It is our fear that makes someone undertake a terrorist act an extremley drastic step. This is true and similar in between the local extortionist, the corrupt policeman and the Al-Qaeeda. They all depend on our fear to succeed in their activities / mission. It is only our fear that caves us in to their demands.
The easiest way to defeat terrorism is accept it without fearing or a fluttered reaction. (Believe me I have come to realize that the most difficult problems tend to have the simplest solutions, which needless to say are extremely difficult to implement).
Here is how we may start doing this (This does not advocate stopping preventive steps towards terrorism, this proposed reaction is post terrorist act.),
• Accept their act as a matter of normal incident (at the rate it is happening anyway it is becoming normal).
• Support the victims in the best way possible
• People should not flutter and get on with their lives (Indians across the country has managed to do this at alarming simplicity)
• The government and media should talk about it as a normal incident and forget about it the next minute (particularly the opposition parties). The last thing you want to do is politicize the issue and divide the masses. The calm response has to be from one and ALL. This is the most difficult step.
Terrorist are a lot like children, when given no attention to their antics they will stop the antics. It is not profitable or advisable to continue something which is not paying back.
If their acts aren’t terrorizing anyone OR aren’t dividing the masses then they are useless.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Waiting for 'the' Gandhi...
Being a leader is standing up for something that resonates with most of the targeted audience.
Our freedom fighters had it easy (in garnering support and participation), being leaders, because the “freedom of the nation” was a central idea that caught the attention and imagination of all the masses within the land. Even then the actual freedom took its time coming through. Further the freedom fighters were opposing a law abiding, actually law creating, creature vis-à-vis The British Government. Leaving the few shameful acts like that of General Dyer the British government was pretty much like any other government and better than most of the governments India or its states have experienced. Today there seems to be too many elements creating their own laws/demands for the citizens. The irony is most of them are not a part of the government
India and Indians are not ready for their next Mahatma but that is only because their next “Mohandas” cannot identify a passionate cause within the Indian society
Democracy ensures that we get the politicians/leaders/government we deserve. There cannot be a better example of this than India. Democracy is built on the belief that somebody “of” the people will represent the people and fulfill tasks “for” the people. The expected “of” the people, in India, is a much skewed population. The bias in the population leaves the choice of leaders, and hence the government, in the hands of the poorest and hence almost always the neediest. How appropriate will be the emerging leaders, when “need” is the basis of its followers
The expected “of” the people, in choosing a democratic government, is biased due to the voting patterns or rather the lack of it in some strata of the society. A study of participatory statistics of almost all the elections across India shows a dismal record across Indian masses. It barely crosses the 60% mark of the population. The numbers have further dwindled since the advent of “middle-class”. This section is yet busy exploring their new found status. This has left the choice of government in the hands of the “needy”.
It is no wonder that most of our so called “leaders” are more interested in finding “newer needs” than solutions to existing problems. In fact we are to be blamed for this. The easiest way to create a mass of “followers” is to create a new need which would interest a section of the society. Who says “Divide and Rule” has lost its edge?
We as a society are only too eager to follow a rogue “need” and divide ourselves in number of factions than stay together as Indians. It is this fragmented society that chooses its leader through voting. It is in “their” interest that we as a society stay divided in following our various personal “needs”. It is more important, for them, to keep us involved in irrelevant issues, which keeps them from resolving the main ones.
We as a society have become very outwardly dependent in focus. We want law makers to resolve our problems for us. And for every little issue we want a law to be decreed. This so, even when we know that every law created is only an opportunity for the implementation agency to be corrupt
An immature society will look for a brilliant leader to resolve their issues. But eventually they will continuously be at loggerheads with the policies because they don’t understand the brilliance in them.
A mature society can choose an average leader amongst them and accept the policies because they understand them. This makes it easier for the society to accept the policies as well.
There always will be a society,
A leader will certainly emerge in this society,
The leader will always be apt for the society,
The question is what society would we prefer to be?
I think it is time we take a closer look at ourselves than search a leader everywhere else.
Our freedom fighters had it easy (in garnering support and participation), being leaders, because the “freedom of the nation” was a central idea that caught the attention and imagination of all the masses within the land. Even then the actual freedom took its time coming through. Further the freedom fighters were opposing a law abiding, actually law creating, creature vis-à-vis The British Government. Leaving the few shameful acts like that of General Dyer the British government was pretty much like any other government and better than most of the governments India or its states have experienced. Today there seems to be too many elements creating their own laws/demands for the citizens. The irony is most of them are not a part of the government
India and Indians are not ready for their next Mahatma but that is only because their next “Mohandas” cannot identify a passionate cause within the Indian society
Democracy ensures that we get the politicians/leaders/government we deserve. There cannot be a better example of this than India. Democracy is built on the belief that somebody “of” the people will represent the people and fulfill tasks “for” the people. The expected “of” the people, in India, is a much skewed population. The bias in the population leaves the choice of leaders, and hence the government, in the hands of the poorest and hence almost always the neediest. How appropriate will be the emerging leaders, when “need” is the basis of its followers
The expected “of” the people, in choosing a democratic government, is biased due to the voting patterns or rather the lack of it in some strata of the society. A study of participatory statistics of almost all the elections across India shows a dismal record across Indian masses. It barely crosses the 60% mark of the population. The numbers have further dwindled since the advent of “middle-class”. This section is yet busy exploring their new found status. This has left the choice of government in the hands of the “needy”.
It is no wonder that most of our so called “leaders” are more interested in finding “newer needs” than solutions to existing problems. In fact we are to be blamed for this. The easiest way to create a mass of “followers” is to create a new need which would interest a section of the society. Who says “Divide and Rule” has lost its edge?
We as a society are only too eager to follow a rogue “need” and divide ourselves in number of factions than stay together as Indians. It is this fragmented society that chooses its leader through voting. It is in “their” interest that we as a society stay divided in following our various personal “needs”. It is more important, for them, to keep us involved in irrelevant issues, which keeps them from resolving the main ones.
We as a society have become very outwardly dependent in focus. We want law makers to resolve our problems for us. And for every little issue we want a law to be decreed. This so, even when we know that every law created is only an opportunity for the implementation agency to be corrupt
An immature society will look for a brilliant leader to resolve their issues. But eventually they will continuously be at loggerheads with the policies because they don’t understand the brilliance in them.
A mature society can choose an average leader amongst them and accept the policies because they understand them. This makes it easier for the society to accept the policies as well.
There always will be a society,
A leader will certainly emerge in this society,
The leader will always be apt for the society,
The question is what society would we prefer to be?
I think it is time we take a closer look at ourselves than search a leader everywhere else.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Is it really Rama setu?
I seriously do not understand the issue over the so-called "Rama setu". My problem starts with some of the Hindus world over calling it "Rama-Setu", this actually hurts the Hindus who believe in Rama.
I have two reasons why I do not think this structure is "Rama Setu",
1) according to Ramayana, the stones that made up the Rama Setu had the name "Rama" inscribed on them. Some of the stones were actually written upon by Rama himself. And NO Hindu will ever believe that the name just disappeared of all or any stones, afterall it is God's name written by god, it has to last forever just like the god himself.
2) It is this inscription that gave these stones a buoyant quality (Before the inscription Jamboovan, the architect of the Rama-setu had a big sinking-stones problem). Some part of the current structure is underwater, raising serious doubts about its mythological origins.
Whether the governments plan to create a shipping channel is economically viable or not is a different question and I have no opinion on it.
But please do not get Rama in to this debate, as this construction has nothing to do with Rama.
I have two reasons why I do not think this structure is "Rama Setu",
1) according to Ramayana, the stones that made up the Rama Setu had the name "Rama" inscribed on them. Some of the stones were actually written upon by Rama himself. And NO Hindu will ever believe that the name just disappeared of all or any stones, afterall it is God's name written by god, it has to last forever just like the god himself.
2) It is this inscription that gave these stones a buoyant quality (Before the inscription Jamboovan, the architect of the Rama-setu had a big sinking-stones problem). Some part of the current structure is underwater, raising serious doubts about its mythological origins.
Whether the governments plan to create a shipping channel is economically viable or not is a different question and I have no opinion on it.
But please do not get Rama in to this debate, as this construction has nothing to do with Rama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)