Had
Globalism founded on Principles of (or restricted to the Word) ‘Ameliorate’ RATHER only to ‘Conferring Shares’ OR ‘Benefits’ OR ‘Dealings’ OR
‘Goods & Services’, then things would have been poles apart &
further present quandaries (dangling like
mementos) had already been resolved back then. Nothing Major happened
(Logically may sound Promising BUT Perceptibly differs). Moreover, major
vacuum was created in Academia (especially
in the last few decades, maybe two)
when Members of Syndicate/Committee,
either failed to understand OR purposely negated what Academia Stood/Stands
for, and as per my understanding & interpretation, they failed to acknowledge
Four
issues:
1. Paths
of both Shopkeepers & Teachers/Academicians Crossed RATHER remaining in
Parallel;
2. Schooling
eclipsing Education;
3. Partisan
/ Selective Teachings;
4. Induction
of Doctrine of Assuage.
In
hereinabove, Second was more
detrimental.
Earnings
never measure(d) Intellect, Even after being an Alumni of any Top Academia
(irrespective of age). But contrary was
floated in World. All became Mavens / Mavericks, somehow. And this happened
with Academia too, principally with First Timers, who found nothing less
than Equation of Singularity of their
Own Realms, and acted accordingly.
I
said earlier & repeat again:
When we move from One Land to
Another with an Only Intention, Not to Ameliorate, But to build Dreams &
Share. Then some would welcome Notion While Others would screech, ‘Despair!
Despair!’ OR ‘Please Spare!’
Globalism
isn’t bad. Was Never. Would Never be. But then what Happened? Nope, it isn’t
over promising or its significance that remained Pipe Dream. It delivered
(empirically could be easily proven). BUT now chiefly Three main unanswered questions ensue:
1. Precisely
in the Last couple of Decades, Top Globalists could have easily hired/planted Authentic Entities/Assets/Projectors/Amplifiers
that could have more Ameliorated the Global Fabric, WITHOUT demeaning Authentic Liberalism OR Globalism, further
bringing it to a default order. Then
WHY they chose NOT to & rather willfully promoted Unauthentic (who misused
none other than who were drenched under Academic & Financial Complexes? (Reverse
Psychology?)
2. As
per Point 1, was it Purposely done
& if Yes, then were they wanted to Promote Protectionism as they sensed
Bilateral Trades are Better than Multi or Free, BUT never wanted to bring
themselves in frontline, hence Unauthentic played the Role?
3. Once
the Need for Globalism was realized, Nationalism / Tribalism would have taken its
own Space as the Believers of that too would have acknowledged the necessity for
Globalism, IF, we want to move Forward. Then were the two Purposely Threatened,
that triggered Populism with the only objective mentioned in Point 2?
I
am neither Maven/Maverick nor any Emeritus in this Subject Specific. I noted
quoted some questions, observations not conclusions! But worth
discerning the Role of Theirs from the Other Side of Mirror + Original Intent.
©
Pranav Chaturvedi 2020