Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
"Marriage is an Outdated Institution"
[An article written a looong while ago.]
To begin with, “what is Institution” is far better a question than “what is Marriage”. ‘Institution’, as termed by standard social and legal practitioners, is “an important organization with particular purpose” in general sense, and “a custom or system that has existed for a long time” in the specific social term related with this topic. Beyond this, there is certainly a lot more to think about. Let us come to that later. ‘Marriage’, on the other hand, is a formal, legal relationship between a man and a woman. Both the terms, however simple and limited in superficial sense, embody vast social, economical, and historical values.
Let us start with an analysis of Institution. In general, the life span of an Institution has four stages – Birth, Acceptance, Growth, and Decay. In the following few passages, Marriage is discussed as an Institution according to this pattern.
The Birth of an institution like Marriage has three basic reasons – Desire, Security, and Religion. ‘Desire’ for physical pleasure is spontaneous and natural in every man or woman. This, from the first bath in the fountain, the first chirping of the bird, or the first nightfall, has driven the adrenalins mad. Even today, after so many years, it remains a very predominant reason behind every human relation. So, the role of Desire is obvious. Next comes ‘Security’. Security is a pure concept, a state of mind that makes a man or woman feel safe inside, a sense that keeps the nerves calm. It can be assumed that such arbitrary relation between human beings of opposite (or similar) sex created anarchy at some stage of time since there was no obligation on anyone’s part. Also, with the advent of morality, there may have risen a conscience against the abuse of sexual practice – extortions, to be precise. Thirdly, there was an impact of the belief in divinity. Every Religion, regardless of name or brand, holds Marriage at a very high esteem and expresses conservative opinions in order to protect its divine value. ‘Why’ is a question hard to answer, but every book of religion has a specific chapter on Marriage and its coherent values.
Second of all comes the issue of Acceptance. Any Institution is formally accepted if it manages to earn a set of recognitions. It is accepted as an Institution once Religion, Ruler, Society, and Reality grant it. Religion, in the life of the common man, is a very important subjective factor in gaining large-scale acceptance. It is from man’s trust on Religion, whatever the reason behind it (e.g. trust, fear, inexplicability, proofs, prophets, fables, and myths), that the concept of Marriage first got a real backing. However, it still needed to be ‘injected’ in the lives of many, and who better to do it than the ruling class? Society, as critics often argue, is “clusters of opinion glued together”. Society, in order to maintain the grip of its ‘Board of Directors’, often literally ‘stamps’ some customs on life. Undoubtedly, Marriage is one such stamp. Lastly, there comes a very
important, positive point – Sustainability against Reality’s evil plots. When an Institution proves its worth in face of Social, Political, and Economical challenges, it finally gains the golden key, the true logical base for acceptance among the thinking portion of a society. By dint of the value it had promised to add to life, the symbol of joy that it had existed as, and the notion of security that it had offered to the weak of heart, Marriage earned its social acceptance. But that seems so long ago!
Growth, beyond doubt, is related to the peoples’ choice. In Heaven and Earth, only those things grow which the mortals like best. The actual value and weight that we generally attribute to Marriage has a lot to do with the good that people have gotten or still get from it. Growth is acquired when a certain action or deed can attain a place in the common practices of men, gain a certain degree of conviction, or can promise due progression and festivity. So, this directly relates to the objective question of Security as well as to the subjective question of Festivity. From the muchquoted sentence “Hindu marriage is a social festival, Muslim marriage is a social contract”, it is quite evident that marriage offers both. But is that all? Haven’t things changed at all? I believe they have.
The Decay of an Institution comes when it fails to support, sustain, and supplement the notions that it originates from. Decay comes when exploitation takes in; decay comes when humanity is hijacked to a far-away land of daydream. The concept of Marriage has had a grand birth, an auspicious acceptance, a fluent growth, but what it is going through is a helpless decay. Once the smoke of festivity and infatuation gets blown away, eyes are attracted to the various inhuman aspects that the ‘legal’ part that Marriage gifts life with. Marriage, first of all, has lost to Religion. Religions, regardless of name or brand once again, have placed Patriarchy higher in everything nuptial. Unfortunately, God is male, and so are His verses. Otherwise, why should one religion find it usual and acceptable for four wives to share one husband while another would allow a husband to spank his wife if she refuses to entertain him physically? Why should religions
encourage veiling of women in order to keep the amorous men from being aroused? Why should a religion humiliate both the God and the husband by comparing the latter with an idol? Why should Marriage be the key to sex, not love? Surely, only the privileged or the medieval man would find Marriage still acceptable. Today’s world prefers rights to facilities. Marriage may facilitate lives with security, capital, ornaments, or pleasures, but none of these, under any circumstances, can stand in opposition to the universal cry for rights. Marriage has now contracted to a mere legal contract; there’s no place for love or value in it any more.
Now, let us dig deeper into the reasons why Marriage got an F-grade in the criterion called ‘modernity’. The primary reason is briefly mentioned above – Inhumanity. In both religious and legal terms, Marriage is extremely inhuman. Communion between a man and a woman can and does give birth to the greatest positive force in the world. Similarly, if diverted, it can give rise to the gravest of sins as well. Love is natural, and love’s transformation into the form of sex or other physical expressions is also just as practical. Concepts like Marriage, in the more traditional sense of matters, put a barrier between the two participants in this game of love. Men and women, from a very tender age, are taught to strictly avoid physical pleasure. This, eventually, gives the impression of sex being a dark, grave, evil, and unethical giant. The mind, in response to such
teachings, grows a distorted curiosity that finally turns into perversion. For example, of all examples of extortions, those carried out by so-called moral leaders are usually most violent and sadistic. This prepares the minds of many for accepting sex as a source of ‘fleshy’ fun, not pleasure; and such things, good or bad, accentuate in the conjugal lives, not the concept of share and complementation as one might argue. More importantly, these effects transcend the individual and start infecting the society as a whole. A society that suffers from such conflicts between body and soul starts to artifice its culture after some time. For example, the best examples of aesthetic and psychological aptitude come from either Ancient Greece or from
Renaissance Europe. Why? It is because the-then societies, even if temporarily, thought beyond the material obligations that Marriage or Church or Establishment imposed.
Today, the concept of Marriage is like the ‘Queen of England’ or the ‘President of Bangladesh’ – existent, but not predominant. Marriage’s legal part has no fundamental difference from an Insurance Premium, but what gave Marriage its one-time value were the vast joy, hope, and promise that it embodied. Marriage may still live as the celebration of love between two individuals, but not as the ‘binding force’ that it is wrongly presumed to be. One must understand that Marriage is a mirror (reflecting factor), not a rope (binding factor). The ever-rising Divorce Rate clearly stands as a fact in favor of such remarks. The “Marry first, then love” days are over, and rightly so. Such rejections have come from none other than the ones related to it. A curious question may be, “to what extent is Marriage’s mansion threatened?”
Honestly, Marriage is weak, but not lost. It is an institution that has a very strong grip on the minds of people; especially those denied of the right of education and a free life. The visions that helped a Concept gain the honor of an Institution still haven’t changed in the minds of many. But, from the rich to the poor, all men and women are now against the traditional concept of Marriage. It can be argued that Marriage has evolved, but I don’t think so. Instead, it is one great framework inside which minds are now experimenting on newer and better ways of loving, living. Despite the scratches by the ultra-modern faction of the West, Marriage’s façade still lives, but its interior is being hollowed each moment. At present, the West “rides on the horse” openly, the East kisses and flirts, ‘Middle Earth’ fusions lust and legislation into ‘Herem Sharifs’, the North melts in
heat, and the South just gets swept away. Isn’t it clear that the one-time ‘universal’ values have lost ground in all directions? Ours is an age when people go away in search of independence first, and then come back as conscious human beings to form a social relation. It is not the age when men or women were satisfied being a pawn of the society, it is not the age when love could be formulated.
To sum it all up, it can be said that Marriage is a concept that originated from the chemistry between men and women, got accepted by Religion and thus the Society, got praised by the Patriarchy and the Ruling class, rose to the ranks of Institutions, and is finally being rejected by those who deny divine dictation.
- Ishtiaq Rouf
February 09th , 2003
To begin with, “what is Institution” is far better a question than “what is Marriage”. ‘Institution’, as termed by standard social and legal practitioners, is “an important organization with particular purpose” in general sense, and “a custom or system that has existed for a long time” in the specific social term related with this topic. Beyond this, there is certainly a lot more to think about. Let us come to that later. ‘Marriage’, on the other hand, is a formal, legal relationship between a man and a woman. Both the terms, however simple and limited in superficial sense, embody vast social, economical, and historical values.
Let us start with an analysis of Institution. In general, the life span of an Institution has four stages – Birth, Acceptance, Growth, and Decay. In the following few passages, Marriage is discussed as an Institution according to this pattern.
The Birth of an institution like Marriage has three basic reasons – Desire, Security, and Religion. ‘Desire’ for physical pleasure is spontaneous and natural in every man or woman. This, from the first bath in the fountain, the first chirping of the bird, or the first nightfall, has driven the adrenalins mad. Even today, after so many years, it remains a very predominant reason behind every human relation. So, the role of Desire is obvious. Next comes ‘Security’. Security is a pure concept, a state of mind that makes a man or woman feel safe inside, a sense that keeps the nerves calm. It can be assumed that such arbitrary relation between human beings of opposite (or similar) sex created anarchy at some stage of time since there was no obligation on anyone’s part. Also, with the advent of morality, there may have risen a conscience against the abuse of sexual practice – extortions, to be precise. Thirdly, there was an impact of the belief in divinity. Every Religion, regardless of name or brand, holds Marriage at a very high esteem and expresses conservative opinions in order to protect its divine value. ‘Why’ is a question hard to answer, but every book of religion has a specific chapter on Marriage and its coherent values.
Second of all comes the issue of Acceptance. Any Institution is formally accepted if it manages to earn a set of recognitions. It is accepted as an Institution once Religion, Ruler, Society, and Reality grant it. Religion, in the life of the common man, is a very important subjective factor in gaining large-scale acceptance. It is from man’s trust on Religion, whatever the reason behind it (e.g. trust, fear, inexplicability, proofs, prophets, fables, and myths), that the concept of Marriage first got a real backing. However, it still needed to be ‘injected’ in the lives of many, and who better to do it than the ruling class? Society, as critics often argue, is “clusters of opinion glued together”. Society, in order to maintain the grip of its ‘Board of Directors’, often literally ‘stamps’ some customs on life. Undoubtedly, Marriage is one such stamp. Lastly, there comes a very
important, positive point – Sustainability against Reality’s evil plots. When an Institution proves its worth in face of Social, Political, and Economical challenges, it finally gains the golden key, the true logical base for acceptance among the thinking portion of a society. By dint of the value it had promised to add to life, the symbol of joy that it had existed as, and the notion of security that it had offered to the weak of heart, Marriage earned its social acceptance. But that seems so long ago!
Growth, beyond doubt, is related to the peoples’ choice. In Heaven and Earth, only those things grow which the mortals like best. The actual value and weight that we generally attribute to Marriage has a lot to do with the good that people have gotten or still get from it. Growth is acquired when a certain action or deed can attain a place in the common practices of men, gain a certain degree of conviction, or can promise due progression and festivity. So, this directly relates to the objective question of Security as well as to the subjective question of Festivity. From the muchquoted sentence “Hindu marriage is a social festival, Muslim marriage is a social contract”, it is quite evident that marriage offers both. But is that all? Haven’t things changed at all? I believe they have.
The Decay of an Institution comes when it fails to support, sustain, and supplement the notions that it originates from. Decay comes when exploitation takes in; decay comes when humanity is hijacked to a far-away land of daydream. The concept of Marriage has had a grand birth, an auspicious acceptance, a fluent growth, but what it is going through is a helpless decay. Once the smoke of festivity and infatuation gets blown away, eyes are attracted to the various inhuman aspects that the ‘legal’ part that Marriage gifts life with. Marriage, first of all, has lost to Religion. Religions, regardless of name or brand once again, have placed Patriarchy higher in everything nuptial. Unfortunately, God is male, and so are His verses. Otherwise, why should one religion find it usual and acceptable for four wives to share one husband while another would allow a husband to spank his wife if she refuses to entertain him physically? Why should religions
encourage veiling of women in order to keep the amorous men from being aroused? Why should a religion humiliate both the God and the husband by comparing the latter with an idol? Why should Marriage be the key to sex, not love? Surely, only the privileged or the medieval man would find Marriage still acceptable. Today’s world prefers rights to facilities. Marriage may facilitate lives with security, capital, ornaments, or pleasures, but none of these, under any circumstances, can stand in opposition to the universal cry for rights. Marriage has now contracted to a mere legal contract; there’s no place for love or value in it any more.
Now, let us dig deeper into the reasons why Marriage got an F-grade in the criterion called ‘modernity’. The primary reason is briefly mentioned above – Inhumanity. In both religious and legal terms, Marriage is extremely inhuman. Communion between a man and a woman can and does give birth to the greatest positive force in the world. Similarly, if diverted, it can give rise to the gravest of sins as well. Love is natural, and love’s transformation into the form of sex or other physical expressions is also just as practical. Concepts like Marriage, in the more traditional sense of matters, put a barrier between the two participants in this game of love. Men and women, from a very tender age, are taught to strictly avoid physical pleasure. This, eventually, gives the impression of sex being a dark, grave, evil, and unethical giant. The mind, in response to such
teachings, grows a distorted curiosity that finally turns into perversion. For example, of all examples of extortions, those carried out by so-called moral leaders are usually most violent and sadistic. This prepares the minds of many for accepting sex as a source of ‘fleshy’ fun, not pleasure; and such things, good or bad, accentuate in the conjugal lives, not the concept of share and complementation as one might argue. More importantly, these effects transcend the individual and start infecting the society as a whole. A society that suffers from such conflicts between body and soul starts to artifice its culture after some time. For example, the best examples of aesthetic and psychological aptitude come from either Ancient Greece or from
Renaissance Europe. Why? It is because the-then societies, even if temporarily, thought beyond the material obligations that Marriage or Church or Establishment imposed.
Today, the concept of Marriage is like the ‘Queen of England’ or the ‘President of Bangladesh’ – existent, but not predominant. Marriage’s legal part has no fundamental difference from an Insurance Premium, but what gave Marriage its one-time value were the vast joy, hope, and promise that it embodied. Marriage may still live as the celebration of love between two individuals, but not as the ‘binding force’ that it is wrongly presumed to be. One must understand that Marriage is a mirror (reflecting factor), not a rope (binding factor). The ever-rising Divorce Rate clearly stands as a fact in favor of such remarks. The “Marry first, then love” days are over, and rightly so. Such rejections have come from none other than the ones related to it. A curious question may be, “to what extent is Marriage’s mansion threatened?”
Honestly, Marriage is weak, but not lost. It is an institution that has a very strong grip on the minds of people; especially those denied of the right of education and a free life. The visions that helped a Concept gain the honor of an Institution still haven’t changed in the minds of many. But, from the rich to the poor, all men and women are now against the traditional concept of Marriage. It can be argued that Marriage has evolved, but I don’t think so. Instead, it is one great framework inside which minds are now experimenting on newer and better ways of loving, living. Despite the scratches by the ultra-modern faction of the West, Marriage’s façade still lives, but its interior is being hollowed each moment. At present, the West “rides on the horse” openly, the East kisses and flirts, ‘Middle Earth’ fusions lust and legislation into ‘Herem Sharifs’, the North melts in
heat, and the South just gets swept away. Isn’t it clear that the one-time ‘universal’ values have lost ground in all directions? Ours is an age when people go away in search of independence first, and then come back as conscious human beings to form a social relation. It is not the age when men or women were satisfied being a pawn of the society, it is not the age when love could be formulated.
To sum it all up, it can be said that Marriage is a concept that originated from the chemistry between men and women, got accepted by Religion and thus the Society, got praised by the Patriarchy and the Ruling class, rose to the ranks of Institutions, and is finally being rejected by those who deny divine dictation.
- Ishtiaq Rouf
February 09th , 2003
Sunday, October 15, 2006
'Congratulations to Dr. Yunus on winning the first Nobel Prize for Bangladesh'
It has happened at last. Dr. Yunus & his Grameen Bank have won the first Nobel Prize for Bangladesh. The joy is beyond expression, and I wouldn't even give it a try.Some argue that he/they should've won the prize for Economics instead of Peace. I sort of agreed, but only until my father explained the reasons behind.
Dr. Yunus' achievements are too magnanimous and philanthropic to ignore. It was sort of a burden on the Nobel Committee too. His was more of application than theory. That alone barred him from getting the prize before.
It's great to see that the committee has found a way around. He deserved it too well to be left behind. He has helped 6.6 million families over 30 years, empowered women in a very rural country, his model has been adopted in over 100 years in order to alleviate poverty. Also keep in mind that this is not a billionaire giving away millions. He is someone who gave away $27 from his own pocket to bring 40 women out of debt. It has never stopped. His bank is one that has given over $5.5 billion to the poor and 96% of the share is owned by the borrowers (the rest owned by the government).
If such a man does not deserve the Nobel Prize, who does?
On second thought, the committee was correct in awarding him a Peace Prize. His micro-credit program has kept so many away from alternate criminal means of survival! Those like me who believe that problems like terrorism can only be solved by long term, bottom-up alliviation of poverty are definitely in favor of the committee on this call.
Congrats, Dr. Yunus. It's always a proud day to be a Bangladeshi. It's always a good day to be a Bangladeshi. It's just a bit better today.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
"The J Curve"
Heard the term ('The J Curve') on Daily Show tonight. It is meant to show that countries can be stable in 2 ways -- a. by being open, b. by being closed.
Open countries such as USA, France, Japan, etc are open to ideas and opinions. Their societies are accustomed to weathering different kinds of troubles with an open frame of mind. These countries are stable because they are open. Things kind of take care of themselves here. Most importantly, they can progress openly, too. Nothing hinders the possibilities (therefore .
Closed countries such as North Korea, Iran, much of the Middle East, etc are stable too, but their stability is limited due to the fact that they are close to any kind of adaptation (therefore on the left half of a 'J'). They fear that change may throw them into the trough of chaos. Open countries often contribute to this by threatening the closed countries and therefore paving the way for authoritarian rules.
Effective and interesting.
Open countries such as USA, France, Japan, etc are open to ideas and opinions. Their societies are accustomed to weathering different kinds of troubles with an open frame of mind. These countries are stable because they are open. Things kind of take care of themselves here. Most importantly, they can progress openly, too. Nothing hinders the possibilities (therefore .
Closed countries such as North Korea, Iran, much of the Middle East, etc are stable too, but their stability is limited due to the fact that they are close to any kind of adaptation (therefore on the left half of a 'J'). They fear that change may throw them into the trough of chaos. Open countries often contribute to this by threatening the closed countries and therefore paving the way for authoritarian rules.
Effective and interesting.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
'Book-Burning -- Persian Style'
A friend's friend is not always a friend, but an enemy's enemy always is. This is a prime reason why we see rogues and radicals of all sorts gaining more and more support even among the ranks of the rational and the educated.
Various aspects of the US foreign policy has been causing animosity all of the world for many decades now. So, it is a given that we all know the reasons to hate/dislike the US. There's also the psyche of disapproval of the super-power's every action. We know that, too.
What we don't know are the reasons to approve of/like the US. Those, in my experience, can be learned readily when one comes in contact with an American. This nation is by far the most accepting and friendly one, but that knowledge is suspect to the rest of world; and understandably so. Not everyone has had my luck of living a life in the melting pot, after all.
Anyways, anecdotes of my gracious experiences in the US will be discussed in another entry. This one is not about friends, it's about enemy's enemies.
In theory, any nation has the right to achieve any level of scientific progress. In theory, every nation should have the right to own nuclear weapons. Living by the book of logic until this morning, I supported Iran's claim on nuclear weapons. They can have it if they can make it, I thought.
There is also the painful truth that the world still runs according to religious maps. There is the graciously overlooked fact that Muslims all over the world are persecuted almost as badly as the Jews were during the Holocaust. Some Muslim countries with nuclear weapons looks to be the only 'solution' to the global persecutions in the short run.
These are all in line with the logics that made Muslims tolerate the Taliban until it was too late. Still, I opted for a generous, sparing, and utopian view, hoping that dialogue will resolve the crises; eventually.
After reading THIS (purging "secular" teachers from faculty positions in the academic institutions) in the news this morning, all I want is to see these nutcases' a**es kicked. As soon and as hard as possible. Iran's move is not a 'resistance' against the West, after all. This country isn't coming out of the decades of darkness, either. Their only agenda is to spread an ultra-conservative brand of Islam. That brand of Islam isn't the Islam I know.
We all know what "book-burning" means. We saw it when the Catholic Church denounced science, we saw it when the Nazis denounced people's rights. This recent "purge" of Iran is all but a modern variation of book-burning. It is time for moderate Muslims to let go of all hesitations and unanimously denounce this crooked, medieval regime.
The only thing worse than a nutcase is a nutcase with a nuclear bomb.
Various aspects of the US foreign policy has been causing animosity all of the world for many decades now. So, it is a given that we all know the reasons to hate/dislike the US. There's also the psyche of disapproval of the super-power's every action. We know that, too.
What we don't know are the reasons to approve of/like the US. Those, in my experience, can be learned readily when one comes in contact with an American. This nation is by far the most accepting and friendly one, but that knowledge is suspect to the rest of world; and understandably so. Not everyone has had my luck of living a life in the melting pot, after all.
Anyways, anecdotes of my gracious experiences in the US will be discussed in another entry. This one is not about friends, it's about enemy's enemies.
In theory, any nation has the right to achieve any level of scientific progress. In theory, every nation should have the right to own nuclear weapons. Living by the book of logic until this morning, I supported Iran's claim on nuclear weapons. They can have it if they can make it, I thought.
There is also the painful truth that the world still runs according to religious maps. There is the graciously overlooked fact that Muslims all over the world are persecuted almost as badly as the Jews were during the Holocaust. Some Muslim countries with nuclear weapons looks to be the only 'solution' to the global persecutions in the short run.
These are all in line with the logics that made Muslims tolerate the Taliban until it was too late. Still, I opted for a generous, sparing, and utopian view, hoping that dialogue will resolve the crises; eventually.
After reading THIS (purging "secular" teachers from faculty positions in the academic institutions) in the news this morning, all I want is to see these nutcases' a**es kicked. As soon and as hard as possible. Iran's move is not a 'resistance' against the West, after all. This country isn't coming out of the decades of darkness, either. Their only agenda is to spread an ultra-conservative brand of Islam. That brand of Islam isn't the Islam I know.
We all know what "book-burning" means. We saw it when the Catholic Church denounced science, we saw it when the Nazis denounced people's rights. This recent "purge" of Iran is all but a modern variation of book-burning. It is time for moderate Muslims to let go of all hesitations and unanimously denounce this crooked, medieval regime.
The only thing worse than a nutcase is a nutcase with a nuclear bomb.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
"My Views as a Muslim"
No, I am not going to address any issue here. Just read the following article in National Geographic Magazine. If anyone ever wants to hear a moderate Muslim speaking out, please read it. I agree with every word/letter/punctuation of this interview.
Enough said.
Enough said.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
"Numbers in My Life"
Some numbers in my life. If anyone who stumbles upon this entry has something similar, please include a comment.
Secondary School Certificate (SSC) exam in 2000. Total score: 920.
Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exam in 2002. Total score: 920.
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) in 2003. Total score: 1330.
Graduate Record Examination (GRE) in 2006. Total score: 1330.
Coincidence? Perhaps once too many.
Secondary School Certificate (SSC) exam in 2000. Total score: 920.
Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exam in 2002. Total score: 920.
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) in 2003. Total score: 1330.
Graduate Record Examination (GRE) in 2006. Total score: 1330.
Coincidence? Perhaps once too many.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
"Life Expectancy"
In a recent invitation, heard a doctor say that every human offspring borns with 100 years of "life". Anyone who dies before 100 years has committed some kind of "suicide". Interesting, I thought.
Monday, August 21, 2006
"Disaster Relief: Katrina to Hezballah"
I was within 90 miles of both the Category-5 hurricanes last season. Katrina was 90 miles west of us, while Rita was 90 miles east. I felt the part of the force of a hurricane on both occassions. I have been to New Orleans a few times since the landfall. The city was a wreck. A complete, hopeless wreck.
Just when I was almost certain that no other city/country could have the misfortune similar to that of the "Big Easy", there was Lebanon! In this case, it was man-made, was spread over an entire country (not just a city), and did not allow the population any chance to withdraw or evacuate (unlike New Orleans which had 36 hours of counter-flow evacuation through major highways).
All of it is past now. Time has taken its course, and it is time alone that will re-instate the balance. Events belong to time, but the response to those is what we -- the human beings -- own. It is in response that we earn our worth as the best creation. It is in response that some cement themselves as heroes while other wither away. Consider the following irony.
Heard on CNN couple of nights before: every house which has been bombed will get double sets of furnitures and every suffered family will get $12,000 in cash. All from Hezballah, and all of it has been arranged even before the aid workers have reached the refugees.
Heard on NPR last evening: after almost a complete year, cadaver-dogs are finding dead bodies in New Orleans. Let us also remember the disasterous response from FEMA and the mere $3500 that the people of New Orleans had received. Many of the homeless are not getting re-building assistance due to lack of "flood-insurance".
America has hundreds of pro-people programs at home, but is disliked by all. Hezballah was the reason a country has been reduced to rubble, yet they are the heroes! I guess it's all about speding the right amount at the right time.
The pro-freedom are hated for putting insurance companies above their own people. The pro-hate maniacs are still "heroes".
Seleucus!!
Just when I was almost certain that no other city/country could have the misfortune similar to that of the "Big Easy", there was Lebanon! In this case, it was man-made, was spread over an entire country (not just a city), and did not allow the population any chance to withdraw or evacuate (unlike New Orleans which had 36 hours of counter-flow evacuation through major highways).
All of it is past now. Time has taken its course, and it is time alone that will re-instate the balance. Events belong to time, but the response to those is what we -- the human beings -- own. It is in response that we earn our worth as the best creation. It is in response that some cement themselves as heroes while other wither away. Consider the following irony.
Heard on CNN couple of nights before: every house which has been bombed will get double sets of furnitures and every suffered family will get $12,000 in cash. All from Hezballah, and all of it has been arranged even before the aid workers have reached the refugees.
Heard on NPR last evening: after almost a complete year, cadaver-dogs are finding dead bodies in New Orleans. Let us also remember the disasterous response from FEMA and the mere $3500 that the people of New Orleans had received. Many of the homeless are not getting re-building assistance due to lack of "flood-insurance".
America has hundreds of pro-people programs at home, but is disliked by all. Hezballah was the reason a country has been reduced to rubble, yet they are the heroes! I guess it's all about speding the right amount at the right time.
The pro-freedom are hated for putting insurance companies above their own people. The pro-hate maniacs are still "heroes".
Seleucus!!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
'BUET & Lebanon'
[Recently in BUET: A student-protest to postpone the finals by a week was met with police-force. Some students attacked the teachers' quarters during the riot.]
The situation in BUET is similar to that in Lebanon.
The analogy might seem far-fetched to some, but it carries a similar message.
Cause-and-effect is a part of life, not an option or privilege. We see that here, too. True solution to any problem requires us to step back and identify the original incident that started the ripple-effect.
In case of Lebanon, it was the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. It was a wrong, profane act. It deserved repremand and retalliation. Israel had the right to pursue aggressive tactics. It was OK as long as they took out selective targets.
However, continued rape and pillage of a country for three weeks, killing civilians including one-day old boys, etc are wrong. It is wrong because the "effect" is very DISPROPORTIONATE compared to the "cause". An Israeli life has its value, but so does a Lebanese life. Nothing justifies putting 350+ Lebanese lives beneath one Isreali life.
It's kind of same in BUET now. Whatever the cause, the final "effect" turned out to be violent attacks on teachers and their FAMILIES. However it is you have been wronged, my dear friends, that is the point where you lost the right to be on the receiving end of sympathy.
Nothing justifies it. Absolutely nothing. Just like nothing can justify Israel's offensive at the moment.
The situation in BUET is similar to that in Lebanon.
The analogy might seem far-fetched to some, but it carries a similar message.
Cause-and-effect is a part of life, not an option or privilege. We see that here, too. True solution to any problem requires us to step back and identify the original incident that started the ripple-effect.
In case of Lebanon, it was the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. It was a wrong, profane act. It deserved repremand and retalliation. Israel had the right to pursue aggressive tactics. It was OK as long as they took out selective targets.
However, continued rape and pillage of a country for three weeks, killing civilians including one-day old boys, etc are wrong. It is wrong because the "effect" is very DISPROPORTIONATE compared to the "cause". An Israeli life has its value, but so does a Lebanese life. Nothing justifies putting 350+ Lebanese lives beneath one Isreali life.
It's kind of same in BUET now. Whatever the cause, the final "effect" turned out to be violent attacks on teachers and their FAMILIES. However it is you have been wronged, my dear friends, that is the point where you lost the right to be on the receiving end of sympathy.
Nothing justifies it. Absolutely nothing. Just like nothing can justify Israel's offensive at the moment.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Harry Potter: Doom Factor
Liked this article on MSNBC. Discusses the "doom factor" of various Harry Potter characters.
"Talking about Laying odds in the Harry Potter dead pool - BOOKS - MSNBC.com"
Quote
Laying odds in the Harry Potter dead pool - BOOKS - MSNBC.com
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
"Britania... oops! Germania!!"
Read a very interesting short-article on BBC. It refers to a research suggesting apartheid in Britain during the Anglo-Saxon era. It explain the dominance of German gene and linguistic elements in Britain. Intersting. Click here.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Fourth of July Fireworks
My second viewing of the Fourth of July Fireworks here in Baton Rouge. We got a lot closer to the river this time around. The early-morning rain took care of the mosquitos that vamped us last year. My brother was eager to try out his new digital camera (Nikon L4). And we all were in desperate need for some 'distraction'.Everything worked out for the best. Here are some of the snaps from tonight's fireworks. It was said in CNN that 91.1% Americans watch the fireworks *live*. Isn't it totally worth it?
Friday, June 30, 2006
In Favor of Ban on Flag Burning
Freedom of speech, the "First Ammendment", a staple part of western socities. A person is granted his or her right to respect at all costs. Every citizen is free to express any and every intent in any and every manner.
Sounds great. My experience leads to believe that it is one of the few things that make life blissful. Yet, I'm strongly against flag-burning. My reasons are two-fold.
a. What kind of "speech" requires torching? Today, burning a flag is "speech". How far is it a day when we move to accept and legalize arson as "speech", too? I've seen too many cars and shops smashed and torched in the name of "protest". Every person is allowed a safe passage to thought, speech, etc; not a passage to arson or torching. A stuffed idol might represent a person or the thoughts he or she adheres to. Burning that might get marginal support, but definitely not flags. Flags stand for something too wide and vast.
b. Whose flag is it that we're burning? What have we actually done to earn the flag? Who gives us the right to burn it, then? We are not the martyrs who lay dead in search of a free land and a proud flag! Flags belong to those freedom-fighter. They are the only ones who can burn it if they like. You wanna burn a flag? Go get one of your own!
Sounds great. My experience leads to believe that it is one of the few things that make life blissful. Yet, I'm strongly against flag-burning. My reasons are two-fold.
a. What kind of "speech" requires torching? Today, burning a flag is "speech". How far is it a day when we move to accept and legalize arson as "speech", too? I've seen too many cars and shops smashed and torched in the name of "protest". Every person is allowed a safe passage to thought, speech, etc; not a passage to arson or torching. A stuffed idol might represent a person or the thoughts he or she adheres to. Burning that might get marginal support, but definitely not flags. Flags stand for something too wide and vast.
b. Whose flag is it that we're burning? What have we actually done to earn the flag? Who gives us the right to burn it, then? We are not the martyrs who lay dead in search of a free land and a proud flag! Flags belong to those freedom-fighter. They are the only ones who can burn it if they like. You wanna burn a flag? Go get one of your own!
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
On Wisdom
[Wrote the following in a GRE sample test.]
"Wisdom is rightfully attributed not to people who know what to look for in life but to people who know what to overlook."
Wisdom is a concept that borders with Intuition. It is the subtle difference between the two that proves the correctness of the statement above.
Wisdom is accumulative and retrospective in nature. It is about borrowing some knowledge from the vast bank of experience accumulated over the ages. It is about looking back at the past to gain insight about what is ahead of us. Intuition is more about the heart than the brain. Knowledge or reasoning are irrelevant when it comes to taking intuitive decisions.
A simple narrative example should serve well to explain the statements. Every country faces a vast array of options. Choices between conflicting ideas compel us to exclude various options as we go through. Intuition leads citizens to envision a certain kind of future that they wish to realize. A short list of possibilities and measures associated with them can be prepared by dint of such 'look-for' attitudes, i.e., intuitive thinking. However, when it comes to implementing the goals and giving life to dreams, we need to arrive at a certain, exclusive answer. At that point, it is more important to know what to overlook than what to look for.
The final stage of every such decision-making process requires knowledge about possible consequences. It is easy to pick what we prefer or to demand what we like. Such thoughts are visionary, and hardly require any idea about the world as it is, as it was, or as it will be. On the contrary, knowledge of consequences comes only when one knows about the vastness of the world and the depth of the accumulated experience of the generations before us. Thus we realize that intuition is inclusive and wisdom is exclusive. Every option picked is a hundred options dismissed.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
'Crash'
[Personal opinion upon watching Crash (Best Picture, 78th Academy Awards)]
2005 was a horrible year for movies. 2006 more than just made up for it. I'm talking about class, not cash.
Movies that were running for Oscars in 2006 were far, far better than their 2005 counter-parts. We didn't have any cliches like Million Dollar Baby. We did not have half-crack movies like Sideways. We did not have flicks like The Aviator that wish to cash on a good cast and crew. We did not have good movies like Hotel Rwanda that were in the list only to be rejected in the name of political correctness.
This year, all five nominations were superb movie. Each different in taste and content. Each carrying a hint of the indie flavor. I doubt if there has been any better a bunch of movies in the same year.
I liked this years movies because they all moved away from the 'portreyal mode' to 'question mode'.
Munich could so easily have been a pro-Jewish bashing of Palestinians, yet it stuck to the truth and asked us some deep, righteous, and morally absorbing questions. Brokeback Mountain pushed the religion-over-humanity policy to its limits. Good Night and Good Luck made us question the recently rejuvenated act of political witch-hunting and the justifications of sacrificing humanity in the name of security. Capote followed the footsteps of Dead Man Walking and asked us again if we have the right to take away life that we cannot re-instate.
I loved these movies. All of them to my heart's content. They challenged my soul, emotionally. They asked the questions that opened the windows and let in some fresh air in my mind.
Crash was a bit different. It didn't leave me with any feeling at all. It was brute and direct. It didn't bother windows, it just took down my mind. I don't remember watching a more engaging and manipulating movie. It was a crusade against prejudice, deceit, lies, and false nobility.
Till this day, the very though of Crash fills my heart with shame, makes it impossible to face the man in the mirror, and points out my slavery of stereotypes.
I loved it most. Mostly because it made me hate myself so much.
2005 was a horrible year for movies. 2006 more than just made up for it. I'm talking about class, not cash.
Movies that were running for Oscars in 2006 were far, far better than their 2005 counter-parts. We didn't have any cliches like Million Dollar Baby. We did not have half-crack movies like Sideways. We did not have flicks like The Aviator that wish to cash on a good cast and crew. We did not have good movies like Hotel Rwanda that were in the list only to be rejected in the name of political correctness.
This year, all five nominations were superb movie. Each different in taste and content. Each carrying a hint of the indie flavor. I doubt if there has been any better a bunch of movies in the same year.
I liked this years movies because they all moved away from the 'portreyal mode' to 'question mode'.
Munich could so easily have been a pro-Jewish bashing of Palestinians, yet it stuck to the truth and asked us some deep, righteous, and morally absorbing questions. Brokeback Mountain pushed the religion-over-humanity policy to its limits. Good Night and Good Luck made us question the recently rejuvenated act of political witch-hunting and the justifications of sacrificing humanity in the name of security. Capote followed the footsteps of Dead Man Walking and asked us again if we have the right to take away life that we cannot re-instate.
I loved these movies. All of them to my heart's content. They challenged my soul, emotionally. They asked the questions that opened the windows and let in some fresh air in my mind.
Crash was a bit different. It didn't leave me with any feeling at all. It was brute and direct. It didn't bother windows, it just took down my mind. I don't remember watching a more engaging and manipulating movie. It was a crusade against prejudice, deceit, lies, and false nobility.
Till this day, the very though of Crash fills my heart with shame, makes it impossible to face the man in the mirror, and points out my slavery of stereotypes.
I loved it most. Mostly because it made me hate myself so much.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
'Conservative USA: An Unsettling Example'
I was particularly shocked to read the news in CNN. It goes on to show how crudely conservative certain pockets in the US are. (Read the original story here.)
The news read that an unmarried couple with multiple kids is going to be evicted on the basis of their 'unmarried' status. The little Missiouri town of "Black Jack" actually has a law that denies such rights! The actual law reads that more than three unmarried and unrelated people cannot live in the same house. A certain situation arose regarding an unmarried couple with three kids. They are being asked to leave the town due to their unmarried status only.
Whether extra-marital relations should be allowed or not is a complete other issue. I personally don't find anything wrong in it. I have seen too many marriages without love to know that love without marriage is a far better choice. The only formidable defense to this argument is religious restrictions.
I do believe that a certain group of people should have the right to frame their lifestyle in accordance with a way they prefer without contradicting the generally established ideals of the land. It is under this pretext that I support the idea of different states having different stances regarding issues like gay rights, euthanasia, abortion, or gambling.
It is quite clear that Black Jack's townsmen have opted on the side of inhumanity to uphold religion. I find it hypocretical to say the least. Look at the name of the town, for God's sakes. "Black Jack!!" Since when is gambling allowed in the gospels? Did the respected people of the town ever try to obtain a name different than arguably one of the most famous card games?
The news read that an unmarried couple with multiple kids is going to be evicted on the basis of their 'unmarried' status. The little Missiouri town of "Black Jack" actually has a law that denies such rights! The actual law reads that more than three unmarried and unrelated people cannot live in the same house. A certain situation arose regarding an unmarried couple with three kids. They are being asked to leave the town due to their unmarried status only.
Whether extra-marital relations should be allowed or not is a complete other issue. I personally don't find anything wrong in it. I have seen too many marriages without love to know that love without marriage is a far better choice. The only formidable defense to this argument is religious restrictions.
I do believe that a certain group of people should have the right to frame their lifestyle in accordance with a way they prefer without contradicting the generally established ideals of the land. It is under this pretext that I support the idea of different states having different stances regarding issues like gay rights, euthanasia, abortion, or gambling.
It is quite clear that Black Jack's townsmen have opted on the side of inhumanity to uphold religion. I find it hypocretical to say the least. Look at the name of the town, for God's sakes. "Black Jack!!" Since when is gambling allowed in the gospels? Did the respected people of the town ever try to obtain a name different than arguably one of the most famous card games?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
'The Hyped and the Hypocritical' (Iran & US)
Just read about half of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush. Read upto the part where he condemns the September 11th attacks.
Thus far, I agree with him word by word! A nice piece of letter (so far). Clear, direct, and brave. It is all but unexpected that the letter would be dismissed immediately. (You can read the text here). I do think that he is yet to reach any 'agenda' in the letter. Then again, any agenda other than unconditional admission to US allegations would be short of the mark to White House. The points he mentioned in the letter are burning questions inside the hearts of every human being outside of the US and Western Europe. No 'threat' or 'fissure' can be resolved unless these questions are properly answered.
I believe that the world is entitled to answers to the questions in the first part of the letter. After all, it's a tug of war between the hyped and the hypocritical. All we can do is sit back and watch...
Thus far, I agree with him word by word! A nice piece of letter (so far). Clear, direct, and brave. It is all but unexpected that the letter would be dismissed immediately. (You can read the text here). I do think that he is yet to reach any 'agenda' in the letter. Then again, any agenda other than unconditional admission to US allegations would be short of the mark to White House. The points he mentioned in the letter are burning questions inside the hearts of every human being outside of the US and Western Europe. No 'threat' or 'fissure' can be resolved unless these questions are properly answered.
I believe that the world is entitled to answers to the questions in the first part of the letter. After all, it's a tug of war between the hyped and the hypocritical. All we can do is sit back and watch...
Sunday, April 23, 2006
'Speech vs Violence'
Is it a viable idea to stick to a "no negotiation" stand when it comes to terrorists? Does it make sense to give terrorists more respect than they deserve? Or is it terrorism in the name of counter-terrorism when authorities refuse to talk with 'rogue' forces?
I side with speech.
It is painful. It is frustrating. Its outcomes are subject to exhaustion, not common sense. Agreed. No dialogue is easy. Talking a terrorist out of an act of aggression is just as difficult as convincing your wife of the futility of shopping, or teaching your child to stay away from the cookie-jar, or wooing a hostile board to vote your way. It is but a part of human lore that people don't listen unless they have to.
Here comes an argument in favor of using force. How else can you make someone listen? How else can you corner your opposition? How else can you expedite the process of mutual exhaustion?
Definitely not by force, I would say. Not military force, at least. My refutations lie in the questions themselves.
We need "mutual" exhaustion, not one-sided rampage. Even if the fight is God vs Some-Stubborn-Jerk-Out-There, a true and lasting solution is impossible unless the exhaustion has been mutual. This is required because permanent solution to problems come when people "listen", not when they "oblige." None of these two conditions are met by application of brute force.
It is still beside the point to me, though. I believe in relativity of all but one thing -- human tragedy. It is the only absolution and I see no reason to support anything that spreads it. I do not condone it for whatever purpose one might suggest. Not even for the sake of national security. A bullet in my chest would hurt me regardless of the shooters political alignment. Violence instigates more violence only, it never passes on the message we expect our counter-part to listen to.
Examples should serve well to drive the point home. The IRA and the Basque denounced terrorism and chose to engage in dialogue. An interview in PBS suggests that IRA's case had to do with frustration due to stagnance in the crisis while Basque's was with the thought of disconnecting itself from human suffering due to public disfavor against violence since 9/11.
Britain and Spain continued conversation with these two terrorist groups despite all else. It paid off. Pictures from the rest of the world are at your disposal. I feel it unnecessary to walk you through to the other end of the road.
Had the US ever listened to growing complains from around the world regarding it's foreign policy, I don't think there would have been a 9/11. Still, given that these guys were rogues who cared for nothing good, a little after-thought in the proper direction would have at least left the world a better place to live in.
When people think America/New York, they think The Statue of Liberty, not the Twin Towers. Yet the lady in the sea didn't get hit by an aeroplane. It was a stupid message, but it wasn't entirely irrelevant. The world would be better off without US policing and their ill-motived financial watchdogs such as IMF or WTO. A step in the direction of re-considering these is the only thing that'll win the hearts of the commoners. Not stealth planes, not nukes, not handshakes, not emergency food aids.
I side with speech.
It is painful. It is frustrating. Its outcomes are subject to exhaustion, not common sense. Agreed. No dialogue is easy. Talking a terrorist out of an act of aggression is just as difficult as convincing your wife of the futility of shopping, or teaching your child to stay away from the cookie-jar, or wooing a hostile board to vote your way. It is but a part of human lore that people don't listen unless they have to.
Here comes an argument in favor of using force. How else can you make someone listen? How else can you corner your opposition? How else can you expedite the process of mutual exhaustion?
Definitely not by force, I would say. Not military force, at least. My refutations lie in the questions themselves.
We need "mutual" exhaustion, not one-sided rampage. Even if the fight is God vs Some-Stubborn-Jerk-Out-There, a true and lasting solution is impossible unless the exhaustion has been mutual. This is required because permanent solution to problems come when people "listen", not when they "oblige." None of these two conditions are met by application of brute force.
It is still beside the point to me, though. I believe in relativity of all but one thing -- human tragedy. It is the only absolution and I see no reason to support anything that spreads it. I do not condone it for whatever purpose one might suggest. Not even for the sake of national security. A bullet in my chest would hurt me regardless of the shooters political alignment. Violence instigates more violence only, it never passes on the message we expect our counter-part to listen to.
Examples should serve well to drive the point home. The IRA and the Basque denounced terrorism and chose to engage in dialogue. An interview in PBS suggests that IRA's case had to do with frustration due to stagnance in the crisis while Basque's was with the thought of disconnecting itself from human suffering due to public disfavor against violence since 9/11.
Britain and Spain continued conversation with these two terrorist groups despite all else. It paid off. Pictures from the rest of the world are at your disposal. I feel it unnecessary to walk you through to the other end of the road.
Had the US ever listened to growing complains from around the world regarding it's foreign policy, I don't think there would have been a 9/11. Still, given that these guys were rogues who cared for nothing good, a little after-thought in the proper direction would have at least left the world a better place to live in.
When people think America/New York, they think The Statue of Liberty, not the Twin Towers. Yet the lady in the sea didn't get hit by an aeroplane. It was a stupid message, but it wasn't entirely irrelevant. The world would be better off without US policing and their ill-motived financial watchdogs such as IMF or WTO. A step in the direction of re-considering these is the only thing that'll win the hearts of the commoners. Not stealth planes, not nukes, not handshakes, not emergency food aids.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
'An Islamic Case in Favor of Watching TV!'
Islamic scholars' approach towards television is a matter of confusion to me. Here I share with you an interesting argument against their position regarding televisions.
Despite not being the most pious one around, I do hold strong faith in my religion. It is a faith that is not comparable to any John Doe's* pride in his by-born religion. I believe of Islam to be the most 'progressive' religion out there. It was far ahead of its time when in was preached, it is still ahead of time in guiding our decisions. I praise Islam most for leaving some loose ends for scholars of the latter times to fill-in.
Many Islamic scholars have done well to perform their duties well by coming up with smart and progressive policies. Not in the case of television, though. It is the devil's box. It is a pathway to Hell-fire. It is as far away from Prophet Mohammed (sm) that can be. It is not what the Prophet (sm) did, it is not something he would endorse either, they say.
I always wondered why radio or internet were OK, but not television. I concluded that it is their innate failure to communicate that made them wary of televisions.
A striking argument I heard about it the other day in party was: "Prophet Mohammed (sm) never rode in a car, but we drive Pajeros without least bit of contempt. If this is acceptable, why should TV be rejected only because the Prophet (sm) never took a peek?"
Loved it!!
* John Doe denotes randomness, not Christianity.
Despite not being the most pious one around, I do hold strong faith in my religion. It is a faith that is not comparable to any John Doe's* pride in his by-born religion. I believe of Islam to be the most 'progressive' religion out there. It was far ahead of its time when in was preached, it is still ahead of time in guiding our decisions. I praise Islam most for leaving some loose ends for scholars of the latter times to fill-in.
Many Islamic scholars have done well to perform their duties well by coming up with smart and progressive policies. Not in the case of television, though. It is the devil's box. It is a pathway to Hell-fire. It is as far away from Prophet Mohammed (sm) that can be. It is not what the Prophet (sm) did, it is not something he would endorse either, they say.
I always wondered why radio or internet were OK, but not television. I concluded that it is their innate failure to communicate that made them wary of televisions.
A striking argument I heard about it the other day in party was: "Prophet Mohammed (sm) never rode in a car, but we drive Pajeros without least bit of contempt. If this is acceptable, why should TV be rejected only because the Prophet (sm) never took a peek?"
Loved it!!
* John Doe denotes randomness, not Christianity.
Monday, April 17, 2006
'Staying the Course'
Bush & Iraq vs. Clinton & Sudan.
Since coming to the US and following the words and actions of both these presidents closely, I have come to appreciate charisma and wisdom more than ever.
Both presidents are patriotic and passionate. Clinton towards fast food and fast living, Bush towards conservative agenda and ideals.
Both made horrendous errors of judgement. Clinton indulged in supreme professional misconduct, Bush dragged an ailing nation into a pre-emptive war on fabricated grounds.
Both were friendly to bin-Laden and his men in a personal level. Clinton invited members of current-day "terrorists" to the White House and funded their campaign, Bush shared an oil-related business with the bin-Laden family, allowed safe passage to members of the accused families immediately after 9/11, held the troops back from bombing bin-Laden to death when he was cornered in the Tora Bora mountains.
Both supported the war on Iraq. Clinton supported the war, Bush is the war!
Both had a highly biased view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clinton unequivocally vowed to protect Israelly interests, it didn't bother Bush to drain his own country's resources to save Israelly interests by ravaging Iraq under false pretence.
And the list goes on.
The point I wish to make is that Clinton had the wisdom and charisma to turn the tide, to stop where he should, and to accept what he has done wrong.
It took a supremely shameful verdict of the Supreme Court to "elect" Bush to office and a supremely loyal Christian base to keep him in office despite a series of misconducts, while only a candid speech and a nice, wry smile did the trick for Clinton.
To the rest of the world, Clinton is just another US president. To the black people in US, he is the only president to have come close to truly understanding their troubles and their concerns. To the pocket-book Americans, he is the only one to left them a solvent life and a healthy 3-trillion dollars surplus. To the Republicans, he is an "ouch!". To the Democrats, he is a "wow!".
To me, he is a living lesson.
He bombed Al-Qaida facilities in Sudan, only to realize later than the situation didn't require such extensive military involvement. He pulled back! He didn't have to think again, he didn't bother shouldering the responsibilities.
He insisted that Israel's claims be accepted by Palestinians. He realized that the claims were not as justified as the lobbyists had suggested. He pulled back! He insisted that the border of 1967 be re-enacted. Precisely the claims of the Palestinians! (If only Arafat and/or Hamas were a bit thoughtful at those times!!)
He rocked a conservative, Christian nation (trust me, that's the real America. New York and California are populous exceptions only) with sex scandals. He apologized. That part was to save his neck, I agree. But he jokes about it now! He is the one who brings up the topic during fund-raising events and makes fun of himself! If that's not charisma, what is?
I'm not licking Clinton's toes by any means, but the guy has a sense of aura around him that one must appreciate. To me, the problems with the Bush administration is lack of wisdom and charisma. He could learn a lesson or two from his predecessor, I believe.
Staying the course is the motto of Bush Jr. If only he knew that the course he is staying is a wrong one!
Since coming to the US and following the words and actions of both these presidents closely, I have come to appreciate charisma and wisdom more than ever.
Both presidents are patriotic and passionate. Clinton towards fast food and fast living, Bush towards conservative agenda and ideals.
Both made horrendous errors of judgement. Clinton indulged in supreme professional misconduct, Bush dragged an ailing nation into a pre-emptive war on fabricated grounds.
Both were friendly to bin-Laden and his men in a personal level. Clinton invited members of current-day "terrorists" to the White House and funded their campaign, Bush shared an oil-related business with the bin-Laden family, allowed safe passage to members of the accused families immediately after 9/11, held the troops back from bombing bin-Laden to death when he was cornered in the Tora Bora mountains.
Both supported the war on Iraq. Clinton supported the war, Bush is the war!
Both had a highly biased view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clinton unequivocally vowed to protect Israelly interests, it didn't bother Bush to drain his own country's resources to save Israelly interests by ravaging Iraq under false pretence.
And the list goes on.
The point I wish to make is that Clinton had the wisdom and charisma to turn the tide, to stop where he should, and to accept what he has done wrong.
It took a supremely shameful verdict of the Supreme Court to "elect" Bush to office and a supremely loyal Christian base to keep him in office despite a series of misconducts, while only a candid speech and a nice, wry smile did the trick for Clinton.
To the rest of the world, Clinton is just another US president. To the black people in US, he is the only president to have come close to truly understanding their troubles and their concerns. To the pocket-book Americans, he is the only one to left them a solvent life and a healthy 3-trillion dollars surplus. To the Republicans, he is an "ouch!". To the Democrats, he is a "wow!".
To me, he is a living lesson.
He bombed Al-Qaida facilities in Sudan, only to realize later than the situation didn't require such extensive military involvement. He pulled back! He didn't have to think again, he didn't bother shouldering the responsibilities.
He insisted that Israel's claims be accepted by Palestinians. He realized that the claims were not as justified as the lobbyists had suggested. He pulled back! He insisted that the border of 1967 be re-enacted. Precisely the claims of the Palestinians! (If only Arafat and/or Hamas were a bit thoughtful at those times!!)
He rocked a conservative, Christian nation (trust me, that's the real America. New York and California are populous exceptions only) with sex scandals. He apologized. That part was to save his neck, I agree. But he jokes about it now! He is the one who brings up the topic during fund-raising events and makes fun of himself! If that's not charisma, what is?
I'm not licking Clinton's toes by any means, but the guy has a sense of aura around him that one must appreciate. To me, the problems with the Bush administration is lack of wisdom and charisma. He could learn a lesson or two from his predecessor, I believe.
Staying the course is the motto of Bush Jr. If only he knew that the course he is staying is a wrong one!
'Blog Links 1'
Here are some blogs of note. I found these blogs quite intersting.
a. The Kirk Report: It has been said in a recent media report that this blog tackles economics issues and predictions better than most. Consider taking a look if you can.
b. Stories in America: A blog to my heart's content. It gives me great joy and confidence to see brave, authentic blogs that address the hypocrisy and foulness of some American policies. Outspoken in protest of an irrational war, crism in surfacing flaws of a sub-standard presidentcy.
a. The Kirk Report: It has been said in a recent media report that this blog tackles economics issues and predictions better than most. Consider taking a look if you can.
b. Stories in America: A blog to my heart's content. It gives me great joy and confidence to see brave, authentic blogs that address the hypocrisy and foulness of some American policies. Outspoken in protest of an irrational war, crism in surfacing flaws of a sub-standard presidentcy.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
'Why Davids Win...'
[Written upon viewing of the Australia-Bangladesh test match at Fatullah, Dhaka.]
... inconfidence. Nothing flashy. No feat or frenzy. No shock of glory. Plain inconfidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Davids win only because they get their acts together in time. I am yet to see a David that has been victorious by dint of sheer skill or supremacy. Heck, they wouldn't be David, then!
In every human being is the ability of performing every task with precision. I remember reading that you know the solution to every problem you face in life. Being able to discover or recall the solution in the nick of time is a matter of practise and purpose, not labor or genius. I am yet to commit myself to any side of the argument. However, I do agree that leaps of faith can be leaps for the ages.
Similar was the case when Bangladesh embarrassed Australia in the first test at Fatullah, Dhaka. It was minnows rolling the giants over. The reason was two-fold. One was the lack of thought, as in the case of Shahriar Nafees and Habibul Bashar. Other was the abundance of thought, as in the case of Rajin Saleh and Mohammed Rafique.
Indeed, it is the 'no-nonsense' attitude that guides Davids through unfriendly territories. Being against a Goliath is about knowing that even most 'right' acts can bring forth fatal results, let alone wrong ones. This is the only thing that prevents one from committing mistakes and enforces strict adherence to the book of basics. Beginner's luck, after all, is but a figurative expression of all these and the only driving force, unlikely as it might seem, is inconfidence to a benevolent extreme.
... inconfidence. Nothing flashy. No feat or frenzy. No shock of glory. Plain inconfidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Davids win only because they get their acts together in time. I am yet to see a David that has been victorious by dint of sheer skill or supremacy. Heck, they wouldn't be David, then!
In every human being is the ability of performing every task with precision. I remember reading that you know the solution to every problem you face in life. Being able to discover or recall the solution in the nick of time is a matter of practise and purpose, not labor or genius. I am yet to commit myself to any side of the argument. However, I do agree that leaps of faith can be leaps for the ages.
Similar was the case when Bangladesh embarrassed Australia in the first test at Fatullah, Dhaka. It was minnows rolling the giants over. The reason was two-fold. One was the lack of thought, as in the case of Shahriar Nafees and Habibul Bashar. Other was the abundance of thought, as in the case of Rajin Saleh and Mohammed Rafique.
Indeed, it is the 'no-nonsense' attitude that guides Davids through unfriendly territories. Being against a Goliath is about knowing that even most 'right' acts can bring forth fatal results, let alone wrong ones. This is the only thing that prevents one from committing mistakes and enforces strict adherence to the book of basics. Beginner's luck, after all, is but a figurative expression of all these and the only driving force, unlikely as it might seem, is inconfidence to a benevolent extreme.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
'Attributes of the Modern Muslim :: Liberation'
[First installment of continuous topic -- the modern muslim.]
Nero denied the fire even at the end of his fiddling. Adolf Hitler kept planning to take back oil fields in the East even while Mrs. Magda Goebbels was contemplating poisoning her six children. Chief Engineer Joseph Bell was steadfast about Titanic's perfect design even when the bow began to sink. Begum Khaleda Zia condemned newspapers for coining 'Bangla Bhai' story even after the ambassadors spoke out.
History suggests that true victors never claim victory until it is absolute. True losers don't admit to their failure until absolution, either.
Similar is the case with the muslims of today. We are stuck in the first millenium. We can feel the pain of breathing the thinner, cleaner, smoother air of the 21st century. We stumble upon this reality everyday. We deny it everyday, too.
We claim honesty, yet we shift from opinion to opinion when it comes to real matters. We claim tolerance, yet we crave for fanatic glory. We claim fairness, yet fail to discern between a just cause and a nuisance. We claim freedom, yet fail to stand up for what we know as wrong.
Honesty, tolerance, and fairness would be topics of future installments in this series. We start with liberation today. A modern muslim should understand the following to be able to liberate his mind and practise indepent thinking.
a) Liberation is a state of mind, not a strategic poise. Occupying certain pieces of land or topping a certain number of casualties don't determine liberation. It is in being able to stretch your mind vertically as well as horizontally. It is in mobilizing your mind as well as motivating it.
b) You are the religion. Allah and His Prophet (sm) have left the door open for individual revelations of Islam. You own your religion as much as it owns you. Your explanation of Islam is probably just as good as (if not better than) that of a cleric.
c) Instruction is not the purpose of religion. Rather, purpose is the instruction of religion. Religious instructions are meant to lead us to discover our own purposes.
d) Fear is a means, not an end. Fear of hell-fire is supposed to teach you to speak the truth, to love all creation, to prohibit from bad company, to be courteous and gentle, to abstain from addiction and wastage, etc. Fear of punishment is there to help you stay the course until your mind is ready to take care of itself. Do something good only because it is good, not because doing otherwise would earn you some extra hours with Lucifer.
e) Crusades are unique in the sense that these are wars where most of the casualties are self-inflicted. Every blow intended is a blow at your own soul. Every life taken is a death for the soul.
f) Religion is both honored and rejected by the soul. Nothing physical about it. Ever.
Finding these too hard to grasp? Afraid of your mind getting corrupt? If so, please stop to ponder if you're actually thinking your thoughts or those of someone else's.
Nero denied the fire even at the end of his fiddling. Adolf Hitler kept planning to take back oil fields in the East even while Mrs. Magda Goebbels was contemplating poisoning her six children. Chief Engineer Joseph Bell was steadfast about Titanic's perfect design even when the bow began to sink. Begum Khaleda Zia condemned newspapers for coining 'Bangla Bhai' story even after the ambassadors spoke out.
History suggests that true victors never claim victory until it is absolute. True losers don't admit to their failure until absolution, either.
Similar is the case with the muslims of today. We are stuck in the first millenium. We can feel the pain of breathing the thinner, cleaner, smoother air of the 21st century. We stumble upon this reality everyday. We deny it everyday, too.
We claim honesty, yet we shift from opinion to opinion when it comes to real matters. We claim tolerance, yet we crave for fanatic glory. We claim fairness, yet fail to discern between a just cause and a nuisance. We claim freedom, yet fail to stand up for what we know as wrong.
Honesty, tolerance, and fairness would be topics of future installments in this series. We start with liberation today. A modern muslim should understand the following to be able to liberate his mind and practise indepent thinking.
a) Liberation is a state of mind, not a strategic poise. Occupying certain pieces of land or topping a certain number of casualties don't determine liberation. It is in being able to stretch your mind vertically as well as horizontally. It is in mobilizing your mind as well as motivating it.
b) You are the religion. Allah and His Prophet (sm) have left the door open for individual revelations of Islam. You own your religion as much as it owns you. Your explanation of Islam is probably just as good as (if not better than) that of a cleric.
c) Instruction is not the purpose of religion. Rather, purpose is the instruction of religion. Religious instructions are meant to lead us to discover our own purposes.
d) Fear is a means, not an end. Fear of hell-fire is supposed to teach you to speak the truth, to love all creation, to prohibit from bad company, to be courteous and gentle, to abstain from addiction and wastage, etc. Fear of punishment is there to help you stay the course until your mind is ready to take care of itself. Do something good only because it is good, not because doing otherwise would earn you some extra hours with Lucifer.
e) Crusades are unique in the sense that these are wars where most of the casualties are self-inflicted. Every blow intended is a blow at your own soul. Every life taken is a death for the soul.
f) Religion is both honored and rejected by the soul. Nothing physical about it. Ever.
Finding these too hard to grasp? Afraid of your mind getting corrupt? If so, please stop to ponder if you're actually thinking your thoughts or those of someone else's.
Monday, April 03, 2006
'Education Reform :: Schedule'
[First installment of continuous topic -- education reform in Bangladesh.]
In the heart of the problems of Bangladesh is a mismatch in timing. Given a swing range of two months, the first semester in BUET starts in mid-February. This needs to be moved to either late-August or mid-January to make the system completely synchronous with the Western system.
My suggestion is to start the semester in mid-September, if possible. This would make sure that the final semester would end at around mid-September. This would give the graduating students a chance to apply for higher education from the following Fall. At present, students have to wait as long as two years in some cases. This only serves to take away the motivation and momentum of students.
A more drastic change would be to shift the academic calender from January to August. I consider that to be too radical and unnecessary. There being no clear distinction between Fall and Spring now-a-days and the culture not being one that fosters seasonal trends, the January-December session can be left the way it is until completion of 10th grade.
The timespan between mid-10th grade to the publishing of HSC results can only be termed as 'A Series of Unfortunate Incidents'!
10th grade classes should end by mid-September. SSC examination should be held in early-January. Results would come in by mid-April. Admission tests for HSC should be administered by late-June and classes should begin by mid-July at the latest.
The 18 months of higher-secondary studies would end in mid-January, according to the proposed calender. HSC exams should be administered in mid-April and results should be published by mid-July. University admission should be completed by mid-August and classes should resume by early-September.
Why all the rush? Why bother revising all the established customs to adjust with some foreign system? What ever happened to the freedom to write our own terms?
Such questions are entirely ideological and require persuasion in a completely different tone. That would be the topic for a future installment in Education Reform.
In the heart of the problems of Bangladesh is a mismatch in timing. Given a swing range of two months, the first semester in BUET starts in mid-February. This needs to be moved to either late-August or mid-January to make the system completely synchronous with the Western system.
My suggestion is to start the semester in mid-September, if possible. This would make sure that the final semester would end at around mid-September. This would give the graduating students a chance to apply for higher education from the following Fall. At present, students have to wait as long as two years in some cases. This only serves to take away the motivation and momentum of students.
A more drastic change would be to shift the academic calender from January to August. I consider that to be too radical and unnecessary. There being no clear distinction between Fall and Spring now-a-days and the culture not being one that fosters seasonal trends, the January-December session can be left the way it is until completion of 10th grade.
The timespan between mid-10th grade to the publishing of HSC results can only be termed as 'A Series of Unfortunate Incidents'!
10th grade classes should end by mid-September. SSC examination should be held in early-January. Results would come in by mid-April. Admission tests for HSC should be administered by late-June and classes should begin by mid-July at the latest.
The 18 months of higher-secondary studies would end in mid-January, according to the proposed calender. HSC exams should be administered in mid-April and results should be published by mid-July. University admission should be completed by mid-August and classes should resume by early-September.
Why all the rush? Why bother revising all the established customs to adjust with some foreign system? What ever happened to the freedom to write our own terms?
Such questions are entirely ideological and require persuasion in a completely different tone. That would be the topic for a future installment in Education Reform.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Danish Cartoon. Corrected.
Just read a fascinating comment in this week's Tigerweekly. In an article on South Park's take on Scientology and Islam, the author commented that both religions should learn from the Jews. I totally agree with the author.
It has been said in the article that the Jews "invited a Holocaust cartoon contest". The satire of the Jews has long been part of modern-day legend. It is all but easy to joke about one's misfortune. Much more so when jokes are about a religion.
I agree with the author. "The Danish cartoonist would have made a much stronger point had he drawn Muhammad as the innocent victim of a suicide bomber’s attack." Couldn't agree more.
It is a known fact that to all Muslims that the terrorists are all but following the Prophet's (sm) words by carrying out violence. I validate suicide-attacks as a valid means of fighting for freedom. Everything is fair in love and war. If it is indeed a war, then everyone has the right to use any weapon. If George W. Bush can unilaterally ignore Geneva Convention, the suicide bombers can ignore basic conventions of war, too. Is the war justified? That's an entirely different debate. Is it an act of Jihad? Is it Islamic? I don't think so. It is the Prophet (sm) and his words that are being attacked. By none other than followers of the religion he preached.
It has been said in the article that the Jews "invited a Holocaust cartoon contest". The satire of the Jews has long been part of modern-day legend. It is all but easy to joke about one's misfortune. Much more so when jokes are about a religion.
I agree with the author. "The Danish cartoonist would have made a much stronger point had he drawn Muhammad as the innocent victim of a suicide bomber’s attack." Couldn't agree more.
It is a known fact that to all Muslims that the terrorists are all but following the Prophet's (sm) words by carrying out violence. I validate suicide-attacks as a valid means of fighting for freedom. Everything is fair in love and war. If it is indeed a war, then everyone has the right to use any weapon. If George W. Bush can unilaterally ignore Geneva Convention, the suicide bombers can ignore basic conventions of war, too. Is the war justified? That's an entirely different debate. Is it an act of Jihad? Is it Islamic? I don't think so. It is the Prophet (sm) and his words that are being attacked. By none other than followers of the religion he preached.
Friday, March 31, 2006
'Greatest Problem of Bangladesh is...'
... no, it is not population. Not corruption. Not lack of resources, either. It is the lack of equivalency with western education systems.
My evaluations may and will surprise many. Bangladesh is the only country in the world that holds over 1,000 people per square-kilometer. There are almost 150 million people living in this 144,000 square-kilometers piece of land. The country has been ranked the most corrupt nation in the world for five years in a row by Transparency International. Forests are reduced to only 10% of the land, mere 20-30 years' reserve of natural gas remains, and all other resources depleted, what can be a worse problem? It is a country deeply divided in terms of political ideologies, infiltrated by fanatics, and submerged in bureaucracy.
I would still suggest that only an equivalency is the only "fix" for the problem - both in long and short terms.
Education systems of Bangladesh have some equivalency after the completion of every major stage, i.e., SSC, HSC, Bachelors, Masters. However, these are full of various kinds of inconsistencies. We claim that our systems are "completely equivalent" on the basis of two things: a) we now have semester system instead of annual, b) we grade in scale of 4.0 instead of 100 for each subject per year.
This complacency is so deep among the people in position that no one bothers to analyze further. The "grading scale" may be same everywhere (= 'out of 4.0'), but the "grading standard" isn't. Yet another major problem unsolved and ignored.
This installment of the blog is just to shed light and draw attention over the matter. Signing off with the promise to be a bit different than most and come up with some "real solutions" to many of the issues related to education reform in Bangladesh.
My evaluations may and will surprise many. Bangladesh is the only country in the world that holds over 1,000 people per square-kilometer. There are almost 150 million people living in this 144,000 square-kilometers piece of land. The country has been ranked the most corrupt nation in the world for five years in a row by Transparency International. Forests are reduced to only 10% of the land, mere 20-30 years' reserve of natural gas remains, and all other resources depleted, what can be a worse problem? It is a country deeply divided in terms of political ideologies, infiltrated by fanatics, and submerged in bureaucracy.
I would still suggest that only an equivalency is the only "fix" for the problem - both in long and short terms.
Education systems of Bangladesh have some equivalency after the completion of every major stage, i.e., SSC, HSC, Bachelors, Masters. However, these are full of various kinds of inconsistencies. We claim that our systems are "completely equivalent" on the basis of two things: a) we now have semester system instead of annual, b) we grade in scale of 4.0 instead of 100 for each subject per year.
This complacency is so deep among the people in position that no one bothers to analyze further. The "grading scale" may be same everywhere (= 'out of 4.0'), but the "grading standard" isn't. Yet another major problem unsolved and ignored.
This installment of the blog is just to shed light and draw attention over the matter. Signing off with the promise to be a bit different than most and come up with some "real solutions" to many of the issues related to education reform in Bangladesh.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
'Minority Report :: Cultural Aliens'
My days here in the US have tought me the significance and hardship of the life of a 'minority'. Painful as it is, it has served me well. My erratic passions have reduced, my compassions have deepened.
What is the worst part of living the life of a minority? What is the very deprivation that defines it? What are the thoughts that border it?
My experiences lead me to believe that the worst part of a minority life is cultural alienhood.
I know more about Halloween from my second grade textbook than from my two years in America. I know of Christmas because that's the time when Kevin McCallister was left behind by his family. I know of Thanksgiving as "Mardi Gras of Fall" and of Margi Gras as "the other Spring Break". Fourth of July is an online sale day, Martin Luther King Day is "the first extended weekend". After all, I never dressed up in the October nights, never felt the Christman snow with my hands, had only a Bengali version of Thanksgiving, never bothered driving up to Bourbon Street (which happens to be an hour's drive only) on Fat Tuesday, didn't know which way to look to see the Fourth of July fireworks, and never stopped to appreciate how much MLK has civilized America.
St. Patrick's Day was no different. Another day came and passed. I only knew of it from the green beads on the streets. There may have been something else a few days back. I saw more cars in the parking lot than usual, saw more couples wrapped around each other, heard some more noise than usual. I have been living the life of a minority long enough to understand that this is my time to stay home and keep tight.
I have been in the majority for a long time, too. I know the surprise I would feel if I were reading this account. I know the usual reply, too. It is just that the true meaning of "I wish I could explain why it's tough!" now. Is it a fault of the majority for not reaching out? Is it the fault of my timid heart? Is it about living abroad, alone?
Or is there something else? My mom knew about St. Patrick's Day. She celebrated it by working a 12-hours shift. So did many others. It is, then, just a matter of class? I don't remember seeing Americans below a certain level of affluence, either.
What is the worst part of living the life of a minority? What is the very deprivation that defines it? What are the thoughts that border it?
My experiences lead me to believe that the worst part of a minority life is cultural alienhood.
I know more about Halloween from my second grade textbook than from my two years in America. I know of Christmas because that's the time when Kevin McCallister was left behind by his family. I know of Thanksgiving as "Mardi Gras of Fall" and of Margi Gras as "the other Spring Break". Fourth of July is an online sale day, Martin Luther King Day is "the first extended weekend". After all, I never dressed up in the October nights, never felt the Christman snow with my hands, had only a Bengali version of Thanksgiving, never bothered driving up to Bourbon Street (which happens to be an hour's drive only) on Fat Tuesday, didn't know which way to look to see the Fourth of July fireworks, and never stopped to appreciate how much MLK has civilized America.
St. Patrick's Day was no different. Another day came and passed. I only knew of it from the green beads on the streets. There may have been something else a few days back. I saw more cars in the parking lot than usual, saw more couples wrapped around each other, heard some more noise than usual. I have been living the life of a minority long enough to understand that this is my time to stay home and keep tight.
I have been in the majority for a long time, too. I know the surprise I would feel if I were reading this account. I know the usual reply, too. It is just that the true meaning of "I wish I could explain why it's tough!" now. Is it a fault of the majority for not reaching out? Is it the fault of my timid heart? Is it about living abroad, alone?
Or is there something else? My mom knew about St. Patrick's Day. She celebrated it by working a 12-hours shift. So did many others. It is, then, just a matter of class? I don't remember seeing Americans below a certain level of affluence, either.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
'How to Lose a God in Three Months'
It has been particularly painful for me watch. It has been unsettling, unnerving, and disgusting. I'm not overly religious, but I know Islam well enough to understand with certainty that my religion is being hijacked by zealots.A part of living abroad pertains to cultural interchange. I take particular pride in describing my country and explaining my religion. My country hasn't let me down, it's people have. My religion hasn't let me down, it's followers have. I have seen a sweeping dream of 'Bangladesh' made bleak in 35 years. I am seeing a great religion being reduced to obscenety in 1400 years.
Times have been difficult for Muslims living in foreign countries. Life can't be fun when one is blamed by both parties of a useless, unproductive fight. I don't side with the zealots who crash and burn over cartoons. I don't side with the political scoundrels who bend all rules to promote provocative journalism, either.
I believe that the Muslims have missed a golden opportunity to prove the depth and breadth of their religion by protesting violently against the Danish cartoons. We had been humiliated, harrassed, violated, demonized, and blacklisted following 9/11. God gave us another chance. We failed again. We knew it was a trap. We knew it was unnecessary provocation. We knew that Islam is weakened by violence and aggression, not satire. We knew our faiths weren't shaken a bit by mere cartoons. We knew the cartoons were not even remotely close to the appearance of Prophet Mohammed (sm). We knew that patience and forgiveness would serve us better than violence. Still we rioted and torched. Is it still a 'mistake' on the part of the Muslims? I guess not. I blame the Muslims for finally engaging in the widescale violence and terrorism that we've been long blamed for.
The western media and administrations have been just as bad. News about the incident was never fair or complete. I have read and watched every report on CNN/BBC. No one mentioned that this was initiated by a nationally awarded book that defiled Islam. No one mentioned that there was a nationally campaigned contest to get cartoons for the book's cover. No one mentioned that defiling Prophet Mohammed (sm) was a specification of the newspaper and the author (despite knowing than images or idols of Prophet Mohammed (sm) are considered blasphemy in Islam and there exists no such imitations in the Muslim world). No one mentioned that Muslims in Denmark initially responded with mild 'statements' saying that it was something wrong on the part of the newspaper to do so. No one mentioned that the cartoons were re-published just to create a bit more buzz. No one mentioned than Denmark is moving towards legally ostracizing Muslims. No one mentioned that the religious and racial right-wing was a patron of the newspaper's activities. Yet all the pre-determined conclusions were fired away when the bow finally broke. Muslims are fanatics, uncultured, unsocial, and impatient.
The fire finally broke out. Like every fire, it burned all else. Like every fire, it didn't spare its ignitors house. We have lost both reason and religion in the process. It proved to the west that Muslims still needs some lessons in patience and progress. It proved to the east that the west lives behind a cloud of deceit and hypocrisy. Has the world been any better since then? Certainly not.
The west has embarked on a crusade on cleriks. As much as I despise their zealotry, I would argue in their favor that "down with England!" can't be 'religious provocation' if Jyllands-Posten's activities weren't. At the same time, the east has pathetically failed to grasp the futility of rioting over a cartoon. If a western girl has to cover her head in a Muslim country, a Muslim can be expected to be tolerant of a cartoon in the west, too. Hijaab (head-scarf) is just as much a part of the Muslim society as good humor is in the west.
The east has done even worse. They have unearthed a long-forgotten case of conversion. A person being sentenced to death sixteen years after his conversion in a country that has constitutional ban against such judgement and a big chunk of the population is openly supporting so. If only these people went this far in the proper direction, they'd be in the fifth millenium in stead of the first! It took only three months to lose God again.
I knew I would express my opinions regarding these matters, but I also knew that I would wait until emotion gives way to logic. My thoughts have reassured me that there's a God (/Allah/...) up there. Still looking down. Lost and dejected.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
'A for America'
"Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot..."
I acknowledge 'terrorism' to be a valid means of achieving freedom (and freedom only). A starter-level reason, but a valid reason none-the-less.
Freedom is divine. Like every bit of divinity, it can be achieved in innumerable ways. Divinity being a word that commands more 'meaning' than 'definition', the means vary just as significantly as the interpretations of the word. Divinity to a clergy is absolute submission to a supernatural beyond all questions, whereas it is the solution of an equation to the scientist. Some find divinity in the delights of an orgasm, while others find it in the labor of child-birth.
The question is not of choosing where to draw the line. Rather, it is of accepting that no such line can be drawn. Similar is the case with freedom.
The fact that freedom and terrorism are two of the world's most ambiguous concepts only highlights the dilemma facing us. We know it quite well by now that it is almost impossible to do the right thing, at the right time, and for the right reason. A compromised version of it could be, is it ok to do the right things for the wrong reasons (ex, "disarm Iraq and liberate its people" = right thing, "loot all their oil" = wrong reason; "educate the cherokee" = right thing, "uproot the Indian in them" = wrong reason), or the other way round?
I stand up for the second. It is excusable to do the wrong things for the right reason. In fact, this is at the core of the most sweeping dreams of utopia. From Robin Hood to 'V' in 'V for Vendetta', from walking a thousand nights to watch the sun rise to climbing up miles to view the paramount, men are always at their best when they do the wrong things for the right reason. There lies ecstasy, there lies life.
Terror is a bi-directional weapon. It is behind every occupation there was, it is behind every occupation that was ever removed. Terror is unhealthy for the soul and needs to be removed at the earliest, but not by any given means. Unilateral attempts to remove terror end up in helpless replication of it only. Of all the wrongs and rights, application of terror is perhaps the only anomaly that cannot be justified by any means. Terror dies away only when both parties come out with their true intensions, allowing terror to neutralize terror by way of battles.
Is the true psyche of terror (or freedom) ever known? Is the battle ever won? Is the shrowd ever lifted? Do rebel hearts ever bleed with doubt? Smart generals fight conclusively, not pre-emptively. Only terrorists do. Legal or not. Pious or not.
We are all the while struggling to find a balance between these abstracts. Is there anything absolute amonst all these? Is there anything that we can consider as the least common denominator? Some suggest oppression. Some say security. Some say freedom of speech. The revolution of 'V' is unique and just in the sense that it leaves the door open to individual revelation.
Revolution without revelation moves masses, but revolution with one moves generations. The former is moved by men. The latter by masks and ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)