Tag Archives: Commérage

Solace In Death ?

When life gives you lemons, as per society’s advice you’re expected to make lemonade out of them. But what if you do not want any lemonade? Maybe the lemons seem way too sour for any sugar you know of? Maybe you don’t find yourself left with any resources or energy to make any? Or, maybe you’re simply not interested in lemonade, and just want to let go. Does the society have a right to infringe upon your right to choose?

It’s an age-old debate that we are looking at here, i.e., whether or not a person has the right to end his or her own life, and further, whether or not another person may assist or even decide upon one’s life or death, for one’s sufferings to end. The dilemma here is popularly between two views, that constitute the basis of this moral paradox: first, that the right to die and the choice of which are extremely personal, thus demanding for the non-interference of the State; and the other, that constructing a system where the exercise of this right, without its abuse being minimized is impossible. Euthanasia, has been and is being legalised in numerous nations across the globe. What remains is the question over the morality of euthanasia. Should we let a person die if we see no scope of improvement? Or should we leave it to time?

Can we choose for people who cannot themselves?

We have of course chosen for other people in the past. Be it conquering lands to rule people we deemed unfit for self-governance, or granting people special statuses, thinking they would perish otherwise; be it burning women alive, worrying about their survival post their husbands’ death, or reserving political opportunities for them, sceptical of their acceptance as leaders otherwise; or  be it banning same-sex marriage thinking homosexuals couldn’t choose rightly;; people have taken decisions for other people thinking that those other people could not decide for themselves. And as much as one can see, the correctness of these choices was directly dependent upon the correctness of the judgement of the decision makers, about whether the people were capable to choose for themselves or not.

Perhaps, so is the case with morality in the domain of euthanasia. Determine first whether or not the person can elect his or her own fate. There are innumerable cases in which despite doctors having given up, the patients, due to mere will power have made it through the severest of conditions. This can be capitalised upon, by pushing for a psychological encouragement of the patient, to have his or her will kept strong.

But what if the patient wants release? Hope is the greatest God humans have ever known. What if the person sees none left in survival? What if he sees hope in release? No one, obviously has any right whatsoever to hold him back from pursuing this hope. The question here is, how may we determine with surety, if the person really wants to die? Until humanity finds out a way to accurately determine the strength of one’s intentions to die, the legality of euthanasia shall remain a dilemma, perhaps subjective to the cases themselves.

Advertisements

Ephemeral Empathy

Spur of the moment phenomena direct most of our lives today. The hundreds of assaults that took place on New Year’s Eve in Cologne were obviously condemnable. The event, described as TAHARRUSH GAMEA, made it to the international front forthwith. Thanks, perhaps, to facebook pages and the twitterati, the air got high on radical ideas and the human brains decisively co-ordinated and lead us all straight out of our comfy homes to rally against the ‘happening’.

Taharrush gamea is an Arab word meaning collective public harassment of a woman by a group of 20-30 men. Two sets of men encircle the woman; while the inner circle assaults, gropes and pulls at the woman – often tearing her clothes apart and sometimes even raping the woman – the outer circle tries to keep the public distracted. Then, the outer circle moves in and exchanges roles with the inner circle to commit the same unimaginable horrors on the woman. To think that an idea so horrifying originated in the 21st century itself (in some Muslim Nations), only to keep women journalists at bay, leaves one uncertain for the future of our world.

But, undoubtedly, assaults have happened since time immemorial, and everywhere in the world. Only when it happens in this manner, in those Muslim Nations, is it termed as Taharrush Gamea. Otherwise, it is simply called harassment. The Cologne attack was termed Taharrush SOLELY because the offenders were Muslim.

So one can wonder, has a similar thing never happened before? Has a woman never been assaulted in Cologne, or anywhere in the rest of the world? Why do only ‘big’ events lead us out to the streets? And why have we always been prejudiced against all of Islam?

According to WHO, one in every three women has been sexually assaulted at least once in her lifetime. I’m sure we haven’t witnessed a ‘million’ protests rising up against sexual assault, while each of those million victims did experience an equally horrible event. Once we are done with protesting, the event fades into oblivion within no time. The dos and don’ts we draw up once in a year during the ‘big’ events end up more like those set of rules we’d deliberately forget. We need to change this attitude of ours. We need to be affected by every small event, by every inhumane move people make.

Agreed, the offenders were migrants and Muslims. But, not all migrants or Muslims should be forced to bear the brunt of the blame of the people – who want all the migrants out of Germany just because of a few hooligans who exist in every country, cutting across all religions. Most of the migrants were genuinely escaping destruction and war in their original countries, and they desired no violence because they obviously had had their share in their lifetime. Holistically speaking, shouldn’t we be a little considerate towards them?

BUT – let the above discussion not leave an impression that we should pour our hearts out to the offenders too. Our guards need to be strengthened, because when offenders end up stating so shamelessly -“I am a Syrian, you have to treat me nicely—Mrs. Merkel invited me!” (Thanks to the liberal open door policy that ‘Mrs. Merkel’ implemented)- we know that people have started taking advantage of a sensitive situation.

 

Free of All but Responsibility

Freedom is among the most cherished possessions of mankind. Pertaining to the tendencies of the human race, freedom provides contentment, but, it brings with itself an overflow of responsibilities. It must be kept in mind that one’s freedom shouldn’t give one the right to impede another’s freedom. The ones who have freedom also have to think upon the right and wrong of their decisions. Freedom is not absolute. It needs to be respected and upheld, and at the same time, it needs to be checked.

“Supreme Court Judge says that her daughters are liabilities.” This caption along with the photograph of justice Gyan Sudha Misra was published on the front page of an English newspaper. During the disclosure of liabilities and assets, Misra had written: “two daughters to be married” in the column against liabilities. Admittedly, there was no need to mention this as only legal liabilities were to be stated, nevertheless, the newspaper was totally misleading as Ms. Misra’s intention was only to tell that she would have to spend upon her daughters’ marriage. It does not prove that her feelings and emotions towards her children were based upon the monetary expenditure of their nuptials. There are numerous cases where the media has focused upon stories merely for the TRP, and has ignored issues of greater importance. Media and press constitute an important part of society as they are fundamental in shaping our world view. Thus a judicious use of freedom and powers is important.

When we use terms like “responsibility”, it might be viewed as giving powers to the state to curtail the rights of citizens for any reasons which are favorable to them. For example, the Press Law of Syria forbids reporting on topics that are considered to be sensitive by the government. Thus the two notions of freedom and responsibility seem to contradict each other.

The depth this contradiction can attain was witnessed subsequent to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. On one side, Islamists have argued that religion should not be subject to ridicule while on the other hand, people have blamed the extremists for their actions. The claim of the French government of being a protector of free speech came into light as pro-Palestine demonstrations were banned in Paris. Many questions were raised by the international community, some being: was it right to ban the burqa? Is it sufficient to condemn the extremists or do we need to argue upon blasphemy and religious beliefs?

Ideally this battle between the ideologies of responsibility and freedom can be resolved, but our world is far from being ideal. It is difficult to draw the line where freedom should end and responsibility should begin. And who is authorized to draw this line? Should all the powers be given to the government or should there be a scope of individual judgment?

Blurred Lines

We live in an age of more. Every single day, thousands of new companies join the fray to climb to the top of the corporate ladder. This world is ruthless, tossing aside those who do not push the envelope, those who do not take risks. Multinational giants along their way to the top often cross moral lines – entering into ethically grey areas. On such instances who should be held accountable for their misdeeds, the country harboring the company, or the company itself?

Such organizations operate across several countries, often having multiple subsidiaries increasing the complexity of their financial structure. They bank on the fact that different countries have different laws. Such firms establish themselves in countries with laws favorable to them, and herein lies the crux of the case. As long as the company doesn’t break the laws it is bound by, it cannot be held accountable for its actions however close they reach the fringes of what is ethically right. Usually countries structure laws to attract investors and companies, on occasion leaving loopholes for them to exploit.

One such instance is when India signed the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with tax havens such as Mauritius and the Cayman Islands way back in 1982, allowing companies residing in India and one of these two nations to pay their taxes in either territories. This is propitious to firms as these havens exempt certain forms of tax, hence sending a beacon to companies the world over to invest in India. When in 2007, Vodafone orchestrated a transaction through the Caymans without paying any tax – as per the laws of the Cayman Islands – the revenue department of India cried foul. Following an acrimonious court case, the Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Vodafone, cementing the capitalist nature of India’s economic policy.

In the end it was Vodafone’s shrewd interpretation of the law that profited them. Unless countries legislate laws which are not subject to subterfuge, companies can and will continue to capitalize on the situation, for as long as they don’t explicitly break the law they are not culpable for their actions.

Freedom of Expression Vs. National Security

Over the years, there have been several discussions about how much of an individual’s rights can be restricted to ensure the safety of the nation. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of human rights state that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” In several nations however, there are laws that allow the government to curtail an individual’s rights. But, is this just? Should the government have the power to curtail an individual’s basic human right?

During the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai, when a group of terrorists held several civilians hostage in the Taj Hotel, several news stations were reporting live from the scene, and were doing live broadcasts. They were also broadcasting videos of the militants. In this case, the broadcasts could have exposed the militants’ strategies to the terrorists, who held innocent civilians as hostages. This, thus, put civilian lives at risk and the TV stations were banned from broadcasting live from the scene. In such cases, the media houses should be sensible about the information they are broadcasting. They should have taken into consideration the fact that the terrorists could have access to a television, and not have jumped at this as an opportunity to improve their TRP rating. The government did the right thing by stopping the broadcast in this case, despite it curtailing the freedom of expression.

On the other hand however, there are cases like the Tiananmen Square protests on 1989. The protests were forcibly suppressed and the Communist Party of China has forbidden discussion of the event. Within a year of the protest, several newspapers were shut down and over 150 movies and books were banned. Several people born after 1990 are not even aware of this incident. Foreign journalists are frequently denied access to the Tiananmen Square during anniversaries. While the government takes these measures to prevent any future protests like the Tiananmen Square protests, and to prevent civil unrest, it curtails the freedom of expression of millions of people. Also, the reason for censoring this information is not well founded, because censoring all information related to the protests is not going to ensure that no other such protests take place. Neither will people start protesting once they read about this incident. Clearly, in this case, the Chinese Government either has more information about the event that could put the whole nation at risk, or have ulterior motives behind censoring the information. Maybe they just fear that this information will inspire others to protest against the corrupt officials and other issues with the Chinese government.

While it is important that the nation’s security is given more importance than an individuals’ rights, there will be corrupt officials who can take advantage of this and misuse it. But on the other hand, if the state does not have powers to curtail an individuals’ freedom of expression, the individual can also misuse it and put the entire nation at risk. Hence, the state should have the power to curtail the rights of an individual to protect the interests of the state. However, there should be methods to ensure that this is not misused by government officials. An independent committee, for example, can be set up to look into these issues.

who is to Blame?

Who is to be blamed for the devastation in Ukraine? Is it the culmination of long-repressed tension between the pro-Russian and pro-European blocs within the nation? Is it the result of Putin exercising the ideology of Russian Imperialism on the neighbouring sovereign nation? Perhaps it is the result of the European Union and NATO overstepping their boundaries, followed by certain elements in Ukraine calling for Big Brother Russia’s help? Could it be the result of an energy conflict for the natural gas reserves and pathways present in the country? Or maybe, like in any other massive international conflict, is there more than one reason, or entity, at fault?

Since 1991, the US has shown a vested interest in promoting its Western dogma in Ukraine and other post-Soviet nations. It was estimated that by 2013, the US had invested over $5 billion to help Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves,” – an investment that worried Russia. Parallel to its social engineering campaign, the US has been pushing NATO for over the past two decades to expand into Eastern Europe, an initiative that Russia strongly, and clearly, opposed. Its invasion of Georgia in 2008 was a blatant warning advising NATO to keep away from its borders. To further express his displeasure, Putin delivered a thinly veiled threat to the US president stating that if Ukraine was folded into NATO, it would disappear. However, this did not dissuade the US for long. Within two years of this incident, the European Union had started pushing Ukraine to sign an economic treaty with them.

Viktor Yanukovych was elected as the 4th president of Ukraine on the 25th of February, 2010. Most of his support base comes from the pro-Russian Eastern and South-eastern regions of Ukraine, specifically, the Crimea peninsula. Despite this, one of his directives as president was to sign the proposed treaty with the EU, a directive that was getting closer to being realized as the winter of 2013 drew nearer, a realization that was drawing too close to comfort for Russia.

From the Russian perspective, this treaty was the last straw. For decades, Russia had been watching the US steam roll its agenda into Ukraine, slowly, but surely turning the minds of its people, and pulling it further away from Russia’s purview. If the US managed to convert Ukraine, then Russia’s borders would be wide open to pan-European influence – an eventuality that Russia simply could not allow. So, in the interests of self-preservation, Russia placed Ukraine under economic pressure, until Yanukovych had no choice but to make an about face, reject the EU treaty, and instead accept a Russian counteroffer.

This one action acted as the catalyst for the explosion of tension that had been building between Russia and the Western powers for over decades.

Many of the pro-European parties in Ukraine were outraged at this action, and immediately began protesting, finally culminating in the occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square. During the course of these demonstrations, many clashes were reported between special police forces and the protesters, leading to the deaths of about 100 civilians – it seemed as though Ukraine was on the brink of a civil war between the pro-European faction and the pro-Russian faction.

Western emissaries hurried to Kiev in hopes of solving the crisis before it erupted into a full on conflict. On the 21st of Februaury, 2014, Yanukovych declared that he had come to an agreement with the opposition, and that he would continue as president, but restrict his powers so that if the people demanded, a new president could be elected. Sadly, this arrangement fell through, and by the next day, Yanukovych had resigned and fled to Southern Russia. What remained was a government that was pro-European, and anti-Russian to the core.

The day after Yanukovych fled, a parliament meeting was called in which he was formally impeached, and exiled. Except, according to the then Constitution of Ukraine, this removal lacked the required number of votes. Furthermore, the next day, Yanukovych was formally charged with the ‘mass killing of civilians.’

Strangely enough, the Prime Minister of the new government was the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the same man a leaked telephone recording revealed as Victoria Nuland’s (the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs) first choice.

Realizing that the whole coup d’état had been planned by Washington, Russia silently sent unmarked troops into Ukraine, ostensibly to help maintain peace, but, actually to help annex Crimea from Ukraine, as they revealed after the fact. The legitimization Russia presented for this action was a signed note from Yanukovych seeking Russian aid to help protect the bodies and interests of the citizens of Ukraine. However, it can be argued that Russia’s true motive was keeping the strategic military position of the Crimea peninsula out of NATO’s hands.

What is to be noted is that, at best, both Russia and the US only honored the words of the law, and not the intent behind them. The only logical conclusion is that both these nations had separate agendas that they wished to further, and Ukraine was the most convenient tool available.

Self-preservation is quite clearly the driving force behind Russia’s decisions, but, what is the US’s? What drove Washington to engineer a coup d’état in Ukraine?

A number of possible motives have been proposed. The first being that the US was after Ukraine’s natural gas. The appointment of Hunter Biden, US vice president Joe Biden’s son, to the board of directors of Ukraine’s largest private gas firm lends credence to this theory. Another possible motive is the possible insecurity the US felt about Russia’s proposed experimentation with China to replace the Dollar, an experimentation that would cripple the US economy. Bringing Russia to its geopolitical knees would be a sure fire way of avoiding this outcome. One more motive behind the US coup could be the US neoconservatism agenda against Russia. After the Putin-Obama alliance which avoided bombing Syria and bankrupting Iran, the noncons definitely had a bone to pick with Russia. The US’s continued aggression towards Moscow would also be explained by this motive.

Although the US agenda in this conflict is murky, the sentiments of the Ukrainian people are not. At the moment, the whole nation is polarized between Russian ideologies, and Western European ideologies. Within a span of nine months, the Ukrainian people had experienced over 2,200 deaths, a number that was quickly on the rise. To these people, this conflict is a bitter struggle to express their desires, and to live the lives that they envision for themselves. They know that it is bloodshed started by an age old rivalry. They know that if the EU hadn’t made advances on their country, the massacre could have been prevented. To them, this is the struggle of their lifetime, and the struggle that will define the lifetimes of their children.

These people know that their country is just another casualty of the age-old US – USSR geopolitical game, but they are powerless to do anything. Anything but play along. The match has been struck, the spark has been fed, and now all that remains is to wait for the fire to die down.

terrorism

As of late, the terrorism in the Middle East has been growing to larger and larger peaks. It has broken the shackles of geographic boundaries and has managed to touch the entire globe. The number of people that leave their homes to sign up for the terrorist cause is staggering – over 15,000 people joined up from 80 countries throughout the world in the four short months after ISIS began to mobilize in the June of last year. This number begs the question: what is capable of driving thousands of people, some of whom lead comfortable lives, to drop everything, travel across the world, undergo rigorous combat training, and throw their lives away in a bloody martyrdom?

Many studies have been conducted to better understand this international radicalization process – specifically on the types of people which are most receptive to it. However, the results of these studies end up creating more questions than they answer. Unsurprisingly, certain of the sects of Muslims which feel marginalized or segregated from the rest of society are prone to turn to terrorism. Peculiarly, it has also been observed that most European insurgents are well-off, sociable representatives of the middle class – some of them having only recently converted to Islam. These two groups demonstrate a stark contrast in the kinds of people who give up their lives for terrorism, and it is only logical to assume that there is a similar contrast in their respective reasons for doing so.

Many Muslim communities in the Western World are isolated from the remainder of the society that they belong to. Although this isolation is many times self-imposed, the sentiments of oppression and marginalization that it creates are just as powerful as they would be if it were not. This is not to say that all such communities are spawning grounds for terrorists – only the most extremist of them are. For the disgruntled members of these communities, the life of a terrorist represents the perfect way to strike back at who they see as their Western oppressors. To them, inspiring fear through acts of brutality is the most effective method to draw attention to their cause.

The reasons respectable, middle class people end up joining terrorist organizations are much more difficult to pin down. Much of what is understood at the moment about their motives is still conjecture. The most popular theory is that perhaps they are running away from some aspect of their lives that they cannot bear to face; such as financial or social problems. Or maybe they have some criminal record that they wish to expiate, and they believe the terrorist cause is their vehicle to do so. In some instances, adolescents join up merely because they are at the junction in their lives when living in a camp and shooting guns seems appealing. If these kinds of people suddenly hear about what ‘Islam’ has to offer, then, obviously, they will jump at the chance to convert and realize their own aspirations.

In recent years, the number of people in the Western nations approaching Muslim religious leaders to ask for conversion has significantly increased. What is more telling, however, is the number of people who disappear after being taught what Islam is, and represents, by these authorities. There are people out there, living in our societies, slowly but surely spreading the propaganda that terrorist organizations adhere to.

But, although these reasons offer a somewhat satisfactory explanation for why terrorists choose to be terrorists, they do not explain how terrorists – rational human beings no different from us – can possibly justify the barbarous murders of innocents to themselves.

These men and women have interpreted the teachings of the Quran and applied them to the present world in a certain way – a way that allows them to accept and even relish in the loss of innocent life. According to their interpretation, any government that chooses to oppose them, and take military action against them, can only do so with the support of its people. In this way, every citizen of the nation becomes responsible for the inevitable loss of terrorist life that occurs during combat. Moreover, although terrorists accept that women and children not directly involved in the fighting are innocent, since they sleep and eat in the same countries that house the armies killing terrorists, their deaths too are sanctioned by God. Furthermore, an interpretation of a specific line in the Quran leads one to believe that even Islamic people living in Western nations are not truly Islamic, by virtue of the fact that they accept Christian or Jewish leaders. Through this tangled web of spurious logic, terrorists have managed to rationalize the killing of anybody who so much as is present in a nation warring against them.

These men and women put their religion on a pedestal, and allay any guilt they feel for their actions by telling themselves that they are merely the instruments of God’s design. To these men and women, even logic as absurd as this is acceptable, because what they are looking for is not a reason to kill, but an excuse to kill. The more logical the terrorists’ minds are, the deeper they must immerse themselves in their excuse, to escape the self-recrimination. This excuse is repeated so many times in the minds of terrorists that eventually, they begin to truly believe it; and the product of this mental conditioning are the religious zealots we see now terrorizing the world.