In what way does the play “Act III of the Silver Box” criticize the British society? Discuss in detail. (2003)

Or“Act III of the Silver Box” exposes the British system which only punishes the poor? Do you agree? Give reasons.

“Act III of the Silver Box” is penned down by one of the most popular English novelist and dramatist of the early 20th century, John Galsworthy. He was a distinguished author and playwright whose works contain a great deal of criticism of British society. His fiction is concerned principally with English upper middle-class life; his dramas frequently find their themes in this stratum of society, but also often deal, sympathetically, with the economically and socially oppressed and with questions of social justice. He wrote a number of novels about the Forsytes, a fictional family of the upper middle class. His plays include “The Man of Property”, “The Silver Box”, “Strife” and “loyalties and escape”. He was awarded Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932.

“Next to religion, let you care be to promote justice”-Francis Bacon

The Silver Box boldly criticizes the judicial system of the British society. It bears the moral that ‘might is right’ still prevails in the social order, where the blue-collar people are oppressed by the prosperous and the powerful ones. The play commences with the case of the Livens being brought in the court. Theresa Livens and Maud Livens were two adolescent sisters who had no shelter, as their mother had broken their home and ran off with another man. Their father had lost his work and was living in common lodging houses, while the girls were brought on the street. But the magistrate was not realizing the seriousness of the situation. He was asking such ridiculous questions:

“You say the mother is on the street; what evidence have you of that?”

After hearing the testimony of Mr. Livens, the magistrate remanded the case for another week:

“Well, I’ll remand them for a week. Bring them again today week; if I see no reason against it then, I’ll make an order.”

Moreover the magistrate was reluctant to grant justice and righteousness.“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

-Martin Luther King The Livens’ case was followed by the case of the theft of the Silver Box Mr. Barthwick was a Liberal Member of Parliament and had a huge influence on the community. His son Jack was immoral and self-indulgent. In a feat of drunken mischief, he stole a purse from a woman. In a similar fit of drunken mischief Jones, the husband of the Barthwick’s charwoman, stole the silver cigarette-box and the purse after helping Jack to enter his father’s house. Later on when the Silver Box was found missing, Mrs Jones, the charwoman, was accused of the theft. When the constable came to arrest her, Jones tried to defend her. He mugged the police constable and admitted that he had stolen the Silver Box under the heavy influence of whisky. He was rightly defending his wife as she was being taken into

custody without any guilt. As a result, he was arrested and carried off to the police station. Jones justifies his action of assaulting the police officer:

“You put your hands on my wife when I kept telling you I took the thing myself.” Jack Barthwick stole the purse from a lady and Jones stole that purse and a silver box from Jack while both of them were inebriated. While Jack was excused because of having too much champagne, Jones was declared guilty. In the words of the magistrate:

“You give the excuse that you were drunk when you stole the box. I tell you that is no excuse. If you choose to get drunk and break the law afterwards you must take the consequences.” Jack and Jones both had committed identical crimes but Jack’s father was able to hush up his son’s crime while the poverty-stricken Jones was punished. Jones had rightly said:

“I have done no more than what he has. I am a poor man. I have got no money and no friends, but he has a lot. He can do what I can’t.”

The verdict given by the court was one month imprisonment with hard labour for Jones, while Jack left the court holding his head high. Jones’ wife lost her job at Mr. Barthwick’s home. Moreover Jones had rightly shouted at the Magistrate:

“Call this justice? What about him? He got drunk! He took the purse, but its money that got him off.”

“A judge who cannot punish, in the end associates himself with the criminal.” -Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe The final verdict of the magistrate clearly signifies that wealth and power are more influential than justice. Even the honourable judge is influenced by the lust of materialistic wealth. Moreover the underprivileged class are always the one who are grinded in our society.

Q. Why do we have the feeling that the judgement was unfair at the end of the play in Act III of the Silver Box? (04) Q. Why were Jones punished and Jack let off scoot free in the Silver Box? (03)

“Next to religion, let you care be to promote justice”-Francis Bacon

The play, Act III of the Silver Box boldly criticizes the judicial system of the British society. It bears the moral that ‘might is right’ still prevails in the social order, where the blue-collar people are oppressed by the prosperous and the powerful ones. The play revolves around the theft of the Silver Box. Mr. Barthwick was a Liberal Member of Parliament and had a huge influence on the community. His son Jack was immoral and self-indulgent. In a feat of drunken mischief, he stole a purse from a woman.

In a similar fit of drunken mischief Jones, the husband of the Barthwick’s charwoman, stole the silver cigarette-box and the purse after helping Jack to enter his father’s house. Later on when the Silver Box was found missing, Mrs Jones, the charwoman, was accused of the theft. When the constable came to arrest her, Jones tried to defend her. He mugged the police constable and admitted that he had stolen the Silver Box under the heavy influence of whisky. He was rightly defending his wife as she was being taken into custody without any guilt. As a result, he was arrested and carried off to the police station. Jones justifies his action of assaulting the police officer:

“You put your hands on my wife when I kept telling you I took the thing myself.” Jack Barthwick stole the purse from a lady and Jones stole that purse and a silver box from Jack while both of them were inebriated. While Jack was excused because of having too much champagne, Jones was declared guilty. In the words of the magistrate:

“You give the excuse that you were drunk when you stole the box. I tell you that is no excuse. If you choose to get drunk and break the law afterwards you must take the consequences.” Jack and Jones both had committed identical crimes but Jack’s father was able to hush up his son’s crime while the poverty-stricken Jones was punished. Jones had rightly said:

“I have done no more than what he has. I am a poor man. I have got no money and no friends, but he has a lot. He can do what I can’t.”

The verdict given by the court was one month imprisonment with hard labour for Jones, while Jack left the court holding his head high. Jones’ wife lost her job at Mr. Barthwick’s home. Moreover Jones had rightly shouted at the Magistrate:

“Call this justice? What about him? He got drunk! He took the purse, but its money that got him off.”

“A judge who cannot punish, in the end associates himself with the criminal.” -Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

The final verdict of the magistrate clearly signifies that wealth and power are more influential than justice. Even the honourable judge is influenced by the lust of materialistic wealth. Moreover the underprivileged class are always the one who are grinded in our society.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”-Martin Luther King

Q. Write a character sketch of James Jones.

James Jones was the husband of the charwoman at the Barthwick’s place. He was the victim of the gross injustice and tyranny of the upper class. His appearance was ragged and shabby, which was mainly because of his unemployment. As he was jobless, his wife had been forced by circumstances to become the bread earner of the family. Having suffered at the hands of the society, Jones had become rather crude and rough in his behaviour. Though Jones was poverty-stricken and was deprived off basic amenities of life, still, he possessed a sense of self-dignity and respect. He was thoroughly infuriated when his wife was being hand-cuffed by the policeman in the guilt of a crime she never committed. He struck a blow to the officer, while he was rightly defending his wife. Jones justifies his action of assaulting the police officer:

“You put your hands on my wife when I kept telling you I took the thing myself.” Jones had been on the firing line of his ill fate. Through out his life, he had face untold hardships, but he never faltered away on his path, neither he had ever committed any theft. When he was brought in the court, in the charge of stealing the silver box, he boldly and forth-rightly confessed that he had taken the box under a fit of drunken mischief. Jack Barthwick who was also overly drunk on that night had asked Jones to take anything he like from his house and as he not in his full consciousness, he stole the silver box. When accused of stealing the box, he retorted:

“I never stole the box! I took it”

Jones was optimistic of receiving justice from the hands of the Magistrate. He insisted that Jack, the son of the influential Mr. Barthwick, should also be brought to book, for the theft of the lady’s purse. He appealed that the law should not discriminate between the rich and the poor, but the final verdict of the court was against him and exposed the hypocrisy of the English legal system. Moreover Jones had rightly shouted at the Magistrate:

“Call this justice? What about him? He got drunk! He took the purse, but its money that got him off.”

On what grounds did Liaquat Ali Khan justify the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Sub-Continent? (02, 96)

OrWhat were the main reasons given by Liaquat Ali khan for the Muslim desire not to continue being in United India? (06, 00)

“Let freedom reign. The sun never set on so glorious a human achievement.” -Nelson Mandela Muslims of the Indo-Pak Sub-Continent were once its undisputed ruler during the glorious and magnificent era of the Mughal Empire. But the fall of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor, started the brutal oppression of Muslims by the prejudiced British and Hindu majority. Muslims had to face hundred years of bias subjugation and cruelty. But they were given a new life on 14th August 1947, when the Muslim state of Pakistan was born on the face of the Earth.

Liaquat Ali Khan, the 1st Prime Minister of Pakistan, validated the creation of Pakistan while addressing in the United States of America in 1950. He tried to apprise the American people of the reasons and exigencies behind the Muslim’s demand of a separate homeland in South Asia.

“Do not destroy that immortal emblem of humanity, the Declaration of Independence.” -Abraham Lincoln He described religion as the fundamental basis for the demand of Pakistan. Hindus and Muslims are two different nations based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. They have their own religion, beliefs culture, civilization, literature and historical heritage. The Muslims believed in the oneness and supreme sovereignty of Allah Almighty while among the Hindus there were many deities. Moreover the desire that the Hindus and Muslims will form a single nation is nothing more than a mere fanciful dream.

In his words:

“It was not merely a question of religion differences, it was not merely that whereas the Muslims were monotheists, the Hindus were polytheists, or that the Muslims believed in the Prophet of Arabia and in Christ and the prophets of Old Testament, whereas the Hindus did not. The difference was even more pervasive than this and created maladjustment between the two peoples in almost every situation of their daily life.”

Liaquat Ali Khan also signifies the fact that without the division of India the Muslims would not have been able to enjoy the real fruits of freedom from the British rule. On the contrary, in a united India the Muslims would have been forced to live as a permanent group of defeated and subjected minority as the Hindus had a dominating majority over the Muslims. Hence the demand of Pakistan was based on the very feeling that the Muslims should be emancipated from the clutches of the eternal Hindu domination.

According to Shaheed-e-Millat: “Long experience and the history of several centuries had taught them that under a dominating majority of three to one, freedom from British rule would mean to the Muslims not freedom but merely a change of masters.”

From the global prospect, the creation of Pakistan had eradicated the possibility of chaos and hostility in Sub-Continent. When two nations try to squeeze themselves under one flag, on one platform, there are odds of violent clashes between them, but by the division of South Asia had itself dissolved what would have bee a perpetual danger zone in Asia. Liaquat Ali Khan conveyed the same thought:

“From the point of view of world peace the creation of two independent and comparatively homogeneous states instead of a single uneasy and unwieldy uniform state with great strains and stresses within the body politic was the greatest contribution that could be made towards the creation of a new Asia.”

The creation of Pakistan was also justified from the geographical point of view. India was a vast land which could easily be divided into two. Muslims were in large number to constitute a nation.As Liaquat Ali Khan rightly said:

“South Asia was vast enough for two large countries, the Muslims were numerous enough to constitute a nation bigger than most nations in the world, and in South Asia there were large enough areas where they were in majority.”

The creation of Pakistan is on one hand, an ultimate reward of decades of struggle for the Muslims; on the other hand it plays a constructive role in maintaining peace and homogeneity in the global arena. As the Muslims were a separate nation they had every right to establish their own homeland in the Sub-continent. Like Liaquat Ali Khan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, endorses the creation of Pakistan in the following saying:

“The Muslims are a nation by every definition of the word nation. They have every right to establish their separate homeland where they can adopt any mean to promote and protect their economic, social, political and cultural interests.”

Q.What were the differences between the Hindus and Muslims that led to the creation of Pakistan? (04)

“Pakistan was born on that day when the first Hindu in India embraced Islam.” -Muhammad Ali Jinnah Before 712A.D. the inhabitants of India practiced only one religion which was Hinduism; but the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim brought a mass acceptance of Islam, and India became the home of two distinct nations, Hindus and Muslims. For centuries they had been trying to squeeze together on one platform, under one flag, but by the late 19th, it was far too much as the conflicts between the two communities grew at an alarming rate. It was then that the Muslims realized their distinctions from the Hindus, as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the great Muslim leader propounded famous Two Nation Theory declaring Hindus and Muslims as separate nations. In the words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah:

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religion, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine. They belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conception”

On the basis of religion, there was no similarity between them. The Muslims believed in the Oneness and Supreme Sovereignty of Allah Almighty while among the Hindus there were many deities.. Faith on the finality of Prophet Hood by Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is the basic tenet of Islam, whereas the Hindus believed on no such ideology. Likewise their Holy book and their code of conduct of life also contradicted each other. Shaheed-e-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan highlights the same point:

“It was not merely a question of religion differences, it was not merely that whereas the Muslims were monotheists, the Hindus were polytheists, or that the Muslims believed in the Prophet of Arabia and in Christ and the prophets of Old Testament, whereas the Hindus did not. The difference was even more pervasive than this and created maladjustment between the two peoples in almost every situation of their daily life.”

The prejudiced British rule in India had blocked all routes of prosperity for the Muslims. They were withdrawn backward both educationally and economically, while the Hindus grew from wealthy to wealthier. Hence the Muslims demanded Pakistan to economically stabilize themselves. Liaquat Ali Khan said in his speech in USA in 1950:

“In a country which was on the whole backward, the Muslims economically and industrially, were even more backward. It seemed certain to them, as an unalterable and perpetual minority, their economic position would grow even worse.”

Muslims were apart from Hindus from cultural point of view as well. They had their own culture, customs, traditions, literature, history and cultural heritage. All this was based on Islam. Allama Iqbal, the Poet of the East had said:

“Muslims are a separate nation with their distinct cultural values and religious trend, and they want a system of their own liking, considering their separate religious and cultural identity.”

In a united India the Muslims were forced to live as a permanent group of defeated and subjected minority as the Hindus had a dominating majority over the Muslims. Hence the demand of Pakistan was based on the very feeling that the Muslims should be emancipated from the clutches of the eternal Hindu domination.

According to Shaheed-e-Millat: “Since the Hindus were much larger in number, the Muslims feared that under their domination, the culture of Muslim would suffer a great setback and would perhaps be totally eclipsed.”

The Muslims wanted the creation of Pakistan as they wanted to give stability to their nationhood and to liberate themselves from Non-Muslims supremacy. It was unlikely that Muslims would have live in peace with Hindus in a united India, therefore the formation of Pakistan was not only a blessing for Muslims but also for the world peace.

Q. What is the concept of Liaquat Ali Khan of freedom and how that freedom can be achieved? (2002)

“Real Freedom can only be achieved through constant hard struggle, and that freedom implies that each and every citizen is free in real sense of word.” -J.S. Mill

Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, expressed his views about real freedom in his address at Kansas University in 1950. He does not advocate the old, backward concept of freedom, simply by getting rid of foreign rule. He declared that a common man of an sovereign state should be free from the worries of the worries of the basic needs of life. He should be provided food, shelter, clothing and medical facilities. The light of knowledge and education can reach the threshold of the common man. In his words:

“It is not merely governments that should be free but the people themselves who should be free; and no freedom has any real value for the common man unless it also means freedom from want, freedom from disease, freedom from ignorance.”

The primary challenge for all the independent nations is to achieve the idealistic form of independence. During the last two centuries, when the countries of the East were struggling to regain independence from their Europeans oppressors, the West was utilizing the potential and ingenuity of human brain, to plunder in the depth of the Universe, unveiling the most prolific secrets. Hence they surpassed the Eastern countries in the field of science and technology; which created their dominance over this world. Liaquat Ali Khan wisely said no one can stop the flow of time, so they have to accelerate the speed of development, in the fields of science and technology. He said:

“Today we find multitudes emerging as large, free nations in Asia with material and mental resources utterly undeveloped and with their standards of living so low that the world conscience should not content to leave them stagnant…..This is the synthesis we must achieve and achieve quickly.”

Hence the real independence of the Muslims of the Subcontinent, will only be achieved when the principles of freedom as depicted by Liaquat Ali Khan will be a reality, which will march us towards peace, progress and prosperity.

THE DAY THE DAM BROKE

Q. Narrate in your own words the events of the afternoon of the ‘Great Run’ as described by James Thurber. (2007, 02)Q. How does the panic”The Day the Dam broke” appear and have started. (2006)Q. Summary. (2000, 96, 95, 93)

“The Day the Dam Broke” penned down by the American humorist James Thurber, revives the ridiculous event of the ‘Great Run’ which took place in the Columbus City. The day of 12th March 1913 had begun like an ordinary day, with its usual business routines in full swing. But by noon, the whole city was in chaos, as every citizen was running towards the East, shouting, “The Dam has broken…….Go east...Go East!” The rumour about the broken dam began on High Street, which was the canyon of all commercial activities of the city. At noon when those activities were at their peak, a man was seen running towards east, moments later somebody else, probably a newsboy in high spirits, began to run. Another man, a portly gentleman of affairs broke into a trot. Within ten minutes every single person at High Street was running towards the East, chorusing the words “The Dam had broken”. No one knew from where the rumour had generated, but its effect was immediately seen as two thousands in full flights. Within minutes the rumour had gripped the entire city. People abandoned their homes, offices, shops, public places, backyards, and ran towards the East away from the fury of the make-believed flood. They left the doors of the house wide open and the women left the fires burning and the food cooking. The Grandfather of the writer misunderstood that the chaotic situation was because Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry had attacked their city. He was stunned by his sons with the ironing board as he was compelling them to face the enemies like valiant people. When he regained his full consciousness and when he came to know about the real cause of disorder in the city, he caught up in one arm a small child and in another a slight clerkish man of about forty-two and ran towards East, shouting at the top of his lungs, “The dam has broken, go east”. A lieutenant-colonel of infantry was dozing under a porch when a little child yelled about going east. The lieutenant got up and started running at full tilt. He passed the child shouting “go east”. When a fat toddling man intercepted the colonel and asked what the matter was, the officer dropped behind and asked the little child why they were running towards the east. The girl cried that the dam has broken. Ultimately a fleeing company of three hundred people was running behind the lieutenant and the child towards the safe refuge of east. The author’s aunt, Edith Taylor, was in a movie theatre on High Street, when an increasing march of running feet and shouting rose above the sound of piano. Suddenly an old man who was sitting near his aunt, got out off his seat, murmured something and jogged towards the door. That was the excuse everyone was looking for. In an instant the aisle was jammed as every single person in the theatre ran towards the exit door. Over that confusion and disarray, a woman who had always feared to be burned inside a theatre shouted “fire”, and then someone shrieked that the dam has given way. The people rushing out of the theatre pushed and shoved each other and then climbed up on tree and on walls in the dread of drowning in flooding water. Dr. Mallory, who was the most esteemed person in the city in the city, was seen wildly running at the Grand Avenue, shouting “the water has nearly got us”. What he thought was the sound of rushing water behind him was actually a boy on roller skates

and Dr. Mallory misread the swishing of the skates as the deadly noise of flood water nearly engulfing him. Ultimately when the reality was drawn upon the people that not even a crack on the dam had appeared, and when they realized their stupidity of expecting a flood on a fine sunny day, they returned to their places making lame excuses for their dim attitude. The order was restored within two hours, but it was really a matter of shame for the people of the valley and even after twenty years, hardly anyone had the guts to mention the ridiculous afternoon of the Great Run.

Syed Tauqeer Hasan

THE DEVOTE FRIEND

Q. What reasons do we have to say that the Miller was a selfish person and what was the worst example of his selfish nature? (2004)Q. Hugh, the rich Miller was the true friend of Little Hans. Yes or No? Give reasons. (2003, 2002)Q. Give the character sketch of the Miller. (1999)Q. Give a brief account of Miller’s selfishness which caused Hens to lose his life. (1995)Q. Summary (1997, 1994)

The Devoted Friend, penned down by the prominent and elegant writer, Oscar Wilde revolves around the one-sided friendship between Hugh’ the Miller and a fellow named Hans. It exposes the greed, selfishness and hypocrisy of Hugh and the devotion, innocence and integrity of little Hans. The words miller kept on signifies the duties and responsibilities of a true and devoted friend, but his actions were contrary to his sayings. On the other hand, little Hans, being a devoted friend, sacrificed his life for the sake of his friend. Though Hugh was an affluent fellow, possessing a hundred sacks of flour stored away in the mill, six milch cows, and a large flock of wooly sheep; he never had anything in reserved for his friend Hans. On contrary he used to pluck beautiful flowers or sweet herbs from Hans garden saying “Real friends should have everything in common”. Hans’ garden was his soul source of income. He spent the summer and the autumn prosperously, but during winter he had no fruits or flowers to bring to the market and suffered greatly from cold and hunger. On the other hand, the well-fed Miller used to enjoy the cosines of his home, not paying any heed to the miseries of poor Hans. According to him “When people are in trouble, they should be left alone and not be bothered by visitors” When spring finally arrived, the Miller decided that it was high time to pay a visit to little Hans, as his garden would be flourishing with flowers and herbs. So he went to his home and found out that Hans had to sell the silver button of his Sunday coat, the silver chain, the big pipe and the wheelbarrow, so as to survive the wrath of winter. So the Miller agreed to give his spare wheelbarrow, which was in very bad condition, to the little Hans saying “I will give you my wheelbarrow. It is not in very good repair; indeed, one side is gone, and there is something wrong with the wheel-spokes; but in spite of this I will give it to you.” But poor Hans, who was blinded with the veil of friendship, thought that Miller was greatly generous and charitable. In exchange for his wrecked wheelbarrow, the Miller took the plank of wood from the Hans, saying “I have given you my wheelbarrow, and now you are you are going to give me your plank” He then asked Hans to fill a large basket with flowers, which was livelihood of Hans. The selfish Miller said, “As I have given you my wheelbarrow it is not very much to ask you for a few flowers”. The very next day the Miller came again and asked the Hans to stop doing the work he was doing and carry a large sack of flour to the market. When the Hans told him that he was very busy then, the Miller replied, “I think, considering that I am going to

give you my wheelbarrow it is rather unfriendly of you to refuse” Hence the Hans immediately halt his work and loyally sets upon the task bestowed upon him by his friend. Hugh’ the Miller was not only a selfish friend, but also a heartless father. During one stormy night when his son had fallen off a leader, he went straight to the Hans and asked him to go and call the doctor from the nearest town. In his words: “The doctor lived far away and it is such a bad night. That it has just occurred to me that it would be much better if you go instead of me. You know I am going to give you my wheelbarrow, and so it is only fear that you should do something for me in return.” Being a loyal friend and a very humanitarian person, Hans immediately set off for the doctor despite the roughness of the weather. The night was so dark that the little Hans could hardly see and the winds were so strong that he could hardly stand. However with strong endeavor he arrived at the doctor’s place and asked the doctor to come with him. The doctor ordered his horse and boots and lantern and rode off in the direction of the Miller’s house, little Hans trudging behind. But the poor bloke lost his way in the middle of the forest and wandered of the moor, which was full of deep-holes. The poor Hans drowned in one of those holes. Hence the selfishness of Miller resulted in the death of poor Hans, who was fulfilling his duty of a devoted friend.“A single rose can be a garden; a single friend can mean the world.” -Kelsey Dillon

Q. Describe the Miller’s ideas about friendship in the Devoted Friend. (93)

The Devoted Friend, penned down by the prominent and elegant writer, Oscar Wilde revolves around the one-sided friendship between Hugh’ the Miller and a fellow named Hans. It exposes the greed, selfishness and hypocrisy of Hugh and the devotion, innocence and integrity of little Hans. The words miller kept on signifies the duties and responsibilities of a true and devoted friend, but his actions were contrary to his sayings. Miller had a very self-centered concept of friendship. He had changed the noble notion comradeship as something which would benefit his self-centered deeds. Though he was an affluent fellow, possessing a hundred sacks of flour stored away in the mill, six milky cows, and a large flock of wooly sheep; he never had anything in reserved for his friend Hans. His theory was:

“The best way to keep your friends is to never owe them anything and never lend them anything.”

On contrary he used to pluck beautiful flowers or sweet herbs from Hans garden saying

“Real friends should have everything in common”.

Hans’ garden was his soul source of income. During winter he had no fruits or flowers to bring to the market and suffered greatly from cold and hunger. On the other hand, the well-fed Miller used to enjoy the cosines of his home, not paying any heed to the miseries of poor Hans. According to him:

“When people are in trouble, they should be left alone and not be bothered by visitors”.

When Miller’s youngest son asked his father to invite Hans so that he survive the wrath of the winter season, he, scolded him that:

“What a silly boy you are! Why, if little Hans come up here, and say our warm fire, and our good supper, and our great cask of red wine, he might get envious, and envy

is a most terrible thing, and would spoil anybody’s nature.”

He also rejected the idea of lending some floor to Hans by saying that:

“Flour is one thing and friendship is another, and they should not be confused”.

Moreover his actions contradict his own words that:

“That man who lives for self alone lives for the meanest mortal known.”

Miller’s believed that one good deed of his, should earn him a life time service from his friend. He gave his spare wheelbarrow, which was in very bad repair to Hans. In return, he took a plucked a large numbers of flowers from Hans garden, took a large plank of wood from him and asked him to do hard labour for him almost everyday. The worst example of Miller’s selfish nature as a friend and as a father was shown, when his son had fallen of a ladder during one stormy night and was badly hurt. He went straight to Hans and said:

“The doctor lived far away and it is such a bad night. That it has just occurred to me that it would be much better if you go instead of me. You know I am going to give you my wheelbarrow, and so it is only fear that you should do something for me in return.”

As Hans was a very loyal friend and a humanitarian person, he immediately set off for the doctor, but lost his way in the middle of the forest and lost his life by drowning in one of the holes. Hence the selfish concept of Miller’s friendship resulted in the death of his most devoted friend. Even after that tragic incident, Hans had little remorse. His words describe the significance of the death of his dedicated friend to him:

“A great loss to me at any rate. Why, I had as good as given him my wheelbarrow, and now I really don’t know what to do with it. It is in such a bad repair that I could not get anything for it if I sold it. One certainly suffers for being generous.”

TWENTY MINUTES WITH MRS. OAKENTUBB

Q.” Twenty minutes with Mrs. Oakentubb is basically a story of revenge. Elucidate. (2007)Q. What motive has the man of murdering Mrs. Judy Oakentubb? (06, 05, 94)Q. Summary (1996)

“A man who contemplates revenge keeps his wounds green.”- Francis Bacon

“Twenty minutes with Mrs. Oakentubb” penned down by Frank Arthur, is an effective little piece of melodrama notable for its skilful manipulation of suspense. Its plot is compact with suspense and thrill culminating into a sensational gruesome murder of Mrs. Judy Oakentubb, reckless woman corrupted by the evils of high society.

In 1953 in Korea, Mrs. Oakentubb had a severe accident which resulted in the death of an innocent woman and a child. She was driving fast for a bet to drive from Stainthorpe Cross to the coast in fifteen minutes. While driving at fifty miles per hour, she tried to overtake a bus on a blind bend, but saw a lorry coming from the other way. In order to save life her life and to avoid a head on collision with a lorry, she drove her car onto the pavement killing two pedestrians, a woman and her little daughter, while the husband was badly injured. Later she lied before the magistrate and saved her neck with only eighteen months in a comfortable jail. The man who was injured in that tragic accident was devastated at the loss of her husband and daughter. He had lost his purpose of living, but then at the hospital when he was tended up, he found a new motive for living, which was to avenge upon Judy Oakentubb. In his words:

“It gave me a purpose in life, revenge!”

He termed the accident as a deliberate murder of his wife and daughter. In his words:

“They called it manslaughter. But you know what I call it. I call it. I call it murder-plain deliberate heartless cruel murder.”

Coincidently, that man found himself alone with Judy Oakentubb for twenty minutes in a waiting room of a small country railway station, in a stormy night. The man had only seen Mrs. Oakentubb once in a photograph in a newspaper, so it was hardly possible that he would have recognized her. But with the aid of the label of her bag, he came to know about her true identity. In the course of action, he became sure that he was in company of Mrs. Judy Oakentubb, the woman he was seeking so that he could exterminate her. He played around her for a while, pretending that he don’t know who she was. He viciously told her that he was going to avenge his wife’s and daughter’s death by killing Mrs. Oakentubb. His brutal planning terrorized Mrs. Oakentubb to death. He finally spilled the pills over her by telling her that he knows who she was and he was going to kill her. Pointing his revolver to her he said:

“You killed my wife and daughter! You took their lives and wrecked mine. Haven’t I the right to take your?”

Judy Oakentubb was a clever enough lady and she knew how to save her neck. When she saw that the man was going to take her life, she pretended that she was already suffering because of that accident. She felt great remorse and her victims used to haunt her everywhere she went. Her punishment was bitterer than any possible sentence, as she was let to live. She said to the man seeking for her life:

“No, I beg for my death! Kill me! Blot out the picture which is always before my eyes and which I cannot endure.”

Moreover she was posing to be ashamed of her guilt, but in fact she was not at all embarrassed of her crime. She was befooling the man, who became convinced that she was being punished be her own conscience. He let her to live and went out, but he had forgotten his suitcase and when he came back, he saw the vulgar gesture and mocking style of Mrs. Oakentubb. He instantly killed her and retaliated with her.

“An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” -Mahatima Gandhi

Q. Explain the importance of the label of Mrs. Oakentubb’s suitcase. Why does she hide it? (2002)

The entire plot of the melodrama “Twenty Minutes with Mrs. Oakentubb” revolved around the label attached to the suitcase of Mrs. Judy Oakentubb. A man was desperately hunting her so that he could avenge the tragic death of his wife and daughter. In 1953 in Korea, Mrs. Oakentubb had a severe accident which resulted in the death of an innocent woman and a child. She was driving fast for a bet to drive from Stainthorpe Cross to the coast in fifteen minutes. While driving at fifty miles per hour, she tried to overtake a bus on a blind bend, but saw a lorry coming from the other way. In order to save life her life and to avoid a head on collision with a lorry, she drove her car onto the pavement killing two pedestrians, a woman and her little daughter, while the husband was badly injured. Later she lied before the magistrate and saved her neck with only eighteen months in a comfortable jail. The man who was injured in that tragic accident was devastated at the loss of her husband and daughter. He had lost his purpose of living, but then at the hospital when he was tended up, he found a new motive for living, which was to avenge upon Judy Oakentubb. In his words:

“It gave me a purpose in life, revenge!”

He termed the accident as a deliberate murder of his wife and daughter. In his words:

“They called it manslaughter. But you know what I call it. I call it. I call it murder-plain deliberate heartless cruel murder.”

Coincidently, that man found himself alone with Judy Oakentubb for twenty minutes in a waiting room of a small country railway station, in a stormy night. The man had only seen Mrs. Oakentubb once in a photograph in a newspaper, so it was hardly possible that he would have recognized her. But with the aid of the label of her

bag, he came to know about her true identity. In the course of action, he became sure that he was in company of Mrs. Judy Oakentubb, the woman he was seeking so that he could exterminate her. Mrs. Oakentubb had hidden the label of suitcase as she herself was the same lady who was hunted by the man next to her. She was afraid that if he came to know about her true identity, he would not spare her life. Moreover she was reluctant to disclose her identity to the stranger. But unfortunately for her, the label had already caught the attention of the man, which ultimately resulted in her death. Hence the label was of significance importance in the play.

Pakistan and the Modern WorldINTRODUCTION TO THE LESSON:

“Pakistan and the Modern World” is extracted from the speech of Liaquat Ali Khan, which he delivered in Kansas University, USA in 1950. Liaquat Ali Khan, the 1st Prime Minister of Pakistan, validated the creation of and tried to apprise the American people of the reasons and exigencies behind the Muslim’s demand of a separate homeland in South Asia. According to him, the differences and disparities i

“Thus for Muslims in that part of the world, freedom from British rule meant practically nothing unless it meant freedom from the domination of the Hindu majority

also.”

(1995)EXPLANATION:

Liaquat Ali Khan is stressing upon the significance of independence of Muslims of Subcontinent. He points at the fact that the Hindus had a very dominating majority over the Muslims which would have resulted in Muslims being forced to live as a permanent group of subjugated and defeated minority. The culture and tradition of Muslims would have been eclipsed under the dominion of Hindus of Hindu majority. Moreover without the division of India, the Muslims would not have been able to enjoy the real fruits of freedom from the British rule. For them the departure of British would merely be the change of oppressor. Hence the demand of Pakistan was based on the very feeling that the Muslims should be emancipated from the clutches of the eternal Hindu domination.

“We believe then and we believe now that the demand of Muslim in British India to have a separate state of their own was both human and geo-political grounds, a very

reasonable demand.”

(1993)

EXPLANATION:

In the above lines, Liaquat Ali Khan endorses the creation of Pakistan. He affirms that the demand of the Muslims for a separate homeland was justified from all points of view. Hindus and Muslims are two entirely different nations religiously. The Muslims believes in the oneness and supreme sovereignty of Allah Almighty while among the Hindus there are many deities. Socially the Hindus are divided into various caste systems but Islam upholds the principles of equality. Islamic economic system, gives the principle of equal distribution of wealth, while among the Hindus the wealth is concentrated in few hands. They have their own religion, beliefs culture, civilization, literature and historical heritage which are based on conflicting ideas and conception. The creation of Pakistan is also validated from geographical and political points of views. India was a vast land which could easily be divided into two. Muslims were in large number to constitute a nation. Moreover the Muslims rightly demanded for Pakistan, so that they could give stability to their nationhood.

“Our ancient steadfast which is such a source of strength to us on the ideological front in these modern uneasy times must be wedded to the pioneering virility of modern

technology.”

(1998)

EXPLANATION:

In the above quoted lines, Liaquat Ali Khan advocates the course of action to be taken by the Pakistani nation on their journey towards real freedom, progress and prosperity. He advises them to adhere to their ancient faith and ideology. They should maintain their rich, healthy customs and traditions. But they should not leg behind in the spheres of scientific and technological progress, but keep themselves aware of the latest development. Moreover the Pakistanis have to strive for a fine blind of belief and modern scientific knowledge in order to take great strides on the path of real freedom.

Reflections on the Re-Awakening Of the East

“This is a new fact which I think that even Asia has not yet adequately realized. For centuries Asia has suffered under the insolence displayed in ways that made my blood boil and that, if I had been an Asian and not a European, would have roused me to fury.”

INTRODUCTION TO THE WRITER:

Bertrand Arthur Russell, British philosopher, mathematician, and Nobel laureate, whose emphasis on logical analysis influenced the course of 20th-century philosophy. Born in Wales in 1872, Russell was educated at Trinity College, University of Cambridge. Before becoming famous as a writer, he was a renowned mathematician and philosopher. Longing for lone, search for knowledge and unbearable pity for mankind were the governing passion of his life. Beginning with “Principia Mathematica” he has written many books on philosophy and mathematics. Since the Second World War, he had been greatly preoccupied with the nuclear threat to mankind and had been a warm advocate of technical aid to the Asian countries. Russell received the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature and was cited as “the champion of humanity and freedom of thought.” His recent books of general interest include “New Hopes for a Changing World”, “The Impact of Science”, “Human Society in Ethics and Politics”, and his best sellers “The Problems of Philosophy” and “The History of Western Philosophy”.

INTRODUCTION OF THE LESSON:

In this lesson Russell presents a historical study and analysis of the reemergence of the East as a powerful influence in the World after centuries of subjugation and exploitation by the Western Imperialism. Beginning with the rise of Roman Empire, Russell penned down the historical eras which fluctuated the dominance of East and West. The fall of the Roman Empire enfeebled the West both in power and culture; hence the power was relocated towards the West. The Mohammadan period was on of the glorious period in the history of East; when the Christian Europe was sunk in barbarism. Columbus and Vasco da Gama were the pioneers of the new Western Imperialism. Since then West has gained grounds both in the field mechanization and industrialization and East has lagged behind in modern cosmopolitanism and are out distanced by the West.

EXPLANATION:

“Let freedom reign. The sun never set on so glorious a human achievement.” Nelson Mandela Bertrand Russell condemned the impudence of the West through which the Eastern countries had to suffer. The discovery of Vasco da Gama, initiated the dominance of

Europe over Asia. For centuries the Asian people had to dwell under the supreme dominance of the White man. The colonization of the Europeans in the East had suppressed the fundamental rights of the locals. Freedom of speech and thoughts were taken away from them. They were enslaved under the ultimate supremacy of the Western Empire.

“Do not destroy that immortal emblem of humanity, the Declaration of Independence.” Abraham Lincoln

Despite being a White man, Russell demonstrates an unbiased character as he heavily criticizes the Western rule and its insolence over Eastern people. Because if the tyranny of the Eastern dictators, the Asian countries have lagged behind in the field of science and technology. When the East was struggling to regain independence from their Europeans oppressors, the West was utilizing the potential and ingenuity of human brain, to plunder in the depth of the Universe, unveiling the most prolific secrets. Hence they surpassed the Eastern countries in the field of science and technology; which created their dominance over this world.

The most sinister application of scientific technique is in regard to weapons of war. Must we fear that the independence if Asian countries will bring an increase in the amount of human energy devoted to war?

EXPLANATION:

“The cannon thunders... limbs fly in all directions... one can hear the groans of victims and the howling of those performing the sacrifice... it's Humanity in search of happiness.” Charles Baudelaire

In the above passage, Bertrand Russell is lamenting on the most threatening menace of scientific advancement; that is “The weapons of mass destructions”. The Western countries, who are dominating the East for the last four centuries, have out-raced them in the field of science and technology. They are ruling over the world mainly because of their possession of mighty weapons of wars.

“War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.”

-Bertrand Russell

Since the independence of Asian countries from European rule, they are endeavoring to match the Western countries in all fields of life. Hence there is a strong possibility of them joining in the race of weapons of mass destruction. Keeping in view the foundation on which the world of 21st century is based upon, they might regard it as their up most preference to be heavily armed for the days of wars. It will result in man power utilized for the destruction of mankind. Men, who were made to serve the humanity, are working day and night to extinct human race from the face of the Earth. Asian countries, which were renowned for their traditional civilizations, are now following the footsteps of the West, which are leading towards the destruction of mankind.

Its is of course a trifle absurd to speak of Asia as a unity, and only opposition to Western Imperialism has caused people to think in these terms. Asia contains half the population of the world and at least three very distinct civilizations: that of Islam, that of India, and that of China.

EXPLANATION: In this passage Bertrand Russell elucidates a universal fact which has deprived Asia from the vital force of unity. Asia being the most populated of all the continents, is the home of many different civilization. Chiefly the population of Asia comprises of three separate nations; that is the Muslims, the Hindus, and the Chinese. They differentiate each other in culture, traditions, civilizations, language, historical heritage and ways of living. More over they are completely distinctive from each other. Hence it is impracticable to unite these three distinct civilizations on one platform on the basis of similarity in culture and traditions. However it is possible to unite their ultimate goal. They should regard it their up most preference to preserve their independence and to secure their traditional culture. They all should hoist the same flag; that of remaining as a sovereign and cultured nation.

“If human life is to be tolerable it cannot be wholly mechanized. It must continue to contain poetry and music and art and love and simple joys of life.

EXPALANATION:

“For man is not the creature and product of Mechanism; but, in a far truer sense, its creator and producer.” Thomas Carlyle In the above lines, Bertrand Russell discusses the influence of industrialization and mechanization on human life. Since the beginning oh 20tth century, the values in

human life are swept by lavishness of this materialistic world. The emotional human beings are replaced by hardhearted mechanized humans, with the quest for fame and fortune as their only destiny.

“Increase of material comforts, it may be generally laid down, does not in any way whatsoever conduce to moral growth.” Mahatma Gandhi

According to Russell, event in this era of Machine Age, the simple ethics of poetry, music, art and love constitutes a vital prospect of human life. Men who have eradicated these humanities from himself, have been blinded by the worldly beauties of this modern era .Unless and until, man recognizes the main purpose of his creation, which is to serve the humanity, it is hopeless to imagine this world as place with love and humanitarian for a common man.

"The purpose of human existence is not easing but to kindle a light of joy."

- Albert Einstein

. “If the world is to be happy, energy and ingenuity must no longer be expanded in exploitation of those who have less of these qualities. Mankind must learn degreeof mutual respect which has never hitherto existed. Perhaps some at least the nation of Asia will have learnt this lesson from their sufferings at the hands of ingenious despots.

EXPLANATION: Bertrand Russell pens down the aspects which have created the supremacy of the Western countries, over the less privileged countries of Asia and Africa. When the East was struggling to regain independence from their Europeans tyrants, the West was utilizing the potential and ingenuity of human brain, to plunder in the depth of the Universe, unveiling the most prolific secrets. Hence they surpassed the Eastern countries in the field of science and technology; which created their dominance over this world. According to Russell, the only way to make this world a prosperous place is to ensure the growth o such countries that are lack good gifted ingenious human beings and natural resources. Love for power has to be abolished and humans should regard each with communal esteem. Dictatorship of one man over other has to be eradicated, so as to make this world a blissful planet.

"To keep a lamp burning we have to keep putting oil in it."

- Mother Teresa

"The supremacy of the East -------------- a brilliant culture."

Explanation

Here in these lines, Russell is presenting the invariable process of history in which power has been changing hands between the East and West. After the down fall of the Roman Empire and the destruction of the German Empire, leadership in power and the culture passed into the hands of the East which came to be ruled by the Muslims and Chinese between 7 and 10 century A.D.

"Progress depends on memory. Those who can not learn from their past (history) are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

The author states that the Muslims established their superiority to the Europeans not in warfare but also in the field of science, philosophy, poetry and the arts. Both the Muslims and the Chinese were enjoying a glorious period of culture and civilization during this period. This was the time when the Europeans were living a totally barbarous life. Russell deplores that Europeans out of heir sheer narrow mindedness call this period "The Dark Age." But actually it was only Christian Europe that was sunk in darkness because the "Mohammadan World" including Spain flourished with a glorious culture.

"Study the past, if you want to devine the future."- Confucius

"Modern cosmopolitanism --------------- Culture of the past."

Explanation

Here in these lines, Russell is commenting on the evil aspect of science and machinery. Being an enlightened thinker, he appreciates science and machinery because they have given rise to a new culture, which is universal in quality as the life-style of the whole world, is conditioned by the modern inventions of science and technology.

But the author laments that these two new elements of modern culture are being forced upon older cultures. By nature they prove cruelly more powerful since they have a tendency to destroy not only what is bad but also what is good and valuable in the culture of the past.

"The greatest tragedy of science and technology is the slaying of the beauteous nature by an ugly machine."

- T.H. Huxley

The result is that due to the decay of the older values of life, man has become selfish, materialistic and parochial. So Russell admonishes the nations of the East against the harms and perils of misuse of science. He says that mechanization itself is not limit and its sole purpose should be nothing except provoking and enhancing human happiness, minimizing their suffering and creating a sound atmosphere for living. Lord Russell devices a strongly condemns the undue importance and usage of scientific inventions that are likely to make life dull and colourless. Russell also believes:

"Science without conscience is the death of the soul and leads to greed and pride."

- Francois Rabelais

The World As I See It

“In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity.

INTRODUCTION TO THE WRITER: Einstein, Albert (1879-1955), German-born American physicist and Nobel laureate, is perhaps the most renowned scientist of the 20th century. Born in Germany on 14th march 1879, he went to Switzerland in his early youth. He taught mathematical physics at Zurich and acquired Swiss citizenship. When Hitler came to power, Einstein immediately decided to leave Germany for the United States, and in 1941, he became an American citizen. Though Einstein was a pacifist, it was his derived equation of mass-energy relationship, which provided the building block of the creation of atomic bomb. In 1921, Einstein won a Noble Prize for his work on photoelectric effect. Although his writings for the layman are few, they were motivated by sound intuition based on a shrewd and careful assessment of evidence and observation. His writings include Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1916); About Zionism (1931); Builders of the Universe (1932); Why War? (1933), The World as I See It (1934); The Evolution of Physics (1938) and Out of My Later Years (1950).

INTODUCTION OF THE LESSON: Albert Einstein philosophically elucidates the existence of mankind on Earth. He condemns the system on which the society is based upon; as it makes man dependent on the labour of others. Respect and esteem to men are given on the basis of property, outward success and luxuries. Autocracy has replaced democracy. Wars have imposed a constant threat on the existence of mankind on Earth. Einstein recommends his fellow beings to attain simplicity in their lives and to embrace the sense of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. According to him personality of a man holds key of his nobility and sublimity. He regards religion as the knowledge which explains those profound mysteries, which are beyond human penetration.

EXPLANATION:

“There are two good things in life -- freedom of thought and freedom of action.” W. Somerset Maugham Einstein refutes the independence of men in above lines. According to him, the shoulders of men are burdened with various responsibilities, which disable him to act on his own accord. The impulsive external responsibilities immobilize the potential of mankind. He forgets his true meaning of creation as sets out to discharge his responsibilities. In other words, the activities of human beings are commanded by external compulsions. His success and failures both depend on how he discharges his

liabilities. Moreover mankind has enslaved himself, which cause a hindrance on his path of success.

“Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith let us; to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” Abraham Lincoln

“The ideals which have lighted me on my way and time after time given me new courage to face life cheerfully have been Truth, Goodness and Beauty.”

EXPLANATION: In this passage Einstein expresses his views on the basic morals of his life. His ideals are Truth, Goodness and beauty which give him hope and courage to face the failures, difficulties and hardships of life with a smile.

“Beauty is but the sensible image of the Infinite. Like truth and justice it lives within us; like virtue and the moral law it is a companion of the soul.” George Bancroft

According to him, truth is the courage to face the reality as it sets one on the path of triumph. The Universal Truth of Universe is to recognize the presence of God in the depth of His creations.

“There are two kinds of truth; the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart.” Raymond Chandler

Beauty of the nature unveils the truth about our Creator. The philosophical eyes see the might oh God in the beauty of this Universe.

“Beauty is one of the rare things that do not lead to doubt of God.” Jean Anouilth

Einstein regards goodness as the fundamental constitute on man. Unless and until one treats his fellow beings with integrity and decency, he can hardly be called a human being.“Beauty endures only for as long as it can be seen; goodness, beautiful today, will remain so tomorrow.” Sappho

Hence the three morals and ethical principles which illuminated Einstein’s life were Truth, Goodness with mankind and Beauty of this Universe.

“My political ideal is that of democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no more idolized. It is an irony of fate that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration and respect from my fellow being through no fault, and no merit, of my own.”

EXPLANATION: In the above paragraph, Einstein points out the necessity of a democratic society. He criticizes the trend of society which makes certain individuals adorable heroes, on the basis of work which have little merit. Such admiration violates the democracy of society as it makes one man superior to the other. Einstein sardonically gives his own example. Being an extraordinary scientist, he was held in great esteem and reverence; but he humbly condemn such trend of society as according to him, each and every man has his own respect and should be treated likewise.

“Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions -- it only guarantees equality of opportunity.” Irving Kristol

“An autocratic system of coercion, in my opinion, soon degenerates. For force always attracts men of low morality, and I believed it to be an invariable rule that tyrants of genius are succeeded by scoundrel.

EXPLANATION: In the above passage Einstein discusses the democracy and dictatorship. Condemning the autocratic system he says that it soon degenerates as it is always based on cruelty, oppression and force. It is an undeniable fact that people of low morality believe in force and in autocratic system cruel rulers, rule over the people with high-handedness. They do not care for the moral values and give no importance to the welfare of the people. Einstein believes that it is an invariable rule that intelligent cruel rulers are succeeded by people of low morality. In other words Einstein criticizes an autocratic system of government as it is unbeneficial to the local people. He loves democracy and detests dictatorship. He is a humanist and wants to see each and every individual happy. Moreover he wants the ruler to democratically rule their countries to ensure the prosperity of the people.

“Democracy doesn’t rule the world, you better get that in your head; this world is ruled by violence, but I guess that's better left unsaid.” Bobby Dylan

“War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing; I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business”

EXPLANATION:

“The cannon thunders... limbs fly in all directions... one can hear the groans of victims and the howling of those performing the sacrifice... it's Humanity in search of happiness.” Charles Baudelaire

Einstein being a pacifist heavily criticizes the modern trend of war which has gripped the world. Einstein shows his disgust regarding wars and the savageness it unleashes. Warfare and battles have imposed a constant threat upon the existence of mankind on the face of Earth. With the invention of weapons of mass destruction, the day has come closer when humanity will become extinct from the hands of their own fellows. Einstein prefers to be lacerated into pieces rather than to take part in the detestable business, known as war.

“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Einstein is a great lover of humanity. He believes that the highest purpose of a man's life if to serve humanity and people must live in peace and tranquility. He wants to say that if nations ignore their commercial and political interests and if mankind learns a degree of mutual respect, this world will become a place of happiness and nations will not think of waging wars against each other. No doubt Einstein is a noble man and has noble ideas. He is not only a humanist but also a pacifist.

“It takes twenty years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only twenty seconds of war to destroy him.” Bedouin

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it now and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.

EXPLANATION:

In this philosophical and thought-provoking passage Albert Einstein says that the experience of the mysterious objects given birth to art and science. Curiosity is the emotion which has lead to the birth and growth of true art and true science. “Secrecy is the element of all goodness; even virtue, even beauty is mysterious.” Thomas Carlyle

The more the man studies the beauty and the mystery of nature around him, the more he plunders in the depth of the Universe, unveiling the most prolific secrets. In other words, he strengthens the foundation of science and art. A person devoid of curiosity and mystery is just like a dead wood and a snuffed-out candle. He is powerless to do anything constructive in this world. He resembles a snuffed-out candle, incapable of brightening up this world with the torch of knowledge.

“That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.” Jacob Bronowski