It's confusion worst confounded. If 26/11 was an act of terrorism then what do we term the Maoist derailment of Howrah-Mumbai Gnaneswari Express on May 28, 2010? More than 200 passengers severely injured and over a 100 dead. The Nation refuses to forget 26/11 or forgive the accused. Why is the death of civilians aboard the Gnaneswari Express eliciting such a muted expression of rage from the Nation?
The perpetrators of 26/11 came from across the border, indoctrinated to believe that they were fighting a just war for Allah. In short they were foreigners on Indian soil with scant understanding of the country's social, cultural, political or religious ethos. They killed with impunity and without regret. What about those who plotted the derailment of Gnaneswari Express? Our very own countrymen broadly and popularly known as Maoists/Naxalites understood to be fighting for the rights of the adivasis. So theirs was not a brainwashed act of violence against a foreign people. It was more cold-blooded and calculated an assault against those they knew to be innocent. Their crime, therefore, is graver and more reprehensible.
The government's sanctimonious talks about not using the military against it's own people sound so hollow as buses are blown up and hospitals looted by Maoists with an aim to have their demands met through terror. If what Kasab did decrees that he be hanged till death, then the massacre by Maoists, in the name of social justice, demands no less.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Knaeda gone bonkers!
Ha!Ha! Ha!... O! Boy! Haven't laughed so much and so loud in a long time. Kudos to the Canadian government for playing the moral jester to perfection. Lt Gen (rtd) Amrik Bahia is certainly not tickled by the buffonery but to an impartial observer the clown just gave a winning performance.
Though Lt Gen Bahia isn't the first armed force personnel from India to be subjected to Canadian government's ethic-antics, his case has certainly caught the media's eye. Lt Gen Bahia was denied visa by the Government of Canada on the grounds of his having served in Kashmir where, according to some international human rights organizations, there were grave issues regarding violations of human rights by the Armed Forces of India. Well, well, the art of collective condemnation has been refined to a nauseating perfection here. Thus going by the Canadian government's logic any Indian in uniform, having been posted in Kashmir by the Government of India, is not eligible for a Canadian visa on assumed charges of human rights violation by the person in question.
The assumption is hilarious and grave at the same time. It indirectly points a finger at the Government of India for orchestrating human rights violation in the Valley. If so, then no person who represents the Government of India in any capacity should be allowed within the borders of Canada.
This certainly is not an attempt to defend or deny human rights violation in J and K, but is rather an effort to highlight the Canadian government's tomfoolery in denying visas to Armed Force personnel of India who have served in Kashmir. Personnel belonging to the Armed Forces of India, many of them like Let Gen Bahia, highly decorated, serve in a particular state of their country not on their own volition but according to stringent guidelines that regulate their postings alongwith manforce and strategic requirement in the said region. The Government of India has an unequivocal say in all matters pertaining to the Armed Forces which includes the desired strength of armed personnel in a particular geographical location. Therefore, if a posting in Kashmir marks India's men in uniform as non-eligible for Canadian visa, then the Government of India needs to be put in the dock too.
As the Canadian government is bursting with righteous indignation at human rights violation by armed forces, how about pulling the visa leash on powerful neighbours like the United States of America. Remember the Abu Gharib prison and Guatanamo Bay detention camp? Remember the rape, torture and abuse of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners? By the way the act of war on Iraq itself was the most blatant human rights violation of all times, so isn't Uncle Sam just ripe for a rap on the knuckle the kind Let Gen Bahia has received from the Canadian government for serving in Kashmir?
Amusing moral gymnastic isn't it, from the beginning to the end.
Though Lt Gen Bahia isn't the first armed force personnel from India to be subjected to Canadian government's ethic-antics, his case has certainly caught the media's eye. Lt Gen Bahia was denied visa by the Government of Canada on the grounds of his having served in Kashmir where, according to some international human rights organizations, there were grave issues regarding violations of human rights by the Armed Forces of India. Well, well, the art of collective condemnation has been refined to a nauseating perfection here. Thus going by the Canadian government's logic any Indian in uniform, having been posted in Kashmir by the Government of India, is not eligible for a Canadian visa on assumed charges of human rights violation by the person in question.
The assumption is hilarious and grave at the same time. It indirectly points a finger at the Government of India for orchestrating human rights violation in the Valley. If so, then no person who represents the Government of India in any capacity should be allowed within the borders of Canada.
This certainly is not an attempt to defend or deny human rights violation in J and K, but is rather an effort to highlight the Canadian government's tomfoolery in denying visas to Armed Force personnel of India who have served in Kashmir. Personnel belonging to the Armed Forces of India, many of them like Let Gen Bahia, highly decorated, serve in a particular state of their country not on their own volition but according to stringent guidelines that regulate their postings alongwith manforce and strategic requirement in the said region. The Government of India has an unequivocal say in all matters pertaining to the Armed Forces which includes the desired strength of armed personnel in a particular geographical location. Therefore, if a posting in Kashmir marks India's men in uniform as non-eligible for Canadian visa, then the Government of India needs to be put in the dock too.
As the Canadian government is bursting with righteous indignation at human rights violation by armed forces, how about pulling the visa leash on powerful neighbours like the United States of America. Remember the Abu Gharib prison and Guatanamo Bay detention camp? Remember the rape, torture and abuse of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners? By the way the act of war on Iraq itself was the most blatant human rights violation of all times, so isn't Uncle Sam just ripe for a rap on the knuckle the kind Let Gen Bahia has received from the Canadian government for serving in Kashmir?
Amusing moral gymnastic isn't it, from the beginning to the end.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Forever young
We are and will be forevermore, hopelessly and compulsively obsessed with youth and immortality. Wrinkle-free and an anti-aging existence is man's most cherished, yet, till date, most elusive desire. However, like celebrated scientist Albert Einstein, I too firmly believe that "God doesn't play dice with the universe", hence the scientific communities' consistent endeavours towards arresting the aging process and finding key to longevity, will bear fruits sooner or later. The resultant social, religious and ofcourse the visual impact of age-arrest will be phenomenal, to say the least.
Anti-aging ofcourse doesn't translate into immortality, however, it does negate the possibility of age associated physical degeneration as the cause of the final end. This does rob death of epitaphs like 'unavoidable' and the 'only reality'. Once immortality, in terms of age-freeze, becomes a reality, the society is bound to acquire a more competitive edge with the survival of the fittest emerging as the new moral code. A forever young world will compete for a share in the social and economic pie. The resultant struggle, as I visualise it, will be rather fearsome, specially in the face of accompanying population explosion.
On the family front spritely and young parents will be free from the handicap of old age. Good news no doubt. The family circle will expand to become a mini community geared towards creating greater visibility and guarding the interests of its members on the social front, thereby creating a second tier of struggle for existence.
There is ofcourse the possibility of humanity taking it a bit easy in life seccure in the knowledge that there is always the time to catch up later. The urgency of time running out in terms of age, will certainly come down several notches and might have man breathing easy.
The elixir of youth once discovered or decoded or devised will cause a major upheaval in the religious realm. The span between birth and death will become largely incalculable. Natural disasters, incurable diseases or physical harm might be the only factors which could cut a person's earthly sojourn short. Youth induced immortality might make the fear of hell fire or rebirth seem a remote possibility. With death induced terror receding, God's hold on man's life-strings will loosen considerably. The Almighty might not seem all that potent or menacing. Religious texts seeking obeisance by playing on man's inherent fear of death, will find few followers. A spiritual awakening will gain ascendancy over ritual and textual strictures or it might spell the beginning of a new age of reason where man uses intellect to figure out the cause and purpose of his creation.
On a philosophical note, age-freeze is a welcome idea as it spares us the infirmities of old age, however immortality seems so not worth it. Living on and on and on, without a purpose other than mere existence is as scary as death. An infinite life is not necessarily a fulfilling life. And it is quite likely that man might well become immortality weary sooner than later.
Anti-aging ofcourse doesn't translate into immortality, however, it does negate the possibility of age associated physical degeneration as the cause of the final end. This does rob death of epitaphs like 'unavoidable' and the 'only reality'. Once immortality, in terms of age-freeze, becomes a reality, the society is bound to acquire a more competitive edge with the survival of the fittest emerging as the new moral code. A forever young world will compete for a share in the social and economic pie. The resultant struggle, as I visualise it, will be rather fearsome, specially in the face of accompanying population explosion.
On the family front spritely and young parents will be free from the handicap of old age. Good news no doubt. The family circle will expand to become a mini community geared towards creating greater visibility and guarding the interests of its members on the social front, thereby creating a second tier of struggle for existence.
There is ofcourse the possibility of humanity taking it a bit easy in life seccure in the knowledge that there is always the time to catch up later. The urgency of time running out in terms of age, will certainly come down several notches and might have man breathing easy.
The elixir of youth once discovered or decoded or devised will cause a major upheaval in the religious realm. The span between birth and death will become largely incalculable. Natural disasters, incurable diseases or physical harm might be the only factors which could cut a person's earthly sojourn short. Youth induced immortality might make the fear of hell fire or rebirth seem a remote possibility. With death induced terror receding, God's hold on man's life-strings will loosen considerably. The Almighty might not seem all that potent or menacing. Religious texts seeking obeisance by playing on man's inherent fear of death, will find few followers. A spiritual awakening will gain ascendancy over ritual and textual strictures or it might spell the beginning of a new age of reason where man uses intellect to figure out the cause and purpose of his creation.
On a philosophical note, age-freeze is a welcome idea as it spares us the infirmities of old age, however immortality seems so not worth it. Living on and on and on, without a purpose other than mere existence is as scary as death. An infinite life is not necessarily a fulfilling life. And it is quite likely that man might well become immortality weary sooner than later.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Getting ridiculous in the name of religion
Phew!They never call it quits!Self-lampooning has become a cherished pastime with the pundits of various religious faiths. In fact the fatwa by clerics of Darul Uloom Deoband decreeing a woman's earning as haram for a Muslim family, in keeping with the Sharia, was a real rib-tickler. Now, now, no need to breathe down my neck. All ye high priests are just getting what you've been asking for-sniggers and scorn.
The Muslim intelligentia is quoting extensively from the Sunnah (deeds, saying and life of Prophet Muhammad) to prove how the fatwa is against the spirit of Islam. Others have been citing the example of conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, which do not bar women from working, to oppose the decree. My advice: People don't bring the Prophet and Islam into this rather trivial and ridiculous inference. How about using simple human reasoning to turn the fatwa on it's head.
Let's begin with the defination of religion. According to the New Oxford Dictionary religion is the 'belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods'. The worship has incorporated various moral, spiritual and social codes, outlined by different religions, for a noble and vice-free living considered integral to establishing a connect with the 'superhuman power'. The moral and social codes have witnessed a great flux down the ages with the evolution of human society. What was considered acceptable then is taboo now and what is prohibited now was a norm then.
Social codes of most societies, until a few centuries back, restricted women to the role of homemakers and child bearers. Men were the born bread winners. This segregation of roles, had little to do with religion as we understand it. It was more a matter of conveniece keeping in mind the peculiar social requirements of the time. Moreover, it facilitated establishing male hegemony in patriachal societies. Looking after parents and shouldering the economic responsibilities was exclusively a sons's calling.
The 21st century has witnessed a paradigm shift in the social evolution of women from the kitchen to the boardroom. Pro-creation is no longer the only highpoint of a woman's life. This social metamorphosis of women is a 21st century phenomenon which might have been altogether unacceptable and largely unrequired in the Arabia of nineth century when the above decree might have sounded saner. This social shift is hardly indicative of a lack of belief in God or of moral depravity.
If a woman is earning by just means how does her money become haram for her family vis-a-vis that earned by her husband, son or brother? The explanation, according to fatwa framers lies in Sharia prohibiting the proximity of men and women in the workplace. The underlying insinuation of this prohibition is shockingly disrepectful to both men and women living in civilized societies. No doubt that concern regarding the chastity of women has bordered on the obsessive in many religions, however, this one takes the cake. Women and men sharing workplace are not looking for means to commit the Cardinal Sin. If drawing a screen between men and women is the only means of protecting a woman's virtue, then there is not much that separates us from animals in this context at least. Anyhow if it is men whom women need to be constantly protected against then why not keep a closer eye on the likely culprit than the victim? Why penalise the latter for the sins of the former?
I am not giving a short shrift to moral codes of a society but am questioning the selective use of these codes to short-change women in the name of religion and ludicrously enough in the name of God.
The Muslim intelligentia is quoting extensively from the Sunnah (deeds, saying and life of Prophet Muhammad) to prove how the fatwa is against the spirit of Islam. Others have been citing the example of conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, which do not bar women from working, to oppose the decree. My advice: People don't bring the Prophet and Islam into this rather trivial and ridiculous inference. How about using simple human reasoning to turn the fatwa on it's head.
Let's begin with the defination of religion. According to the New Oxford Dictionary religion is the 'belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods'. The worship has incorporated various moral, spiritual and social codes, outlined by different religions, for a noble and vice-free living considered integral to establishing a connect with the 'superhuman power'. The moral and social codes have witnessed a great flux down the ages with the evolution of human society. What was considered acceptable then is taboo now and what is prohibited now was a norm then.
Social codes of most societies, until a few centuries back, restricted women to the role of homemakers and child bearers. Men were the born bread winners. This segregation of roles, had little to do with religion as we understand it. It was more a matter of conveniece keeping in mind the peculiar social requirements of the time. Moreover, it facilitated establishing male hegemony in patriachal societies. Looking after parents and shouldering the economic responsibilities was exclusively a sons's calling.
The 21st century has witnessed a paradigm shift in the social evolution of women from the kitchen to the boardroom. Pro-creation is no longer the only highpoint of a woman's life. This social metamorphosis of women is a 21st century phenomenon which might have been altogether unacceptable and largely unrequired in the Arabia of nineth century when the above decree might have sounded saner. This social shift is hardly indicative of a lack of belief in God or of moral depravity.
If a woman is earning by just means how does her money become haram for her family vis-a-vis that earned by her husband, son or brother? The explanation, according to fatwa framers lies in Sharia prohibiting the proximity of men and women in the workplace. The underlying insinuation of this prohibition is shockingly disrepectful to both men and women living in civilized societies. No doubt that concern regarding the chastity of women has bordered on the obsessive in many religions, however, this one takes the cake. Women and men sharing workplace are not looking for means to commit the Cardinal Sin. If drawing a screen between men and women is the only means of protecting a woman's virtue, then there is not much that separates us from animals in this context at least. Anyhow if it is men whom women need to be constantly protected against then why not keep a closer eye on the likely culprit than the victim? Why penalise the latter for the sins of the former?
I am not giving a short shrift to moral codes of a society but am questioning the selective use of these codes to short-change women in the name of religion and ludicrously enough in the name of God.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Bastard is a slur on motherhood
The skeptics call it a new age gimmick, but honestly I love all the hype and hoopla surrounding it! Of all the commercial ploys in the world this one I submit to with great alacrity. I love my mother and being the rather expressive kinds, make sure to remind her of it at regular intervals. However, the whole idea of one day dedicated solely to going all mushy about your mom is so worth it. She might call it childish on the face of it but will be sniffing into her handkerchief when nobody's looking.
As I hip hip hurray my mother's remarkable love, patience, support, sacrifice and extraordinary culinary skills today, I feel a pressing need to be true to the spirit of the day and pay a tribute to mums the world over. So, I resolve to purge my vocabulary of the expressions 'illegitimate' and 'bastard' as used to describe or abuse those born of a woman out of wedlock. The expressions are a slur on the dignity and self-respect of every mother. While I have nothing against the institution of marriage and am a proponent of humanism rather than feminism, the above expressions are deterimental to woman empowerment.
Cursing the womb that is the cradle of mankind for lack of male willingness to shoulder the responsibilities of fatherhood, for varying reasons, tantamounts to blatantly negating social equality between the sexes. A woman who loves and nurtures her offspring, doesn't need a male endorsement to lend legitimacy to her child.
Mexican actor Barbara Mori observed in an interview that "In India a child born out of wedlock is a problem, but in my country you would find a number of single mothers. I have a child though I am not married, which is not a problem for me." The question, however, is not of the problem of social acceptance of single mothers alone, but the centuries of deep prejudice against children born of such mothers. Language mirrors the cultural, social and economic evolution of a people. Thus on the social front the advertant or inadvertant use of 'bastard' and 'illegitimate child', reeks of disrepect and bias against women who don't enjoy matrimonial permissibility to bear children.
From the so called progressive to orthodox societies, this language skew against women is very pronounced. I would rather that every woman earns for herself a financial and social stature which equips her to nurture well the life she desires to bring forth into this world. On no account do I mean to dismiss men and fathers as inconsequential, all I seek is a true tribute to mothers who bear children they love, never 'bastards' or illegitimate offsprings'.
As I hip hip hurray my mother's remarkable love, patience, support, sacrifice and extraordinary culinary skills today, I feel a pressing need to be true to the spirit of the day and pay a tribute to mums the world over. So, I resolve to purge my vocabulary of the expressions 'illegitimate' and 'bastard' as used to describe or abuse those born of a woman out of wedlock. The expressions are a slur on the dignity and self-respect of every mother. While I have nothing against the institution of marriage and am a proponent of humanism rather than feminism, the above expressions are deterimental to woman empowerment.
Cursing the womb that is the cradle of mankind for lack of male willingness to shoulder the responsibilities of fatherhood, for varying reasons, tantamounts to blatantly negating social equality between the sexes. A woman who loves and nurtures her offspring, doesn't need a male endorsement to lend legitimacy to her child.
Mexican actor Barbara Mori observed in an interview that "In India a child born out of wedlock is a problem, but in my country you would find a number of single mothers. I have a child though I am not married, which is not a problem for me." The question, however, is not of the problem of social acceptance of single mothers alone, but the centuries of deep prejudice against children born of such mothers. Language mirrors the cultural, social and economic evolution of a people. Thus on the social front the advertant or inadvertant use of 'bastard' and 'illegitimate child', reeks of disrepect and bias against women who don't enjoy matrimonial permissibility to bear children.
From the so called progressive to orthodox societies, this language skew against women is very pronounced. I would rather that every woman earns for herself a financial and social stature which equips her to nurture well the life she desires to bring forth into this world. On no account do I mean to dismiss men and fathers as inconsequential, all I seek is a true tribute to mothers who bear children they love, never 'bastards' or illegitimate offsprings'.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Hang him not
This is not in defence of Kasab. Without use of hyperboles, I simply wish to state that what Kasab and his nine accomplices did is unforgivable, both by humans and from my understanding of the Quran, by Allah, in whose name the blood of innocent was shed without moral qualm or mercy. I feel an insupressable surge of rage, resentment and vengeance every time 26/11 is mentioned. Yet,I do not want Kasab to be hanged.
Before I am accused of sedition, specially by those whose families were torn assunder on the night of 26/11, I beg for a hearing.
I want Kasab to suffer enough to plead for death. I want to seee him convulsing with repentance. I want to let the horror of what he did render him sleepless forevermore. Yet I do not want him hanged.
The nine others who slaughtered people at CST, Oberoi Trident, Taj Mahal Palace and Towers, Leopold Cafe and Nariman point are dead. We hang Kasab and he too dies. What's the difference? The nine others died believing, perhaps, in the righteousness of their offensive. Hang Kasab and he too will die a believer in his cause. Any apparent demonstartion of regret might be for fear of death rather than horror at the deed committed. His attempts at an apology might be noose inspired rather than heartfelt.
The LeT, according to newspapaper reports, brainwashed and de-sensitised this band of 10 terrorists effectively enough for them to declare a mindless act of war on an unaware but powerful nation and still believe that they would make good their escape at the end of it all. The LeT did a good job - nine dead one living. Hang Kasab and LeT's victory is complete. One more brainwashed and delusional religious fanatic gone, makes no difference to their swelling ranks.
Hanging Kasab is a watered down version of vengeance that we seek on perpetrators of terror. Keep him alive and breathing. Re-introduce him to his faith. Make it know to him that the Quran damns to perdition those who shed the blood of the innocent. Let scholars of Islam prove to him beyond doubt that he has wronged Allah. Let him answer the whys and experience the wrath of the families whose lives he destroyed. Make him realise the inhuman nature of his deed. In other words re-sensitise him.
It might be easier said than done. But until we undo LeT's handiwork and have Kasab cry for forgivesness from those whom he killed without compunction, our vendetta will be incomplete. Once the brainwash is reversed, Kasab's life, I can say with conviction, will become a living hell and then it will best to deny him a premature release from it.
Before I am accused of sedition, specially by those whose families were torn assunder on the night of 26/11, I beg for a hearing.
I want Kasab to suffer enough to plead for death. I want to seee him convulsing with repentance. I want to let the horror of what he did render him sleepless forevermore. Yet I do not want him hanged.
The nine others who slaughtered people at CST, Oberoi Trident, Taj Mahal Palace and Towers, Leopold Cafe and Nariman point are dead. We hang Kasab and he too dies. What's the difference? The nine others died believing, perhaps, in the righteousness of their offensive. Hang Kasab and he too will die a believer in his cause. Any apparent demonstartion of regret might be for fear of death rather than horror at the deed committed. His attempts at an apology might be noose inspired rather than heartfelt.
The LeT, according to newspapaper reports, brainwashed and de-sensitised this band of 10 terrorists effectively enough for them to declare a mindless act of war on an unaware but powerful nation and still believe that they would make good their escape at the end of it all. The LeT did a good job - nine dead one living. Hang Kasab and LeT's victory is complete. One more brainwashed and delusional religious fanatic gone, makes no difference to their swelling ranks.
Hanging Kasab is a watered down version of vengeance that we seek on perpetrators of terror. Keep him alive and breathing. Re-introduce him to his faith. Make it know to him that the Quran damns to perdition those who shed the blood of the innocent. Let scholars of Islam prove to him beyond doubt that he has wronged Allah. Let him answer the whys and experience the wrath of the families whose lives he destroyed. Make him realise the inhuman nature of his deed. In other words re-sensitise him.
It might be easier said than done. But until we undo LeT's handiwork and have Kasab cry for forgivesness from those whom he killed without compunction, our vendetta will be incomplete. Once the brainwash is reversed, Kasab's life, I can say with conviction, will become a living hell and then it will best to deny him a premature release from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)