UK Masters Degree not recognised by Government of India

What a shock I got when I learnt that UK Taught Masters 1 year degrees are not recognized by Government of India. By then I had spent Rs. 16 lakhs on the course and accommodation. I feel cheated and hung helplessly between rose colored promotions by UK universities in India and rules of Government of India.

Please read this article which makes my point amply clear.

UK degrees: Unrecognised in India!

Today I want to apply for a government job for the position of Assistant Professor. Eligibility criteria is a recognized master's degree. I am so excited that meri mehnat ab kaam aayegi. But then I find that it needs UGC-NET certification. I go to UGC-NET website and apply for the exam. There I have to mention details of masters degree. I read a clause that equivalence of foreign masters degree need to be checked with AIU and Equivalence Certificates should be obtained in the interest of the candidate. I browse to AIU website, soon to find that the government does not recognize UK masters degree since their duration is less than 2 years. Everything starts to crumble around me. I feel dejected and I write this blog post.

At least I got to know about this early enough. I have read about people who have got jobs and then rejected later, throwing their life in disarray.

UK Masters degrees are very good, challenging and satisfying in their own way. I have no regrets on the academic front. But if you are looking to come back to India and want to apply for government jobs in the future, BEWARE!!!! THESE COURSES ARE NOT MEANT FOR YOU!

Bastora, a prominent village of yore

I am from a small village called Ucassaim which is very close to Bastora. Both are sleepy villages and life is very very slow. Everybody knows everybody here. So some gossip like "Damu's uncle's son's wife is working at my neighbour's son-in-law's shop" is not so uncommon. The closest town is Mapuca, Goa. Goans and non-Goans will surely have heard about this place. Don't be surprised that I had to mention "Goans"  explicitly here because many of my Goan friends have never given a thought to know anything beyond Mapuca. Its like entering some other world! He he.

My point here being that Bastora was a very prominent place in north Goa. Before 1960 (I think!) NH-17 (National Highway) from Mapuca - Porvorim - Panjim did not exist. Porvorim which is bustling now, was completely barren prior to NH-17. In the olden days, the national highway was Mapuca - Socorro - Bastora - Ucassaim - Pomburpa - Ekoshim - Britona - Betim - Panjim and these were important villages. Now I know why my grandfather bought a house besides that road in Ucassaim. This road looks like a winding village road today but it still wears the splendor of old glory.

We all know that when the Portuguese were forced to leave Goa in 1961, by the strong Indian armed forces, they resorted to bombing the bridges on the national highway to slow them down. One of the bridges was near Hotel Green Park, Mapuca where the road takes a turn over a bridge towards Bastora/Sucorro.

Bastora housed the first private printing press "Tipografia Rangel" in North Goa, established in 1886 by Vincente João Janin Rangel. It functioned for 108 years and was the first to print musical notations. The first private printing press was set up in Margao in 1859. Did you know?

There is a family in Bastora which runs a business of making iron safes since many generations. They were the suppliers of safes in Portuguese offices all over Goa (though many were imported too). Even today they make custom safes and locks if an order is placed. I remember an instance when we had an ancient Portuguese safe in the Communidade of Sangolda and it was so good that nobody could open it. It had, I think, around 7 locks and all the keys were lost. We had called this guy from Bastora to open it. It was so exciting!

A small temple on the top of a hill called "Pajir" is built around a small cave-like rock formation. The legend says that Lord Ram, Sita and Laxman had taken rest here during their "Van vaas". My grandfather used to take part in the "nataks" or drama during festivals here.

Another famous legend according to folklore is that Milagres Saibinn or the Lady of Miracles or Goddess Mirabai of Mapusa is one of 8 siblings; 7 sisters and 1 brother. Mirabai was converted into a catholic by the Portuguese and built the Milagres Church at the site. It is said that the old idol of Goddess Mirabai still exists inside the church. Both Hindus and Catholics celebrate the Milagres feast. One of the sisters is Goddess Lairai from Shirgao. The tradition is that Lairai gifts a "causo" of oil to Milagres during the feast and Milagres gifts a basket of "mogrim" (marigold) to Lairai during Shirgao zatra (feast). The brother's name is Lord Khetoba (Khetko) who is an incarnation of Lord Shiva. His temple is located in Chopdem. The rest of the sisters are Mahamaya of Mayem, Kelbai of Mulgao, Morjai of Morjim, Ajadipa of Anjadiva Island and Shitalai.

St. Xavier's college, Mapusa which is an extension of St. Xavier's College, Mumbai was first established at Bastora in 1963 and shifted to Mapusa in 1968. The old campus is still there and at a stone's throw distance from Holy Cross High School where I did my schooling.

A village with such prominence in the past has now slowly gone off steam. A movie which follows a similar tale is "Cars". Watch it to know exactly how I feel. :-)

Holy Cross High School, Bastora celebrates its Platinum Jubilee

The Holy Cross High School, Bastora is where I did most of my schooling until I left after Std. VI. I have vivid memories of the years I spent there. Today if I know good manners and polished English (sort of!),  or if I wear clean shoes, clean clothes, cut my nails regularly, comb my hair, its all attributed to this school. I cannot imagine that it has completed 75 years in 2010! It is a privilege to have been taught by the founding teachers like  Ms Margaret Mascarenhas, Mr Anthony Noronha, Ms Maria D’Mello, Ms Conception De Souza, Sr Pushpika (Sr Antoinette Coutinho), Ms Sushila and many others. Here is a small article about the school's history, published in The Navhind Times. The school is like a castle inside, many rooms locked with old memories and mysteries, huge "bhatt" to roam around. It was quite exciting! At least this article unravels a lot about how this institution came into being. Here it is!


The Holy Cross High School, Bastora celebrates its platinum jubilee this year. This great edifice, an institution which withstood the test of time, has produced great luminaries, outstanding personalities and strong willed men and women who have contributed immensely to the society in Goa, India and the world.
It all started with the dream and vision of a young girl in France, Claudine Echenier, who in her own little way – right from childhood – spread the love and care of God to the world. She chose the path to serve the Lord and dedicated her life for the up liftment of mankind. Mother Claudine began her little congregation in a small farmhouse in 1838. This has spread, today, to 16 different countries covering four of the five continents.
In 1933, the Sisters of the Cross were invited to Siolim to start a school for girls. Meanwhile, prominent citizens in Bastora were taken up by the work done by the sisters in Siolim. They approached Mother Celine Dumolin, who was the provincial head then, asking for a school to be opened in Bastora. Sr Margaret Lollioz was made superior and teacher at the institution while Sr Beatrice became the first headmistress. They were assisted by lay sister Agnes.
There was a small school being run in the premises of one, Abel Dias. This was handed over to the sisters, who started the school in June 1936. Dr Jaime Rangel gifted a part of his property to the sisters. Other parts of the property were purchased at nominal rates. Dr Rangel is also credited by the school authorities, for being a legal advisor, benefactor and a friend.
During the year 1942, even as the construction of the school was in progress, the sisters toiled hard to raise funds to complete the building. Every year, a fete was organised in Mapusa during the Milagres feast. This year also saw the introduction of boarding facilities to girl students.
In 1944, a new wing was added, which now forms the library, staff room etc. It was then used as a chapel premise. After 14 years of unstinted labour, the first batch of four students was sent for the matriculation examination in March 1950. In the mid-fifties, a very young Nicholas Quadros joined the service of the school. The sixties marked the advent of the first lay persons, Ms Margaret Mascarenhas and Ms Conception de Souza, being absorbed as staff teachers in the school.
At the same time, pressure mounted on the sisters to admit boys to the school. All along, the village boys had to walk to Guirim or elsewhere for schooling.
The school was made a co-education institution in 1970. Sadanand Narvekar, Joe Lobo and Anthony Noronha, joined in as the first set of male teachers.
The seventies marked the addition of the new wing for the high school which brought in more space for facilities like: a library, workshop rooms and laboratories. The school also got a proper residence for the sisters and a hall.
The eighties marked the golden jubilee year of the school. These years also marked the completion of the primary school building, and the closure of the boarding facility given to students.
At the time of the diamond jubilee, the Comunidade of Bastora gave the school a plot of land, to be developed into a playground.
The turn of the millennium marked the retirement of several stalwarts of the Holy Cross school-Ms Margaret Mascarenhas, Mr Anthony Noronha, Ms Maria D’Mello, Ms Conception De Souza, Mr Sadanand Narvekar and Mr Nicholas Quadros; and to close the decade, headmistress Sr Antoinette Coutinho, popularly called Sr Pushpica. This decade also marked the starting of a resource room to cater to children with special needs, and the enrolment of boys from the ‘Margaret Bosco Bal Sadan’ as students.
As the school heads into its platinum jubilee year, at its helm is Sr Alzira Furtado, who, herself, studied in this institution as a boarder. Apart from its past pupils, who returned to it as teachers or are serving elsewhere; this institution has produced a wide spectrum of students – from vegetable and fruit vendors to owners of departmental stores and managers of shopping malls; from waiters and bakers to confectioners and chefs; from clerks to accountants and managers; from drivers and mechanics to foremen and engineers; from lab technicians and nurses to doctors and professors in medical and dental colleges. It has also produced two scientists at the National Institute of Oceanography, a software engineer at Silicon Valley, USA, and senior-level journalists working for reputed newspapers and magazines.

http://www.navhindtimes.in/iexplore/holy-cross-high-school-bastora-celebrate-its-platinum-jubilee
Courtesy - The Navhind Times

Today I fast...

Since the past few days, every morning when I wake up, the first thought sends shivers down my spine! I cannot imagine an old man fasting and its been four bloody days! My conscience does not let me do nothing about it. I have to do something. It is not possible for me to join the Anna Hazare agitation against the government to form a Jan Lokpal, formally. I cannot leave my work.


Therefore I want to do my bit to contribute to what this old Super Man is determined to do. I will fast today!

Speech by NSA Shri Shivshankar Menon at NDC on “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs”

October 21, 2010

Rashtrapathiji,
Your Majesty, the King of Bhutan,
Raksha Mantri,
Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force,
Lt-Gen. Prakash Menon, Commandant NDC,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am deeply honoured to have been asked to deliver the keynote address before the seminar on “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs” to celebrate the golden jubilee of this prestigious institution. The NDC has made outstanding contributions to the spread of strategic thought and the integration of civil and military thinking in India. You have today assembled a galaxy of experts and authorities to discuss this important question. We await your deliberations with great expectations.

Rather than trying to anticipate what your seminar will throw up, I thought I would look at two issues that you will probably consider in much more detail. Is there in an Indian doctrine for the use of force in statecraft? And, how have recent changes in the world and strategic affairs affected the role of force in today’s world?

Is there an Indian doctrine for the use of force in statecraft? This is not a question that one normally expects to ask about a power that is a declared nuclear weapon state with the world’s second largest standing army. But India achieved independence in a unique manner; through a freedom movement dedicated to truth and non-violence, and has displayed both ambiguity and opposition to classical power politics. In the circumstances posing the question is understandable and legitimate.

To answer the question let us look at traditional Indian attitudes to force and the lessons India draws from its own history, and at Indian practice since independence in 1947.

Attitudes to Force and Lessons from History

While India may have achieved independence after a non-violent struggle, it was a struggle that Gandhiji described as non-violence of the strong.

As far back as 1928 Gandhiji wrote, “If there was a national government, whilst I should not take any direct part in any war, I can conceive of occasions when it would be my duty to vote for the military training of those who wish to take it.... It is not possible to make a person or society non-violent by compulsion.”

During the Partition riots at his prayer meeting on 26 September 1947 Gandhiji said that he had always been an opponent of all warfare, but that if there was no other way of securing justice war would be the only alternative left to the government.

Faced with the tribal raiders sent by Pakistan into Kashmir in October 1947, Gandhiji said that it was right for the Union Government to save the fair city by rushing troops to Srinagar. He added that he would rather that the defenders be wiped out to the last man in clearing Kashmir’s soil of the raiders rather than submit.


In saying so, Gandhiji was entirely in keeping with a long Indian tradition which has regarded the use of force as legitimate in certain circumstances, namely, if there is no alternative way of securing justice. This is in essence a doctrine for the defensive use of force, when all other avenues are exhausted.

Our two greatest epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana are about wars, and treat rivalries as natural and normal. And the two classical expositions on the use of force, the Geeta and Bhishma’s death bed lecture on statecraft in the Mahabharata’s Shantiparva are extended explanations of a unique point of view.

The clearest description of the uses of force in statecraft is in the Arthashastra by Chanakya, which deals with both internal and external uses of force.

The lesson that comes through very clearly in both the major Indian epics, which deal with wars of necessity, is also apparent in Kautilya, the original realist, and in Ashoka, the convert to idealism. Ashoka and Kautilya were both products of a highly evolved and intricate tradition of statecraft which must have preceded them for centuries. A simple reading of the Arthashastra suffices to prove how evolved Indian strategic culture was as early as the third century before Christ, and how the use of force was limited both by practical and moral considerations. This was not a doctrine of “God on our side”, (though that helped, as Krishna proved in the Mahabharata). Nor is it about just wars. In the Indian tradition the use of force is legitimate not just if it is in a good cause and its results will be good. Instead, this was a doctrine that saw force as necessary in certain circumstances, to obtain justice, when all other means are exhausted, and which also recognised that force was not always the most effective or efficient means to this end.


The other lesson that Indian thinkers have consistently drawn from history is of the perils of weakness. The colonial narrative of India’s history, stressing “outside” invasions and rulers had as its corollary the conviction that India must avoid weakness at all costs lest that history be repeated. The Indian quest after 1947 for strategic autonomy and for autonomy in the decision to use or threaten force has a long tradition behind it.

What I am trying to say is that Indian strategic culture has an indigenous construct on the role of force in statecraft, modified by our experience in the last two centuries. War and peace are continuing themes in Indian strategic culture. While not celebrating war the culture treats defensive war as acceptable when good fights evil to secure justice. Indian strategic culture has been comfortable with this contradiction. While Gandhiji shunned the use of force and opposed violence in politics he was politically steely and unyielding, and accepted violence as unavoidable and justified in certain circumstances.

As a result of this acceptance of contradictions, Indian strategic culture supports ethical views that dovetail easily with international norms of conduct, whether legal or on human rights. It is a culture that tends instinctively to pluralism, tolerance of different views and positions, and a reliance on argumentation, diplomacy and law before recourse to the use of force. It is therefore no surprise that it seeks a rule based international order to limit the anarchy among states that is sometimes evident.


This aspect of Indian strategic culture is common to what Kanti Bajpai described as the three streams of Indian strategic culture, namely, “Nehruvians”, neo-liberals and hyper-realists. They might differ on the best means but not on India’s strategic goals . To summarise Bajpai, all three streams agree on the centrality of the sovereign state in international relations and recognise no higher authority; see interests, power and violence as the staples of international relations that states cannot ignore; and think that power comprises both military and economic capabilities at a minimum. Beyond this they differ.

Interestingly all three streams, “Nehruvians”, neoliberals and hyperrealists, believe that nuclear weapons are essential for India’s security in a world that has shown no signs of moving to their abolition and elimination.

In other words, there is substantial agreement on values, on goals and even on means in our policies, despite marked and rapid changes in the external environment in which we have operated. That is why the core traits of our foreign and defence policies have persisted since independence, irrespective of the parties in power.

The Indian Practice since 1947

Let us look at this aspect of Indian strategic culture in action, in other words at Indian practice and policy since independence.


• The defence budget has only exceeded 3% of GDP in one year of the last sixty-three.

• There have been clear limits on the use of force internally. The use of military force for internal security functions has been severely circumscribed, limited to those cases where there is a strong correlation to inimical forces abroad such as Nagaland and J&K.

• The armed forces of the Union have only been used defensively against external aggression in the sixty-three years of the Republic.

• India has never sent troops abroad except for UNPKO or at the express request of the legitimate government of the country concerned. This was true in the Maldives in 1987, in Sri Lanka in 1987 and in Bangladesh in 1971.

• India has also never retained territory taken by force in the wars that she has fought. This is so even for some Indian territory taken back from Pakistan in the Indian state of J&K which was returned to Pakistani control after the 1965 and 1971 wars.

India as a NWS


The Indian nuclear doctrine also reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament. We have made it clear that while we need nuclear weapons for our own security, it is our goal to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, and that we are ready to undertake the necessary obligations to achieve that goal in a time-bound programme agreed to and implemented by all nuclear weapon and other states.

In sum, there is an Indian way, an Indian view and an Indian practice in the use and role of force. We do not claim that it is better or worse than any other way that other nations adopt. It is a result of our own history and experience, and we feel it best suited to our goals and situation. And it too is evolving, both consciously and unconsciously, as is the world around us. It is time now to consciously build our own concepts and strategic thinking, adapted to today’s realities and India’s environment, including on the role of force.

Force in Today’s World

The other issue that you will be considering is how changes in the world and in strategic affairs have affected the role of force.

It seems to me that the changes we see in world politics and the effects of technology are the two factors that have most affected the strategic calculus of those in the international system who might seek to use force for political purposes.

Consider the global political situation first.

With global and regional balances of power characterised by unequal distributions of power; the interdependence between major powers created by globalisation; the state losing its monopoly of violence in contested hegemonies both internally and externally; and the diversity of values espoused by states, world politics today is in an unprecedented state of flux. It does, however seem that the cost to the major powers of using force in their dealings with each other could prevent the emergence of direct conflict between them.

The effects of technology are harder to describe and predict. In the early fifties, there were those who hoped that the unprecedented power of the atom bomb had made war unthinkable and therefore abolished it! Unfortunately, we now know better. In fact we have seen technology place increasingly lethal power in the hands of non-state actors. Terrorism is technologically enabled and knows no boundaries today, even drawing on support from within state systems. After several centuries, once again the state is not the sole or always the predominant factor in the international system. In some cases, it is businesses and individuals who now determine our technological future and it is these units that a successful policy must now increasingly deal with.

We have also seen technology create new domains for contestation, such as cyber space, where the speed of manoeuvre, premium on offense, and the nature of the battle-space make us rethink traditional concepts of deterrence. As technology has expanded the spectrum, the line between conventional and non-conventional warfare has blurred. The definition of force, the classic marker of power, has now expanded, thus changing the utility of force as traditionally configured.

As we enter a world of multiple powers, with rapidly shifting balances, change alone is certain. Unfortunately, force is the hedge chosen by several powers against heightened uncertainty in the international system. The balance is shifting between force and the other instruments of statecraft. We therefore need to develop a new and different statecraft.

If change alone is certain, and if the utility of force in statecraft is itself changing in fundamental ways, it is all the more necessary that we return to the values in which the use of force must be embedded. Ultimately it is not just the logic of politics or technology but the values and purposes of the state and society that determine the choices that we make of the uses and nature of force.

What India seeks is a new security architecture, an open, balanced and inclusive architecture, to correspond to the new situation that is emerging. The security challenges of the twenty-first century are radically different from those of the twentieth. Nuclear confrontation or war between major powers is not as likely as the threat from derivatives of nuclear deterrence, namely, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, which are being used to subvert the emergence of a plural, secular and democratic international order in the twenty-first century. The challenges of a globalised world cannot be handled by twentieth century military alliances or containment strategies.

Conclusion

So in effect my argument is that in India’s experience the use of force must be governed and circumscribed by the values of state and society. I have also tried to suggest that there may be value in studying the Indian way, the Indian view and Indian practice in the use and role of force in state-craft.

It also seems from recent experience that the utility of force, as traditionally configured and conceived, is of limited value in protecting a society or achieving some policy goals. But one can hardly jump to conclusions about the futility of force when limited war under nuclear conditions remains possible, and when adversaries need to be deterred. This debate will continue.

I wish you success in continuing the debate and in your deliberations.

New Delhi
October 21, 2010

Darker American aspirations towards Indian defense

Original report from TimesNow:

Even before US President Barack Obama touched down in the country, away from the gaze of the cameras, a script was being written - to make Indian defence subservient to Pentagon. Talk in New Delhi’s defence circles - about a deal that - if through - would give the Americans unprecedented access to Indian defence forces and the communication systems for three services. Top secret documents that would be declassified only ten years from now - in 2020. Documents that show that the US is trying to force India into an agreement that our defence establishment does not need and does not want. The contention is the communications interoperability agreement. Part of this agreement - are six clauses that if India were to agree to - would be humiliating to say the least and completely under US control.

Article 5 of inter-operability agreement says that it will be the Indian defence ministry that shall bear the cost of reconfiguring the communications systems. More interestingly - India can only buy from the US Department of Defence. The other clause is in Article 6 of the agreement which says that the US Department of Defence shall provide defence support - subject to approval - which means - whenever it wants. Article 7 of this top secret agreement points to an effective takeover of our defence communications - since the clause says that it will be American officials who would be training Indian Govt personnel and also conducting inspections of the equipment given to India. Then clause number four - which is in Article 9 of the agreement - that says it will be only US army personnel who will have the right to access and inspect the equipment and material given to India.

Article 8, then goes on to say - that the Government of India cannot use its own equipment - without the prior consent of the American Government. So without a nod from Capitol Hill - India can’t touch its own equipment. And the sixth binding cause - which no American equipment provided to India, will be subject to any cooperative development - meaning that India cannot develop further on US prototypes. These are six of the most relevant clauses in this top secret document - that show how America wants to deal with the India- on their terms - wanting to control Indian defence communications. And they have lobbied hard in order to get India to agree but still not been able to convince the defence establishment.

And it was exactly that sentiment - echoed when the Defence Secretary met with the Defence Chiefs. Not just that - even before Obama arrived - the service chiefs have made their displeasure known. It is because of the open and clear displeasure shown by the defence establishment - that the strong American lobbies are having a rethink. New Delhi extremely wary of American moves. After all - similar defence agreements with other world powers - have given India the flexibility to maintain complete control on its defence establishment. So as the US President attempts to hit the right chords, lurking in the shadows are those who are trying to force a deal - that New Delhi simply does not want.

-- TimesNow.tv

Evolution - my perspective -- "Gene Mutation caused by Mind"

Since childhood I have always been thrilled about Evolution when I first read it in one Environmental Science (EVS) text-book. Remember EVS? It is a standard text-book in Goan secondary schools. I will try to describe evolution very briefly so that we usher in the context. Evolution is defined as "the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations". Mutation (as in the change) in organisms is driven by two processes, 'natural selection' and 'genetic drift'. Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is synonymous to the concept of "survival of the fittest". Genetic drift is a random change in common traits in a population (and not linked to the natural selection concept). -- all definitions courtesy Wikipedia.

The way science is progressing, it is always about 'what you see is what you believe'. Basically because theories need proofs and proofs can be validated only with experiments.  I feel that evolution process has a third dimension which is distinct from the two processes described above.

When I was young I used to wonder how some fish have a false eye on the back or the tail. The obvious reason is when a predator fish strikes another fish it notices the eyes first. The survival rate is higher if it bites the tail. For that matter all animals that have eyes look in the eyes of other animals when they refer to them. Here are some photos which I picked up.

Another striking example is the Weaver Ant mimic spider.

And here's a Weaver ant (popularly called a 'Humlo' in Konkani).

These mimic spiders attack the poor ants by deceiving them. I have seen this happen at my ancestral house. The weaver ants crawl on a branch just like the one above. The mimic spider hides itself under the branch and does not show itself unless an ant is alone. When the ant is alone, it tries to deceive it into believing that its just another brother ant and then it attacks.

As you can see, these are not random genetic changes. These a very selective changes, depending on how, say, a fish perceives a predator fish may be thinking. Or how a predator spider thinks it can mimic and deceive an ant. Even the dinosaurs, each species have distinct horns. How can you have a horn  through survival of the fittest? or through random genetic changes? Does the current definition of evolution accommodate mimicry or stealthiness as shown above? NO!!!! Not yet. Now that I have stepped in! :-P I will augment the theory of evolution today!

The current theory of evolution accounts for 'reactive' changes, which may be true. For example, when a population is struck by a deadly disease, many die. But those who manage to survive develop the immunity for it. This information is then passed on to future generations. I think evolution can also be 'proactive' and this definition may well be predominent.


I think that the third dimension to the theory of evolution is "Gene Mutation caused by Mind"! Mimicry and stealthiness cannot be achieved unless you observe. And only the mind can process the observation. This also means that there is a direct link between the mind and the genes. Again this also means that mind is a significant player in the process of reproduction. Nowadays we find more and more cases of how a DNA combination can describe an emotion or a personality trait.


Let me go one more step further. When you are planning a baby, have a good mindset first! Indulgence in bad things will only get passed on to the generations ahead!