A Time to remember

There are many instances which have a parallel in time. This comparison is currently going on in India. The events include the Gujarat riots of 2002 and the Ant-Sikh violence of 1984. Both these events are a big threat today, because involve resentment under the surface, which can explode at any time. The issues are far from being forgotten, and it is only a matter of time before extremist elements create havoc in the present using that past.

Both the above mentioned pogroms have had a deep impact on the Indian social setup. The Godhra riots of 2002 still evoke passion among the majority, but the pogrom in Punjab following 'Operation Blue Star' is now being forgotten. Operation Blue Star was carried out by the Indian army to flush out Sikh militants at the Golden Temple in Punjab in 1984. Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had ordered this operation, and within months she was shot dead by her bodyguards, who were Sikh. What followed in Delhi was one of the worst instances of violence ever since Partition.

The Anti-Sikh riots and the Godhra riots both show how demented the psyche of certain sections of the populace can be when Political parties whip up hatred. Both these instances have had political backing, and the main perpetrators have not been bought to Justice. These events have isolated a particular section of the population and questioned their 'Indianness'. Also, both these pogroms bought the ruling party back to power in the next election.

What does this tell you about power politics and dictatorshp? Power Politics and Dictatorship are both enforceable when the majority of the population become Apathic to reality. The dynamics of Power Politics are such that human life and thoughts are at a premium and it can be crushed. As with both events, both terms also have a common parallel in time.

Both these events teach the citizenry that 'ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS EVERYONE'. Power can be countered only by vigilance, and only if people oppose power using their strength in numbers. But, this will be problematic if people do not execute the strength in numbers. Punjab and Gujarat will continue to simmer, and there can be no solution, only reconciliation and Justice. If Justice is given, then the tensions will also cease.

RIP Pakistan???????

This is not a Fundamentalist spouting out Propoganda. This is not a post of hatred, but rather of fear and tension. The assassination of fomer Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has brought these fears in the minds of people. The assassination of this personality brings forth this frightening scenario of Pakistan ceasing to be a state.

General Pervez Musharraf is now experiencing the troubles that a dictatorship brings upon a nation. Dictatorships have never worked, and due to its very nature, it does bring about reactionary elements. But, the problem with Pakistan is that the reactionary elements are more dreaded than the dictator. If Pervez Musharraf goes, then Pakistan will be consumed by a vacumm filled up with elements suited to the terrorists.

The assassination of Mrs. Bhutto raises furthur questions about short term and long term stability. This is the kind of lose-lose scenario which no nation wants to confront. If the elections are put off, then the aim of the terrorists are achieved and they can continue with weakening the state with attacks. The previous emergency did nothing to stop the attacks. If the elections are held, then there is no guarantee of restoration of Democracy as the main contender to the general is already out. Musharraf comes back to power and the status quo is not changed.

In the short-term, violence seems to be inevitable. Already, Pakistan was beset with problems in the North-west Frontier province and the worsening crisis in Balochistan. To add to the cauldron, there have been sporadic secterian clashes in some cities. Anybody who can get a peaceful solution to this mess must be considered for the next Peace Prize.

Many people are also contemplating about Pakistan's viability as a state. The Islamists in Pakistan have become resurgent ever since the Lal Masjid standoff in July. From that time, the problems have gotten severe, and the Taliban Al-Qaeda hideout in the North-west was intensifying. This resurgence has led to Mrs. Bhutto's assassination. The feebleness of the security forces to actively pursue the radicalists have led to them consolidating their base in Pakistan.

If the Power vacumm occurs, then the whole sub-continent is in big trouble. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and if those weapons fall into the wrong hands, then this will have grave implications for the majority of the world. Being such a strategic location, the repercussions will be far reaching. This angle is now not mere speculation, but an unfortunate possibility.

To usher in destruction, a catalyst is needed. In World War-1, the assassination of Serbian Archduke Franz Ferdinand led to the war. Now, it seems as if Mrs. Bhutto's assassination could be the start of a different kind of struggle, one seen unlike anywhere in the world. But, there is hope that a peaceful solution can come out of this. But, the last statement is quiet feeble, because the scenario is so overwhelmingly dangerous and distraughting.

Maybe, the death of the Bhutto dynasty, more importantly Mrs. Benazir, could also be the death of Pakistan. We really hope that this does not happen.

Moditva, Rethinking and Implication

The Post-Mortem has been done. The dust has settled, the verdict is out. Narendrabhai Modi has been re-elected for the second time as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. I would like to congratulate him for the result, and I do wish him luck. But, there are doubts still remaining, and I will try and highlight them as concisely as I can.

The first conclusion is that Development supercedes everything now. For the Capitalist world, power politics when oriented with development can yield rich results. The predominant theme of Modi's election campaign was development. The amount of progress Gujarat has made in the years of his administration was the peg on which he won.

The second conclusion is that Living in the Past will not benefit societal development. The riots of 2002 are being put on the back-burner, and any activist or media group which tried to revive the topic were branded as biased or simply a medium for propoganda. The English language Media was a particular target this time, being called Anti-Modi by several sections of the population and also by several analysts and politicians.

The third conclusion is that the Gujarat election might result in the growing divide among Indian society. The rich, urban english speaking populace are against Narendra Modi, but are often accused of not recognizing the trends occuring within the Indian mainland. The coast is out of touch with the mainland, and so when someone in the Mainland promises development, it will be embraced by people who are not urbanized.

The fourth and final conclusion could be that Religion and Terrorism creates a kind of Xenophobia by which people see no other alternative. Religious ambition, coupled with a strong drive to wipe out terrorism is what symbolizes Narendra Modi. All these above factorsworked for him, and now it is time that some rethinking be done.

In all my previous posts, i had argued that Narendra Modi was India's modern day Hitler or Nero. The events resembling Godhra 2002 was equivalent to the Nazi Kristallnacht of 1938. However, after this election victory, I have to wonder whether all these arguements have a bearing in today's time.

The rationale that can be concluded as a result of Narendra Modi's victory is that Power Politics puts Human lives and thoughts at a Premium. The very nature of Power Politics is such that it makes one go back to that expression, "There is no place for emotion in Politics". The Activists and some Media outlets have argued for Narendra Modi to apologize to the victims of the Gujarat riots. Is that claim rational or is it asking too much?

Democracy calls for cheques and balances so that power is not misused. But, does democracy take into account the factor of Power Politics? Democracy is compromised once power politics is dished out. At that time, you can only find ways to avoid its trap or be vigilant and active to the changes that take place. The fact is that Fundamental rights of each and every citizen is a Utopia, because all individuals do not think on the same level.

Narendra Modi's victory is now being discussed for the implications at the National level. That will be commented on later. What I can conclude is that Narendra Modi is the man to head Gujarat for the next five years. History is now thrown out of the window, and the minority that have suffered under his tenure will have to be vigilant. The trend now will be why worry about the Microcosm. There are other larger and important issues to worry about. Human life is there today, and not there the other day.

The Progress: 6 years on

Yesterday was a fateful day for India six years ago. On 13th December, 2001, India's parliament was under attack from terrorists. The main mastermind is either in hiding or is presumed dead (To be checked). Several conspirators have been arrested, and some of their detention has been questioned by human rights activists and by the media.

It is also important to analyze what has happened on India's security front. Has the Parliament attack made us more aware of the threats that exist? Has the government become more pro-active on combatting terrorism?

The answer to both those questions is a NO. There have been continued attacks against the Indian population ever since. The Mumbai Car Bomb attacks in 2003, the Train bombs in the city on 7/11, attacks in Hyderabad, Ajmer, the Samjhautha express blast and recently incidences in Uttar Pradesh all reinforce the fact that India is still on the terror radar and that intelligence agencies, along with the government, have been a failure.

It is important to know that there is no clear method to fight terrorism. In India, the attacks are carried out by Sleeper cells. These cells are operated within the country, remain inactive for some time and then attack when least expected. To trace the sleeper cells is virtually impossible, as they blend with the population. It thus sounds unfair to critique the government on not being pro-active. But, this is not to suggest that they should sit back to let another attack happen.

India has not made any progress in the fight on terrorism, but at the same time, no nation around the world has. If Terrorism has to be liquidated, then methods employed by Stalin or Hitler may have to be implemented. But, nowadays, this results in multiple blowbacks and bitterness, thus implementing it is not only irrational but also counter-productive.

Terrorism being a vague entity, this approach cannot be implemented. The fact might be that Terrorism is a battle within the mind. If reforms in society and mainstreaming is achieved, then the influence can be curbed. But, this is easier said than done, because even reforms are vague.

I have said in previous posts that the burden to combat terrorism unfairly falls on the common man. But, when terrorism and reforms are two vague items, only man stands out as a concrete entity. The vigilance begins with him, and to cleanse the mind of fanaticism also begins with him.

Making a Mountain of a Molehill or Divine Retribution?

This regards a particular incident that occured in the ongoing test match series between India and Pakistan. Former India Captain, Saurav Ganguly, hit a double century against Pakistan. This is indeed time to celebrate, but this being India, it has to come with a backdrop. The backdrop being the standoff between Saurav Ganguly and Australian Greg Chappell, during Mr. Chappell's reign as Indian national coach.

The period from 2004 to 2007 was a turbulent period in Indian Cricket. Ganguly was apparently not in form, and Greg Chappell ultimately decided to strip him of the captaincy and drop him from the team. Protests by people in Ganguly's state of West Bengal protested, so much so that they decided to cheer for South Africa when they toured India. Any slip up by the team led to shouts from the public to bring back Ganguly.

Following the first round exit in the 2007 world cup, Chappell promptly resigned. Saurav Ganguly now enjoys the best form in more than a decade. Fans now are vindicated, and are now openly saying that Greg Chappell was responsible for destroying Ganguly's career. His comeback has labelled "The Return of the Emperor". Some online communities have called for openly humiliating Greg Chappell when possible.

What should it be interpted as? Two things are clearly evident. Many people are still stuck in the past. The another thing is that Ganguly's current form could be attributed to Greg Chappell!

The last point may evoke an outcry from Indians. The reasoning for the statement is quiet simple. Greg Chappell made him aware that he cannot take his place for granted. If performances are not coming, then it is about time that a break is needed. Ganguly prior to this had not been performing well for close to a year and a half.

Chappell's aggressiveness rubbed the wrong way for the Indian team and the public, who are by nature not aggressive in Sports. Chappell tried to get in aggressive mindset, and it backfired. This resulted in India being in constant scrutiny and ultimate exit in the first round. He came back stronger after the break. By the way, if one looks for partiality, no one highlighted the plight of Rahul Dravid and Ranadeb Bose. Dravid was dropped after performing badly in one series, while Ranadeb Bose has not even being considered inspite of good performances.

Dravid has taken it like a man, while Bose is naturally frustrated. Now, it will be interesting if Ganguly can perform the same way in Australia. Pitches in Australia are much more challenging than dead Subcontinent pitches. Nothing should be taken away from Ganguly though. He did perform, but I do wish that people stop remaining the past and give Greg Chappell some due.

What a small world we live in

The world might never be known in Totality. Diversity and discrepencies are on such extreme levels that one does not even know where to begin. On the one hand, you see wealthy western nations, with all the wealth and technology, developing third world which aspire to be like that and then you have poverty stricken nations or continents which make up a large chunk.

Watching a child living in Poverty and his ambitions, one is stunned at the convinience in which we have built our world. It can be easily said that this is another case of Administration corruption and that the rest of the world should not interfere. But, the point is that this can happen to us also, if we are not ignorant.

It is quiet easy to talk about the evils of Poverty and Apathy when Technology and wealth is within our reach. But, either bad decision making or taking wealth for granted can reduce us to that level. Ambition is curtailed if money is not presented, and no one is so charitable nowadays. The child wants to have money, to be famous, but his plight will be highlighted for only one day.

There are millions of him in the world, and all the technology will not be enough to put the spotlight on each of them. The problem with wealth is that people loose interest in the problems of life, and create their own world where problems are impenetrable. The rich will be occupied with themselves, while the poor people will continue to wait for someone to highlight their plight.

The Media is also strange. Rich people and celebrities need and at the same time dont need the media. The poor need the media but cannot access it. Also, people in the developed world are put off by these images and will not do anything about it. People will set up charities and shout from rooftops that we should care. But, ordinary civilians will say How and Why should we care.

Globalization is indeed a strange phenomenon. People all over have built their own small worlds, and are unwilling to do anything. Only a few have privilages, but the majority still lag behind. This trend will continue, as it seems too much of an ideal scenario that the wealth will trickle down to all people. That is a perfect world, and Perfection is NOT possible in this time.

Possibility of International Peace

People want to get to the bottom of things. Problems should be solved so that life can function smoothly. Touchy situations have to be negotiated so that they do not harm anybody in the process. People often determine whose fault it was and get down to dealing with him. On some occasions, this may work in case of personal differences, but what about International or even National problems?

The dynamic and volatile nature of International conflict is the focus. Instituitions have been created to monitor peace in the world. World Instituitions have been created to monitor Justice in a conflict. But, the question is raised as to the need for such instituitions, in the wake of the new US Hegemonic world order.

The US has made the UN completely ineffective, as the Iraq war of 2003 proved. The stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the US has vetoed several United Nations resolutions. During the Cold war, the permanent members were on opposite sides of the Iron curtain, and so the organization was compromised.

Similar criticism can be labelled out for peacekeeping. The UN has often being associated with Jeopardizing and lack of understanding of the various conflict zones. There are several cases of such incidences, the disastrous being Somalia in 1993 and now Darfur. The UN has achieved mild success also. Kosovo is the case, but it has being torn apart by lack of followup and commitment.

Many people might say that the attack on the UN is unnecessary. It is also the fault of the "Superpowers", who for the benefits of economic and technological might, puts the fate of other "Third World" Nations at risk. These powers use the other nations as a laboratory to expand their might, just like Germany and Italy used Spain as a laboratory during the Spanish civil war.

The combination of UN stalemate and the subversion of laws by the Superpowers make International peace very difficult. With economics dominating the foreign policy outlook of many nations, this trend will likely to continue in the coming decades. Hope lingers, but it burns low with each passing year and decade. As generations change, this hope may turn from possibility to futility, if something bold and courageous is done.

Ignorance is Devastating

I have never heard of Mia Farrow. But, her interview on the BBC last night has made this headline. She was talking about the world's negligence of the suffering of the people of Darfur. The world is shying away from taking any concrete action in Darfur, and the UN is unable to put forward a cncrete plan.

The peacekeeping task in Darfur has suffered a setback, with the attack on the miniscule African Union peacekeeping force. If the soldiers in that region cannot defend themselves, then what must be the plight of the ordinary civilians, that was highlighted by Mrs. Farrow. She also talked of the situation getting worse, and that the world powers were not doing anything, and she had criticism for China.

Darfur has been on the News Radar for some time, ever since the event came into the eyes of the world. But, now, the world has completely closed its eyes on Darfur. Their mind reasons that this is only an addition into the powderkeg that is central Africa. From Sierra Leone till Somalia and from Sudan to Congo, the whole region is gripped in conflict and bloodshed.

Darfur forms the chain of events taking place across the Central part of Africa. Why is nobody doing anything on Darfur? when one British teacher got jailed in Sudan, the media focused intensively on her plight and she now stands a chance of being pardoned. Now, when the media is giving coverage, why is the world not responding?

The key to this could be ECONOCRACY. The term that I have used fitted Burma perfectly, now it can be tagged into Darfur as well. Mrs. Farrow highlighted that China is proving to be an Obstacle for any resolution on Darfur. It does not want to offend the Khartoum Regime because of its dependency on Oil. China is one of Sudan's prime trading partners, and any action which alienates the Khartoum government may result in adverse effects on their economy. So, to protect their economic interests, China has engaged in Econocracy over Darfur.

The other powers are too occupied with their own problems. The US will not act so much in Sudan because there is not much of Oil in that region. Britain always tags with America on foreign policy, and the African Union is simply too weak and divided to initiate concrete action. When there is so much of apathy, what must be done?

The signs are not encouraging. The hopes of the people are fast fading away. Africa has proven to be the test case of Ignorance being Devastating. Somalia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and many more cases prove the point. However, when the world tries to explore options, they run into a brick wall of ambiguity or fear. This is a potent obstacle, one which may resign the people of Darfur and the few who care into disillusionment and bitterness

Opportunity vs Reality

Anapolis is the venue. The issue is the most volatile one. Israel and Palestine seek peace, one man seeks a legacy, and the whole world is skeptical about the outcome.

The signs may not be encouraging. Many newspapers view that the participation in the summit will lead to its ultimate failure. Mahmood Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, is leader of only half the population in the occupied territories. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert is not popular. He is distracted by coalition power politics and is unable to focus wholly on the peace issue. US Presdient Geroge.W.Bush is unpopular throughout the world.

Media channels as of now, have said that a deal may be struck in the next year. The Leaders of the parties involved have agreed to make concessions by the next year, but have termed it ambitious. The stakes are too high, and there is not much hope in the Middle East and in the world.

Let us lok at the reasons why it may fail. The lack of participation of Hamas, Iran's dismissal of the summit as an appeasement to Israel and the unpopularity of America in the middle east following Iraq. But, there is hope. The tensions in Israel and Palestine is low. There has been no active volatility in the region for nearly a year. The Suicide Bombings have eased, and there have been no incursions by Israel. All these should be positive. But, the nature of the middle east is such that things look good on the surface, but there are troubled times underneath

The Middle east is such that one incident somewhere in the region could spell trouble in Israel and Palestine. Iraq, Lebanon's power vacumm leading to Hezbollah's prominence, Iran's rhetoric and increase in Rocket attacks from Gaza could derail the process. Since, Hamas has not been represented, the majority of Palestinians are without a voice.

Many summits have taken place. From Camp David in 1979, Madrid in 1990, Oslo peace accords in 1993, Camp David in 2000 and now Anapolis 2007, many declarations have been passed. But, these declarations have ignored the events that take place on the ground. But, if both sides are fedup of the bloodshed, then they HAVE to agree on the peace initiative.

It remains to be seen which country compromises. Will Israel dismantle the settlements on the West Bank? Will Palestinains curb Fanaticism and the suicide and rocket attacks against Israel? Will Israel allow free travel for the Palestinians in the occupied territories? Will Israel allow access to Water for the Palestinains? Can both sides agree on the final borders? Will there be a clear status on Jerusalem/ Al-Quds?

These are some of the questions among a list of hundreds. The main essence is going to be compromise. The media might give this summit a tone of desperation, ambition and personal legacy, but both sides must understand that bloodshed cannot last for eternity. Painful concessions, ignoring extremist calls from any side, have to be made, if peace is to be achieved. But, who will budge? That question needs an answer first, and put into actual practice following Anapolis.

Another attack, lack of progress

India has suffered another attack, allegedly by Islamic militants. Three Bombs exploded outside the courts in Uttar Pradesh. Six people or more were killed and dozens injured. This attack is the latest of terror strikes to have hit India. From the time of the Mumbai Train blasts in July 2006, there have been two attacks in Hyderabad, One in Ajmer, the Samjhautha express blasts, the serial blasts in Delhi and now the triple blasts in UP.

The people are now on edge and are apprehensive. This will increase in the coming days. But, this is not the prime focus. The focus is on the aftermath, namely the status of the investigations behind the attacks. If Media reports are to be believed, then the Indian Intelligence agencies are yet to solve the reasons. The status on each of the above mentioned cases is still pending.

What should it be interpreted as? A sign of Incompetence? The true nature of tackling Terrorism? The answer to these two questions will not yield a definite solution. One can only speculate, as a common individual, about why these cases have not been resolved. The job of the Intelligence bureau is to get to the bottom of these acts, and then corodinate with security agencies to prevent it.

The individual may be mistaken for accusing the Intelligence of Incompetence. The Kargil war of 1999 showed just how bad our Intelligence agencies functioned. Right under our noses, Pakistani military and terror elements managed to cross and occupy some sections on the Indian side of the LoC (Line of control). The continued terror attacks might furthur establish this claim. The call for changing the structure of the Intelligence bureau is getting louder, and it may increase with another attack.

But, on the other hand, tackling terrorism is a very complex process. In India, it is believed that the main masterminds operate in another country, and carry out the attack through sleeper cells within the target. Tracking these cells is quiet complex, in a population of 1 billion. Also, the modes of communication, namely Internet and Satellite phone, make surveillance equally hard. The Intelligence agencies do have their hands full when dealing with this complex scenario.

There is also the social implication. If there is excessive surveillance, people might say that Freedom of expression and movement is being curbed. If more strict laws are passed, then it contributes perhaps to Human Rights violation. This is the reason why Terrorism is so dangerous. Because it alters other social setups, concrete action is difficult to undertake.

Excessive force leads to furthur blowbacks and increase in momentum of the attacks. The US case in Iraq is proof of that. In the end, it perhaps boils down to Citizen vigilance, which sounds very defeatist in nature. But, when all other options are extinguished, you need the desperate ploy of prevention. It is extremely difficult to predict what is going to happen, and asking it from Common individuals is asking too much. But, if lives have to be saved in this world of today, such desperate measures, in opposition to force, have to be taken.

A Weapon-Less World

I am now testing the extremes of Idealism here. I dream of a world which has NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND. I dream of a world where there may be no conflict. I dream of this ideal world as something which can be possible. It only takes ambition, bravery and complete recognition of the fact that such a world can exist.

Before any realist can jump on me, I would like to ask WHY NOT? People are seeing the devastating consequences that Wars can have on a physical structure of a nation and on an individual. People are able to experience the degeneration of a people's psyche during a war period. Weapons make the world more insecure. They cost so much, leading to diversion of priorities among governments all over the world.

Looking from the point of view of Wars, insecurity and financial drainage, Weapons and Arms trade are the most potent threats to peace in the world. More than dictators, more than ideologies, it is the presence of Arms and Weapons of Mass Destruction that fill people with fear. The economies of the west profit proarily on account of Arms sales all over the world. The United States and United Kingdom being the prime examples.

The US rebounded from a depression by entering the second world war. The world knows about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, but the real reason could be to boost the economy by Arms manufacturing and War participation. Even now, defence spending in the United states goes into the high billions, possibly trillions. The defence expenditure of the US for Iraq and Afghanistan alone comes to 1.5 trillion dollars, almost the GDP of India and most of the world.

When Weapons make people so insecure, why do governments everywhere boost defence spending and Arms trade? Weapons of Mass Destruction and other Army equipment are slow killers. They slowly drain away the economics of a nation, thus installing insecurity in the minds of the people socially and globally. The possibilities of a Weaponless world are great and people all over the world must believe that it CAN be done.

A weaponless world would mean no more wars. Weapons such as Swords, pistols and other items also are included in the weaponless world. No more Wars could mean no more mass killings of civilians in an instant. A weaponless world could mean in more open participation of several cultures in the global arena, not bound by Ideology or security concerns.

More importantly, finances will be directed to the people and some of their benefits. Agreed, defence spending may not occupy that high a number in the overall national budget. But, whatever number it occupies, those finances can be made available to schemes beneficial to the public. If 1.5 trillion dollars can be used in the reform of social security and healthcare in the United States, there could be a lot more breathing space for ordinary people.

In addition to eliminating costs of weapons, the money saved can be utilized into more peaceful ventures aimed at improving the efficiency within a democracy. Education, Environment, Child Welfare and other benefits can gain a lot with the elimination of weapons. The target for future democracy should be not the elimination of dictatorships, but elimination of weapons of any kind on this planet. Only then can real peace can be achieved.

It is a long drawn out process. As of now, in the backdrop of Terrorism and insurgency, you can frustrate them and hold them back with weapons. But, with the elimination of Weapons of all kinds, you are sure to defeat Terrorism, fanaticism, bitterness and more importantly insecurity and imbalances. It needs someone to come in front with this, because it CAN be done.

Changing the System

People have aspired to change the system for the better. In developing countries, this aspiration is a mission. Films and other art forms have contributed indirectly to changing a system. The Media is positioned as the weapon to destroy the system. Many people believe that it is the media that will help in ushering in change in this world. Unfortunately, this is not true in the simplest sense. Change has to come within the system, more importantly from the PEOPLE.

A system is comprised of the people. A political democracy is built upon the aspirations of the people. The instituitions which advocate this is made up of people who are willing enough to get into the arena of political service. These politicians have the law to keep them in check, but inspite of that, we see Corruption as the stumbling block of every democracy. Corruption and the surrounding rigidness makes democracy quiet dysfunctional.

The above point can be remedied if people start to be vigilant and active in political decision making. If somethings have to be done, then it is the people who need to stand up and ensure they get it, within the proper parameters. Vigilant Democracy has to be the way now, not liberal democracy.

The reason I say this is because of the fact that Liberal cemocracies take Freedom for granted. If only people within the democratic setup become vigilant can democracy shatter its corruption as well as the rigidness. For this to happen, there are no shortcuts, only hard vigilance.

The Media should not be considered as a shortcut to change. Media functions as the path between the Citizens and the pillars of Democracy. It is upto the Citizens to travel that path, because in order to change the system, we HAVE to be IN the system. There is no other way. Apathy must be shattered, vigilance must be ushered, only then can we ensure that society and individuals function smoothly.

Is it us?

The whole world is presently undergoing a state of revisionism. Structures and ideologies are getting critiqued. The American Ideal of Democracy and ideas are now viewed with suspicion. America is dragging the world into chaos, and everywhere in this globalized world, there is a perplexity of what is right and what is wrong. The Elites have a clear view, but the ordinary individual is resigned to this perplexity. The ordinary man/woman has no firm conviction of what is good for the whole world.

This brings me to the fact of the mental buildup of individuals in Society. Have they allowed the process of technology to blur their senses? Has technology improved their mode of thinking or has it stagnated it? The concept of publics is indeed very difficult to pinpoint, due to the differences in demographics and other issues. Public Opinion polls tend to analyze the wider pulse of a unified public. But, even opinion polls are restricted by the sample size, due to which diversity is compromised.

The factor of People's mindset is underanalyzed in many studies. Either the mindset is too complex for analysis, or is too simplistic to have any bearing. Liberal democracies here in the West revolve around the sound decision making of the people whom they represent. But, liberal democracy, in its current outlook in this world, seems too rigid. The fact that people are getting what they want maybe offset by what do they REALLY WANT. Democracies are unable to satisfy the broader electorate, and hence leave them confused.

Technology aids the perplexity. Since, it provides a shortcut to decision making, people loose their analytical skill and reasoning, and so make decisions in haste. This mindset is the dominant one of the 21st century, in most palces where technology and Apathy dominate. From the point of view of Apathy, this is more of beleif than resources. Individuals, due to a succession of bad socio-economic struggles come to view everything as bad, and so refuse to do anything about it.

People function according to structures. This gives them order in the land of chaos. But, it is now the very structure that they live in which is prompting people to break or change it. I think the unstability in the world is all because of common people, because they JUST DON'T THINK. The future seems bleak. The structures may persist, but the people may not.

Idealism: A curse?

People are encouraged to be positive about the world they live in. For the mind to think differently, a positive approach is necessary. This is beneficial for individuals to progress in life. But, nowadays, this is viewed as a curse. Positive attitudes means becoming an idealist on a whole host of things. This creates a problem in the world that we live in.

The world of today has evolved in thinking. Rational Reality is the mode of thought among individuals in society. Reality is oriented around Money and on status, thus eliminating even small individual gains. Simplicity is being thrown out, and in comes complexity to make human beings devoid of goodness and clarity. Rational Reality reduces Idealism into something that is desirable but not attainable.

The last statement effectively is to curb Idealistic thought in an individual. Nowadays, if you ask a person how good the world is, he will not only refute the good but will state that it is bad. The World is a Bad place to live, because reality says that there is no such thing as a wider good.

Reality and Idealism, due to their different dynamics, cannot coexist in this world. Either you are a realist interested in personal gains or you are an idealist who loses out in this world and has to manage with small instances of happiness. It can be argued that Reality is a practical form of Idealism. But, the thing that goes against both these terms is their vague nature.

Idealism might be a curse in the world of today. But, looking at the conflicts and the evils that rational reality throws up in a life of an individual, it may persist for some time. The change has to come from individuals, but it is going to be a long drawn process, one that may take generations.

Diverse events, constraint of the self

Technology in Media has revolutionized the world. More events are highlighted, a concrete picture of the world might be emerging and people are now being made to shun their nationalist identities and become globalist in outlook. However, technology, although opening up avenues, has made individuals perplexed. Believing an event, making sound judgements are all thrown out of the window due to the explosion of media caused by technology.

Democracy has existed primarily on account of sound judgements that citizens make. Now, Technology has managed to perplexe them with information overload. The example, although subject to narrow-mindedness, could be the low voter turnout in the west. The Apathy that has resulted from this perplexity is indeed damaging the western psyche. Although, it is said that Liberal democracies tend to take freedom for granted, it is not advisable in this stage of time.

Terrorism and its repercussions are calls for an active media to shun commercialization and wake up. It is also time for the Citizen to realize that many things should be looked at critically and balanace out with his own pre-suppositions of an event. The final part is indeed contradictory, for it may involve Pluralistic and diverse media.

This situation is such that solutions might ultimately be contradictory. One source of information is indeed bad, and without information, Citizens are left in a dilemma and may enhance the process of stagnation. This is the constraint of the self, where-in the individual is unable to do anything on his own initiative. Technology has resulted in this perplexity, and the thorough belief of Plurality in the west makes it impossible to be flexible.

Citizens have to get above these constraints. Their demand, backed by strength in numbers and various divisions in society can get rid of this constraint. But, to do that, the first initiative must come from having a clear mind and focus.

Freedom, Consequence and Results

We all agree that freedom is paramount to man's existence. The consequence of freedom is that Human beings contribute to the well being of the broader society they live. The results are there in many liberal western democracies in the West. However, this may be only one part of the story. Is Liberalism leading to the ultimate stagnation of freedom? It is quiet safe to argue that it might, considering the troubles that the world is facing.

Terrorism and economic recession seems to be leading to stagnation in this concept of freedom. Terrorism is accelerating the decline of freedom. Several liberal democracies have contemplated laws which puts several sections of the population under the scanner. The recent economic depression seems to be destroying the reasoning of the people. Already tense with terrorism, they are now worried about the future of the economy.

The consequence factor is being tested here. Ther are some discrepencies in the system which is making people paranoid. Is it the economy or the unpredictability of Terrorism? It should be argued that people have not lost their sense of reason and rationality altogether. People are going on about their daily business normally, but they are worried.

Taking freedom for granted has to be stop now. The era of vigilant freedom has to come. It is too much to expect anything from the media, because they are caught up in their own commercial tangle. Since, economics and business are the main aims of majority of the media firms, the watchdog role is out of the window. Nobody expected that freedom might take the bite off the media. Freedom of this time must be taken up by Rational Citiznes, within the purview of common goodness.

The Festival of Shame?

Diwali time has arrived in India. It is the festival of lights, and also of Crackers and Sweets. It is a grand time for many in India. For about a week, the celebrations go on. But, the aftermath of the celebration is not a pleasent sight. In fact, even during the celebration, things are not pleasent. The Bursting of Firecrackers is indeed very troublesome, and so my main problem with diwali comes from this.

Before that, Diwali is celebrating the triumph of Lord Ram over Ravana. It is supposed to be a celebration with lights and decorations. Where did the Crackers come into the picture is unknown. A whole new controversy can be opened by questioning Lord Ram's victory over Ravana as a sign of Good truimphing over evil. Was Ravana really that evil? Remember, he did not injure or do any harm to Sita's feminity. It was perhaps, ironically, Ram, who doubted her integrity and asked her to take the Agni-Pariksha. This topic is completely for some other post and topic.

The economic and social ramnifications also play a crucial part, according to me, in undermining Diwali. Economically, many people spend the amount on Crackers in 5 or im some cases in 6 digits. The rich just have money to burn, whereas the charity aspect of Diwali is completely thrown out. This leads to the social ramnifications. It has been circulated that Child Labour is involved in the creation of Crackers. The Ammunitions factory at Sivakasi employs children under 15 to manufacture those Crackers. If this is proven true, then Diwali should be named the Festival of Shame.

Any festival that endorses Child Labour and turns a blind eye should never be celebrated. The amount of money that the rich spend on large number of glamourous crackers can be better utilized for something else. It may sound too idealistic, but the current scenario is equally pathetic, and it needs a solution.

The festival is also problematic on the health and environment aspect also. The pollution that these crackers create is very high indeed. There are a lot of poisonous materials released whcih leads to health hazards for many people, irrespective of age. The strain on people's health is of a serious nature. Due to the high decibel levels of a majority of crackers, people suffer a lot of ailments. Already, several news organizations like CNN-IBN are reporting that hospitals have reported a large intake of patients suffering from cracker uses.

But, inspite of all this, people will celebrate. It is all about having a good time, so who cares about the harm that it causes to other people. Diwali and hedonism go hand in hand. Pleasure is the ultimate for many people, and they don't give much about the suffering of other people.

The Future of Journalism

I am now pondering about the future of Journalism in the world. This is all because of a film that i recently saw. Titled 'Page 3', the film explores the length to which Serious Journalism has been compromised for commercial purposes. The film concludes by symbolizing Entertainment and Advertising as the future. If this is the future, then we should be scared, really scared.

"Infortainment" is the new age style of Journalism. It follows the concept that celebrity figures and their actions will constitute News. Any serious issue is sidelined due to vested interests or Advertiser fear of putting off Consumer buying mood. When there are more pressing issues to cover like Corruption, Crime and serious hard and bad news, the media may not want to cover it in this age.

Reasons may range from People not understanding, people just not wanting to watch, lack of Advertising resulting in Budget cuts and scrapping of the program. The other way out is for Media houses to say that Celebrities Sell well, and that Infotainment gives us more money. They may point out to a mission statement that says the Job of the Media is to make profit.

The Left leaning theorists might only speculate that the Capitalist dominated press is indeed the death knell for Democracy. But, the solutions that they provide may lack clarity or it could be even worse. What's more depressing is the fact that People have now accepted Infotainment, and so they do not give serious thought about problems persisting in their socio-economic setup.

If Democracy and Freedom are indeed taken for granted, then it may sound a little off track for democracies to critique Authoritarianism. People will have to subject to Dictatorship to understand the importance of Democracy and Freedom. Democracies revolve around Citizens, but media of this age seems to dumb them down and perplex them. This results in Apathy and stagnation in the democratic process.

The future of Journalism is of conflict between serious and infotainment Journalism. The victor seems to be infotainment, and because it comes under the garb of Freedom and Audience choice, one can only see it getting consolidated in the near future.

Fragmentation and Globalization

It is indeed a strange mixture. Globalization stresses on the homogenity of cultures and individuals, while fragmentation is just the opposite. The increase in the pace of Globalization has led to a rapid fragmentation of society and culture. This has extended to all forms of activities and peceptions. Homogenity has come in clash with the perception of the human need. It is perhaps this reason why there are so many instances of Fragmentation in this world today.

Fragmentation needs a catalyst to come into the fore. The Catalyst was 9/11, and its aftereffects. This single event led to a chain of events that led to this Fragmentation of the world all over again. It is wrapped under the cloak of Nationalism. Individuals in every nation are going back to their roots by emphasizing his nationality and his personal beliefs.

Personal beliefs are dominated from the framework of religion. In the Muslim world, this is more eveident. Sunni and Shia conflicts in Iraq are threatening the social order of every Arab nation in the Middle East. The Middle East is already torn up by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America's War approach and biased initiatives. This adds a dangerous mixture to this volatility.

Globalization has demonstrated the Lone Superpower theory to be concrete. Globalization was perhaps the catalyst for the US to speed up its hegemonic control of the world. Already, it has its impression on the world due to its export of culture, but now it is assuming dangerous proportions. It is too early to establish Iran as part of the next power surge of the US Imperialist ambition. If War with Iran breaks out, then the establishment of American Supremacy may be complete. If it goes badly, the the US will have more trouble than ever imagined. It could be Vietnam all over again, only bloodier and deadlier.

When Fragmentation is complete, it allows outside influences to wield control. Globalization has bought in Fragmentation, and this has led to US Hegemonical power. It could be perhaps safe to term Globalization as the new form of Colonial Imperialism. It is the Colonization of the US, and Imperialism by the Capitalist enterprise.

In Conflict

There comes a time when individuals are tested. There arrives a moment when you are questioned about who you are. There is a time when you need to change, to improve your image to others. All these issues are wrapped under the guises of friendship, advice and doing something good.

The intention is noble, but it does put into question the individuality aspect. It is perhaps this starting point which causes friction between individual and society. What is the general acceptance and parameters laid out by society? What role and structure must the individual assume to fit society? Is the era of importance to the self well and truly over?

Society as a whole is a very vague concept. No one has a clear cut defination of what society truly is. With assimilation of several cultures, it is now become subjective. People that constitute the society themselves are caught in the crossroads between Micro culture and Macro culture. To add to the mixture, Individuality is at constant conflict within the self and outside.

The individual is crucial. Some may want to carve a niche for themselves, but a majority will shun who they are so that they can get acquanited with the broader society. It is at this point that the conscience comes into conflict. Should the individual shun his real personality and become some one who he is not? Many individuals are successful, but they come into conflict with several unknown factors of society.

In today's world, individuality is at a premium. The importance of the self is presumed to be indirectly Hedonistic. At the same time, it is wrapped under the cloak of Selfishness. Individuals become someone they cannot be at the behest of society. It is at this point that they lose direction in their life. The case in point here may be changing an individual's looks to become cool.

This aspect is widely contested. If it doesn't work out, it is problematic. Individuals and societies are so hypocritical that an ordinary person tends to lose out on both the aspects. Pre concieved notions are brought forward of a particular social aspect, and it turns out to be a no-win situation for the individual.

What is defined coolness? What is defined as acceptability? The answer to all of this is vague. The fact is society and individuals are vague creatures, and so we may have to satisfy ourselves with the saying, "You cannot satisfy them all". Small mistakes that individuals make in behavior are then taken up by others and create a stereotype.

Call this post childish or a blowhorn for individualism. The fact remains that Individuals are happy only when they are at peace with themselves. People can be cool in several ways, even if you are plain in appearance. You need not be boisterous, just simple to be cool. But, an individual claim and of society will be in conflict with the above. I guess this is what constitutes a kind of mini- stepping stone. Learning of life and its intricate death traps, and emerging unscathed, is the constant conflict till the grave.

The Truth?????

Tehelka has come up with an expose regarding the Gujarat Riots of 2002. These riots had questioned the very fundamentals upon which India was created. These operations have polarized many sections of the Indian Public. Many have called the Media of inflaming communal tensions, while others have called for the chief minister and his other associates to be hanged. The credibility of the media has also been called into question, and others are calling the media vigilant. Once again, India is caught in the crossroads. Should the Tehelka expose be considered truthful? Should people acknowledge that Gujarat Cheif minister, Narendra Modi, is a modern day mass murderer?

Gujarat is also among the crossroads. There are many sources which claim that Gujarat has become more prosperous under Mr. Modi and that the state is in good health. Many media sections are calling it a totalitarian state. Who should we believe? Tehelka has had a history of Vigilant Journalism. They are the only outlet in India which is indulging in Serious Journalism. They have bought many scams and corruption issues to the public, and ushered in transperancy. India needs more such outlets to transform it into a vigilant and vibrant democracy.

With all these qualities, why are the Public still at the Crossroads? Why cannot they say that the Gujarat riots represented the first case of Genocide in India? This maybe due to the factor of religion. This concept evokes such passion and emotion among people that this situation will lead into confusion.

Since this event has been wrapped into religious connotations, the people are afraid to say anything. The riots in Godhra involved religious motivations, the fight of Hindus to counter the muslims. When it is presented in this way, each side wants to avoid inflamming the issue. The people of India have to come out in the open and denounce religion. The people, of all strata, must denounce the religious angle for the sake of the truth.

The headline says 'The Truth?'. People need to be clear what happened. Demand the perpetrators be dealt with, and admit that wrongs have been committed under the falsehood called religion. The events of 2002 has also shown how dangerous religion is. People need to understand the dangers of religion, because it emphasizes on pureness. Today, that pureness is interpreted as Fundamentalism. Truth is subjective, but facts are not. The Tehelka expose is a fact, the riots are a fact, fundamentalism is a fact, and religion is dangerous, that is also a fact.

A Perfect Media?????

I often am in conflict about the state of the media. Many people say that Corporate ownership of the media is bad. State control of media is equivalent to a non-democratic society. Citizen Journalism and Public service Broadcasting also have their flaws. Should we believe Media theorists when they say that Media needs to be reformed? Many left leaning media theorists are against the Corporatization of media, and offer for the regeneration of Public service Broadcasting. Is it appropriate to have a "Perfect" Media?

We all may be forgiven to think that Media theorists are doing their job when they critique media. By offering alternatives and critiquing the present setup, they have frequently called for Democratic Media, which is a perfect media. But, i detect a lot of uncertainty in their conviction. They may be torn up by the realities of Social orientation in the Capitalist world, and also the economic setups which are prevelant. But, i guess it is necessary to question the very concept of "Perfect Media".

The social setup is such that You cannot satisfy everybody, let alone a majority. Perfect as a concept is very vague. Humans have always created systems of functioning. Because of human nature being so volatile, the systems may tend to reflect that. We can only perhaps make a vague gesture at Perfection of a system. Democracy is taken for granted in the west, and thus the calls for democratic media are more here.

Priorities, like human nature, are variable. Media is a structure created out of several choices. People want Information, but their choices vary. Media tries to be flexible, and in this process the real message is lost. There cannot be a perfect media system that caters to Democracy, because Democracy is Plurality. Media wants Homogenity, which democracy wants, but social reality is pluralistic. This conflict will ensure that the system of a perfect media can never come up. I guess this conflict will continue for quiet some time, because man has to agree to something.

Racism and different meanings

Once again, the shadow of racism has come up in sports. The hype has apparently died down, but it has dangerous overtones. The victims of racism are openly becoming racist, thus eliminating the one civility which seperates them from the rest. The case regarding Andrew Symonds Monkey Taunt is being questioned as Racial abuse or aggressiveness

The reason for the Monkey taunts was apparently his looks. I took a small but bold test to check out this factor of abuse. The testing ground was in a community on Orkut named T20 World Champions. This community was for die hard cricket fans only, and in that one section was regarding the crowd behavior. I decided to give this concept of abuse a test. Following the Symonds Taunt and it being classified as a Racist incident, i abused the Indian Cricket team and Mumbai. I went to the detail that the Indian Cricket team should be destroyed in Australia and also be subjected to racial abuse.

The last sentence initiated the responses. I was called Bad names, had my looks being destroyed and had my patriotism questioned. It is from here that i will look into the concept of the fine line between Racial abuse and aggression.

The concept of Racism is very controversial. In sport, this is controversial when you mix it with aggression. Now, the fans of any sport will be behind the home team, and they may taunt the opposition for psychological advantage. This may have been the case with the Symonds issue. The Media in this case might be guilty of making a mountain of a molehill. But, this becomes problematic if a person is targetted. Under the guise of aggression and fun, some unfortunate things might occur which could be intepreted in a negative way.

The Crowd behavior may be the outcome of the last statement that i made. This highlights the fact that Cultural differences, if ignored, lead to a lot of problems. Many sections of the population have commented that the monkey chant is because of the way he looks. It is from here that the issue becomes really problematic.

One thing has different meanings in different cultures. Calling Andrew Symonds a Monkey is a personal insult. Let us ignore this fact that we have all evolved initially out of Monkeys. Personal taunts to a sportsmen is just not warranted. What is unfortunate though is that certain sections of the population are going into denial mode.

Who is at fault here? I, honestly believe that you cannot fault Symonds by the way he looks. This is wrong, so the blame might have to fall on the public. But, the question is, can a taunt be labelled racist? It is a difficult question, because racism as a whole is vague. Nobody likes personal abuse. Today, when i conducted the experiment, i realized the amount of hate that i generated because of the abuse that i put forth. How would Symonds be feeling about this?

Nobody will talk that much if the role is reversed. But, the ugly thing of racism is showing up and people are becoming irrational. The danger is that is becoming unambiguous now, and we are starting to loose sense of what is right and what is wrong.

P:S: I would like to thank the people who participated in the experiment, although it is without their consent. Sorry for that, but that is Technology

Green World: The ideal world

I have been in the UK for two months, and i am surprised at some papers devoting stories about the environment. Environemntal issues are really a concern for people in the polity of the west. Elections are now being fought keeping one eye on environmental issues. The one concern now is: Are we really concerned about the environment or this is another gimmick for power?

Looking at environemntal threats in the world, the average citizen must be worried. It is about time that we make the environment safe to live in. Already, Wars and humans are threatening our existence. We do not need the environment to corer our existence and ensure our extinction. It is a different thing that we deserve it, for the harm we have caused to nature.

The talk is about Industrialization with an eye on the environment. I feel that this is just an eyewash to justify rampant industrialization. Either you have an environment friendly setup or an industrial setup. The different dynamics at which they operate makes it impossible to implement a combination of both. In the long run, industry will neglect environment, in order to increase productivity and capital

The environment is now irreversibly damaged, and one now has to wait for the inevitable time of climate change, say environmental activists and some experts. The only thing that citizens can now do is to limit the damage that climate change might cause. This gives them a chance to reduce the harm done by them in the mas frenzy of industrialized consumption. But, somewhere down the line, the alarm bells are ringing, and the bells will get louder as the decades go by.

Clash of Old and New

Certain processes are initiated at a particular period of time. Over time, these processes are challenged and multiple other processes come into the fore. These processes can be anything in the prevailing socio-economic order. The challenging over the time has caused this queer concept of a generation gap. This is aptly termed as the battle between Old school and New school.

Old and new thoughts have always been in conflict in determining the path which society should take. The Old school suffers from the fact that it is too rigid and conservative in outlook. They proclaim that the status quo remain, while the new seek reforms in the status quo. This arguement may necessarily need not extend to all fields, but the general perception remains. The New school prides itself in the individuality of an individual, and consider themselves highly pragmatic. The New school goes with the outlook that anything goes in society, and that all crime and corruption are the misdeeds of Old school. They site history as their reference.

The new school may be the way of the future, but as someone who wants to be balanced, this view may also carry certain risks. The new school has perhaps lost the thinking capability. Under the guise of technology, they have ironed their mind to expect things on a silver platter. The techno-savvy generation then makes time as a premium, and do not utilize it effectively.

The concept of thinking in the new generation has been eliminated. The concept of 'Do it in the heat of the moment' dominates. Without looking at the consequences, they may arrive at a decision, but without considering the broader picture. The Old generation suffers from the fact that they allow Time to carry its own course, rather than initiating it themselves. Both generations suffer from Apathy because of the respective course of actions that they take.

Only one area remains comon with both old and new. Both are Apathetic to the socio-economic functioning, each dispute their apathic levels. Both generations argue about their so-called success quotients under the garb of achievement. The fact remains that Success, achievement and the wider society are very subjective in nature.

In order to tackle the subjectivity, it is not advisable to shun it. It will involve patient deliberation by both generations to end the clash. Universal acceptance may be impossible, but there could be some form of consensus on many issues. Thorough Compromise, rather than an imposed an uncomfortable compromise, should be the motive. But, the main aim is to break the barrier that subjectivity can be easily dismissed. If that happens, then half the battle to end the clash betwen old and new is achieved.

Political education

We talk about how literate we all are. It is important for all of us to be educated, so that we can face the dangers of the world. But, this literacy is quiet subjective, considering the times of today. When we live in dangerous times, it is important to examine this literacy in certain terms. The field is regarding International Politics. Here are some basic questions.

Who is the Prime Minister of Taiwan? Is Somalia a democracy? Who is the president of Egypt? How many political parties are there in Turkey? What is the role of the various lobbies in the US? Who is the president of Romania? Who is the president of newly independent East Timor? There are many more questions, but the answers will be quiet few. The frightening thing, i guarantee is, no one will have a concrete answer to any of these questions.

The author will be honest and state that he also will not answer these questions clearly. But, the point I can make is that majority of the world's population do not know world politics. The public of the so called Superpower nations all are blank when asked about these certain basic questions. This lack of knowledge is indeed frightening, for it makes us question the very fact of education.

Why do people shun away from political knowledge and working? The answer lies in the functioning of the mind. The mind pre-empts our bias of politics, that it is too complex and also it is perplexing. International Politics suffers from a different fate altogether. The people of a particular nation are NOT bothered about what happens somewhere else. The arguement is dismissed in one simple statement, "Why should I care about an event thousands of miles away?" Once made, it is difficult to penetrate this mindset.

All this talk of globalization is farce if citizens are not educated in the field of Politics.Right now, i can say that there are very few courses or studies exclusively devoted to Politics. Studies of politics are left to experts, who may slant it towards their bias. If common citizens get hold of political knowledge and their execution, then the bias can be reduced effectively. Common Citizens must be educated in the subject of Politics with specialization. In this way, many more people will want to gain entry into politics and shatter the Apathy which is detrimental to Democracy.

But, this concept suffers from the fact that people will not take up politics as a subject. The very fact that politics is viewed as a time consuming process will result in a few participation. It is important for people to shatter the bubble of apathy, because in the long run it is going to hurt them in their socio-economic functioning. If Politics as a subject is introduced in the education system, then people's participation will initially rise, and then transform into active participation in the process.

Declining number of voter turnouts has caused alarm in democratic setups about the viability of democratic foundations. Thus, the first step in remedying this is to get Politics to the Citizens. The best way is in the form of introducing Politics in the education system. Many people will say that this method is bound to fail and that citizens won't take the initiative. But, if apathy is to be shattered, then this step has to be taken.

Chinese Competition

It is no wonder that the US is scared. Everybody is watching this progress, and they continue to be stunned. The levels of competition and benchmarks that it sets is simply mind boggling. They have their presence everywhere in the world, and yet they maintain their own. China continues to grow, and they continue to awe us.

First it was the Great wall which mesmerised the world about China, now it is their Great Economic growth. The development in most parts of China is simply mind boggling, and many say this is just the beginning. Along with Economic development, their performance in the sporting arena has improved leaps and bounds. The Athens olympics of 2004 is testament to that. They came close to breaking the American stranglehold on the games, winning 32 Gold medals to America's 34.

The icing on the cake is going to be the 2008 Beijing Olympics. What better place to assert their supremacy in their hometown. This Olympics may see a special side of China, and the next coming decades could belong to the Chinese. With their population everywhere, they will be a global presence larger than the presence of either the US or India.

But, is everything so rosy with China? There are secrets hidden in China. The worst part is that the Chinese authorities can hide these secrets quiet well. Either these secrets are hidden well or they are not highlighted at all. Media freedom, crackdown on dissidents of Tibet or Tiannemen, concealing of the number of people with AIDS and extreme poverty in the remaining country. Inspite of that, the world thinks that China is a gold mine.

The above mentioned factors are the so called Dark side of China. But, i am wondering how the western world sees only light in the China of today. If it was in India or other places, then the dark side would have got equal prominence. Maybe, it is the communist system of government, but other regimes of communism collapsed with all the above, and yet China stands tall. Maybe, the government and the people had the foresight to reform and adjust to the world scenario.

All in all, nobody is denying that China is on a boom, and that the Beijing Olympics will be a showcase of their power. But, there are still dark sides to this giant. One which may take lots of patience and courage to bring light to.

Technology benefits

Both of these terms are contradictory, yet they lead to each other in today's world. Technology was created to make things easier. But, in some aspects, like the Media, technology has acted like a double-edged sword. Technology has aided in spreading media to places. It has helped people in the remotest corners to get information and be part of the world. But, there are three instances by which technology has not aided the world. One is regarding Perplexity, high costs and information overload.

Perplexity is what you can define in democracies of the world today. Under the garb of giving balanced information, the citizenry are confused and lack any judgement. The political process is then stagnated, and citizens coil in their shell of Apathy. The situation here warrants attention. The issue of information clutter is very evident. Citizens do not know what is right and what is wrong, and thus do not participate. People going to the polls and their attendance over a period of time has declined. The decline is a result of citizens losing faith in their instituitions as well as Media presenting information which is perplexing.

The factor of High costs is very prominent in the Capitalist world today. The basic fact is that Technology can be helpful, but only for those who can afford it. For an ordinary peasent folk or people in the rural areas, basic needs dominate over technology. The fact that Technology comes with a very high proce tends to make it a double edged sword. It can be beneficial and at the same time not enlighten the people.

Information overload is a factor which affects the Haves of society. Like the poor who may not be able to afford technology, the rich are burdened with having too much of information. The Internet, along with the increase in 24 hour satellite news, has led to this situation. The majority will say that is the normal functioning of a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. I view it as a dangerous plight, for Apathy can weaken the Democratic structure. Information overload can leave Citizens confused, and in today's time, the media might not make things so easy for the Citizens.

What should be done? If Information is streamlined in less numbers, then everyone will shout out that State Control of Broadcasting is back. If the press makes it too black or white, then they loose trust and are considered biased. Technology, like a double edged sword, has even spilled out into the solutions. Any solution which goes against the dictum of technology is termed irrational.

However, one must emphasis that One to one personal communication is essential. How much technology might have saved time, there is nothing better than one-on-one communication. Human beings understand about various processes through personal communication. The early town hall meetings would make sense at this time because democracy needs people to function. If people can contribute ideas in person, then democracy might be rejuvenated.

Technology is useful in parts, but it should not be made central to the whole process. Technology is afterall a human creation, and we humans must ensure that it does not take us over.

It just had to happen

In some of my posts, i had mentioned about the effect of blowbacks. This term is used to describe an event that occurs to have repercussions in some other part of the globe at some other time. Now, there seems to be an active push for war with Iran by the US. The situation is becoming worse in Burma and Zimbabwe, and now the impact of gun culture on immigrant culture. The death of Magda, a Polish migrant at a Healthcare centre highlights this problem of gun culture and indirectly the utopia of a good life in a foreign land.

The situation in the Middle East never ceases to be hostile. Now, the US has plans to bombard Iran. This is going to put the world at an even greater peril, and hence a wider regional conflict looms large. The US will be caught in the middle, and once again the outcome could be disastrous for the US. This wider regional conflict can take the form of 10 Vietnams for the US. If the outcome turns out to be negative, then the US Public and psyche will be demoralized to a much greater extent. This time, the demoralizing effect could last decades.

Trusts will be put up, charities will be setup, but no one will do anything on the ground. This is the plight of Burma and Zimbabwe. The situation for both countries is tragic, as brutal dictatorship on one hand and land issues in the other stagnate their progress. Ordinary people are burdened by high prices and lack of decent living. Their plight is not helped by the world which adopts an Econocrastic approach to their situation. As the saying goes, "It's all about the Money, Honey", applies very promptly for Burma. The dictatorships, democracies and businesses will drain the country of its resources, all to feed their economies.

Zimbabwe has now turned from the Bread Basket of Africa into No Bread at all. The collapse of the farming sector now hardens the plight of Zimbabweans, who can do nothing but watch. The world will issue dictums, but since this situation can be wrapped in the cloak of Racism, second thoughts prevail, and the status quo is endured by ordinary Zimbabweans.

The story of Magda and the gun culture are both two different problems plagued by varied outlooks. For me, an Immigrant from a distant land, Magda's plight indeed hurt me the most. In the seacrh of a good life, she fell victim to a gun culture that is a result of all the decadent wealth around here. Why is the factor of Gun Culture so prominent in the West? Does the Gun culture reflect the midset of the people that everybody is out to get them? The factor of Gun Culture has come up in certain countries following the shooting at Virginia tech couple of months ago. The shooting left 32 dead, and emphasized the Gun culture should be controlled. But, nothing has come up yet, and guns are used by gangs and other individuals under the garb of security.

Magda, Zimbabwe, Burma and Iran all share one thing. They are all unfortunate victims due to unforeseen circumstances or because of their own making. But, we as ordinary people can do nothing, because we are all involved in struggles of our own life. Money, different priorities for self and establishing a niche are what we are oncerned. As long as things don't hit your doorstep, we shall continue to practice Apathy. It will always be like that from now on! LONG LIVE HEDONISM AND SELFISHNESS

The Mahatma and reality

Yesterday was 2nd October. The birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi is celebrated. A personality of such proportions comes only once in a while. India is surely blessed to get a man like him. But, looking at the situation of the world, i wonder how the Mahatma would have taken it? Does the present world scenario show that Gandhi's principles and his philosophy are indeed false?

The 9/11 attacks, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, subsequent conflicts all over the world and repressions in Zimbabwe and Burma are all indicators to prove that Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence is false. By the very nature of the human setup, violence is inevitable. This theory has now been tinged with the factor of Rationality, thus making people believe this theory into reality. Violence, and the nature of the human mind, may make peace unachievable this century.

When you look at the way Democracies are functioning, it may furthur give a stamp of approval to the above paragraph. The world apathy over Burma and stagnation in Zimbabwe are furthur proofs of a militarist approach to life and to people. Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha and non violence has been flushed down the Toilet, and the door has remained shut.

I guess it is glad that Mahatma Gandhi is no more. "Lage Raho Munnabhai", a popualr indian film is proof of that. There is no value for Mr.Gandhi today, and worse, nobody can stand up for the truth. Values and Truthfulness of Gandhi is been debated, and some sections have shamefully rejected Gandhi and called him a traitor. Many people believe that because of Gandhi's mistake, the state of Pakistan was created, and the social fabric of the Sub-Continent completely altered.

But, there is a different reality to what Mahatma Gandhi advocated. His philosophy of Non Violence and Truth was perhaps to look at the individual within. Nobody ever said that Diplomacy and Peace was easy. If it was, the world would have been a better place to live. The thing about Peace and Diplomacy is it involves patience and a clear conscience. It also involves focus. Unfortunately, none of the elected representatives of elite democracies possess those qualities. Regarding US President George.W.Bush, he did not even consider it. The other world leaders are too occupied with their problems to focus on other things.

The absence of the above mentioned factors is what undermines Gandhi's philosophy. He had a clear conscience and a focus, and he succeded in his role. But, as a mortal, he made mistakes, some of which are not forgiven by the people of India. I will question those people and ask them, "what would THEY have done in Gandhi's place? The answer will be blank, because none of them can be Gandhi. To all the people who deride him for his policies, i will only say that they are not the embodiments of perfection.

I will not go into the intricacies of remebering Gandhi's legacy. Reality of today is such that it only makes individuals sad, and acknowledge that the Mahatma should have been alive today. His absence is really felt, and looking at future conflicts, this feeling may deepen of Satyagraha and non-violence.

Econocracy: Burma and the world apathy

The papers here in the UK have written about it. The cruelty of the military regime in Burma has been shown to the world. Voices have come out to denounce the situation. Leaders and the UN have called for tougher sanctions on the regime, but action is seriously absent. None of the world's superpowers are bothered about Burma, because the factor of finance is simply overriding their will to do anything.

The EU has only gone on length to deliberate imposing of sanctions, the US is only inserting more sanctions, the British PM spoke about human rights violations, and the rest of the world is Apathic about the whole situation. Two powers in the region, China and India, are not even interested, let alone take action. Maybe China is jostling behind the scenes, but it is not doing anything effective.

What can be said about this? It shows once again that strategic interests and business interests are subjective. The new world of today dictates that Economics plays a vital part in foreign policy, not human rights violations. Burma has reserves of Natural Gas, and so French, Chinese and Indian companies have an economic stake in the country. They do not care whether Human rights are violated or whether monks and students are being killed. As long as the money comes into their purses, they are content and they do not care about the violations.

This world of today is not oriented on Democracy or Autocracy. It is oriented along Econocracy. Econocracy is the fact the foreign relations are governed by the dynamics of natural resources and the advantages that it offers to a recipient country economically. China and India do not want to offend the nation, primarily because they may loose out on the economic race to acquire a foothold in Burma's reserves. The French company, Total, has continued to invest in operations in Burma, and is oblivious of the plight of Burma's people.

Nobody will take action. The UN has shown that it is too weak an organization to have any effect upon the world's functioning. The US, UK and other European nations are all obsessed with their own created problems. The situation in Burma may go the Somalia or the Zimbabwe way, one of total collapse. But, still, it won't be enough. The world will go on its materialistic way, and bad news will be substituted by good news made by Advertisers.

One thing that can be done is to Boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics. One paper suggested it in their opinion columns. But, no nation on this earth has the guts to stand up for rights violations. It is only when violations knock on their home that they speak of the true nature of human rights. The Econocrastic world is such that Economics is the ultimate driving force, nothing else matters. Econocracy is the new framework for millions, and nothing can be done to stop it.

Money, status: The original Utopia

I have been interested with the history of man and the kind of divisions that he has made up. Now, these divisions are so much a part of life that you wonder why was all this in aid for? Why were these divisions allowed? what posessed man to divide his brethren, when he ultimately was the same?

There is no definite point in History which says that the divisions occured. Some may point to the beginnings of the Indian Civilization, others during the period when trade was being discovered. But, i guess it all has evolved from the changing mindset of man through these times. This situation has gotten worse in the 21st century, with money and status suppressing the progress and the thinking of man.

The problem with society and man's thinking of this time is the fact that money is held important beyond life. The mind has been twisted in such a way that a piece of paper is considered holier than life. A pice of paper, with a denomination or a number is considered to be the status bearer for millions of people. How can this piece of paper determine the status of individuals in Society?

What and who determined the status of money? The dynamics of life and society nowadays are such that relationships, status and position are all becoming deterministic. If you have certain money value, only then you are acceptable, otherwise, there is too much of stress on your mind and you stagnate. Can we human beings live out of the purview of money and all? I think we can. If individuals can keep their priorities different, and have a holistic view of what THEIR life should be, i guess they can achieve it. But, to shatter the mindset involves tremendous odds, as you are going against the established notion of life itself.

Money and this so called Status is the Utopia that people are living on. Money cannot and should not be the individuals determining points. So, if a job is not found, maybe you can get more out of life if you do something else. What that something else is i won't say. Man is different, his thinking is different, so won't get into all that.

History in the making

This deals with the craze of the subcontinent. A game called Cricket is going to usher in a new history in that region. We all knew what passion this game can evoke in both India and Pakistan. Two of these countries, ever so volatile, ever so electrifying, ever so exciting, face of in a Cricket match today. Now, the question will be asked, so what? The thing this time is that India and Pakistan are meeting in the FINAL of the 20-20 Cricket WORLD CUP.

Traditional Cricket has tried, conventional short forms of the game gave a glimpse, but is the maverick creation of 20-20 cricket that has made it a reality. It was considered a dream if both these nations met in a final of a major competition. Now, on 24th September, this will be a reality in Johannesburg. Passions, emotions, Patriotism will all be in a different notch from fans of both nations. I can imagine the press in India whipping up a frenzy. It almost resembles a declaration of War! I guess Cricket and war are inter-related, especially when it is India and Pakistan.

Generations of both India and Pakistan have waited for a moment like this. Mnay of us were not born when India lifted the World Cup back in 1983. That was of course, the more conventional form of One Day International Cricket. But, the new era, a new style, and a new generation may be about to see something special. If 20-20 can make dreams into fantasy, then it definately should be the norm of the Cricket world now. The world is slowly watching, and taking not of this radical form.

Purists and advocates of the Old school of Cricket argue that this will destroy the game. It does not give its due to skills and applications. I would like to add that the game of Cricket, following this pattern of skills and applications has been largely confined to the sub-continent, and its losing popularity elsewhere. No doubt, the "purer version" of Cricket is challenging, and at times entertaining, but i guess the dynamics of time call for a global outlook for the game, and 20-20 is the catalyst for that.

I guess in a day it depends upon what are the priorities of the administrators. Whether they want the Old school, or a maverick form? Whether they want the purer version or a diluted International one? These issues will take a backseat for the moment, because history is playing out today at Johannesburg. Generations have only thought about this epic clash in their mind. I wonder how will the public interact when they see it on the Television set

Journalism perception

"All the President's Men" is a movie about the Watergate Scandal. This scandal was the biggest political scandal to hit the US government. This bought down the President, subverted the entire concept of the Constituition, compromised personal liberty and freedom of speech, and it was hailed as one of the Greatest Investigations in the field of Journalism.

Looking at the way Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, reporters at Washington Post covered the incident, it is no wonder that Watergate changed the face of Investigative Reporting. It emphasizes the fact that many things don't occur in Isolation. A certain small piece of evidence can lead to a bigger controversy. It also tells us that if lies and unlawfulness have to come out in the open, it is upto the Journalist to put in that maximum effort. The movie emphasized the fact that Woodward and Bernstein undertook Maximum of field research. They spent their time out on the field, calling people, confirming facts on paper, interviewing them personally, and always taking notes.

What it also tells us is that Journalists have to be committed to the cause at all times. It is very easy to dismiss the movie because technology has made many things easier. Technology has reduced the legwork that Woodward and Bernstein put in on the field, but it doesn't take away the fact that for solid confirmation of a fact, Fieldwork and simple note taking are of paramout importance. Technology is a device by which a lot of this Generation's journalists take for granted.

Woodward and Bernstein tell us that efforts should not be made in the office, but out on the field. They emphasize a very important point of perseverance, and careful management of their sources. This generation has to be very patient, and we have to put in so much of fieldwork that we forget what the office room looks like! However, one doubt still remains. Will sources and people concerned with the issue talk openly to Journalists in today's time? Many people nowadays are tending towards secrecy and concealment. Journalists are made to prode that little bit extra to get information, thus it throws ethics out of the window completely.

Watergate teaches us that if journalists put in creditable and useful fieldwork into good use, and with good source management and note taking, Accountability in the instituitions of Democracy shall always remain.

Remembering 9/11

It is now 6 years since the attacks on America took place. Millions around the world witnessed the change in the world dynamics at that moment. For a generation, people lived with the fear of the Cold War, and now people live with the shadow of terrorism and global uncertainties. 9/11 changed the world, perhaps for the worst, because it made everyone a lot less safer than previously. With 9/11, a domino effect was witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects have been there ever since.

What can we make of 9/11? It shattered the myth that America was not vulnerable. But, was it fair for some analysts to comment that something like 9/11 would have been prevented? How fair is it of the world community to undermine America's intention in Iraq and Afghanistan? It should be noted that the mood of the world is such that it is a typical Catch 22. If America does something on Terrorism, then it recieves brickbats. If it does not do anything, then it again recieves flak. What should be the action on Terrorism? The fact that this is more of a question is the reason why Terrorism is so dangerous.

Many nations now are in a War against Terrorism, and many nations have been victims of terrorism. The world seems to be on the edge, and every time there is a terror attack in some suburb of Baghdad or another terror warning, we get the picture of the approaching doomsday which will envelop the world. But, if nations and the government are concrete on the methods to combat terrorism, then it will can be contained. But, the problem is what can be the Concrete action?

As terrorism involves ordinary people and it is so ephemeral in nature, concrete actions might not be possible. Common individual rights and the broader civil liberty rights are compromised when action against terrorism needs to be taken. I guess terrorism is like a fire, it may burn for a while, and then burn out on its own. The question is how big the fire is and in how much time will this burn out?

The Nuances of constantly moving

From tomorrow, my contribution on this blog might be scratchy if not at best occasional. I will be ruing the fact that i am falling vicitm to a policy of getting settled in and also testing this wide convoluted world of technology. I am moving to my new residence tomorrow, and it is going to be my base for the next ten months. But, i am always apprehensive about going to a new place and taking additional time to settle in. During that time, you can be in a better frame of mind and can think about positive things on planning your day.

The new place is good, a bit like the present place where i am staying. But, it carries the uncertainty of No Internet connection, so i guess the contributions to this blog might be stalled for the time to come. But, i only hope that i can use the Internet. Because for me, with the absence of television, the Internet is my soul source for news. UK newspapers give very little information on International affaris, and it will take me some time to get used to the local news, of which i have no bearing.

As usual, Technology is making me uncertain about how to plan my day. If there is no Internet, then i may have to make additional trips to the cyber or to a building which is Wi-Fi equipped. I am looking forward to the sporting endeavours here, which might improve my attitude and my outlook in life. Although I am not going to set the sports arena on fire, i look forward to being refreshed. The Library will be my home away from home, and i will continue this trend until the course is over.

The nuances of constantly moving were highlighted in the packing today. i had to once again stuff things to the point where my suitcase would break. But, somehow i managed to get it done, and life both of them to the place of my residence. Now, those suitcases wont move for at least 4-5 months, before i may have to take another trip somewhere. I look forward to the intermitent contributions on my blog, but will keep it a point to highlight it on a regular basis. I am very proud of this one creation of mine, and I intend to nurture it.

Too much Intellectual Capability?

I was reading a book titled Foreign News: Ulf Hannerz. This book is one of the guideposts around which i will have to built my International Journalism around. There will be several, but along with books, i feel practical experience will be equally important. Being Street smart, or even grasping the knowledge of the common man on the street will be important. There is one statement in that book which will act as a reminder that Intellectul Capability will not be everything in Journalism.

He mentions that Many of the Foreign Journalists today are not a Major in Journalism or its related fields. All the noted Economic journalists, and other beat journalists have done their specializations in fields like Engineering. There was a paerson who was intellectually very good, but he did not work out for Journalism. Too many hassles were involved. There is a lesson in there for me. The message of being too intellectual and more to the book is what might get me into trouble in the coming few years.

The message for me is that i have to be very practical minded, and that i shoudl have common sense. Common sense would be to have a bit of street smartedness, get to know the events from the eyes of the people. I have to ask the right questions, and have to train regularly at that. I have to be out on the field most of the time, not in the office and make my judgements.

There should be determination from my side, and balance it out with acurate and sensible judgement. If common sense and fieldwork are followed quiet judiciously, along with sensible judgement, then we can become a good journalist.

Comparisons: The bane of Life

In every walk of life, an individual is compared to other individuals on account of the deeds that he has performed. Some individuals are compared to the broader socio-economic index. Some individuals are compared on account of their sporting exploits. Nations are compared to other nations on the development front. The rationale behind all this is to have a model to look upto, so that man and nation can emualte that. But, is this rationale correct? Is it wise to compare everything to a model of development or humanity?

At a personal level, very few individuals like to be compared to other people. The reason being that nowadays the diversity factor is more prominent. There is acknowledgement that people have different mindsets and different wavelengths of thought. Each is unique in their own way. The reason that they lag behind others and force themselves to be compared is either the lack of mental application or expression of interest where there is no medium.

Lack of mental applications means Ideas and Innovativenss, while medium of expression could be any work which suites the Individual mindset. All may not want to become Doctors or engineers, but they against their wishes because of lack of any flexible alternative orbecause of societal pressures. If man has to be on his own, then it is important to have at least ideas. Because, by having an idea, man progresses ahead and achieves it. He then becomes something, rather than a shadow of someone else.

Comparison of nations is also been done at a large scale today. Globalization has meant that no economy operates independently of the other. But, this comparison is very dangerous, because it wipes out the uniqueness factor, and puts nations on a framework which might not be sustainable and in the end subject to colapse and anarchy. None is more evident today then US centric economic development. Wherever we go, the US is the economy to be emulated, and many in India are dedicated to emulating it.

But, the notion to comparison of nations economy is indeed frought with danger. A prime example of this being India. In one part of the country, the rich are dominating. Rich are getting richer. Majority of India, about 70% of the population are rural, are getting poorer. This division is prompting critiques to say that, "There is an India within a Bharath". The socio-economic fabric is being tested, with constant violence among the population to also join in the prospierity. The problem pertaining to India is that no mainstreaming or follow up is done on any initiative.

People comparison is in a Microcosm. The comparison of nations is in a Macrocosm. When there are so many discrepencies in the Microcosm, would it be wise to consider something else in the Macrocosm? In the Microcosm, elements of diversity and different setups hinder the comparison. In the Macrocosm, the same things are prevelant, only differnce being that the Macrocosm is blanketed by an even bigger element.

Comparisons do not work. Experiences for a very minor proportion may be the same, but otherwise, it is known that nations and people have different experiences. This may be the ultimate stumbling block for Globalization, but since it shows prospierity and that it can adapt to various circumstances, this arguement may be pushed aside until collapse is ushered.

Good News, Bad news Priority

From the time printing began in the 15th century, events and information has assumed utmost importance in the life of man. With the advent of Technology and Journalism, man can now get the information that he seeks. Journalism has undergone changes in Technology, and now gives the public important information. Some Bad news which tell citizens of increased vigilance and encourages them to help democracy. Some Good news or Human Interest stories that may inspire citizens and help them feel positive about the world they live in. In the Western School of thought, Bad News always has to occupy front pages. Events regarding Politics, Socio-economic troubles, International Tensions always will dominate the front pages of western Liberal democracies like US, UK. In the Soviet times, Russia used its media to carry stories about the good aspects of Russia. Any event that could be good was covered, and bad news was relegated.

At that time, the west dismissed it as a Propoganda campaign, so that Citizens are not aware of the trouble the Russian state could be. But, looking at the new threat that confronts us, namely terrorism, we need to reassert what shall constitute good news and bad news. What impacts should this have on a multi-cultural society like India, which has been on the terrorist radar for so long? what needs to be done, because all bad news all the time may cause Citizens mindset to become negative, and withdrawn from the process.

I recently came across this critique by Outgoing Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam. He said that the Media highlights too much of the bad aspects of our country. It does not put in that much effort to show the progress and the good things about our country. He cited an example of Israel, a place where Teror activities occur everyday. When the President was in Tel Aviv, a suicide bomber had struck, killing lots of people. He expected the story to be on the front page of an Israeli daily. But, to his surprise, he found a human interest story which acted as an inspiration to Israelis who heard and witnessed the horrific incident of that day. The story was about how a man turned his desert ranch into a beautiful fruitful Garden.

Looking at the above example from the Western Liberal Media, they would have scorned at this concept. They would have alleged that the Media in Israel is not doing its job. But, they did not say anything. Unlike dismissing Russia's Propoganda Media tactics during the Cold war, they did not mention this. I am not focusing on the Double standards of the West, but i do want to bring in the point that Journalism needs to advocate a model based on the socio-economic set-up of a nation.

What defines good news and Bad news? What has been made Priority information and events which assume secondary information? Once again, we are in the crossroads of Citizens right to information and Dumbing Down. I feel that All good and Human Interest stories should not be put in the garb of Dumbing Down, Similarly, all Serious stuff should not be put on the front page, so much so, that the Citizen gets discouraged about the world he lives in.

Overdose of serious news all the time leads to Citizens becoming Apathic to the process. It is seen that more serious the news, the more the public interprets as being very tough to handle. Too much of serious news saps the mental strength of the Citizens, thereby stalling the democratic process. Very few individuals may rise above that and remain positive, but they soon will have doubts. This is because whatever the Media portrays nowadays, with technological devices, becomes real and factual.

At the same time, too much of human interest and gossip is also not desirable. Dumbing down poses the same threat as overdose of serious news. The key for Media organizations in diverse countries is to understand their priorities, and strike a fine balance. It is this balance that will keep the Citizen active in the proces. They will realize that they are indispensable to the problems of the process, and thus will be more vigilant. By having a clear conscience and clear bearings on right and wrong, the media will aid the process of democracy.

The western liberal thought of Media functionign will lead to periodic stagnating of the process. An alternative view must be established that good news, human interest and not so serious stuff can also contribute to the democratic foundation. A balance of serious news, to make the Base strong, and an equal dose of good news, to keep Citizens positive and also engaged in the system, should be the ultimate aim of the Media