1- In a long disputes both parties are wrong


The wording seems to be ambigious at first instance i.e. seems to be having more than one meanings but I think it is reducable to one particular meaning. The word "both" indicates that there are only "two" parties involved in the situation to be analyzed. There are not more than two parties. So it is quite clear now that we have only two parties and both of them are having a "dispute". The nature of this "dispute" also needs to be made clear before starting the main body of the essay. It is obvious that "disputes" can be of any kind. The dispute can be about the ownership of land, can be over political control of some state or about the legitimacy of any kingship. For example if there is a dispute over the ownership of a cow between two persons and this dispute has been quite prolonged, and if we assume that in each and every prolonged dispute, both the parties have to be wrong, then the only solution left would be to divide the cow in two parts thus spoiling the subject matter at all. It is quite clear that if there are only two parties and the dispute is about the ownership of a cow, then this cow would belong to only one of the party and thus that party would be on the right and the other party must be wrong.

It means that this essay is not requiring to analyze the disputes between pwo parties in which subject matter of the dispute is the ownership of some asset etc. because it is quite clear that if the issue is about the ownership of asset and there are only two claiments, then only one of the claiment can be on the right and the other one must be wrong.

The other important thing is that we should not analyze the Kashmir issue in this essay because there are more than two parties involved in this case. The requirement of essay is to analyze the situation where there are only two parties and the dispute has become prolonged. In the case of Kashmir, India and Pakistan are not the only parties. Kashmiries exist as third party in this case. So we need not to worry that the essay is requiring to state that along with Idia, Pakistan is also wrong, which we cannot say because we want to pass the exam. There is no need to worry because we can say that since there are more than two parties involved in this case so not only that Pakistan has not proved to be wrong but also we need to find some other subject matter for the purpose of our essay which fulfills all the requirements of this essay.

So we need to have only two parties who are having a prolonged dispute such that the dispute is not just over the ownership of some asset. It means that we should try to find some other types of disputes. For example, the dispute between two persons can be over (i) religious beliefs or; (ii) political opinions.

Now we should try to see can both the parties be wrong in the above mentioned types of disputes. Let us take the example of prolonged dispute over religious beliefs of only two persons. If one of the persons is a Jew and the other one is Chriestian, then we can freely say (without hesitation) that actually both the parties are wrong in this case. But it is not the demand of this essay. This essay does not demand to prove that prolonged dispute over religious beliefs of a Jew person and a Chriestian person means that these both persons are wrong. The demand of the essay is to prove that a prolonged dispute between any two parties mean that both are wrong. If we say that the prolonged dispute between a Jew person and a Chriestian person over their religious beliefs is due the fact that actually both the persons are wrong, here we have not proved what is demanded by this essay. What we have proved is that "if both the parties are wrong, then dispute between them shall become prolonged".

So here a different thing has been proved. Here another very sensitive fact needs to be highlighted. If in the above example, we replace Christian and Jew by Muslim and Hindu, then? Obviously now, due to many reasons we cannot say that both the persons are wrong in this way. It is very clear that if we say that both parties must be wrong in this case also then as a necessary outcome, we will have to say that Muslim person is also wrong but this is what we cannot say. Why we cannot say this? Along with many other reasons, obviously we want to pass the exam...! So we should choose some other kind of dispute between two parties. As we already have identified that the other kind of dispute may be over political opinions. I think in this type of "dispute", there is no any sensitive thing, and so after some analysis, we can conclude that "if there are only two parties, and the "prolonged" dispute between them is over some political opinion then the fact that the "dispute" has been "prolonged" is the clear evidence that actually both the parties are "wrong".

And just how we shall conclude it? for this purpose, first of all we shall define "opinion". The definition of "opinion" should be such that it would be impossible for two different persons, who belong to different polititical groups, to have same type of opinions. The other important characteristic of this "definition" should be that there must be some object criteria which can test the truth of the opinions of both the persons. The third important characteristic of this definition should be that their must be flexibility and elasticity in that "opinion" so that if it is checked with the "objective criteria" for its truth-value and found wrong, then it must up-date and correct itself.

By keepking such type of definition of "opinion", we can now analyze the case of a prolonged dispute over "opinions" between two political persons. If the dispute is not yet prolonged then it means that the truth-value of both the opinions has not yet been tested with that "objective criteria". But if the dispute has been prolonged then we should assume that both the opinions have been properly tested with that objective critera. As per the definition of "opinion", we know that these opinions were "flexible" i.e. after checking with the objective criteria, if wrong, then they must have been up-dated to conform to that objective criteria. If one of the opinion was already right, then it means that it was already in conformance with that objective critera. The opinion which was wrong, when it was tested with the objective critera and was found to be wrong, it then must have been up-dated and corrected because it was "flexible".

The right opinion was already in conformance with the objective truth and the wrong opinion has been corrected by now. It means that after this pessage of time when both the opinions have been tested with the objective criteria and necessary corrections have been made in both of them then it means that now both the opinions are in conformance with a single objective truth. It means that now there is no difference in opinionm at all if both the opinions are in agreement with a single truth then they must be in agreement with one another. So it is logically a "mathemetically" proved that now (after a "prolonged" period) there is no real difference in those two opinions.

Now see that "mathemetically", there is no REAL difference between those opinions, but if both the parties are still on the dispute then we can now confidently say that both the parties are actually wrong in their dispute because they are just wrongfully disputing over those opinions which, in real terms, are not different from one another at all.

So it is sufficiently proved that if there are only two parties and dispute between them is over political opinions and the dispute has been prolonged, then both the parties MUST BE WRONG.

.................................................. ..

One very important caution --- Must keep in mind:

I said that we must "define" the "opinion" in such particular way which can be helpful in arriving at the desired (demanded) conclusion. Obviously you will have to define the "opinion" at your own, by using your own intellectual skills. BUT never write in the essay that you have defined this (or any) term or concept at your own. The best way is to define the terms at your own but then write that this term has been so defined by let's say Soctrates or Plato or Aristotle etc. etc. More preferrably try to use the name of some Muslim prominent scholar such as Ibn-Sina, Al-Farabi or Illama Iqbal etc. etc. This stretegy shall give good impression and you shall be given good marks. Never say that you have defined this or any term at your own. It shall not be beneficial. A CSS "officer" is not supposed to have his own independent mind. He has to just "implement" the policies and he cannot be supposed to be capable of fomulating policies at his own.


.................................................. ..


Other topics are also interesting. "I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say" can also be attempted in the above mentioned way.

Humanism and Existentialism are really specific terms and so should be attempted only and only if you possess the specific knowledge about these "philosophical movements". Yes these are philosophical movements and should not be attempted in any general way.

"End of Cheap Oil" should be attempted if you know about the related important facts and figures.

Thanx!