Was I wrong?

Something happened in today's communication class... I did something, got a feedback totally unexpected, and I dont know if I was wrong or just didn't put my point properly...

Its was oral communication's class. Prof had given us a topic for group discussion:
"Mercy killing: Should it be legalised?"

Now my general knowledge is very poor, pathetic shall be a better word... I know what mercy killing means, but that's all... No knowledge of any cases, any news on that... Nothing...

So I thought better to keep quiet initially, listen to what others are saying and give opinion accordingly. As the discussion progressed, I found that most were against mercy killing. They were putting some points in favour, but still opposing it... Either they genuinely believed it to be a bad thing or were hesitating to favour it for fear of getting stares from rest...

But from the points put forward ny others, I realised that atleast in some cases mercy killing did make sense... The case here is of the patients in vegetative state...

Sure such a person has life remaining in him, there are chances that he may awake one day... But what are the chances?
See I am not saying here that such a person has no right to live...

But we all know the resources we have are scarce. Especially in India, where a lot of people die for lack of basic medical necessities, what sense does it make to take the resources from ten people, who have a lot more chance of survival, and use those resources to save one person who has hardly any chance to live???

Now one of my fellow group mate argued that what about the value of life? What about the people who care for that one person?

Agreed that there are people for whom that one person is family and they have hopes he will live. But don't the people who are denied the resources have families?

Also, as far as I know, mercy killing is asked by the person or his family itself. The person must be going through a lot of pain to ask for death. In case of family asking for mercy killing, they must be asking for it only after realising that even if the patient lives, it would be a life full of pain and agony.

Now talking about the value of life? I just pointed out that most of the people present in the class eat non-vegetarian food, even the one who put that point... Did they ever thought of the value of life when an animal was killed just because these people "who value life so much" wanted to satisfy their taste buds? How do they react when they read the news of some people being killed in a bomb blast? Most of the time the reaction is:
"Oh God, what has happened to mankind?" and turn the page to read other news. Not one more thought...

Is this caring for the value of life?

Now please understand that I am not saying that there's no value to the life of the person who is in vegetative state...

But I am saying that it makes much more sense to sacrifice the life of a person who is having much less chances to survive to save a few people who have much more chances of survival...


Now this might not be the way I talked in the discussion, courtesy to a lot of counter arguements and angry stares. And hence, there is a probability that whatever I said may have made a very different sense. So my batch-mates might be right in criticising my stance.

But now that I have written everything the way I wanted and you have read it... I ask you, am I wrong?

The Greedy Indian Customer

I just went to buy a pair of floaters...

Why? Coz I dont have one...

Why do I need them if I have a pair of cool looking slippers? Well the management of my college thought it was a bad idea to wear slippers in the academic building... I agree...

Now, there are 3 showrooms just outside my college gate... (Oh yes, I joined a college a month ago, that story some other time...) So the three showrooms: Bata, Puma, Nike...

Puma and Nike products are way out of my budget but both had a discount board showing 70% and 50% off. So i thought why not take a look, maybe I can find a good buy with a little extension of budget...

I went to Puma first... Looked at the price range, looked at the discount, calculated the price I will have to pay, gave a frown, came out...
Looked towards left, Nike 50% off... Bigger frown, waste of time... Looked towards right... Bata 50% off... Right it is then...

I went inside the showroom... Took a look around, there were two gorgeous girls of my college standing there, looking to buy something of course... Shall I go and talk to them? Naah... Waste of time... (Believe me I thought that...)

Took another look around, looking for what things I needed... Realised that I will be needing almost all the items on the display in 2-3 months... but that all could wait... For now, just buy a pair of floaters and take an exit...

Fine just the floaters then... Went to that stall...
No offer here... Fine...

What qualities do I need in the floaters?

Good Looking, Durable, Comfortable...

And what is my budget? Below Rs. 200-250...

Can you believe it?
I am looking for a pair of floaters in a branded product showroom in Delhi... They should be good looking, not weird coloured, comfortable, and durable...
And I want all that in just Rs. 250...

Now one may say, getting a good pair of floaters in Rs. 250 is not a big thing... In fact my myself am using a pair of local made slippers which I bought for Rs. 160 in Nagpur and I am using them for more than a year now...
But come-on yaar, this is Delhi I am talking about and that too in a brand showroom...

And above all, I want to use them for atleast 2 yrs... How greedy I am... I even thought I am mad...

But no, I am no mad... I got one... I just now have to see whether I can use them for two years...

Individualism vs Socialism

Man is growing more individualistic today. By this I mean today an individual is given more priority than the society, unlike in the past, when the society was given more priority than the individuals. The order of preference earlier was society-family-individual, while today it is more like invidual-family-society.

Let's take an example from Indian culture.

Earlier marriage used to happen at a relatively younger age (I am not talking about child marriage here, but younger age as compared to today's, say 16-18 yrs old), and the girl used to come and live with the boy's family.
Now, at this age, one is still developing his individual personality and thus, the girl could adapt herself more to a new house, new people, new lifestyle, new environment etc.

In contrast, today's urban population get married at a very late age, mostly after 25 yrs age. Now at this stage, a person has developed his own personality. Thus when a girl marries and goes to her husband's house, she has trouble adapting to the new environment. Now, if its a nuclear family, the couple living alone, then its less difficult, as before marriage, the couple gets ample time to check compatibility with each other.
But what if the family is a joint one? Now there maybe 6-7 members or even more. True, it's unfair to ask the girl to change herself to fit in the group, but its totally ridiculous if the girl expects the whole family members to change according to her.

And this is what happens in most cases... A couple gets married at a very late age, girl moves to boy's family, finds it difficult to adjust, tries to change other, clashes happen, result: divorce or the couple moves out and live separately.

Now the argument for late marriages are mostly like career, not ready yet etc. etc. All these are give more importance to the individual person and do not consider the impacts on the future family.

Some clarifications:
These are just my views.
I am by no means promoting child marriages or even marriages at an earlier age.
I am not against the female population.
I am just trying to analyse the impacts of individual behaviour on the society.

Abra ka dabra...

Well this post has nothing to do with magic, its just that i m feelings sleepy and wasn't able to think of any suitable title... Well again my sleepiness has nothing to do with me not able to think a title... I just said that coz as i said i m sleepy...

Ok... Enough i think... To the topic now...

Today i realised that love is not just blind, it is also foolish... To be more specific, a guy in love becomes blind and a gal in love becomes foolish... and before any of the female human beings reading this start screaming and throwing things at me, let me tell u anybody's accepting or denying this thing does not change the truth....

I have noted this in those of my friends who are committed:

When they are with their soul-mates, their level of jokes suddenly drops in logic and sense... N when i thought for reasons, i realized that the reason for this is that their female partners laugh at almost anything they say or do... (the basis for my thinking of women in love as foolish)

While the more sane people (read the guy's friends) are pulling their hairs off, the gals are laughing and encouraging the guy... Now, as the guy can only see his gal laughing and not the state of his saner friends... (the basis for my thinking he's blind... or partial blind u might say...)

The result... He thinks he is a very funny guy (which he is not)... He thinks whatever he thinks, speaks or does is super duper ultra funny... (which obviously is not....)

The result... his level of jokes drops.. n his friends suffer to the point that they want to commit suicide or kill the guy...


P.S. All my friends who are committed: Yes, i was referring to you in my blog... And no, this is not a coincidence that the incident seems familiar...

Trying to define greatness...

I was trying to think, "what makes a man great?"

Is it talent? One gets talent from nature, so what is one's greatness in that?

Now everybody has got talent. It's just that in some, it gets nourished and flourishes, while in some unfortunate, it gets suppressed and hence, sort of dies away. But if one's talent has been nourished properly, the credit should go to his guardian. Then what is one's greatness in that?

Then I thought of all the great people we know of... Why do we call them great? There must be something common in them which may define there greatness...

Then I realised that indeed there was one thing common in them: They worked and their purpose of work was a good one... and that may be what made them great...

They used their talent and for a good purpose...

Having talent is not in our capacity... Nourishing it is not in our capacity... but choosing what to do with whatever we have got and actually doing it is definitely in our capacity... What makes us great is how we utilise that capacity...

In the epic Mahabharat, there were many skilled archers... Arjun, Bhishm, Karna, Dronacharya, Ashwathama... but Arjun is called a greatest of them because it was him, who put his talent to the right purpose...

Now Mahabharata may be just a story, but why would that mean it cannot be a good example...

Castes and Marriage

First thing, I personally do not believe in the caste system and secondly, I have not written this blog because I am having any thoughts of marriage. It's just that I recalled a conversation I had with a dear friend, which made me think and hence, write...
A few days ago, I was having a casual chat with a friend; and the topic of castes and marriage came up. I realized that she was too much concerned about castes, and I reacted, "Why do you girls give so much importance to the caste of the guy you are thinking about?"
Then she explained, "Yaar, it's very easy for you guys to say this, because you don't have to go and live with the girl's family, but a girl has to. She has to adjust with the people, the new house, the new environment i.e. the new lifestyle. The more different it is from her's, the more difficult it will be for her."
Now, there are somethings that are right infront of your eyes for years, but you never know that they exist. The difference in lifestyle of various people around me, was one such thing for me.
And now that someone pointed that for me, I saw it. I understood the significance of the term 'diversity' in the phrase, 'Unity in Diversity'. There was indeed a lot of diversity among the people around me. The environment in everybody's home is different, the type of food eaten is different, the way weekends are celebrated is different, etc etc.
Obviously, this diversity is decreasing as the generation is advancing, but it still exists. And it is significant enough, that if I am asked to live according to someone else's lifestyle for more that a week, it will drive me mad.
And this difference is greater if the castes are different. Please note that the difference here is not negative or positive, its just a difference of style and anyone will get mad if he is asked to live life in someone else's style.
So now I understand how difficult it must be for a girl to adjust to the new surroundings. Thats why probably, our elders insist on intra-caste marriages, cause they had gone through all this, and obviously want to make the path easier for us...
P.S. : I do not have any personal opinions on importance of castes in marriage, I was just trying to find the logic behind elders insistence on intra-caste marriages.

Where's the justice?

I have been invisible for a long time, trying to ignore my commitment to blog, under the pretext of being busy. But something i read today just cant be ignored under any pretext.

Remember the age old movies of 60s or 70s... The theme being that of a rich, powerful Thakur raping an innocent girl from a poor family. The family so poor and weak compared to Thakur that they cant even get justice for their poor girl. Harassed by the society (the society is equally at fault, because instead of punishing the Thakur, it harasses the poor girl), the poor girl commits suicide. Her father/mother/brother/some relative keeps fighting to get justice for her for like ages. Years go by, the Thakur becomes old. Then some hero/heroine enters, mobilises the media and wheels of system, and thus helps get the poor relative justice for the poor girl, who's long dead. The movies ends in a happy note, claiming that none can escape justice.

Well, I always thought that this was a story of Old India, that nothing of this sort happens today, that India has come a long way and everyone gets justice...

But then, I read about the Richika Girhotra's case in today's news that made me realise how even today, India is like the one depicted in those movies...

A girl, Ruchika, was molested by a DGP, Rathore, in Haryana. The court ruled its decision by announcing punishment to the DGP and the girl got her justice. Looks fine, doesn't it?

Here are some facts:
1. The molestation happened 19 years ago.
2. The poor girl committed suicide 3 years later, obviously frustrated at not getting justice and probably being harassed by our society which is no less than a culprit by any means.
3. The punishment that the DGP got after these years is a 6 months jail and fine of Rs. 1000/-.

Now please someone tell me, from what angle is this a justice? A mere 6 months of jail and a pittance of fine... against the life of a the poor girl...

And what punishment to those, whose duty it was to deliver the justice on time? Nothing... If the DGP molested the girl, the people responsible for the delay actually killed her. Reports are that the DGP himself used his position to cover the matter as far as possible. He harassed the family and the related people for 19 years. Shouldn't there be some inquiry into this matter?

I think no... because if this simple delivery of justice took 19 years, no one can guess how long the inquiry into the complicated matter would take...

As a writer to this article, i am supposed to give some probable solution or recommendation to improve the system. But sorry, i just cant think of any... If any of u do, please post it....

I know this is a little far fetched, but if we can come up to any conclusions, any solid solution, we can mail it to our government and hope for the best. That's the least we can do...