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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, November 23, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 19, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
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.
"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.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
