Justice

Two verdicts this week - in the Manjunath case and in the reservations case, that restore some faith in the judiciary.

Wish justice was faster coming.

Blame the rules, not the player

I'm not a big fan of American Idol. Haven't seen a single episode, or for that matter five minutes of that program at a stretch. But have found it difficult to ignore the controversy and the umpteen news reports and programs about the 'spectacular survival' of Sanjaya Malakar!

For those reading this from India, essentially what happened in Indian Idol is being repeated here - one guy doesn't do very well, but there are innumerable votes cast in his favor (presumably by one - here the Indian - community), and so he keeps going through. For readers from other countries, I guess you get the drift.

While everyone has the right to express their opinion on his talent or lack thereof, what i find irritating is the way the media's attention is focused on the boy himself. He has all but been made an object of ridicule, and is being showcased almost as a 'fraud' who is where he doesn't deserve to be.

What I find surprising, even objectionable, is the total lack of focus on the rules of the competition.

If the rules themselves are so loose as to allow a person to cast multiple votes in favor of one contestant, then who is to blame for the multiple votes coming in? The person who casts the votes? The person who gets the votes? Or the rules themselves?

The moral aspect of the question apart, there is nothing that can be shown to be wrong, in what the person who is casting the multiple votes, is doing. He is absolutely playing by the rules

Beyond that, there is nothing to indicate that the beneficiary of the votes has anything to do with the voting process either. So it seems odd that the media calls him a fraud.

So if the voting process is being abused, it is because it is structured in a way susceptible to abuse. And at this stage, you can either cry foul about the abuser and the beneficiary of the abuser, or try to fix the process to prevent the abuse.

Unfortunately the media seems to be dedicating all its energy on doing the former; and there is no indication that it has even occured to them, to think about the latter.

And no, I'm not saying or writing this because I'm an Indian. (Malakar fyi is only half Indian). I'm saying this because I find the media's focus and reporting to be repulsive.

Here

This is a serious post, so no nonsense. Read this instead.

Parliament Bombing - Capital Punishment?

When the Supreme Court pronounced it's sentence of death penalty for Afzal Guru, for his role in the 13Dec 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, it was for me, atleast initially, just another piece of news. A criminal found guilty was being punished, and it was upto the Judiciary to determine what punishment was appropriate. I didn't think so much about it as to form a view.

But what followed - the coverage in the news, the demands for clemency, the viewpoints of several activists on the topic, the demands from some parties that the sentence be carried out, the 'threats' issued if the sentence was carried out, views on capital punishment, the predicament of the President, the dilly-dallying of the government in coming out with a view, all forced me to ponder quite a bit upon this and form a view point. This article specifically helped me a lot in forming the same.

In my view, there are two separate issues here -
1. What punishment for Afzal?
3. Does ANYONE deserve capital punishment?

And I believe that most of the confusion comes from mixing these up. Atleast for me, I had to separate these, before forming my opinion.

First coming to the question of the kind of punishment Afzal deserves. The crime he is accused of is hineous. It is not just a terrorist attack; it is not just an attack that claimed the lives of nine security guards. It was an attack on the symbol of Democracy in India. It was an attack on India itself. And such a crime, in my opinion, as in the opinion of the Judiciary, deserves the severest of punishments.

The second, and more crucial argument is, what I believe, the underlying cause of all the reactions to the sentence - that inherently, many of us consider the death sentence to be abhorable. While I do share the repulsion that the Editor shows in his article, I still do not believe that should cause a change of judgement either.

When a criminal commits a crime, he does so with cognizance of the penalty it may incur. Changing the penalty subsequent to the crime, whichever way, should not have a bearing on the punishment accorded. In other words, a criminal should be tried according to the laws that prevail at the time of commiting the crime, and changing or reversing a law subsequently, should not lead to a change or reversal in a decision that has already been taken.
And if law dictates a death sentence for this crime, it has to be so.

Next, coming to the arguments for clemency - these have hinged on two main arguments - the fairness of the trial and repurcussions it may cause in the Kashmir valley. I do not buy the former argument. This is a case where the guilty charge has been upheld by court after court, and the fact that two of the co-accused were acquitted earlier indicates the fairness of the process.
Clemency, considering the repurcussions in the Valley would set a bad precedent; it would essentially bind the judgement of the judiciary by the ability of the Enforcing Arm.
Neither of these arguments should cut much ice with the President. Thus opinions and feeling aside, rationally speaking, there is no cause to reverse the decision.

If the President were to still grant clemency, it would be his conscience (answering NO to que 2 above) overriding his rational judgement. And that is not something I would like to express my opinion on. That I believe, is almost an individual choice the First Citizen has privilege to, and should exercise.

Two sides of a coin.

Two posts on the same topic, dealing with almost the same facts:

from 'The Economist'
&
from 'The Hindu'

I have always had high regard for these two print houses. Have found them both to be objective, and their reporting to be largely without prejudice. Have trusted them to show me the 'complete picture' without coloring it. In short, have relied on them to give me a fair, unbiased view of the world I live in.
~~~~~
I do not say news should be bland without opinions. Opinions are OK. They are often even good, because they can be thought provoking.
Nor do I say newspapers should not take sides. They can, and sometimes even should. In complete darkness or unknown terrain, a torch shown in either direction can help.

But before expressing opinions or taking sides, I believe newspapers have a duty, an obligation to present facts for what they are, and base these opinions or bias on these facts. So that the informed reader, depending on his own leaning can make his own choice, either to concur, or differ with the opinion expressed or bias taken. Mixing opinions and facts, and presenting the former in the garb of the latter can be very harmful. It can color the mind of the gullible reader and can cause a serious loss of credibility in the mind of the informed one.
~~~~~
As I read the first article, I get the uncomfortable, sad feeling that The Economist has goofed up on this count. And in the process, has fallen short of the high standards it had set for itself and I had expected of it.
The Hindu on the contrary, in my opinion, has a much more mature handling of the topic on hand here. It has presented facts and opinions, trying to substantiate each one of the latter with some of the former. And on top, the entire article features in the 'Opinions' section of the paper. I must say I feel privileged to have grown up reading this paper.

I will not stop reading the Economist going ahead, but I will have to force myself to exercise more caution in getting judgemental based on what I read there. However I do hope The Hindu will continue showing me both sides of the coin going ahead too.

No lessons learnt?

Saw a movie yesterday. "Good morning, Vietnam". Had never heard of it, till I saw this blog which made me kind of curious, and so got the movie on NetFlix.

Decent movie. Not an all time great, but decent. I liked the thought provoking passage following Jahnavi's "Good moooooooooooooooooorning Mumbai" (at the start of Lage Raho) more than what follows Robbie William's "Guuuuddddd mooorrnnnning Vieeetttnammm" in this movie. But still, this one was very much watchable.

The movie in short - Robbie Williams goes to Vietnam as a DJ for a military radio station and wins the hearts of the soldiers. In the process, he also makes friends with a Vietnamese guy. He takes that guy to a GI bar, which the guy subsequently blows up. The guy meanwhile saves RW's life once. Ultimately, the guy turns out to be a leader in the Viet Cong. Robbie at the end of the movie, is sent back.

Like I said, the movie itself wasn't an all time great, but some of the dialogs - were so thought provoking, and so jarring...here are some:

-------------------------------
(RW: Robbie Williams PDT: Phan Duc Tho, the viet Cong Leader)

RW:
I fought to get you into that bar, and then you blow the fuckin' place up. Listen. I gave you my friendship and my trust...and now they tell me that my best friend is the goddam enemy!

PDT:
Enemy? What is enemy? You killing my own people so many miles from your home. We not the enemy. You (are) the enemy!
-------------------------------
RW:
You used me to kill two people. Two people died in that fuckin' bar.

PDT:
Big fucking deal!
My mother is dead. And my older brother, he dead.
Shot by Americans.
My neighbour, dead. His wife, dead.
Why?
Because we're not human to them. We're only little Vietnamese.
-------------------------------
RW:
We're here to help this country.
-------------------------------
As I watched it and reflected about the conflicts that the US is currently engaged in, I just couldn't believe these were from a different movie about a different war! It all, the value of an American life vis-a-vis a non-American life, the scenario, the attitude, even the hyperbole, seemed so familiar! I wonder if we ever learn lessons from the past.

I won't list the thoughts and questions that came to my mind. I bet you know what they were.

Been away, be back. Soon

Have been away for long. Way too long.
Got out of the habit, if writing two blogs can be considered a 'habit', around the time I had to move from Beaverton to Detroit. And never really picked up after that. Rather satisfied myself with reading others' blogs! But now the bug has bitten me again, and so hopefully should be posting more again, so keep a look out!

India. Whither goest thou?

I am a Hindu. I have been proud of the fact that I am a hindu.

The religion, I admit, is esoteric. Religion begins where rationality and intiution end and in that sense, any religion is esoteric. And a religion that is thousands, if not millions of years old, does tend to be a little more esoteric than others.

But from what I understood of the religion, I have found it to be beautiful. It is one religion that focuses on the strength of man. Instead of telling him that he is powerless, instead of telling him to realize he is at the mercy of an almighty, it is a religion that tells him that he IS the almight himself. He is a part of the Whole, and by suitably channeling his energies, he can become one with Him. Makes me feel strong. And responsible. Beautiful message to say the least. It is also probably one of the few religions that does not preclude the existence of other religions. Rather, at a deeper level, it inherently has the message of unity of religions and God.

I come from a country that is 80% Hindu, and yet maintains its secularity. I am proud of my country for that. It is not a country of hindus that condescends to let people from other religions live. It is secular in its very nature. Anyone from any religion has as much right and responsibility in my country, as anyone else, from any other religion. And this is beautiful too. That each and every one is, before anything else, a citizen of the country.

Unfortunately, both these seem to be so, only in theory. The former in its holy texts and the latter probably in the constitution. What I see in practice tears my heart. Religion, instead of nationalistic feelings, is taking precedence. And religion is being abused left right and center to meet the rotten objectives of petty politicians. As a result, politicians, in the name of hinduism are pushing the country to the dark ages. Hinduism, which for ever has been open and welcoming of the influence of other countries and cultures is today interpreted as a religion that does not even allow it's children to learn a nursery rhyme. Contrary to its very basic tenets, it is seen as a religion that does not let its women wear what they want.

Is this the way I want the world to see my religion? Is this the real Hinduism?

Is this the way I want the world to see my country? Is this the real India?

I write this so, since I am a hindu and an Indian, sorry, an Indian, and a Hindu. But this rot is happening as much to any other religion in the country. Fatwas and forced conversions can definitely not be the central themes of any religion.

But equally importantly - are these the things politicians should involve themselves with? Aren't there enough issues visible to their naked eye, that they have to go looking at hemlines of women and textbooks of school children, for issues? Where is my country going?

About me. And India.

I am a Indian who has lived almost all my life in India. I have been proud of my country. It is a third world country, but a country that I has lots to be proud about. And I was proud about all of those. Proud of the fact that it withstood partition. Proud of the fact that it got its act together and reamined one. Proud of the liberty it gives me as a citizen. Proud of the almost unbiased media. Proud of the way it has treated me. Proud of the opportunities it gave me.

I have spent the last few years outside the country. And this gives a very different perspective of all that I thought was good and was proud of. I almost feel like a neutral bystander, standing aside and gazing at what would otherwise have been normal life for me. And when I take a neutral bystander's perspective, I see things I never saw before. And I ask questions I never asked before.

Unfortunately, not all that I have seen has been nice and pretty. Infact a lot of it hasn't been so. When I look back at all that I have seen, since I became a bystander, I see a lot that is perplexing. I fail to understand why a nation needs more reservations, when history shows that it hasn't worked very well in achieving its noble objectives. I fail to understand how important policy decisions, often of national interest and security are reached, not based on what is good for the country, but based on what sounds good to the country. I cannot understand how a city can attract the best in teh world, but cannot get its roads right after fifty years of attempting. I cannot explain to my co-workers why buses have to be burnt if a movie star dies a natural death. I find a lot of these depressing.

And as these questions come up, as these thoughts pass my mind, I realize that the fact that we have lots to be proud of does not make us infallible. We have done lots of good, but we are also doing lots and lots of bad. Being a bystander probably gives me an opportunity to see both and evaluate them for what they are.

I say all this right in my first post, since many of my blogs are likely to be focused on India and things happening there. And I want you to know that I'm not an India basher. Rather, I'm as proud of India as I ever was, but that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade, when I see one.

Test

Test