Monday, 30 July 2018

bipolar condition of biominorities

bipolar condition of biominorities
1.why does the Israeli state not simply push Palestinians out of their land using its overwhelming military might, forcing them to join their brethren in other parts of the Middle East or North Africa, or die on the way?
1A: Palestinians under Israeli rule have a long tradition of militant resistance, supported at different times by other Middle Eastern states, most recently Iran. They are stubborn and, thus, they have to be concentrated, starved and killed until they elect exit.
without its captive Palestinian population neither the current power of the religious right nor the populist authoritarianism of Benjamin Netanhayu has any justification for existence. Like Kurds in Turkey, Jews in Hungary, Muslims in India and other visible biominorities …An outbreak of democracy is the last thing the Israeli religious and political right want, and the Donald Trump White House also hates any hint of moderation in any of its client states.

2.Conversely, why did Myanmar not simply create a carceral Rohingya state where this biominority could be confined, policed, starved and “concentrated” to death?
2A: Rohingyas occupy rich agricultural lands on the Western coast, which are now ripe for building ports and infrastructure across the Bay of Bengal. Rohingyas are deeply embedded in their land, which they have developed over centuries. They need to go, and the murder, rape and armed aggression directed at them is intended to push them out. The ethnocidal Buddhist monkhood which provides the ideological fuel for this extrusion is the willing partner of the militarised state. While their Muslim identity is a source of ideological fuel for the Buddhist majority, their relative weakness and location in vital global stretches along the Mynamar coast are more relevant.
the global dynamics of genocide are not primarily about Muslimness. The fact is that all nation states rely on some idea, however covert, of ethnic purity and singularity. Biominor plurality is thus always a threat to modern nation states.
today’s varieties of genocide are not as much about religion as they are about paranoid and/or predatory nation-states.

Monday, 1 May 2017

Attention Vs Respect

Went to a movie yesterday. No, I am not going to talk about the movie. I do have some things to share about the movie as well. May be later, and in an another post for sure, but not now. I have much bigger things going on my mind, issues that can be labelled as 'fundamental'. Sometimes we accept things simply because we see them all around all the time and across the globe. So what? That need not stop us from questioning the rationale behind those practices. I am done with the warming up and get to the point directly,  

If you are an Indian and staying in India for the past couple of months, You certainly would know that, right before the show starts, a 'ritual' that takes place in the movie hall. 

Yes, I am talking about the same. Now now, dont get your thinking horses run wild and presume that this post is about the issue of Patrioticism, for, it certainly is not. 

My motive behind writing this post is entirely different. I would like to find out an answer for one simple question: 
Since when  'standing up' symbolised ' showing Respect' in human interactions? And, let me clarify that I have no intention of discussing the reasons behind this particular ritual. I do not want to broach the subject, like  - why sudden enforcement, to elicit what kind of response and to what effect. No, not going there.

To prove my intentions, I would like to state the given situation in plain words: National Anthem playing in the speakers and National Flag on the screen is an occasion that requires you to Show Respect. Period! Yes, I get it, and I am not debating it, atleast not here. 

My point of discussion remains : Why Standing? What does it signify?    

While I was grappling with that question, I was reminded of another occassion. We feel obligated to pay respect, generally standing ... some times it might be done sitting as well, the stress is on the maintaing the silence, and with closed eyes if you please. You get what it is. 

Yes, I am talking about praying for the peace of the departed souls. 

However grave the context may sound, it does not qualify as a serious affair. If at all you have failed yourself in such occasions to the match up the public standard, it is not a big deal. The greatest set back you may face is that you may be frowned upon, probably severely, and may be by many. But you shall not be arrested, for sure. Hence, though the requirement of standing is common for both occasions, they are different things altogether: Showing Respect is much more a seious job than Paying Respect.

One can definitely put another occasion in the same bracket as our, lets call it as, prior movie ritual. And that you would encounter in courts. Many of you, might not have stepped inside the courts, yet. But surely you must have watched it in movies. Prior to the entry of Mr Judge, the solemn voice at the top of its pitch saying 'all rise'! And then if you fail to do so, you sure are going to be in trouble. 

Hence, I am not wrong if I say - "whatever you may think or however you may feel, you are supposed to stick to the norms to prove that you have no intention to insult some one or some thing". I fail to see a connection between showing respect and coming on to your feet. 

Having said that I can see some intrinsic relation between the attention paid by people and their body posture. Whenever we are interested or alert  - our body comes to an erect position, most of the times involuntarily. Conversely, it is true that when we are being lazy or tired, our body looks slack. 

One would expect us to 'pay attention' while we listen to them or work for them. It is our duty to be attentive in all our waking hours. When we fail to do so, we get to pay our dues depending on the seriousness of the task. But some one is not going to punish you for not being attentive per se. 

I would like to go back to my earlier question, whats with this standing. Why is it imperative that we stand, to show our respect. Why does respect depend on some or other body part? Does that mean that those who are unable to stand are unfit to show respect? 

On a completely different note, some instances come to my mind where standing is forced on the individuals. Teachers, especially those who work in private schools are not provided chairs in their class rooms. Supposedly, it is to ensure that they take their job seriously. I am appaled! How insulting it is that the teacher is forced physically to teach. 

 The other area is the Shopping Malls. You would always find the shop keepers standing. Also the attendants in the trial areas! They are forbidden to sit as long as their duty hours last. There can be no explanation other than that it is the exploitation to its core.

Those above two instances might look unrelated, they throw some light though on our present topic. It is understood that sitting is a much more comfortable act than standing. Hence, those who employ you, would have you to stand rather than have you sit and be comfortable while you are at work. So by that logic, being ready to be slightly uncomfortable, proves that you do show respect. 

See where we have arrived. Being ready to get uncomfortable is equalent to showing respect. What a twisted way to prove that you are not averse to show respect. 

If you continue to sit, you exhibit disrespect.And if you get up, you are showing respect. Is it not we are told to do if we dont want to offend any one?

Tell me if I am wrong...       


Monday, 9 January 2017

Slavery Vs Freedom

The original meaning of 'Slave' refers to a person who is legally owned by another person. As we all know, humanity has fought against this inhuman practice and in modern times Slavery is abolished with the help of the'Law'. And that is the end of the story. Is it? Can we now assume that Slavery as a concept is null and void? Can we safely believe that it has become inoperative? lets see ... 

We still do use the word 'slave'. It still holds some meaning and connotes to some disagreeable dependency. A slave, by definition is someone who is strongly influenced and controlled by something or someone. 

A man's life can be summed up as the integration of all of his choices. A human being is endowed with the ability to choose. One's identity is defined by ones choices without any exception. Thus, he chooses his actions and lives by them. 

It can't be denied that there are external factors that influence the choice of man. But even to study, understand and analyze that influence, we need to have a premise, at least a belief that he has a right to choose and has an ability to choose.

QUESTION (Is It Right): 
Before making a choice to act on something, or in a certain way, it is assumed that one knows the consequence of that choice. Equipped with this information prior to the choice, one asks himself, one simple question, is it right? That fundamental question is the basic pillar for all the Civilization. A lot can be purported from the word ‘civilization, but essentially, in my opinion, it is nothing but a refinement of thought, manners or taste. And it is accumulated over centuries by constantly checking what is right.

He might make wrong choices occasionally and bear the consequences. But such an experience is stored in the databank of right and wrong choices that one makes in one's lifetime and that collection of choices is what evolves into one's Wisdom.

This Collective Wisdom of mankind further helps an individual being in answering that fundamental question, always asked before making any choice- "is it right?" I would like to add that the factors that influence the choice of man, that were mentioned earlier, are an integral part of this collective wisdom. Being aware of the influences on oneself can definitely improve our ability to choose. All in all, we may conclude that, man can make better choices, if he makes an informed choice. And he is supposed to choose after asking himself, whether the choice is right?     

This question in my opinion propels the human race in to evolving into a self sustaining System.   
The 'modern' man by definition possesses fundamental rights and the right to choose his action is an integral part of the deal. He can act upon it in any manner as long as his actions are legal. It amounts to the action that is allowed by Law or the rule of the land. Which seems fair enough because as a citizen of a state, he is expected to follow its laws and live in accordance with them.
QUESTION 2 (Is It Legal):   
Now let us ask ourselves a small question. When does someone need to consider the legality of an action? When will he ask this ominous question? We can run wild with our imagination depending on our exposure to the real world and can come up with innumerable scenarios that will require this question at some point. Let us delve deeper into it and try to make a list in our minds. You may observe a common thread in all the cases whether it is interpersonal, or institutional or international. It is the question of possession, pertaining to the property either material or intellectual. The Question 2 invariably supersedes the Question 1 and there lies the root of all the Evil in the world. 

Though it may look like the debate between the morality and the legality which is essentially ethical in nature, I urge you to look beyond that. It is not the question of right and wrong but the Choice. The availability of choice, to be precise.  If one is only allowed to ask  Q2 for a considerable duration, there is a danger that he might forget that he has a right to ask Q1.

The question 'Is It Right' is addressed to one's own mind. It presupposes that one would consider all the possibilities and pick the appropriate one. 

But when one only checks the legality of the matter at hand, he is not guided by his mind and its directions but an outside agency. Now Law is not an absolute, eternal entity. Laws are made, interpreted, and executed for the smooth run of the government and are subjected to Change.  

Someone more powerful and better placed than you might have wanted the world in a certain way and had a hand in manufacturing consensus for a particular law. It certainly need not be the criteria for you to choose your actions. 

It is time to address the issue which is looming big in the vicinity since the time we have started this discourse. Is there an implicit conflict between the two questions. This is not a place to elaborate the answers but it is sufficient to say that the Q1 should be the checking mechanism for the Q2 and this checking should be done vigorously, consistently and eternally. 

But who will do the checking? Who will be the watch dog of the society? Who would be safeguarding of the interests of the people? Who will check the 'Rightness' of the law if every other citizen is busy with checking whether it is legal?  

There comes the definition of Slave again, as we remember, it involves being influenced or controlled. If one's actions are self checked and are passed through one's own filter of IS IT RIGHT instead of IS IT LEGAL … then that mind is the epitome of a working of a free mind.


Tuesday, 6 December 2016

How Frightened Are You Right Now?

" ... the only thing we have to fear, is the fear itself."

Now, lets take a moment and ask ourselves, who is promoting fear? Which political wing, Which Corporate House says that you are being looked over, and asks you to get into line ... and WHY do they do? What is in it for them?

After millions of years of evolution, our brains are wired to seek out danger and respond accordingly. Fight or Flight or if it is not trying to eat you, Negotiate. It makes sense then that presenting a threat to our survival is a time tested way to get the brain's attention.
And lets be clear about one thing: attention is the most valuable commodity in the world. Once you have someone's attention you can sell them something, or, if you are the kind of person who is frightened of self determined people, control them - while you are reassuring them that your only concern is their right to be self - determined.

So the real question to ask yourself is not who or what you should be afraid of, its how are you doing right now. Go ahead, ask yourself. Are you in jeopardy right now? Of course not.

This means that whatever you are afraid of, or being encouraged to be afraid of, is in your mind. It is not in your living room, or just outside your door. You are thinking it, which is good news. That is the one thing that you have control over.

If attention is the key, if that is what is sought after, it might be a good thing to value it. Pay attention to yourself. Instead of losing yourself to the voices that instill indirect fears in you, you might check their motive for doing so.

Ask questions, find out the hidden angles, discuss it with your people, share your views, let the ideas flow!
In the end, you ll become wiser and what more, you may not 'lose' anything but your fear!      

Monday, 5 December 2016

no limit to the deciet!

This is how it is being played with the minds of people
This is one of those msgs that are doing rounds in the social networking
This is the time to stay rooted and express the dissent if any!
Please make it a point to thrash these rumours when you encounter them...
PS: I have added smileys to the original text for your benefit.
"Don't forward any posts or videos etc., u receive regarding politics/present situation about Government/PM etc.😷
All India Police have put out a notification termed ..Cyber Crime ... and action will be taken...just delete...inform your friends & others too.😤😤
Writing or forwarding any msg on any political & religious debate is an offence now....arrest without warrant...🙃🙃
This is very serious, plz let it be known to all our groups and individual members and admin can b in deep trouble. Even let it be in foreign country or anywhere in world.😭😦😧
Please take note of this seriously."
please don't take them seriously....and ridicule if possible,,,,

Monday, 18 January 2016

Aristotle said...Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.

Many a time we withhold from embracing the 'Truth'
some of us fear that they may lose friendship
some of us fear that they may lose love.

some of us fear that they may lose peace
some of us fear that they may lose acceptance

some of us fear that they may lose the purpose of their being.



Friday, 27 November 2015

How dare you speak like that?

Keeping Anupam Kher aside...
The "logic" that tries to prevent one from expressing his/her concern on any topic is the point of discussion here.

It starts when you are young and begin to voice your opinions about your parents. This rational thinking is dealt with the emotional superiority of your elders. You will be chided along that parents are next only to God! And you are reminded of their innumerable sacrifices. You are told that it is the matter of their unconditional love and you should display unconditional respect, period!

You are not supposed to complain about the behavior of the elders either... you will be sermonized: "they have done so much to the family! they achieved so much! they have seen the world! you have just opened your eyes to the world! you are still wet behind your ears! how dare you open your mouth?!" You are dissuaded from making up your own mind about any one basing on your experience.

You are not supposed to comment about the customs and rituals which seem absurd to you, again you are firmly corrected, "these traditions are centuries old, time tested, Think thousand times before commenting them with your half knowledge." You are asked to refrain yourself from entering the land of Mysterious and Sacred if you can not leave your reason and rationality well behind

You are not supposed to find fault not just in your leaders but in the social activists too.  They are doing so much to the society, what right you have got to talk about them, you mere common common man?" You are not expected to say it aloud that the personal and public behaviours of those 'supposedly' great men do not match.

The mistakes committed in the movements or by the great leaders is considered to be a Taboo even among the sympathizers. The critics whose intentions are genuine are also not spared. They are attacked by the band of blind supporters.

It is ridiculous that my 'averageness' or 'commonness' is not counted offensive if I decide to sing praises on any of these 'great' entities. I am sure that the artists are not going to be frowned upon when they dare to personify the myths whether in their poems, fiction or paintings, as long as they see only the beauty and glory in the past. 

My contention is with the discrimination in the field of criticism. It is understandable that one is offended when faced with criticism that involves himself personally and he is right in defending himself. But when the issue is a general one and involves every one, the defense almost loses track  and questions the critic's credentials.

One who is intolerant of any kind of criticism, should be reminded that the country, people, heritage, past and future belong to every one. It is not some 'special' one's prerogative to protect them. One has to point out a flaw if it needs to be corrected. 


The ballads and love songs weaved in the glory (whether they are for the nation or culture or revolution) can not substitute the constructive criticism born out of legitimate concerns of the individuals. It is high time that we let them speak with out getting offended and stop black listing them as traitors.