Jesuis Humaine - I Am Human

#JesuisCharlie My Ass. Please pardon my French (ironical, isn’t it), but I have had it enough. 84 school children died in Pakistan few days ago, I guess I missed the #Jesuisl'enfant tweets, freedom of life was never discussed defended so vehemently then. Nothing is an attack on humanity unless it happens in European or American continent is it? A bomb attack in UK is seen as a threat on the whole world, while in India cross border firing killing few people every day is seen as a local issue. Four damn cartoonists and eight others died and a nationwide manhunt ensured the two shooters die as well. Those shooters believed they avenged Allah and Mohammad, and French police believed they avenged humanity I am assuming. What is the difference, both took the same route of revenge? And to cover up the bitter truth, some self-declared prophets of “Freedom of Speech” applied their filthy emotionally masturbated verbal cum on the whole issue.

What exactly is freedom of speech? To say what I wish to say? To not pay heed to the faiths and beliefs of people? It’s a right, every human being’s right. The rights are very mysterious in nature, a human being is believed to have them right from the time of birth. Some pro-life fanatics have even adorned unborn fetus with the same rights. It tells us, how seriously we take it. While I don’t take such creative stupidity very seriously, I fail to understand how no one talks about the responsibilities which come with the fundamental rights as part of the package. For example, if we look at “Right to live”, and add the accountability and responsibility to it, the statement would be “Right to live without damaging, destroying and snatching away right to live of others”. Where is the responsibility towards society in mocking a religion? Calling people living in your country outsiders in an era of globalization? Islam was narrow minded, the so called ‘developed’ people of Europe, where is your broad thinking?

Freedom of speech makes no sense to me if it is not constructive for the society. Mockery of beliefs, faith and religion cannot be part of it. I understand fun, I understand satire but I do not understand mockery. The whole purpose behind coining the term “Freedom of Speech” is lost when the medium is used for anything other than constructive development of society. What was Charlie and his team doing? Pointing at the stupidities of Islam everyday will only make the Islamic people more defensive towards their beliefs, restricting growth of Islam as a whole. I understand if you tell me Islam as a religion has issues, but is there a single religion which is complete in the truest sense. Terrorists are assumed to be muslims, but ask yourself is that true? From ancient times, in the name of Jesus, crusaders massacred men women and children, shan't they be counted as terrorists? Hindus and muslims killed each other during so many riots in past years, both competed for the throne of barbarism, aren’t they both terrorists? Why this special attention on a particular sect? An attention which they never asked for, an attention which is helping them in no way. It is in midst of all this, we are celebrating Freedom of Speech? By doing what? Exaggerating every single stupidity which exists in Islam?

I do not know your father, I hope he is your idol, you believe in him, you have faith in his decisions and actions and way of life. Well, all that is fine but you know what “Fuck your Father”. Would you support this freedom of speech? How is it helping the society by mocking a particular sect, religion? Who will choose what Freedom of Speech is? It’s our responsibility to choose wisely and choose correctly. Have we chosen correctly?

If you think about it, freedom of speech can also be seen as refined form of “Freedom to Express”. Well Charlie thought of expressing via Cartoons, few fanatics chose to express through Guns. Both of them were merely expressing, choice of tool differed. Would you accept that? Don’t pounce upon me with “But killing is wrong?” I don’t deny that, but since when mocking a soul became correct?

Charlie died, before death he was just a cartoonist running a magazine which had weak following. After death he is the symbol of freedom of speech. So ironical I find our way of treating other humans. Exaggerated martyrs are made out of corpses. I read somewhere that this month Charlie’s magazine might sell over 10 Million copies, on an ordinary day it would have sold few thousand at its best, and right there we gave them a free hand to make mockery of society again and with new rigor. Nothing hurts until you are the facing it. Islam might not mean anything to most of the people, but does that allow us to assume it does not mean anything to anyone? For some people, it’s the only way of life. The one precious life which they have, they have put faith in Islam and are following it religiously, adapting the good parts and bad parts. Forgiving the bad parts on account of so many good thing it preaches. They did not give us the right to judge them on account of their faith.

Judge a man for what he has done, not for what he believes, wears or preaches, it’s a personal choice until it starts being a pain to others. What happened to Charlie was wrong, but not on account of what Charlie was spreading. It was wrong because his life was taken without his consent. Can’t we leave the matter to this and stop blaming a whole sect for it? Are our maturity levels so low that we cannot distinguish an act committed by few individuals and an act committed by a whole sect?

I say fuck those who assassinated and fuck Charlie. Both are part of the same stupidity over which we ignore to consider the society. Social norms have become extinct, everything is about being individual, being unique, so much that we turned our back to our own ecosystem, the society. And no, by society I do not mean Facebook or Twitter. Stop covering everything with hash-tags, it rips apart the joys and sorrows of life, making them exactly what they are over internet. “Trending Topics”. While we put up show to fight for humanity we strangle it with our own moral beliefs and actions.

Don’t look for my religion, for I have none. Don’t look for my identity, for its not important. Look at the purpose, and look within yourself. Break the shackles of age old beliefs and words in fashion. Let’s just be what we really are. Humans.

All Hail the King?

I am 28 years old, and I have never voted.

When I was in school, teachers spent exhaustive number of hours on the unfolding history of mankind in front of us. It involved study of our ancestors (apes), several civilizations’ rise and fall, several kings across the globe, several revolutions, wars, birth of communism and democracy.

I will admit, to me as a student, anarchy look old school, communism and its different forms looked just and democracy empowering. I will say these perceptions were more result of how the facts were presented by the biased teachers and/or course structure which we were forced to go through (I say forced, because it was done without my consent and no other alternatives were presented.)

Without diverting from the topic, today, I wonder if these different types of governments are actually different from each other, or just different forms of the same entity. Let’s try to see what the difference is by asking a basic question, and exploring the meaning behind it. For the same reason, I would go one by one to the most popular forms of governments, Monarchy, Communism, Democracy (Republic).

Monarchy 

A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual.

Definition seems quite simple, but it raises some more questions. I will raise the questions and answer them to the best of my knowledge, conscience and common sense.

Q Does that mean, that particular individual did all the work? 

A No, certainly not, he chooses members who form a part of his council and represent him in every matter of public interest.

Q How are these members chosen?

A Citizens out of the general public who the individual deemed fit for the position were chosen. It by no means indicate that the members are the best of the lot, actually capable of dispensing their duties with utmost honesty, nor does it mean members possess the best knowledge or experience in their field of expertise. They are simply chosen by the individual based on his knowledge, experience, thoughts, perceptions, visions and missions.

Q Were all decisions were taken by the individual?

A No, the purpose of having council was to find a group of individuals who can share his vision and give their opinions. Occasionally some individuals would lose faith in their councils and which would result in some illogical bad decisions by that individual, but under normal circumstances individual seek opinion from the council and ruled accordingly.

Q Was there a judicial system under monarchy?

A Yes, there always was a judicial system even in monarchy, there is certain influence of the individual on some facets of it based on his own vision and interests. But most of the cases are handled by the judicial structure.

Any number of questions would not be enough to paint the true picture of Monarchy or any form of governance. But I have asked the three basic questions, first demands description of the system, second  and third ask by whom and how the public is ruled and the last pertains to if there is anyone to save the basic rights of citizens or not.

Maybe if we post the same questions with respect to other forms of governance, we will be able to see if indeed they are different or same in the end.

Communism

Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Q Does that mean, that particular individual did all the work? 

A In this case, this question stands invalid, as by definition a single party rules the country, but it doesn’t mean they do not have a leader amongst themselves.

Q How are these members chosen?

A Party is a group of citizens who as a group find themselves fit to run the country. Again this does not mean they are best of the lot, this does not mean they have the supreme knowledge or experience. They run the country as a group because the group (with leader’s having maximum weightage) thinks that the member is capable of his position.

Q Are all decisions are taken by the party?

A In this case, the single party sets a vision for the country, and every law is made in order to protect the vision. What is a communist vision? The vision is “To establish socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state”. But in the nutshell the decision at the top are taken by the party members.

Q Is there a judicial system under communism?

A Yes, there always was a judicial system even in communism, there is certain influence of the party on some facets of it based on its own vision and interests. But most of the cases are handled by the judicial structure which executes the laws defined and updated by the party members.

Do you also feel that communism felt like monarchy, except for the fact that in communism politically speaking that “individual” is missing. One can argue that that communism abolishes class system, everybody is equal. I suggest read “Animal Farm – by Geroge Orwell”. If not then look at the countries like Cuba, Burma, Korea and China (capitalist communists), you will see class is unavoidable in these countries, class exists. So what is the difference? In opinion, nothing.

Democracy

It is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run.

Q Does that mean, that particular individual did all the work? 

A In this case, this question stands invalid, as by definition public chooses the group of selected citizens who rule or govern the nation. So in a nutshell, a group governs the nation. I know, you must be think but this group is chosen by the people. Yes and no I say, but for now just stay with me. Let’s go to the next question.

Q How are these members chosen?

A As per the definition members are chosen by the public. But are these selected ones really selected by the public? I say no, when the money for election campaigns pour in from big companies, it’s not the public which really chooses the “selected ones”. Winston Churchill once said “When I hear the definition of democracy from an uneducated man, I am forced to believe democracy is a weapon of destruction more than a tool of development.” We all know Mr. Churchill had a habit of aggrandizing almost everything. But is he wrong? Do we not know how the elections happen? How the votes are banked based on caste, religion and money? Do we forget who wins in the end? It’s always the industrialists, who want a particular environment in the nation for them to flourish and they create the environment at their whim. Even if for a moment I agree that members are chosen by us, can we say we choose the best? Isn’t our selection based on personal perceptions, thoughts and interests? Otherwise how can you justify selection or even existence of so many corrupt politicians? They did not magically appeared on the screen of national politics, we selected. I say, we do not choose anyone, we live under the illusion that we choose. And we are happy to live under this illusion, why? Because spending an hour dreaming about the powers we possess, is better than being awake fully knowing the self-worthlessness.

Q Are all decisions are taken by the members?

A Yes, again just like monarchy and communism, decisions are taken by these members. Are these decisions purely in the interest of the general public? Well no, not all. This system is also crippled by the same diseases as Monarchy and communism.

Q Is there a judicial system under democracy?

A Yes, there always was a judicial system in democracy, there is certain influence of the members on some facets of it based on its own vision and interests. But most of the cases are handled by the judicial structure which executes the laws defined and updated by the party members.

Do you see how similar this system is when broken down into further questions? Democracy, is just a fancy new term to show the change, whether there is really any change or not, who determines that? I say every system is just the same. Each run on essentially the same components, it’s just a matter which word you really wish to use.

How do you argue which one is better? Or different? We live in a world where USA (Republic) wages war on almost daily basis, China (Communism) is a super power, and India (Democracy) is struggling beneath the burden of 1.6 billion entangled views. Few years ago, this was not true, nor will it be true in future. Because it doesn’t really matter what form of government is ruling the nation, the nations were run by the few, the elite ones, and it will always be true.

If mean monarchy is pure scotch, cunning communism is “on the rocks” and dear democracy is a “cocktail”, what do you prefer?

I am 28 year old, I have never voted, nor do I intend to do so in future.

Child Labour - An Emotional Issue

As I write this, I feel ashamed of being sure that within a radius of fifty meters there are many children working. Not just working, they are working under harsh conditions, for extremely low wages and for prolonged durations. This is not exactly an issue of child labor alone; it includes child abuse as well. It is not about crushing millions of innocent dreams and brighter possibilities; it is also about how they suffer every single day. During my research on child labor, I came across several relevant articles on the internet. What disturbed me the most is the monotonous tone of every article, as if the whole article was not written by a human being but was generated through a machine, and corrupted by numerous statistical charts and tables. The sufferings and harassments are measured in percentages. Isn’t it disturbing to present child labor as another business issue?  Where are the strong feelings and emotions? After all what can motivate a man better, than the underlying emotions.

I do not want to talk about the reforms needed to diminish or eradicate child labor, because this is a step we have not even reached. Before even thinking about reforms, I believe it is extremely necessary for the people to feel the sufferings of the children, strongly relate to the families these children come from. It is just about being human again. The day we would start feeling the pain, half of the battle would be won. Because these strong feelings would work as fuel to the burning motivation. And nothing can stop a society which is dedicated and motivated to work against it.

There are several reforms on both national and international level, which are being employed, but what all these reforms lack is that there is no one to ensure that these reforms are carried out in the best possible way, that it should be done in exactly the way it was supposed to be. I find not a gap but a valley between the battleground and the soldiers. You cannot win a war if you are scared of getting your hands dirty. The need of the hour is extensive work at the grass root level. Reforms need to be checked periodically, and the system should be properly aligned, if it is ambitious enough to win the battle.

The issue of child labor cannot be resolved in a matter of days; creating the awareness among one billion people itself is a magnanimous task. Instilling the culture of discouraging child labor and child abuse would need perseverance and dedicated hours of the people who actually want to see the change, not just talk about it.

This brings me to another question which needs to be answered if we want to cover an inch of this long journey. Who are the people working for this cause and who should actually be working for it? Should it be the government, or NGOs or certain individuals? I would not completely reject the roles of any of the parties involved in the reforms. I believe that involvement of all the parties is very important. Government is nothing but a mirror of a society. Till the time we would not take up this issue seriously, the government would never be serious about it either. As a matter of fact none of the parties involved would ever be able to contribute if we the general people who constitute the society would become serious about it. It is easy to say the government should make policies and rules and regulations to curb child labor down, how many of us have made any effort to force the government to make these policies and run them effectively. How many of us have expressed our dissatisfaction, and demanded a better performance by the government. It can be done in several ways like filing for RTIs, forcing the ministers to make the child labor part of their election manifestos during general and state elections.

For a country with a population over a billion the numbers of NGOs working for this cause are very less. NGOs need to be encouraged to fight for this cause, and that encouragement has to come from us, the society, and the government. If government makes the policies then NGOs can be appointed to supervise the execution of these policies and reforms. A little more strengthening of the authority of NGOs and little monetary help can yield unexpected results. Responsibility without authority would never work; it is almost as if the soldiers in a battleground without guns.

The society itself will have to play an important role if child labor has to be eradicated. The sensitivity towards child labor has to be increased. The attitude of not tolerating even a single case of child labor has to be instigated in the society. If we billion people cannot work for the future of our country, then who would work for this cause, the children itself? They are too young and innocent; their voice is too frail to break the sleep hibernating society and the government; their still growing body is too weak to bear the burden of reforms and policies. If we can use the children for our selfish purposes then there is no difference between us and the animals living in the woods.

Now it is our choice what do we want to be, animals or humans. Being human takes some effort and differentiating ourselves from the animals would take the continual untiring work of the society. The purpose of this article is not to tell you what child labor is, nor is it to give you the statistical figures and classification of child labor. As I said I would not even talk about them, internet is full of such articles, and I do not wish to write just another article. The purpose of this article is to ignite that small spark which would one day spread like fire and would burn this issue of child labor by its roots.

One day shall come when not even a single child has to wake up in the morning and get ready to work. This is my dream, and it is the dream of millions of children who are living by this hope that someday this dream would come true. Their eyes are full of expectations, and they are looking at us to save them from their misery. Its your time to act, its your time to decide. The ball is in your court. Play well.

Atheist O Atheist

This is one topic which attracts me almost every time, and why not after all this is my religion, and I try to learn as much as I can about it. And I want reasons, mind you right reasons to believe in it. Its wrong, to always justify your actions, but its human nature. Because it’s the presumption of righteousness in every action which would not be forgiven by the history.

But I am not here to talk about the right and wrong, but to satisfy my own need of satisfaction. In this modern India I have seen people trying to act as an atheist, just be in fashion. So that they don’t become outdated temple going simple guy. They perhaps don’t know what literally atheist means. Ask them and they will say atheists are those who don’t believe in God. But can you reject something which never existed? Let me have the privilege of explaining the point, because it’s the base. For example if I say that I don’t believe in mentodiagrama, a kind of element found rarely on earth. Now tell me what was the first question which came into your mind? Is there any element named mentodiagrama? But what is happening here I said I don’t believe in this element. Why my own statement is actually giving birth to this new element. Why my own negative statement is fuelling the existence of this element. How can the question of believing or not believing arise in respect of something which never existed? So my point is when an atheist says that he doesn’t believe in God, he is actually contributing in giving others a notion of doubt that something called God can exist.
When someone asks me do I believe in God, I have to say No. And that’s exactly where they see me in a different way (specially those old spiritual people). And believe it or not, it’s not a good way, they look at me. Someone taunted once that not believing in God won’t give you more credit. And all I could say was I know. But who the hell wants credit. Does that mean that those who believe get credit? Who says, credit my ass.
What do you think how old can atheism be? A modern subject for those who want to increase their cool quotient? No it’s not. I would like to give a small account of Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate.
He writes in one of his books
“Since my childhood thoughts- for what they were worth- did not attract me at all to religion, I asked my grandfather whether I should be concerned that religion did not appeal to me. He told me, ‘No, in fact there is no case for religious convictions until you are able to think seriously for yourself – it will come with time.’ Since in my case it did not come at all (my scepticism seemed to mature with age), I told my grandfather, some years later, that he had been absolutely wrong. ‘Not at all,’ replied my grandfather, ‘you have addressed the religious question, and you have placed yourself, I see, in the aesthetic- The Lokayata- part of the Hindu spectrum!’”
So now I can proudly say that atheism in India is as old as Amrtya Sen. But no, its even more older. First let me expand Lokayata for you. Lokyata was a clan of people who had their doubts about any supernatural power or any special power in general. The active presence of atheism and and materialism could be felt in Ramayana (Rama and Javali conversation) and Geeta (Arjun Krishna conversations). Intricate arguments against Rama’s and Krishna’s orthodox views are elaborately accommodated and preserved in the body of the establish texts themselves. Even though orthodoxy is shown to win in the end, the vanquished scepticism lives on well conserved in the dialogic account. In Ramayana Javali is given a chance in the epic to spell out why he comes to that negative judgement: ‘ I am really anxious for those who, disregarding all tangible duties and work that lie within the province of perception, busy themselves with ethereal virtue alone. They just suffer various miseries on earth, preceding their annihilation by death’
The Lokayata philosophy of skepticism and materialism flourished from the first millennium BCE, and it was accepted by the Hinduism without any perceptions and assumption.


I would like to end this topic with the last lines of Vedas:-
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The God came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows, whence it has arisen.
Whence it has arisen- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not – the one who looks down in it, only he knows- or perhaps he does not know.
These 3500 year old doubts recur in Indian critical debates again and again. Indeed, Sanskrit not only has a bigger body of religious literature than any other classical language, it also has a larger volume of agnostic or atheistic writings than any other language.