Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Philosophy of 'Rights'

The definition of right and wrong depends upon the perceptions of the perceiver. Why otherwise we would be faced with undesirable incidents that have a massive negative impact on the mass? This forces us to ponder if there is a mass defect in the thinking of the executors of these acts, as well as in that of the incubators of these executors. After all nobody commits oneself to an act without thinking it to be the right one, under the circumstance…the only difference being the fact that they look through the window of their circumstance. Hence they do what they think is right, irrespective of the wrongs it causes. If only they took the time to feel and not think what is right and hence should be their course of action, we would have a scenario which would be hailed as good by all…and not only by them.

The time is ripe when we started doing things because it felt right…and not simply because it is our right, the ‘rights’ that we have been accorded with, courtesy The Constitution of the country. Merely going by them have constituted what, is for everyone to see. 

Using our ‘right to vote’ we vote, and elect our representatives to the Parliament (and Legislative Assembly). But
(i) Do we vote for the ‘right’ person?
(ii) Do we have the option of ‘choosing’ the ‘right’ person?
(iii) Do we vote, simply because it is our ‘right’?
(iv) Do we vote because doing otherwise would label us irresponsible?

Well, I had written a blog on these lines: “Right of Right”,  and I had received flak from a few of the readers...and support too, from some. That is quite natural as each one of us has again, “freedom of speech, the right to expression”. So as I use mine freely, free are others too.

Criticisms are immaterial but not the importance of these questions, which lies in the very fact that it is these people—whom we elect—who act as the incubators of executors; either by ignoring their acts or by justifying their own inefficiency with excuses galore. And this sends out very wrong signals as far as their intentions and sincerity are concerned.

But then we too cannot sit back and keep leveling criticisms at those incubators. Are we not responsible as well, by choosing to use our ‘right to vote’, just because it falls in the purview of our ‘rights’ and thus ‘we need to vote’? Hence it was perplexing to note that few have gone ahead and claimed that failing to vote be labeled as an act of crime. What label they have for those acts of voting that elect criminals?

Well as far as needing to vote is concerned, we do not need to do anything other than be true to our own selves and act in accordance. When we are, we are so to all as well.

It is good to find that now the consciousness is dawning collectively on the mass to utilize this ‘right’, in the right manner. The suggestion forwarded through my blog gets corroboration in an article in The Sunday, Times of India, dated July 17, 2011, in their “Times Life” segment.

The suggestion was and is simple. And it would enable all to make use of the Rule 49-O of the Indian Constitution, whereby one votes, but registers a ‘no-vote’, a protest vote, when one is either deluded with the system or one does not have the option of choosing the ‘right’ person; in absence of such a candidate. A simple incorporation of a “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option in the EVM would serve the purpose. When so many names can be accommodated in the EVM, why cannot another one be?

This single incorporation would herald a fresh introduction to the ‘right to vote’. Simply executing the ‘Philosophy of Rights’ will not allow us to be in the ‘right’. ‘Rights’ turn out to be ‘right’ only when they create the right outcome. ‘Rights’ underused, misused and abused lead to the ‘Wrongs’.

Sushmita Mukherjee,
July 18, 2011

Friday, July 8, 2011

U 2 G!

“Face devoid of voice is a void”, this is what I strongly feel. But let us face the fact that with the advent of Facebook, face has truly acquired multi-dimension.

In the days past, face was referred to as “Face is the index of mind”, and rightly so, because more often than not, the face registers the emotions arising within. So in the context of the current rage and terminologies in vogue, we can safely redefine face as “Face is a book that indexes the emotions and feelings”.

The kids who normally avoid the face of a book, lap up the prospect of interacting through facebook: be it on their PC or lappy (as laptop is fondly referred to); their most trusted friend. Not only the kids, we adults too prefer to ‘book’ what we wish to state, inform or want to know. Thus almost everything that could be virtually shared is done really through it.  We connect and stay connected through sharing the happenings of our life—from plain mundane to grave. Thus it has become a SPECTRUM of CONNECTIONS, knowing no bounds.

As our nation has become a SPECTRUM connecting the PARTNERS engaged in innumerable frauds and scams, through a sharing of their common agenda—filling their coffers. Well serving one’s pocket is not wrong as our first duty is towards the self. But when that service becomes a disservice to the nation, pockets being filled with the money not meant for those pockets it becomes a selfish act. Not only that these people also fail to understand that by doing what they are, they are selling their own selves…and pocketing the proceeds, as a deed of this sale.

No wonder yet another scam, in an endless list, shows the face of this wide spectrum of dishonesty. Names being scalped, appear mockingly, with a U 2 G (“aap bhi” when translated in Hindi) reaction elicited from public and friends alike! The 2 G spectrum issue has become 2 Grave. The “grav-ity” of the situation, when looked at from the angle of the politicians, has the potential to turn into a grave for the political careers of the named persons involved in the scam. Though yes, we are quite accustomed to see U turns 2, when faced with such sensitive issues (read: the high-profile public figures). “Hush-hush” is the acceptance perforce, for “We, the People”, who select our representatives…and who have no other option indeed but to accept the (mis)deeds of their chosen ones.

And here I don’t wish to name names, as “What’s in a name?”, when we know that such acts are prevalent, with each day a new name, with a new face, replacing the other or joining the other, as a partner in crime. Furthermore, the face-behind-the-face remains hidden, there being no book to book their faces.
And it is not only these public-servants who are enchanted with such acts. We in general think that it is very easy to take others for a ride, and enjoy the receipts when effectively there hasn’t been any such ride. We love to manipulate others…and fictitious acts attract us.

But let us face it…whom are we manipulating, who are we ruining and most important, from whom are we running? Whose face are we saving? Ultimately the face has to face the face of its own self, in the hush of its inner calm. And then it realizes of having de-faced its own self.

I don’t know in entirety the Constitution of the Country, but I know this much for sure that it has been converted into a Constitution of Hypocrisy, from that of Democracy…and the country is progressing in spite of that. But when it comes to Constitution of the Self, hypocrisy persisted with leads to regression of the Self… forcing one to draw solace when one finds company, with a U 2 G!

While we the citizens of the country, exclaim with shame—as we have become shock-resistant—U 2 G!

Sushmita Mukherjee,
8th July, 2011.