While sitting on the toilet seat I was thinking about what to post on my content writing and copywriting blog. Some thought string lead me to MySpace and I remembered how a majority of listings there are meant to attract the members of the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever). Generally, conventionally, people who actively seek mates are made fun of, and I was just thinking, what’s wrong in actively seeking a girlfriend or a boyfriend, and what’s wrong if people visit social places like parties and pubs to “accidentally” bump into prospective partners? And what’s wrong if it becomes an obsession unless you don’t physically assault people in the feverish pursuit?
It’s I think the same as following a passion for sports, arts, physical well being, affluence, etc. People work so hard to acquire wealth. Players practice everyday to maintain the body and flexibility they need to perform when the need arises. Artists study other artists and continuously practice their art to excel. In the same way, the seekers of love look for partners at various places and they do seem desperate to the biased minds. Such people are often termed as “losers” because they have to make extra effort to find partners: it signifies a personality defect. It’s not a personality defect and nothing lacks in the person who has to actively seek a love partner.
And to be frank, everybody, consciously or unconsciously is looking for a partner whether we accept it or not — I’m talking about the non-bachelor-spinster side of the world — till we find someone acceptable, or till someone is forced down upon our throats. In fact people who accept that they are looking for someone are courageous and are not afraid to face the ridicule of the social circle.
OK, I think this post had no point to make :-).
Right now I’m reading Literary Occasions: a collection of literary essays by V. S. Naipaul. I started reading the book with a bias. The Indian media is not very fond of Naipaul — he is considered snobbish and defamatory, especially his attitude towards the Indian hypocrisy. Till now I’ve enjoyed reading him. He is candid, of course, but fortunately I don’t suffer from the prevalent ostrich mentality. He doesn’t mince words when he rues over how the Muslim invaders and rulers destroyed the ancient Hindu culture and society. I guess this is something the “secular” India cannot digest.
I’ll write more about the book once I’ve finished reading it.
Update: I’ve been reading a bit after writing this post and hence, an update. First, Nilesh, a commenter, has opined here that keeping Saddam Hussein and the likes alive would be a needless burden upon the taxpayers. Although I don’t disagree, our governments spend so much on anti-terrorists campaigns that this expenditure would be trifle.
Second, Siddharth Varadarajan sent me an article written by him titled To the victor belongs the judge’s gavel through my contact form. He begins his article (published in The Hindu) with
The show trial of Saddam Hussein was not just a violation of international legal norms by a court operating under the reality of foreign occupation but also an insult to the victims in whose name this political farce was enacted.
I think such articles are a pitiable statement upon the affairs of the world we live in today where we constantly blur the line between rhetoric, logic and reality. All of a sudden there is a hue and cry for the poor Saddam Hussein who so innocently released the poison gas among the Kurds and killed them like cockroaches (no offence to cockroaches although they scare the shit out of me). His entire family was psychopathic; tongues were chopped off, eyes for gorged out, innocent children were decapitated and the vaginas of teenage girls were mutilated to satisfy the perverted sexual urges of his sons under his very nose. He was a dictator of the worst kind and you can easily compare him to the kinds of Ceausescu, Hitler, Stalin, or Pinochet. Who cares he gets justice or not? Does our intellectual heart bleed only for the criminals who somehow become the rulers? What about all those innocent people who die as their victims?
In Samna, the mouthpiece of the Shiv Sena, it’s been written that India should take sides with Suddam Hussein just because he says Kashmir belongs to India. Are we such a lost case that we need endorsements from him? In fact it should be an embarrassment if he speaks for India.
The favorite argument of the intelligentsia is that America is at the core of the entire trial and in fact it should be Bush who should be punished for his war crimes. I totally agree. America needs to be punished for many war crimes, not only for Iraq. The worst cruelties perpetrated by various regimes happen with full American support and endorsement just because they serve the “American interest”. But why this hoarse-crying just when Saddam is being tried? How do his crimes mitigate under the glares of the American crimes, and why do the American crimes attain so much limelight when a loony is being punished, wherever in the world? Bush and his government are environment’s worst enemies and let’s be frank, we’ve only got one planet here and all the wars, war crimes, terrorist attacks, Jihads and the campaigns against the WMDs can only happen if we have the bloody planet under our feet. No intellectual writes about those crimes so feverishly. Punish a Saddam Hussein and the liberty and sovereignty of the world is endangered. This is bullshit.
I read another article published in the Asian Age today where the author has written against the death sentence of Mohammad Afzal Guru and she too follows the much-toed line of the human rights and such. Of course he shouldn’t be hanged because I too find the death sentence barbaric but this doesn’t make him less guilty. The rampant confusion takes place when instead of writing against the death sentence, these confused human-rights activists start writing in favor of the accused (the state is always bad, the accused is always innocent, according to them). They lose track of what the real issue is.
Terrorists and their heads take advantage of this crooked mentality of the so-called activists and intellectuals. The obfuscation is so deep-rooted that sometimes they cannot even correctly define what terrorism is. Afzal and Saddam, sadly, might get the benefit of the same mentality, and hundreds, and perhaps thousands of innocent people will have to pay the price.
The original post follows
Here’s another death sentence that shouldn’t have been awarded. No, I’m not an ardent member of the Saddam Hussein fan club. Neither have I had any soft corner for his ilk. By granting death sentence you needlessly turn these slimies into venerated heroes. Death sentence — as long as it is practiced — should be awarded to really heinous criminals who enjoy no sympathy from any section of the society. Criminals who have got some iota of sympathy from a misguided section of the society should be quietly granted multiple life sentences. Saddam should’ve been quietly given a jail sentence of 200 years where he would have died a death of obscurity.
But I can understand the feelings of those too who are in favor of death sentences. I know it is very hard to believe, but there are many criminals in India who fight elections and get people assassinated or abducted from their prison cells and they live more lavish lives in jails. They become the lawmakers while in jail. Saddam, no matter how dastardly his acts were, has great leadership qualities that he can exploit as long as he is alive. For such people I recommend life-long house-arrest with no means to communicate to the outside world. Just to make sure he doesn’t become a pain-enduring symbol of “resistance”, he should be kept in a very comfortable house with all modern facilities. Let him die a natural death and people will forget him instantly.
I wonder when the word “Sikh” came into origin. Did it come when Guru Gobind Singhji established the Khalsa Panth back in 1699 on the day of Baisakhi or was the word known prior to that? The question came to my mind after reading this page on Guru Amar Das — the fourth (among the 10) guru of the Sikhs. If you go down a bit on this page, you’ll find a heading:
How did Guru ji become a Sikh?
As far as I know, Sikh as a term didn’t exist at that time. Or may be the term was there, as the meaning of a Sikh is a student, a disciple, and in terms of the religion, it is a person who lives according to the Gurmat, which means the teaching of the Gurus.
I should get hold of a good book on Sikh history. Khushwant Singh wrote two volumes. I’ll get them first.
RSS Feeds
My Social Media Links