B for Book, Ban, Blot

There is one thing about the Thackerays. They are rarely underhanded.

Aditya Thackeray blatantly admitted his ignorance of Rohinton Mistry’s “insulting” book even as he burned the content out of the Mumbai University’s syllabus. This was done in the classic Shiv Sena fashion of course (‘goondagiri’ suits better, and the Thackerays were never particular about appealing to the elite), and well in time (also, well-planned, well-charted, and well-executed) to herald the Sena cub’s grand entry into politics.

As the leader of the party’s youth wing, the new entrant to the unscrupulous dynasty tried his best to do as the Romans do. Burning books and arm-twisting none other than the Vice-Chancellor of a University is something only a true-blooded Sainik can pull off. It’s more than a conjecture to estimate which way the Yuva Sena will head in the days to come. The picture’s clear and out in the open, just as the Thackerays like it.

The young scion flung every notion of an educated, civilized, tolerant, and secular generation worthy of leading the nation right out of the window. In fact, right out of the University.

Banning a book can never be justified. And when this is done on the jingoistic whims of a brainwashed student, the matter brings immense shame. No, not to the Thackerays, of course. They are beaming with pride. The book ban actually mocks us, you and me, who, as part of this generation that claims to be living in an emancipated era and a free country, did nothing but watch haplessly and rather dispassionately as literature succumbed to political censorship in its ugliest form. This wasn’t the same Mumbai that the world watched in awe post the terror attacks. Yes, lives were lost and yes, it was a whole different incident, but this is no less an attack on Mumbai’s character as it was then.

Taking one thing at a time, Aditya’s romp as a precursor to his induction was virtually a ‘Mumbai Jaago’ campaign. All those wishful Mumbaikars who thought the Sena’s run was slowing owing to the aging Tiger and a rather toothless regent may now have to be wary of the 20-year-old, who has showcased he can wield the Sena power just like his Grandpa would be proud of.

Aditya’s only claim to fame is that dreaded family name, but the followers are already spewing. Making a slightly digressing yet crucial point, it is really necessary to uncover how much the muscular party shells out to hire its herds of goondas. Mistry pointed out how all that the party is responsible for constructively is its ready employment generation. Apart from that, their beloved Mumbai has succumbed to more havoc from the Sainiks than the frequent deluges that the Rain Gods bring.

Secondly, and more importantly, the day the University (the Vice Chancellor is but the representative) bowed down to a just-out-of-his-teens boy’s tantrums was a sad day for the already battered spirit of Indian democracy.

Mistry has made his point with effect, and can even move on from the incident. But we as national witnesses to this “pathetic” episode (quoting the author from his harangue) have a lot to think about.

The Shiv Sena nuisance has been a long-going one, where they have extorted “outsiders” to leave and have hijacked the city on several occasions, all in the name of protecting the Marathi Manoos. I am from Maharashtra and I couldn’t be more appalled to be a part of this city than I am now.

In fact, the current goings-on in the country don’t do much for my pride either. The Kashmir issue has been the biggest slap in the face of the largest democracy of the world. And then we have the Thackerays kick Mumbai around like it’s their favourite hobby.

Their leader’s unabashed violation of the decibel limit set by the High Court for his grand return orchestrated at Shivaji Park recently is just the last straw. And the police function more as an entourage than real law-keepers anytime the Tiger roars.

In a vulgar contradiction that can never be digested by any Indian, a boy resorts to vandalism to get his way in one part of the country and the administration gives in, while in another state, a boy strives to bring some peace to his people and he is shot down by the authorities. No, a book ban shouldn’t have happened. And in a larger context, no, an innocent teenager shouldn’t have been shot dead in the Valley.

Sixty three years ago, this nation dreamed of a democracy that would grow to be a stellar illustration of how life can be lived at its best. Such a long journey. But where have we come?

Honk if you hate noise pollution ;)

Peaceful co-existence.... How hard is it?

If we sit and talk, maybe we wont' have to kill each other..

http://www.cagle.com/news/EarthDay10/images/heller.jpg

Let's change our priorities.. That will help!

http://www.cagle.com/working/090514/stahler.jpg

Sometimes, optimism can be foolish!!

Sounds familiar?

Hmmm..

Doesn't hurt, does it?

Road Map for Control of Terrorism in India

Road Map for Control of Terrorism in India

Terror tactics – Let the Commonwealth Games not become another blood zone

A penalty shot here, a gunshot there. A boundary here, a bomb blast there. Somehow, these unrelated acts have fallen on common grounds on several unfortunate occasions. Sporting events across the world have become soft targets for terrorists to do what they seek to do – terrorize masses, and gain adequate attention for their causes in the process.

The 1972 Munich massacre of 11 Israeli athletes by the Black September terrorists is an incident that refuses to fade away from public memory. And in more recent times, the frequent bombings in unnervingly close proximity to sport events have successfully created terror in the minds of players and fans alike. So what really is the motive of creating a bloodbath in the midst of a ceremonious, joyous event? The answer lies somewhere in the nature of the very contrast!!

Terrorists are now looking to capitalize on the magnum scale of sport events, particularly those like the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games, to send across a message far and wide, and to push their cause across to people from every part of the world by attacking an assortment of representatives. Several and more terror outfits seek mileage through such acts, and terror cannot be spread more easily than when it is struck at the heart of an enthralled crowd.

Volatile nations like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and even India, are some of the most unsafe destinations to conduct sport events at, and are extremely vulnerable to terror attacks, which are targeted chiefly toward popular sports like cricket. The separate attacks on the New Zealand and Sri Lankan cricket teams on Pakistani grounds drive home the point. The scale of popularity of a sport assumes great importance for such planned terror strikes, and with cricket virtually being a religion on both sides of the border, such acts can hurt indefinitely.

                                                       

Many times, the main motive lies in undermining the image of the host nation, in terms of revealing its security lapses and glitches. In these cases, it is usually indigenous, anti-establishment terror groups that look to gain from such acts. 

More often than not, it is the fans who become sitting ducks for terrorists, and the recent bomb blast that ripped through a gathering of football fans in Uganda ascertains the trend unequivocally. So, even as the FIFA World Cup ended with a bang, the real bang literally sniffed out many innocent lives.

In the light of such bleak events, it is every nation’s prerogative to provide assiduous security to sport events, and to ensure that innocent lives are not lost at the time of such vigour and enthusiasm. With the Commonwealth Games already falling short on many other accounts, security becomes the biggest concern, and the Capital has always been susceptible to terror attacks. So even while the whole nation is up in arms over the shoddy hygiene conditions and half-baked preparations at the Games, the authorities must not lose focus from cementing effective security measures first.

And just as sportsmen need elaborate security, the safety of fans must also not be left unattended. Stringent and responsible security must necessarily be paramount at an event like this, and India is just not ready to face another terror strike. 

                                               

What’s on your plate??

Never would have our individual choices made such a large difference in the global totality if it wasn’t global warming that was being discussed. But this very phenomenon has turned out to be more than a fancy phrase we throw in now and then to show that we care. And we are not quite convinced on the entire issue until the Rain Gods decide to surprise us from nowhere in the middle of May. But yes, it is happening, and you don’t have to look too far to trace the sources. What’s on your plate can tell the whole story.

What we eat is becoming quite the deciding factor in the future of our planet. With meat becoming highly dominant in most menus across the world, the rate of global warming has reached alarming levels. And for those who saw no connection between the two, here’s a factual peep into where the two twains really meet.

As statistics stand today, the meat industry is conspicuously standing out as the biggest polluter in terms of green house emissions, accounting for as much as a fifth of the total annual turnout of the ozone-destroyers. Almost a 100 million tonnes of methane comes from livestock farming every year, and there is no end to how much of our arable land and potable water is directed towards animal agriculture. Cattle are known to have a bigger carbon footprint than the more popularly indicted vehicles themselves. Deforestation has been blatant all over for creating grazing grounds to feed the farm animals. Add to that the indiscriminate use of synthetic fertilizers to make animal feed, and you will know how this whole industry is poisoning our planet. 

If you are wondering how this can be rectified, cutting down on meat consumption is quite indisputably the best way to start. Diet change has come to be the biggest power in our hands as individuals who want to save the planet from its doom. To gauge how much of this will really help, it has been calculated that there can be a reduction by 1.5 tons in carbon emissions on an annual basis when a person quits eating meat.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is now urging people to skip meat at least for a day in a week to counter the mounting environmental problems. He is promoting this as a solution to start with after the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation brought out grave estimates on the meat industry’s contributions to the global greenhouse gas emissions.

And if the United Nations message is not something that appeals to you, the idea is now also being packaged with a tinge of glamour to it, and the popular faces of Paul McCartney and Sheryl Crow may do a better convincing. The question is – are you listening?

Understanding how intensive livestock production is wrecking our planet will inevitably reflect how our shallow ecological ways eventually come back to haunt us in due course of time. So for all the meat addicts amongst us, it is time to stop being reckless, and start being responsible. If nothing else, anthropocentrism will spell the doom of our planet, which is what we exactly seem to be heading for, what with our acceptance of the institutionalized animal abuse in livestock farming and the associated environmental hazards.

Renouncing meat, at least for a day a week, will do us all some good, and in a climactic sequence of actions, we must then progress from an environmental-friendly diet to other constructive steps like afforestation and eco-restoration. And why stop at just the ‘one meat free day a week’ junction? Vegetarianism is in itself a very powerful choice, and an unequivocal means of direct action. Deep ecology has just the answers to all our woes.

So let’s all brace ourselves to be a little uncomfortable without that piece of meat on our plates, but let us rest assured that our planet is here to stay. 

Who's side are you on?

Conflicts are inherent in our society, leaving two antagonistic camps on opposite sides of the fault line. And fence-sitters are not very comfortable people. So how do you decide which side to take?

The rising foothold of the Naxals is leaving many among us with this dilemma. This internal conflict revolves around choosing between being a perceived snobbish, pro-government elite who couldn’t care less for the peripheral lot and a ruthless, red-flag-waving slayer of the innocent.

For a long time now a lot of us have opted for the easier route of staying aloof or dropping sporadic hints of sympathy for those unfortunate have-nots. Government policies haven’t intrigued many either. So whether the state decides to go ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ on the enemy isn’t what we really talk about over a cup of tea. But the apathy has gone too far, probably doing enough harm of its own.

This is not a call for a war. But yes, taking an overdue, well-thought side will help quell that growing conflict within you, and a clear head is always far more useful than a confused one.

Having said that, hasty conclusions will lead us no where. In fact, it is criminal to point fingers without getting the facts right. Giving a thought, however, is the need of the hour.

Beyond the bloodshed and the mayhem, the greatest tragedy lies in why it takes so much blood to spill before a conflict comes to light. Quite frankly, the Naxals aren’t being unreasonable. No one deserves to be left in the dark even as the rest of us celebrate India’s ‘shining’. Why a government would deliberately alienate a section of its own people to the point that only gunshots can serve as their voice is unfathomable. And inexcusable.

                           

The presence of conflict keeps alive the need to make a choice. When a conflict arises between your principles and interests, it stirs a thought, a spark, and the necessity to choose.

Somehow, conflict is a glaring outcome of the system that we have set in place for ourselves. 

In an ironic and unsettling way, the birth of conflict can be traced to the idea of peace. But as utopian as it sounds, it is the prospect of peace that can really keep conflict at bay.

But there is a need to adopt another approach, take another route. The old idea of conflict resolution offers nothing but disillusionment.

Taking sides is not about abandoning the other’s perspective. It’s about finally shedding inhibitions and moving toward a solution.

                    

Come to think of it..

I was a non-vegetarian till just a few years back. Mainly because meat-eating was a part of my life and simply because, as many would agree, meat is irresistible for those who are used to eating it.

I had frequently seen hens being bundled off into insufficiently-sized cages; even being tied by their fragile legs and carried upside down; goats being dragged away to their gruesome fate; pigs being violently forced into trucks. Apart from sensing deep pangs of sympathy, I never cared to give it much thought. Maybe because it was too mind-numbing to.

We brought home a pet dog (it was then a pup) when I was eighteen. I had always adored dogs; everything about them.

But I was now witnessing something more. In my part of bringing up our dog, I understood its sensitivity, its intelligence, as well as its fears. It hated being tied up, feared the cane, and always ran away from baths.

I had suddenly stopped looking at it as just a mute animal, but more as a sentient being which had feelings and emotions quite, quite similar to ours.

But why just dogs? Those pigs and goats and hens are just as sentient and intelligent, too.

I am now a vegetarian. Actually, a responsible vegetarian. I say responsible because I have understood the implications of my choice of not being a part of the routine cruelty meted out to animals. 

  

Vegetarianism is a powerful choice. Though on a very small scale, I still see it as a form of direct action.

I have read numerous accounts on this issue, and have realized that many people share similar views and are devoted in different ways towards the welfare of animals. But maybe it is not enough. Things are not changing. Or they are changing too slowly.

We have numerous organizations around the world voicing the rights of the voiceless. Awareness efforts are receiving popular attention. But even now, this very minute, thousands of our helpless companions are being tortured, abused and slaughtered. The details are too horrifying to even talk about.

Many may dismiss this as another fanatic or manipulative ranting; but there is no exaggeration here. This is just how it is. No individual would knowingly support cruelty. Yet, without making any accusations, majority of us today are meat eaters. And there is no crime in that. The problem lies in our shortcoming or even neglect in understanding the relation between animal abuse and the meat that we eat. The problem is deeply rooted in this disconnect.

 

When you look at your pet today, or your neighborhood dog, be sure to ask yourself if your feelings towards it are different from what you feel about the animals that end up on our plates.

These ani

mals need help. And each one of us has the power to bring about a change.