Move on to where Mr Prime Minister?

Remarkable! That's the least one can say about Dr Manmohan Singh's espousal of the wisdom of 'forgive and forget' in connection with the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 which saw over 3,000 people killed in Delhi alone. Speaking at Toronto, after paying homage to the victims of 1985 Kanishka bombing, the PM, while admitting that the anti-Sikh riots should have never happened, advised the Sikh community to "move on"! Dr. Singh's counsel has caused great consternation amongst people and groups who have been crusading for justice for the victims of the 1984 carnage. Wonder where to Dr Singh is asking the victims to move on to? Move on from the hope that the culprits will ever be brought to book? Move on from the fact that 26 years have lapsed and not a single accused has been punished? Move on from the faith that justice, as in the case of Bhopal victims, will ever rise above party politics?
Does the PM realise that he is inadvertently using time as a ruse to deny justice to the Sikhs and in the process giving his political opponents enough reasons to use the "move on" refrain to justify the man slaughter in Godhra? Does it occur to the PM that he is leaving the people of his country with festering sores of rage and hatered forevermore? Does it strike him that in doing so he is creating new communal fissures in an already fragmented society thereby providing a new playing field to politics of religion and region? Why is the PM trivialising the pain and loss of the victims of 1984 by asking them to compromise on justice? The answers perhaps will come - politically correct, insipid and worthless.
Going by the the PM's logic even the families of Kanishka bombing victims should have been advised to move on, but guess, the suggestion was witheld considering it was the Canadian government's head that was on the anvil.
Strange country and stranger still it's leaders who value so little that which means so much to their people. However,it's indeed the time to move on Dr Singh from being the representative of a political party to being the PM of the people of India.

God, sex and surrogacy

Whoa!Hold the horses Rev. Mar Varkey Vithayathil! For Christ's sake don't decry scientific evolution to uphold a lopsided moral injunction. The Assisted Reproductive Technologies Bill (RTB), 2010, which intends to legalise surrogacy, has evidently send shivers down the spine of the Archbishop of the Syro Malabar Church (Catholic). Cardinal Vithayathil has accorded the Bill apocalyptic proportions with regard to moral and social fabric of our nation.
He views surrogacy as a direct challenge to God Almighty's exclusive right over procreation - "We shall not play God and opt for fabrications of humans at our own designs." Good Lord, Archbishop you make surrogacy sound akin to a factory for manufacturing synthetic beings designed to resemble humans. It's still the fusion of God given good old sperm and ova, isn't it? What is it that is worrying Rev. Vithayathil? The absence of sex to facilitate the fusion or the borrowed womb wherein the embryo is finally lodged? The former seems to be of paramount concern to the Archbishop. "One can have a child without any relation to sex and one can have sex without any relation to procreation. This separation will play havoc with biological system and create a permissive society." Ahem! If this be the case then surrogacy sure is sounding the death knell of sex and procreation just as condoms are jeoperdising the perpetuation of human race! 'Sex for procreation' is a very, very striking spiritual slogan but it's practical application is negligible amongst the majority of population. 'As far as procreation through sex only' is concerned, wonder what solution Cardinal Vithayathil has for couples who for some biological snags are unable to beget children according to the process legitimised by the Lord? "To have a child one cannot take recourse to any means and technology possible," asserts the Cardinal. Hmmmm... well this poses a serious question on the divine legitimacy of life saving advances made in the field of medical science - organ transplant, reconstructive surgery, blood tranfusion, artificial replacement of joints etc.- as most involve extensive use of means and technology developed by man to alter an undesirable God given condition.
As far as dangers of surrogacy encouraging sexual permisiveness are concerned, I am unable to find a plausible explanation for the alarm, until there is be an oblique reference to homosexual couples. If this be the case, the assertion is no less amusing. Homosexual couples might use surrogacy to have a child but it certainly will not tempt people to go gay!
The Church's concern over the RTB dealing a blow to the institution of marriage and concept of family ties, is, however, not altogather misfounded. But it should be borne in mind that the use or abuse of best human advancements rests solely with human conscience. Unlike Cardinal Vithayathil I don't label such attempts as "playing God with science" but moving closer to 'God through science'.

Injustice upheld

I am ashamed, embarrassed and bewildered at the blatant, government abetted mockery of the Indian judicial system. The lapse of 25 long years has, perhaps, reduced the status of the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy to inconsequential stastics and numbers in the eyes of the Indian Government. The local court's verdict awarding the 7 accused a jail term of 2 years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh for the world's worst industrial disaster, which killed 15,134 and maimed 5.7 lakh people, was a stinging slap on the faces of those who had hoped that justice delayed wouldn't translate into justice denied.
As skeletons in the government cupboard begin to rattle, the fact that justice has been violated wilfully by those occupying the highest echelons of power, leaves one thunderstruck. PM Narasimha Rao's government's express orders to the CBI not to press for the extradition of Warren Anderson, CEO of the Union Carbide (UC), who was bailed out within six hours of his arrest and flown out of India, the paltry compensation of Rs 705 crore, reached after much haggling over the number of actual victims, the rejection of victms' plea to the welfare commissioner of Bhopal for payment of compensation as per the value of dollar in 1989... seems a concerted and premeditated effort to ensure that justice was never done to the dead as well as the survivors of this disaster.
The newspapers are replete with grotesque pictures of the 1984 tragedy, whose proportion has been described akin to a 'chemical warfare' by veteran photographer Raghu Rai in a leading English daily. Going by the reports, death came to the more fortunate. For most of the survivors, afflicted with indescribable physical deformities, life became a perfect hell. Birth defects, resulting from the methyl isocyanate leakage, continue till this day serving as a callous reminder of the havoc wreaked by the carelessness of UCL officials on the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984.
Ninety-year-old Warren Anderson lives in plush mansion in the Swish Long Island neighbourhood of Bridegehampton, seccure that he will never be called to face justice in a human court of law. The United States only worry is that the Bhopal case might undo it's carefully nurtured ties with India. So, the accused is safe and sound in his country and the victims remain victims forever in their land, justice never died a more ignominous death.

This too is terrorism like 26/11

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.

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.

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.

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.