Answer Please

(published in the college magazine of the Physics Department in its 2009. To view this please visit http://kmcollege.com/colleges/notes-tut/112718052010131540.1.pdf on pages 26-29)

.
With due respect to Darwin’s theory, I have always felt great difficulty in accepting it. I could never ignore the striking distinction between us and all other creatures of earth. Physically and structurally it is said that we are at the end of the evolution-chain. We are made to notice the gradual change in the structure of the creatures placed in this chain. But why it is that there is no such gradual change in the mental strength of the creatures on our earth? Chimpanzees are understood to be just before us in this chain and attempts are made to show that brain-wise they are closest to us. But is this statement true for each creature placed in this chain? Can’t we notice a catastrophic shift in the mental strength of human beings from all other creatures?

What evolution???
What I notice is that the human beings are quite different from all other creatures of earth. Only we need clothes! Only we need cars! Only we need factories! Only we need electricity! Only we need pens! Only we need fans! Only we need cinema! Only we need guns! Only we need nuclear bombs! Only we need fridges! Only we need air-conditioners! Only we need ovens! Only we need fuels! Only we need papers! Only we need telephones! Only we need plastic! Name a single creature that needs even a pin! In fact, use of technology and learning from research activities separates us from all other creatures on earth. But strikingly, that is what goes against the nature!
And this is why there is another big ‘only’ with us! We are the only ones who try to imbalance nature!

Are we destructors???
We are the only creature that is not satisfied with what the nature has naturally given us. We want more even if it comes at the cost of the nature. Population growth creates burden on earth but remarkably only in the case of human beings.
Sometimes I think that probably human beings are planted on earth and that is why we are unfit to live here. We fight to live here somehow. Are we destined to destroy earth and lives on it? Aren’t we working in that direction? Most of our technological developments are in fact our fight against the nature. What is medical science? Even that is our fight against nature? Why do we want to fight against nature to stay longer on earth and create another imbalance on earth? Only we are the cause of greenhouse effect! Only we are the reason behind global warming! None of the other creatures can be blamed for developing weapons of mass destruction!

Who are we???
Whereas other creatures seem to be adjusting well with not only the life but also the death planned for them on earth, we are satisfied with neither of them. Whereas others behave as if they are on earth just to live their life, we want to enjoy and extend our stay here! Whereas others give the impression that they are here with a purpose that goes beyond their life on earth, we are entirely ignorant of any other purpose. One who does not know the entire dynamics and purpose of our lives and beyond, can only take a ‘Kalidas approach’ of cutting the branch on which he hangs!! In the absence of any knowledge of the purpose of our stay on earth beyond our lives, we are here ultimately to destroy earth!!
Are we all here serving some sentence given somewhere else beyond the known boundaries of life? Are we in a prison? Are we already in a hell or heaven? Something is missing.

Do you have answers???

The Cattle-Class Debate

-

Who got hurt by the 'cattle-class-remark'? The fact is that those who understand merely the meaning of these ‘words’ never got hurt. A miniscule of our population who belong to the ‘cattle-class’ of a plane-journey is feeling the bruises left by the sharp edges of the words that Mr. Tharoor used. Only this class knows the way this phrase is used by the people of the developed country. But those who cannot afford to be even of that class are not bothered. The whole print and visual media and all the channels today took pains to remind the ‘rail-class’ and ‘bus-class’ that what idea Mr. Tharoor would be having of these classes if he thinks such of the economy-cattle-class. Let me tell them that they need not tell this to them since these classes know from ages that they belong to the ‘insect-class’. Nobody would feel agitated by this well known ‘revelation’. The ‘cattle-class’ wants the support of ‘insect-class’ in condemning the statement since they are in a miniscule minority. But unfortunately (for them) the 'insect-class' know their worth. Nobody needs a reminder to recall the differential compensations routinely announced by the concerned minister when a bus meets an accident, when a train accident takes place and when a plane hijacking occurs. It was the ‘cattle-class’ along with the ‘elite-class’ for whom the deal was made in ‘Kandahar’. It is anybody’s guess as to what would have happened even if only ‘cattle-class’ were present on the flight. The plight of the ‘cattle-class’ is that they were thinking hitherto that the ‘insect-class’ was in fact the ‘cattle-class’!
It is the media that is these days running our country. Due to this an opinion gets undue attention over another opinion not only because of the merit of the case. Media in India, is working like ad-campaigners. It is first decided by them that what is to be given attention and then all of them start beating the same track. I am yet to see the media remaining aloof when the gay community-verdict is discussed. I am yet to see a balanced approach from them whenever Mr. Narender Modi is mentioned in any context. I have always seen the media clearly taking a side when views about RSS and its Parivar are discussed. It is the ‘elite-class-gays’ and the ‘cattle-class-gays’ who are listened to while a discussion takes place. Those who sit in the opposition to this verdict invariably belong to the ‘insect-class’ and never get a proper representative for their views. Who does not want board examinations? In our system it is the examination-marks that is often used by the ‘insect-class’ to show their supremacy over the ‘cattle-class’ and the ‘elite-class’ combined. Now they want to use their class-identity to off-set a difference that may exist between two same-grade students. It is very clear that the ‘cattle-class’ and the ‘elite-class’ are heard by the media when they want sex-education (meaning ‘education-for-sex’) in schools whereas the ‘insect-class’ who wants sex-education (meaning ‘education-for-no-sex’) is never given their due attention.
Media is on the same side as that of the ‘cattle-class’ and they are going to win the battle irrespective of what the ‘insect-class’ thinks of the whole issue.

Politics of Hate Speeches

(Published in the weekly magazine ORGANISER in its May 24, 2009 issue. You can visit http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=292&page=25 )

I am surprised to see the likes of Javed Akhtar and others who on one issue are always visibly vocal in support of ‘freedom of expression’ but on another incident are now strangely advocating to curb the freedom of speech. There is no doubt that Varun Gandhi’s utterances qualify for being a hate speech but I equally fail to accept the ‘freedom of expression’ associated with the hate-paintings of Hussain or Hashmi. How can their paintings be considered as ‘expressions of respect’ or ‘depiction of truth’ and not hate. A lecture on ‘gender discrimination’ turns into an accepted hate speech against men, a lecture on 'social reforms' gets morphed into a hate speech on the upper cast minority, 'concern for worker’s cause' manifests itself in the spontaneous eruption of naxal-like hate towards capitalists. But these are valid and accepted hate campaigns. Throwing shoes on George Bush creates hero out of a man but spitting on a Kashmiri separatist leader qualifies for being an unacceptable and thoroughly condemnable behavior. Pragya qualifies for being hanged without interrogation but Afzal needs to be freed even after conviction. I am fed up of noticing for so long that attributing unproven intentions to Narendra Modi ( ‘Firaaq’ is the latest in the series and many others are destined to follow) is not a hate campaign against a democratically elected popular government but is unveiling the hitherto un-established truth.
Are we trying to establish that there are some 'justified' hate expressions and some 'unjustified' hate expressions? Are these not justifying the blame often hurled on us that a hate expression against majority is justified whereas a hate expression against minority is unacceptable?
We all know that Pakistan is a creation of a hate campaign, Babri structure demolition was a culmination of another such hate campaign, Gujrat riots were the result of an ultimate hate campaign and 1984 riots are yet another example of such campaign. Cases are far so many and instead of accepting the need to investigate the causes of successive successes of such hate campaigns and try for its removal we try to take an ostrich-approach! We must understand that hate speeches do not manufacture or create hatred out of nothing, they just try to cash on the existing hate present in the society and uses the differences prevalent in our society in its favor. The solution lies in identifying the root cause of the differences and addressing them face to face. This problem is not going to die on its own and is actually aggravating with our attitude of 'ignoring the real issue'.
And please for God’s sake do not advise me to find a solution within the constitutional framework since our constitution has never been treated as sacred and has conveniently suffered several hundreds of amendments. We already have a provision of Article 370 in the same constitution which justifies solution beyond our constitution (it is really confusing!!!). Instead let us first investigate the problem completely and then find a convincing solution after that we would try to get it implemented by all means.

Ragging the menace

Ragging exposes the truth behind the argument that students studying in colleges are mature enough to decide what is good for them and there is no need to have moral policing on them. Some meaningful corrections are required in the statements such as that they are mature enough to decide whom to vote, what to wear, how much and what to drink, when to party, when to have sex and how to have it. Main argument in favor of this is that if they are indulging in something that is not illegal then no one has the authority to stop them. It is disturbing to notice that these days every issue in a 'civilized?' society is getting decided by its legality but not for setting a moral standard. In the cases of ragging, the fact is that some students cross even the legal border while exercising their freedom to have interaction with juniors. They are unable to restrain themselves while enjoying their freedom. And this is the point where we all feel that there is a need to frame a law to restrain them.
Incidences of ragging are now going too far. There is no doubt that some immediate steps are required to be taken in this respect. A promising life coming to a sad end is a huge loss to our society and country. At least now UGC is in the process of framing some regulations that would make the law against ragging effective.
As a matter of fact our society is based on hierarchical structure. We believe in senior-junior concept. Stability of our society is based on this model. We expect juniors to respect seniors. Ideally this respect comes from within when juniors observe the sacrifices of their seniors for them. However the age at which students get admission to a school or a college, they happen to be in an impatient state of mind. They want to earn respect from their juniors at any cost and that too in a very short time. Ragging is the manifestation of this attitude.
It is well known law of physics that a system finds its equilibrium by finding a state of lowest energy. In the language of science a chaotic state is the most stable state having lowest energy and largest entropy. And every system wants to achieve this state if left to its freedom.
It is therefore, one must understand that freedom can never insure a civilized society. You need laws to make any society civilized. Arguments such as that college-going students are mature enough to decide what is right and what is wrong might help a group in achieving their sick agenda of pushing sex, wine and violence into this age but the hard fact is that the society should never abdicate its responsibility of telling them the difference between right and wrong. Now the time has come when they must be told what is legal and what is not.
Our society has a responsibility to frame laws and regulations to help all of us, irrespective of our age, in distinguishing between right and wrong. Nothing is illegal till it is decided by a rule of law. What is legal today may become illegal tomorrow and vice-versa. The society has the responsibility of identifying issues on which rules are required to be made to declare an act illegal. In the absence of such legal moral policing the "illegal moral policing" has started gaining ground in alarming proportions.
Since we never bothered to have teachers with high moral values, we have crossed the stage where we can expect to curb this menace of ragging with the help of moral policing by teachers and authorities in any educational institution. We are left with no option but to have a tough law which must be strictly observed to eradicate this menace.