When "Justice" Itself Is Injustice

In the initial weeks after the 26/11 attacks, when Ajmal Kasab became the face of the worst terror strike our country has seen, a debate raged as to whether or not he deserved a fair trial.

I remember commenting on one blogger's furious tirade for him to undergo every physical torture possible, that, no matter how heinous the crime, the system had to be allowed to function; if we set a precedent of executing even one criminal without trial, slowly but steadily the system would lose meaning. So even though my gut reaction demanded that he be mercilessly crushed right away, my sanity reasoned that the justice system had to function.

In the year since, the justice system has "functioned", it has "functioned" to the extent of 31 crores, and is still "functioning".

31 frikkin CRORES!!!!

Thoughts of 26/11 haven't been far from any Indian's mind over the past few days, and one of the things I wondered about was how much it was costing to keep Kasab alive. But never did I imagine it would work out to 31 crores! And counting!!!

Yes, he absolutely deserved a fair trial, but come on, when the whole damn world knows he's guilty, how can it possibly take so long to sentence him??? How much more evidence, how many more witnesses does the court need??? The mind reels when it thinks of all the good uses that much money could've been put to.

Is our coastline better protected than it was last year?

Are our policemen better equipped than they were last year?

Are we more secure than we were last year?

NO.

But yes, Ajmal Kasab is better protected and more secure and probably more well-looked-after than he's ever been in his whole life, courtesy the Indian government. The system that should've dealt with this in a matter of months, if not weeks, has churned on for nearly a year, until the whole thing is nothing but a farce. This prolonged pursuit of justice itself is the greatest injustice being done.

No one is going to feel any better the day Kasab dies, because killing him doesn't bring back those lost that day. No one is going to heave a sigh of relief, because we know there are many more Kasabs out there. But Kasab must be killed, and must be killed soon, for no other reason than to stop this ridiculous drain of resources, resources which could be diverted elsewhere to actually accomplish something positive.

Not Just an Economic Crisis

And so again after a visit to Renu's blog, I'm compelled to convert a comment into a post, because one thought led to another which led to a third ..... so on and so forth, till its just too long in the comment form.

Straight off, let me say that I struggled mightily with economics and finance in my formal education and still do not fully understand the intricacies of both. But what I do understand very clearly is this: you violate His laws, you will pay a price someday. As you sow, so shall you reap, or to borrow my sister's favourite acronym, JKVB - Jaisi Karni Vaise Bharni (and now look at the amazing coincidence that as I was going through some of my regular blogs, I came across Goofy Mumma's latest!)

In many places, I recall the current economic crisis being described as the failure of the capitalist philosophy. I disagree.

I see this crisis as the failure of regulatory authorities who should've ensured organizations didn't overstretch their limits. I see this crisis as a failure of organizations themselves in that they were over-ambitious. Most importantly, I see this economic crisis as an after-effect, the result of a much more deeper cause: a moral, ethical & spiritual failure.

Very simply, people got greedy.

Right from childhood, we're taught that greed is bad. In fact, Christianity considers it as one of seven deadly sins. Deadly sin. I find it really amazing that people get so immersed in their careers and money-making that they forget these basic truths along the way. Many will scoff at anything to do with religion & spirituality; they outright dismiss simple values as 'touchy-feely crap' and see them as having no connection to the "business world".

And yet, when this crisis first erupted, and companies - supposedly well-established industry giants - started collapsing one after the other, the first thing people ran towards was God. Churches, in New York City especially, reported record attendance as desperate souls from the corporate world turned to Him for some way out of the mess they'd gotten themselves into.

I repeat: you violate His laws, you will pay a price someday. You can't ..... restrict God to a slot in your life. You can't say, ok God, I'll come see you in so&so place of worship, I'll give some money to xyz charity and that's it, be happy with that, what I do in my job is my business, not Yours.

Many people (including some members of my own family), believe that their "security" and their "status" lies in the size of their bank balance. Everything else comes in second to the all-important goal of money. Instead of work being a part of life, it becomes their whole life, to the exclusion of God, their own health and personal relationships. So when you make that sort of uncontrolled greed your way of life ....... how do you expect to walk away unscathed? And for a crisis of this magnitude to have occurred, its not just a few people here and there who went astray, but entire generations, entire societies that are to blame.

Anything taken to an extreme is bad; so the fault does not lie in capitalism per se, but in the unchecked, unbridled capitalism and materialism. I still believe in the capitalist philosophy, so long as we operate within a moral and ethical framework at the individual and the larger organizational and societal levels.

The values of hard work, honesty, saving and spending within your means are extolled by most faiths, and they are meant to guide us in all aspects of life. They are NOT irrelevant or outdated in present times however "modern" we consider ourselves, and whatever our accomplishments, none of us is above them. Provided we adhere to these guidelines, we have every right to enjoy the fruits of our efforts.

The Success of Secular India

My mom sent me the article below, entitled "Indians and Pakistanis are no longer the same people" by Vir Sanghvi. There was a time when I naively believed that we were the same - ordinary people with similar aspirations. But today, I believe we are the same only in that we are all human; however, as a nation, that collection of human beings has chosen a very different path, one that only leads downhill.

Despite that, I still wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that EVERY Pakistani is an India-hating, West-hating, Islamic fanatic, just as I don't believe that EVERY Indian is true to the idea of India.

Recent events, especially here in Karnataka, show a growing and alarming intolerance on religious, gender and linguistic grounds. Our neighbours across the border are a glaring example of just what intolerance can deteriorate into, so we, as a nation, need continual reminders to not stray onto that path, consciously or subconsciously.

Which is why I liked this article. It reminded me that all our successes and achievements, whether individually or nationally, are at least partly rooted in our national ideals of democracy, tolerance and most importantly, secularism.

*************

INDIANS AND PAKISTANIS ARE NO LONGER THE SAME PEOPLE

by Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times, The Mint

The same people? Surely not.

Few things annoy me as much as the claim often advanced by well-meaning but woolly-headed (and usually Punjabi) liberals to the effect that when it comes to India and Pakistan, "We're all the same people, yaar."

This may have been true once upon a time. Before 1947, Pakistan was part of undivided India and you could claim that Punjabis from West Punjab (what is now Pakistan) were as Indian as, say, Tamils from Madras.

But time has a way of moving on. And while the gap between our Punjabis (from east Punjab which is now the only Punjab left in India) and our Tamils may actually have narrowed, thanks to improved communications, shared popular culture and greater physical mobility, the gap between Indians and Pakistanis has now widened to the extent that we are no longer the same people in any significant sense.

This was brought home to me most clearly by two major events over the last few weeks.
The first of these was the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team on the streets of Lahore. In their defence, Pakistanis said that they were powerless to act against the terrorists because religious fanaticism was growing. Each day more misguided youngsters joined jihadi outfits and the law and order situation worsened.

Further, they added, things had got so bad that in the tribal areas the government of Pakistan had agreed to suspend the rule of law under pressure from the Taliban and had conceded that sharia law would reign instead. Interestingly, while most civilised liberals should have been appalled by this surrender to the forces of extremism, many Pakistanis defended this concession.

Imran Khan (Keble College, Oxford, 1973-76) even declared that sharia law would be better because justice would be dispensed more swiftly! (I know this is politically incorrect but the Loin of the Punjab's defence of sharia law reminded me of the famous Private Eye cover when his marriage to Jemima Goldsmith was announced. The Eye carried a picture of Khan speaking toJemima's father. "Can I have your daughter's hand?" Imran was supposedly asking James Goldsmith. "Why? Has she been caught shoplifting?" Goldsmith replied. So much for sharia law.)

The second contrasting event was one that took place in Los Angeles but which was perhaps celebrated more in India than in any other country in the world. Three Indians won Oscars: A.R. Rahman, Resul Pookutty and Gulzar.

Their victory set off a frenzy of rejoicing. We were proud of our countrymen. We were pleased that India's entertainment industry and its veterans had been recognised at an international platform. And all three men became even bigger heroes than they already were.

But here's the thing: Not one of them is a Hindu.

Can you imagine such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you even conceive of a situation where the whole country would celebrate the victory of three members of two religious minorities? For that matter, can you even imagine a situation where people from religious minorities would have got to the top of their fields and were, therefore, in the running for international awards?

On the one hand, you have Pakistan imposing sharia law, doing deals with the Taliban, teaching hatred in madrasas, declaring jihad on the world and trying to kill innocent Sri Lankan cricketers. On the other, you have the triumph of Indian secularism.

The same people? Surely not.

We are defined by our nationality. They choose to define themselves by their religion.

But it gets even more complicated. As you probably know, Rahman was born Dilip Kumar. He converted to Islam when he was 21. His religious preferences made no difference to his prospects. Even now, his music cuts across all religious boundaries. He's as much at home with Sufi music as he is with bhajans. Nor does he have any problem with saying 'Vande Mataram'.

Now, think of a similar situation in Pakistan. Can you conceive of a Pakistani composer who converted to Hinduism at the age of 21 and still went on to become a national hero? Under sharia law, they'd probably have to execute him.

Resul Pookutty's is an even more interesting case. Until you realise that Malayalis tend to put an 'e' where the rest of us would put an 'a,' (Ravi becomes Revi and sometimes the Gulf becomes the Gelf), you cannot work out that his name derives from Rasool, a fairly obviously Islamic name.

But here's the point: even when you point out to people that Pookutty is in fact a Muslim, they don't really care. It makes no difference to them. He's an authentic Indian hero, his religion is irrelevant.

Can you imagine Pakistan being indifferent to a man's religion? Can you believe that Pakistanis would not know that one of their Oscar winners came from a religious minority? And would any Pakistani have dared bridge the religious divide in the manner Resul did by referring to the primeval power of Om in his acceptance speech?

The same people? Surely not.

Most interesting of all is the case of Gulzar who many Indians believe is a Muslim. He is not. He is a Sikh. And his real name is Sampooran Singh Kalra.

So why does he have a Muslim name?

It's a good story and he told it on my TV show some years ago. He was born in West Pakistan and came over the border during the bloody days of Partition. He had seen so much hatred and religious violence on both sides, he said, that he was determined never to lose himself to that kind of blind religious prejudice and fanaticism.

Rather than blame Muslims for the violence inflicted on his community - after all, Hindus and Sikhs behaved with equal ferocity - he adopted a Muslim pen name to remind himself that his identity was beyond religion. He still writes in Urdu and considers it irrelevant whether a person is a Sikh, a Muslim or a Hindu.

Let's forget about political correctness and come clean: can you see such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you actually conceive of a famous Pakistani Muslim who adopts a Hindu or Sikh name out of choice to demonstrate the irrelevance of religion?

My point, exactly.

What all those misguided liberals who keep blathering on about us being the same people forget is that in the 60-odd years since Independence, our two nations have traversed very different paths.

Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam. It still defines itself in terms of Islam. And over the next decade as it destroys itself, it will be because of Islamic extremism.

India was founded on the basis that religion had no role in determining citizenship or nationhood. An Indian can belong to any religion in the world and face no discrimination in his rights as a citizen.

It is nobody's case that India is a perfect society or that Muslims face no discrimination. But only a fool would deny that in the last six decades, we have travelled a long way towards religious equality.

In the early days of independent India, a Yusuf Khan had to call himself Dilip Kumar for fear of attracting religious prejudice. In today's India, a Dilip Kumar can change his name to A.R. Rahman and nobody really gives a damn either way.

So think back to the events of the last few weeks. To the murderous attack on innocent Sri Lankan cricketers by jihadi fanatics in a society that is being buried by Islamic extremism. And to the triumphs of Indian secularism.

Same people?
Don't make me laugh.

Who Am I?

My masters' degree dissertation required me to do a lot of reading on workplace diversity, and then on culture, cross-cultural management, sociology, psychology and other related areas. I'll be the first to say that the final product wasn't the most sound piece of research, but what I'll eternally be grateful for is the knowledge I gained in the process.

In a word, it was mind-broadening. Not only in terms of a better understanding of why people differed culturally, but most importantly, in terms of a better understanding of myself.

Much of the material prompted me to introspect, to analyse the way I perceived and interpreted the world. It forced me to confront my prejudices, to realise that though I believed in equality, I too had racist, sexist and all other discriminatory -istic tendencies in me. But perhaps the most valuable insight was a clearer understanding of my identity -- who I am.

I didn't just randomly decide to do a post on identity; it was this thought-provoking piece by Renu that set off the introspection again. Although her post largely centers on women retaining their maiden names post marriage as part of their identity, it got me thinking about the whole issue of identity itself.

What makes up a person's identity? We each get some parts of our identity simply by being born wherever we were - we're instantly a part of a family, a society, a nation. But I think for the most part, our identity is how we choose to define ourselves, what we choose to make of ourselves.

Most people go through life without a clear understanding of their identities; they just go with the flow because that's just how things are, or feel compelled to be whatever the current media trend tells them they should be because they want to fit in. I think its just a handful of people who're lucky to instinctively know who they are. Most of us have to grapple with the issue for a long time till we arrive at that understanding.

For me, it was this particular exercise that really helped me clarify my identity. While some things were immediately obvious, I still took a few days to sort through it, but the end result was a renewed self-confidence and a sense of being at peace with myself, and that's why I wanted to share it here ....... maybe it'd be just as useful to you. I don't remember now exactly where I read it or whose concept it is (I think it was put forth by an American college professor to his students, but I'm not sure).

Basically, you divide a circle into segments representing the most vital components of your identity; the size you give each segment depends on its importance to you. (In case you wondered, no, this drawing is not a representation of my identity :), its just an illustrative example.) The dimensions here are what most people tend to include; you may want to add / subtract, again based on what you consider important.

And that, really, is one of the key conclusions of this exercise: to realise what is important to you. For many women today, the main identity clash seems to be between that of family and career. I know that prioritising one over the other can be incredibly difficult; indeed for anyone, prioritising various aspects of your identity, deciding which is more important than the others is not easy.

But its not as if you need to rank them or anything, because different situations in life call for different facets of your identity to come to the fore. In some circumstances, you'll have to put work first, sometimes you may need to put your child's need before that of your spouse, if you're watching a sports event you'll cheer or boo as a citizen of whatever country, if you read about atrocities committed anywhere you feel for the victims simply because you're human too.

So the point of the exercise is purely to determine the aspects of your identity that matter to you. What is it that fulfills you? What brings you satisfaction? What is it that really makes you happy? Because isn't that ultimately the point of life, to improve as a person and to find happiness? And how better to get there than by starting out with a clear understanding of who you are.

*******

For the curious: who am I??? I have and always will be a faith-and-family-first kind of person, happy and proud to be an Indian woman. I try my best to live up to 'Shalom' - its the Hebrew word for 'peace' from which my real name is derived. I tend towards artistic pursuits, so getting better at writing, cooking, painting, photography matters a lot. I've never been the career-driven type, though getting a good education was important, and I'm currently gearing up to face the biggest challenge of my life, and what will become the most important part of my identity for a long, long time - being a good mom!

Wishful Thinking

Yesterday, one of the news channels ran a story on the kind of gizmos the 26/11 terrorists were carrying, and also on how intensively and extensively they were trained. As I saw the story, I was once again amazed by the tremendous wealth such organizations possessed, and even more amazed by the brains and the management behind such acts of terror.

And then I wondered, wished ......

What if the people who masterminded these acts of destruction put their considerable talent and resources to constructive use? If they invested all those millions wasted in weaponry, into schools and colleges, into creating jobs - honest, legal jobs - so that their youth could have a chance at a decent life, instead of being filled with hate and going down paths that lead only to death?

When I think about it this way, of all the good that could've been done with that much money, that much ability, the sense of loss is staggering!!!

How can these people be so blind, so stupid??? And then to keep saying that they're doing all this for their God ........ what an insult it is to God!!!

Here's a thought: instead of executing innocent people, how about lending a helping hand in whatever way possible? Instead of dying for God, how about living for God???

The Need of the Hour: Responsible Leadership

There used to be this ad on tv a few months ago, I forget for what product. The political drama in the wake of the Bombay siege brought it to mind:

It had this typical Indian politician relaxing on the lawn of his bungalow, surrounded by sycophantic aides and giving an interview to a bunch of reporters about contesting an upcoming election, when a young man comes up to him and starts shooting questions about his qualifications - his education, previous work experience and so on.

The politician is surprised by this line of questioning, wondering how it matters for someone contesting an election, and asks why the youth wants to know all this.

The youth replies that its only natural to ask these questions of anyone applying for a job.

The politician is taken aback: job? What job???

To which the youth calmly states: the job of running this country.

The politician is left stunned.

-----------------------------

Running any country is a job, a monumental job that requires consistent and coordinated efforts at multiple levels. And because it entails the security and welfare of citizens, on which no price can be put, these jobs come with an enormous amount of power and responsibility.

As a management student, one of the earliest lessons we learnt was that authority and responsibility must go hand in hand. If you are entrusted with authority and power over something, you are also responsible to see that the work is carried out.

But in Indian politics, "responsibility" is a dirty word. Our politicians want to win elections, win power, and once that's done, the rest of their term is basically spent in calculating how to hold on to that power for the maximum possible time. But very few accept the responsibility that comes with the power.

Post the attacks, Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh tells the media "If any responsibility falls on me, I have offered to resign." IF any responsibility falls on you???? You're "Chief Minister" of a state that has suffered the country's most brutal terrorist attack and you still have to wonder if any responsibility falls on you???

Deshmukh's on his way out, and good riddance!!! The lobbying to be his successor has been going on for a while and a new Chief should be named any moment now.

But it really doesn't matter who the new person is, all that will count is what he does with his power. Will he use it responsibly, promptly and unswervingly to get answers? To crack down harshly on the forces of terror? To put measures into place that ensure we're never this vulnerable again?

We are a nation that abounds with politicians, but is starved of leaders. And that really is the need in these extraordinary times, not destructive politics where people's actions are constantly geared towards maintaining power, but constructive leadership at all levels of government, where people put aside egos and personal ambition to work, actually work, for the betterment of the nation.

Life Aborted

You know how you see / hear / read certain things and they kind of linger in your mind for a while? Give off vibes and feelings that you can't shake off? Sometimes make an impact so deep that you know you'll never forget them?

Fellow blogger My Space's powerfully written, powerfully moving short story is one of those reads giving me a feeling that I haven't been able to shake off, especially since it relates to one of those things that I cannot forget.

I was in the ninth standard, close to 14 years old, when one day the entire batch of us were taken to our school auditorium. It was for yet another "awareness" talk, where a group of doctors and other trained professionals lectured us on menstruation, sex, pregnancy and other issues girls on the verge of womanhood needed to know.

We entered the auditorium and took our seats, chattering away merrily like most young girls. Our headmistress introduced the main speaker of the day, a middle-aged male doctor. All I remember of him today is that he was tall and wore glasses. He said that the session would consist of him giving a talk, us watching a short film, followed by some q & a time and the subject of the day was abortion.

He got started on the talk, and for the most part, we were quiet, although softly whispered conversations and gossip, hushed jokes and giggles, passing of notes and comments continued throughout the audience.

Then he played the film. And we all slowly shut up ...... stunned into silence. A few minutes in and some of the girls closed their eyes or put their heads down, simply unable to take any more. I watched, and kept watching even as tears burned my throat and I felt as if something were shredding my stomach to pieces.

Time has erased many of the details of the film and of the rest of the session, but what imprinted itself in my mind were the images: little bodies that had human form but no features, twitching in agony, and the most horrific of them all ...... the tiny foetus that couldn't have been bigger than my palm, lying bloodied, battered and broken.

I don't write this to gross anyone out; this is what I saw, what has stayed with me ever since and what flashes through my mind every time I see / hear / read the word 'abortion'. For me, those images reduce the whole debate on the subject to just one thing: abortion is murder.

For those who've simply been careless, or for whom a pregnancy at the time is "not convenient", or for whom, as in My Space's story, having a son is most important - you commit the cruelest sort of murder because the life you decide to take is life at its purest, most innocent and most helpless stage.

And yet, the matter isn't black and white when you consider cases where the health of the mother and/or baby is at risk, or in the worst possible scenario - where a rape victim gets pregnant. It is an unimaginably traumatic choice to make, but a choice that nevertheless must be made.

How do you decide what is right in such situations? As strongly as I feel on the subject, I have no answer here.

------------------

P.S.: November 2nd is celebrated as All Souls' Day. The Catholic Church observes a special Mass on this day to remember and pray for the souls of all the departed that they might rest in peace. On this All Souls' Day mass, the priest also prayed for the souls of aborted children. It never occurred to me to do so before, but its not something I'll forget now.

To Booze or Not To Booze

Yesterday's B'lore Times led with an article on Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss's current focus - total nation-wide prohibition. The Minister's concern is driven by the increasing number of youth getting addicted to alcohol. I agree that this is becoming a serious problem, but I don't feel that a complete ban on alcohol is the solution.

I grew up in a family where nearly everybody consumed alcohol. Now I don't mean that the elders were constantly talli, but whenever we had get-togethers with family or friends, the booze flowed freely and all adults were welcome to it. Even us children could take a sip from our parents' glasses whenever curiosity got the better of us. And after I turned 18, I was always offered a drink too at our family parties.

There was never any taboo attached to alcohol in our family. Adults were free to drink, but only free to drink as adults. That meant knowing your capacity, and always, always staying within the bounds of decent behaviour. As long as we behaved responsibly, there was no reason not to enjoy and appreciate fine liquor.

But during college and ever since, I've realised that the real reason why many people drink is not to appreciate good liquor, but more to "fit in" and appear "cool". And the more you drink, the "cooler" you're thought to be. I remember girl friends from very conservative families, staying overnight at whichever girl's house was empty on the pretext of group study, while actually it was a booze party. The following day they used to brag about it very excitedly; it didn't matter what they had been drinking, as long as they could boast about drinking.

Today, with binge drinking becoming the latest trend, the situation is even worse. I've seen photos of girls in UK and the US sprawled unconscious in bars and pubs after bingeing. I don't know if its the same in India, but even if it isn't, we've got a far worse trend of people drinking, driving and running others over. While I enjoy the occassional drink, I really don't know what the appeal is in boozing to the extent that you're either just a useless lump, or a total menace to society.

I don't think that drinking in itself is bad, its irresponsible, excessive drinking that's the problem. The point is that anything, consumed excessively is bad for you. Even basic stuff like sugar, salt or oil can be potentially deadly if you have too much of it.

Banning alcohol completely is not going to resolve the issue. All this would do is give the black market a good boost, and further increase the hype around alcohol, making it a bigger deal than it really is.

If you truly wanted to make a difference, the thing to do would be to tackle mindsets about alcohol. Easier said than done, believe me, I know. But ultimately, having proper attitudes is the only thing that helps you make the right choices so that you can have your fun without being a nuisance to anyone else.