Freedom of speech in facing challenges on multiple fronts. The parliament is being disrupted and forced to adjourn, which violates the freedom of speech of members who want a debate on burning issues like FDI in retail. Attempts to reign in social networking sites are being made, though with reasonable demands but not implementable. Harvard University is under criticism for targeting Subramanian Swamy for his opinions he unflinchingly expressed. Why is society becoming so intolerant of deviant views? Free expression of ones ideas will only lead to intellectual debates which can help in reducing biases. Issues should be allowed to be discussed, no matter how sensitive they are, so long as it is put in acceptable words and standards. Hushing up issues will only lead to misinformation, propaganda and ill-will among people. Its difficult not to quote Voltaire who said (I do not agree..). This attitude should be cultivated in every civilized society.
\
December 10, 2011
December 04, 2011
In response to "They are not bad in-laws"
'They are not bad in-laws' printed in The Hindu on Dec 4th 2011
The author is right when he says modernity seems to have resulted in loss of humility. The career oriented girls who are to get married find it very difficult to adjust. The very word ‘adjust’ sounds to them as oppression and patriarchy. I know of a modern educated woman with feminist ideals, who wants to break social norms for the sake of being a rebel. She wants an arrangement in which she and her husband will stay fifteen days a month in their in-laws place, shuttling between the two homes. All this for respecting the principle of equality. The lady also hates the idea that she should integrate herself into the family she will be marrying into. I am not sure if this is a reasonable expectation from a educated, modern, independent girl. Can this be called a modern outlook towards marriage? I don’t know.
The author is right when he says modernity seems to have resulted in loss of humility. The career oriented girls who are to get married find it very difficult to adjust. The very word ‘adjust’ sounds to them as oppression and patriarchy. I know of a modern educated woman with feminist ideals, who wants to break social norms for the sake of being a rebel. She wants an arrangement in which she and her husband will stay fifteen days a month in their in-laws place, shuttling between the two homes. All this for respecting the principle of equality. The lady also hates the idea that she should integrate herself into the family she will be marrying into. I am not sure if this is a reasonable expectation from a educated, modern, independent girl. Can this be called a modern outlook towards marriage? I don’t know.
November 13, 2011
Uthapuram Dalits enter temple - The Hindu November 11, 2011
Its an irony that even after 75 years of temple entry proclamation of Travancore, dalits still face discrimination. But it was a reassuring to read about Uthapuram temple entry that change is possible. The preservers of Hindu religion should realize that such discrimination will eventually kill Hinduism in this land. Temples should be opened to not just dalits but to people of all faiths. Such a step will be realistically possible avoiding the extreme opinions of Gandhi who prefers to reason caste system and Ambedkar who encourages quitting hinduism. Ambedkar’s advice of inter-caste marriages should be encouraged to permanently bridge the divide. For the sake of its existence, hindu religion needs dalits more than dalits need hindu religion. Every dalit spurned from temple entry can be a hater of Hinduism.
January 10, 2011
SriKrishna report
After the six options, the situation is no better than it was a year ago. As predicted by some parties, the committee turned out to be only a way a buying time. The Centre should now decide over this f/pestering issue. It seems to be the Congress style not to solve any issue unless it assumes enormous proportions and a significant loss; both material and human is suffered. The problem of Bhindranwale, the issue of Mizoram are examples. The Centre is prepared to invite and talk to groups which took to violence and secessionism (read ULFA and Hurriyat) but it just can not solve the six decade old Telangana issue.
On the editorial in Times of India - Tread cautiously
The editorial sounds like an armchair analyst’s snobbish account of a misguided agitation by unruly mobs. The historic six decade struggle for separation is totally forgotten, the deaths of hundreds of agitators in 1969 and in 2009 are ignored and more than anything else, the unprecedented support of the people for separation is not considered. The editorial questions the basis for formation of Telangana. There is not one but multiple bases. Be it history, culture, language, development, self-rule; each one of them merits separation. Though Sri Krishna report does not say Telangana is the most backward region, the recent revelation in parliament on 9th Aug 2010, says that out of the 13 identified backward districts in AP, 9 districts are in Telangana. Also, linking the Telangana issue with other demands is just not logical. Each struggle has its own history, character and aspirations. Telangana is not a border state, it neither harbors secessionism nor the basis is religion. It is the most democratic demand of 4 crore people in the present time. The editor suggests for more devolution of powers and constitutional safeguards. One should only read the history of this struggle which is rooted in the failure of these very guarantees given in the past in the form of Gentlemen’s agreement, six-point formula etc. Accepting such guarantees again would not just be a mistake but a sin.
On the editorial in The Hindu - Sagacious prescription
The committee feels the separation of Telangana with Hyderabad as capital, amicably, is a tall order, but what makes the committee think that the people of Telangana can be persuaded to accept a set of guarantees again? This betrays the feeling that Andhras shall not yield and it is the Telangana people who should always compromise. The people of Telangana will not walk into this trap of regional boards, constitutional safeguards etc. People trusted such guarantees in the past, only to be taken for a ride. The Mulki rules were upheld as legal and valid by the Supreme Court. To this, the Jai Andhra movement arose to ensure that either the Mulki rules were scrapped or Andhra was separated. The Govt of India was forced to enact a legislation nullifying all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana. The struggle itself is rooted in the failure of these very guarantees given in the past in the form of Gentlemen’s agreement, six-point formula etc. People of Telangana are gullible but not so foolish to trust such promises again. Neither one should expect that such an option will solve the issue nor the people of Telangana shall buy it.
On the editorial in Times of India - Tread cautiously
The editorial sounds like an armchair analyst’s snobbish account of a misguided agitation by unruly mobs. The historic six decade struggle for separation is totally forgotten, the deaths of hundreds of agitators in 1969 and in 2009 are ignored and more than anything else, the unprecedented support of the people for separation is not considered. The editorial questions the basis for formation of Telangana. There is not one but multiple bases. Be it history, culture, language, development, self-rule; each one of them merits separation. Though Sri Krishna report does not say Telangana is the most backward region, the recent revelation in parliament on 9th Aug 2010, says that out of the 13 identified backward districts in AP, 9 districts are in Telangana. Also, linking the Telangana issue with other demands is just not logical. Each struggle has its own history, character and aspirations. Telangana is not a border state, it neither harbors secessionism nor the basis is religion. It is the most democratic demand of 4 crore people in the present time. The editor suggests for more devolution of powers and constitutional safeguards. One should only read the history of this struggle which is rooted in the failure of these very guarantees given in the past in the form of Gentlemen’s agreement, six-point formula etc. Accepting such guarantees again would not just be a mistake but a sin.
On the editorial in The Hindu - Sagacious prescription
The committee feels the separation of Telangana with Hyderabad as capital, amicably, is a tall order, but what makes the committee think that the people of Telangana can be persuaded to accept a set of guarantees again? This betrays the feeling that Andhras shall not yield and it is the Telangana people who should always compromise. The people of Telangana will not walk into this trap of regional boards, constitutional safeguards etc. People trusted such guarantees in the past, only to be taken for a ride. The Mulki rules were upheld as legal and valid by the Supreme Court. To this, the Jai Andhra movement arose to ensure that either the Mulki rules were scrapped or Andhra was separated. The Govt of India was forced to enact a legislation nullifying all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana. The struggle itself is rooted in the failure of these very guarantees given in the past in the form of Gentlemen’s agreement, six-point formula etc. People of Telangana are gullible but not so foolish to trust such promises again. Neither one should expect that such an option will solve the issue nor the people of Telangana shall buy it.
January 08, 2011
December 20, 2010
Rahuls remarks
Calling the Saffron linked terror dangerous is obviously correct. But calling it more dangerous than the LeT, Al-Qaida etc is absolutely out of perspective. Can the numbers on record in terms of incidents, casualties, spread, etc explain Rahul Ji’s assertion? Calling a spade a spade is courageous but calling a spade more dangerous than an AK-47 should have other motives. Pakistan is already using the Sachar committee report to imply that the 26/11 could have local muslim support. With such comments by Rahul baba, all the efforts of India in tackling the various terror groups will be diluted.
Scams and new meanings
UPA II is giving new meanings to many things. Scheme should be understood as scheming against people. A Prime Ministerial govt no longer has the PM as the centre piece. Cabinet responsibility does not mean sinking or sailing together. It’s alright to have an allegedly corrupt officer as CVC. Portfolio allocation includes the influence of the rich and famous. And finally, ‘the buck stops here’, might mean that the money filled bags stop at his/her table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)