Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for the ‘LEGALLY social’ Category

MOBILE RACKET


What are the rights that are inherent to the user of a mobile phone with a connection?

Are these to be called as RIGHTS at all or merely the license, liberty to use the phone thru the network subscribed to?

I pay for the mobile, i pay the monthly bills for the usage, i am responsible for any misuse, i am answerable to the authorities etc..but the one who benefits is the MOBILE OPERATOR!

But the greatest INTRUDER is the cell phone company which, in the guise of creating options for me, starts bombarding me with pre-recorded calls, voice based calls which are not callable back, advertisement based calls even when i am on roaming, sms when received and when attempted to be deleted the option is FORWARD/DOWNLOAD etc!! The ECE graduates are employed by the hordes, to devise more and more ways to stealthily deprive INDIANS of money in a mass scale. One software programme, and all the 10 lac subscribers to the Co. are bombarded. Options are changed without the subscriber’s will. ALL WITH THE OSTENSIBLE REASON OF PROVIDING EASIER ACCESS. But when u wanna remove it, HEAVEN knows the difficulty and there are no software options for removal of those consequences- u have to talk to the CUSTOMER RELATIONS OFFICER!!!and he is scarce.

So much for their REVENUE MODEL.

THE MOBILE COMPANIES HAVE BECOME BIG FAT RATS, THAT THEY STEAL MONEY FROM U UNAWARES.

YOU click the asterisk button while u r calling another person , and LO and BEHOLD u have deducted 30Rs for having chosen the ringtone of the called party. If one were to ask the cell phone operator, he wud say that they are creating easier options for affording the subscriber a ringtone, of his choice! But the fact that they NEVER WARNED us of the deductibility of Rs.30 P/M, till kingdom come, is not told us.

THe mobile operators are FLEECING without NOTICE.

U INVEST ON A MOBILE, AND THEY REAP THE FRUITS OF YOUR INVESTMENT.

THE BLACKER THE BERRY,

THE ROGUES ARE MERRY!

TERRORISM


In the news channel CNN-IBN Sunday last, there was a debate on TERRORISM. The positions of the participants which impelled me to write this blog are the reasoning given by Javed Akhthar (Hindi cinema script writer and poet in Hindi) and the objection raised by Ravi Shankar Prasad( former minister in the BJP govt.)

The position taken by Javed was that not only persons who indulge in wanton bomb blasting shud be charged under the relevant laws of Terrorism , but even when persons indulge in communal killings they shud be tried under the same laws. Ravi was of the opinion that merely because javed wanted both to be treated equally it cannot be done as there is no rationale warranting such similarity of treatment.

There is some element of truth in both the opinions. But how?

The persons who are targeted by the terrorist is not known to him. The terrorist does not hold any personal grudge against the individual, who turns out to be the ultimate victim. Yet he hurts and harms recklessly a group of people who are found in that place where he had planted or got the bomb planted. I’m sure, so far, no terrorist has planted a bomb in a place where he worships, or a place so dangerously close to his own habitation etc. In effect, even though he shows recklessness, he is sure that the persons whom he cares for are not found in the place/plane/train/ship/building where he plants the bomb. In conclusion, he plants a bomb to explode in a place where he avoids the presence of persons he cares for but does not care for the innocence of the ultimate victims.

Whereas, a person who indulges in communal violence is clear about the property that he wants to destroy and the victims he wants to offend.

This is not where the differences end. The beginning of the difficulty arises with the way the law treats the perpetrator of the aforesaid crimes and the way the majority of the country views the perpetrator and the community to which he belongs.

Not so long ago, Dean Jones the cricket commentator called the bearded cricketer a TERRORIST. Co-incidentally, the person thus called was a Muslim by faith. Of course, we all know that Dean had to apologize for that Freudian slip. If educated, empowered and enabled persons could harbour such sentiments, it is no news that the deprived & uneducated persons could be also influenced to hold opinions against communities based on flimsy perceptions and not on the principles of HUMANISM.

Thereby, here we have a swear word TERRORIST, which is an insult and when used against a particular community it gains much ring of truth.

It is this stigma that Javed was objecting to, but he missed the point.

As per section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of the offence mentioned therein, at a place of worship would be 5 years. The offences committed by the communalists are brought under the ingredients of this section. Moreover the victim is clearly defined and not nebulous like in a terrorist attack.

Whereas in a terrorist Act, there is a sudden loss of faith by the common man on the capacity of the Government of the day to maintain Law and order, which in turn leads the prosecution to invoke provisions which are tantamount to WAGING WAR WITH THE NATION ( Sec.121 IPC), which prescribes a max punishment of DEATH.

So the law treats the persons who created the same effect differently. Herein lies the CRUNCH.

The law is to view not merely the act, but circumstances, the culpable mental state of the perpetrator and is prohibited from indexing the EFFECTS created by the act per se. Therefore the communalist who has a rationale- however warped- and a defined target cannot be slapped the nomenclature of a TERRORIST. He has to be dealt with only under the section 153A of the IPC.

What Javed wanted was, to treat both the perpetrators at par. Unless the law is amended and the punishment enhanced, there appears to be very less scope of treating them at par-of course except thru a preventive detention Act.

Our Ravi Shankar Prasad just doesn’t want this to happen – a law equating both acts whether the intended victim is innocent or not; whether there is a rationale or not etc. He appears to be against it, as it may lead to the dilution of the stigma attached to the term TERRORIST, which presently is attached to a particular community which suits his hue.

May OUR country treat dangerous objectives that offend the basic structure (esp.secularism), with stringent laws, so that we remain united and meet our objective of GROWTH thru ACTION.

TOLERANCE


An anecdote to bring out the meaning of religious tolerance.

Not so long ago, but long enough for me to view the happenings objectively, once we as friends had been to Churu in the state of Rajasthan in INDIA. While on our way, it was told that a very famous temple was not very far away and that we shud pay a visit to the Hindu temple.

We reached the temple precincts by about lunch-time. It was not a very hot day, as it was sometime during the winter months. We got out of our car and my Hindu friends started removing their shoes and socks to leave those behind in the car.They were surprised that i had not stirred to remove my shoes or my socks off my feet.

The smartest ( i prefer to keep names out) of my friends, said HEY DUDE U CAN’T ENTER THE TEMPLE WITH ALL THOSE LEATHER OR YOUR SMELLY SOCKS ON, LIKE U DO IN YR CHURCHES.

I said, Boss! I am not entering the Temple.

He was concerned as he thought that i did not like the parallel he drew between the Temples and Churches. I was as liberated then, as much as I am now. But there was hardly any scope for discussing religious matters as we were at an age, when our mental space was filled with fine restaurants, nice ambiance, elegant women and girls- who were breaking into womanhood and were donning traits and skimpy micros to assess their attraction quotient from the response from the type of men they mentally held in awe!

I allayed his anxiety and said that it had nothing to do with what he said about entering the Churches with smelly socks and dirty shoes. I told him firmly that i was not coming for reasons which i told him i’d explain while having lunch. He agreed and left for his Darshan. He came back probably in 45 mins. I’d had a peaceful smoke and taken my rounds in the market which was exclusively catering to the devotees who wanted certain puja material.

We went to a nearby restaurant which was serving authentic Rajasthani food. As we sat, my pal said I DIDN’T IMAGINE THAT U WERE A FANATIC! I had not entirely unanticipated that response from him. I said that my personal experience and my religious conviction made me believe that i’d be first of all a misfit to enter a temple and secondly, i may be forced by circumstances to do things which are explicitly forbidden in my religion.

He was flabbergasted that an Indian could be not only liberal enough to visit the Temple but was also adducing reasons for his staying back. I told him that when i, was a kid of seven and, wanted to gain access to the Tanjore BRAHADEESWARAR temple i was thwarted by the person standing at the entrance, after he ascertained if i was a Hindu and negatively answered by me, he held my hand restrainingly and told me that i can’t enter. When i went back home, i was wondering if i was wrongly stopped.

With none to turn to, i asked the Driver Rajendran, who was my dad’s driver if it was a mistake for a christian to enter the temple. He said in chaste Tamil, saar from your mannerism and the body language he had made out that u were just a curious visitor and not a devotee, that made him single u out. So don’t take it to your heart. Rajendran was a witness to the scene in front of the THANJAI BRAHADEESWARAR temple. Rajendran had been a lorry owner and had fallen in bad times and thus had taken up employment. He was a person with tremendous self respect and conducted himself with dignity which was way beyond the function he was performing, at that time.

That night I had to take a serious decision- whether i cud enter a temple merely as a visitor and not as a devotee? The inner voice’ answer was a resounding NO.

My friend after hearing the episode thought that that had happened so far back in the past that it shud not be allowed to interfere with the present.

I said i was not thru. I told him that my religion was monotheistic and the name of my God was JESUS. I neither know about other Gods nor am i obliged to know about other Gods, therefore i was merely following the prescription of my religious creed. I am too small a fry to talk about others’ beliefs but for the integrity of my existence, i have to focus on one God and the name is JESUS.

So where is the prohibition to enter Temples, even if u do not recognize our Gods? – he asked. I told him AS AN INDIAN I HAVE THE LIBERTY TO ENTER A TEMPLE OR NOT TO, SO DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER A CHURCH OR NOT TO, WHY DO U HAVE TO INSIST ON MY ENTERING THE TEMPLE?

FURTHER IF I WERE TO ENTER, AND A PLATTER WITH A BURNING CAMPHOR WERE TO BE EXTENDED BEFORE ME, I WOULD NOT WORSHIPFULLY FOLD MY PALMS TO THE FIRE EXTENDED TO ME, AS IT WOULD AGAINST MY BELIEF. THEREFORE WHY GET INTO A SITUATION THAT MIGHT MAKE ME STAND OUT AND CAUSE CONSTERNATION TO THE OTHER DEVOTEES?

THEREFORE i as a matter of principle and practice do not enter Temples.

IN future i also will not enter your churches, my friend said.

I told him, I FOLLOW MY RULES AND YOU SHUD YOURS ! I am prohibited from doing certain things and the commandments are NEGATIVELY WORDED for me such as, YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME; but if such restrictions are placed in your religion you shud also follow that.

This is a great country which has given rights to individuals NOT TO SING EVEN THE NATIONAL ANTHEM, IF IT WERE TO BE AGAINST THEIR CREED AND PRACTICE- but they have to show respect for the singing of the anthem by standing up etc. (Supreme court’s decision on JEHOVAH’S WITNESS Vs. STATE OF KERALA)

Once the Mahatma said, I AM A HINDU, A CHRISTIAN, A JEW, A MUSLIM and a PARSI.

Jinnah who was in the vicinity said ONLY A HINDU COULD SAY THAT.

Knowing the sarcasm of Jinnah one can undersatand the sense in which he must have made that statement, but in its essence a HINDU IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN WORSHIP ANY GOD IN ANY PLACE WITHOUT ATTRACTING THE FEELING OF GUILT- BASED ON HIS RELIGION.

Let us preserve it.

NUTS and BOLTS!!(377 IPC)


Hi,

This is regarding the debate on section 377 of IPC, between the HOME ministry and the HEALTH ministry in INDIA .

India is a country plagued with misplaced zeal, but when it hits ministers, the zeal gets into cabinet meetings and statistics is made the bedrock of pushing thru opinions, which are imbalanced. The Health Minister’s call for elimination of section 377, is one of those imbalanced propositions which shud be thrown out, without a thought (ironic?) and without a debate.

The reasons are there for any sane person to see:-

societies have been built on trial and error method, and the methods that encouraged LIFE , GROWTH and HAPPINESS have been promoted thru the ages. We stand on this tradition. We have collectively understood that the right fitting for a BOLT is to be found in a NUT. Not anything that resembles or cud function as a NUT, but a NUT that is meant to fit the BOLT. There is pleasure, progeny and propriety in the scheme of things as they exist.

Section 377 is firstly gender neutral, secondly if there is no penetration there is no offence, thirdly the act shud be UNNATURAL. With these basic ingredients to this offence, it is possible to bring a host of sexual activities perpetrated by perverse adults on innocent children/boys/girls/women/men/animals. The punishment prescribed is max life and with fine. Which is stringent.

Merely because this section cud be invoked i.r.o sex between consenting adults also, it does not mean that this section is to be scrapped. An exception i.r.o consenting adults, cud be made with suitable amendments. Mr. Ramadoss is known for throwing the child along with the water in the bath-tub. He did not consult the TOURISM minister, when he proposed the banning of smoking in restaurants and hotels, but when he gets sympathetic with the gay community, he wants the only enabling section- i.r.o many other offences- to be thrown out of the statute book!

Gays have a right to practice their beliefs and indulge in sex with consenting adults of the same sex or in unnatural methods with persons of the opposite sex, the problem arises when their problems spill over to the public domain and do not fall within the paradigm already familiar to the society. The problems such as, when persons bring complaints in matters which relate to domestic violence relating to cohabiting consenting adults of the same sex , how shud the police react? it is a new terrain and it shud be dealt with discretely, with laws specific to such persons and conditions. The laws that have certain POSTULATES like marriage is between a male and female,  should not be disturbed.

This TRENCHING of gays rights brings division which is no good for the society and the rights shud be separated and dealt with on the principles of good conscience, reasonableness and fairness(like the circuit judges of yore in the UK), as to codify laws for this new breed cannot be allowed, much less encouraged, to taint the precedents of the law well established.

LAWS are meant to organize society into active, healthy and productive units. We shud not and cannot be silent when efforts are made by policy makers to override the very principles on which the society rests.

MAY MEN REMAIN MEN AND WOMEN, WOMEN,

AND TO EACH HIS/HER FUNCTIONS REMAIN!

BUT LET THE IN-BETWEENS CHOOSE

THEIR PATH AND COOK THEIR OWN GOOSE!

SMOKING POLICY!


Hi Liberals, Die-hards & the “MEAN”minded,

Whatever hue yr conviction might be of, it is time to take note of the MAJORITARIANISM which is eating into the tolerance quotient of the liberals of this great country- i.e INDIA.

Smoking is gonna affect not only the smoker, but also those who are exposed to the stream of the exhaled smoke. Point taken and as a matter of defending their rights, in public places the smokers ought not to smoke.

Is my fully window wound-up car a public place or a private place, while on the road?

It is a tricky question. If u say it is private, then why have a rule that penalizes the smoking driver in DELHI? Further why absolve the passenger who smokes, with all the windows wound-down?

or are we to conclude that the only way to discipline the drivers- who have gone out of the control of the owners- is to expose them to the police force? Maybe yes. Nobody cares for the drivers (an INDIAN driver) or his right to smoke, as it helps him to beat the sleep and drowsiness which creeps on him, as mostly his bosses keep him waiting without reason and his female bosses expect him to run and open the back left door for them to step out languorously!!

IT IS A CLASS LEGISLATION (or A CLASS SUB-ORDINATE LEGISLATION).

The driver becomes stealthy and instead of holding his ciggy between his index and middle fingers, starts holding it inverted between the thumb and index! Guilt has already been spread by the society on his consciousness.

THERE is a saying in TAMIL (the only thriving classical language of India)- which says that a dog after biting the goat with impunity, bites the bull/cow/ox and then the dog is emboldened to bite MAN.

We make laws and rules without testing if the rules, when at the stage of conception itself, trench on the individual rights. Later, the rules are extended to squelch the bleating dying sounds of the liberals.

No doubt, CIGARETTE SMOKING MAY BE INJURIOUS, but who gives us the right to take away the man’s right to indulge in an injurious act esp. if his act harms none?

The minister who is spear-heading this move hails from a party that had FELLED TREES TO PREVENT TRAFFIC ON THE STATE AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS! Now they become champions of causes, when backwardness and ignorance are inundating their party cadres!! The minister and his dad shud do something about the pathetic condition of his supporters, instead of instigating legislation curbing the liberties of INDIANS- all in the disguise of HEALTH!!

The APEX court shud decide cases on LEGAL PRINCIPLES and not based on POLICY. Unfortunately, the SC was in no mood to look into the rights of the smokers affected. It was unwilling to be reasonable and require the executive to clearly demarcate the PUBLIC PLACE from PRIVATE SPACE. It has allowed itself to be convinced by the laudable policy of RESTRAINING SMOKING, all at the cost of an INDIAN’S RIGHT TO BE WRONG- WHEN HE HURTS NONE!

MAJORITARIANISM is the malaise that plagues large societies, where composite culture and practices are slowly eliminated and the human spirit is STUNTED thru restrictive rules and legislation. May the INDIAN liberal rise and voice his opinion against it!!

CREED vs. PROPAGATION


It has been widely reported that provocative statements have been made by the Christian groups which go by the name of NEW LIFE and PENTECOST in and around the areas of Mangalore, Chikmagalur etc. in the state of Karnataka, India.

As per Article 25 of the constitution every Indian is guaranteed the right to practice, profess and propagate his religion. Any infringement on this guaranteed right may be got redressed through our Courts.

The moot question is whether one could bring into conflict one’s beliefs with that of another’s belief during propagation of one’s religion.

The answer , in my opinion, wud be that if one is making a statement of one’s belief and not derogatorily portraying the beliefs of the other religions and still if there were to be any conflict of beliefs, it wud not tantamount to denigrating other religious beliefs. But if the propagator contrasts one’s beliefs with that of the other and negatively portrays the other religion- especially in intemperate language, it would be not merely an offence ( Cf. Indian Penal Code Section 153A) but also a SIN.

Why a sin?

Do we have a right to destroy the belief of another, however desirable the alternative wud be which is being offered by us? No. Beliefs form the core of our being and any disturbance therein might dilapidate the very foundation of our mental equilibrium and existence. Further new beliefs take time to take root and therefore individuals cannot posit those new beliefs with implicit TRUST. Therefore to destroy one’s beliefs ( in whatever religious shape it might be) is a CARDINAL SIN.

Christians believe in ONE GOD with the concept of three in one viz. GOD the Father, GOD the Son and GOD the Holy Ghost. The system of faith is monotheistic . This is fundamental to the Christian faith.

It has been reported in the media that certain sections of Hindu organizations have stated that pamphlets have been distributed by X-ian organization stating that the HINDU gods are not true gods.If the allegations are true, it must be stated in all reasonableness that NO CHRISTIAN IS ALLOWED THE LUXURY OF SITTING ON JUDGMENT ON THE BELIEFS OF THE OTHER. He merely has been mandated to propagate the GOOD NEWS that the Messiah has come and the propagation is merely a LIBERTY, in a social context, and not a RIGHT.

Jesus says, if the town where u proclaim the Gospel does not entertain you in peace, SHAKE OFF THE VERY DUST OF YOUR FEET AND DEPART. He has not mandated Christians to go overboard and constrain people to adopt the message of the arrival of the messiah and His message.

Let me narrate the story of SAUL of Tarsus (later called PAUL). He was BREATHING THREATENINGS against the Christians and armed with letters from the authorities was purging X-ians in the synagogues, On his way to Damascus Jesus appeared ( or a blinding light) and said IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS(feminists beware!). and he was softened into Christianity thru blindness. He was put on hold for three days and one Ananias was sent to him by GOD and his blindness was healed(?). God meets people according to his PREDESTINATION of GRACE and christians shud not arrogate to themselves such roles and leave it in the hands of the God they believe.

To state our CREED is one thing but to contrast it with another’s creed is silly, stupid and dangerous. Silly because a CREED is built on beliefs which are not based on provable facts. Stupid because one is not aware of the shifting sands on which one is standing, while threatening/warning others of standing on shifting sands. Dangerous because, it can spoil the brotherhood and amity, which are the only basis of PEACE and GROWTH.

Society Vs. Suicide


Suicide is an offence which is the only act of harm done and the perpetrator is never available to be punished or to repent.

The society can tolerate an unpunished criminal, but it cannot tolerate an unrepentant one. Thereby all religions assign hell to the successful suiciders!!

Further the society which glorifies LIFE cannot be seen as recommending something (Death), which itself – by the mere fact of living- is not practicing.

As an extension of this idea, it is unable to take a call on EUTHANASIA also.

Had it been because of HOPE, that the society in a short while wud be able to provide relief to the despondent and retrieve him/her from Death as a relief option, i’d have agreed. But denying someone his wishes, because of the society’s helplessness, is a sin.

Tag Cloud