Jane Austen’s Emma is about the psychological growth of the character Emma in particular. Emma is depicted as a ‘handsome, clever, and rich’ girl of about twenty-one years old. She resides with her father Mr. Woodhouse, who had no contribution in her upbringing. As he, himself behaves like a child, and instead of him caring Emma, Emma used to care about him. Her mother died early in her childhood. Too early, that she only have ‘an indistinct remembrance of her caresses’. Miss Taylor, Emma’s governess was also depicted as more like her friend than as her governess. So, from the very beginning of her life she missed the governing figure, an authoritative person. Who can guide her, points out her mistakes, and has psychological influence on her. Therefore, as a result she became independent. As we were told in ch1, pg. 5:

“Emma doing just what she liked, highly esteeming Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by her own.”

And thus Emma had some flaws in her character, which mainly depends upon flaws in her thinking patterns.


Since Emma lacks a governing figure in her own home, Mr. Knightley (Emma’s sister, Isabella’s brother-in-law, and Emma’s neighbour) acted as Emma’s mentor and moral guide. He was introduced to us as ‘a sensible man’, an objective and a foresighted person. The only person who was critical of Emma, when everyone around Emma were so influenced by her wit and charming personality, was also Mr. Knightley. As Mr. Knightley once pointed out:

“Emma is spoiled by being the cleverest of her family. At ten years old, she had misfortune of being able to answer a questions….Emma has been mistress of the house and of you all.” (ch. 5, pg. 29)

Mr. Knightley acted as a sensable, thoughtful, and judging sort of a person. Therefore, he is considered as a voice of reason, and has a prominent contribution in bringing about change in Emma.


Despite of the good qualities of Emma’s character, like her loving nature, her being witty, social, and conversationalist, she had some flaws in her character, which hinders her being a perfect person. And the main reasons behind these flaws were that there is no one to point them out. So, initially in the novel, when Mr. Knightley point out her mistakes, she doesn’t take it seriously. She thinks that he ‘loves to find fault in her’, and ‘it’s all a joke’ (ch 1, pg. 9). And as a result she never tried to rectify her mistakes.


Emma’s main problems, that hinders her psychological growth are, her being idealistic and over-confident. Emma once talking with Mrs. Weston said:

“You take up an idea, and run away with it; as you have many a time reproached me with doing.” (ch 26, pg 171)

She doesn’t realize the honesty of her own words. That actually, she is the one who comeup with an idea, and imaginations; and then because of her thick headedness, she stick to it, despite the fact that someone (i.e. Mr. Knightley) always points them out right at the beginning. Forexample, in the case of Harriet Smith, she had this wild imagination that Harriet does belong to a noble family, and therefore, she is needed to be detached from “her bad acquaintance” and should be introduced into a “good society” (ch 3, pg. 19). On-the-contrary, the truth was that “Harriet Smith was the natural daughter of somebody” (ch 3, pg. 18), which probably means that she was an illegitimate child. And illegitimate children at Jane Austen’s time were looked down upon, and usually left to live in isolation. But Emma was over-confident by her idea of Harriet Smith belonging to a noble family. Therefore, she tries to mould Harriet according to her own social class. And also tries to make her match with Mr. Elton (a village vicar).


Mr. Knightley foresees the bad influence of Harriet on Emma, and Emma on Harriet. He declared it a bad thing, while discussing Emma and Harriet’s intimacy, with Mrs. Weston. About Harriet he said:

“I think her the very worst sort of companion that Emma could possibly have. She knows nothing herself, and looks upon Emma as knowing everything. She is a flatterer in all her ways; and so much the worse, because undersigned.” (ch 5, pg. 30)

And later when Harriet refused Robert Martin’s proposal because of Emma’s influence on her, he became angry and points out Emma that she is not Harriet’s friend. Mr. Knightley clearly knows the limitation of class differences. Since Harriet parentage is unknown, so she should consider Martin’s proposal as a blessing for her. As in front of Harriet, Martin is much more superior. It’s not that Emma doesn’t know the limitation of class differences, but she became blinded by her imagination in Harriet’s case. Mr. Knightley also points that out to her, when he came to know that Harriet has rejected Martin. He said:

“No, he is not her equal indeed, for he is as much her superior in sense as in situation. Emma, your infatuation about the girl blinds you. What are Harriet Smith’s claims, either of birth, nature or education, to any connection higher than Robert Martin? ” (ch. 8, pg. 48)


Emma does become affected by Mr. Knightley’s criticism. She respects his judgment. Somewhere, she also knows that whatever Mr. Knightley is criticizing her about, is right. But her egotism hinders her to acknowledge his opinion, and makes her uncomfortable.

“Emma made no answer, and tried to look cheerfully unconcerned but was really feeling uncomfortable, and wanting him very much to be gone. She did not repent what she has done; she still thought herself a better judge of such a point of female right and refinement than he could be; but yet she had a sort of habitual respect for his judgment  in general, which made her dislike having it so loudly against her; and to have him sitting against her in angry state, was very disagreeable.” (ch. 8, pg. 51)


The conflict of her mind is dangled in between Mr. Knightley (her rational and intuitive self) and Emma Woodhouse (her irrational and idealistic self). On the one hand she feels her judgments and opinions to be perfect, but on the other hand she also feels dissatisfied with herself; which shows that she has the potential to become rectified, to solve her mind’s conflict and to become psychologically mature.

 “She did not always feel so absolutely satisfied with herself, so entirely convinced that her opinions were right and her adversary’s wrong, as Mr. Knightley.” (ch. 8, pg. 52)

All she needed was a realization, i.e. she needed to open her eyes, to put her irrational and imaginative self aside. And to look at things critically and rationally, like Mr. Knightley does.


Emma does realize the accuracy of Mr. Knightley’s judgments before her ‘grand realization’ (which actually brings about change in Emma’s way of looking at things). Her realizations usually come to her, when she was proved of being wrong, like in the case of Mr. Elton. After the incident of Mr. Elton proposing Emma, instead of Harriet, Emma realizes the penetration of Mr. Knightley’s prediction.

“She remembered what Mr. Knightley had once said to her about Mr. Elton, the caution he had given, the conviction he had professed that Mr. Elton would never marry indiscreetly; and blushed to think how much truer a knowledge of his character had been there shewn than any she had reached herself.” (ch. 16, pg. 104)

Although, she get hints before her realizations, either from Mr. Knightley or from within herself; she ignored them and become blinded. As in the case of Frank Churchill, when he goes to London just to have his haircut, Emma considered it ‘nonsense’. But she let this thought go by thinking about her self-made positive imaginations of him.

“But for such an unfortunate fancy for having his hair-cut, there was nothing to denote him unworthy of the distinguished honour which her imagination had given him.” (ch. 25, pg. 155)


Mr. Knightley also points out tendency of Emma’s making right decisions, to evoke Emma to change her way of thinking. That if she realizes that she’s doing wrong, she will not do it, as he knows that Emma is not a person essentially doing wrong things. When Emma asked him “Does my vain spirit ever tell me I am wrong?” He replied:

“Not your vain spirit, but your serious spirit. If one leads you wrong, I am sure the other tells you of it.” (ch. 38, pg 249)

And that’s what Mr. Knightley actually does. He acted as Emma’s ‘serious spirit’, telling her faults, whenever she’s wrong. He doesn’t force his observation on Emma, but just points out her mistakes, like the way it happens in one’s mind; that whenever someone’s wrong, there are ‘serious spirits’ which alarms that person before handedly. Mr. Knightley only wants Emma to realize that there is that serious spirit in her. All she needs is to be attentive towards it.


Emma’s grand realization happened after Box Hill incident. When Emma insults Mrs. Bates, and Mr. Knightley scold her for that.

“Emma, I must once more speak to you as I have been used to do: a privilege rather endured than allowed, perhaps, but I must still use it. I cannot see you acting wrong, without a remonstrance. How could you be so unfeeling to Miss Bates? How could you be so insolent in your wit to a woman of her character, age, and situation?” (ch. 43, pg. 283)

This incident and Mr. Knightley’s scolding of her, proves to be the turning point in Emma’s thinking. From this incident, she, for the first time felt really sorry and ashamed of her behavior. She felt angry, and for this time she’s not angry on Mr. Knightley for pointing out her mistake, but she was angry on herself. We can clearly see her serious spirits taking control over her vain spirits, at this point in novel.

“Never had she felt s agitated, mortified, grieved at any circumstance in her life. She was most forcibly struck. The truth of his representation there was no denying.” (ch. 43, pg. 284)

She, for the first time felt repentant right away, and asked for Miss Bates’ forgiveness, in order to rectify her mistake.


This incident also brings about change in Emma’s way of looking at tings. Before Box Hill incident, she always disliked Jane, but after this incident she actually felt ‘kinder towards Jane’ (ch. 44, pg. 287). She started looking at people by placing herself in their situation, instead of comparing them with her fancies and ‘selfishness of imaginary complaints’ (ch 45, pg. 293). Also, when Mr. Knightley told her about Harriet and Robert Martin’s engagement, she actually raised no objections this time. And felt happy and satisfied with Harriet’s decision. Because this time, she understands and agrees with Mr. Knightley’s previous judgment about Martin, being suitable for Harriet. She also now sees Mr. Martin under Mr. Knightley’s light of judgment.

“She had no doubt of Harriet’s happiness with any good tempered man; but with him, and in the home he offered, there would be the more security, stability, and improvement…..Emma admitted her to be the luckiest creature in the world, to have created so steady and preserving an affection in such a man; -or, if not quiet the luckiest, to yield only to herself.” (ch 55, pg. 365)


Emma started considering Mr. Knightley as superior to her. She has accepted Mr. Knightley to be always correct, and admits that she has always been wrong.

“She was proved to have been universally mistaken; and she had not quiet done nothing- for she had done mischief. She had brought evil on Harriet, on herself, and she too much feared, on Mr. Knightley.” (ch. 47, pg. 312)

She also admits this to Mr. Knightley, when she said:

“I have not forgotten that you once tried to give me a caution.- I wish I had attended to it-but-(with a sinking voice and a heavy sigh) I seem to have been doomed to blindness.” (ch 49, pg. 321)

She accepted her being blinded previously, which means that now she’s mentally awaken.


Emma’s mental awakening and her psychological growth was deliberately done on Mr. Knightley’s part. Mr. Knightley consciously participated in Emma’s psychological growth. Emma, herself also realizes this:

“He had loved her, and watched over her from a girl, with an endeavour to improve her, and an anxiety for her doing right, which no other creature had at all shared.” (ch 48, pg. 314)

So Emma admits that no one but only Mr. Knightley has a share in her improvement, (of her way of thinking, and doing right things) and also Mr. Knightley, himself observes his influence over Emma.

He had, in fact, been wholly unsuspicious of his own influence.” (ch. 49, pg. 326)

‘His own influence’ on Emma means, Emma adopting his way of critically looking at things, with rational approach, and doing right things. So, it’s also proved that Emma is rid of her biased, irrational, and imaginative thinking. Also we can certainly say that she is rid of such thinking as far as she’s living with Mr. Knightley (who is Emma’s voice of reason and rationality).



The title of F.R.Leavis’ critique on Othello itself depicts the entire critique. The main title of his critique “Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero” suggests the Bradley’s point of view of analyzing Othello, which according to Leavis is sentimental approach towards Othello. Leavis accused Bradley and other critics who supported Bradley’s point of view for not being objective. And thus he called them sentimental and their critique “Sentimentalist’s Othello”.

According to Leavis, because of the collective opinion about Othello, it essence suffers. He says that “relevant discussion of its tragic significance” (p.136) is the result of extrinsic approach i.e. “character-analysis”. Leavis himself was liberal humanist and that’s why he accused Bradley of using extrinsic approach. In spite of the fact, that Bradley also proved his points by giving examples from the text.

Leavis called Bradley’s criticism on Othello “extravagant in misdirected scrupulosity” (p.136) and accused Bradley for lacking knowledge. The reason Leavis assume of misunderstanding by Bradley is that Bradley didn’t fully understand the text, therefore the evidence he give lacks ‘weigh’ (p.136). Bradley’s wrong interpretation of text was due to the lack of understanding of words on text, which happened due to him being sentimental, and that’s the reason he excessively ‘misdirected’ (p.136) the quality of moral integrity in Othello.

Leavis disagree with the Othello being centre of the play “Othello”. According to Leavis, displacement of Iago (which is for Leavis is the centre of Shakespearean tragedy) by Othello is also the result of Bradley being sentimental. He proved his point by quoting from Bradley’s essay that,

Iago’s plot is Iago’s character in action.” (p.137)

For Leavis, it seems like Bradley himself is not aware of the significance of ‘Iago’s character in action’, as for Leavis, the play itself is Iago’s character in action.

The reason Leavis suggest behind this is that Bradley is unaware about Othello’s character in depth. He just considers Iago as a ‘necessary piece of dramatic mechanism’ (p.138). On the contrary, if we treat Iago as a centre according to Leavis, then Othello would be considered as a ‘necessary material and provocation for a display of Iago’s fiendish intellectual superiority” (p.138). In any case, both of the characters are necessary to set the play in action.

Leavis proved Bradley of being sentimental by proving his counter argument from the same text given by Bradley, to prove his own point. Leavis says that Othello was essentially flawed. Iago just provoke that ‘essential element’ (p.139), which was necessary for his success. So in a way Bradley’s too innocent and faultless Othello was according to Leavis essentially faulty. That’s the reason Othello responded to Iago in a manner, Iago wanted him to respond. And thus its Othello’s ‘readiness to respond’ (p.140) which make Othello a tragic play, not Iago’s diabolic intellect.

Leavis proved his point of ‘Othello being essentially faulty’ by quoting from Othello as well as Bradley’s own text. Leavis says that Othello’s trust on Desdemona was partial from the beginning, if we consider Othello under Bradley’s words;

His trust, where he trusts, is absolute.” (p.140)

Also, Othello is represented as a middle aged man in a play, and according to Bradley Othello is ‘of a great openness and trustfulness of nature’ (p.140), but still he didn’t trust Desdemona.

Leavis suggest the reason behind Othello’s distrustfulness about his wife Desdemona’s character and faithfulness is because Othello was essentially ‘self approving self-dramatization’ (p.142) and an emotional person, which didn’t work in his relationship with Desdemona.

The main point which Leavis tried to prove in the entire essay is that it’s not merely Iago’s devilish tricks which cause the tragedy in ‘Othello’. Othello himself was essentially faulty and not too innocent, as the way Bradley depict him. That’s the reason Leavis uses the term “Bradley’s Othello” and claim it to be different from the “Shakespearean Othello”, the traits of Othello which Leavis define in his essay.

Leavis also accused Bradley for being sentimental and in the entire essay he uses the terms like ‘Bradley’s Othello’ (p.136), ‘sustained and sanctioned perversity’ (p.138), ‘preconception’ (p.139), ‘idealizing’ (p.148), ‘betray certain misgivings’ (p.153), to make the reader themselves sentimental, and when it comes to bring forward his own opinion, Leavis uses the terms, ‘the plain fact’ (p.138), ‘it is plain’ (p.145), ‘the text is plain’ (p.144) to show that the text of Othello is so simple. If Bradley had been objective, he would have noticed these points.

According to liberal humanist approach, the job of the criticism is to interpret the text, to mediate between it and the reader. Bradley’s analysis of Shakespearean writing is considered authentic and valid. Therefore, the interpretation which he did of Othello was also considered sustained and sanctioned. Bradley’s reader also treats Othello, the way Bradley has treated. But according to Leavis, the Othello which Shakespeare wanted to depict is entirely different from what Bradley’s followers perceive. To prove his point, Leavis himself became too sentimental and deviate from his thesis, when he starts discussing the purpose of Othello being poetic.

Every person has his own way of interpreting text. It’s not possible to kill your thinking pattern and become entirely objective; the way Leavis wanted Bradley and other critics to be. The point which Leavis proved is very true, but the way he targeted Bradley from the beginning till end suggests that Leavis himself is emotional or so called ‘sentimental’, which contradict with his own point of being objective. Or else he would have put forward his analysis in more descent way, i.e. without taunting Bradley.



The sonnets to Orpheus (part two, xii) by Rilke is about the universal idea of acceptance towards change and transformation. Rilke uses certain images to create new symbols in his poem.

In first stanza Rilke uses the flame to represent internal changes. That if a person wants a change he should be inspired by the flame. The way flame gives light to others , similarly a person should be doing such deeds that make him known and respectable, even after his death.

‘the curve of the body’ suggests flexibility. Only a person could transform if he has enough mental flexibility to accept a change. Like the artist loves curve of the body, similarly ‘The Artist’ i.e. God also loves the person who transforms himself into a better human being.

Rilke poses a question for readers that ‘is it safer to be gray and numb?’. Gray symbolizes old age. That means Rilke is asking us whether being old and devoid of emotion makes a personworth living or does that kind of life is of any worth. Ofcourse not. And rigidness in one’s pesonality can only destroy him. Like if we try to bend hard wood, it’ll break. Similarly a rigidness damages a person badly.

In third stanza Rilke suggests us to let all our goodness and positive energies flow out like a fountain. Like fountain flows in no definit shape, and has the ability to change its shape according to its surroundings, similarly a person should also change himself according to his surroundings and requirements. Since every start has an ending but it begins again when you determine to revive or renew your thoughts with positive approach.

In fourth stanza Rilke says that every happiness is a child of a seperation. Means when you change that change certainly brings happiness to you and that can only be possible if you separate your former being from you.

Wind symbolizes a possibility of change. Also wind represents spirit, which in psychological terms may be understood as an energy that can lift you from depression to joy or from mundane and material interests to a ‘higher’ (or deeper) level of conciousness.


“Curiosity- That’s the secret”,a speech addressed by Robertson Davies is about a concept that individual can lead a successful life through curiosity and work. To prove his point Davies discuss that how people used to consider work in Oxford, when he was student, and how work is considered today. He give example of how lily works and concluded his speech by motivating individuals to work with curiosity, inorder to make their work interesting, and to enjoy secret and success of life.

In “Curiosity- That’s the secret”, Davies stresses that work should not be “mentioned”. When an individual takes ‘interest’, and get ‘absorbed’ in his work, a work doesn’t seems like work anymore. It becomes a sport like thing, which helps you to increase your physical as well as mental health. All you need is a passion towards your work, so you can give your best in it.

Davies suggest that work helps you to understand ‘all that life has to give you’. Work itself provides you with motivation and energy. Work also provides you with new perspectives to observe the world, in an entirely different way. Forexample, doctors observe life diffrently as compared to lawyers. Doctors are more concerned about diseases and medicines, and how to save life. However, lawyers focuse on resolving the conflict between different people. Although both profession involves life and how to save that life. But the life  itself seems different to people belonging to these professions.

Davies concluded his address by saying that an individual can become achiever ‘by bringing curiosity to his work’. Curiosity is a key to bring success in one’s life. It is curiosity which has brought fame, wealth, and respect to many individuals. Curiosity has an immense power which can turn dreams into reality. Nobody has thought of flying in the air before 1903. But it was the curiosity and working through which Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright, turned their dream of flying in the air, into reality.


In 1893, Pharmacist Caleb Bradham of New Bern, North Carolina introduced a drink, called “Brad’s drink” which became the most popular beverage of his time. The ingredients of “Brad’s drink” were carbonated water, sugar, vanilla, rare oils, pepsin and cola nuts. It was later renamed as “Pepsi cola” in 1898, and still is the most favorite soft drink, especially among youth. The advertisement strategy of Pepsi cola has done a great deal of work to make it all time favorite.


1960’s black and white commercial shows two young couples, drinking Pepsi and enjoying at fountain, while dancing and talking with each other. The song playing in the background says “pick the right one, smarter and light one, now its Pepsi for those who think young.” This commercial point towards the link between Pepsi, youngness and smartness. It provoke people that if they think they are young, then they should ask for Pepsi. Pepsi is in fashion and symbolizes “leisure” so those who think young, as young refers to smartness and intelligence, should opt for Pepsi. This ad also target youngsters, as youngsters are the one who can do anything to be considered as smart.


Another commercial from 60’sshows ice hockey match. When players get exhausted they drink chilled Pepsi and start playing again. This commercial indicate towards the experiment that “Pepsi taste better when chilled”, conducted by Pepsi cola company. This ad is colored as color TV’s were introduced by then. The ad point towards the energy which Pepsi boost when a person is exhausted, merely adding to his activeness. The song playing behind in background says that Pepsi got a taste “that beats the other cold”, perhaps pointing towards the taste of Coca-Cola so their viewers start believing that Pepsi cola is better than Coca-Cola.


In one of the commercial of 1970,for the first time Black Americans were shown in the ad. It was the result of newly found rights of Black Americans that they were shown in the ad enjoying, hugging White Americans, talking with them, and drinking Pepsi. The song playing in a background says:

Pepsi have some color of life, it’s a Pepsi generation, coming at you growing strong. Put yourself behind a Pepsi, if you are living you’ll ask, you got a right to live and Pepsi’s got luck to give.” The lyrics of this song emphasize on “live and let others live” philosophy, that Pepsi believes in giving equal respect and importance to every costumer of Pepsi, and this caring factor adds color in life, bringing joy to people. Its total new era, whose generation believes in equality of mankind and Pepsi support this generation by calling it “a Pepsi generation”,


In early 80’s Pepsi challenge the leading Cola which was Coca-Cola by conducting blind taste test in which more than 50% of people preferred Pepsi over Coca-Cola. In their adthey use tag line “don’t take our word for it, let your taste decide”, asking their viewers that if you don’t believe in our words, decide yourself by testing Pepsi. At that time sale rate of Coca-Cola was higher than Pepsi and is still higher today, this ad affects their sale rate. People who were not Pepsi costumer bought Pepsi to check the validity of their claim, which result in high sale of Pepsi. To the reaction of this blind taste test, Coca-Cola Company later improves their product’s taste, by doing some changes in their recipe.


Michael Jackson has done many Pepsi ads during the period of 80’s. He has sung a song “Pepsi The choice of new generation”. Michael Jackson is a legend and will always be an impression to people for his own unique style of songs and dance. By taking Michael Jackson in their ads, Pepsi Cola Company intended to hit youth, as youth was extremely mad about Michael Jackson. He was a choice of new generation and by supporting Pepsi, he made “Pepsi The choice of new generation”.


Another ad from 80’s, starring Michael J. Fox (playing double role as robot) and Lori Laughlin introduced Diet Pepsi, with a caption “Diet Pepsi that’s Generation ahead”. Diet Pepsi was introduced because people were becoming more self-conscious about their weight and figure. Obesity spreads through junk food and Pepsi comes into that category, so people started avoiding Pepsi. Also the ideal figure of size zero was also spreading as an obsession among women. Women were becoming diet conscious for that. So when stars having ideal body figure were shown drinking Diet Pepsi, people also consider it harmless for their body figure.


The life of next generation is considered to be depending on Robots. By showing robots in Pepsi Ad and the caption “Diet Pepsi that’s Generation ahead”, the Company might want to indicate towards that Diet Pepsi would definitely be the choice of the upcoming generation.


Pepsi adtaken from 90’s having a tag line “the joy of Cola”, featuring Aretha Franklin, who acted as Helen Keller in a movie “Helen Keller” and became popular. “The joy of cola” ad basically indicates toward the idea that if you want to enjoy you should drink Pepsi, or drink Pepsi, it will bring happiness to you. The ad shows that drinking Pepsi makes you enjoy your party and adds to the fun, and rejoices, which are incomplete without Pepsi.


A commercial “Coke vs. Pepsi” has taken from the year 2000 onwards shows a man from Pepsi Company and a man from Coca-Cola Company. They talked for a while and share their cans. A man who drink Coca cola return the can but a man who drink Pepsi refuses to return Pepsi can. The caption of this ad is “Nothing else is Pepsi”. This ad shows cola rivalry between Pepsi cola and Coca-Cola. This ad indicates towards the idea that Pepsi is only one among its kind, and no other cola offer such a delightful taste which Pepsi offers. This ad promotes peculiarity of Pepsi, saying “Nothing else is Pepsi”.


Another commercial which has taken from the year 2000, features Queens of music Britney Spears, Pink and Beyonce as three gladiators, and very famous singer Enrique Igleases as a king. In this ad three gladiator women sing “we will rock you” instead of battle inside the coliseum, to earn Pepsi. The energy, the power of crowd, the classy-ness of coliseum, presence of mind of gladiators shown in this ad, depicts the uniqueness which Pepsi brings to a person.


Another commercial of Pepsi generation shows Britney Spears singing medley, having Pepsi tag lines of 1958 to 2000 in it. This commercial is a very good depiction of Pepsi’s evolution of ideas, for targeting their costumers, through Pepsi commercials. Pepsi Company started their commercials by symbolizing Pepsi with youngness. Then company appeal Pepsi to youngsters by saying “it’s a Pepsi generation”, as youngsters are the one with which present generation used to be associated with. Later the Pepsi company claims Pepsi to be special as it has special taste, different from other colas, and more when it serve chilled, it beat out other colas. Then the company comes up with the idea “lot to live”, which refers to the rights of individual to live his life fully. Later Pepsi Cola

Company comes up with the tag line, which refers to the Pepsi’s peculiarity as “simply irresistible” drink. Pepsi has become the part of life. It has become the important beverage item for parties and functions. Moreover people drink Pepsi without any reason when they want some change and to experience “joy”. All of the evolution of marketing ideas mentioned above has brought together under one commercial very beautifully and attractively.

If we compare these commercials, we can easily observe the theme and thinking behind these ads. All of them are associated with youth, joy, smartness, life, fashion, social utility and the best flavor which only Pepsi offers. The actors they opt for their ads are young or already successful singer or film or TV star, famous among youth. The scenario they opt in their ads is also full of life and happiness, depicting individuals or as a group enjoying the life. All of their commercials mostly target youth by showing their favorite super stars, and by using catchy lines like “it’s a Pepsi generation” to play with their psychology. As when it comes to a thing which’s in fashion of that generation, or an artist after whom the people are mad, youngsters would definitely go for that thing.


Teenage V/S Adulthood

In the kingdom of our adulthood we are free to live our life as we want to live it, but still we are not so free. We have to think twice before our every act and utterance. We have to think about our beloved ones, before thinking about ourselves. We have to live according to the preset expectations set by our parents and society, in order to be considered ‘adult’. On-the-contrary teenage is the best part of life in which we can actually live for ourselves, as nobody has expectations from us. However adults have to live to fulfill expectations which mostly belong to others.

In our teenage we can focus on our passion, however, in our adulthood we have to focus on our profession. In our teenage, lets say, if i love to paint I’ll be free to spend my spare time on my passion. However, when it comes to professional life people seldom find out following their passion. The aim of the life of adults is to fulfill their responsibilities. They have to earn enough money, so they and their families can live comfortable life. They have to go to social gatherings, so their personal relations will not get disturbed. They have to give time to their families, so their family setup should be maintained. You often find out adults complaining that they don’t get enough time to fulfill their daily chores. So how could a person follow his passion that lacks time to fulfill his daily chores?

In our teenage we are free to be ourselves, however in our adulthood we have to wear a facade and behave according to norms and values of our society. There are so many restrictions on us in our adulthood as to wear what or what not. Such as, a lady of 35 or 40 years old wearing jeans and t-shirt would be considered odd. In social gatherings also, whether you like your guests or not, you have to invite them and talk with them for the sake of personal relations. And all the conversation you’d be having with them should be pleasing, polite and not face-threatening. You don’t have to be concerned about these restrictions in your teenage. You are free to wear anything or to talk with a person you like.

In our teenage we don’t have to be concerned about our calories and physique, however, in our adulthood we have to look smart in order to get job, to marry, or to admired by others. We can eat as many chocolates and ice-creams as we want. We don’t have to be concerned about our physique. In fact, you’d be considered cute if you are little chubby. But if you are an adult and have some extra calories, people will make you insane and realize that you are suffering from a very serious disease called “obesity”. Thanks to the media’s promotion of slenderness that fat persons actually left in the long run of life because of the stereotype association of fatness with ugliness, laziness, ignorance and lacking of will power.

The acquisition of adulthood demands a sacrifice of the joys of teenage. In the name of gaining maturity, sensibility, practicality, responsibility, an adult has to lose innocence, enjoyments, dreams and sometimes even his self. The more you’ll be successful, the less you’ll be having time for yourself. The more you’ll be pleasing society, the less you’ll be pleasing yourself. The more you’ll be living for others, the less you’ll be having a time to live for yourself. In short, the benefit of ‘whole’ results in the loss of ‘self’ in your adulthood.

Life is the Hyphen between matter and spirit. Where matter is adulthood, spirit is childhood, and teenage is that hyphen…”the life”.



Concept of punishment is as ancient as the concept of the establishment of first human civilization. God punished Adam and Eve for the first time, in human history, when they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, acting against God’s will. As the result of their disobedience against the preset rule i.e. “not to eat the forbidden fruit”, they were thrown out of paradise and sent to earth (an isolated place) as their punishment.

Crime, criminal and punishment, all three of them are linked together. So to understand one phenomenon we should have the better understanding of other two also. Crime is a serious offense against the public law. It’s a breaking of a regulation. According to Encyclopedia Britannica “Crime is an intentional act, that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals, and that is legally prohibited and punishable.[1] A person who commits crime is a criminal. Criminal is considered malignant for society and crime, punishment is been given to criminals for their crimes so they should feel sorry for it and people would learn a lesson from their punishment that every bad, ends up bad. So basically punishment is for the welfare, prosperity and security of a society and its people.

In every corner of the world, for each crime there is a punishment accordingly. These punishments are different from each other by their specific aspect and application. “Death penalty, Deportation, Exile or life imprisonment, Imprisonment, Solitary confinement, Corporal Punishment, Imprisonment for indefinite period, and Fine”[2] are the punishments given all around the world to criminals. Among them Death Penalty or Death Sentence is the most severe type of punishment, which is considered as the Capital Punishment and been given on a very severe kind of crimes, such as murder and impulsiveness against state and religion.

In Islam Death Penalty is restricted to “rebellions and murderers” (Surah AlHijrat, 9), “Adulterer and Adulteress” (Muslim Shareef Sharah Alnoori, 11th edition, pp 202) “Impulsiveness against Islam” (Surah Al-Maida, 33), “an Apostate” (Hidayat AL-Mujahid-Az-Ibn-e-Rushd, 2nd edition, pp 383), ‘Intentionally Killing” (Surah Baqra: 178, Surah Bani Israel: 33, Surah Al-Maida: 45) [3]. According to Pakistan Penal code following crime leads to Death Punishment:

  1. Intentional Killing [section 303 (4) (c)]
  2. War against Government of Pakistan. [121 (4) (c)]
  3. To support rebellions. [132 (4) (c)]
  4. To bear false testimony against a person that leads to his death sentence.     [194 (4) (c)]
  5. Killing [302 (4) (c)]
  6. To support a suicider connecting child or lover. [305 (4) (c)]
  7. Killing for robbery. [396 (4) (c)]
  8. Robbery for the intention of killing or doing harm. [397 (4) (c)]
  9. Molest a woman and then expose her in front of public. [354 (1)]
  10. Kidnapping for property. [365 (1)]
  11. Hijacking. [402 (2)]
  12. Kidnapping of a child below10 years old. [364 (1)][4]


The reason behind giving Capital punishment is to take revenge from a criminal, for his crime and to set an example for other, so they should avoid crime. Capital punishment finishes crime and criminal both, and save society from further crimes.



There are two schools of thoughts, one is in favor of capital punishment and other is against capital punishment.  Those who are in favor of capital punishment support it by saying that “killing of one person is like killing whole humanity[5]. It’s actually true because one person is attached with so many other persons emotionally, socially, or economically. Some times a single person support a family of five or eight. If you kill that person, you are not just taking away his life but you are taking away a supplier of basic human needs from that family. So a murderer should be sentenced to death.

Capital punishment is also good solution to “control crime[6]. If criminals would be left unpunished and forgiven for their crimes, then it will encourage other criminals to commit crime. There would be no fear for committing crime because there’ll be no severe punishment to prevent them from committing crime. It shows the “system of justice[7] that every severe crime has a severe punishment accordingly. Islam also says that life should be taken for life.

By giving capital punishment to a murderer, the family of a person has been murdered feels some consolation. The feeling to take revenge is controlled. Otherwise, if everyone would be taking revenge by themselves for their lose, it would create law and order situation. Capital punishment is been given so the value of life of an individual and judiciary should be understood. It helps in finishing dissoluteness of a state.

The other school of thought which is against capital punishment says that it should not be given at all because it doesn’t benefit the family of the person whose been murdered. Instead of giving capital punishment, ransom should be taken from the criminal and give it to the family. However I don’t agree with this idea. There is no amount of money, property or anything which can replace a person’s life. The emotions, the feelings which a family shares cannot be bought from money. Money can’t bring happiness and cannot replace a human life. And by taking ransom and freeing a criminal can only help in increasing crimes. It promotes the idea that one can pay some amount for killing a life, and easily escape from the consequences. It would also evoke the feeling of revenge in a family, and could harm the law and order situation.

The other point against capital punishment is that the criminal could not feel guilty and sorry for his crime. Through death a criminal escapes pain of a punishment. However I feel that if a person comes to know that he’s going to die soon, the time period in between his death is more than enough to make him realize and to make him feel guilty about what he has done. He would definitely feel pain because every minute bring him near to his death, and worst thing is he knows about it. May be this is a reason that before the time of hanging a person to death, a team of doctor do a medical checkup of a criminal, so when he would be hanged he could feel the pain.

Another point against capital punishment is that it kills the chance of rectification of a criminal. However I believe that habitual criminals and psychopaths are the dangerous and harmful part of society. They can never be corrected and rectified, and can never become a good citizen. In short they are burden on society and they should be killed.

In England Death Punishment has been prohibited for the children below the age of eighteen and for pregnant ladies. In USA apart from few states, death punishment is prohibited. The rule of giving death punishment is finished from Switzerland in 1942, from Sweden in 1961, from Italy in 1948, from Cuba, Newzeland, Queensland, Mexico, state of Michigan (America) in 1948 and from Raved Island in 1854.[8] The reason behind prohibiting capital punishment was to protect human life. According to western countries no one has a right to take human life, given by God.  Death punishment is unethical and “illegal”, and it opposes human rights. We can see the conflict in their word and deed because it was these Western countries, which make an alliance after 9/11, to take revenge from Afghanistan and kill millions of innocent people, and the criminals (Osama-bin-Ladin and Al-Qaida) were remained unharmed. It is America who on every second day doing drone attack on Pakistan, still killing innocent people. The state of California is considered as a state of crimes, but when it comes to death punishment whole western Human rights commission stand against it, declaring it harmful for the human rights. On the other hand Islam has declared death punishment for certain crimes, which I had mentioned in the beginning, and there are no contradictory statements present about the death punishment. The concept of death punishment in Islam is exemplary, preventive and corrective. The punishment is for everyone who commits certain crime, and there is no alteration for that. Islam is a religion of balance; the rules have been set by God himself. If our judiciary follows Islamic rules for death punishment, the society would be in harmony.

[1] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah,Essence of Crime (Western and Islamic concept), “Criminology”, Maktaba-e-Faridi,1996, pg no. 22.

[2] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, “Comparative Jurisprudence”, Maktaba-e-Faridi, 1996, pg no. 187-190.

[3] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, “Comparative Jurisprudence”, Maktaba-e-Faridi, 1996, pg no. 193.

[4] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, Objects of Punishments, “Criminology”, Maktaba-e-Faridi,1996, pg no. 179.

[5] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, Objects of Punishments, “Criminology”, Maktaba-e-Faridi,1996, pg no. 193-196.

[6] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, Objects of Punishments, “Criminology”, Maktaba-e-Faridi,1996, pg no. 193-196.

[7] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, Objects of Punishments, “Criminology”, Maktaba-e-Faridi,1996, pg no. 193-196.

[8] Noor Gauri, Sanaullah, Objects of Punishments, “Criminology”, Maktaba-e-Faridi,1996, pg no. 192.