shantanuyadav

[shantanuyadav]

Is ambition necessary for the dynamics of life?

Questions arise and find your answers in fact these problems and the solution are essential for our quality full life. All of you experienced people can comment your views so that life can be purposeful by getting a solution to the unanswered question.

These questions always attract me to my side. Ambition means aspiration of importance, whose life does not aspire to be important. It is believed that this is what gives meaning to life, we want to reach ourselves in a post, big business or a place where everyone gives us importance. You go anywhere where you are disappointed if you get less importance.

Rishi Yagyavalkya says that the desire to see ourselves in the eyes of others is the cause of our ego and then we constantly collect all that makes us important in the eyes of others. We also condemn so that our ego can be satisfied and shown the best in itself.

The problem comes when there is a contradiction between contentment and ambition. We do not understand whether to be satisfied or try to get importance, because satisfaction prevents life from being dynamic.

But naturalists like Osho strive to determine our momentum. When Shiva tries to stop a Yajna as in the Yajna of the Yaksha, he searches for the purpose of the Yajna for which purpose we sacrifice our lives in the Yajna of our lives if the purpose is good and culture keeps the balance between nature, then the ambition is not wrong.

This is precisely when the satisfaction is towards its work, but not to the result, the balance of contentment and ambition moves us forward.

[shantanuyadav]

Covid-19: The Role of Discontent of the World Health Organization: International Organization

The role of the World Health Organization (WHO) on the Covid-19 epidemic that has arisen from the corona virus has also come under suspicion. The organization has also been openly criticized by the US president.

The questions are :-

Did the WHO take enough steps to show seriousness?

Did he ask the right questions to China so that there would be some clue about the possible risk of the disease?

Should he be held responsible for failing to give timely advice to the world about this disease?

The WHO was established in 1948 as an inter-governmental organization.The aim was to improve international cooperation in all aspects of human health and prevention of diseases. It was created with the aim of working as an impartial technical organization but now like many international organizations, it also seems to be affected by the pressures of rich and powerful countries. Apart from pharmaceutical companies, the lobby of many other industries that affect human health also has an impact on this. The functioning of the WHO runs from a secretariat. It has knowledge of technical and administrative advisors. They work under the Director General. The Director-General is elected by the member countries on the recommendation of the Executive Board.

In any type of health disaster, the WHO is expected to take effective steps without any bias. The role of Director General is very important in this. It should not matter to him what his personal preference is or what his country of origin stands for. The current Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, was elected in 2017. Prior to this he was the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia and before that the Health Minister. His academic background is related to public health issues and he also has experience in disaster control. In view of this, they should have been very cautious when China reported the outbreak of Corona virus on 7 January. A week earlier, China had told the WHO that it could not find out the cause of the deaths in the city of Wuhan. Ghebreyesus was still not careful. Was he under the influence of China that overwhelmingly supported his election?

Corona had knocked in Thailand, Japan, South Korea by the time the WHO released the first report on Covid-19 on 20 January. The WHO claimed that it had activated itself in view of the changing developments but did not feel that it was showing necessary readiness. On 23 January, China locked up its Huiben Province. Wuhan is the capital of this province. When China did not think of any other way to prevent infection, it decided to lockdown. This should have alarmed the WHO and in a way, but it did not happen. However, some countries have started screening people coming from China. Tedros arrived in China on 27 January to inspect the situation. During this time he met President Xi Jinping and Chinese health experts. He then bridged the praises of Xi and praised China's stern steps, saying that if it had not done so, it would have spread the virus and dangerously around the world. By then, Corona had spread to 15 countries. Nevertheless, Tedros said that China deserves the world's gratitude and respect for controlling the corona infection.

China's cooperation at this stage was very important, because one virus was born there and the other, only he knew about it, but it did not happen. Tedros also did not have the attitude of head of any international institution. Their attitude became even more suspicious when they agreed to a WHO-China joint team, while the WHO team should have acted independently. Finally, on 30 January, WHO called Covid-19 a health disaster of international concern. This announcement should have been done already. The process of negligence did not end here. The WHO Executive Board met from 4 to 8 February. There Covid-19 was not even included in the 52 point agenda. Tedros made only two brief briefings. By the time of the second briefing on 7 February, Corona had spread to 24 countries. For this, all the members of the executive board, including its Japanese chief, will also be considered irresponsible who could not activate the WHO by realizing this threat. A joint team of experts from WHO-China analyzed the medical and technical aspects of Covid-19 from 14 to 29 February. Instead of focusing on its prevention suggestions, these experts advised the international fraternity to reestablish contact with China, so that economic activities could resume there. He strongly supported China's move. Since the Chinese members involved could not criticize their own government, this report could not be considered independent.

The Covid-19 outbreak continued, yet the WHO shied away from declaring it a global pandemic. He announced this on 11 March. Generally, the WHO's stance in this case was contrary to its objectives. It is expected from him to independently assess any risk, not by being representative of any country. Here he was seen working as a representative of China. At the moment, the international community should be focused on cooperation and solidarity in dealing with the Corona crisis, but it cannot ignore that the WHO that was supposed to play the role of the watchdog is failing.