Indian lawmakers - the so called "honourable" Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assemblies and Councils - are they really honourable ? Some of them are convicts, convicted for criminal offences like murder, kidnapping and rape. Some others, are invovled in cases no less serious cases like human trafficking. And some others for "inciting fundamental religious hatred" among the people.
How to get rid of criminal elements from entering the legislature ? We are asked to believe in the constitution and the law made by the law makers of the land, and stand in elections and fight the candidates of calibre mentioned above, follow the laws made by these law-makers and then change the law for the good!! What a top-class solution !
Monday, May 7, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Neutral umpires in international cricket
The concept of "neutral umpires" is something that the ICC has been following religiously since a few years. Ofcourse, the need for such "neutral umpires" who didnot belong to any of the 2 nations whose teams were playing cricket, was seen as a necessity some years ago when the touring teams kept re-iterating that the "home umpires" are partial towards their respective home teams while taking the decisions. Such a need was particularly felt by most cricketing teams which visited Pakistan. And consistent call for better umpiring for cricket matches played in Pakistan led the then Pakistani cricket captain, the legendary Imran Khan to suggest this wonderful idea of "neutral umpires" somewhere in the 1980s ( if I were to remember properly)which was welcomed by the cricketing faternity and the supporters. It ensured that cricket matches were played fairly and with right "cricketing spirits", even though one cannot ever rule out the human errors which can come even with the neutral umpires.
However, with the recent bungling that followed by the umpires in the just concluded ICC cricket worldcup 2007 has led to some players to asking for the best umpires to stand in the cricket matches rather than having the neutral umpires. Today the technology has improved by leaps and bounds than it was in 1980s and the umpires also face the pressure of performing - not just the players ! Therefore, such a call in my opinion needs to be given some thought by the ICC - and should be experimented with - but not completely giving up its presently held policy of neutral umpires which evolved out of necessities.
However, with the recent bungling that followed by the umpires in the just concluded ICC cricket worldcup 2007 has led to some players to asking for the best umpires to stand in the cricket matches rather than having the neutral umpires. Today the technology has improved by leaps and bounds than it was in 1980s and the umpires also face the pressure of performing - not just the players ! Therefore, such a call in my opinion needs to be given some thought by the ICC - and should be experimented with - but not completely giving up its presently held policy of neutral umpires which evolved out of necessities.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Secularism in India - as I think it is
Constitution of India(its preamble) declares the State of India as a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. The words "socialist secular"were added later by virtue of an amendment - these were not originally present in the earliest form of the Indian Constitution. Its another story altogether as to why these words were added - I am not going to write about it here , but instead going to express my understanding of the word "secular".
The general meaning for the word "secularism" that is held world-wide is in the sense of freedom of religion and that the government( or the state) is independent of matters of the religion. Public decisions and activities should be based on proper evidence, fact and scientific reasoning. Whereas in private life, one is free to follow whatever "way of life" one chooses to live. Religious considerations should never be made in public education. Nor should the public/governmental money be spent on any kind of religious promotions - whether directly or indirectly. As applied to individuals, I firmly believe "Secularism" means a way of life free from religious influence in all public spheres and hence would consider myself a true secular.
In India, however, "Secularism" is mainly understood as "Respect for all religions - religious tolerance" - a perverted view that has been propogated by the so called "secular" Indian politicians over the years - public platforms have been used( rather mis-used) for this purpose in a deliberate propogandist manner by the self-styled "secularists" of the Indian polity who have ruled the country right from its inception. Public Broadcasting boards(Ofcourse fully Govt. controlled) have aired this meaning in their channels from the time they have been instituted. This is the meaning that has been consistently taught in the schools all over the country.No doubt these politicians cry hoarse when any attempt is made to change this - Not to be thought that I supported all the changes attempted by a previous Indian government which tried to change the syallabus taught in schools by hurriedly introducing books which were claimed by several respected educationalists as of sub-standard quality and presenting a distorted view.
Indian politicians and the the Govt. officials not only visit religious meetings and places in official capacity, but also regularly grant the tax-payers' money for religious promotions. Special concessions are given to citizens travelling to religious shrines. A uniform common law is not applicable for all the citizens of the country - even though - the constitution clearly says all citizens are to be treated equally and no consideration is to be given to religion/caste/creed to which one belongs. This particular feature of the constitution has been violated right from the day the constitution was adapted. The failure of the govt to put in place a uniform civil code clearly displays the failure of independent India to produce firm & strong leadership.Very often the govt budges under the pressure of religious fundamentalists and has been treating the country more as a federation of religious groups than as a federation of states. Probably the best opportunity to put in place a truly secular federation of states in the country was when it gained independence - but unfortunately for the country, at helm was a weak and feeble leader-PrimeMinister J.Nehru. His family members have since then held power for decades. Possibly his daughter Indira was the strongest and most firm leader that modern India has seen so far. But she too lost the opportunity to take the country towards true secularism - only an amedment in the constitution is of no use.
The general meaning for the word "secularism" that is held world-wide is in the sense of freedom of religion and that the government( or the state) is independent of matters of the religion. Public decisions and activities should be based on proper evidence, fact and scientific reasoning. Whereas in private life, one is free to follow whatever "way of life" one chooses to live. Religious considerations should never be made in public education. Nor should the public/governmental money be spent on any kind of religious promotions - whether directly or indirectly. As applied to individuals, I firmly believe "Secularism" means a way of life free from religious influence in all public spheres and hence would consider myself a true secular.
In India, however, "Secularism" is mainly understood as "Respect for all religions - religious tolerance" - a perverted view that has been propogated by the so called "secular" Indian politicians over the years - public platforms have been used( rather mis-used) for this purpose in a deliberate propogandist manner by the self-styled "secularists" of the Indian polity who have ruled the country right from its inception. Public Broadcasting boards(Ofcourse fully Govt. controlled) have aired this meaning in their channels from the time they have been instituted. This is the meaning that has been consistently taught in the schools all over the country.No doubt these politicians cry hoarse when any attempt is made to change this - Not to be thought that I supported all the changes attempted by a previous Indian government which tried to change the syallabus taught in schools by hurriedly introducing books which were claimed by several respected educationalists as of sub-standard quality and presenting a distorted view.
Indian politicians and the the Govt. officials not only visit religious meetings and places in official capacity, but also regularly grant the tax-payers' money for religious promotions. Special concessions are given to citizens travelling to religious shrines. A uniform common law is not applicable for all the citizens of the country - even though - the constitution clearly says all citizens are to be treated equally and no consideration is to be given to religion/caste/creed to which one belongs. This particular feature of the constitution has been violated right from the day the constitution was adapted. The failure of the govt to put in place a uniform civil code clearly displays the failure of independent India to produce firm & strong leadership.Very often the govt budges under the pressure of religious fundamentalists and has been treating the country more as a federation of religious groups than as a federation of states. Probably the best opportunity to put in place a truly secular federation of states in the country was when it gained independence - but unfortunately for the country, at helm was a weak and feeble leader-PrimeMinister J.Nehru. His family members have since then held power for decades. Possibly his daughter Indira was the strongest and most firm leader that modern India has seen so far. But she too lost the opportunity to take the country towards true secularism - only an amedment in the constitution is of no use.
About Me - KSK
I am a rational ( or rather try to be one,as being a perfect rational is a near impossibility!) secular( Please read my blog on "Secularism") humanist and define "religion" as " a way of life". I think that the practical existence of such an entity called "GOD" is highly improbable, so much improbable that it is not worth considering that such an entity exists in practice. And accordingly, my religion is "agnosticism". Probably it won't be wrong to call me a free-thinker either. Writings and thinkings of the likes of Bertrand Russel and Robert Ingersoll resemble highly with my own thinkings and am influenced by the thinkings of these rational people.
I have always believed in the following,but quote Russel's exact wordings here-"We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create."
I would try to express my viewpoints on certain issues of the day in this blog in a very straight forward manner. A person who reads this blog is free to put his/her comments - please put it as frankly as possible - it is very unlikely that I get offended. I am a very firm believer in freedom of thought and expression. Every person should be free to express one's thoughts - the checkpoints should be kept to bare minimum - whether it is criticising a policy taken by the Government or a judgement of a court or an opinion on some religious/ritualistic faith - freedom of speech and expression should never be curtailed.
It is perfectly possible that some viewpoint that I have published presently changes over time in future - the reason being that, it is not possible to be an ideal rationalist everytime. At a later point of time, it is possible that one realises one's belief/thinking not being rational enough and change accordingly - hence would like to emphasise that I am open to comments/criticisms.
I have always believed in the following,but quote Russel's exact wordings here-"We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create."
I would try to express my viewpoints on certain issues of the day in this blog in a very straight forward manner. A person who reads this blog is free to put his/her comments - please put it as frankly as possible - it is very unlikely that I get offended. I am a very firm believer in freedom of thought and expression. Every person should be free to express one's thoughts - the checkpoints should be kept to bare minimum - whether it is criticising a policy taken by the Government or a judgement of a court or an opinion on some religious/ritualistic faith - freedom of speech and expression should never be curtailed.
It is perfectly possible that some viewpoint that I have published presently changes over time in future - the reason being that, it is not possible to be an ideal rationalist everytime. At a later point of time, it is possible that one realises one's belief/thinking not being rational enough and change accordingly - hence would like to emphasise that I am open to comments/criticisms.
Human life/rights is more important
Bangalore in recent times has been observing with great horror the sights of stray dogs attacking the general public. Oflate, it has become too common with almost a new incident of stray dogs' attack reported in newspapers nearly every week.
Now,who is responisble for this ? The concerned city municipal authorities are most certainly responsible for negligence on their part, also are the general public who fail to keep the environment around them clean. However, responsible also for this are the so called "Animal Rights groups" who want stray dogs moving around within the city boundaries. They keep insisting( with advertisments in leading newspapers) that dogs are man's best friends - ofcourse they are, no denying the fact - but not the stray dogs ! Their basic argument - that stray dogs prevent other dogs from entering the locality is, in my opinion a farcial argument. Dogs will not stay at any place if there isn't anything for them to eat at that particular place ! These groups want the "Animal Birth Control(ABC)" programmes to be implemented throughout the city instead of elimination of the stray dogs. They themselves claim lack of funds to implement such programmes and often blame the civic bodies for not giving sufficient funds. They have no regard for human life - a fact to be noted here is that most victims of stray dog attack are very often small kids less than the age of 10 who will bear the scars( both physical and mental) for the rest of their lives if they don't die out of wounds. And if it so happens that if a kid lost the life - it affects not only the parents, but also if their were any siblings of the deceased kid, it will be a like a pschylogical trauma to them.
Increasing number of stray dog attack incidents clearly indicate the failure of "ABC programme". Even if it were to be successful, it will reduce the multiplication of dogs - not any guarantee that growing number of attacks on children by strays will come down to a nought.It would be the best in the interests of the city to eliminate these beasts. While saying this, let me say that I am not against the rights of animals - we need to adore life - but not if they are a threat to the human society itself ! If we keep arguing about the "right to live" - then there is no reason why hardcore terrorists should be eliminated - they also have a right to live!
We need to make a clean, safe and fearless environment for children to grow up to become first-class citizens who are the future of this world. They have a right for it.
There won't be any stray dogs if the locality is maintained clean and tidy - this is a duty on the part of the general public and the concerned authorities. Strays entering the city limits will be forced to move to some other place if they can't sustain themselves.The groups/NGOs arguing for the rights of dogs can do their part in educating the general public on the need and the benefits of a clean and safe environment - they can for sure use their limited resources to this effect than spending it for ads in newspapers for the rights of dogs !
Now,who is responisble for this ? The concerned city municipal authorities are most certainly responsible for negligence on their part, also are the general public who fail to keep the environment around them clean. However, responsible also for this are the so called "Animal Rights groups" who want stray dogs moving around within the city boundaries. They keep insisting( with advertisments in leading newspapers) that dogs are man's best friends - ofcourse they are, no denying the fact - but not the stray dogs ! Their basic argument - that stray dogs prevent other dogs from entering the locality is, in my opinion a farcial argument. Dogs will not stay at any place if there isn't anything for them to eat at that particular place ! These groups want the "Animal Birth Control(ABC)" programmes to be implemented throughout the city instead of elimination of the stray dogs. They themselves claim lack of funds to implement such programmes and often blame the civic bodies for not giving sufficient funds. They have no regard for human life - a fact to be noted here is that most victims of stray dog attack are very often small kids less than the age of 10 who will bear the scars( both physical and mental) for the rest of their lives if they don't die out of wounds. And if it so happens that if a kid lost the life - it affects not only the parents, but also if their were any siblings of the deceased kid, it will be a like a pschylogical trauma to them.
Increasing number of stray dog attack incidents clearly indicate the failure of "ABC programme". Even if it were to be successful, it will reduce the multiplication of dogs - not any guarantee that growing number of attacks on children by strays will come down to a nought.It would be the best in the interests of the city to eliminate these beasts. While saying this, let me say that I am not against the rights of animals - we need to adore life - but not if they are a threat to the human society itself ! If we keep arguing about the "right to live" - then there is no reason why hardcore terrorists should be eliminated - they also have a right to live!
We need to make a clean, safe and fearless environment for children to grow up to become first-class citizens who are the future of this world. They have a right for it.
There won't be any stray dogs if the locality is maintained clean and tidy - this is a duty on the part of the general public and the concerned authorities. Strays entering the city limits will be forced to move to some other place if they can't sustain themselves.The groups/NGOs arguing for the rights of dogs can do their part in educating the general public on the need and the benefits of a clean and safe environment - they can for sure use their limited resources to this effect than spending it for ads in newspapers for the rights of dogs !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)