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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)