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.