This article is very biased. The language and choice of facts have been manipulated by writer Tarun Vijay to make Jinnah look like the villain who is solely responsible for the riots that took place in India before independence. He makes Jinnah look like a distant, aristocratic person who was incapable of being an Islamic leader. To substantiate his stand Tarun Vijay chooses to appeal to the reader’s emotions rather than reason. Instead of concentrating on facts, and political decisions made by Jinnah the writer substantiates his arguments with emotive, rhetorical and effusive language used by other leaders. Instead of dissecting Jinnah’s political actions the writer attacks Jinnah personally.
The name of the article itself is very extremist- “Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it.” well there were many who had a pistol and used it. Whether it was Bhagat Singh, Subash Chandra Bose or other Hindu radical nationalists, they all promoted violence as a means of attaining Independence. Subash Chandra Bose popularised his motto “Give me blood and I will give you freedom”. How is this different from Jinnah’s speech made in 1946 as mentioned in the article. The author evidently has a biased perception against Jinnah. He has highlighted all the vices Jinnah possessed and emphasised on parts of few speeches to develop fallacious reasoning. This fallacious reasoning has led him to develop distrust not only for Jinnah, but the entire Muslim League. He has blamed the League as a body and Jinnah in particular for the riots. He has used effusive language to express his resentment. This entire process of a biased perception leading to undue generalisations and powerful language comes under the vicious circle of rationalisation.
The author unintentionally weakens his arguments when he cites similar traits of Jinnah in the Hindu Leader Jawaharlal Nehru. A major fallacy in the comparison is that while Nehru is looked as a leader whose duty was to protect Indian interests, Jinnah is not looked upon in the same light with respect to Pakistan; instead, he is treated as a foreigner who has intruded in the countries affairs and has not contributed at all to the freedom struggle. The states that Nehru went to jail for the country, but he conveniently ignores the fact that even Jinnah went to jail during the freedom struggle. Infact it was only later that he came up with the idea of Pakistan, and this idea was not originally his. A group of students who were members of the League suggested this long before Jinnah came to power. Jinnah only furthered the idea. Thus here we see the circular reasoning used by the author, who selects information to suit his preconceived notions and manipulates reported information in a manner that substantiates his stand.
Also the author has a strong religious bias that is a major knowledge issue prevalent in this article. He uses Holy Hindu books like the Gita to prove his point. Evidently his article is only catering to a Hindu audience. He cites nationalists as members of the “Hindu nationalist parivar”. He also talks in the power of the unity of the Hindus. Here he is doing the same thing as Jinnah did; he is dividing the society on religious lines.. What he is advocating is the supremacy of Hindus in a secular state.
Thus, His argument has double standards, with strong religious biases and long rooted prejudices. He uses emotions to appeal to his audience and manipulates historical facts to suit his needs. He is writing a derogatory article on Jinnah years after his death, thus I do not get the point of this article. Is his aim to glorify Hindu nationalists or slight Jinnah and his League? There are other ways of respecting nationalists. However I do not get the point of insulting a late leader.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Film Review- A mighty heart
Film Review – A mighty heart
“A mighty heart” is Mariane Pearl’s account of the five weeks leading up to her husband, Daniel Pearl’s death. It’s based on the memoir she wrote of the experience in hopes that her son, Adam, could get a feel for the great man his father was and how much people cared about him. This movie explores various prejudices, human emotions and cross cultural conflicts. In the process it raises many issues, some subtly and some openly.
The issue of terrorism, combating terrorism, racial barriers, and prejudices, cross cultural conflicts, global solidarity, and corruption are raised very obviously. However there are other issues that are not explored but just mentioned. Like when Mariane gives a television after her husband’s death the reporter asks her what message does she have for the Pakistani’s and instead of showing hatred or vengeance she says that the same week as her husband was murdered ten Pakistanis were also murdered. Thus they are sailing in the same boat. Here we see a different approach, were Mariane wisely distinguishes between Pakistanis and terrorists.
I was a regular with the news when Daniel Pearl was actually abducted. I knew what the end of the film was going to be. However the movie was made so well that and you just may find yourself hoping for a different ending than the one you know is coming. Here the question of communicating history comes into play. Today after seeing this movie all that I heard five years ago becomes passé. I only remember the story told to me in this movie. Some of it may not be true, but modified truth to make the movie more dramatic. However today this is what people believe. Thus history out here becomes a story a mother wants to tell her son about her father. Maybe if the same movie wasn’t made this well it would get not acclaim. A lot of the acclaim was because of Angelina’s impeccable performance. Thus do we only notice things that are attractive, did this movie gain acclaim because of the social message or because of good direction, acting and the high profile star cast?
One very sad thing that I felt while seeing the movie was that the kind of investigation that took place for Daniel Pearl’s death was only because of his popularity and contribution to journalism. Is this fair? Does a famous man’s life only hold importance? And the people who were vehemently searching for Daniel weren’t doing it out of social responsibility; they were doing it for their personal relations with him. When they are asked to identify a body which was brutally murdered and realise it is not Daniel they pay no heed. They ignore it by saying, “It maybe some Iranian student.” Well that man was also a journalist; however he was not as famous as Daniel Pearl. Similar thing happened in Mumbai. When the 2006 train attacks took place there was investigation for a few days and then the matter slowly died out. People forgot about it and started leading their lives. This is because the blasts affected only the economically weaker sections of the society. However in 2008 when the terrorists attack took place in Taj a Five star hotel the entire country was shaken up. This is because it was for the first tome that the elite had been targeted. Ever since then security has improved in public places and everyone has become more alert.
Racial prejudices reign supreme in this movie. Conflicts between Indians and Pakistanis, between Americas and terrorists and between Jews and Muslims are predominant. Mariane’s Indian journalist friend is in a relationship with a Muslim man living in Karachi. She calls her boyfriend’s friends over for dinner one night. This is when Daniel is missing. They ask for Daniel and address him as a CIA agent. One friend goes on to say that “All American journalists are CIA agents.” Here we see how simply some ignorant person makes generalisations and does not even think twice about its implications. Even later the Pakistani news reporters label Daniel as a CIA agent. They do not think before labelling people and making generalisations. This is because of prejudices they hold against Americans in general and the CIA in particular.
Also when Mariane and Daniel go to interview a mullah about the terrorists attacks he blatantly blames the entire event on the Jews. He claims that on the day of the attack 4000 Jews working in the World Trade Centre did not turn up for work because they knew about it. He asks Daniel his cast and Daniel says he is a Jew them there is an awkward pause and the interview ends there. Later after Daniel is abducted the first question Mariane’s parents ask is that “Does anyone know he is a Jew” and Mariane lies to them. Are we defined by our cast, and is fair to generalise that if few Jews were terrorists all Jews are. In the same way if few Pakistanis did wrong to Daniel it is not that all of them are evil. There are few people like Captain, Pakistani intelligence (CID) chief and Daniel Pear who prove such generalisations wrong.
Thus this movie touches upon critical social issues. There are many deplorable facts of society portrayed but at the same time we see that solidarity is till maintained when people from all over the world- Pakistani, Cuban, Indian and American come together to save the life of an honourable man. It urges the audience to stop making generalisations and use their reason.
While no recreation could ever truly capture what they had or the tragic direction their lives lead, A Mighty Heart makes a surprisingly effective attempt. After all, not many movies can break your heart, keep your adrenaline racing and remind you of life’s value all at once. Director Michael Winterbottom has done a commendable job to chose such and issue and spread awareness. He as used the scope of the media and his art to create social awareness. This movie is very moving and compels audiences to re-evaluate some preconceived ideas.
“A mighty heart” is Mariane Pearl’s account of the five weeks leading up to her husband, Daniel Pearl’s death. It’s based on the memoir she wrote of the experience in hopes that her son, Adam, could get a feel for the great man his father was and how much people cared about him. This movie explores various prejudices, human emotions and cross cultural conflicts. In the process it raises many issues, some subtly and some openly.
The issue of terrorism, combating terrorism, racial barriers, and prejudices, cross cultural conflicts, global solidarity, and corruption are raised very obviously. However there are other issues that are not explored but just mentioned. Like when Mariane gives a television after her husband’s death the reporter asks her what message does she have for the Pakistani’s and instead of showing hatred or vengeance she says that the same week as her husband was murdered ten Pakistanis were also murdered. Thus they are sailing in the same boat. Here we see a different approach, were Mariane wisely distinguishes between Pakistanis and terrorists.
I was a regular with the news when Daniel Pearl was actually abducted. I knew what the end of the film was going to be. However the movie was made so well that and you just may find yourself hoping for a different ending than the one you know is coming. Here the question of communicating history comes into play. Today after seeing this movie all that I heard five years ago becomes passé. I only remember the story told to me in this movie. Some of it may not be true, but modified truth to make the movie more dramatic. However today this is what people believe. Thus history out here becomes a story a mother wants to tell her son about her father. Maybe if the same movie wasn’t made this well it would get not acclaim. A lot of the acclaim was because of Angelina’s impeccable performance. Thus do we only notice things that are attractive, did this movie gain acclaim because of the social message or because of good direction, acting and the high profile star cast?
One very sad thing that I felt while seeing the movie was that the kind of investigation that took place for Daniel Pearl’s death was only because of his popularity and contribution to journalism. Is this fair? Does a famous man’s life only hold importance? And the people who were vehemently searching for Daniel weren’t doing it out of social responsibility; they were doing it for their personal relations with him. When they are asked to identify a body which was brutally murdered and realise it is not Daniel they pay no heed. They ignore it by saying, “It maybe some Iranian student.” Well that man was also a journalist; however he was not as famous as Daniel Pearl. Similar thing happened in Mumbai. When the 2006 train attacks took place there was investigation for a few days and then the matter slowly died out. People forgot about it and started leading their lives. This is because the blasts affected only the economically weaker sections of the society. However in 2008 when the terrorists attack took place in Taj a Five star hotel the entire country was shaken up. This is because it was for the first tome that the elite had been targeted. Ever since then security has improved in public places and everyone has become more alert.
Racial prejudices reign supreme in this movie. Conflicts between Indians and Pakistanis, between Americas and terrorists and between Jews and Muslims are predominant. Mariane’s Indian journalist friend is in a relationship with a Muslim man living in Karachi. She calls her boyfriend’s friends over for dinner one night. This is when Daniel is missing. They ask for Daniel and address him as a CIA agent. One friend goes on to say that “All American journalists are CIA agents.” Here we see how simply some ignorant person makes generalisations and does not even think twice about its implications. Even later the Pakistani news reporters label Daniel as a CIA agent. They do not think before labelling people and making generalisations. This is because of prejudices they hold against Americans in general and the CIA in particular.
Also when Mariane and Daniel go to interview a mullah about the terrorists attacks he blatantly blames the entire event on the Jews. He claims that on the day of the attack 4000 Jews working in the World Trade Centre did not turn up for work because they knew about it. He asks Daniel his cast and Daniel says he is a Jew them there is an awkward pause and the interview ends there. Later after Daniel is abducted the first question Mariane’s parents ask is that “Does anyone know he is a Jew” and Mariane lies to them. Are we defined by our cast, and is fair to generalise that if few Jews were terrorists all Jews are. In the same way if few Pakistanis did wrong to Daniel it is not that all of them are evil. There are few people like Captain, Pakistani intelligence (CID) chief and Daniel Pear who prove such generalisations wrong.
Thus this movie touches upon critical social issues. There are many deplorable facts of society portrayed but at the same time we see that solidarity is till maintained when people from all over the world- Pakistani, Cuban, Indian and American come together to save the life of an honourable man. It urges the audience to stop making generalisations and use their reason.
While no recreation could ever truly capture what they had or the tragic direction their lives lead, A Mighty Heart makes a surprisingly effective attempt. After all, not many movies can break your heart, keep your adrenaline racing and remind you of life’s value all at once. Director Michael Winterbottom has done a commendable job to chose such and issue and spread awareness. He as used the scope of the media and his art to create social awareness. This movie is very moving and compels audiences to re-evaluate some preconceived ideas.
Religion
In today's age of science and modern marvels there are many people who ask, "Why do we still need religion?". Science has shown a clear path towards answering all kinds of questions that once were the domain of magic and religion. Does that not prove that religion is merely the domain of ignorance and fools who wish to believe in fairy tales purely based on what they refer to as "Faith"? This has long been one of the chief arguments made by atheists against religion. However their bewilderment towards why educated people still believe in religions has rather non-mysterious answers.
Religion fulfils psychological and sociological needs. It provides what is essentially a security blanket and a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. When an individual has absolute faith in something, for that person it is, for all practical purposes, true. Human beings in just about every culture studied have a tendency to latch on to an ideology or religion as Truth. The difficulty in dislodging a person's "faith" has to do with how often a person's religion is tied deeply into their culture, family, and heritage. Religion is an important means through which many people form an identity within their society. However of greater importance to understanding why religion is important to people is understanding that religion provides a powerful mechanism for anxiety relief.
However even though religion, race swaddles us like comfortable blankets from the moment of birth and attempts to define who we are it is high time this is the age old way in which society sets us up for scrutinization. Religion, in particular, places us into a box with windows that obstruct views of all the other boxes into which everyone around is also placed. The outcome is prejudice, misunderstanding and hatred thanks to those obstructed views. Few bother to crawl out of or even question their assigned boxes to gain any real perspective on awareness and true spirituality. When viewed from an outer orbit, religion divides, and misleads.
People often treat religious teachings as a conformation bias. They ignore ideas that go against their religious beliefs and extenuate facts that conform to their beliefs. For example The Bible tells about something called prophecies. That is when God speaks through a person to tell something that is going to happen, as a warning or a tip. In this way one could say that new knowledge is created. However, prophecies must correspond to the Bible. How do the religions justify their beliefs? Christianity is to the greatest part justified on trust, but also on prophecies actually happening. 700 BC a prophet named Ezekiel proclaimed that Jerusalem were going to burn if the people didn't better. 586 BC, it burnt down to the ground. This belief has often been exploited by popes in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus today manis perverting the meaning of religion.
True religion is not about the dogmas of the religion but is about the teachings and how they tell you to live your life. For example, just about every religion in the world, including many you have never heard of, have some form of the Golden Rule as central to their teachings. Like in Hinduism “karma” is the central theory which states that a man’s destiny in his present and afterlife is shaped by his actions.
Having religion as an important part of our lives does not mean that we will necessarily live positive lives. Throughout history, religions have been the cause of incredible suffering in the world. With all of the positive influence of religion that we can cite, we cannot honestly ignore the terrible damage it has inflicted or the terrible damage it is inflicting today. Religion leads to National and regional biases.
Thus religion has a different meaning for everyone. For some it is a path to God, for some a safeguard and for some a resource to be exploited. The true essence of religion is to encourage a way of life that is righteous. Religion creates divisions but also builds communities; it depends on your perspective. Following one’s religion should be out of free will and not enforcement to keep its true essence alive.
Religion fulfils psychological and sociological needs. It provides what is essentially a security blanket and a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. When an individual has absolute faith in something, for that person it is, for all practical purposes, true. Human beings in just about every culture studied have a tendency to latch on to an ideology or religion as Truth. The difficulty in dislodging a person's "faith" has to do with how often a person's religion is tied deeply into their culture, family, and heritage. Religion is an important means through which many people form an identity within their society. However of greater importance to understanding why religion is important to people is understanding that religion provides a powerful mechanism for anxiety relief.
However even though religion, race swaddles us like comfortable blankets from the moment of birth and attempts to define who we are it is high time this is the age old way in which society sets us up for scrutinization. Religion, in particular, places us into a box with windows that obstruct views of all the other boxes into which everyone around is also placed. The outcome is prejudice, misunderstanding and hatred thanks to those obstructed views. Few bother to crawl out of or even question their assigned boxes to gain any real perspective on awareness and true spirituality. When viewed from an outer orbit, religion divides, and misleads.
People often treat religious teachings as a conformation bias. They ignore ideas that go against their religious beliefs and extenuate facts that conform to their beliefs. For example The Bible tells about something called prophecies. That is when God speaks through a person to tell something that is going to happen, as a warning or a tip. In this way one could say that new knowledge is created. However, prophecies must correspond to the Bible. How do the religions justify their beliefs? Christianity is to the greatest part justified on trust, but also on prophecies actually happening. 700 BC a prophet named Ezekiel proclaimed that Jerusalem were going to burn if the people didn't better. 586 BC, it burnt down to the ground. This belief has often been exploited by popes in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus today manis perverting the meaning of religion.
True religion is not about the dogmas of the religion but is about the teachings and how they tell you to live your life. For example, just about every religion in the world, including many you have never heard of, have some form of the Golden Rule as central to their teachings. Like in Hinduism “karma” is the central theory which states that a man’s destiny in his present and afterlife is shaped by his actions.
Having religion as an important part of our lives does not mean that we will necessarily live positive lives. Throughout history, religions have been the cause of incredible suffering in the world. With all of the positive influence of religion that we can cite, we cannot honestly ignore the terrible damage it has inflicted or the terrible damage it is inflicting today. Religion leads to National and regional biases.
Thus religion has a different meaning for everyone. For some it is a path to God, for some a safeguard and for some a resource to be exploited. The true essence of religion is to encourage a way of life that is righteous. Religion creates divisions but also builds communities; it depends on your perspective. Following one’s religion should be out of free will and not enforcement to keep its true essence alive.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Reflection - When will I know the truth?
As I go further into my studies I can see contradictions to my previous learning. This has led me to question the truth behind the information I call knowledge. What I learnt yesterday is contradicted by today so what I learn tomorrow in university show me a new picture again. And which picture should I trust- the simplistic one I saw as a child or the new one? these questions have put me in a dilemma and my reason seems to be failing me.
Where does knowledge come from? How is knowledge attained? Do we tend to oversimplify the Ways of Knowing? Do we believe in science, and how much do we believe it? There are many sources of knowledge throughout the world that communicate to people about what events that have happened and what is happening at this very moment. However may lie or are misleading, have bias, and come from different perspectives. Being misleading, having bias, and having different perspectives with in a source make the sources harder to be considered trustworthy. . Not all these sources can be trusted. Which one should we trust? As a TOK learner I am trying to find answers but the more I try the more I obfuscated I get.
I always believed that history was written based on biased perceptions and manipulated by those in power. But I always believed that science and mathematics to be absolute and true. But lately my beliefs are changing. In the ICSE I was told that Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix model and received a Nobel Award for it. This was written in Biology textbook. After coming to the IB I learnt that it was actually their assistant Roselyn Franklin who made the discovery but died soon after and the two scientists took credit for her discovery. Also in ICSE we learnt three Laws of Genetic Inheritance by Mendel’s that governed the inheritance. However in the IB I learnt polygenetic inheritance that gives a completely new picture of how the Human body actually functions. Everytime I learn something new I have to revise previous knowledge claims; this means I never knew the truth. The revised version I know today I think is the truth but is that so? In math I was told that the root of negative numbers does not exist, in the IB I learnt that the root of a negative number is an imaginary and denoted by the letter ‘i’. Today I do not know the value of ‘i’, but will I know tomorrow, does it have a value or no, if no then why am I using it.
Thus there have been many questions lately that have perturbed me. All I can say is that we never really know the whole truth, but we must acquire as much information as possible and then only make a knowledge claim. One book or any one source for that matter is not full proof. Counter arguments need to be considered and related areas have to be analysed.
Where does knowledge come from? How is knowledge attained? Do we tend to oversimplify the Ways of Knowing? Do we believe in science, and how much do we believe it? There are many sources of knowledge throughout the world that communicate to people about what events that have happened and what is happening at this very moment. However may lie or are misleading, have bias, and come from different perspectives. Being misleading, having bias, and having different perspectives with in a source make the sources harder to be considered trustworthy. . Not all these sources can be trusted. Which one should we trust? As a TOK learner I am trying to find answers but the more I try the more I obfuscated I get.
I always believed that history was written based on biased perceptions and manipulated by those in power. But I always believed that science and mathematics to be absolute and true. But lately my beliefs are changing. In the ICSE I was told that Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix model and received a Nobel Award for it. This was written in Biology textbook. After coming to the IB I learnt that it was actually their assistant Roselyn Franklin who made the discovery but died soon after and the two scientists took credit for her discovery. Also in ICSE we learnt three Laws of Genetic Inheritance by Mendel’s that governed the inheritance. However in the IB I learnt polygenetic inheritance that gives a completely new picture of how the Human body actually functions. Everytime I learn something new I have to revise previous knowledge claims; this means I never knew the truth. The revised version I know today I think is the truth but is that so? In math I was told that the root of negative numbers does not exist, in the IB I learnt that the root of a negative number is an imaginary and denoted by the letter ‘i’. Today I do not know the value of ‘i’, but will I know tomorrow, does it have a value or no, if no then why am I using it.
Thus there have been many questions lately that have perturbed me. All I can say is that we never really know the whole truth, but we must acquire as much information as possible and then only make a knowledge claim. One book or any one source for that matter is not full proof. Counter arguments need to be considered and related areas have to be analysed.
knowledge at work- Nuclear Issue with Iran
In this article we see how two countries are perturbed by different issues. Iran has social and political issues that it wishes to discuss with while US wants to discuss the Nuclear deal. Both countries are unwilling to understand the other’s concerns. Both countries do evidently not understand each others perspective and want to further their own motives.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.
To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.
Friday, August 28, 2009
knowledge at work - august
Secret abuse in CIA Prisons
America, the leader of the developed world believes in rationality, fair play and equal rights for all. It was one of the cofounders of the Human Right Commission. However this articles jolts all those high ideals one holds for America. It shows the dark grim face hidden behind all those smiles of affability. This article even though maintains a narrative tone elicits an array of human emotions depending on the cultural background of the reader. To an Asian reader like me this article elicits scorn, anger and disbelief towards the CIA and pity towards the detainees. I cannot understand the rationale behind such inhuman treatment.
One recurrent feature of the news in the article was the fact a lot of the news said was by anonymous sources. We see that the CIA has kept everything under cover. All facts are concealed from the public domain. Thus as a reader we don’t know whom and what to believe. This is an issue of serious concerns. The writer also makes a claim to know the insights into the depth of the incident. However the writer himself does not know any specifics to this report. The foundation of the facts is a weak a it is based on unrevealed reports. This appropriation of facts is rampant among many governments. The Iranian authorities are using prolonged harsh interrogations, beatings, sleep deprivation, and threats of torture to extract false confessions from detainees arrested since the disputed June 12 presidential election. The confessions appear designed to support unsubstantiated allegations by senior government officials that Iran's post-election protests, in which at least 20 people were killed, were supported by foreign powers and aimed at overthrowing the government. Human Rights Watch has collected accounts from detainees after their release illustrating how the authorities are mistreating and threatening prisoners in a deliberate effort to obtain false confessions. A 17-year-old boy who was arrested on June 27 and released on July 1 told Human Rights Watch how his prison interrogator forced him and others to sign a blank statement of confession. The authorities have conveniently concluded that detainees have confessed to their involvement in a foreign-backed plot to overthrow the government with a "velvet" revolution. Thus here we see how helpless we are. Truth is being revealed but political pressures are suppressing our voice. Detention is unethical, that I strongly believe that. However this practice rampant numerous countries and is validated by law.
Even if there is a lack of sources regarding the incident that had taken place, the knowledge issue does serve to remind us about how even in a democratic, socialist, secular country like America, one cannot be guaranteed basic human rights. Emotions have taken over reason in case of the American CIA. They have used fallacious reasoning and got stuck in the vicious circle of rationalisation. The fear of having another attack like 9-11 has made the interrogators ruthless and inhumane. Their emotions have taken oven their reason. They have developed a biased perception against Asians. Fallacious reasoning, that just because a few set of brown skinned people turned out to be terrorists all of them are has lead them to make hasty generalisation. All emotions have built up and are removed on detainees.
This article raises questions like are we really free? Is our entire life going to be governed by fear. The movie New York directed by Kabir Khan deals with a similar knowledge issue. However it is much more effusive and open about facts. In that movie we see the social implications detention. 10000 people were detained after the World Trade centre attack and all were found innocent. In this movie we see the psychological impact it has on one such detainee. Rather than solving the problem detention triggers societal evils. After the inhuman treatment people are unable to lead a normal life. In this movie a detainee goes o to become a terrorist. I am not justifying his acts but I genuinely believe that what he did was a normal human reaction. Once a successful and jovial boy he was transformed to a ruthless murderer. And looking at this makes me feel unsafe. This could happen to anyone. Are we all at the mercies of the judgement of some official who may just find the way we look suspicious. And the biggest highlight is that he won’t have to feel guilty or be punished. He will only be “reprimanded” for playing with the lives of innocent people. What kind of justice is this?
Detention is an unethical practice which if left unchecked can encroach into anybody’s life and devour it without even a warning. The proponents of detention may counter argue that detention preventive measure to ascertain security. However can arbitrary judgments made by a few officials, based value judgements and not facts decide the fate of thousands of people?
America, the leader of the developed world believes in rationality, fair play and equal rights for all. It was one of the cofounders of the Human Right Commission. However this articles jolts all those high ideals one holds for America. It shows the dark grim face hidden behind all those smiles of affability. This article even though maintains a narrative tone elicits an array of human emotions depending on the cultural background of the reader. To an Asian reader like me this article elicits scorn, anger and disbelief towards the CIA and pity towards the detainees. I cannot understand the rationale behind such inhuman treatment.
One recurrent feature of the news in the article was the fact a lot of the news said was by anonymous sources. We see that the CIA has kept everything under cover. All facts are concealed from the public domain. Thus as a reader we don’t know whom and what to believe. This is an issue of serious concerns. The writer also makes a claim to know the insights into the depth of the incident. However the writer himself does not know any specifics to this report. The foundation of the facts is a weak a it is based on unrevealed reports. This appropriation of facts is rampant among many governments. The Iranian authorities are using prolonged harsh interrogations, beatings, sleep deprivation, and threats of torture to extract false confessions from detainees arrested since the disputed June 12 presidential election. The confessions appear designed to support unsubstantiated allegations by senior government officials that Iran's post-election protests, in which at least 20 people were killed, were supported by foreign powers and aimed at overthrowing the government. Human Rights Watch has collected accounts from detainees after their release illustrating how the authorities are mistreating and threatening prisoners in a deliberate effort to obtain false confessions. A 17-year-old boy who was arrested on June 27 and released on July 1 told Human Rights Watch how his prison interrogator forced him and others to sign a blank statement of confession. The authorities have conveniently concluded that detainees have confessed to their involvement in a foreign-backed plot to overthrow the government with a "velvet" revolution. Thus here we see how helpless we are. Truth is being revealed but political pressures are suppressing our voice. Detention is unethical, that I strongly believe that. However this practice rampant numerous countries and is validated by law.
Even if there is a lack of sources regarding the incident that had taken place, the knowledge issue does serve to remind us about how even in a democratic, socialist, secular country like America, one cannot be guaranteed basic human rights. Emotions have taken over reason in case of the American CIA. They have used fallacious reasoning and got stuck in the vicious circle of rationalisation. The fear of having another attack like 9-11 has made the interrogators ruthless and inhumane. Their emotions have taken oven their reason. They have developed a biased perception against Asians. Fallacious reasoning, that just because a few set of brown skinned people turned out to be terrorists all of them are has lead them to make hasty generalisation. All emotions have built up and are removed on detainees.
This article raises questions like are we really free? Is our entire life going to be governed by fear. The movie New York directed by Kabir Khan deals with a similar knowledge issue. However it is much more effusive and open about facts. In that movie we see the social implications detention. 10000 people were detained after the World Trade centre attack and all were found innocent. In this movie we see the psychological impact it has on one such detainee. Rather than solving the problem detention triggers societal evils. After the inhuman treatment people are unable to lead a normal life. In this movie a detainee goes o to become a terrorist. I am not justifying his acts but I genuinely believe that what he did was a normal human reaction. Once a successful and jovial boy he was transformed to a ruthless murderer. And looking at this makes me feel unsafe. This could happen to anyone. Are we all at the mercies of the judgement of some official who may just find the way we look suspicious. And the biggest highlight is that he won’t have to feel guilty or be punished. He will only be “reprimanded” for playing with the lives of innocent people. What kind of justice is this?
Detention is an unethical practice which if left unchecked can encroach into anybody’s life and devour it without even a warning. The proponents of detention may counter argue that detention preventive measure to ascertain security. However can arbitrary judgments made by a few officials, based value judgements and not facts decide the fate of thousands of people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)