I decided to be a blogger, as I wanted to transform my thoughts into a voice
I decided to be a blogger, as I wanted a platform to express my opinion on various topics of my choice.
I decided to be a blogger, as I wanted to share with the world my feelings and perceptions about a number of things
Which range from the US presidential election to global warming.
I decided to be a blogger, as I wanted to be a part of the global civil society
Which comprises thinking people from across the world, ranging from the USA to Haiti.
Today I am so proud that I am a small player in the global blogosphere
It is a status so thrilling to me, a status that I consider to be so dear.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Shame On You, Pastor Terry Jones
“Terribly shocked” is a term that at best faintly describes my feeling when I came to know about this insane named Terry Jones, and his heinous plan to burn The Quran to commemorate the ninth anniversary of the infamous 9/11.
Does the man know what he is saying? Does he have any idea about what a tremendous communal tension can erupt from such an extremely irresponsible as well as despicable act?
9/11 was one of the most unfortunate and contemptible acts in the history of human civilization. The entire world sympathizes with the bereaved families of the 9/11 victims, and we all pray to God that He makes the perpetrators of that act (i.e. Osama bin Laden and his followers) pay dearly for what they did.
But does that mean that we will contempt that act by burning The Quran, which is the cornerstone of Islam? If we stoop to such an act, then what difference is there between us and Osama bin Laden and his aides?
Mr. Pastor, in the enthusiasm to contempt Laden’s utterly shameful 9/11 attack you have confused the entire Muslim community with the elements like Laden, while ironically the sane Muslims despise these fanatics to the same extent as sane people from other religions do.
By instigating people to burn The Holy Quran, you have actually brought yourself down to the level of that same Osama bin Laden whose act you have tried to contempt. Do you realize that?
Shame on you, Pastor Terry Jones. You are an unworthy follower of that great Jesus Christ who did not carry any malice even against the ones who crucified Him.
Please stop calling yourself a Pastor. Please stop humiliating the great religion of Christianity.
Does the man know what he is saying? Does he have any idea about what a tremendous communal tension can erupt from such an extremely irresponsible as well as despicable act?
9/11 was one of the most unfortunate and contemptible acts in the history of human civilization. The entire world sympathizes with the bereaved families of the 9/11 victims, and we all pray to God that He makes the perpetrators of that act (i.e. Osama bin Laden and his followers) pay dearly for what they did.
But does that mean that we will contempt that act by burning The Quran, which is the cornerstone of Islam? If we stoop to such an act, then what difference is there between us and Osama bin Laden and his aides?
Mr. Pastor, in the enthusiasm to contempt Laden’s utterly shameful 9/11 attack you have confused the entire Muslim community with the elements like Laden, while ironically the sane Muslims despise these fanatics to the same extent as sane people from other religions do.
By instigating people to burn The Holy Quran, you have actually brought yourself down to the level of that same Osama bin Laden whose act you have tried to contempt. Do you realize that?
Shame on you, Pastor Terry Jones. You are an unworthy follower of that great Jesus Christ who did not carry any malice even against the ones who crucified Him.
Please stop calling yourself a Pastor. Please stop humiliating the great religion of Christianity.
Necessity of “Categorization” Of Terrorism
Many people find it utterly unacceptable to make any “categorization” of terrorism. They say that terrorism can not and should not be categorized on the basis of religion, community, ethnicity, etc. This is because a terrorist is never a representative of any community, religion, ethnicity, or any other such entity.
It is very common to come across objections from the liberal minded Muslim ladies and gentlemen on the use of terms like “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamic terrorists”, etc. I have also come across people who object to the use of terms like “Kashmiri terrorists” and “Tamil terrorists” (i.e. the LTTE people). And now India’s enterprising Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram is being criticized across the political circle for his “Saffron Terror” remark.
Well, I have due respect for people who dislike such religious or communal or ethnic categorization of terrorism. But I think such categorization is necessary? Why? Well, let me explain my view.
We must remember that when a government (or a group of governments or an international body like UNSC) fights against a group of terrorists, it broadly pursues two agenda.
The first agenda is purely based on guns and bullets, aimed at countering the disruptive acts of the terrorists and reducing their manpower as much as possible, thus reducing their power to create mayhem.
The other agenda is based on identifying the “root cause” that is behind the birth of that particular group of terrorists, and addressing that issue through political and ideological means, which entails strategic use of negotiations and dialogues.
This identification and addressing of the “root cause” of terrorism is very crucial. If the government simply focuses on the killing of the terrorists, then the problem will never be solved. The “root cause” will keep giving births to terrorists, with the movement never getting short of manpower no matter how regularly the government guns down the terrorists. On the other hand if the government successfully identifies the “root cause” (poverty, feeling communal or ethnic alienation, etc., then it will be able to address the very source of the problem.
And this identification of the root cause is not possible if we do not make appropriate categorization of terrorism and terrorists. If we perceive all acts of terrorism in the same colour, thus generalizing all terrorist groups as bunches of misguided people involved in heinous activities, then it will be a “Himalayan” blunder. Every terrorist group works with a certain objective that is unique to it, and in that way one terrorist group is different from another one in the same way chalk is different from cheese. Yes, sometimes the objective of one terrorist group is found to be similar to that of another terrorist group. For example, the Bodo, Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists have the same objective - the “liberation” of a certain region from India. But even then there is an element of dissimilarity. While the Bodo movement is purely based on ethnic sentiment, the Khalistan movement has a mixture of both ethnic and religious sentiment. And the Kashmiri movement is purely a religious issue, sometimes unsuccessfully projected by its supporters as a fight to establish ethnic self-identity of Kashmiri people. Therefore, the government can not handle the Kashmiri separatists in the same way it has handled Khalistan separatists, though the character of both the movements is apparently the same. At the same time, while the ways to handle the Khalistani separatists and Bodo separatists can probably be almost the same, there will nevertheless be some elements of difference in the approach.
Again, while both Kashmiri and Al-Qaeda terrorists are “Islamic” terrorists, there is a difference between their objectives. The Kashmiri terrorists want “liberation” of a certain region from India, not out of any ethnic pride, but simply out of religious consciousness. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are also working out of misplaced religious consciousness and pride, but their objective is not confined to liberating one “Muslim” area from the so-called domination of a “non-Muslim” area. They are rather determined to spread Islam across the world, making it the only ruling religion of the planet. So while we have to handle the issue of misplaced religious sentiment while countering both the groups of terrorists, the ways to handle them will certainly differ given the difference in the “quantum” of their objectives.
So we can find that terrorist groups differ from one another in terms of their objectives, even when the characters of the objectives appear to be the same. Some thrive out of ethnic sentiment, some out of religious consciousness, while some have other “causes”. And, significantly, it is not that the “root causes” of terrorist groups are always unacceptable. And when a terrorist group has a genuine grievance, then that group and its demands must be handled in a different way.
So, at the end of the day, probably we must accept that categorization of terrorists is important. We have to remember that when the government or other such entities pronounce terms like “Islamic terrorism”, “Saffron terrorism”, “Tamil terrorism” or “Red terrorism”, they actually refer to the basic characteristic of a particular group of terrorists, without any objective to generalize the members of a particular religious/ethnic community or supporters of a certain political ideology.
It is very common to come across objections from the liberal minded Muslim ladies and gentlemen on the use of terms like “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamic terrorists”, etc. I have also come across people who object to the use of terms like “Kashmiri terrorists” and “Tamil terrorists” (i.e. the LTTE people). And now India’s enterprising Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram is being criticized across the political circle for his “Saffron Terror” remark.
Well, I have due respect for people who dislike such religious or communal or ethnic categorization of terrorism. But I think such categorization is necessary? Why? Well, let me explain my view.
We must remember that when a government (or a group of governments or an international body like UNSC) fights against a group of terrorists, it broadly pursues two agenda.
The first agenda is purely based on guns and bullets, aimed at countering the disruptive acts of the terrorists and reducing their manpower as much as possible, thus reducing their power to create mayhem.
The other agenda is based on identifying the “root cause” that is behind the birth of that particular group of terrorists, and addressing that issue through political and ideological means, which entails strategic use of negotiations and dialogues.
This identification and addressing of the “root cause” of terrorism is very crucial. If the government simply focuses on the killing of the terrorists, then the problem will never be solved. The “root cause” will keep giving births to terrorists, with the movement never getting short of manpower no matter how regularly the government guns down the terrorists. On the other hand if the government successfully identifies the “root cause” (poverty, feeling communal or ethnic alienation, etc., then it will be able to address the very source of the problem.
And this identification of the root cause is not possible if we do not make appropriate categorization of terrorism and terrorists. If we perceive all acts of terrorism in the same colour, thus generalizing all terrorist groups as bunches of misguided people involved in heinous activities, then it will be a “Himalayan” blunder. Every terrorist group works with a certain objective that is unique to it, and in that way one terrorist group is different from another one in the same way chalk is different from cheese. Yes, sometimes the objective of one terrorist group is found to be similar to that of another terrorist group. For example, the Bodo, Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists have the same objective - the “liberation” of a certain region from India. But even then there is an element of dissimilarity. While the Bodo movement is purely based on ethnic sentiment, the Khalistan movement has a mixture of both ethnic and religious sentiment. And the Kashmiri movement is purely a religious issue, sometimes unsuccessfully projected by its supporters as a fight to establish ethnic self-identity of Kashmiri people. Therefore, the government can not handle the Kashmiri separatists in the same way it has handled Khalistan separatists, though the character of both the movements is apparently the same. At the same time, while the ways to handle the Khalistani separatists and Bodo separatists can probably be almost the same, there will nevertheless be some elements of difference in the approach.
Again, while both Kashmiri and Al-Qaeda terrorists are “Islamic” terrorists, there is a difference between their objectives. The Kashmiri terrorists want “liberation” of a certain region from India, not out of any ethnic pride, but simply out of religious consciousness. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are also working out of misplaced religious consciousness and pride, but their objective is not confined to liberating one “Muslim” area from the so-called domination of a “non-Muslim” area. They are rather determined to spread Islam across the world, making it the only ruling religion of the planet. So while we have to handle the issue of misplaced religious sentiment while countering both the groups of terrorists, the ways to handle them will certainly differ given the difference in the “quantum” of their objectives.
So we can find that terrorist groups differ from one another in terms of their objectives, even when the characters of the objectives appear to be the same. Some thrive out of ethnic sentiment, some out of religious consciousness, while some have other “causes”. And, significantly, it is not that the “root causes” of terrorist groups are always unacceptable. And when a terrorist group has a genuine grievance, then that group and its demands must be handled in a different way.
So, at the end of the day, probably we must accept that categorization of terrorists is important. We have to remember that when the government or other such entities pronounce terms like “Islamic terrorism”, “Saffron terrorism”, “Tamil terrorism” or “Red terrorism”, they actually refer to the basic characteristic of a particular group of terrorists, without any objective to generalize the members of a particular religious/ethnic community or supporters of a certain political ideology.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Subtle Racial Implication In KBC Ad
All of you might not agree with me, and I do not want to impose my perception on anybody. However, I feel that there is a subtle racial implication in one of the Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) ads that are now being aired on TV.
The ad that I am referring to shows that an old and retired gentleman has come to a government office, where he is having some argument with a lady government officer, Ms. Sushma. During the course of the argument the old gentleman out of frustration says that he is not sure whether Ms. Sushma even knows who the writer of the Indian Constitution is. Enraged, Ms Sushma, who apparently does not know the name of the writer of the Constitution, makes fun of the issue and mocks at the gentlemen, instead of feeling ashamed of her ignorance. Eventually she is joined by two of her male colleagues, Mr. Jha and Mr. Sinha.
However, later one day Ms. Sushma gets an opportunity to face Mr. Amitabh Bachchan in the KBC hot seat, where she is asked the same question by Big B. And now she regrets the fact that she does not know the answer.
The ad is undoubtedly interesting and enjoyable. But it has a certain characteristic which I could not feel exactly comfortable about.
In the ad all the three “negative characters” – Ms. Sushma, Mr. Jha and Mr. Sinha are shown to be speaking with a strong “Bihari” accent. In fact, the surnames Jha and Sinha are well known Bihari surnames. And so this idea has been very clearly given that all these three people are Biharis.
And this is something I feel the creators of the ad should have avoided. Projecting members of a certain community as unscrupulous government officers is certainly not a very acceptable idea. It would have been still OK if only one of those three characters was shown as a Bihari. But the creators of the ad projected all of the three persons as Biharis, which clearly proves that they wanted to cash in on the so-called poor image of the Biharis in the rest of India.
It might so happen that it took place unconsciously, with the creators of the ad having no clear objective to poke fun at the Bihari community. Nevertheless, it has somewhat diluted the appeal of the ad which is otherwise well conceptualized and brilliantly presented.
The ad that I am referring to shows that an old and retired gentleman has come to a government office, where he is having some argument with a lady government officer, Ms. Sushma. During the course of the argument the old gentleman out of frustration says that he is not sure whether Ms. Sushma even knows who the writer of the Indian Constitution is. Enraged, Ms Sushma, who apparently does not know the name of the writer of the Constitution, makes fun of the issue and mocks at the gentlemen, instead of feeling ashamed of her ignorance. Eventually she is joined by two of her male colleagues, Mr. Jha and Mr. Sinha.
However, later one day Ms. Sushma gets an opportunity to face Mr. Amitabh Bachchan in the KBC hot seat, where she is asked the same question by Big B. And now she regrets the fact that she does not know the answer.
The ad is undoubtedly interesting and enjoyable. But it has a certain characteristic which I could not feel exactly comfortable about.
In the ad all the three “negative characters” – Ms. Sushma, Mr. Jha and Mr. Sinha are shown to be speaking with a strong “Bihari” accent. In fact, the surnames Jha and Sinha are well known Bihari surnames. And so this idea has been very clearly given that all these three people are Biharis.
And this is something I feel the creators of the ad should have avoided. Projecting members of a certain community as unscrupulous government officers is certainly not a very acceptable idea. It would have been still OK if only one of those three characters was shown as a Bihari. But the creators of the ad projected all of the three persons as Biharis, which clearly proves that they wanted to cash in on the so-called poor image of the Biharis in the rest of India.
It might so happen that it took place unconsciously, with the creators of the ad having no clear objective to poke fun at the Bihari community. Nevertheless, it has somewhat diluted the appeal of the ad which is otherwise well conceptualized and brilliantly presented.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The CWG Mess – Kalmadi Must Be Expelled From The Parliament
I think by this time it has become quite clear to everybody that the Delhi Commonwealth Games is going to be a huge disgrace for India. No matter how much optimist one may be, even he can not dare to hope that everything will be OK at this eleventh hour, thus ultimately resulting in a proper and successful handling of the Games. There is not the ghost of a doubt that the nation is going to experience a huge humiliation, a terrible loss of face in front of the entire world. And the hapless Indian mass is in fact mentally prepared for the same, already.
Yes, we cannot avoid the mess and chaos that are going to take place during the Games. But certainly we can punish the culprits. And that is something must be done by the Indian government. Immediately after the Games the government must initiate a detailed investigation, aimed at identifying all the culprits. The investigation agency (whether it is CBI or something else) must be let to do its work independently, without any political pressure. And after the culprits are identified, they must be awarded strictest punishments.
And the investigators must have a special focus on the alleged “Chief Culprit”, the “flamboyant” Pune M.P. and “sports administrator” Mr. Suresh Kalmadi. And if it is found that the allegations against Mr. Kalmadi are true (of course he must be given due opportunity to defend himself), then he must be expelled from the Parliament at least for two terms (if not permanently). The CWG mess is going to be a national disgrace for India. And inflicting national disgrace on one’s motherland is one of the gravest crimes that can be committed by a citizen. And such a person has no right to be a lawmaker.
If the Congress party commits the blunder of shielding Mr. Kalmadi, then it will be a serious political blunder on its part. And I sincerely hope that it will not stoop so low.
Yes, we cannot avoid the mess and chaos that are going to take place during the Games. But certainly we can punish the culprits. And that is something must be done by the Indian government. Immediately after the Games the government must initiate a detailed investigation, aimed at identifying all the culprits. The investigation agency (whether it is CBI or something else) must be let to do its work independently, without any political pressure. And after the culprits are identified, they must be awarded strictest punishments.
And the investigators must have a special focus on the alleged “Chief Culprit”, the “flamboyant” Pune M.P. and “sports administrator” Mr. Suresh Kalmadi. And if it is found that the allegations against Mr. Kalmadi are true (of course he must be given due opportunity to defend himself), then he must be expelled from the Parliament at least for two terms (if not permanently). The CWG mess is going to be a national disgrace for India. And inflicting national disgrace on one’s motherland is one of the gravest crimes that can be committed by a citizen. And such a person has no right to be a lawmaker.
If the Congress party commits the blunder of shielding Mr. Kalmadi, then it will be a serious political blunder on its part. And I sincerely hope that it will not stoop so low.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Protection Mechanism For Whistleblowers – A Positive Development
It was heartening to see some developments that promise at least an apparently secured environment for whistleblowers.
First, the Union Cabinet approved the “Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010”, which empowers the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to punish and penalize those who will reveal the identity of a whistleblower and will thus get the latter into troubles. The Bill is aimed at protecting whistleblowers from the Central, State and Public Sector employees, and entrusts the CVC with the responsibility of protecting the identity of those who will bring to the CVC’s notice the instances of misuse of government authority and funds.
Secondly, now there is news that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is mulling a proposal to make it mandatory to have a whistleblower mechanism in companies, i.e. a mechanism that will shield whistleblowers from victimization. As of now it is only optional for companies to have such a mechanism.
Personally I feel these are very significant developments. It is an open secret that the corporate world is very vulnerable to irregularities of various types, and practices that cannot be called fair. Under such circumstances, whistleblowers are likely to play a very significant role, and it is a must to ensure that they are able to share their findings/doubts without any hesitation.
First, the Union Cabinet approved the “Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010”, which empowers the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to punish and penalize those who will reveal the identity of a whistleblower and will thus get the latter into troubles. The Bill is aimed at protecting whistleblowers from the Central, State and Public Sector employees, and entrusts the CVC with the responsibility of protecting the identity of those who will bring to the CVC’s notice the instances of misuse of government authority and funds.
Secondly, now there is news that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is mulling a proposal to make it mandatory to have a whistleblower mechanism in companies, i.e. a mechanism that will shield whistleblowers from victimization. As of now it is only optional for companies to have such a mechanism.
Personally I feel these are very significant developments. It is an open secret that the corporate world is very vulnerable to irregularities of various types, and practices that cannot be called fair. Under such circumstances, whistleblowers are likely to play a very significant role, and it is a must to ensure that they are able to share their findings/doubts without any hesitation.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
“New/Social Media” – The Emerging Specialized Field Within The Communications Domain
The “New Media” or “Social Media” tools, such as blog, Internet forums, social networking sites and YouTube have now become parts of the official communication tools practiced by various organizations. Well, this is known to everybody. But what some people may not be knowing is that New Media has started emerging as a specialized field within the Communication domain. Now it has become very common for organizations, both business organizations as well as non-profits, to have at least one dedicated employee (and sometimes a group of employees) in the Communications Department who is exclusively handling New or Social Media Communications. Yes, at the end of the day he is reporting to the overall head of the Communications Department (the VP, the Director or the DGM, or whatever). And it is most of the times the head of the department who takes the final decision on the New Media Communications, as it is in the cases of other P.R./communications activities like Media Relations, Government Relations, etc. But what I am trying to highlight is that now organizations have at least started having dedicated people meant exclusively for New/Social Media Communications.
And this clearly highlights the emergence of New/Social Media Communications as a specialized field within the domain of Public Relations/Communications. Quite naturally, I find many people bagging lucrative jobs with prestigious organizations simply by virtue of their experience in New/Social Media tools, while being virtually rookie in the fields of Media Relations, Government Relations, and other PR/Communications areas.
When I started my career in Public Relations/Communications around 10 years back, that time usually Media Relations was considered to be a specialized field in this domain. One of the first things that we learnt as rookies was how to prepare captivating “Press Releases”, how to “sell” them to the media (i.e. journalists) so that the latter covers those news, how to enthuse the media to attend a press conference or other press events, etc. Another specialized field was Event Management, which entailed the smooth and successful handling of various events (such as corporate events). This in fact led to the birth of a new field, i.e. Event Management, with event management companies raking their moolah by professionally handling corporate and other events of various types and nature, aimed at various sorts of target audiences ranging from tech maniacs to young students.
At the high level of Public Relations there was also the specialized field of Government Relations, which entailed dealing with the bureaucrats, policy makers, etc., usually on behalf of one’s organization. “Lobbying”, the controversial word, was a part of it.
There was also another specialized field. And that was preparation of corporate literatures and other materials, ranging from brochures, corporate websites, case studies, flyers, etc. In fact I eventually got involved with this field.
All these specialized communications fields are still there. But now they have another friend. And that is New/Social Media Communications. And it is increasingly thriving.
Are you a wannabe communications professional? And do you take interest in new/social media activities like blogging, YouTube, social networking sites (like Facebook), podcasting, etc? Well, then you may think of establishing yourself as a New Media Expert. It will be an enjoyable job for you, and most likely to be well-paid as well. And you can use this field to be associated with both business houses as well as non-profits (or for that matter any sort of organization), according to your personal interest and aptitude.
And this clearly highlights the emergence of New/Social Media Communications as a specialized field within the domain of Public Relations/Communications. Quite naturally, I find many people bagging lucrative jobs with prestigious organizations simply by virtue of their experience in New/Social Media tools, while being virtually rookie in the fields of Media Relations, Government Relations, and other PR/Communications areas.
When I started my career in Public Relations/Communications around 10 years back, that time usually Media Relations was considered to be a specialized field in this domain. One of the first things that we learnt as rookies was how to prepare captivating “Press Releases”, how to “sell” them to the media (i.e. journalists) so that the latter covers those news, how to enthuse the media to attend a press conference or other press events, etc. Another specialized field was Event Management, which entailed the smooth and successful handling of various events (such as corporate events). This in fact led to the birth of a new field, i.e. Event Management, with event management companies raking their moolah by professionally handling corporate and other events of various types and nature, aimed at various sorts of target audiences ranging from tech maniacs to young students.
At the high level of Public Relations there was also the specialized field of Government Relations, which entailed dealing with the bureaucrats, policy makers, etc., usually on behalf of one’s organization. “Lobbying”, the controversial word, was a part of it.
There was also another specialized field. And that was preparation of corporate literatures and other materials, ranging from brochures, corporate websites, case studies, flyers, etc. In fact I eventually got involved with this field.
All these specialized communications fields are still there. But now they have another friend. And that is New/Social Media Communications. And it is increasingly thriving.
Are you a wannabe communications professional? And do you take interest in new/social media activities like blogging, YouTube, social networking sites (like Facebook), podcasting, etc? Well, then you may think of establishing yourself as a New Media Expert. It will be an enjoyable job for you, and most likely to be well-paid as well. And you can use this field to be associated with both business houses as well as non-profits (or for that matter any sort of organization), according to your personal interest and aptitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
