Thursday, May 4, 2017
Sunday, January 1, 2017
Freedom of Expression and Censorship
Freedom of Expression And Censorship
“Man is born free, and everywhere he
is in chains.”
These
are the dramatic opening lines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s immensely powerful
treatise "The Social Contract."
Freedom is the most fundamental pillar of democracy: in its absence
democracy turns into autocracy. The French Revolution of 1789 made Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity the most sacrosanct values of humanity. Any ruler or
government that ensnared man away to a life of bondage has always met with
perdition eventually. Their lives and reigns have been written in blood in the
annals of history for posterity to remember them with derision and disdain.
Closer
to our own home and hearth, gone are the days when parents and teachers (were)
ruled by the dictum: ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child.’ Now
every young parent gives so much freedom and leverage to the child that the kid
feels heady at miniscule achievements, and parents look askance at teachers who
display so much as an inkling of disapproval towards their ward. No sooner do
the parents notice such disparagement towards their child than they unleash
their belligerent instinct towards the ‘offending’ teacher. Such is the
importance and weightage given today to freedom and choice in an individual’s
life from childhood onwards.
On
the other hand, there are the ultra-patriotic, ultra-moralistic and
ultra-‘responsible’ citizenry who are out to impose their decrees on all and
sundry, dictating what the latter should see, hear, read, taste or consume! It
is the same ‘patriots’ who mouth lengthy platitudes on human rights and, if
given a chance, individual liberty, to boot.
The
framers of the Indian constitution envisaged and guaranteed seven Rights as the
most fundamental of rights – though the number was reduced to six after the
deletion of the Right to Property by the 44th Constitutional
Amendment. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression was placed at the
top of their list. However, this Right has become now one of the most maligned
ones.
The
Censor Board has taken upon itself the right and freedom to mutilate and
impound whatever matter it regards as objectionable, in utter disregard to the raison
d'être that had prompted the artiste to append it along with, say, other scenes
in a film. This imbecile mutilation does not just curtail but disrespects the
artistic freedom enjoyed and given expression to by the artiste.
Recently,
Anurag Kashyap’s Udta Punjab bore the brunt of the butcher’s knife and caused a
furore all over the nation. News channels all over India in all languages were
agog with high decibel debates. The producers were wary with the Censor Board,
as, they maintained, the film had depicted the reality of drug menace in Punjab
very vividly and realistically.
The
film ‘Aligarh’ based on the last years of the life Prof Shrinivas
Ramchandra Siras was slapped with an ‘A’ certificate due to allusions to
homosexuality. In 2015, the word ‘lesbian’
was muted in Dum Lagake Haisha, which is a powerful feminist statement on
marriage.
The
last two movies were not apologias on homosexuality or lesbianism. Rather they
depicted hardcore reality, which many would have balked at referencing even
during table talk! Terry Tempest William says: “Creativity involves breaking out
of established patterns in order to look at things in a different way.”
The producers of the above films were doing just that!
The
Censor Board was established by the British in 1920 to regulate the public
exhibition of films, especially to suppress content that was considered anti-colonial.
With the implementation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the board was
reconstituted, and the rules were revised again in 1983 to assume the current
form. Such censorship of films was deemed necessary due to the potency of the
audio-visual medium to capture the attention of the audience and mould their
thought process. Much water has flown down the Ganga since 1920 and 1952, and
the world has metamorphosed itself into a digitalized unfathomable black hole
that is beyond the ken and comprehension of the interbellum generation. Yet the
Censor Board is as self-righteous as ever, recommending curtailment of scenes.
For example, take the film Miss Lovely.
Despite being acclaimed all over the world in numerous film festivals, director
Ashim Ahluwalia was asked by the Censor Board to make 157 cuts in the film!
It
is not just technology and ease of film making that have altered (and have been
altered in turn) during the hundred odd years since the establishment of the
Censor Board: even the value systems have undergone a transformation that will
shock the wits out of the older generation. The HUFs and arranged marriages
that were so inviolable in a familial set up have been toppled and trampled upon
by the millennial generation. Aged parents who had lived a life of freedom – in
a state of nature, as Hobbes would describe – are caged up in Old Age Homes as
good riddance.
Pampering
and indulgence have become synonymous with freedom today. When a young parent
chides their child, the other parent takes offense at the former, since they
feel that if the freedom of the child is hampered with even in small measures,
their free and natural growth will be hindered, engendering disappointment and
stress, resulting in stunted growth as an individual. (In such a scenario, what
values do you think are going to be imbibed by the child?)
It
is against this backdrop that censorship has to be viewed if it is to be beheld
and understood from a vantage position. No doubt the formators of the Censor
Board had impeccable intentions – that the impressionable mind of the youth
should not be adversely impacted by what is shown or seen on the screen, thanks
to the realistic illusion presented therein.
On
the other hand, for the millennials, content is what they hold. Their cellular
phone with the latest configuration (and now 4G) is the whole world and beyond
for them. Whatever that the older generation wanted to keep out of their sight
is in the palm of their hands. If it was love or lust that the Censor Board
wished to conceal, teenagers studying in schools are more conversant with it and,
at times, have had more firsthand experience than an adult 50 years ago. If it
was expletives and cusswords that are sought to be hidden from them, ask
teachers about the words and pictures scribbled on blackboards and carved on
desks and benches. They will also tell you the number of CDs (a decade ago) and
now mobile phones confiscated by them almost on a daily basis with hardcore
pornographic material. There are collegians who regularly indulge in such
pervert pleasures through legal subscriptions! Not taking these into
consideration blinkers one’s vision, like that of a horse.
What,
then, does the Censor Board purport to suppress? What do all these moralistic
and holier-than-thou diktats tantamount to? Suppression of the Creative Impulse. Massacre of Originality. Crushing of Artistic Sensibility. Nothing
else.
The
number of films that have faced the Censor Board’s axe due to sundry reasons,
including vulgar language, explicit scenes, gender issues, the Kashmir
conundrum, religion etc is mindboggling.
Besides
the Censor Board, there are political parties, state governments and even some
private organizations that have played a major role in banning the fruits of
such creative endeavour, birthed after much toil and sacrifice.
In
2011, Northern States banned ‘Aarakshan’ (Reservation) due to its
outright portrayal of caste quotas in government jobs and education. Bandit
Queen, a film based on the life of Phoolan Devi, was banned due to
vulgarity, although the film is a realistic depiction of whatever happened in
the life of Phoolan Devi (which, incidentally, no government could forestall).
Nevertheless, picturization of the same was banned! Parzania, a film based on
the Gujarat riots, won a national award for its cinematic excellence, but it
was banned in Gujarat due to the perceived sensitivity of the issue.
Internationally
acclaimed filmmaker Deepa Mehta’s Fire (1996) and Water (2005), Mira Nair’s
Kama
Sutra, A Tale of Love (1996) were all banned in India. However, did
such a ban prevent Indians from having a dekko and relishing the films in
question? Definitely no. Pirated copies and Torrents were available for free
download and sharing, albeit illegally!
By
censoring content, the Censor Board is doing a disservice to creativity and
innovativeness. In fact, the Board is overstepping its brief. What is commonly
known as the Censor Board is in reality Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). It is meant only to ‘certify’ films and not to maim them. Initially,
their task had been to classify them into two categories: U and A. Later on,
U/A [equivalent to Under Parental Guidance (PG)] and S (meant for Special class
of persons/ for private viewing) were added.
In
my considered view, the Censor Board needs to be censured, and it should censor itself from extending
beyond its legitimate mandate and stick to its bounden task of certification.
However,
since ‘rights’ does not mean libertinism, the Censor Board may serve as a
watchdog with a view to ensuring that unpalatable matter is not bandied about.
In case the Board feels that some content is offensive or may create
unpleasantness or divisiveness among viewers, certain suggestions or
recommendations may be given in confidence to the producers who ought to have
the liberty to consider and accept or override the recommendations. The
producers too should also maintain secrecy of the suggestions and refrain from
maligning the authorities.
However,
it is high time to have a re-look into the scope and responsibilities of the
Censor Board and set appropriate parameters so that it remains relevant to the
millennial society. If the members of the Board are unwilling to grow up and
learn, creative artistes should come together as one body and fight against
such authoritarianism. If a government manipulates the censorship Act to
suppress dissension, it ought to be dealt with a heavy hand. We cannot just
resign ourselves to the situation and hope that things will improve on their
own.
On the other hand,
producers and artists ought to moderate themselves, instead of leaving
themselves to be moderated by the Censor Board, for self-moderation is the best form of censorship.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Capital Punishment – Does the End Justify the Means?
There are days in the annals of a nation when the whole nation is jubilant, as, for instance, when its sovereignty is wrested back from the clutches of an alien power. There are also days when large populations across countries have gloated over someone’s death, as in the cases of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and, more recently, the Libyan rebel, Muammar Gaddafi. Twenty-first November 2012 was such a day when it seemed India celebrated its second Diwali of the year: there were bursting of crackers, sharing of sweets, thumping of chests and a sense of elation and relief in many an Indian’s heart. It was a day when India woke up, not with a newspaper but a TV remote in its hands. The occasion: A terse message in everyone’s SMS inboxes: ‘Ajmal Kasab was hanged to death in Pune at 7.30 am.’
The tone of the Press Conference by the Home Minister Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde to confirm the execution was one of personal triumph. Shri RR Patil, Home Minister of Maharashtra during his sombre press announcement referred to it as a “fitting tribute” to the 166 who lost their lives on 26/11. In the harangue that followed, there was talk, inter alia, of ‘justice’ being done and ‘the right message’ being sent!
This brings us to the oft-debated question of Capital Punishment, which is defined as the lawful infliction of death as a punishment. What did Ajmal Kasab’s death actually achieve? Rather, what does capital punishment seek to establish or achieve? Retribution? Deterrence? The rule of law? There are umpteen extremely effective mechanisms for it. Justice? Tit for Tat? Quid Pro quo? Does capital punishment redound to moral edification? Or betterment of humanity? Isn’t there a better method of punishing the guilty, however heinous their crime, than taking away their lives?
Justice? Deterrence?
All of us pray for a just society, a society where justice is given utmost priority. However, when it comes to ourselves, it pinches us and we have a lop-sided view of justice. In a just society everyone has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By deliberately denying life and opportunity to others, it is argued, the perpetrators forfeit their own claim to life. Hence, they should be restrained forever so as not to give them a chance for further endangerment. It is often claim that capital punishment acts as deterrence. But, has death penalty ever stopped a crime? Several studies conducted on the deterrence factor have proved that fear of capital punishment hasn’t decreased crime rate. On the contrary, in some cases it has witnessed escalation after the introduction of capital punishment! For capital punishment to be a true deterrent, everybody must realise that we will certainly be put to death if we commit certain crimes and that there will be no reprieve.
But what about the difference in the degree of criminality, the gravity of the crime? One may have killed another in a heat of passion, while another may have committed a premeditated murder. Almost like the ‘motiveless malignity’ of Shakespeare’s Iago. Should their penalty be equivalent? Isn’t Capital punishment too an instance of pre-meditated, socially approved murder?
Extenuating circumstances
There are cases where persons who commit such crimes have often been subjected to violence, emotional trauma, neglect, lack of love and a host of destructive social conditions. These extenuating circumstances have damaged their humanity so much that they cannot be held completely culpable. Most terrorists are brainwashed into becoming ‘human bombs’. These ‘human bombs’ feel that they are performing a good deed by indulging in the terroristic deed. In such cases, it is their trainers and instigators who are more culpable than these gullible puppets. Thus indiscriminate inflicting of death punishment becomes a miscarriage of justice. Remember, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Anti-Human Rights
The very acceptance of capital punishment as a viable instrument for punishing the guilty is a moral disgrace to the society. It is also against the principle of Human Rights. The UN General Assembly adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 15 December 1989, which says that the abolition of death penalty “contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”* The Statutes for the International Criminal Tribunal and International Criminal Court established by the Security Council do not provide for capital punishment, even though they were set up to try individuals for crimes against humanity and genocide. According to Amnesty International, more than two-thirds of the countries in the world (140) have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.** Even a country like Rwanda that has witnessed the ultimate crime of genocide recently decided to forego the death penalty. What about the more spiritualistic India?
‘Rarest of rare cases’
In India capital punishment is given only to the ‘rarest of rare cases’, but what constitutes the ‘rarest of rare cases’? Definition of ‘rarest of rare cases’ is left to the judges; so it becomes a judge-centric discretion! When the state has no power to create life, how can it be vested with the power to destroy life? If the principle of ‘life for life’ is followed, capital punishment becomes a sort of compulsory euthanasia so that the individual isn’t exposed to more murderous opportunities. Can such euthanasia be justified, even as a means of deterrence or retribution?
Not punishment but elimination
There was a time when capital punishment was the norm, and exceptions were made, depending upon mitigating circumstances. But now in some countries like India capital punishment is not the norm but it is given only in exceptional cases. This might seem to be an improvement over the earlier stance, but the irony is that while in the former case, the awarding authority would consider mitigating circumstances and override the penalty, now that does not happen because, here, the crime is given more weightage than the criminal. Hence, there is little chance of revoking the death penalty. Moreover, a court can determine the gravity of the crime, but awarding capital punishment to the criminal, does not tantamount to ‘punishment’, inasmuch as in capital punishment, the individual is not punished but eliminated! Keeping the person alive will be punishment while killing him will be elimination!
Alternatives to capital punishment
What, then, is the alternative to capital punishment? One viable alternative is life sentence, that is, incarceration until death without any opportunity for parole. For, such a sentence removes the convict from the community against which he/she had committed the crime. The advocates of exemplary chastisement will be glad to know that life without parole is crueller than death, for it is a living death, though gradually. The BBC reported in 2007 that hundreds of prisoners, unable to bear their vegetative existence, petitioned the Italian government to convert their life sentences to execution.***
Moreover, life imprisonment proffers the convict an opportunity for remorse. There is a famous case of Karla Faye Tucker who had been convicted of brutally killing two people with a pickaxe during a 1983 robbery. Despite evidence that Karla Faye Tucker had been high on drugs at the time of the crime and that she had been addicted to drugs since she was eight years old, the jury put her on death row. During her 14-year wait for execution, she underwent conversion and a change of heart in gaol, so much so that leaders from across the world, including Pope John Paul II, made personal appeals for the commutation of her death sentence to life in prison.++ Death penalty removes from the individual any chance of such remorse, conversion and rehabilitation.
Abrogation of death penalty has other good effects as well. I may sound naïve if I say that it gives employment to prison guards. More seriously, it creates a culture in which human life is so highly valued that not even the state is permitted to kill people. Today, newspapers are rife with cases of juvenile delinquency. If capital punishment becomes the norm, soon we will have many young boys and girls who are executed without giving them an opportunity to reform themselves.
Discipline from Bottoms up
The fact that our prisons are full and congested is a testimony to our failure in our endeavour to create an upright society devoid of poverty, moral decay and social disharmony. The Law Commission, in its 36th report (1967) stated that India could not risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment because of the low level of morality and education and vastness of area and population, and the need for maintaining law and order in the country.+++ Hence we need to pull up our socks and get down to work to eradicate these ills, which form the foundation and dubious pillars of a crime-ridden society.
We need to instil stricter discipline in children at schools and on the streets, and young offenders and older ones progressively. This way, we can try to bring up a generation of disciplined people who may not need the threat of execution to deter them from committing the most grievous crimes. It is incumbent upon us to provide citizens with equal opportunities to achieve a good life in a loving culture. This will be the most potent antidote to those who clamour for capital punishment.
The Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, had hit the nail on the head when he said: An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. Period. Who would aspire to live in a world populated by the blind, where the blind lead the blind to perdition? In view of the above, however lofty be the end or objective of capital punishment, it will never justify the means.
---------------------------
* http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-death.htm
** http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
*** http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6707865.stm
+ + The jury rejected amnesty to Faye Tucker and she was executed by lethal injection on February 3, 1998. She received the lethal injection with composure and equipoise. She was the first woman executed in the State of Texas in 135 years.
+++ As quoted by Justice Hosbet Suresh in his book “All Human Rights are Fundamental Rights” Second Edition (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 2010) p. 84
Sunday, July 15, 2012
‘Mannat’ or Votive Offering
‘Mannat’
‘Mannat’ is a type of votive
offering. Outside Mount Mary’s Church at
Bandra, and many other religious places where miracles are said to occur, there
are a number of vendors selling figurines of sundry designs and sizes – of body parts, children, houses, cars, and even
currency notes. These are offered either in anticipation of the fulfillment of
a wish or after achieving a particular wish.
Going a step
further, there are people who promise to proffer something or to do something
for God in exchange for granting a wish. For instance, people promise to break
a hundred coconuts for Lord Ganesha, if he/she passes an exam or obtains a contract.
Having obtained the favour the individual will go to any extent to fulfill his
part of the contract lest retribution follow his ingratitude. The magnitude of
the promised offering varies in proportion to the severity or urgency of the
need or problem.
Last month,
before the conclusion of a ‘Satsang’
an announcement was made by one of the speakers, urging the participants to
abstain from consuming non-vegetarian food for at least three days prior to the
next meeting to be held on 8th July 2012. Similar thoughts had been
expressed umpteen times during the whole morning, in different ways and manners
by different people to the effect that people should give up something prized
by them for God so that God might look kindly upon them. That God would be
touched by their sacrifice and penance and would certainly grant their wish.
At another
prayer meeting, the preacher, adducing references from Holy Scriptures, pounded
upon the listeners to offer their supplications ‘with weeping and wailing’. For
their tears would draw out God’s
sympathy and He would wipe out their every tear. Within minutes every eye in
that spacious hall became cloudy as on a monsoon evening and the lachrymal
glands turned into gargoyles spewing their saline produce profusely. The frenzied populace were
literally sniveling and begging for God to open His sympathetic ears and listen
to their entreaties.
The whole thing
was nothing but melodramatic. The Omniscient and Omnipotent was reduced to a
sadist awaiting sobsters so that He could, with a sleight of His hands, wipe
out all their tears along with their agonies and pains.
Alas! Does the
Almighty lack anything so much so that He needs to wait for devotees to submit
some votive offering before doing their bidding? Does it make sense to penalize
one’s taste buds so that the Omnipresent can be outreached? Perhaps the
preacher above would have made better sense if he had exhorted the people to
refrain from speaking untruth or gossip or getting angry or doing anything that
would cause harm to others. This would have required more effort than mere
abstinence from indulging in gastronomic pleasures.
Some sermonizers
are so insistent upon such petty acts that they make you feel guilty, first of
all, if you do not make a commitment to chastise yourself, and, secondly, if
and when you are tempted to break such an oath made under obvious duress or
reneged on some sort of mannat.
May all those
who are hoodwinked by such smooth tongued sophists be aware of their guile and
not fall prey to their eccentric and fallacious logic. For, the Almighty lacks nothing
that necessitates supplementary inputs from
us mortals, nor is He a sadist drawing pleasure from broken hearts or a judge
awaiting with a crosier to mete out judgment.
Dominic A
Mathias
Weekly Forecasts – A Personal Experience
Weekly Forecasts
– A Personal Experience
Last Sunday, my daughter’s
weekly horoscope read: “There is international travel ...” When I showed it to her,
with a grin on her face, she nodded in understanding acquiescence. For we had
just applied online for passport and taken an appointment with Passport Seva
Kendra (PSK), Thane, for getting her credentials verified. Since reading sun-signs-based
forecasts was a taboo at our home we made no overt comments on it further.
After a couple
of days, on 19th June, as we got entry into the PSK office in Thane,
and stood in queue for the ‘token’ to be issued, the memory of the forecast generated
a tint of smile on my countenance, escorted by an optimistic anticipation …
Thanks to Bejan Daruwalla. (Pun intended.)
But, lo and
behold, after standing in queue for over
an hour, the fair damsel, an employee of TCS (if the letters on the cord of her
Identity Card are to be believed) politely refused to issue the token since my offspring
had not brought her SSC certificate nor mark sheet. All our protestations that
this was not mentioned at the website in the list of documents to be produced
fell on deaf ears. My sweetie was also not allowed to return later or the next
day with the required documents: a fresh appointment had to be taken online and
return when my PC gave consent!
My first
reaction was to curse the prophet who predicted the foreign jaunt of my
Aquarian progeny.... However my ever-optimistic mind said: Hold. Appointment
can be taken in the evening by logging on to the website at 7.30 pm.
Dutifully,
having cancelled all my evening engagements, I booted my PC ten minutes before
time. But my master refused to budge till 7.50 pm by which time the last
available slots were at 13.45 hrs and 15.15 hrs on 4th July! And by
the time I discussed with my better half and agreed upon the slot, even that
got filled. The PC instructed me to log on at 7.30 pm the next day for fresh
appointment!
Even the slimmest
modicum of faith I had on Bejan Daruwalla and his ilk who predict the future of
gullible mortals was dashed to the ground.
Earlier on
Sunday the 17th June 2012 when I had pointed out her ‘bhavishya,’ my wife had dismissed it
with a scorn. Being a Post Graduate in Science besides being a teacher, she
made me do a wee calculation. She wanted me to compute the world population and
divide it by 12 – twelve being the number of zodiac signs. I griped: ‘The
number of digits in that numeral is so many that I can’t even pronounce the
figure.”
“Take then the
approximate population of India and divide it by a larger number of 100.” This,
I felt was more within my brain capacity.
After some back of the envelope calculation I wondered, even if
one-hundredth or one-thousandth of Indians were Aquarians, how many of them
would go abroad or begin some activity this week that would lead them abroad at
a later date. Or for that matter, get some kind of personal news from abroad?
The whole prediction sounds so inane!
There are forecasters who caution people born between certain dates
to be alert while driving on a certain day or week, implying that these people
are more prone to accidents than others during the week in question. How many
of such warnings come true? (Perhaps if the driver is so obsessed with the
expectation of an accident it might really occur.) Will any research prove that all or a majority
of those who had met with accidents during the period were, say, Arians or
Librans or Scorpions or whatever?
What, then, is the value of these predictions? – one begins to
wonder. What is the ratio of ‘truthful’ versus bogus predictions? How many of
these predictions and predictors go wrong everyday!
The absurdity gets compounded
when one realizes that innumerable reputed magazines, weeklies and dailies all
over the world pander to such forecasts, despite being cognizant of their
futility. The need of the hour, instead, is to wean people away from giving
credence to such unproved and unprovable casuistry and inculcate scientific
thinking in them.
Dominic A Mathias
Thursday, April 5, 2012
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGALISED?
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGALISED?
Ms Dee was the cynosure of all eyes when she was betrothed to Mr Tee who was a politician-cum-educationist, running a couple of schools and a Junior College in the Central suburbs of Mumbai. People considered her extremely lucky when she was blessed with her second son in the early 70’s. Surrounded by a happy family and owing property worth crores, Mrs Dee lacked nothing.
But, now in her old age, she does not want to live anymore. No. Not because her elder son had had a premature death. But because she is paralyzed on her left side and is bed-ridden for the past several months. Although doctors have assured her of gradual recovery with physiotherapy, her bedsores have taken their toll. What is more, she is unable to speak except making a few grunts. She needs someone to be beside her 24 hours a day. Mrs Dee now wants to die.
There are hundreds of cases of terminally ill patients with no means to finance their treatment who feel that they are a burden to their impoverished relatives and to the society for using up its resources. All are waiting. Waiting for a physician to administer a wee injection and ease their pain and of their relatives. Just a single syringe is all that is required.
The nay-sayers take up the high moral ground and aver: we cannot create life; therefore, we have no right to take it away. The patients want you, the society, to get into their shoes and then think of creation and morality from their point of view. What will you do? You are at a dilemma. And you cannot escape between the horns of the bull, nor can you tackle the bull by its horns.
* * * *
Now take the case of Mr P who was in coma for over ten months after a fall from a height at a construction site. One fine day his life-support system was gradually slowed down till his eventual demise. Little does it matter who was behind the relaxation of the life-support system. But the question is: was the person, say, Mr X, justified in performing Euthanasia by Omission, however noble (?) his intention had been?
The term Euthanasia comes from two Greek words ‘eu’ (good) and ‘thanatos’ (death), which is translated as ‘mercy killing’ in common parlance. It is defined as intentional killing a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit by action or omission.
If euthanasia is legalized, as has been done in a handful of countries, what guarantee is there that it will be used only on the terminally ill? Even so, how can you define ‘terminally ill’? Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is prescribed, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectance of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally don’t die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition!
Legalization of Euthanasia can become an instrument in the hands of ruthless relatives of the ailing person to their advantage – perhaps to inherit property or endowment. Thus it becomes a measure to cut costs on healthcare, or otherwise can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of values. Children who consider their aged and financially depleted parents a burden will be armed with a potent weapon to be rid of them. And strayed couple can wield the same weapon to clear their path to stave off divorce and subsequent exorbitant alimony. Thus it can easily be misused by all and sundry in unimaginable ways.
Prisoners from hostile countries and inmates of prisons such as Guantanamo Bay Prison will too often be induced to become terminally ill so as to be able to ease their pain with impunity! Possibilities of misuse of euthanasia are endless, which is one of the most potent reasons for not accepting euthanasia as a viable proposition by many nations across the globe.
If euthanasia becomes acceptable the wedge between suicide and euthanasia, also termed as ‘assisted death’ will shrink membraneously. Euthanasia, then, will become ‘assisted suicide’ and assistance to euthanasia will turn into abetment to suicide.
The spiritually minded can take shelter in the metaphysical dictum that all that has been created by God is True, Good and Beautiful. That illness is not a curse but a means to diminish, if not end, the post mortem punishment in hell or purgatory. That in cases of really good and holy persons falling seriously ill, they can offer their pain to ease the pain of others, dead or alive.
However, such wishful thinking can never explain away the good-versus-evil conundrum. To the suffering, the very existence of God as a good and Fatherly figure becomes suspect. Their query boils down to ‘why does a good God, Omniscient and Omnipotent, permit evil, suffering and pain?’ (which discussion is beyond the purview of this essay).
If ever euthanasia becomes legalized, what will happen to the conscience of the administrator of the pain-ease mechanism? Will you as an individual accuse him of homicide or congratulate him for easing someone’s pain?
No doctor who has ever taken the Hippocratic oath wherein are incorporated the words: “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” will ever give acquiescence to such a law due to its incompatibility with their professional commitments.
There are those who vouch for voluntary euthanasia where alleviation of pain becomes meaningless and death is certain. Even in this case such indulgence can be abused especially in those patients who have become incompetent to take a considered decision. Moreover, no kin can act as surrogate decision-makers for such.
No creature of God should ever feel that he/she is a burden to others. If they feel so, it is not their failing but the failure of their own kith and kin and of the society as a whole. They may be assisted, yes, but assisted to march towards death with a feeling that they are surrounded by loving souls who are reincarnations of God. It is your and my responsibility to make them experience heaven on earth and depart from this earth with a smile on their faces.
M Dominic Arivarasu
Will Anna Hazare Fade Away?
Will Anna Hazare Fade Away?
He has become the toast of the town, saviour of the masses, scourge of the corrupted and the catalyst of the latest revolution in India’s historic kitty. This dogged septuagenarian has shaken every politician out of his societal stupor eclipsed by his egotistic perambulations. Arundati Roy, Mahesh Bhatt and the intellectual ilk may question his credentials and modus operandi, but the sheer number of his diehard fans and devotees has far exceeded that of any other person living: never had anyone in history had so many contemporaries supporting and defending him or her; nor will ever be.
Here is an iconoclast who cannot wait for any routine parliamentary procedures to commence the discussion on his pet project the Lokpal bill. In semblance to the saying “if the bhakt cannot go to Eshwar’s portals, let Eshwar come to the bhakt’s threshold”, since this ironman cannot wait for his turn at the parliament to deliberate upon his project, the parliament has to suspend every activity to mull over his assignment forthwith. The recent episode proved that the government or parliamentarians can brook no procrastination, except at the cost of endangering his fragile health and thereby incurring the wrath of millions.
What makes this apparently simple diminutive man clad in home-spun khadi so potent? What is it in this yokel from Ralegan Siddhi that has made the mighty fall at his feet of clay? How is it that millions of Indians sporting a Gandhi cap identify themselves with him and scream their throats out: I AM ANNA?
BECAUSE this chubby-cheeked ‘maha-atma’, enjoying his second childhood in the last leg of his earthly sojourn has put his own life at stake so as to cleanse the Indian society of corruption! Because the entire population of India is fed up of the corrupt practices of the government ministers, bureaucrats, police officials and the rest of the government paraphernalia.
Just as Gandhiji perfected his form of satyagraha in South Africa before taking on the mission to India, Anna Hazare too began at his village Ralegaon Siddhi, Ahmad Nagar district, Maharashtra. He motivated his village people not to grease the palms of government officials for discharging their duty of serving the common people. Later he enlarged the scope to encompass the state of Maharashtra. With people’s support he succeeded in uprooting many ministers in the state, thereby antagonizing the high and mighty among the political class.
ANNA HAZARE WILL NEVER FADE because success never went to his head. On his retirement from the Indian Army he gave away his entire savings to charity to buld wells and dharamshalas or free rest houses for pilgrims. Now despite his monumental successes at various levels he still lives in a small room in a dharamsnala he himself had built.
ANNA HAZARE WILL NEVER FADE because Anna is unsurpassed in somatic as well as mental tenacity. After three days of his fast on his release from gaol, much to the shame and chagrin of his escorts, he sprinted his way to Ramlila Maidan when it began to drizzle, Again, when every ‘Anna’ in India was on tenterhooks as Hazare’s fast entered the 10th day and 11th day, and even as some protesters who were fasting in solidarity with Anna in different pars of India were collapsing Anna still had the strength to address the gathering, as against his will and wont. He could accomplish this feat because, as he said, the youth supplied to him an inexhaustible fund of energy.
ANNA HAZARE WILL NEVER FADE for his nerves of steel that is not flustered by difficult situations. Even as he concluded his 13-day long fast he did not leave before declaring that his fight against corruption was just kept in suspended animation and that it would resume forthwith if situation demanded it. Moreover, the fighter that he is, he was not carried on a stretcher even after such a long fast lasting nearly a fortnight. The doctors attending him called it nothing short of a miracle and Anna’s steely will power.
Yet this was not the first time that death accosted him. He had faced death several times in the past too and survived. In the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 while he was driving a truck laden with essential supplies to the border posts a couple of fighter jets of the Pakistan Air Force swooped on the convoy. As Anna applied brakes at high speed his heavy vehicle skidded and rolled into a ditch. That day he had stared death in the face twice.
ANNA HAZARE WILL NEVER FADE thanks to the pristine image and the identity that he has created among the middle class. Despite alleging that Anna was steeped in corruption from head to foot, Tewari had to eat crow soon after.
Coming to the corruption factor: first the good news: a recent study has revealed that Indian deposits in Swiss banks have exhibited a declining trend. Now the shocker: the deposits in Swiss banks in the year 2010 amounted to a whopping $ 2.5 billion! An unconfirmed report estimates that at least Rs 1456 lakh crores of Indian moneys are stashed away in these banks! If proved true, imagine what can be done with this mind-boggling amount! India might emerge as the No. 1 country in the world financially and on an average about 60000 crores can be given to each district for its development, which means bestowing as much purchasing power on the Indian population.
Corruption has become institutionalized in India. For example, many people go to driving schools to get licenses because they know that half the fee paid to these schools is used to grease the palms of RTO officials. Or take the case of many popular temples that sell ‘tokens’ to the moneyed to ‘jump the queue’? But how many consider these corruption and are ready to abandon such systems?
It is common knowledge that commissions and judicial enquiries and the like are established in India only to tranquilize the indignation of the public. These are instituted merely to hoodwink the masses. The corrupt officials and politicians almost always manage to salvage their chameleon like pseudo-faces.
Although the public is fed up with the whole system, the political entity has managed to smother this concern and anguish by scuttling the Lokpal bill a number of times. Now that the bill is going to be discussed and passed without doubt, the credit for the same should go to Shri Anna Hazare alone. This saintly figure is fighting corruption not for his own benefit but the billion-odd Indians. This man in the last lap of his life has no personal agenda or benefit in this at all. This single pure disinterested act of Anna alone suffices to elevate him to the pedestal of the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Buddha. If the Lokpal bill as Anna has envisaged gets passed there will be more accountability among every Indian leader and the beneficiaries will be the nation and especially the poorest of the poor. Just as the Almighty had sent a Mahatma when Indian independence struggle was struggling to fight with one voice, now at this critical juncture when India has lost its face in the world arena due to rampant corruption as revealed by the several scams surfacing the nation at regular intervals, especially the mother of all scams, the 2G scam, the same Omnipotent has come down to the earth to salvage the remaining pride of India and cause a political and moral revolution.
Never…ever…
M Dominic Arivarasu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)