Atlast, Musharraf has to shed his military uniform under International pressure or put it specifically under the pressure of United states. But, still what is hidden for future is still unknown to most of the international observers. Now after the return of nawaz sharif from saudi arabia and with the presence of Benzir in the country, it's pretty a mess and too difficult to assume what's going on within Musharaff.Is it the intention of musharaff to save his face and show international community that all his preaching of democracy is not political debauchery or it's a desperate bid to show the world that the general elections will be credible. but, thinking of a polically accomodating arrangement with three players i.e. mushraff,benzir and nawaz seem like a next to impossible thing.
Brains of any political observer will spin thinking of an equitable space for these three players. when nawaz and benzir are diabolically opposite in their political ideology, they can hold the post of primeminister under Mush. at their own peril.
But, it seems that u.s. is pushing this issue very hard. May not be for the sake of democracy but sure for its so called war against terror. Hold on, let's stop here because whatever may be our perception of seeing this issue but atlast wishes of pentagon will prevail. so, why to lose our sleep over this issue.
so bye, my thoughts. i will come again to take you on a new ride.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Amoral Debate
Uma khanna episode compelled the media to introspect into the way in which it conducts itself . This is especially true for the broadcast medium. Leaving the ethical debate involved in this issue , it can be safely presumed that broadcast media is under the trap of money-making and cheap sensationlism. Ofcourse when executive and legislature have been failures to rise to the expectation of the people , it’s the work of the media to come with the truth. But, on the hide of exposing the truth , media is not empowered to intrude into the personal space of the common man, alluring him to conduct in a manner , it desires . Exposing any scandal through investigation is nice but is it moral to allure a man to indulge in that scandal first, so that media can catch him red-handed ,showing the world(Read urban audience) that no matter how inefficient the system is, media is their to take care of them.Rembember,Mudra deal to Harsad Mehta scam has been broken out without the expert assistance of the hidden cameras, then where the media lose those weapons of investigative journalism. True, the cases like Cash-for –Query scam, Tehelka exposure, U.P. assmbley incident gave the proponents of this method an upper hand but have we ever imagined what if these investigation would have proved wrong in their assumptions.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Some are just born great!
It doesn’t come as a surprise when Rahul Gandhi has been formally put into the party’s central committee in recently held All India Congress Committee meeting. But, Rahul Gandhi’s speech definitely creates some ripples among the political observers. This Gandhi- Nehru scion made a fervent speech to promote meritocracy in the party. Listening to a term like meritocracy from the mouth of rahul Gandhi is bit unusual. Because- he himself is projected as the future prime ministerial candidate only due to his inheritance without a proven track record of performance. Can anyone except Gandhi surname ever dream of being prime ministerial candidate from congress party? Of course, there are anomalies when P.V.Narsinghrao in 1991 and Manmohan Singh now, takes the rein of the country. But, P.V.Narasinghrao came to power just after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination as Sonia Gandhi was reluctant to enter into politics, where as in Manmohan Singh’s case Sonia was compelled to step down seeing the political mileage that the saffron party was trying to cash of her foreign origin.
Salman Khursid, the revered Congressman tries to put it in this way in “Cogress Sandesh”, i.e. mouthpiece of Congress party. He tries to make the point by drawing the similarity with the sons and daughters of professionals like doctors, military personnel, film stars who follows the foot print of their parents and enter into the same profession. Does it fair to draw the comparison line in this manner? Does the post of prime minister come under the same fold as of a doctor, military personnel or of a film star? Can India in this 21st century afford to give the prime ministrial post to a person because of his family tree? Salman Khursid hides under the argument that people of India wants to see the Gandhis in the top post. If it’s the case then why Congress party was not able to get any headway in Uttar Pradesh elections despite Rahul Gandhi being the star campaigner. Salman also takes the pain to make a recollection of the fact that some people are just born great and with time they should be given their due. Don’t this argument have a feudalistic flavour? Further speaking, it contrasts the very concept of meritocracy, which is now so passionately preached by Rahul Gandhi.
If Congress feels that young blood should be incorporated into the party, then it’s a noble design. But why congress is finding that face in Rahul Gandhi only? Why can’t a face with genuine political credentials hold the top post? Further, Rahul Gandhi hasn’t shown a spectacular performance as a legislature. He spoke three times and asked two questions in parliament within these four years of his legislative span. He has never participated in any important discussion in the parliament. Indian mass hardly knows about his standpoint about major issues concerning India. Also, his credential as a political visionary is doubtful. Because, Rahul Gandhi, in recent times given statements which shows his political shallowness. In one of the election rally held in U.P., he asserted that if Gandhi family were in power in the center, then the Babri Masjid happenings might n’t be taken place. But, what he forgot to mention is that it’s Rajiv Gandhi who opened the lid of this controversy and Congress was in the center when the demolition happened. How can Rahul Gandhi disown the legacy of his own party, only resorting to Gandhi family’ legacy? Further, when he extolled 1971 war as his family credit, it created a diplomatic row between India, Pakistan and Bangaladesh. After this kind of (irresponsible) remarks, it is clear that he is the leader who is blindly driven by his media managers than his own perception of the things.
Let Congress shows some guts to go beyond the Gandhi family. Congress usually faces the criticism that it’s the party of high command where even “Sarpanch” appointment is referred to the high command in 10 Janpath. Will Congress party be ever able to shed this blot? Time can only unfold that whether Congress party, which led the fight for democracy in India, will able to set its own home right.
Salman Khursid, the revered Congressman tries to put it in this way in “Cogress Sandesh”, i.e. mouthpiece of Congress party. He tries to make the point by drawing the similarity with the sons and daughters of professionals like doctors, military personnel, film stars who follows the foot print of their parents and enter into the same profession. Does it fair to draw the comparison line in this manner? Does the post of prime minister come under the same fold as of a doctor, military personnel or of a film star? Can India in this 21st century afford to give the prime ministrial post to a person because of his family tree? Salman Khursid hides under the argument that people of India wants to see the Gandhis in the top post. If it’s the case then why Congress party was not able to get any headway in Uttar Pradesh elections despite Rahul Gandhi being the star campaigner. Salman also takes the pain to make a recollection of the fact that some people are just born great and with time they should be given their due. Don’t this argument have a feudalistic flavour? Further speaking, it contrasts the very concept of meritocracy, which is now so passionately preached by Rahul Gandhi.
If Congress feels that young blood should be incorporated into the party, then it’s a noble design. But why congress is finding that face in Rahul Gandhi only? Why can’t a face with genuine political credentials hold the top post? Further, Rahul Gandhi hasn’t shown a spectacular performance as a legislature. He spoke three times and asked two questions in parliament within these four years of his legislative span. He has never participated in any important discussion in the parliament. Indian mass hardly knows about his standpoint about major issues concerning India. Also, his credential as a political visionary is doubtful. Because, Rahul Gandhi, in recent times given statements which shows his political shallowness. In one of the election rally held in U.P., he asserted that if Gandhi family were in power in the center, then the Babri Masjid happenings might n’t be taken place. But, what he forgot to mention is that it’s Rajiv Gandhi who opened the lid of this controversy and Congress was in the center when the demolition happened. How can Rahul Gandhi disown the legacy of his own party, only resorting to Gandhi family’ legacy? Further, when he extolled 1971 war as his family credit, it created a diplomatic row between India, Pakistan and Bangaladesh. After this kind of (irresponsible) remarks, it is clear that he is the leader who is blindly driven by his media managers than his own perception of the things.
Let Congress shows some guts to go beyond the Gandhi family. Congress usually faces the criticism that it’s the party of high command where even “Sarpanch” appointment is referred to the high command in 10 Janpath. Will Congress party be ever able to shed this blot? Time can only unfold that whether Congress party, which led the fight for democracy in India, will able to set its own home right.
Pervez Mushraff's second coronation as the president of Pakistan speaks volume about the state of affairs of our neighbour. Perhaps most of we indians are gleefully watching these happenings from our tv sets barring some lines of concern seen on the face of our military establishment. As human beings, our concern for humanity is limited to the last border post of Rajstan or punjab or J&K . Also, see our newpaper editors' finely crafted analytical pieces on Pakistan, how they are busy penning down the arguments to prove upto what percentage Pakistan has increased as a failure state.
so much of apathy towards a nation which our grandparents had shared as one nation is really astounding. perhaps, we Indians are obsessed with our growth prospects and slightly complacent about our democratic sucesses. But, there are inherent risks attached to this i.e. if we don't evaluate our democratic governance from time to time then, there are chances of slipping towards a situation like Pakistan. Also, our non-intereference clause in diplomacy will hamper Pakistan's struggle for democracy. remember, India as a country is sorrounded by nations where military dictators rule the people.
The logic that you get neighbours not by choice but by chance has it's own limitations.because- no military government can rule the nation for ever. some time or other, people's voice
so much of apathy towards a nation which our grandparents had shared as one nation is really astounding. perhaps, we Indians are obsessed with our growth prospects and slightly complacent about our democratic sucesses. But, there are inherent risks attached to this i.e. if we don't evaluate our democratic governance from time to time then, there are chances of slipping towards a situation like Pakistan. Also, our non-intereference clause in diplomacy will hamper Pakistan's struggle for democracy. remember, India as a country is sorrounded by nations where military dictators rule the people.
The logic that you get neighbours not by choice but by chance has it's own limitations.because- no military government can rule the nation for ever. some time or other, people's voice
Friday, November 23, 2007
Inevitability and Iraq war
------------------------------------------------
Today, at the time of watching the movie"Brother in arms", I was wondering why we human beings ever fight with each other. Really what's the reason for wars? Can any logical reasoning to defend a war will ever suffice? Iraq invasion and the mayhem after the war shows how little we learn from the pages of history. who are the ultimate winner of this war? Are they the Iraqi people or the Bush administration or the shoddy arm dealers who ultimately benefit from the arm sell or those thriving scientific institutions who rack their brain to invent ultra modern weapons for the post-modern wars?
This is a moot point. Physchology accepts that aggression is part of human instinct. so, sociologically the world can't be free from conflicts. so, wars are those human made disasters which can't be avoided just like natural disasters. And some time wars are the only inescapable option for spreading peace. Remember, those famous lines of Mahabharat which Lord Krishna has uttered to krishna. Sometime, being idealistic doesn't clear the web of confusion.
Put this in the case of Iraqi war. Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator whose hands were blood stained, though he provided stability to this nation. Then U.S., without taking cognizance to the views of the world community intruded the country. We all know what happened after the invasion and what's happening now in that country. Iraq has turned literally into a rubble.
But let's go on a ride, where we will design these happenings according to our wishes. If Iraq hadn't been attacked by U.S. then the United Nation led force might have accomplished that task. From, every option, we come to the conclusion that war is the only viable option to dismantle Saddam's regime.
Wait, let's give dialogue a chance. It is debatable whether Saddam would have come to the negotiating table for transforming his country into a democratic nation.
Really, it's utter confusion which is creeping into my mind. I am deadly against the Iraq war but what was the viable option that was left to the world community except a war.
------------------------------------------------
Today, at the time of watching the movie"Brother in arms", I was wondering why we human beings ever fight with each other. Really what's the reason for wars? Can any logical reasoning to defend a war will ever suffice? Iraq invasion and the mayhem after the war shows how little we learn from the pages of history. who are the ultimate winner of this war? Are they the Iraqi people or the Bush administration or the shoddy arm dealers who ultimately benefit from the arm sell or those thriving scientific institutions who rack their brain to invent ultra modern weapons for the post-modern wars?
This is a moot point. Physchology accepts that aggression is part of human instinct. so, sociologically the world can't be free from conflicts. so, wars are those human made disasters which can't be avoided just like natural disasters. And some time wars are the only inescapable option for spreading peace. Remember, those famous lines of Mahabharat which Lord Krishna has uttered to krishna. Sometime, being idealistic doesn't clear the web of confusion.
Put this in the case of Iraqi war. Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator whose hands were blood stained, though he provided stability to this nation. Then U.S., without taking cognizance to the views of the world community intruded the country. We all know what happened after the invasion and what's happening now in that country. Iraq has turned literally into a rubble.
But let's go on a ride, where we will design these happenings according to our wishes. If Iraq hadn't been attacked by U.S. then the United Nation led force might have accomplished that task. From, every option, we come to the conclusion that war is the only viable option to dismantle Saddam's regime.
Wait, let's give dialogue a chance. It is debatable whether Saddam would have come to the negotiating table for transforming his country into a democratic nation.
Really, it's utter confusion which is creeping into my mind. I am deadly against the Iraq war but what was the viable option that was left to the world community except a war.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
An Agnostic
Why I do believe in God?
-------------------------------------
I believe in God because my family taught me to do so. Though I am still doubtful about my own belief system, still when I feel low, I always remember someone/ something (not sure of him being a human) that I name as God. Also, to score good marks in examinations, to escape from embarrassment and for million more things, which will keep me ahead in this rat race, I appeal to some extra-terrestrial object that I name as God. Basically, I believe in God for my own selfish reasons. Interestingly, I take pain to go to the places of his worship when I am in my blues.
Never have I tried to question his/her/its authority, because I watched all the episodes of Ramananda sagar made Ramayan and Mahabharat in my childhood. Today, I can endlessly talk about growing fanaticism in religion, without knowing anything about them(Including my religion). In reality, I am a God fearing organism, who believes more in destiny (I still can’t infer the meaning) than in his own effort.
Still, I am a firm believer of God; up to that extent that I have never dared to start this word with small cap (i.e ‘g’). I want to continue with this status, as it does not harm me in any way.
Perhaps I believe in God because this is something very personal to me, who can’t be shared with anybody. Who works as my mentor, who listens to my prayers (If I can call it), my faith that he will never dump me? This is the insecurity, which forces me to believe on my lord.
-------------------------------------
I believe in God because my family taught me to do so. Though I am still doubtful about my own belief system, still when I feel low, I always remember someone/ something (not sure of him being a human) that I name as God. Also, to score good marks in examinations, to escape from embarrassment and for million more things, which will keep me ahead in this rat race, I appeal to some extra-terrestrial object that I name as God. Basically, I believe in God for my own selfish reasons. Interestingly, I take pain to go to the places of his worship when I am in my blues.
Never have I tried to question his/her/its authority, because I watched all the episodes of Ramananda sagar made Ramayan and Mahabharat in my childhood. Today, I can endlessly talk about growing fanaticism in religion, without knowing anything about them(Including my religion). In reality, I am a God fearing organism, who believes more in destiny (I still can’t infer the meaning) than in his own effort.
Still, I am a firm believer of God; up to that extent that I have never dared to start this word with small cap (i.e ‘g’). I want to continue with this status, as it does not harm me in any way.
Perhaps I believe in God because this is something very personal to me, who can’t be shared with anybody. Who works as my mentor, who listens to my prayers (If I can call it), my faith that he will never dump me? This is the insecurity, which forces me to believe on my lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)