Urge to Fly - current_affairs

Which Tune Shall We Sing?

noreply@blogspirit.com (Khwaahish-e-Parwaaz) — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:10:00 +0530

The Vande Mataram controversy is nothing new. Ever since the song was first penned by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1876 and it later appeared in his novel, Anand Math, the song has found itself mired in unnecessary controversy. And now the UPA government has given this controversy a fresh lease of life, only to be lapped up eagerly by the BJP and the so-called Hindu Nationalists (read fundamentalists) to give it a twist that suits their communal agenda.

The genesis of resistance always lies in force. If you force someone to do something, resistance is the natural outcome. That's what's happening now. One section wants to make singing of the song compulsory, another opposes it as being anti-Islamic. While the saffron-hued fundamentalists are quick to label those who don't want to sing the song as traitors, the green wing calls it against their religion not only because the song supports idolatry but also because the novel it appears in talks about Hindus using the song as a sort of war-cry against oppressive Muslims. Both these opposing views are completely misplaced.

Let's look at the saffron version first. How justified is it for them to call those who don't want to sing Vande Mataram as traitors? Is patriotism all about singing a song? Does patriotism mean imposing one's views on others? Remember, Vande Mataram is the national song of India but nowhere does the Constitution make its singing compulsary for all Indians. How many Indians know the meaning of the song anyway?…

Balanced View

noreply@blogspirit.com (Khwaahish-e-Parwaaz) — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:15:00 +0530

Fact #1: A man kills his wife
Fact #2: He kills her after they go to watch a film together
Fact #3: The film they watch is Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna
Fact #3: A similar case happens in another part of the country

Conclusion: Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna is pushing people to commit heinous crimes.

You must be thinking I'm crazy. Not at all! I'm only trying to tell you what a few so-called news channels would have us believe a few days back.

Now consider some other facts:
Fact: In the first case, the couple had been living separately. The husband called his wife under the pretext of a reconciliation with an offer to watch Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna. They didn't even get to the theatre - the husband killed the wife before that
Fact: In the second case, the murder was pre-meditated, with every move carefully planned. The choice of movie was only incidental.

Why did these channels jump to conclusions without even bothering to get the facts right? Because it ensured that they got the eyeballs they wanted. Despite all the mixed reviews KANK is getting, it is without doubt the most talked about film in recent memory. What better way to get eyeballs than to create a 'controversial' story about the film.

I'm completely disappointed with the quality of programming of the 24 hour news channels. Not that I like the other channels. But if those channels show saas-bahu sagas ad nauseum and show little innovation in…

At your service, Uncle Sam

noreply@blogspirit.com (Khwaahish-e-Parwaaz) — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:00:00 +0530

"A key Bush administration official on Monday advised India to rely on hard evidence before drawing conclusions in the Mumbai terror attacks, while obliquely criticizing New Delhi for implicating Islamabad in the blasts and calling off talks."

Sure, Uncle Sam. Your 'advice' is our command. You, after all, have the onerous responsibility of being the benignly just guardian of this world. You lead by example, and we, your subjects, must follow. If my memory doesn't fail me, you had incontrovertible evidence before you drew your conclusions about Iraq and pushed almost the entire world into a war. How does it matter that nobody could find any evidence of the WMDs that you said Saddam possessed? Your word was the evidence - so strong an evidence that the war became a necessity.

What evidence do we have? We only 'suspect' a Pakistani hand in the Mumbai blasts. But, Uncle Sam, even though it's just a suspicion, wouldn't it be better if we held off for a while before continuing the so-called 'peace' talks? We haven't gone on an offensive, it's just that the 'confidence building measures' have been deferred. Or do you think we should follow your example, manufacture some 'hard evidence' and launch a full-fledged offensive?

We're too inexperienced when it comes to terrorism, right? What is 20+ years of ceaseless terrorism compared to just one spectacular act on your land not even 5 years ago? So why don't you let your 'experienced' hand guide us?

We're at your service, Uncle…

Right to Information

noreply@blogspirit.com (Khwaahish-e-Parwaaz) — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:55:00 +0530

Now that the Rahul Mahajan episode has moved from the front pages of newspapers to the tenth, I'm ready to express my opinion. Enough has been said about it, tons of newsprint and air time devoted to it. My intention is not to go into the details of the case, the rights and wrongs of it. I just want to express my opinion on an article I read recently in one of the newspapers.

The columnist in question (who, interestingly, works for a news channel) wrote about how we, as common people, change our opinions like a chameleon changes its colours. The view was that we are 'responsible' for first painting Rahul Mahajan as a saint, a dutiful son of a wronged father, then sympathizing with him, and finally writing him off as a spoilt son of a high-profile celebrity. True that the change in public opinion has been drastic, but how can you blame the people for that?

An opinion, by definition, is something a person believes or accepts as being sound or true. And this 'belief' is based on the available information. So, if one has limited information available, one’s opinion will obviously be limited. And as more information becomes available, the opinion is bound to change.

Now let's looks at the information we have had about Rahul Mahajan. When we first saw him presenting a picture of remarkable maturity and poise at the time of his father's funeral, that was all the information we had. What we saw…