Being (in)human

 Funny: For a (Sal)man who is ever ‘ready’ to bare his ‘body’ to drop his ‘guard’ for a tongue-loose remark that lets all hell break loose, shouldn’t we remind him it is ‘time-now’ for him to not just carry the slogan ‘Being Human’ but be actually that
Punny: For a (...)man who is spending every ‘buck’ to erase the ‘black-spot’, he badly needs a ‘kick’ to bring him back to some sens...e of sanity
F: People are tired of his ‘tired remark’ where he draws the analogy of a rape victim
P: He is used to ‘hit and run’. For the rich and mighty, it is just a game as they successfully forge a ‘partner’ship with the best of legal brains to make mockery of the legal system
F: But then, he is famous for his one-liners!
P: Precisely, he is a man of many words. His one-liners are laced with many words. Not interested in ‘one word’
F: You mean ‘economy of words’ contributing to our economy
P: Yes, look at the effect of one less word on environment
F: Every time you (don’t) say one less word, one less word gets printed which in turn leads to one less space consumed in print media which in turn...!
P: Environmentalists will cry – ‘Jai Ho’ – one less word
F: The FM will then reel out the cascading effects of the ‘economy-of-words’ on our economy when a (..)man chooses not to say a ‘word’, meaning thereby everyone needs to say a word less
P: Call it the ‘wordless economy’
Even as we ponder to wonder or wonder to ponder – whichever way you like it – we find ourselves dazed and confused. Whether we are argumentative Indians or reluctant Indians, intolerant Indians or tolerant Indians, a world-class economy or a wordless economy, the debate continues. One thing is for sure: we continue to be a bundle of contradictions and heaps of hypocrisy. Whether (...)man is (hu)man enough to admit that ‘one-word’, only time will tell. Time up, says time now. Common, (Sal)man, say the most ‘wanted’ word!

JE SUIS CHARLIE

IT’S THE ‘FOE’, STUPID! Freedom of expression can be your friend. And your FOE too as the recent Hebdo massacre revealed. Cartoonists draw admiration for their creative expression through wit, satire. From politicians to professionals, actors to authors, sportsmen to god men, cartoonists have spared none. While most took the lampooning in their stride, there have been instances where their wit and sarcasm went beyond the wisdom of certain section of the society, especially religious. The challenge for the cartoonists has always been to not cross the line of intolerance. Equally challenging was, who decides the tolerance quotient which is highly subjective.  The rage of terror on Charlie Hebdo received a flood of outrage in the form of protests, debates et al. While there is no doubt that the act of terror can never be justified, there is a fleeting evidence of discerning voices expressing doubts on whether the line of tolerance was crossed in this case. If the intellect can’t rein in the temptation to needle the ‘religious nerve’, knowing very well the high probability of triggering ‘sleeper cells’ to freely express their rage at what is supposedly a mere ‘laugh-it-off’ matter as the western culture would like to believe, who is to be blamed? The intellect whose thinking faculties are far superior? Or the terror masked by its perverted mindset and deep rooted hatred for western culture? Why touch ‘religious nerve’ at all? By no stretch of imagination should this be inferred as supporting terror act. If terror cannot be eliminated, contain it should be our priority. Given that the whole world is trying every which way to do so, how justifiable then is freedom of expression if it results in negating the very purpose?  

What is perfectly ‘laugh-it-off’ stuff in one part of the world has the potential of creating havoc in another part. Even as ‘FOE’ is the holy grail of democracy, it carries a caveat that it is used responsibly. Relying solely on the right to FOE unmindful of its consequences is an act as illogical as that of the terror act itself.  

Of what use is FOE if it does not promote harmony among people? The world is sick of such ‘sickening’ acts. It can certainly do with a bit of restraint on the part of fourth estate. Which draws us back to the question: Do you necessarily have to touch the ‘raw nerve’ which is universally known for its vulnerability? Some say that education is the key to progress. In which case, crimes should not happen in developed countries. Unfortunately, it is not so. Crimes of every description continue unabated in educated and less educated societies and in equal measure! It is shocking to see the ‘well educated’ commit crimes that defy logic. What sort of education is that if it fails to enable enlightenment in the recipient’s mind? 

It requires a deep psycho-analysis - social background, psychological mindset; economic inequalities. The much touted values of economic reforms, free market and its ‘trickle-down’ theory – it is barely trickling in every cruelest sense of the term – have managed to benefit the rich at a much faster rate while the poor are still languishing. 

It is the hatred and insatiable greed for success, fame, material wealth that blur the ability to reflect on the bigger picture. Otherwise, how else can you explain the acts of those wearing terror outfits and those wearing educated labels? Whose action deserves greater condemnation? The ones who provoked? Or those provoked? One in the name of FOE! The other in the name of hatred and intolerance. What then is the way out? 

There is no quick fix solution. The need is for a long, grinding process of evolution. Rediscover the self in a journey called ‘cultural (r)evolution’. It may take centuries. Until then, let us enjoy the pleasures of ‘freedom of expression, and endure the pains of ‘FOE’!

Freedom of expression is meant for creating an atmosphere of mutual trust, peace, goodwill and harmony among people irrespective of caste creed and religion. Create a friend and not FOE through freedom of expression. Because, otherwise, we the ‘intellect’ would be ‘missing the cake for the wrapper’ just as the terrorists did.