Some thoughts:
Har aahat par ruki dhadkan laga ki tera jawab aaya hai
Har saas ki gungunahat main laga ki tera naam aaya hai,
Har raah main pair rakhte hue laga jaise,
Har mood pe tere kadmon ko chukar mera anjam aaya hai.
Khali aangan main padti barish ki kali bunde,
Aur chand ko chummati chamkati kali bunde,
Ek sukha hua fool mez par pada hua
Aur pazeb ki jhankar jeene pe padti.
Ek anjani anchahi muskurahat hoton par,
Ek labz se lipte hue kai jazabaat,
Kapte haathon main,
Aur bolti aankhon main,
gudgudate sapne
Aur har sapne main simati hui kai raat.
Hothon se takrake shabd bikhar gaye,
Palkon se milkar sapne bun gaye,
Ghunghat iss dil ka kabhi uthaya hi nahi,
Unki raaton main fir bhi har raaz khul gaye.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Freedom of expression and its limitations
Your freedom ends, where mine starts. Any kind of freedom comes with its set of limits. These limitations are necessary to protect that freedom from being misused. But, at the same time, every person has a right, to have individual thoughts, on any and every subject. We all have a right to perception and interpretation. In the same way, we cannot use freedom of expression to disgrace another person or hurt his sentiments in absolutely any way. Our freedom of expression does not give us the liberty to damage others person right to dignity or individualism.
I believe that James Watson was wrong when he said that ‘black’ people were intellectually inferior to white people. First of all ‘black’ itself is a derogatory term. Secondly, a finding like this cannot be generalized. It can be true to a certain extent, in some situations, for a chosen few. But it cannot be an absolute truth, and there can never be a proof supporting this theory, which hold true for everybody.
However, if we look at ‘Fire’ as an example here, I think what the Hindu activists did was absolutely uncalled for. Fire was a movie about two women (characters) finding love and solace in each other. Lesbianism has been there for decades and was not an unheard topic. And Lesbians exist. Those characters represented a section of our society, which we very conveniently choose to ignore. The setting of the story also represented the real social conditions of the society. So, showing something that already exists, does not account to violation of any kind of freedom.
What we do not realize is freedom of expression and freedom to degrade somebody are two different things. I have a right to criticize something or somebody, but I don’t have any right to offend or degrade it.
We have to realize that we all have a right to be against something or someone, but we don’t have a right to take away their freedom of expression. Like happened in the case of
Taslima Nasreen case or even the movie ‘Fire’.
What we have to realize before exercising our right so vehemently, is that the concept of freedom has to be understood in its right spirit, and not the literal meaning.
EOM
Your freedom ends, where mine starts. Any kind of freedom comes with its set of limits. These limitations are necessary to protect that freedom from being misused. But, at the same time, every person has a right, to have individual thoughts, on any and every subject. We all have a right to perception and interpretation. In the same way, we cannot use freedom of expression to disgrace another person or hurt his sentiments in absolutely any way. Our freedom of expression does not give us the liberty to damage others person right to dignity or individualism.
I believe that James Watson was wrong when he said that ‘black’ people were intellectually inferior to white people. First of all ‘black’ itself is a derogatory term. Secondly, a finding like this cannot be generalized. It can be true to a certain extent, in some situations, for a chosen few. But it cannot be an absolute truth, and there can never be a proof supporting this theory, which hold true for everybody.
However, if we look at ‘Fire’ as an example here, I think what the Hindu activists did was absolutely uncalled for. Fire was a movie about two women (characters) finding love and solace in each other. Lesbianism has been there for decades and was not an unheard topic. And Lesbians exist. Those characters represented a section of our society, which we very conveniently choose to ignore. The setting of the story also represented the real social conditions of the society. So, showing something that already exists, does not account to violation of any kind of freedom.
What we do not realize is freedom of expression and freedom to degrade somebody are two different things. I have a right to criticize something or somebody, but I don’t have any right to offend or degrade it.
We have to realize that we all have a right to be against something or someone, but we don’t have a right to take away their freedom of expression. Like happened in the case of
Taslima Nasreen case or even the movie ‘Fire’.
What we have to realize before exercising our right so vehemently, is that the concept of freedom has to be understood in its right spirit, and not the literal meaning.
EOM
My idea of Secularism
I have a friend, who is part Hindu and part Muslim. Her parents met in college and fell in love. Her liberal mother came from a conservative Hindu family. Same was the case with her father. They both decided to marry, against the desire of their respective families.
They both knew that religion was a matter of personal faith. It’s not necessary to belong to the same religious group, to be happy with each other. That religion and traditions are there for an individual’s convenience, to make his life a smooth flow, and not to dictate them. They understood this and respected each other’s personal beliefs.
This basic understanding and attitude is secularism for me.
The best part about this marriage was that, no one told the other, to convert. They accepted each other the way they are, without wanting to change anything in each other. This acceptance for me is secularism.
Secularism as a political and constitutional principle involves two basic propositions. The first is that people belonging to different faiths and sections of society are equal before the law, the Constitution and government policy. The second requirement is that there can be no mixing up of religion and politics. It follows therefore that there can be no discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion or faith nor is there room for the hegemony of one religion or majoritarian religious sentiments and aspirations. It is in this double sense--no discrimination against anyone on grounds of faith and separation of religion from politics--that our Constitution safeguards secularism.
But secularism in the broader sense is accepting others the way they are. Not just by the
Government, but the society as well. It is a change in the outlook of an individual.
Blurring of barriers of caste, creed, religion etc amongst the masses.
This change in attitude defines secularism for me. Secularism will be attained totally when we do not have classified ads in the matrimonial section saying, ‘ we want a fair Hindu Brahmin girl’, or ‘ a Vaishnav boy’.
Its not just confined to religion, caste, etc. It involves appreciation of our past and acceptance of our future and present. To know the reasons behind the age-old traditions and recognize the need for change in them. To know that we are all children of our circumstances. To identify that our parents had a different up-bringing, different environment. And to respect that. To realize that our children are living in a different setting, and that their needs are different.
We have to be aware of the fact that we need to give a certain amount of space to a person. Every being is entitled to have different perception and interpretation, which are of his own.
Secularism for me also means, the autonomy to analysis. Freedom of thought. Where we think for our own selves the way we want, accept it the way we think and not feel sorry for it.
Like if I want to have sex with some random person, whom I don’t even know, I should think about it without feeling guilty. This remorse comes from the way we are born and brought up in our society. We are told the most natural thing to a person is a taboo. Secularism is when you question this and ask why? When you look deep inside yourself, find an answer that makes you happy and accept it.
‘Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high…’ , this anthem for defines secularism in its true spirit.
I have a friend, who is part Hindu and part Muslim. Her parents met in college and fell in love. Her liberal mother came from a conservative Hindu family. Same was the case with her father. They both decided to marry, against the desire of their respective families.
They both knew that religion was a matter of personal faith. It’s not necessary to belong to the same religious group, to be happy with each other. That religion and traditions are there for an individual’s convenience, to make his life a smooth flow, and not to dictate them. They understood this and respected each other’s personal beliefs.
This basic understanding and attitude is secularism for me.
The best part about this marriage was that, no one told the other, to convert. They accepted each other the way they are, without wanting to change anything in each other. This acceptance for me is secularism.
Secularism as a political and constitutional principle involves two basic propositions. The first is that people belonging to different faiths and sections of society are equal before the law, the Constitution and government policy. The second requirement is that there can be no mixing up of religion and politics. It follows therefore that there can be no discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion or faith nor is there room for the hegemony of one religion or majoritarian religious sentiments and aspirations. It is in this double sense--no discrimination against anyone on grounds of faith and separation of religion from politics--that our Constitution safeguards secularism.
But secularism in the broader sense is accepting others the way they are. Not just by the
Government, but the society as well. It is a change in the outlook of an individual.
Blurring of barriers of caste, creed, religion etc amongst the masses.
This change in attitude defines secularism for me. Secularism will be attained totally when we do not have classified ads in the matrimonial section saying, ‘ we want a fair Hindu Brahmin girl’, or ‘ a Vaishnav boy’.
Its not just confined to religion, caste, etc. It involves appreciation of our past and acceptance of our future and present. To know the reasons behind the age-old traditions and recognize the need for change in them. To know that we are all children of our circumstances. To identify that our parents had a different up-bringing, different environment. And to respect that. To realize that our children are living in a different setting, and that their needs are different.
We have to be aware of the fact that we need to give a certain amount of space to a person. Every being is entitled to have different perception and interpretation, which are of his own.
Secularism for me also means, the autonomy to analysis. Freedom of thought. Where we think for our own selves the way we want, accept it the way we think and not feel sorry for it.
Like if I want to have sex with some random person, whom I don’t even know, I should think about it without feeling guilty. This remorse comes from the way we are born and brought up in our society. We are told the most natural thing to a person is a taboo. Secularism is when you question this and ask why? When you look deep inside yourself, find an answer that makes you happy and accept it.
‘Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high…’ , this anthem for defines secularism in its true spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)