Thursday, September 06, 2007
IBN With its Feet in Mouth- Still!
Why do I get a nauseating feeling when I read this piece of crap called Journalism? Why can't CNN-IBN hire people who can write sensible stories? Why would I even want to read anything like this? I am sure even a pre-school kid be able to write a better, cohesive story than this piece of crap.
Luckily and surprisingly, this story has an attribute- this story is written by one Pranshu Sikka/Pranshi Sikka- Pardon me for the spelling- but the Tag for the story says Pranshu Sikka and the attribute inside the story says Pranshi Sikka- may be this guy is like our Honourable MP- or may be he is an MP already.[Not to suggest anything about his alleged criminal background- just the change in names].
Look at this sentence:
Abusive phone calls, persistent physical and emotional incursions and unprecedented trauma, some banks have woken up to the spate of criticism and resorted to regulatory intervention like these.
Looks to me, that this is more like an combination of words sounding "Oxford-ly"(if there is any word like that), than a meaningful, sensible, logical sentence. I wonder, if this is the sign of things to come?- "Regulatory intervention"??? like "these"?- Words hanging in open- disjointed rambling, some sort of a kichidi story!
I see strains of this in "Oh-So-The Hindu" too. Look at this story:
Almost all senior BJP members including Leader of the Opposition Jaswant Singh,Deputy Leader Sushma Swaraj, Murli Manohar Joshi, Arun Shourie, former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, AIADMK new leader in the House Dr V Maitreyan, and Samajawadi Party's Amar Singh and Janeshwar Mishra were among signatories asking for the discussion to be raised.Am I the only one reading these??
Labels: CNN IBN, Confused, Journalism, The Hindu
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Why we do What we do?
Couple of days back, I was reading through something, when I hit upon this piece of post by Emanuel Derman. I follow his posts regularly and I find this post of his, informative and pretty interesting. I am just reproducing his words:
This justification is something that I have already discussed so many times. There can hardly be no reason (cause) for something that I feel or do, but why should I justify it and to whom? The do/like something intrinsically and there is no need to justify it. With Justification comes guilt- in my opinion, you don't justify unless you feel guilty about doing something- you don't justify the breath you take, the food you eat - but you tend to justify some exorbitant money you just lost gambling or the wrong way you took when you didn't know which way to go!
To me, Justifying something is an upfront acceptance of the guilt that I harbor and the moral smallness that I feel because of that, towards the person that I am justifying my actions. I don't think I need to justify my actions/feelings etc to anyone unless I really want apologies and/or acceptance. Expecting acceptance in itself is something that seems to me as repugnant. But then I realize we do it all time- every time. Seems unsurmountable to me. May be thats why we do what we do!
Doug Hofstadter's book about Godel's theorem, "I am a Strange Loop", points out that mathematicians before after Hilbert and Russell and Whitehead thought that in axiomatic systems, (a) if you could prove it, it must be true, and (b) everything true could be proved. Godel threw a monkey wrench into (b). There's a similar set of assumptions people often make about human beings: (a) If you can persuade someone of the logic of something, they should experience the same feeling as you about it; and (b) if people experience some feeling, there must be a logical cause. But this too breaks down in various ways. In my case, take global warming as an example of the falseness of (a): it's logical that I should be anxious to do something about it, but the logic doesn't really move me enough. I could try to explain why, but, in the end, that's how I feel. It's a version of Schopenhauer's "You can do what you want but you can't want what you want." I might want to be a person that wants to do something about global warming, but I can't be that person. That said, a long time ago I was friendly with a philosopher/physicist who told me in all serious that he wanted to be a person that liked classical music, and he could really make himself into that kind of person. I never knew whether to believe him. (b) is more difficult. There probably is a cause for most feelings or reactions, depending on what kind of cause you like -- Freud, Darwin or some neuroscientist stuff. But on the other hand, who cares: I like licorice: why? God knows and no-one cares. And why justify it? I thought of this when some telemarketer called to get me to donate money to some charity. I told her not to bother me at home. She tried to explain to me the virtue of the charity. I said I didn't want her to call me. She kept asking me WHY I wouldn't give money for something good? She wanted an explanation and I was tempted to give her one. But when I asked her why she had to call me, she said I was on her "list" and that was that. She didn't need any justification, though she wanted me to justify not giving. There's an old Lou Reed song called "Doin the things that we want to," and she knew how to do it.There are more than a couple of inferences for me from those words. I particularly agree with these words : There probably is a cause for most feelings or reactions, depending on what kind of cause you like -- Freud, Darwin or some neuroscientist stuff. But on the other hand, who cares: I like licorice: why? God knows and no-one cares. And why justify it?
This justification is something that I have already discussed so many times. There can hardly be no reason (cause) for something that I feel or do, but why should I justify it and to whom? The do/like something intrinsically and there is no need to justify it. With Justification comes guilt- in my opinion, you don't justify unless you feel guilty about doing something- you don't justify the breath you take, the food you eat - but you tend to justify some exorbitant money you just lost gambling or the wrong way you took when you didn't know which way to go!
To me, Justifying something is an upfront acceptance of the guilt that I harbor and the moral smallness that I feel because of that, towards the person that I am justifying my actions. I don't think I need to justify my actions/feelings etc to anyone unless I really want apologies and/or acceptance. Expecting acceptance in itself is something that seems to me as repugnant. But then I realize we do it all time- every time. Seems unsurmountable to me. May be thats why we do what we do!
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Reasons!!
First, before I go on further, I want to make clear the history-geography of the last post!
History:
I used to write poems- well, that was once upon a time- mostly in English- some in Tamil too. But many of my poems were written when I was in despair or generally in a sad mood. Though I hold my opinion that Sadness/Pain isn't that what brings the best, my intensity of that belief isn't the same as before, when I see my own creations!! I am starting to believe that pain brings in the better expression of the feel and so, the creations tend to look better-anyways- that is apart from the history of my latest post. Suddenly yesterday, I remembered that I hadn't posted a poem in a long time. So, sat down to write. But I couldn't write anything...Didn't want to waste the momentum that had built in me to post! So, ended up with the poem that we all grew up with!
Geography:
Well, there isn't much geography to it other than that it came from Wikipedia!
This is to assuage concerns about my lost sanity! :P
Coming to the current post, I am sort of in a trance this weekend. Work has kept me busy- though I did sneak in the time required for my daily reads and news stories. Had planned for a trip to Niagara the coming long weekend. Gone to Canadian embassy for the Visa issues. I wonder how can they make people stand in the street in New York. I detested standing in the street for my US Visa. I thought people here would be more sane- seems like I am vastly mistaken.
We were standing in the 6th Avenue, 49th street, NYC, for somewhere around 1/2 hour in the chilling cold weather, with no one even having an understanding of what is happening. After 1/2 hour the embassy staff comes over and leads us inside the consulate. His demeanor leaves much to be desired. I understand that there is a huge rush for Canadian visa and the staff are overworked. But this is hardly the impression one would want their country to have when someone comes to it. The staff were acting as if we were some illiterate nuisance to tackle. I don't mind standing in the queue- but what irks me is the fact that, we were made to stand there inspite of the weather and inspite of vacant place available inside the building for a queue. Anyways, got the visa and looking forward for the trip. Let me see how it turns out!
In other stories, NYT runs a story on the raising Indian Second Tier Cities. Impressive. But how much of this would become reality is GOK!
History:
I used to write poems- well, that was once upon a time- mostly in English- some in Tamil too. But many of my poems were written when I was in despair or generally in a sad mood. Though I hold my opinion that Sadness/Pain isn't that what brings the best, my intensity of that belief isn't the same as before, when I see my own creations!! I am starting to believe that pain brings in the better expression of the feel and so, the creations tend to look better-anyways- that is apart from the history of my latest post. Suddenly yesterday, I remembered that I hadn't posted a poem in a long time. So, sat down to write. But I couldn't write anything...Didn't want to waste the momentum that had built in me to post! So, ended up with the poem that we all grew up with!
Geography:
Well, there isn't much geography to it other than that it came from Wikipedia!
This is to assuage concerns about my lost sanity! :P
Coming to the current post, I am sort of in a trance this weekend. Work has kept me busy- though I did sneak in the time required for my daily reads and news stories. Had planned for a trip to Niagara the coming long weekend. Gone to Canadian embassy for the Visa issues. I wonder how can they make people stand in the street in New York. I detested standing in the street for my US Visa. I thought people here would be more sane- seems like I am vastly mistaken.
We were standing in the 6th Avenue, 49th street, NYC, for somewhere around 1/2 hour in the chilling cold weather, with no one even having an understanding of what is happening. After 1/2 hour the embassy staff comes over and leads us inside the consulate. His demeanor leaves much to be desired. I understand that there is a huge rush for Canadian visa and the staff are overworked. But this is hardly the impression one would want their country to have when someone comes to it. The staff were acting as if we were some illiterate nuisance to tackle. I don't mind standing in the queue- but what irks me is the fact that, we were made to stand there inspite of the weather and inspite of vacant place available inside the building for a queue. Anyways, got the visa and looking forward for the trip. Let me see how it turns out!
In other stories, NYT runs a story on the raising Indian Second Tier Cities. Impressive. But how much of this would become reality is GOK!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Nationalistic Pride!
I am just waiting for more Indian noises! I fail to understand the excitement over this news(purely and only from the perspective that I am ranting about here) and the tag "Indian-American". I am afraid we live in such a hypocratic world that I wonder what makes us think she is Indian anymore. I am sure Sunitha got where she got, not because of her nationality. She got there through her hard work, intellect and merits. To claim a national pride where there exists none - or at least to rejoice in such nationalistic jingoism, sucks.
I am skeptical whether Sunitha would claim herselves an Indian, anymore than Musharaff would claim himselves an Indian. I wonder how come none of our news papers ever call Musharaff an "Indian-Pakistani". In the same league, how about calling Advani, as "Pakistani-Indian"? Such stupidity!
I had never been a votary for this thing called "Nationalism"[Though I can understand there is some shred of pride in me, in the fact of being called an Indian- Old habits- die hard]- When are we going to come out of the Nation State? I think the time has come for Nation State to wither..But frankly, I am unable to see an alternative. May be just states and not Nation States would be a solution. But states can't survive without becoming a Nation State- else America would have been a province of England still.
I am skeptical whether Sunitha would claim herselves an Indian, anymore than Musharaff would claim himselves an Indian. I wonder how come none of our news papers ever call Musharaff an "Indian-Pakistani". In the same league, how about calling Advani, as "Pakistani-Indian"? Such stupidity!
I had never been a votary for this thing called "Nationalism"[Though I can understand there is some shred of pride in me, in the fact of being called an Indian- Old habits- die hard]- When are we going to come out of the Nation State? I think the time has come for Nation State to wither..But frankly, I am unable to see an alternative. May be just states and not Nation States would be a solution. But states can't survive without becoming a Nation State- else America would have been a province of England still.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Slashdot and India!
Its a time honored tradition of Slashdot'ers. You put up an article on some achievement by India, you would get responses that start straight away from the poverty and caste that India has to offer the world. This time too, it is no different.
One post on the successful retreival by India of the satellite, brought out so many silly, ridiculous, funny responses. But there are also some nice, insightful comments. That is what I love about Slashdot. But those niceties apart, you really can't deny this overwhelming feeling that India is been cast as a caste ridden and feudalistic society not worth its claims in the world stage. As one of my colleagues asked me at the Lunch table..." How did the cow got the sacred status it has in India state?" and "You say you are an Indian...aren't you Hindu??" and "You say you speak a different tongue than the rest of India..so are you Indian?"
These questions aren't funny. It only shows the lack of understanding that the world has over India- may be they are partly to blame..as much as (or to a much lesser extent) we are to be blamed. May be we didn't bother to make ourselves heard the "right" way. Is there a right way to be heard? Wouldn't people hear what we are and not what we want them to hear?
Whereas there is no dearth of surveys like this, I couldn't remember hearing anything of this sort done (or even thought) about for other countries...like say Russia, UK or Germany or China or India...Why is it so?
One post on the successful retreival by India of the satellite, brought out so many silly, ridiculous, funny responses. But there are also some nice, insightful comments. That is what I love about Slashdot. But those niceties apart, you really can't deny this overwhelming feeling that India is been cast as a caste ridden and feudalistic society not worth its claims in the world stage. As one of my colleagues asked me at the Lunch table..." How did the cow got the sacred status it has in India state?" and "You say you are an Indian...aren't you Hindu??" and "You say you speak a different tongue than the rest of India..so are you Indian?"
These questions aren't funny. It only shows the lack of understanding that the world has over India- may be they are partly to blame..as much as (or to a much lesser extent) we are to be blamed. May be we didn't bother to make ourselves heard the "right" way. Is there a right way to be heard? Wouldn't people hear what we are and not what we want them to hear?
Whereas there is no dearth of surveys like this, I couldn't remember hearing anything of this sort done (or even thought) about for other countries...like say Russia, UK or Germany or China or India...Why is it so?
Monday, January 08, 2007
Difference!!!
Its been a week in a foreign land for me- but except for the cold and the wads of clothing that I wear, nothing seems any different..I wasn't able to understand the excitement in people's voice when they heard that I am off to USA- and now, I am still unable to get the reason for the excitement. To me, it makes no difference. The roads, the distance, the loneliness, the computer, the electronic faces and virtual life - all remain the same...just that, they live in a different time zone.
I still only chat with friends- lost the personal touch of meeting them in person - with some, I had even lost that chat. People have long lost their faces...they exist mostly as profile pages and a permanent residence with an @ sign. I have forgotten- to a good extent- doesn't even know how someone's face would be. I imagine context and emotions to chat sessions- I interpret things the same way I used to...nothing seems to have changed.
It doesn't really impress me that there are so many cars on the streets- so many bikes- so many what not- Unless I have any of them- how does it matter if someone else has it?- Life is as same as it had always been- may be one difference is that, now I am cooking- and that’s after a break of good 4 years. How much ever I think about it, I am unable to place my finger on the lack of excitement in my stay here...for sure, I am not frightened… I am not home sick..I am not missing anyone...I am not missing Indian Food...I am not getting jacked at office...I am not anything....I am NOT.
When I start my 40 minute walk (one way) to office and back with my iPod plugged in spewing songs, that had never been any different- be it in Hyderabad or Mangalore or Plano. The songs remain the same, the bag remains the same, the walk remains the same and everything that goes with it remains the same. I watch SUN TV at exactly the same time as I used to watch- thanks to some streaming site. I had forgotten what a good food would taste like...so its all the same- Food has for sometime become just a potion to alleviate hunger and ceased to excite me as it used to- when I was able to appreciate it.
The office, the park, the cemented road, the zipping cars- absolutely nothing is any different. May be its supposed to be so!
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Confusion
In an important ruling the Supreme Court has ruled that asking money to meet domestic needs doesn't constitute "Dowry" as defined in the Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I dont know what the Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act says. But do know for sure, the saying that "Law is an Ass" is perfectly true in this regard.
Though I know nothing about the section 2 of Dowry act and what it says, I am pretty much sure, that the Dowry that is being asked is mostly and (if I am anything to go by) only for household domestic needs. I would loathe any court deciding what would be my domestic need- I would definitely not like any court to decide what should I need and more so, I would definitely not like any act to define what can be and cannot be my domestic need- this sort of interpretation would definitely lead to more crooks using this ruling and escaping the justice.
Would any person claim that the dowry that he is asking is for luxury? Any one who asks money from his wife for marriage is no Man...I would not rate him anymore than I would rate a pimp. Dowry in itself is a deplorable practice. To give a twist to it as a household expense, domestic need and luxury is even more disappointing. What is manure today might be a car tomorrow. Would it be then left to a court that a man might need manure (ofcourse for agricultural purposes :P) more than he need a car? Shall courts decide what is a necessity and what is not? Is it a decision to be taken by the court or by the individual?- Now, this leads to even more confusion as to where should one draw a line. It would be highly insane to expect every man to be moral to himself and to his conscience. I would not definitely not think it would come to that state.
I am confused at the end of it- Why is it that I always end up thus?
Though I know nothing about the section 2 of Dowry act and what it says, I am pretty much sure, that the Dowry that is being asked is mostly and (if I am anything to go by) only for household domestic needs. I would loathe any court deciding what would be my domestic need- I would definitely not like any court to decide what should I need and more so, I would definitely not like any act to define what can be and cannot be my domestic need- this sort of interpretation would definitely lead to more crooks using this ruling and escaping the justice.
Would any person claim that the dowry that he is asking is for luxury? Any one who asks money from his wife for marriage is no Man...I would not rate him anymore than I would rate a pimp. Dowry in itself is a deplorable practice. To give a twist to it as a household expense, domestic need and luxury is even more disappointing. What is manure today might be a car tomorrow. Would it be then left to a court that a man might need manure (ofcourse for agricultural purposes :P) more than he need a car? Shall courts decide what is a necessity and what is not? Is it a decision to be taken by the court or by the individual?- Now, this leads to even more confusion as to where should one draw a line. It would be highly insane to expect every man to be moral to himself and to his conscience. I would not definitely not think it would come to that state.
I am confused at the end of it- Why is it that I always end up thus?
Friday, December 08, 2006
The tale of 2 sides!
Exactly as we are moving towards(or at least holding in high regard) Western Ideas, here comes a western leader, [The two links seems to provide two different versions- Not sure, why is BBC updating such off the same URL] saying thing or two (apparently, which one I am yet to ascertain).
The "Notepaded" Version of the two pages read thus:
This, seems to me as a step by a confused, identity less and "I-Want-To-Be-Good-To-All" syndrome and an irony in itself. Tolerance in itself is not the least a Britian Value(just ought to read some of Winston Churchill's quotes about India and Gandhi- We would know the kind of Tolerance that Blair claims to be so "British"). Hardly is Britian a multiculturalist country. I wonder what would have made them think they are multiculturalist- there is nothing wrong in thinking so- guess the over stuffed Chicken Tikka Masala made them so...but then, to claim history which doesn't exist would only lead to further alienation.
The same western countries were afraid of Nationalism in other parts of the world and now, they want to have their citizens to be British and Black, British and White, British and Asian...essentially whipping up Nationalist feeling, when what you would expect them to promote Genuine non-intervention in the affairs of the individuals as a Western State.
The speech also has an implicit assumption that only immigrants are racist, hate mongers- because it is only those who shouldn't "come into Britian"- so it is indeed okay if you are a British hate monger- after all it's the Tolerance that Britian is known for, from the time Humans were conceived in the evolutionist embryo of the Monkeys!- Also note that the religious communities need to prove that they aim to promote Community Integration- the word whether this also means the Catholic Church is yet to be out..but let us assume it too, would be part of this proposal. I think and believe Catholic Church in Britian is a religious entity and not a secular one-as often the case in India!
Cross posted at: Third Eye
The "Notepaded" Version of the two pages read thus:
Conform to our society, says PMThe Other page read:
People entering the UK must be prepared to be tolerant or not become part of British society, Tony Blair has said. (Emphasis Added)
In a speech at Downing Street, Mr Blair said that tolerance was "what makes Britain, Britain" and warned "we must be ready to defend this attitude". The prime minister said: "So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed." He also defended multiculturalism, saying it should be celebrated. The lecture comes a year after Mr Blair said he never quite knew what people meant by multiculturalism.
Mr Blair said: "It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain.
"On the contrary, we should continue celebrating it."
Duty to integrate
In the speech, Mr Blair also announced a crackdown on funding for religious and racial groups, saying in the future they would have to prove they aimed to promote community integration. Commenting on the speech Liberal Democrat communities spokesman Andrew Stunell said: "We must ensure that the voices of moderation have their say, but support for organisations must not be distorted by government driven targets or Tony Blair's personal agenda." It was important to demonstrate what integration meant, Mr Blair said.
"The right to be in a multi-cultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white." Mr Blair emphasised this was not about rejecting values, nor diluting identity or religion. However, he called for Britain "to re-assert the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds". The suicide bombings in London on July 7 last year had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain "into sharp relief", the prime minister said.
'Distinctive culture'
He insisted it was an idea that should still be celebrated but said it went hand in hand with a "duty" to share "essential values". "When it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common." The prime minister said Britain was "better placed than most" to have a sensible debate on the issue.But it had to be prepared to stand up and fight for the tolerance which was its hallmark, he added. "If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.
"The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means.
"And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it." Mr Blair praised Tory leader David Cameron, saying it was "not conceivable in my view" that he would seek to exploit immigration to win votes. "That is both a tribute to him and to the common culture of tolerance we have established in this country today."
'Duty to integrate,' says BlairNow, if you can see the language of the two editions, they are very different- while the first sermons the people, the second one urges. But, if you are to go by the URL, you would probably find only one page(Which one, I don't know and would that be at least any one of these too is some thing that I am unable to guess).
Tony Blair wants Britain to celebrate multiculturalism Britain can celebrate its multicultural society while reasserting the "duty" to integrate, Tony Blair has said. In a speech at Downing Street, the prime minister said differences could be preserved in an integrated society. He warned that "we must be ready to defend this attitude" and tolerance was "what makes Britain, Britain". He said: "So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed." The lecture comes a year after Mr Blair said he never quite knew what people meant by multiculturalism.
'Demonstrate integration'
Last year, Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips caused controversy by suggesting that multiculturalism may now be outdated. He also warned that Britain could be "sleep-walking" towards US-style ethnic segregation because of a failure to address differences and create common values. Mr Blair said: "It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain."On the contrary, we should continue celebrating it." In the speech, Mr Blair also announced a crackdown on funding for religious and racial groups, saying in the future they would have to prove they aimed to promote community integration.
Identity
It was important to "demonstrate and underline what is meant by integration in modern Britain," he said. "The right to be in a multi-cultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white." Mr Blair emphasised this was not about rejecting values within a multicultural Britain, nor diluting identity or religion. However, he called for Britain "to re-assert the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds". The suicide bombings in London on July 7 last year had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain "into sharp relief", the prime minister said.
'Distinctive culture'
He insisted it was an idea that should still be celebrated but said it went hand in hand with a "duty" to share "essential values". "When it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common.
The prime minister said Britain was "better placed than most" to have a sensible debate on the issue. But it had to be prepared to stand up and fight for the tolerance which was its hallmark, he added. "We are a nation comfortable with the open world of today," he said. "If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.
"Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect. "The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. "And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it." Mr Blair praised Tory leader David Cameron, saying it was "not conceivable in my view" that he would seek to exploit immigration to win votes. "That is both a tribute to him and to the common culture of tolerance we have established in this country today."
This, seems to me as a step by a confused, identity less and "I-Want-To-Be-Good-To-All" syndrome and an irony in itself. Tolerance in itself is not the least a Britian Value(just ought to read some of Winston Churchill's quotes about India and Gandhi- We would know the kind of Tolerance that Blair claims to be so "British"). Hardly is Britian a multiculturalist country. I wonder what would have made them think they are multiculturalist- there is nothing wrong in thinking so- guess the over stuffed Chicken Tikka Masala made them so...but then, to claim history which doesn't exist would only lead to further alienation.
The same western countries were afraid of Nationalism in other parts of the world and now, they want to have their citizens to be British and Black, British and White, British and Asian...essentially whipping up Nationalist feeling, when what you would expect them to promote Genuine non-intervention in the affairs of the individuals as a Western State.
The speech also has an implicit assumption that only immigrants are racist, hate mongers- because it is only those who shouldn't "come into Britian"- so it is indeed okay if you are a British hate monger- after all it's the Tolerance that Britian is known for, from the time Humans were conceived in the evolutionist embryo of the Monkeys!- Also note that the religious communities need to prove that they aim to promote Community Integration- the word whether this also means the Catholic Church is yet to be out..but let us assume it too, would be part of this proposal. I think and believe Catholic Church in Britian is a religious entity and not a secular one-as often the case in India!
Cross posted at: Third Eye
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Related.....Yet Unrelated!
The way the so-called Fourth Estate had been handling some of the latest issues makes me go sick. The recent incidents and their reporting leaves a foul taste in me. First comes the Priyadarhini Mattoo's case and judgement in that. I had already written how I feel about it. The way the word "Justice" was used then, made me wonder, whether the press is overdoing their job and mandate. And then I get the proof.
Proof 1: Interview with Mr.Ram Jethmalani
I fail to understand how the press decides who is the murderer, who should be punished, who is innocent, who is guilty, who should support whom, what should lawyers do, what they shouldn't, so on and so forth. Here, as can be clearly seen, the question of why is Ram Jethmalani arguing for the accused is none of the Press's concern. Why can't the press see that even the accused is a man with equal rights for a trail and his case heard? I am appalled at the way the press had already branded Manu Sharma a criminal.
There might be evidence against him, but then it is not for the press to rule who should argue for him- and what is the Lakshman Rehka that Sagarika Ghose is talking about? Where had that Rekha gone for the press? I dont think any one can pass a value judgement on whom Ram Jethmalani is appearing for and more important whom he should appear for! I agree with RJ that, there can be noone other than the court to decide on who is guilty and who is innocent. If as Ghose says there are evidence against Manu Sharma, then why don't it be submitted to the court and the case resolved there? Now, will the press take back their words, if the Higher Court finds Manu Sharma innocent and acquits him? After Priyadarshini's case Justice for such crimes had come to be equated with Death sentence. I am wondering what will this press say, if the punishment is anything other than death. It appears to me that the press had already decided on what should be the punishment for Manu Sharma and they want it delivered- No matter what the courts might decide! [Read the entire script of the Interview here]
Proof2: Chennai's Culture reporting!
Another story on how the Chennai's cops are overdoing their duties! It escapes me completely, on how can the media take this up, when there is a violation of a law, a rule and yet blame the police for that! The Hotel in question clearly seem to have violated the rule, by keeping the Pub opened after the prescribed time. I am not arguing for such a rule. Infact, I would rather say the entire rule is a bullshit. But having said that, we need to agree and accept that such a rule exists and then live with such a rule or change it- if we are not comfortable with it. But when a person breaks it, he is Guilty. Just because we don't like the law doesn't mean that we can break it. There are thousands of rules and regulations that personally I might not agree with- that is not a convincing enough reason for me to break it.
Will the same media accept a policeman accepting a speeding motorist or a license less lorry driver saying that the motorist had only violated the speed limit by 10 Kms? A violation is a violation and a rule is a rule. Every citizen that lives in a country had to necessarily obey the laws and rules of the place. Breaking the law is not a solution for an uncomfortable law. The more salient point here is the moral policing part (as reported by the media). One girl is quoted as saying that,
While it is no-ones business to question you on why you were out, it is absolutely correct for the cops if you break the law/rule. It is ofcourse their business. Now, there isnt anything like a tolerance limit to break a rule/law..is there?
The media(in this case CNN-IBN) completely misses the point that the hotel had violated teh regulation- apart from mentioning that,
In the related video clip, the reporter is heard to say, a "whole 10 minutes" with a bit of Sarcasm(this is my personal inference- needn't be the case). Does this mean that the media would have been fine had the cops come after say 1 hour and did the same thing? Ridiculous the way reporting is being done! I don't think these are any reporting. These are plain opinion pieces.[Read the entire script here]
Proof 3: Trader's Strike
Yet another media twisting of the story. Only the news of impending closure is reported, while the basic truth that the constructions were illegal in the first place is conveniently blackened out. The saddest part comes when the Government says that it cannot go ahead with the Supreme Court mandated order citing law and order situation. What the heck? If a Government cant handle law and order, then why the hell is it still continuing in office? How can a mob hold the entire State and Central Governments at ransom? The court is right when it said,
Why would anyone respect law if the Government is going to cite law and order as a reason for inaction? Why should anyone respect anything, if he/she knows a mob can hold the entire machinery at bay with violence? What is the point in then blaming mobs?
All three incidents seem to be unrelated- but they are related to the same role of "Acting God" that the press in this country had come to take. While it is certainly great and desirable to have an active press, it is absolutely unbecoming to have a press with no respect for laws and a press that does opinion pieces in the name of reporting.
Remember "The Hindu"?. Its loosing its user base precisely because of such an arrogant "I am invincible" and "What I say is Truth" attitude!
Proof 1: Interview with Mr.Ram Jethmalani
I fail to understand how the press decides who is the murderer, who should be punished, who is innocent, who is guilty, who should support whom, what should lawyers do, what they shouldn't, so on and so forth. Here, as can be clearly seen, the question of why is Ram Jethmalani arguing for the accused is none of the Press's concern. Why can't the press see that even the accused is a man with equal rights for a trail and his case heard? I am appalled at the way the press had already branded Manu Sharma a criminal.
There might be evidence against him, but then it is not for the press to rule who should argue for him- and what is the Lakshman Rehka that Sagarika Ghose is talking about? Where had that Rekha gone for the press? I dont think any one can pass a value judgement on whom Ram Jethmalani is appearing for and more important whom he should appear for! I agree with RJ that, there can be noone other than the court to decide on who is guilty and who is innocent. If as Ghose says there are evidence against Manu Sharma, then why don't it be submitted to the court and the case resolved there? Now, will the press take back their words, if the Higher Court finds Manu Sharma innocent and acquits him? After Priyadarshini's case Justice for such crimes had come to be equated with Death sentence. I am wondering what will this press say, if the punishment is anything other than death. It appears to me that the press had already decided on what should be the punishment for Manu Sharma and they want it delivered- No matter what the courts might decide! [Read the entire script of the Interview here]
Proof2: Chennai's Culture reporting!
Another story on how the Chennai's cops are overdoing their duties! It escapes me completely, on how can the media take this up, when there is a violation of a law, a rule and yet blame the police for that! The Hotel in question clearly seem to have violated the rule, by keeping the Pub opened after the prescribed time. I am not arguing for such a rule. Infact, I would rather say the entire rule is a bullshit. But having said that, we need to agree and accept that such a rule exists and then live with such a rule or change it- if we are not comfortable with it. But when a person breaks it, he is Guilty. Just because we don't like the law doesn't mean that we can break it. There are thousands of rules and regulations that personally I might not agree with- that is not a convincing enough reason for me to break it.
Will the same media accept a policeman accepting a speeding motorist or a license less lorry driver saying that the motorist had only violated the speed limit by 10 Kms? A violation is a violation and a rule is a rule. Every citizen that lives in a country had to necessarily obey the laws and rules of the place. Breaking the law is not a solution for an uncomfortable law. The more salient point here is the moral policing part (as reported by the media). One girl is quoted as saying that,
That's none of anybody's business. My parents know that I'm out and I'm okay with it.
While it is no-ones business to question you on why you were out, it is absolutely correct for the cops if you break the law/rule. It is ofcourse their business. Now, there isnt anything like a tolerance limit to break a rule/law..is there?
The media(in this case CNN-IBN) completely misses the point that the hotel had violated teh regulation- apart from mentioning that,
The police cracked down on a three-star pub 'Speed' at about 2310 hrs (IST) on Saturday for exceeding the closing time of 2300 hrs (IST) by 10 minutes.
In the related video clip, the reporter is heard to say, a "whole 10 minutes" with a bit of Sarcasm(this is my personal inference- needn't be the case). Does this mean that the media would have been fine had the cops come after say 1 hour and did the same thing? Ridiculous the way reporting is being done! I don't think these are any reporting. These are plain opinion pieces.[Read the entire script here]
Proof 3: Trader's Strike
Yet another media twisting of the story. Only the news of impending closure is reported, while the basic truth that the constructions were illegal in the first place is conveniently blackened out. The saddest part comes when the Government says that it cannot go ahead with the Supreme Court mandated order citing law and order situation. What the heck? If a Government cant handle law and order, then why the hell is it still continuing in office? How can a mob hold the entire State and Central Governments at ransom? The court is right when it said,
"No one can be permitted to place a dagger at the government's neck and seek relief. No one can be permitted to hold the city and its law-abiding citizens to ransom"
Why would anyone respect law if the Government is going to cite law and order as a reason for inaction? Why should anyone respect anything, if he/she knows a mob can hold the entire machinery at bay with violence? What is the point in then blaming mobs?
All three incidents seem to be unrelated- but they are related to the same role of "Acting God" that the press in this country had come to take. While it is certainly great and desirable to have an active press, it is absolutely unbecoming to have a press with no respect for laws and a press that does opinion pieces in the name of reporting.
Remember "The Hindu"?. Its loosing its user base precisely because of such an arrogant "I am invincible" and "What I say is Truth" attitude!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Is legal murder a retribution to an illegal one?
I am asking this question after hearing and seeing the news about the judgment in Priyadarshani Mattoo's murder case. And I am particularly unhappy that the judgement was hailed as "Justice" and a pointed reference made to the fact that it is capital punishment.
I had never been a votary for capital punishment. As I said here and here, death cannot avenge death. As I kept listening to the news and the commentaries being made in the media, I can't help but feel sad that we as a Society had long lost the concept of tolerance and we are no better than barbarians. I am not saying what Santhosh Singh did was correct or right- far from it. I strongly condemn his actions. I also know that condemnation would not be enough. But to avenge one death with another is hardly the way to go.
I was completely appalled to hear words like "Now, Priyadarshani's soul would rest in peace", "Justice delayed is not Justice denied"- What is Justice for these people? If you mean punishment by killing is Justice, then I would rather say we are not a civilized society. Why should we let the soul rest in peace by killing another one? If what Santhosh Singh did was wrong, is it any more right what we do? He was convicted 15 days before and there was no news of Justice delayed or Justice delivered. The media wanted him to die and only when they got the punishment, they pronounced the verdict as Justice.
We use our legal systems to pronounce who deserves to live and who doesn't. If we say what Santhosh Singh did was wrong, then how do we reconcile to what we are doing, as a sane, mature civilized society? Killing him with legal impunity. I would rate this as a more cold blooded murder than the one that Santhosh Singh did. To pre-determine a murder, to execute it to the precision of a executioner- this is what we are doing as a Society.
I want to make it clear again- I am not saying that punishment is bad- what I am saying is, Capital Punishment is wrong- morally. I wonder if the same news reporters and channels would say "Justice delivered", had the punishment been something of a life imprisonment for 200 years or so?. There can be a thousand wounded hearts wanting retribution for all sort of injustice. So if all of them prefer to answer in terms of death, then will it be fine or will it be justice then too? What lets us assume the role and power of deciding on an individual's right to live? I accept what Santhosh Singh did was a heinous crime- my point of contention is that, we are not any less heinous by hanging him to death!
Here, the media had already decided on what should be the punishment and they were only too happy to see it coming along. If this is the retribution for rape and murder (supposedly deserving death), then how can we ever condemn violence for retribution (assumed or otherwise). I can see the media's wish written all over, when there were words like "Soul rest in peace", "other victims can look forward to justice". What is the point that we are making? That we need to be reminded that our judicial system needs to hang someone to let others know that they too will be hung?
Hadn't we already hung Auto Shankar? Why hadn't it deterred others like him from committing a similar crime? If we think that we can deter crimes by punishment, we are obviously wrong. If that is the case, there should be no crime at all, for we had been hanging criminals for quite sometime now. What are we letting ourselves believe. I see a very basic flaw in our logic. We condemn revenge, we condemn violence, we condemn killing. But all these are fair and fine when done in the name of Law.
So, we legalize murder- Our way of rendering Justice!
Update: I am having an online discussion with a bunch of friends on this issue and the sort of observations that had come ranges from:
There were responses to the effect that even our Gods were killing (Rama killed Ravana, Krishna killed Kamsa etc, etc). Now, that leads me to think, have we ever made a God that doesn't threaten us with death or destruction for wrong deeds? Or is there any God that doesn't punish? and for that matter does God have the right to take ones life for the crime that he/she does? Can there be a God that doesn't punish a person and still remain a God- Wait..I am digressing.
Now, there were responses to the effect that we can't waste tax payers money on putting criminals like these in prisons and feed them till death! This lack of sensitivity to a person's life and the assumption that food, shelter and clothing are the only needs of a human being baffles me. There were also responses to the effect that we don't have a better option than death. This is even more saddening- We seem not to have a better option than killing a person for a rape and murder case.
This reminds me of the CNN-IBN coverage of the story, where the news reader kept repeating the point that this case is a "Rape and Murder" case, whereas some committee had suggested that there can be no capital punishment for only a rape case. Hardly makes any difference. And add that to some panel members comment that rapists should not be pardoned. Is it because, unconsciously and/or subconsciously we still place a heavy premium of the sexual purity of women? Had it been a molestation of a man by the same person and subsequent murder, would we still call for capital punishment? [To be updated as I get more thoughts and more responses]
I had never been a votary for capital punishment. As I said here and here, death cannot avenge death. As I kept listening to the news and the commentaries being made in the media, I can't help but feel sad that we as a Society had long lost the concept of tolerance and we are no better than barbarians. I am not saying what Santhosh Singh did was correct or right- far from it. I strongly condemn his actions. I also know that condemnation would not be enough. But to avenge one death with another is hardly the way to go.
I was completely appalled to hear words like "Now, Priyadarshani's soul would rest in peace", "Justice delayed is not Justice denied"- What is Justice for these people? If you mean punishment by killing is Justice, then I would rather say we are not a civilized society. Why should we let the soul rest in peace by killing another one? If what Santhosh Singh did was wrong, is it any more right what we do? He was convicted 15 days before and there was no news of Justice delayed or Justice delivered. The media wanted him to die and only when they got the punishment, they pronounced the verdict as Justice.
We use our legal systems to pronounce who deserves to live and who doesn't. If we say what Santhosh Singh did was wrong, then how do we reconcile to what we are doing, as a sane, mature civilized society? Killing him with legal impunity. I would rate this as a more cold blooded murder than the one that Santhosh Singh did. To pre-determine a murder, to execute it to the precision of a executioner- this is what we are doing as a Society.
I want to make it clear again- I am not saying that punishment is bad- what I am saying is, Capital Punishment is wrong- morally. I wonder if the same news reporters and channels would say "Justice delivered", had the punishment been something of a life imprisonment for 200 years or so?. There can be a thousand wounded hearts wanting retribution for all sort of injustice. So if all of them prefer to answer in terms of death, then will it be fine or will it be justice then too? What lets us assume the role and power of deciding on an individual's right to live? I accept what Santhosh Singh did was a heinous crime- my point of contention is that, we are not any less heinous by hanging him to death!
Here, the media had already decided on what should be the punishment and they were only too happy to see it coming along. If this is the retribution for rape and murder (supposedly deserving death), then how can we ever condemn violence for retribution (assumed or otherwise). I can see the media's wish written all over, when there were words like "Soul rest in peace", "other victims can look forward to justice". What is the point that we are making? That we need to be reminded that our judicial system needs to hang someone to let others know that they too will be hung?
Hadn't we already hung Auto Shankar? Why hadn't it deterred others like him from committing a similar crime? If we think that we can deter crimes by punishment, we are obviously wrong. If that is the case, there should be no crime at all, for we had been hanging criminals for quite sometime now. What are we letting ourselves believe. I see a very basic flaw in our logic. We condemn revenge, we condemn violence, we condemn killing. But all these are fair and fine when done in the name of Law.
So, we legalize murder- Our way of rendering Justice!
Update: I am having an online discussion with a bunch of friends on this issue and the sort of observations that had come ranges from:
- I agree to the punishment.
- I agree that capital punishment is bad, but in this case, that is the only punishment possible.
- I agree that capital punishment is bad not because we are killing him, but he would have to undergo a harsher punishment all life than be killed at one go!
There were responses to the effect that even our Gods were killing (Rama killed Ravana, Krishna killed Kamsa etc, etc). Now, that leads me to think, have we ever made a God that doesn't threaten us with death or destruction for wrong deeds? Or is there any God that doesn't punish? and for that matter does God have the right to take ones life for the crime that he/she does? Can there be a God that doesn't punish a person and still remain a God- Wait..I am digressing.
Now, there were responses to the effect that we can't waste tax payers money on putting criminals like these in prisons and feed them till death! This lack of sensitivity to a person's life and the assumption that food, shelter and clothing are the only needs of a human being baffles me. There were also responses to the effect that we don't have a better option than death. This is even more saddening- We seem not to have a better option than killing a person for a rape and murder case.
This reminds me of the CNN-IBN coverage of the story, where the news reader kept repeating the point that this case is a "Rape and Murder" case, whereas some committee had suggested that there can be no capital punishment for only a rape case. Hardly makes any difference. And add that to some panel members comment that rapists should not be pardoned. Is it because, unconsciously and/or subconsciously we still place a heavy premium of the sexual purity of women? Had it been a molestation of a man by the same person and subsequent murder, would we still call for capital punishment? [To be updated as I get more thoughts and more responses]
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Blog full of questions!
Have you ever thought about the form that we attribute to Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism? I hadn't thought about it till, but suddenly the other day it just occurred to me that almost all our Gods seem to have multiple heads, multiple eyes, multiple hands, but not a single one has multiple ears, multiple noses(or no nose or no ear), multiple legs(or no leg) and so on. Ever wondered why?
This particular line of thought intrigued me a lot. I tried to recollect any number of Gods that I knew of- I couldn't find a single God with multiple legs or other body parts. Why is the hands and head so important than other body parts? And another parallel yet similar themed question is, why is that all Gods are more Human than Animals or Trees or even Alien life form? Does that show a lack of Imagination on the part of people who created the figurines or simply a "Hero-turned-omnipotent" metamorphosis of a human being?
Why is God always shown to wear gold, which incidentally is held in high regard by human race? Is it that Gold gains its status because of its association with God, or did the God got the gold because gold is held in high regard by humans? If it is the second, then it might mean that Gold is more powerful than God!- if it is the first, then why is Gold alone taken to that high position?- after all gold wasn't the first metal to be discovered!. Why is no God fond of silver or bronze or brass or glass or other metals?- Will there be platinum jewelery for God in the future if platinum gains over gold?
There are some exceptions to this normal observation of Gods having animal features like Ganesh or Hanuman. But even these Gods were humans when they were born and only later they got their animal features as TINA factor took in, or by some curse. There are some others who argue that Hinduism has got Snakes, Eagles, Cows etc. But the point to note is, that all these are only gods and not God. The God would invariably be a Human form and ofcourse, none of these Animal Gods are known for their beauty! ;)
I do often get a doubt as to whether the Dasaavataaram(Ten Incarnations) is anything but science..Is it that Evolution was said as a series of Incarnations of God? I mean the first one starts as Fish, which is a sea-borne being, moves on to Tortoise(an amphibian), then a wild boar(a marsh land animal) , a dwarf, half animal-half man, a nomad, a king on the move, a planned strategist and an executioner - Well, it is easy to read between the lines and impart meaning into a possibly playtime story turned epic. This line of thought is very similar to what Richard Dawkins say here as,
This particular line of thought intrigued me a lot. I tried to recollect any number of Gods that I knew of- I couldn't find a single God with multiple legs or other body parts. Why is the hands and head so important than other body parts? And another parallel yet similar themed question is, why is that all Gods are more Human than Animals or Trees or even Alien life form? Does that show a lack of Imagination on the part of people who created the figurines or simply a "Hero-turned-omnipotent" metamorphosis of a human being?
Why is God always shown to wear gold, which incidentally is held in high regard by human race? Is it that Gold gains its status because of its association with God, or did the God got the gold because gold is held in high regard by humans? If it is the second, then it might mean that Gold is more powerful than God!- if it is the first, then why is Gold alone taken to that high position?- after all gold wasn't the first metal to be discovered!. Why is no God fond of silver or bronze or brass or glass or other metals?- Will there be platinum jewelery for God in the future if platinum gains over gold?
There are some exceptions to this normal observation of Gods having animal features like Ganesh or Hanuman. But even these Gods were humans when they were born and only later they got their animal features as TINA factor took in, or by some curse. There are some others who argue that Hinduism has got Snakes, Eagles, Cows etc. But the point to note is, that all these are only gods and not God. The God would invariably be a Human form and ofcourse, none of these Animal Gods are known for their beauty! ;)
I do often get a doubt as to whether the Dasaavataaram(Ten Incarnations) is anything but science..Is it that Evolution was said as a series of Incarnations of God? I mean the first one starts as Fish, which is a sea-borne being, moves on to Tortoise(an amphibian), then a wild boar(a marsh land animal) , a dwarf, half animal-half man, a nomad, a king on the move, a planned strategist and an executioner - Well, it is easy to read between the lines and impart meaning into a possibly playtime story turned epic. This line of thought is very similar to what Richard Dawkins say here as,
I think religious belief is a scientific belief, in the sense that it makes claims about the universe which are essentially scientific claims. If you believe the universe was created and inhabited by a supreme being, that would be a very different kind of universe from the sort of universe that wasn't created and does not house a creative intelligence. That is a scientific difference. Miracles. If you believe in miracles, that is clearly a scientific claim, and scientific methods would be used to evaluate any miracle that somebody claimed evidence for.There are quite a lot of forceful points that he makes there in that interview..One point I particularly liked was,
Suppose, hypothetically, that forensic archaeologists, in an unlikely series of events, gained evidence -- perhaps from some discovered DNA -- which showed that Jesus did not really have an earthly father, that he really was born of a virgin. Can you imagine any theologian taking refuge behind Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria and saying, "Nope, DNA evidence is completely irrelevant. Wrong magisterium. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. They just peacefully coexist." Of course they wouldn't say that. If any such evidence were discovered, the DNA evidence would be trumpeted to the skies. [Reproduced from Salon - Requires forced view of an ad]
I would say that parents should teach their children anything that's known to be factually true -- like "that's a bluebird" or "that's a bald eagle." Or they could teach children that there are such things as religious beliefs. But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.How very true!- It indeed is child abuse...we usually concern ourselves with only physical abuse, that many are unaware of the mental abuse that we put our kids through- by short shunting their thoughts- by giving them "facts", by disguising our believes as truth and our characters as virtue... I understand we do all these because we think that it is the best, but it really begs my understanding, on why should we think it is the best for our kids.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Whose life is it anyways?
I am writing this after been subjected to 2 days of absolute insensitivity and arrogance of the so called Society. I had always wondered on this concept of Society- the effect that it had(s) on individual and the simple ignorance of individual on the effects the society has on him. Whenever I ask someone to define "Society", more often than not, it's a vague definition and when I ask them to identify what society is made of, it's a complete puzzled look that I get as reply.
Society as defined by Dictionary.com is,
However, there are instances, when this theory goes for a toss- like what had been happening for the past 2 days...first come the "Karnataka Bandh", which was ostensibly to send a message to neighbouring Maharashtra on the Belgaum issue. I do agree that there might be issues with a particular place going to the other state and you loosing out on that piece of real estate...but to jeopardize an entire state for a day, all offices closed, normal life disturbed, economy brought to a stand still- what are we achieving?? Now, it doesn't seem to me that Maharashtra suffered- it is Karnataka that had lost because of the strike- lost days of work, money, and add to all these hardship to people living in Karnataka.
The heights of all this is when this society forces me to abide by its wishes- denies me my choices, my basic rights and curtails my discretion. Take for example, the move by the cable TV operators in Bangalore who went on to blacken out all non-kannada channels. Now, who are these people to decide what should I see? Who gave them the rights to decide for me? I pay for the cable service I get and I expect an uninterrupted service of my choice. I cant be held at ransom like this, at the whims and fancy of someone masquerading as the society, being my master.
The saga continued today in Mangalore. There were some communal disturbance, and as again it was declared a holiday for my company. Now, there is no news on what prompted the scuffle, and there is no clear information on what is happening. But the end result is that the entire day had been wasted with no productive work done. There was no visible disturbance in streets, while I cannot deny that there was any disturbance at all. What I strongly condemn is, disrupting public life for personal issues comes from the veil that the Society offers- now anyone can take advantage of such a system and claim to represent the society and the society has no way of denying him or proving him wrong.
This is where the entire idea of Society puzzles me....when at some point it seems like powerful to deny me my choices and options, at the other hand it is powerless itself with a person who chooses to take it for a ride. Society has the power of influence only on those who choose to accept it...for those who don't..well, its a mute point!
Society as defined by Dictionary.com is,
- an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
- a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
- the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
- a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
- such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
- those with whom one has companionship.
- companionship; company: to enjoy one's society.
- the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.
- the social class that comprises such persons.
- the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.
- Biology. a closely integrated group of social organisms of the same species exhibiting division of labor.
- Ecclesiastical. an ecclesiastical society.
- –adjective of, pertaining to, or characteristic of elegant society: a society photographer.
However, there are instances, when this theory goes for a toss- like what had been happening for the past 2 days...first come the "Karnataka Bandh", which was ostensibly to send a message to neighbouring Maharashtra on the Belgaum issue. I do agree that there might be issues with a particular place going to the other state and you loosing out on that piece of real estate...but to jeopardize an entire state for a day, all offices closed, normal life disturbed, economy brought to a stand still- what are we achieving?? Now, it doesn't seem to me that Maharashtra suffered- it is Karnataka that had lost because of the strike- lost days of work, money, and add to all these hardship to people living in Karnataka.
The heights of all this is when this society forces me to abide by its wishes- denies me my choices, my basic rights and curtails my discretion. Take for example, the move by the cable TV operators in Bangalore who went on to blacken out all non-kannada channels. Now, who are these people to decide what should I see? Who gave them the rights to decide for me? I pay for the cable service I get and I expect an uninterrupted service of my choice. I cant be held at ransom like this, at the whims and fancy of someone masquerading as the society, being my master.
The saga continued today in Mangalore. There were some communal disturbance, and as again it was declared a holiday for my company. Now, there is no news on what prompted the scuffle, and there is no clear information on what is happening. But the end result is that the entire day had been wasted with no productive work done. There was no visible disturbance in streets, while I cannot deny that there was any disturbance at all. What I strongly condemn is, disrupting public life for personal issues comes from the veil that the Society offers- now anyone can take advantage of such a system and claim to represent the society and the society has no way of denying him or proving him wrong.
This is where the entire idea of Society puzzles me....when at some point it seems like powerful to deny me my choices and options, at the other hand it is powerless itself with a person who chooses to take it for a ride. Society has the power of influence only on those who choose to accept it...for those who don't..well, its a mute point!
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The God Delusion!
Anyone who is someone to me would know how much I revere Richard Dawkins. He had been the single source of inspiration for me since I read his book The Selfish Gene in 2004. The entire paper that I did took its root from his work and my consequent interest in self organising teams, self organization and memes all owe their cause to him.
So, when I came across his interview about The God Delusion, I just couldn't restrain myself from wanting to buy that book. I see the whole point of his argument in these lines:
I agree with him in his point of unquestioned faith. However, there is always a point to ponder on what is the degree to which I can question my faith. My Faith defines me. My faith gives me an identity- my faith is what makes me. When I question my faiths, my beliefs, there is often no great answer available as to the consequences of such questioning. What will I do if and when I come to know that all that I had believed in till now is just a mirage- what is the alternative. Its a classic Indian Political scenario- The TINA factor is a strong deterrent in matter of faith.
Questioning faith might happen or has a higher probability of happening in a western society, where the major faith(in this case religion) is really separable from the day to day life and the individual's identity. But, when it comes to an Asian Society, where religion is a basic identifier- the key field in a man's table, questioning faith can have drastic and often traumatic consequences.
All said and thought, I am waiting for the paper back edition of the book...at $16.20, it isnt as cheap as it can get! ;)- ie, unless someone gifts me that!
So, when I came across his interview about The God Delusion, I just couldn't restrain myself from wanting to buy that book. I see the whole point of his argument in these lines:
How much ever I adore him , I am unable to digest his total contempt for faith and belief. I know I am contradicting myself when I say this [atleast by the currently established moors]- I think Science in itself has a lot of faith and belief in it. While there is an argument that Science is based on facts and proofs, there is no denying the "fact" that such facts themselves are based on our belief that they are facts. So, you have to allow for some margin of faith in a man's life. There can be no life without Faith. I only tend to agree to the extent of or degree of faith, which when applied to myself would again be contradictory.
Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith.
I agree with him in his point of unquestioned faith. However, there is always a point to ponder on what is the degree to which I can question my faith. My Faith defines me. My faith gives me an identity- my faith is what makes me. When I question my faiths, my beliefs, there is often no great answer available as to the consequences of such questioning. What will I do if and when I come to know that all that I had believed in till now is just a mirage- what is the alternative. Its a classic Indian Political scenario- The TINA factor is a strong deterrent in matter of faith.
Questioning faith might happen or has a higher probability of happening in a western society, where the major faith(in this case religion) is really separable from the day to day life and the individual's identity. But, when it comes to an Asian Society, where religion is a basic identifier- the key field in a man's table, questioning faith can have drastic and often traumatic consequences.
All said and thought, I am waiting for the paper back edition of the book...at $16.20, it isnt as cheap as it can get! ;)- ie, unless someone gifts me that!
Labels: Confused
Friday, August 18, 2006
Guilt!
Yesterday, as I was walking to my home from Office, with "She's got the looks" on the lips and feet in air, I was stopped by a sudden traffic jam..Buses, auto rickshaws, cars, and bikes all honking as if that was the last moment of life on earth- the sounds were creeping into me in spite of the high volume that my iPod had been coughing out.
It took me some seconds to understand what had happened. I saw a man bleeding profusely, fighting with another man, and a woman down on the divider on the road, bleeding too. They seem to be those employed to clean the divider- to cut the grass that had grown there, to make the divider more walk able.
There was a sizeable crowd around, everyone standing on either side of the road, watching, chatting amongst themselves, tch-tching, asking to one another what had happened to the woman, while one was busy taking the two men away from each other- one was having a shovel in his hands and the other a screw driver and a cutting plier.
The woman was bleeding and was for sure unconscious. I was disturbed by the sight. None of the people around standing and watching the scene did anything to help the poor soul. The first thought was to curse everyone...I slowly took out my iPod, curled it up, secured it in my bag, then starred at the man trying to wake up the woman. He was holding her "dead" hand, pulling her, trying to get the woman back to consciousness.
I wanted to be the “Hero”, go there, ask the people to move off, create a scene, call for ambulance, call for some auto at least to take her to the hospital. The pessimist in me kept reminding me on how I don’t know the language, on how I will be able to answer the police, how I might be able to tackle the pulls and pushes of such an act, how I need to reach home to catch the “Senthamizh naadenum podehinile” in Java TV, the killing thirst, the packing that I need to do for my travel the next day.
I cursed everyone on the street- from the mute spectators, to the speeding vehicles on the other side of the road, the men who were still intent on fighting despite the blood, the tch-tching people in the bus.
I wanted to do something- should I be the one to act? Should I go there and do all that is necessary? What is the world coming to?? Why is anyone not helping the men in need?
I slowly move out of the croud..dial 100 and complain about the incident. The person on the other end doesn’t ask for my number [may be he has a caller id already- will he call me back in case I need to be the witness??]. He promises to send someone immediately. He asks for the condition of the woman. His voice was reassuring. I switch on the iPod with the satisfaction of a Hero.
In the night when I go for dinner, the place is as busy as ever.
It took me some seconds to understand what had happened. I saw a man bleeding profusely, fighting with another man, and a woman down on the divider on the road, bleeding too. They seem to be those employed to clean the divider- to cut the grass that had grown there, to make the divider more walk able.
There was a sizeable crowd around, everyone standing on either side of the road, watching, chatting amongst themselves, tch-tching, asking to one another what had happened to the woman, while one was busy taking the two men away from each other- one was having a shovel in his hands and the other a screw driver and a cutting plier.
The woman was bleeding and was for sure unconscious. I was disturbed by the sight. None of the people around standing and watching the scene did anything to help the poor soul. The first thought was to curse everyone...I slowly took out my iPod, curled it up, secured it in my bag, then starred at the man trying to wake up the woman. He was holding her "dead" hand, pulling her, trying to get the woman back to consciousness.
I wanted to be the “Hero”, go there, ask the people to move off, create a scene, call for ambulance, call for some auto at least to take her to the hospital. The pessimist in me kept reminding me on how I don’t know the language, on how I will be able to answer the police, how I might be able to tackle the pulls and pushes of such an act, how I need to reach home to catch the “Senthamizh naadenum podehinile” in Java TV, the killing thirst, the packing that I need to do for my travel the next day.
I cursed everyone on the street- from the mute spectators, to the speeding vehicles on the other side of the road, the men who were still intent on fighting despite the blood, the tch-tching people in the bus.
I wanted to do something- should I be the one to act? Should I go there and do all that is necessary? What is the world coming to?? Why is anyone not helping the men in need?
I slowly move out of the croud..dial 100 and complain about the incident. The person on the other end doesn’t ask for my number [may be he has a caller id already- will he call me back in case I need to be the witness??]. He promises to send someone immediately. He asks for the condition of the woman. His voice was reassuring. I switch on the iPod with the satisfaction of a Hero.
In the night when I go for dinner, the place is as busy as ever.
Jus been
Free Counter
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com
© All that is written here are the Genuine Products of the Intellect of the author and are protected by the relevant copyright acts...If you wish to quote the highness you can do so at your own risk and at risk to the integrity of the author's cerebrum.
Disclaimer:
All that is written in this blog are the personal opinions of the author and are in no way representative of the organisation that the author has worked for or is working for or would be working for in the future.
