The middle ground - The road less traveled

"Freedom would not be to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices", this quote by Theodore Adorno, although referring to historical political and social extremism which stems from the concept that "either you're with me or against me", is very relevant in our modern day. We are constantly being presented with moral and social choices, pro-life or pro-choice, war or peace, yes or no to refugees, legalizing marijuana or prostitution or not, and our thoughts, ideas and identity now belong to one of these two spheres which are moving further apart from each other. I'd like to present to you the middle ground and the power that it has in starting a conversation and advance our understanding of each other and the world we live in.

Compromise is seen as a dirty word, it's definition itself implies a change or adjustment of claims in order to reach an agreement. We have very strong opinions about a lot of things, more so now than ever before, with the explosion of social media but we have to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. To move one step further, we need to be willing to mold our opinions by understanding the world we live in.

So how do we differentiate between a fact, which has a very strict right and wrong, and an opinion, which is open to discussion. I use a word that I love, evidence, which in most cases might refer to scientific evidence and facts but can be extended into the social realm as well, let me elaborate. Statistics, a very powerful tool (if done correctly) can help steer a decision to the left or right by removing the subjectivity, although not completely, from an argument. Any other argument or controversy that does not have scientific evidence or statistics in it's midst is open for discussion or rather SHOULD be discussed openly.

Let me use an example to explain this point of view, abortion. A disclaimer though, before I begin, I do not see this example to be the only OR the best example of where we can take the middle ground. It is just one I feel I can use to best explain my point of view. So, abortion has a clear divide between the for or against, or as we term them, pro-life and pro-choice. In my opinion, both those terms or points of view are fallacies, failures in reasoning. To put it simply, pro-life actually implies pro-fetus life and does not talk about the life of the mother, which means that pro-life is not all encompassing and that is against the term pro-life itself. On the other hand, pro-choice, is talking about the choice of the mother and at the same time does not talk about the choice of the fetus or whether him/her has a choice to begin with, and therefore has the same problem of all inclusiveness.

So how do we start a discussion down the middle and see where it takes us. Well, starting with an open and impartial mind will definitely help. Scientific evidence and statistics will help answer a few questions, but in the case of abortion, cannot be used conclusively to choose a side. Science can tell us about the stages of the fetus and when we start to notice neurological activity, it can also determine the condition of both the fetus and the mother. Statistics can give us an indication about the percentage of various types of mothers that might get an abortion, single mothers, teen mothers, rape victims, fetus with fatal conditions and so on. Now all this information can aid in the discussion, but as i said before, cannot be used conclusively. 

Now the discussion has to begin, guidelines have to be determined, and not black or white rules. Guidelines that will help the people involved to make decisions, mothers, medical community, court of law. Guidelines that could include the age of the fetus, condition of the mother, circumstances of conception etc. A simple yes or no, guilty or not guilty WILL NOT work in a discussion like this. We have to understand that we are all on the same side, a side of life and of choices.

Again, I reiterate, I have used the discussion of abortion only as an example to demonstrate my point of view, the point of view of a healthy discussion, of compromises, of knowing the difference between facts and opinions. When we limit ourselves to either or or we do ourselves, and society in general, a huge disservice. We have the ability to think, reason and collaborate, we should use that ability  to solve the issues we face. We must understand that the problems we are trying to solve affect all of us equally, it's just that we're divided in the method we want to use to solve them. If we look hard enough there is a common goal, a safer society with a higher collective purpose, and the only way we can reach that goal is if we collaborate. 

To conclude,

1. Always view the world from someone else's perspective

2. Always question your thoughts, ideas and opinions

3. Discuss, argue and collaborate to improve not only others but your understanding of the world

4. Use social media constructively, as a medium to discuss and not promote only your ideas

Remember, the middle ground should be the first and not the last resort.

Capital murder

KILL THE RAPIST, KILL THE TERRORIST, HANG THEM ALL!! Sounds like the cries of a 19th century lynch mob showing their superiority over a "lower" caste or race. But these are the voices of a 21st century populace, the only difference being that they expect the law and lawmakers to do the lynching and killing now.
Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty, although on the decline, is still alive in the world, and not only in countries that are run under the Sharia law or those run by communist or fascist governments, but also democratic countries like US and India. That is because it is the people from these liberal nations that support and want capital punishment alive.
From a survey conducted by me with a small uncontrolled group of people, 60% of the individuals prefer and support capital punishment. Of these, 70% + affirm that the death penalty makes them feel safer in society and they believe that the death penalty can be used to deter even those crimes that are impulsive. Those that support the death penalty do so to first incapacitate the criminal, prevent him perpetrating a crime again. Following incapacitation, as the reason to support capital punishment, is to deter future criminals and as retribution or punishment for the criminal. Terrorism, rape and murder are the dominant crimes that the supporters argue beseech capital punishment along with crimes on children, minors and teens.
Of the 40% that do not support capital punishment, 40% do so because of the lack of evidence that the death penalty can deter or reduce future crimes and the remaining are equally divided between human rights violation and that capital punishment could kill innocent people. 60-70% of these would not change their minds if it were proved that capital punishment could reduce crime rates or if the crimes were of a gruesome nature or even if the criminal/s were proven guilty without any doubt.
Let's get to my views on capital punishment, I am strongly against it for two reasons, I believe that the death penalty in no shape or form can act as a deterrent since most criminals function with the illusion of not getting caught in the first place. If a criminal can get intimidated by the death penalty then I think a life sentence will work just as well. Apart from the statistics, which show that capital punishment does not act as a crime inhibitor, I am of the view that most criminals have a distorted sense of morals brought on by situation/s or in rare cases their nurturing and the idea of punishment by death, a decade or more later will, not deter them. In cases where the criminal has planned his/her crime ,they will do so, so as not to get caught in the first place, making the deterrence of capital punishment a moot point.
Getting on to a higher ground, the question of human rights and the fact that the death penalty is a violation, I wouldn’t go so far as to endorse the rights of a criminal but I feel that, in a civilized society, the act of the death penalty is uncivilized and barbaric. I see capital punishment akin to war, both killing the guilty and leading to collateral damage in terms of killing the innocent. Why do we abhor and avoid war these days? Because we know it is a means to no end and that it is all but a cry of superiority, an act to show ‘who’s the boss’, an act of retribution and this is exactly what I see capital punishment as. It is nothing but a display of power and retribution, it serves no purpose. It will not help reduce crime nor will it provide comfort (maybe momentary) to those victimized, it only provides a sense of momentary relief to the lawmakers that they’re making the world a better place and to those victimized a fleeting sense of retribution.
In lieu of capital punishment, I propose we strive to improve our judicial systems to ensure those that are guilty get what they deserve (in terms of sentencing) and are impeded from committing the same crime again. We need to improve our prisons to accommodate more prisoners and ensure that the prisoners are detached from all types of luxury and conveniences. Solitary confinement and life imprisonment are viable options for those criminals who would otherwise be given the death penalty.
The advancement of society is as important as the advancement of science & technology, so let us learn to be more civilized and not kill for the sake of killing, break our pre-conceived notions and learn to be more effective and efficient without relying on the mediocrity of capital punishment.

Against Indian Culture

How often have we heard or read these words. From what or whom are we trying to "protect" our fragile Indian culture? And are we really protecting the accurate form/s of Indian culture? Let's retrospect.
First of all, is our Indian culture (whichever form) so fragile that it needs protection in the first place? The best part about culture is that it can and should evolve and expand to capture the sensibilities of the current/living generation. Just as our understanding of the universe has progressed over generations so has our understanding of human emotion and psyche. That's what has led to the abolition of slavery, sati, child marriages, child labour etc. Our culture has evolved to accept that these acts were wrong and against humanity. So the protection of culture could be termed an oxymoron, as protection is against the very definition of a culture.
Now that we know that culture shouldn't be protected but allowed to grow let's question whether the culture that most Indians claim to be protecting are really indicative of Indian culture. On the forefront of the so called protectionists are Indian women and their behaviour in society. It is claimed that, according to Indian culture, women are supposed to be suppressed and have less freedom than Indian men. This includes draping their body with "decent" attire, no drinking or smoking in public and worst of all blaming the rape of a woman on the woman's indecency. We need to understand that the root of the inequality towards women stems from the archaic thought that men are superior to women and now that our present generation has (or have they?) learnt that that's wrong it's time our culture evolved into accepting equality for women. When these protectionists tell women to dress better to prevent being raped, I say tell the men to stop raping!! Maybe our culture should evolve to abhor rapists and punish them for the animals they are, that would make more sense as a culture.
The most widely used phrase by the so called protectionists is "westernization". Apparently our Indian culture is so fragile that a breeze from the west is enough to shake its foundations. Valentine's day, night clubs, divorce, nuclear families are the some of the few victims of westernization claims. Again, westernization is being mistaken for an evolution of culture that is growing to accept changes in human behaviour. Unfortunately for India, we started on the back foot of a history of deep rooted cultural and religious beliefs which pushed the inevitable evolution of our culture behind. And now that our culture has finally begun to evolve we are being criticized of aping the west, whose culture has had the luxury of evolving much earlier.
On a more positive note, although it will take a while for most Indians to adjust to this evolution of culture, I believe the transition will happen and no more will we, the progressive Indians, be accused of operating AGAINST THE INDIAN CULTURE.

....... Blame the dogs?

Garbage bags strewn all over the lane, torn apart to display their smelly, disgusting contents. And who do people blame. The dogs. A society so distorted, think so highly of street dogs that we expect them to have civic sense!
Why do people keep their houses spotless but not think twice about dumping their garbage at the closest vacant spot they find? Can this sort of civic sense be taught or is the lack of it a disorder that has a more psychological root?
My thoughts are that civic sense, especially with regards to garbage, has to be taught AND practiced at schools. The harmful effects of dumping plastic waste as opposed to recycling, although evident, has to be drilled into our kids just like maths or science. The very act not to litter should be second nature to us like washing our hands before eating.
Small communities should work together to at least ensure there are no open dumpsites in their neighbourhood. For lack of space, common dumpsites can be identified. An enclosed structure for dry plastic wastes and a mud pit for all wet garbage. This would be a big help for the local panchayat or corporation and you'll find the garbage collectors more helpful and responsive.
A clean neighbourhood is a right to those living there just like water and electricity. So let's respect others rights and do our bit.  As long as we look at our neighbourhood, our city and state as an extension of our home and understand the ill effects of dumping garbage, not doing it will be second nature to us.

Leave the labour to the mother

The phrase child labour brings images of a sweatshops in South-east asia or garbage dumps in India or even red light areas in parts of Asia. Are these the only situations that qualify as unlawful child labour? Let's have a closer look at the country we live in. Children working in tea shops, canteens, garbage dumps, construction sites or working as maids, babysitters, caretakers. The list is endless. Our eyes have grown used to the the sight of over burdened children doing the job of one or sometimes two grown adults. The large divide between the haves and have-nots in India make the haves indifferent to the perils of child labour around us. Most people feel that a child earning his daily bread, sometimes for his family as well, is noble and that education is overrated. How far would he go with basic education as compared to the skills he picks up working in a tea shop? The child could spend the rest of his life working in a tea shop, or someday own a tea shop, but he will live his life not knowing what his life couldv'e been had he gone to school. He could finish his 10th std education and then work in a tea shop but he would have with him the gift of opportunity to turn his life around if he wanted to.
Apart from being unlawful, child labour is inhumane. Forcing a child to work in conditions a grown adult would avoid or using children to increase productivity for the sole purpose of a profit is a selfish deed and is analogous to man using animals to his benefit. The person adopting child labour may not be responsible for the child's education but is unquestionably responsible for the child losing an opportunity for a better future. And that is as bad as confining an animal in a cage or a human in prison. Everytime we decide to hire a child as a maid or a cook, take a moment to consider the harm you're placing on that child's future. Apart from hampering the child's education we also obstruct him from having the one thing every child should have, friends.
As World child labour day, 12 June, approaches, lets make an attempt to condemn this social evil when we see it and more importantly not fall into it ourselves. Every child, no matter how low in the social strata, deserves to live like a child.

Misplaced patriotism and then some

"If patriotism and love for our country is a crime, then we shall committ the crime repeatedly". Talk about wearing the indian flag on your sleeve, an orange sleeve i might add. Could this statement (spoken by our very own Balasaheb) be a mere publicity stunt or suggest a deep rooted sense of patriotism? If there weren't so many glaring contradictions i would think the latter. Patriotism would seem to be the love for one's country, its people and resources albeit the differences in race, religion or caste. So how does crime against your own countrymen promote patriotism. Is it me or is this a contorted view of so called patriotism. It surprises me how most groups (Sena and the Maoists..to name a few) seek to protect their so called "ideals" with violence. The whole purpose of democracy is freedom to let your voice be heard without letting you hand be felt. How different is George Bush' war against terror as opposed to the Maoists war against the bourgeois or the Sena's war against non-maharashtrians. Slaughter the innocent to prove a point, after all it's all a means to an end. The end in most cases being political supremity!
The leaders of these groups are content with letting their "men" fight their battles while they sit comfortably promoting their propoganda to the masses. Ironically if the leaders do bite the bullet they would be considered martyrs and start a revolution, in most cases bigger and more dangerous than the ones they promoted.
The only way to bring these radicals to a halt would be to first to choke the very "ideals" they stand for and then bring the people involved to justice for the crimes they've committed. Use the weapon of true patriotism against those that use it as a weapon for personal gain. I belong to the world first and then my country and my state. Global to local and not the other way around.

Greed supersedes Need

"Pregnant woman thrashed, paraded naked in Uttar Pradesh", screamed the big bold headline as i contemplated whether i should dare scroll down and read the article. I did, out of curiosity to know what reprehensible act did this woman commit to receive such inhuman treatment. And wonder of wonders, all the poor woman did was to protest when a group of locals attempted to encroach on land that belonged to her husband.
What could drive a bunch of locals to behave like their age old, apelike ancestors? I'm sure these ancestors were far more sensitive than we are nowadays. Comfortably numb is what we've become. The age old saying goes, " Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself forever", i guess we could rephrase that to "Teach a man to fish and he'll kill you to be the only one that can fish".
There seems to be a large divergence in today's society. The gap between the haves and have-nots is being stretched to limits which drive people to such violent acts. Of course i'm not attempting to condone the act, but if we don't realize why this has happened, i guess it won't be long before we read something similar again. At the risk of sounding altruistic, we need to bridge the gap between the affluent and destitute. Greed has reached an all time high, where we just dont satisfy it at the expense of others greed but now at the expense of others lives! More More More ....... we've crossed the line of satisfying our needs so long ago that now our greed is our new need. You might not be aware of how your greed affects people you might never meet in your life. It's all supply and demand. The more you demand, with the supply being as it is, the higher the cost. The cost of a house/land is so steep that the average family cannot even dream of owning a house anymore. And thats when we start protecting the little that we have (the poor pregnant woman) or begin putting our hands into other people's bowls (the barbaric locals).
We don't need to start being benevolent, charitable or even altruistic, all we need is to be prudent in separating our needs from our greed. When we know and understand that distinction, only then can we make the choice ...... Need or Greed?