Danger or not?

Karimnagar: One of the twenty-plus districts of one of the twenty-plus states of India, one of the ninety-and-five-hundred-plus constituencies of one of the two Houses of Indian Parliament.
Beedi: One of the several tobacco products consumed by people of India.
Issue: Imprinting skull-and-bones danger symbol, and a corpse, on the paper-wrap around the pack of beedi-s (and other tobacco products), to discourage smoking. (The relevant G.O. 297/2003 is the result of Supreme Court's directive in 2001.)
Importance: By-election for the Member of Parliament in Karimnagar Lok Sabha constituency.
What's happening? A blame-game of four major political parties contesting in the elections, everyone resorting to mudslinging on the opponent than talking sensibly!

Player 1: The Congress (I) says that it was the NDA government (involving BJP and TDP) that made the G.O. and the Union Government (with their party in the lead) is merely implementing it. It also says that the G.O. was signed by the TRS leader and election candidate. (Now, don't ask me how he signed it if the G.O. was made in 2003, before he was a Union Minister in the current government.)
Player 2: The TDP obviously points that the Congress (I) party implemented the G.O. without caring for millions of people whose lives depend on beedi-s. It, of course, uses the same objection as Congress (I) against TRS. (Now, don't ask me why TDP doesn't say anything about BJP which led the NDA government.)
Player 3: The BJP borrows one point from TDP, against Congress (I), and one point from Congress (I), against TRS. (And, you guessed it: They don't say anything about TDP that extended support to the NDA government of the past.)
Player 4: The ex-Union Minister for Labour and Employment and the current by-election candidate says that it was the Congress (I) Minister that implemented the G.O. and that he didn't play a part in the "evil game". And, they use Congress (I)'s point against BJP and TDP. (Now, don't ask me if the G.O. should have come to his perusal, he being the Labour Minister, before it is approved.)
Player 5: The several beedi company owners who threaten their workers that they'd close the companies and oust all their labourers if the G.O. is implemented! (And, do what then? ...And, by the way, they don't seem to approach the government directly for a plea or appeal! Why is that now?)
Player 6: Lok Satta convener blames all parties, and points to obvious selfish motives of each political party. (And, no solution is proposed right away.)
Player 7: Union Minister for Health says that no change shall be made to the G.O. since it's about people's health. (And, everyone blames him for "inhuman" statement that doesn't care about the workers whose lives depend on beedi-s!)
Player 8: The Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare wonders how they can go back on the imprint now, after having received WHO's prestigious award for the idea *and* the size of the images. (And, she doesn't talk after her party leaders say that the logo would be removed or resized!)
Player 9: Those illiterate labourers, to who no one imparts the intelligence that one should take steps to reduce smoking sooner than later and thus they should start looking for alternate means of earning. (And, of course, no guidance is given towards training them for another, "unobjectionable" occupation.)
Player 10: All those NGOs and social welfare groups, which sincerely do a lot of campaign and slogan-shouting, stay mum at this point of time, only to react when things go incorrigibly wrong! (And, where are they all when their voice is much awaited so that someone can hear some sense?)
Player 11: The ignorant, immature, innocent, irrational, inconsistent, unpredictable, unstable, responsible citizen/voter, smoker or not, that chooses the winner by sheer personal choice on that particular instant of standing at the ballot paper/electronic voting machine. (And, oh yeah, he's the Captain of the team, one who doesn't get any respect from most other players despite his essentially key role in the gameplay! And, anyway, he's only the Captain and not one of the Selectors!)

Who does this team pitch against? The all-powerful panel of judges and lawyers at the Supreme Court who know the theory of the game perfectly well! And, of course, this team of law-men does know the theory but all the net practice was always done by the team of law-makers; the lawmen don't get any net practice! ...All I wish is that they do not need net practice! They're expected to play well still, when it's their time to bat! Oh, please win, Lawmen of the Nation, please!

And, oh yeah, the Communist parties resort to silence. Some umpiring!

“JAI – Just An Indian”

Practical Idealism versus Ideal Practice

I always hear: idealism and practicality are opposites! Well, I surely don't ever see it as a black-or-white question. Why, you may ask? Simply because they're but just two adjectives that can take other nouns, including each other! That's exactly why this piece is titled as it is.

What's it to be practical? To put something in practice. And, now, what renders idealism an unsuitable candidate? Nothing but unnecessary apprehensions that ...well, idealism cannot be put in practice! I simply ask, to inform myself, as to why idealism cannot be put in practice, and I still am yet to find a person who can give me a logical, straightforward answer. Now, what's it to be ideal? To follow certain ideals, of course! What ideals, due course of action decides.

Some ideals of old times might seem "impractical" as is, and what do you do then? Make them practical, of course, or how can you put them into practice! That's what I term Practical Idealism. In cases where there're no prescribed ideals, the practice, in a win-win situation, could be called Ideal Practice, by bringing practicality as close as possible to an “assumed ideal”. There is a subtle difference between the two, I dare to point, in that Ideal Practice is to be only sought after as the modus operandi when Practical Idealism is, presumably, not all feasible. (By "not all feasible", I refer to circumstantial constraints on its applicability but not on its practicability.) In other words, when ideal comes to meet practice, it's Practical Idealism, and when practice comes to meet the ideal, it's Ideal Practice.

How does this wordplay matter? Well, the wordplay doesn't matter, surely, but what matters is people's perception of both idealism and practicality. When one talks about practicality, one treats it as an antonym of idealism, like I wrote when I started. So, how does this antonymy matter? By looking at these terms as antonyms, practicality is put afar off idealism and not as nearer as it could be! In this light, idealism is cast off outright. If only one tries to bring practicality as much nearer to idealism as possible, one attains Ideal Practice, and in most cases, a bit of furthering shall bring oneself to Practical Idealism.

The bottom line? Practice Idealism, and you'd then learn that it's practicable. Look at them as opposites, and your practicality is never ideal!

“JAI – Just An Indian”