Monday, December 31, 2007

Long live the Queen!

The Queen is dead, long live the Queen!

As the country limps back to normalcy, or whatever is considered normal in these parts, I sit back and ponder. I read and hear what the world has to say and can't believe my eyes and ears. The queen of democracy has named her heir, who has no other qualification save the fact that he is her son, and this somehow is supposed to confirm her position as the flag bearer of democracy. Does anyone else see the irony here?

Loss of human life is always tragic, and an end like this, which lesser mortals like me will never find out the truth about, have an impact which goes beyond the usual sorrow associated with end of a human life. The part where anyone's life can be taken, Gulgee and his wife were murdered in their home last week, and we will probably never find out why. So be it.

When BB came into power in 1988, I was positively biased in her favour. Because she was an educated woman, who had struggled against dictatorship, who was not standing from a platform based on a dogma, she seemed like someone who would at least point us in the right direction. But that was not to be. During her two stints of power, she was either not competent or did not have the right motives, and we gained nothing. She did not do anything for the people of this country. The only thing that she left us with was a bad taste in the mouth, with unconfirmed accusations of plunder and corruption.

Her only motive, or so it seems, was to get power. With no scruples, she would make any deal, with anyone, to get that. Her only legacy is a continuation of the feudal mindset where her last name is more important than anything else. But if we go by that, there is someone more qualified, her niece. Even there, she does not follow her own rules. And her son, will now change his surname, to continue.

I am surprised by the rest of the world, either they know something that we don't, or they are really ignorant of the realities. Suddenly she is now the epitome of everything they stand for. I have not been impressed by anything she had to say, or anything she did. It was all a show, her only qualification was that she was the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and we the serfs should prostrate before all our feudal lords.

People draw parallels between her and the Nehru family, they have all come to violent ends. And then there are the Bushes in the holy land, who would like to follow a similar path. I say the pox on them all.

I am sorry that her life ended the way it did, it should not have. I hope that her son does not follow the same path that she did, but that depends on the rest of us. I pray that we choose our leaders on things other than their last names.

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Back to square one

This one is dedicated to my friend Faran.

The argument that is frequently brought up by many people while defending religion is that its the people who practice it that are to be blamed rather than the dogma they follow. I feel that is a total cop out.

Lets try out the reverse. Lets say we start appreciating people for doing good deeds rather than the religion they follow. So every welfare act that is done by the missionaries, be it Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/etc. should be attributed to the individuals rather than the platform that is being used for those good things. They open up schools, hospitals, feed the poor because they are good people, not because of their faith. Religion becomes irrelevant. The point being if religion is incapable of turning society into a better place, then what is the point of it anyway?

The Muslims of Saudi Arabia punish a women for being alone with a man after she is gang raped by a group of men. So what if Islam's injunction is used to justify this punishment? Is it the followers or Islam? A Pakistani Muslim man strangles his daughter for not wanting to wear the hijab in Canada. What is to be blamed here? The fact that Islam/some school of thought believes that women should wear hijab or the man who can actually strangle his own flesh and blood because of what he believes in? Where does one draw the line?

I don't think the argument holds any substance, as I said earlier, its a cop out. For those who haven't heard of Epicurus, here is something that he wrote a long time ago

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able, the whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him god?

And so society struggles. The problem with the monotheistic religions as I see it is their refusal to change with times. There are no absolute truths, its all relative my dear Faran.

Labels: ,


View My Stats