Note

From now on, I will mostly be writing on http://www.onkarbhardwaj.wordpress.com

Thanks for stopping by!

Emotional blackmail?

Yesterday we at RPI had planned to come together for candle-light march. It was later changed to discussion session when Anna Hazare ended his fast. It was nice to see 20+ people in such a small Indian community coming together to discuss things.

Some people raised the issue if the method used was tantamount to emotional blackmail. Well, I would say yes. Personally I feel that every method has its appropriate time of use. The times at which such emotional blackmail would work are -
1. To address the issue nothing has been done since ages or there are no chances of something being done in near future. It means that unless you kick the executing body, it won't move.
2. There is 100% public support. The hunger strike worked for corruption issue because everyone supported the cause. It may not work if some group went on hunger strike demanding jobs or reservations.
3. The people going on hunger strike should be of highest integrity. Otherwise general public or government won't listen to them.

It's not that any of the above conditions should hold but all of them (and possibly some more) should hold true if the hunger strike is to have some chances of getting success. In such situations, I do not really care if it amounts to emotional blackmail.

Not a single solution

A funny thing I noticed while reading the comments on various forums about Anna Hazare's movement. According to different comments -
1. The actual solution was to change voter mentality
2. The actual solution was that good people should enter politics
3. The actual solution was to enact the laws to prevent corruption
maybe some more of these types. Somehow people seem to think that there is just one real solution to such problems. In reality however you need a combination of solutions. Just like effective treatment for a patient needs good environment, healthy food and effective medicines.

We need all the above solutions for tackling corruption, no matter in what order they get done.

Frame of Reference

When Tendulkar will retire, our childhood will end.

The childhood of my entire generation has been synonymous with Tendulkar. We lunched with him, studied with him, talked with him, played with him, laughed with him, cried with him. We literally grew up on the images of his magical game. His game virtually got woven into our DNA.

When we watch him play, the grown-up person in us goes in the backdrop and a child enters in our eyes. That excitement returns, blithely unaware of the crude realities. The concept of age completely vanishes, to pick up and savor the last few remains of innocent joy.

Tomorrow the childhood of my entire generation will be dying to watch its hero seeking the glory. And it will refuse to leave us until the hero takes his final bow.

Perhaps for the first time, I feel good about Europe/US intervening in some country. The typical arguments I have read against the intervention in Libya are of following types:

1. The fairness argument:
Why not intervene in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Algeria, Morocco?
- You cannot do the right thing everywhere, but that does not mean you should not do it anywhere. It may be too huge an area for military operations. You have to have priorities. Oil in Libya may put it on top of priority list, and also because of the momentum the Libyan movement has gathered.

2. The conspiracy argument:
Egypt may have been revolution by people but it was US & co who incited people in Libya for their oil. They are there only for the oil and nothing else.
- US cannot incite people to capture majority of the country. Libyan rebels had captured in majority of the country. Inciting people to such a scale without knowledge of the rulers is impossible task. *Forty-two* years of tyranny is much more plausible reason for the uprising.
And even if they intervene in Libya for oil, its acceptable. If the oil from Libya stops flowing, the rates of oil will go sky-high and break the spine of world economy. Also, trade can benefit both the parties but if not intervened, Libyans suffer alone in massacre. Gaddafi had already promised that he will hunt people going house to house.

3. The peace argument:
War is never right. Peace is the way.
- Too idealistic. War should be used as the last resort when possibilities for peace are none. No further comments.

4. The leave-them-alone argument:
Rebels requested intervention to stop massacre. Gaddafi warned against it. Who will you listen to? If your neighbor starts shooting his family, will you not complain or will you put earplugs and pretend you don't care? The world is connected, you are not isolated. When something reaches tipping point and starts affecting you directly/indirectly, you have to pay some attention to it.

Of course, my opinion is based on assumptions and subjective. My opinion doesn't count too. (That does not mean I should not give it a voice). Also, it may be possible that reality is entirely different. What is real has always been an interesting question troubling proletariat like us.

There are no democracy, freedom.
There are no Obamas, Blairs, Gaddafis, Mubaraks.
There are only oil wells, economics, guns, bullets and survival.
And there is also you, who still believes that the truth is better than this.

I wish nothing else but to speak simply
please grant me this privilege
because we have burdened our song with so much music
that it is slowly sinking
and our art has become so ornate
that the makeup has corroded her face
and it is time to say our few simple words
because tomorrow our soul sails away

- Giorgos Seferis (1900-1971)