired soldier Lt. Obadiah Lismahago. Obadiah tells various stories of his bravery. He appears to be an argumentative and proudish person. Tabitha is fascinated by his stories. Lismahago travels with the Bramble family. Jeremy appoints a new valet Dutton. Both Dutton and Humphry struggle to attract Winifred’s attention. Dutton finds another woman and runs away with him and Winifred gets interested in Humphry. The Bramble family then moves to Scotland.

Tabitha is interested in Lt. Obadiah but she learns that he is not as wealthy as she would prefer. Nonetheless, she thinks that if she loses this chance, she may never get married. Meanwhile, Mathew feels that his health is improving and he determines that physical exercise has helped him get rid of his Gout. The family then decides to return to Brambleton Hall. Lt. Obadiah proposes to Tabitha and she agrees. Mathew too supports their marriage. Matthew Bramble nearly drowns when the family's carriage is overturned in a river. Humphry saves him and takes him to a nearby home which turns out to be the house of Charles Dennison. Charles Dennison is one old-time friend of Mathew. Mathew learns that Mr. Dennison’s only son ran away from home because he didn’t wish to marry the girl the family chose for him. Through Matthew's conversation with Dennison, Humphry learns that Matthew's original name was Matthew Lloyd. It comes out that Matthew is Humphry's father and that Humphry's real name is Matthew Lloyd Jr. Mathew accepts Huymphry as his son and Humphry too forgives Mathew for leaving him and his mother alone. During the same time, Mr. Dennison’s son returns to his home. Mathew and Lydia get startled when they see Wilson in front of them and then they learn that Wilson is his false name while his real name is George Dennison, the son of Mr. Charles Dennison. Everyone is happy after these revelations. Jeremy was happy for his sister who chose a wealthy handsome man as a life partner. Mathew and Mr. Dennison agree to the marriage of Lydia and George while Tabitha gets engaged to Lt. Obadiah. Humphry too proposes to Winifred and Mathew agrees to their marriage. Lydia and Wilson spend their honeymoon in Bath while the rest of the family returns to Brambleton-hall.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

No Room for a Leopard by Ruskin Bond | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. No Room for a Leopard is a short story written by Ruskin Bond that was first published in his story collection A Bond with the Mountains in 1998. the story highlights the ecological crisis that we are facing in current times and is intended to increase our ecological consciousness. ‘No Room for a Leopard’, is about deforestation and its accompanying aftermath. It presents the pathetic condition of the animals after deforestation. It is a very moving account of the killing of a trusting leopard by a group of shikaris/hunters. Because of deforestation taking place in the hills and surrounding areas, many animals have been driven into the valleys inhabited by human beings. This exposes them to grave risks and fatal encounters – one such encounter has been described in this story. The story also reveals the difference between the children’s thinking and the adult thinking that has also been brought out. Children love nature. They love all the creatures. It comes naturally to them. No ulterior consideration enters their innocent minds. They can never ever think of harming the animals or exploiting them for their personal gain or profit. But the adults are solely driven by mercenary considerations. If a leopard’s skin can fetch them a good price, they would not think twice before killing him. Compassion, trust, love… these mean nothing to them. An idyllic world stands shattered because of this selfish cruelty.

Characters of No Room for a Leopard:

The main character of the story is Ruskin, a twelve-year-old boy who lives in a cottage just above the forest in the mountains with his family. The boy loves animals in the jungle and has a complete affinity with nature. He would often visit the jungle for playing, bird watching, and sightseeing. His family is aware of his activities but it appears that they do not worry about him going alone in the jungle. The boy represents innocence and the co-dependence of life forms in the world. The other characters in the story are a group of hunters or shikaris who are traveling around the jungle in search of a leopard that they wish to hunt for his skin. The shikaris represent the selfish attitude of greedy humans willing to exploit nature for their profits which is contrasted with the child’s spontaneous love for the animals.

The theme of No Room for a Leopard:

The general theme of children’s stories often involves a long hazardous journey in pursuit of something noble. The perilous journey exemplifies the value of cooperation and the quality of friendship. In this story, the boy crosses the forest and the small stream at the bottom of the hill every morning and evening, all by himself. The purpose that is apparent is ‘understanding nature in its nascent form.’ The boy develops a relationship with the jungle and its inhabitants and he has no fear of the wild animals who find him friendly. The story reminds me of Henry David Thoreau’s experiences in the wilderness of Walden. The story offers a message about the norms of the society in which we live. The transmission of ethical and social values is skillfully depicted in the story. The story highlights the difference between an innocent child’s thinking and that of the greedy, corrupt, nonchalant adult Shikaris. The story suggests that while a child is naturally inclined to love and appreciate nature, as we grow adult, we forget our connection with our environment and what remains in our mind is our own selfish, irrational attitude.

Summary of No Room for a Leopard:

Ruskin is a twelve-year-old teen boy who lives in a cottage just above the jungle on the mountain. He lives with his family. There is a stream of water flowing in the jungle down the mountain. There is a distinct path on the mountain going down but the trail of path disappears in the forest where a stream appears. At dawn, and at dusk Ruskin regularly goes for a walk around the stream. Ruskin loves the water of the stream making a soft gurgling sound flowing down the ravine. The ravine is so deep that below only shadow appears, nothing else.

He is a frequent walker through that path. Birds, monkeys, and other herbivorous animals are familiar with his smell. They know he is not a hunter. The birds would no longer fly away, they would just watch him with some curiosity and continue to munch up the tender green shoots of the oak. Not only that, when one day they saw a leopard poised on a rock about twenty feet above the young boy, they tried to warn him of the hidden danger by grunting and chattering. They thus showed their concern for him. A deep bond thus got established between Ruskin and the animals' world without their ever exchanging a single word. The leopard noticed Ruskin.

At times, he spots the silent leopard at the stream for drinking water. Ruskin often stops upon seeing it. That also happened that they both crossed each other’s path several times. Even animals can smell the intentions of man. Like other animals, the leopard sensed Ruskin as a harmless human. It trusted him. That trust developed a sense of friendship. Neither the leopard is afraid of Ruskin, nor does Ruskin have any fear of the leopard.

One day, while Ruskin was on his walk, he saw some strange men resting under a tree. He notices their modern guns that appear ominous and he gets apprehensive. These men are shikaris. They wonder about the little boy wandering in the jungle and caution him that there is a deadly carnivorous leopard lurking around the jungle and Ruskin is not safe there. Ruskin says that he is a regular visitor and he denies seeing any leopard around the area. Ruskin hears them discussing how the skin of wild leopards is in demand and how easily they can make big money by hunting down the leopard.

Ruskin is worried about the leopard. Seeing the shikaris, he gets a bad feeling about the situation and thus tries to help the leopard by denying its existence in the jungle.

Several days pass by and Ruskin does not see that leopard. One day Ruskin goes to a serene and silent hill. The silence there begins gnawing him. He sensed something was eerie. When he focuses on one cave, it is dark inside, and he feels that there is that leopard. The leopard is aware of him but isn’t afraid or startled. The leopard finds him familiar and friendly. Ruskin taught the leopard to trust human beings. Ruskin returns home silently and safely.

The next day while on a walk, he sees some men making a jubilant sound. When he sees them, he freezes with disbelief. On a bamboo pole, the same leopard’s corpse is hanging. The men were singing their songs. “We told you that there is a leopard in the jungle”, said one of the shikaris.

Ruskin feels bad about the situation. He wonders if he helped the Shikaris in hunting down the leopard. Because of him, the leopard began trusting human beings became less cautious, and got killed. He, then, remembers the lines of a poem by D.H. Lawrence: ‘There was a room in the world for a mountain lion and me’.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of Indian English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Artificial Intelligence and Unemployment | An Analysis

Artificial Intelligence and Unemployment | An Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Technology improves life as it brings development and prosperity. Despite this fact, the debate about whether the new technologies will cause mass unemployment and hamper the progress of underdeveloped or developing countries like India continues to make rounds. The advent of OpenAI, ChatGPT-4 recently raised concerns over the ill effects of technology. According to OpenAI, GPT-4 exhibits “human-level performance” on various professional and academic benchmarks, passing a simulated bar exam with a score in the top 10 percent of test takers. It became clear that almost any job that doesn’t require physical presence could soon be substantially automated and done through generative AI. In fact, a recent report by Goldman Sachs estimates that as many as 300 million full-time jobs around the world could be automated in some way by the newest wave of artificial intelligence.

While such fearmongering continues to make circles, the fact remains that just like any other technology, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence are meant only to serve humankind.

Will Technology Cause An Unemployment Crisis?

The idea that technology destroys jobs and will cause massive unemployment prevails despite history demonstrating otherwise. It’s a disproven myth. After all, if technology had been destroying jobs for the hundreds of years people have been arguing about automation and machines, there would be hardly any jobs left. This is of course not true. Bulldozers took the place of men with shovels. Cars put railroad workers out of business. Elevator operators, typists, blacksmiths, and manual telephone operators jobs all vanished over the 20th century.

Every new labor-saving device destroys jobs. But this is of great benefit to mankind. It frees labor for tasks that were impossible to accomplish previously! At the time of the founding of our nation, more than 95 percent of the labor force had to work on the farm to keep us fed; nowadays, less than 45 percent in India is so employed. Had we known that this would happen, should we have worried about the loss of jobs in agriculture? Should we have tried to stop the advances in technology that obliterated 50 percent of the jobs in existence at the time? On the contrary, it was the freeing of 50 percent of the labor force from farm work that allowed us to take the gigantic steps forward we have made in the past two centuries.

Also, the agricultural sector isn’t that promising. Whether we put 50% of our labor or 10% of our labor on food production, we would not be able to change how much our households spend on food or that we need plenty of things besides food. The contribution of agriculture to the Indian GDP is around 16%. When 50% of people share only 16% of income, there is poverty in farming by default. We are condemning them to low incomes. This is why we have to get a majority of our farmers out of agriculture and have them be used in sectors where people actually spend money. That is the only way to get them out of poverty and technological advancements provide those new sectors where the labor force can be used.

In his book, Economy in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt discussed the issue of technology and machines displacing humans and causing mass unemployment. In the chapter titled “The Curse of Machinery” of Economy in One Lesson, Hazlitt first asserts that if machines create unemployment, it follows that every technological innovation to this day has done so by improving the manufacturing process, gradually displacing jobs. This logic would lead to the conclusion that to achieve maximum employment, all the technological progression of the past millennia would have to be reversed.

While it may be true that in the short run, a machine may displace jobs upon being introduced to a sector, the creation of the machine itself would bring in new jobs. The economizing entrepreneur would only adopt the machine if he sees it as an integral component in expanding his profits. These new profits could be used for expanding his operations, or his own personal consumption. If the former, the entrepreneur could invest in new machinery, in turn creating new jobs, and if the latter, money spent in any given industry would lead to an increase in employment in that industry. Another point to consider is that goods produced in one industry could be used as capital in another industry. For example, a firm may use machines to create bolts at a faster rate. While this may lead to an initial decrease in the number of jobs in the bolt industry, it would lead to an increase in jobs in another industry. For example, car manufacturers may need to use these bolts, so they now have more capital to use in manufacturing cars. This would lead to an increase in the amount of jobs in the automotive industry.

Will AI Cause Social Inequality?

Another issue related to the development of AI is that it will cause income inequality. All the greedy capitalists will take advantage of the increased productivity of the automated techniques and fire all of their employees. Unemployment will rise as we run out of jobs for humans to do, they say.

This fear is also. First of all, how could these greedy capitalists make all their money without a large mass of consumers purchasing their products? If the majority of people are without income because of automation, then the majority of people won’t be able to help line the pockets of greedy capitalists. Second, there will always be jobs because there will always be scarcity. Human wants are unlimited, diverse, and ever-changing, yet the resources we need to satisfy our desires are limited. The production of any good requires labor and entrepreneurship, so humans will never become unnecessary.

Technology serves to make the economy stronger. Machines and tools make us more productive. The entire goal of economic progress is to make us more productive, and more efficient, have more consumer goods available, have more leisure time, and have higher standards of living. This is achieved by higher productivity and efficiency. We are better off not needing twelve people with shovels to do the same thing as a bulldozer.

The major issue with OpenAI is that it will reduce the jobs for writers, content producers, website designers and developers, programmers, and other technicians. Should we really worry about this? We should ask what happened to all of the VHS manufacturers, the landline phone manufacturers, and video store workers? What happened to the railroad workers or the typewriter makers and technicians? Labor is fluid and finds new work. Job Hopping is a reality. People learn new things and get new jobs. They do it constantly. Society creates and destroys different kinds of jobs through technology. Markets adjust and people will find new work, just as has been in the past. The prediction that technological advancement will be too rapid for us to adjust is a hollow, misguided forecast that lives on despite its losing record. Job displacement does occur and people must adjust. It is worth taking notice of this and knowing that people can use help when finding new jobs and new careers. However, technology should not be avoided and feared because it replaces currently existing jobs. It makes our lives better and leads to the liberation of labor for newer, better jobs. The next generation of technological development and automation won’t result in a joblessness crisis.

So this is it for today. We Will continue to discuss the Ethics of Liberty. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Rip Van Winkle by Washington Irving | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Washington Irving was an American short-story writer, essayist, and biographer who was born on April 3, 1783 and died on November 28, 1859. He began his literary career in 1802 under the pseudonym Jonathan Oldstyle and wrote some observational letters for a news magazine Morning Chronicle. As a biographer, he wrote biographies of Oliver Goldsmith, Muhammad, and George Washington. In 1815, he traveled to England for some family business and there he began writing essays and short stories that he published in a serialized manner under the title The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent from 1819 to 1820. The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon was a huge success in America and it was the first work by an American author to be reviewed well in Europe. Most of the sketches concern his observations as an American visiting England, but six, including the two most famous—“Rip Van Winkle” and “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” are short stories based in America. Both these stories are adaptations of German folklore retold with New York as the setting and a romantic defense of Native Americans. Rip Van Winkle is one of the most popular sketches or stories by Irving that tells the story of an indolent but good-natured Dutch-American from pre-Revolutionary War New York.

Characters of Rip Van Winkle:

Geoffrey Crayon is the narrator of the story. He is an avid traveler and is highly interested in the stories, people, and cultures of the past. Diedrich Knickerbocker was an old gentleman from New York who was especially interested in the histories, customs, and culture of the Dutch settlers in that state. He was known for his accuracy in historical matters. The account of Rip Van Winkle was found in his notes. Rip Van Winkle is a kind, good-natured, neighborly man who lived at the foot of the Catskills while the United States was still a colony of Britain. His ancestors were great soldiers but Rip is peaceful and indolent. He is a careless man who owns little farmland that he doesn’t tend well. Dame Van Winkle is his wife who continues to chide and berate him for being irresponsible and taking such poor care of the farm and being so idle. Derrick Van Bummel is the schoolmaster of Rip’s village. He becomes a celebrated general in the Revolutionary War and becomes a congressman. Nicholaus Vedder is the richest man and leader of Rip’s village. He owns an Inn in the village outside of which the village men gather to gossip. Peter Vanderdonk is the oldest person in Rip’s village and belongs to a family of historians. Everyone respects him and his approval of Rip’s story leads Rip to be reaccepted upon his late return.

Summary of Rip Van Winkle:

The story begins with an explanation that the account of Rip Van Winkle was found among the papers of a man named Diedrich Knickerbocker, an old gentleman from New York who was especially interested in the histories, customs, and culture of the Dutch settlers in that state. The narrator insists that Knickerbocker's greatest attribute is his accuracy and that the truth of the story is beyond any doubt. Rip Van Winkle lives in a small Dutch village along the Hudson River in the valley of the Catskill Mountains. Rip is a good-natured man descended from gallant soldiers but is a peaceful man himself, known for being a kind and gentle neighbor. Yet, he is careless about his family and is known to be a lazy and indolent person who doesn’t take good care of his little farmland. He is irresponsible towards his wife and children and his son who is also named Rip appears to be following his father’s footsteps. He also has a daughter and a pet dog named Wolf.

Rip often spends his time near the village inn where other men sit and chat about the issues of the day without much enthusiasm. It is a sort of philosophical or political club that meets on a bench outside the village inn. Derrick Van Bummel is the schoolmaster of the village who would often read newspapers and discuss current events with other people. Nicholas Vedder owns the inn and he is the most influential and rich person in the village. He doesn’t speak much but makes his opinions clear based on how he smokes his pipe. Rip Van Winkle is liked by this group of people but his wife Dame Van Winkle continues to berate them for having a bad influence over Rip.

Rip owns a little farmland that doesn’t offer much produce. He doesn’t care for the soil which is continuously depleting. Dame continues to shout at Rip trying to force him to be more responsible but he is indifferent.

One day, he goes into the wilderness with his dog to hunt squirrels. After a while, he decides to rest under a tree. While he is resting, he sees a strange man dressed in old-fashioned Dutch clothes, climbing the hill toward Rip and lugging a keg on his shoulder. The stranger asks for Rip’s help who gleefully helps him. The stranger invites him into a ravine into a hollow and he follows. In the hollow, Rip sees more strange-looking men who are playing nine pins, some old kind of ball game. The strange-looking men get startled by Rip’s presence but the stranger whom he accompanied tells them how Rip helped him. He then offers some drink to Rip from his keg and Rip drinks cheerfully. After more than a few drinks, he falls asleep.

When he wakes up in the morning, he is anxious about what Dame Van Winkle will say about his late return. He reaches for his gun but finds that it is now rusty and worm-eaten—perhaps the men tricked him and replaced his gun. Wolf also is gone and does not respond to Van Winkle’s calls. He gets up and feels quite stiff. When he tries to retrace his steps, the ravine appears to have become an impenetrable wall of rock, and some of the natural features of the area have changed.

He returns to his village but finds that people are wearing a different style of clothing than he is used to, and those who acknowledge him all seem to stroke their chins. When Rip checks his own chin, he finds that he has grown a foot-long grey beard. The children hoot at him and the dogs bark. The village itself has grown larger. He begins to think he must be going crazy, for the natural scenery is the only recognizable thing. The drink from the strangers must have made him lose his mind. Making his way to his house, he finds it in ruins as if nobody has been living there for years. His wife and children are absent. To find some familiar face, he visits the village inn but there is no inn now as it has been turned into The Union Hotel. The large tree that stood outside the inn has been cut down and a flagpost has replaced it. The flag post has an American flag and the poster on the hotel is not of King George but it is of General George Washington.

Seeing the strange-looking old man in old-fashioned clothes, the crowd gathers around Rip. The crowd asks him questions, especially about what political party he belongs to. He is confused and says he is still a loyal subject of the king. They declare him a traitor and a Tory. When he says he has just come looking for his friends, they tell him that Nicholaus Vedder has been dead for eighteen years and Van Bummel is now in Congress. It is also revealed that Nicholas Vedder has been dead for 18 years, indicating Rip has been gone for at least that long. Dismayed, Rip asks if anyone knows Rip Van Winkle. A few in the crowd point out a young man. When Rip looks at him, he finds him familiar and realizes that the young man is his son who was just a child when he went to the wilderness.

A familiar-looking woman appears from the crowd and Rip realizes that she is his daughter. The woman that her father went out with his gun one day twenty years ago and was never heard from since. Rip Van Winkle tells everyone that for him it has only been one night, which makes them think he is crazy. Rip asks about his wife and learns that Dame Van Winkle has passed away. While nobody believes him, Rip insists that he is Rip Van Winkle, the father of that woman. An older woman from the crowd suggests that they should consult Peter Vanderdonk, the oldest and wisest man in the village to verify the veracity of this strange man. Vanderdonk vouches for Rip Van Winkle and says that he has heard tales passed down about the ghosts of Hendrick Hudson and his men appearing once every twenty years; they play bowl and keep a guardian eye on the region that Hudson explored. Finally, the villagers accept Rip’s version and her daughter takes him to her house. He finds that she is married to a wealthy cheerful farmer. Rip eventually learns about the Revolutionary War and everything else that has passed. He continues to spend his time idly and now when he is old, nobody objects to him. Furthermore, since Dame is no more, there is nobody to berate Rip anymore.

The narrator Diedrich Knickerbocker ends the story by vouching for the veracity of the story on personal examination.

The story’s time setting is central: Rip Van Winkle goes to sleep before 1776 when the American colonies are still ruled by the British and wake up after the American War of Independence, which has succeeded in shaking off the British yoke and creating the independent nation of the United States of America.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English Literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

The Ethics of Bribery | A PoV Over Delhi Liquor Scam

The Ethics of Bribery | A PoV Over Delhi Liquor Scam

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. In 2011-12, India witnessed an anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare that was named ‘India Against Corruption.’ The other major leader of that group was the Magsaysay Award winner Arvind Kejriwal. Their main contention was the increasing corruption in the Indian government and political system and they wished to bring an Anti-Corruption Act called Jan Lokpal Bill to curb the menace of bribery and corruption.

The general public hardly knew if any such bill could curb corruption, and they hardly knew if the leaders of IAC really wished to fight against corruption, yet the IAC platform gave them a sense of hope, and the majority of the Indian public supported IAC without thinking about what is bribery, what corruption is, how it takes its roots, how it develops and can it be curbed?

Despite his promises and vows never to join politics, Arvind Kejriwal made a political party, fought and won elections and currently, he is the ruling Chief Minister of Delhi. The tides have turned and now, almost every major face of the Aam Admi Party, including Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister, Satyendar Kumar Jain, Sanjay Singh, and Arvind Kejriwal himself are facing corruption charges. Manish Sisodia, Satyendar Jain, and Sanjay Singh are already in jail and it won’t be a surprise if Arvind Kejriwal too finds his way to jail on the charges of corruption.

Allegations against AAP Leaders:

All the major AAP leaders are facing charges of corruption, bribery, and money laundering. Sateyndar Jain was arrested in May last year in a money laundering case. The Enforcement Directorate had arrested the AAP leader on the charge of laundering money through four companies allegedly linked to him. The case is based on a CBI complaint registered on the allegation that Satyendar Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.

The CBI on February 26, 2023, arrested Manish Sisodia, then the deputy chief minister of Delhi, for alleged corruption in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. He has been in custody since then. According to the federal investigative agencies, irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy, and undue favors were extended to license holders. Recently, Sanjay Singh was also arrested in connection with the Delhi excise policy-linked money laundering case.

Arvind Kejriwal continues to say that he and his party members are the most honest politicians and he even says that the most corrupt politician in India is Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself. Arvind Kejriwal alleges that all these cases of corruption, bribery, and money laundering against his fellow party members are because of political witch-hunting.

It may be true. It may be the case that the current central government is ignoring some other corruption issues while emphasizing the corruption involving the AAP Delhi government and other state governments of opposing parties. Yet, what can not be true is that these alleged corrupt leaders are honest. There is ample evidence that suggests that Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh took bribes in money in exchange for changing certain legalities to favor particular liquor producers and distributors. In addition, many such liquor producers and distributors have also been arrested and some of them have turned out to be the ED witnesses against the AAP Leaders.

Is Bribery a Crime?

Bribery is the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer.
Murray N. Rothbard explained the issue of Bribery in his book The Ethics of Liberty which was published in 1982. Suppose M. X wants to sell his products to Company Y. In order to gain the contract, Mr. X pays a bribe to Mr. Z who is the purchasing agent of Company Y. So whatever his supposed profit through this contract would be, he has given a portion of that profit to Mr. Z as bribe. That is, he has reduced the margin of his own profit by some degree while offering it to Mr. Z. Now Mr. X could have offered his products to Company Y directly at a reduced price and thus getting the same profit that he will now get after bribing Mr. Z but in that case, there was no guarantee that Company Y will accept his proposal and buy his product. Now when he has bribed Mr. Y, he will get guaranteed reduced profits. As far as Mr.X is concerned, he simply lowered his price to the company Y, and thereby gained the contract.”

“The illicit action here is, instead, solely the behavior of Mr. Y, the taker of the bribe. Mr. Y’s employment contract with his employers implicitly requires him to purchase materials to the best of his ability in the interests of his company. Instead, he violated his contract with Company Y by not performing as their proper agent: because of the bribe he either bought from a firm that he would not have dealt with otherwise or he paid a higher price than he needed to have by the amount of his rebate. In either case, Mr. Y violated his contract and invaded the property rights of his employers.”

“In the case of bribes, therefore, there is nothing illegitimate about the briber, but there is much that is illegitimate about the bribee, the taker of the bribe. ... It is only the taker of a bribe who should be prosecuted. In contrast, left-liberals tend to hold the bribe-giver as somehow more reprehensible, as in some way "corrupting" the taker. In that way, they deny the free will and the responsibility of each individual for his own actions.”

In the cases of bribery, the Indian Penal Code considers both the briber and the bribee culprits and this is why not only the AAP leaders of the Delhi government but also the liquor license holders who bribed them were also arrested. However, it is not correct. In this case, Company Y is the general public of Delhi while the politicians holding the excise portfolio of Delhi (Manish Sisodia and his associates) are Mr. Z, the person employed by the public of Delhi to purchase materials to the best of his ability in the interests of the state or the public of Delhi. Manish Sisodia clearly broke the contract of trust that he vowed to have with the public of Delhi. We often call it the social contract and thus it is corruption, it is crime.

How Corruption Begins?

We live in a democratic country. The government here is ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ The general citizen of India has a certain kind of influence over the government that he can exercise, the influence of Vote. Arvind Kejriwal bribed the general public to receive the votes, the 'influence' of citizens, by promising free electricity, free water, free education, free healthcare, and so on. These are products and services that are not naturally available. We do not drink untreated water, we use well-treated clarified water that takes money and resources. Electricity cannot be produced for free, nobody will agree to teach a student for no money in return, and no doctor will agree to treat a patient free of cost. Yet, the politicians promise that they will offer these freebies. Many times, they promise direct cash transfers in people’s accounts as help for economically backward people and so on. All these poll promises and freebies are nothing but bribes that politicians offer to the public to gain their favor and win elections. What it means is that any democracy that works on the idea of social welfare is inherently corrupt and hence, corruption in government is no big deal, rather it is expected.

Who is the Culprit?

Even then, every politician and every government claims that they are honest and will try everything possible to curb corruption, end bribery, and bring honesty in the political governing realms. Why do these politicians do so while they begin their political careers by means of corruption, offering bribes as freebies for the voters? It's all about the appearance of legitimacy of government institutions. Simply put, the activities of politicians and bureaucrats are considered to be legitimate as long as they comply with various laws, rules, and regulations which they themselves create. Thus, politicians say the act of bribing a public official, foreign or domestic, is illegal, according to the laws made by them.

Yet, they know that they cannot win elections without offering freebies, subsidies to particular groups of society, rebates to certain groups of tax-payers, free ration, free fertilizers, free electricity, free water supply, and so on. No amount of political obfuscation can change the nature of these activities. This is bribery, in the purest sense of the word, and politicians are the bribe-givers!

However, as mentioned above, it is not the bribe-giver but the bribe-taker who breaks the contract and commits a crime. As a voter, each citizen has a contract with the democracy to choose the best, most honest person to hold the post of power. But the voters often forget their contract and their duty, they vote for the person who will provide maximum freebies, more free electricity, more rebates, and more doleouts. What they do not understand is that the politicians or the government aren’t going to give anything free at the expense of their own pockets. Rather, the politicians, or the government, robs a section of society by offering a little of the robbed money to other sections as freebies, while it enjoys the remaining. The government acts as the monkey while creating a tussle between the different sections of the society divided on the basis of religion, caste, class, and so on. Government discriminates, government bribes, yet, it is all legal. If the same things are done by an individual, they become illegal. If a politician offers cash for votes, it is a crime, but if the same politician offers a free ration, free electricity, and free grains if he wins, it becomes legal.

Politicians benefit from legal bribes which cause tremendous harm to the economic welfare of the general public, while condemning illegal bribes which are far less harmful to the general public.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the ethics of liberty. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Brahma by Ralph Waldo Emerson | Structure, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘Brahma’ is the title of one of the best poems written by Ralph Waldo Emerson that was published in 1857. The poem and the title of the poem are inspired by Eastern Indian philosophies. Emerson made notes from Vishnu Purana, Kathopanishada, Bhagavat Geeta, and other Upanishads in his notebook and that inspired him to write this poem.

The central speaker of the poem is Brahma Himself who, according to the Hindu texts, is the Creator of all things in the universe, part of the trinity with Vishnu (the protector) and Shiva (the destroyer). Brahma is regarded as the essence or ‘soul’ of the universe that Emerson called the ‘Oversoul’. The theme of the poem is that human beings can exalt their spiritual realm only through the realization of the Brahman, the Oversoul.

Structure and Theme of Brahma by Emerson:

This poem consists of 4 stanzas. Each 4-line stanza constitutes a quatrain with some kind of metrical and rhyme pattern. As the rhyme scheme of each stanza is ABAB, it is called an alternate or interlaced quatrain. The poem exhibits Transcendentalism with major themes of Man’s inherent goodness, unity with the universe, and man’s central status in the world are three major thematic strands of “Brahma.” Emerson argues about man’s unity in the universe in that he is the slayer, the slain, and the one who slays. In this way, he lives in everything, whether it is a god, a natural element, or even an abstract idea such as “the doubt” or “the good.” This also shows man’s inherent goodness as well as man’s central position in the scheme of this world. Whenever a person needs direction to do good, he must turn to a man and not heaven. Even the heavenly entities represented by gods lie deep in the heart of the man who does not need any intermediary to reach these deities.

Summary of Brahma by Emerson:

Stanza 1

“If the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again.”

The poem begins in first person as the speaker, Brahma Himself, explains that people are wrong about their assumptions. The speaker is the voice of one who has reached the pinnacle of spiritual illumination. The red slayer is Shiva, the destroyer, who destroys the body, not the soul. The speaker says that all those who are afraid of death are ignorant of the ‘subtle ways ’ of the Creator, the Oversoul because all those who are living are just me, and all those who die are also just me, as I the creator continue to turn again. The ‘subtle ways’ represent the circle of birth, growth, death, and rebirth. Brahma says that there is no difference between Brahma and Shiva, as both are the manifestation of the same Oversoul.

The first stanza is inspired by the Bhagavad Gita. “Anyone who thinks the soul is the slayer and anyone who thinks the soul is the slain both of them is in ignorance; the soul never slays nor slain; The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birthless, eternal, imperishable, and timeless and is never destroyed when the body is destroyed; One who knows the soul as eternal, unborn, undeteriorating, and indestructible; how does that person cause death to anyone and whom does he slay?”(19, 20, 21. Chapter 2 of Bhagavad-Gita ).

Stanza 2

“Far or forgot to me is near;
Shadow and sunlight are the same;
The vanished gods to me appear;
And one to me are shame and fame”

In the second stanza, the poet uses contrasting images and metaphors suggesting the Western idea of binary opposition, “either this or that,” which suggests empirical thinking. It is a way of discriminating between antagonistic and incomparable things, shadows to sunlight, and far to near. However, Emerson refutes this concept of binary opposition and suggests that all these differences are illusionary (Maya). On the Transcendental level, both of these opposites represent different sides of the same coin. One man’s justice is another’s injustice; one man’s beauty, another’s ugliness; one man’s wisdom, another’s folly; as one beholds the same objects from a higher point. Often men fail to realize the oneness while observing these supposed binary opposites because of their cognitive limitations. According to Emerson, if a man reaches the height of the Oversoul or God, or becomes one with the Oversoul or God, everything is essentially the same.

Stanza 3

“They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings;
I am the doubter and the doubt,
And I the hymn the Brahmin sings.”

In the third stanza, the poet further explains the nature of Brahma. Brahma expresses his satisfaction with those who realize their mistake in ignoring the presence of Oversoul and mend their ways. Emerson expresses the idea of another shloka from Bhagavad Gita “For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never forgotten by them and they are never forgotten by Me”(30, chapter 6 of Bhagavad-Gita). Emerson uses metaphors to express the totality of Brahma for those who realize the Oversoul and says that those who realize the presence of Oversoul within them, they get rid of all the illusions and binary oppositions as there remains no difference between the doubter and the doubt. Brahma says that he is the totality that those who know the Oversoul, the essence of the universe, praise in their hymns.

Stanza 4

“The strong gods pine for my abode,
And pine in vain the sacred Seven;
But thou, meek lover of the good!
Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.”

In the fourth stanza, the poet uses Allusions offering references to Hindu mythology. The strong gods refer to Devtas including Indra, the god of the sky, Agni, the god of fire, Yama, the god of death and judgment and others. These strong gods are like humans with special powers and were created by Brahma himself. Just like humans, these gods pine for salvation which is possible only if they integrate themselves into the Brahma, the Oversoul. Another allusion is ‘the sacred Seven’ which is a reference to the Seven Sages of Hindu Cosmology, the SaptaRishis. Despite all their knowledge, the ‘sacred Seven’ pine for salvation which again is possible only through the realization that they and everyone else are no different from the Oversoul. Thus, Brahma says that humans, who are the meek lover of the good’ and wishes pleasant things to experience, should give up their search for heaven and heavenly beauty, instead they should concentrate and realize the Oversoul within themselves because that is the only way to attain salvation.

Literary Devices used in Brahma:

Emerson has used Allusion in this poem with reference to Hindu cosmology mentioning the Sacred Seven, Brahmin, and strong gods. Assonance has been used in the beginning line of Stanza 1 and Stanza 2 ( the sound of /a/ in “If the red slayer think he slays” and the sound of /o/ in “Far or forgot to me is near.”) Alliteration has also been used as in ‘sacred Seven’ and the use of sound /f/ in “Far or forgot to me is near.” Consonance has also been used as the sound of /t and w/ in “They know not well the subtle ways.” Strong imagery is used throughout the poem along with some extensive metaphors (“I am the wings” and “I the hymn the Brahmin sings” to show that the poet claims to be a bird as well as a hymn.) The poet used parallelism, such as “When me they fly, I am the wings.” It has an equal number of words in both clauses.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!