Shreyas Pardiwalla

Friday, October 30, 2009

Diwali Homework- TOK Essay on any movie of my Choice

Diwali Homework- TOK Essay on any movie of my Choice,
Movie Chosen by me: Chak de India (Hindi Bollywood Film)

One of the reasons for India’s slow development is the people’s way of thinking. Most Indian’s label themselves as patriots and thus think from the heart rather than the mind; i.e. become victims of emotion and shun reason, which results in the concoction of unreasonable judgements. Thus starts the film of Chak de India. Kabir Khan (played by Shahrukh Khan) is the captain of the Indian men’s national field hockey team and the team is playing in the Wold Cup Finals at the common Wealth Games. India is playing against Pakistan and the scores are India nil and Pakistan one. Kabir Khan in the last few minutes of the game gets a penalty shootout, but misses the goal by a few inches. The Indian team is shocked at their loss and the all the Indian hockey fans are filled with wrought. Soon after, the media begins to circulate a photograph of Khan accepting a handshake from the head of the Pakistani team, assuming that Khan, who is a Muslim, might be a traitor ad has allowed Pakistan to win on purpose. The religious prejudice shown towards Khan by the entire society at large, forces him and his mother out of their ancestral home and into exile. Seven years later, Khan wants to coach the Indian woman's field hockey team, a job no one else wants (as, an official indicates, the only long term role for women is to "cook and clean"). He trains the girls of the team. At first there are many differenses and disputes amongst the team members but they overcome their differences throughout the many matches and eventually learn to act as a single unit. This move leads them to victory and the restoration of Khan’s good name. In doing so, they not only destroy the prejudices which once separated them, but prove to their families and country the worth of women. At the end, Kabir Khan returns with his mother to their ancestral home, welcomed by those who had shunned them years before.
The film Chak de India explores the religious intolerance that prevails in India, despite being known as a cosmopolitan country. It also shows the perception of the male chauvinists who cause the differences between men and women, by exploring sexism in modern India through hockey. In the film, as the society is filled with anger and cannot overcome their strong emotion they rationalise. As India loses against the Pakistani hockey team because of Khan their powerful emotion is anger (primary emotion). Anger leads to a biased perception; the society overlooks all his years of serving the team as a captain. They forget that it is because of Khan’s good captainship India is in the finals. They only notice his one loss, which they do not realise can happen to anybody due to the state of nervousness. Such biased perception leads to fallacious reasoning and they make a hasty generalisation that as Kabir Khan is a Muslim, he is a traitor and has lost the match on purpose in order to allow Pakistan to win. This fallacy leads to emotive language and thus the society throws him and his mother out of their home and into exile.
Chak de India portrays the clash between reason and emotion throughout the film. There is a scene in the film where Kabir Khan the couch resigns the girl’s hockey team in anger, as they revolt against all his rules. However, as a sign of good will he treats them for lunch at McDonalds. During lunch, the anger in Khan and the team members subsides but when some local boys make a pass at Mary and Molly two team members, Balbir another team member loses control and attacks them violently. This leads to a fight between the boys and the entire team. One by one all the girls beat the boys brutally till their anger and frustration has been drained out. Emotion clouds their minds to such an extent that the hockey players have no control over their actions/body language and express themselves through an irrational behavior.
Is it ethical to differentiate between a man and a woman? Is it ethical to say that women are inferior to men? Chak de India shows how women are looked down upon in society. There is a scene in which the Indian women’s hockey team is banned from playing in the world cup; the reason given is, ‘because they are women.’ In this case, emotion again gets the upper hand of the women, and results in them proving to the society that women are no less than men, by playing a heated match against the Indian men’s hockey team and despite losing this match, their superb performance on the field forces the officials to change their mind and send the team to The World Championship. In this case it is evident that emotion if used in a positive way, in this case: as team spirit, then it does have good effects. In the film there are certain instances which portray how perception can damage the minds reasoning. Certain officials in the film are trapped in the’ prison of consistency’. They have taken a stand that the girls hockey team is hopeless compared to the boy’s hockey team and thus even though after seeing the spectacular performance of the girls, these officials do not compliment the girls, in fact they still say that the boys won the match and thus they should go to the World Championship. It is difficult to change their mind without losing face.
A mind clouded by emotion or perception has a great impact on reason and language. However, without perception, thinking will not take place and thus reasoning will not come into the picture. Thus perception is important. Similarly emotion is important as without it creative thinking and reasoning will not be possible. Without emotions life will be monotonous. Emotions serve as a part of the bases for language. Gestures and expressions are done to express emotions and thus convey the message. Without emotions, these expressions and gestures are redundant, and vice versa. Thus it will be preferable, to reason out a problem without jumping to conclusions however, emotions should not be shunned as they too play an important role in one’s life.

K@W - Diwali Holiday- "Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it."

Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it.
Tarun Vijay
Wednesday August 19, 2009

"I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it." So said Mohammad Ali Jinnah while delivering his presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946. What followed was an unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata on August 16, 1946. Six thousand killed, twenty thousand raped and maimed. Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of Hindu Mahasabha had said, "Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India." If one single instance should be cited to understand what Jinnah really was, it would not be his speech in the Constituent Assembly, Karachi, often quoted by Indian Hindus, but his call for "Direct Action".
That was August 16, 1946, known as the day of "great Calcutta killings". After the "Direct Action" resolution was passed by the Muslim League on July 19, 1946, its president, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, said in his valedictory speech: "What we have done today is the most historic act in our history. Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything except by the constitutional methods and by constitutionalism. But now we are obliged and forced into this position. This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods…. Now the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to direct action. I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it." Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, who had said, "Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India", organized Hindus fearlessly and foiled Jinnah’s plan to oust Hindus from Kolkata. He formed a volunteer group of the Hindus named the Hindusthan National Guards, resisted horrendous goondaism of the League and moved in the riot-affected areas giving courage to the victims of a planned slaughter and orgy of violence by the League’s marauders. Syama Prasad Mookerjee was traveling all over India awakening the masses to rise against the partition plot. On October 8, 1944, at a United Provinces Hindu Conference, he said, "The sooner Mr Jinnah understands that Pakistan in any form or shape will be resisted by Hindus and many others with the last drop of blood, the better for him, for he will then quietly descend on realities and himself plead for a just and equitable settlement. None but an agent of imperialism will so block the path of Indian unity and freedom as Mr Jinnah is doing." Dr Mookerjee, who is respected as the ideological icon and source of inspiration by the Bharatiya Janata Party, was a devotee of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. In fact, he had been in close contact with Sri Aurobindo, who had said, "The idea of two nationalities in India is only a new-fangled notion invented by Jinnah for his purposes and contrary to the facts. More than 90% of the Indian Mussalmans are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindus themselves. This process of conversion has continued all along; Jinnah is himself a descendant of a Hindu,converted in fairly recent times,named Jinabhai and many of the most famous Mahommedan leaders have a similar origin."(SABCL, vol.26, page 46).
It was Dr Mookerjee who stood firm and tried to organize a people's movement against partition. He said: “Hindus regard this country as their sacred and holy land. Irrespective of provincial barriers or the diversity in faiths and languages there exists a remarkable economic and cultural unity and inter-dependence which cannot be destroyed at the will of persons and parties who think it beneath their dignity to regard India as their motherland. We must live and die for India and her liberty.” (24th December 1944). He disagreed with Gandhi placating the Muslim demands and said,"As soon as the other communities realize that the Hindus of India are united and have pledged themselves to stand together for the attainment of their ideal and have adopted a policy of understanding and tolerance to all classes of people residing in India, other communities whose support we are seeking in vain today will then join us voluntarily and on terms honourable to all.”(“Awake Hindusthan”, Page 12). He further said: “Our experiences in recent years have proved that much as we would be willing to surrender the rights and interests of the Hindus for the purpose of placating other communities, much as we would like to pursue the policy of delivering “blank cheques” the response from the other side is slow and halting, if not sometimes hostile in character.("Awake Hindusthan", Page 13) In this context, I would like to add that however different Jinnah might have been , we just can't belittle Nehru before Jinnah. Nehru belonged to us; he fought for India’s freedom, spent years in jail and had an Indian dream. We may have a thousand differences with him on policies and programmes, but so what? That would be our "domestic matter". Jinnah led our motherland’s vivisection and he never fought for the freedom struggle.
MJ Akbar has written these lines describing his persona,"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, aristocrat by temperament, catholic in taste, sectarian in politics, and the father of Pakistan, was the unlikeliest parent that an Islamic republic could possibly have. He was the most British of the generation of Indians that won freedom in August 1947. As a child in the elite Christian Mission High School in Karachi, he changed his birthday from 20 October to Christmas Day. As a student at Lincoln's Inn, he anglicised his name from Jinnahbhai to Jinnah. For three years, between 1930 and 1933, he went into voluntary exile in Hampstead, acquired a British passport, set up residence with his sister Fatimah and daughter Dina, hired a British chauffeur (Bradley) for his Bentley, kept two dogs (a black Dobermann and a white West Highland terrier), indulged himself at the theatre (he had once wanted to be a professional actor so that he could play Hamlet) and appeared before the Privy Council to maintain himself in the style to which he was accustomed. He wore Savile Row suits, heavily starched shirts and two-tone leather or suede shoes……Despite being the Quaid-e-Azam, or the Great Leader of Muslims, he drank a moderate amount of alcohol and was embarrassingly unfamiliar with Islamic methods of prayer. He was uncomfortable in any language but English, and made his demand for Pakistan — in 1940 at Lahore — in English, despite catcalls from an audience that wanted to hear Urdu.” That was a bit of Syama Prasad and the related reflections that may prove worthwhile in the present political debate enveloping the nationalist school of politics. At the end of it, what the Gita has said and the RSS teaches us must make the final lines to this blogpost:
It’s better to die unwavering even in tatters than to change track midway and die stinking rich.
That’s Dharma.
Krishna said: "Swadharme nidhano shreyo (to live and die in ones’ own path alone is the life worthwhile and adopting the ‘other’ dharma is horrible)". For small desires we lose a lifetime’s achievements and glory. History was never made essentially by those who became state heads, but often by those who didn’t. Or by those who gave up everything for others’ good, honestly. Syama Prasad and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya are two major icons of faith for the Hindu nationalist parivar. Both created history and died in their early fifties. Both were mysteriously ‘murdered’. Their lives must light the path of those who care to follow swadharma. That’s BJP’s legacy too. As it is of other ideologically committed organisations of the saffron hue. Lincoln didn’t shy away from the civil war and stood like a rock on the question of American spirit and unity. So was Syama Prasad. He died but didn’t bend.

K@W :

The article given is biased editorial as its main focus is how Muhammad Ali Jinnah caused tremendous amounts of bloodshed in India and created Pakistan which caused a division between the Hindus and the Muslims. The article does not answer or even question ‘why Jinnah took such brutal measures?’ It is indeed true that Jinnah’s methods of creating Pakistan resulted in the killing of many Indians, which is gruesome, and to some extent he himself was blinded by his gaining of power and position that he could not see what destruction he was leading. Nevertheless, there are reasons, religious, sentimental and maybe mandatory, which Jinnah perceived to be important and thus created Pakistan. However, his blind folded mind was so corrupt with the dreams of power and a complete Muslim oriented country that he did not work with logic or even reason out the future consequences both India and Pakistan would have to face. It can be argued whether Jinnah worked with reason or was driven by emotion. Indian journalists generally perceive that Jinnah worked with emotion, but majority of the Pakistani journalists will say that Jinnah worked with reason and his methods were correctly used and justified. However, not many people question the cause that made Jinnah create the division, put aside the method being driven by reason or emotion.
“I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it.” This statement made by Jinnah is quite unethical, however like Subash Chandra Bose’s slogan “Give me blood and I will give you freedom”, the statement can be a slogan, or a speech to invoke courage in the Pakistani’s. If Bose’s statement was respected by many, why is Jinnah’s statement not given the same respect? The language used by Jinnah is no novelty, as majority of the freedom fighters and people in power would speak that way to the masses to instil courage and confidence in people. The article clearly states that following the event in which Jinnah spoke the above words, “an unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata” took place. Massacre of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs was not new in that period. It was the time of Partition in India and people had long before encountered several massacres. The journalist of the article, Tarun Vijay, has framed his words in such a manner that the reader feels that Jinnah’s talk was the cause of the Hindu massacre in Kolkata. It may be true, but if false then the journalist is biased in his opinion. “Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India.” This statement made by Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of the Hindu Mahasabha is also very unethical and impolite; however Dr. Mookerjee was only voicing his own opinion and Jinnah’s methods drove him to say such a thing, he must have been overcome with emotion. Thus, here is an example which shows that if the mind is clouded with emotion rather than reason, then an individual does not have control over what he/she says (language).
There are several possibilities that led Jinnah to create the division of India and Pakistan. One of the main reasons was, to create a separate state for Muslims as per the Lahore Resolution. India is said to be a country that welcomes all religions and communities and everybody will live like brothers and sisters in the country. However, the name of India itself suggests that it is biased to one community. In Hindi India is called Hindusthan. The word means the place of the Hindus. Sthan means place. Indeed, other communities will feel insecure, especially the Muslims as they are always termed as intruders in the country. In history textbooks it is said that Hindus would label the Muslims as intruders in India and would call them the descendants of the Mughals in order to instigate them. Even the Congress had a majority of Hindus than Muslims. Maulana Abdul Kalaam Aazaad and Frontier Gandhi (Khan Abdul Gaffhar Khan) were the only Muslims who stood loyal to the Congress. Most of the Muslim members left the Congress due to its Hindu majority and felt that the Hindus were dominating it and were not allowing the Muslim members to have a say in any conversation. This angered Jinnah and gave him a reason to add to the countless reasons he had to create Pakistan. In addition, it is believed that he wanted the power. Also, the British played an important role, they wanted the Muslims to unite with them and be against the Hindus in order to get an upper hand, as they could see that Hindu-Muslim unity would prove to be a disaster for them. So, Jinnah is not the only one to be blamed, however he is the main cause and the man who initiated the idea, there are other factor and parties (the British and the Congress), which should also be taken into consideration before solely accusing Jinnah. [1]
In the article there is a mention about Jinnah’s talking in English rather than Urdu and about his English ways rather than Indian/Pakistani conducts. There is also a mention by MJ Akbar of Jinnah being “embarrassingly unfamiliar with Islamic methods of prayer”. Being the current President of India, does Ms. Prathiba Patil know each and every South Indian language? Being a Hindu does Ms. Patil know the holy Vedas, Puranaas and Upanishads by heart? Has Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh ever visited each and every temple in Punjab and Haryana? If no, then why question Jinnah’s inability of speaking Urdu fluently? Why question his unfamiliarity with the Islamic methods of prayer? However, it is a shame that, he was fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state and being a Muslim he did not know the Islamic prayers. But this is not our concern, if the Indian President and Prime Minister do not know all the Indian languages and customs of all religions originating from India, then we are no one to question Jinnah’s conducts and ways. In this case MJ Akbar has worked with emotion and has written something very redundant, only to affront Jinnah.
The author of the article is quoting Lord Krishna from the Bhagwat Gita (the holy book of the Hindus) and is talking about dharma, which means duty. However, he is forgetting or has overlooked one of the main principles stated by Lord Krishna in the Gita; Krishna has said that it is one’s dharma (duty) to respect one’s enemy. Jinnah by separating India and Pakistan has indeed become an enemy for most Indians, nevertheless the author has written disrespectful statements about him, and by doing so has not followed duty.

[1] Modern Indian History Contemporary World and Civics ICSE Class X
Avichal Publishing Company

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Stereotypes

The following is a classic example of a stereotype, even though it is out of good humour the text is a stereotypical view of the PARSI community:

After the British colonies, it is the Parsi colonies that are left behind, on which the sun never sets!
Because at 2 am old ladies are chasing stray dogs with sticks,
at 3 am somebody's TV is loud enough to keep the watchmen awake,
at 4 am the granny has woken up to pee, and flushes loud enough for all neighbourhood to announce where she was,
at 5 am the doodhwala comes from 'parsi dairy farm',
at 6 am somebody takes 46 kicks to start his 'vahloon' scooter,
at 7 am the 3rd floor neighbour goes “piche ka side ko barabar se dhona, mein roj dekhta hu, tum aisa hi dutty dutty kapda mar ke nikal jata hai” ....to the ‘gari dhowa-walo’,
at 8 am you hear a frantic mother shouting "mehernosh tu bhona no dabbo bhuligayo" running in a nighty, down the ‘main street’ of the “bagh”,
at 9 am someone starts playing 'chhaiye ahme zartosti' at the top volume,
at 10 am the ladies are clapping from balconies to call the ‘taja paplet kolmi walo’,
at 11 am the jobless, wifeless, TVless and hopeless 'hadas' of the colony come down with a war cry of mcbc gaars, to play cricket or volleyball,
at 12 noon they break a glass,
at 1 pm the fight is still on,
at 2 pm the fight ends when the aromas from other people's kitchens reminds them that stomach is mightier than the sword,
at 3 pm the school kids are returning in a shrill argument over what happened in class,
at 4 pm the old man’s club comes down for a walk and asks the silly obvious questions like 'bajar laine aavi?' 'office thi aavi?', 'college thi aavi?' to all the women of the colony returning from anywhere,
at 5 pm the old woman’s parade starts, where the aunties want to walk, but the gangubais escorting them want to sit,
at 6 pm after finishing their homework, the ‘chillar’ comes down to play (that’s what they used to call people below 12 when we used to go down, I believe now it is kidos),
at 7 pm the hero of the parsi colony 'the pavwala' arrives with ‘karak and naram’ options for all the ladies,
at 8 pm some aspiring young stuntbawa is practicing stunts with his bike and melodramatic teenage girls squealing 'oohs' and 'aahs' louder than required,
at 9 pm you can hear people of all age groups saying 'bye' to each other for an entire hour,
at 10 pm someone gets enough bones only for 1 stray dog, so the other dogs create a havoc,
at 11 pm someone’s grandfather clock gongs out loud eleven times and by the time it stops you have missed hearing the last part of your favourite TV serial,
at 12 midnight the watchman has to show he is working, and so goes banging the stick to wake you up from your deep slumber,
at 1 am some guys play loud music in a car, but this time the guy on the 2nd floor wakes up, fights with the youngsters and threatens to call the police, and you end up peeping from the window to see the commotion, when finally the commotion ends, the old lady who is hard of hearing thinks it is the stray dogs barking again
and at 2 am comes out with a stick to chase them…
see the sun never sets on the parsi empire.

Friday, August 28, 2009

K@W -28th August,2009

SOURCES: REPORT TO DETAIL ALLEGED ABUSE INSIDE CIA SECRET PRISONSWASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA interrogators threatened an al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill to try to scare him into giving up information, according to a long-concealed inspector-general's report due to be made public on Monday, sources familiar with the report confirmed to CNN.Attorney General Eric Holder is considering appointing a prosecutor to investigate a CIA interrogation program.The gun and drill were used in two separate interrogation sessions against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, one of the sources said. Al-Nashiri is accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead.The sources did not want to be identified because the report, completed by the CIA's inspector general in 2004, has not yet been made public. A federal judge in New York has ordered a redacted version of the report released Monday as part of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.The interrogations took place in the CIA's secret prisons before 2006, when then-President George W. Bush moved all detainees from such facilities to the federal prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, both sources said.Details of the report were first published by Newsweek magazine late Friday.Newsweek also said that, according to its sources citing the inspector-general's report, interrogators staged mock executions to try to frighten detainees into talking. In one instance, Newsweek reported, a gun was fired in a room next to one terrorism suspect so he would think another prisoner was being killed.A CIA spokesman would not talk about specifics of the inspector-general's report but said all the incidents described in it have been reviewed by government prosecutors."The CIA in no way endorsed behavior -- no matter how infrequent -- that went beyond formal guidance. This has all been looked at; professionals in the Department of Justice decided if and when to pursue prosecution. That's how the system was supposed to work, and that's how it did work," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.One of the sources, a former intelligence official who is familiar with the report, said that while the report "reaffirmed" the interrogation program, it "also showed some had strayed off center."The official said about a dozen cases of potential misconduct by interrogators were referred to the Justice Department. Of those, only one person was prosecuted, the official said, with the rest being referred to the CIA accountability board, an internal disciplinary board. Two people resigned rather than face the CIA board, the official said.This official said that when CIA leadership found out about the drill incident, they were "angry as hell." The official called it "nickel-and-dime foolishness" that was not tolerated. The individual who used the drill was pulled from the program and "sharply reprimanded," the official said.Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, released a statement Sunday saying, "Leaked portions of the CIA Inspector General's report offer more proof that government officials committed serious crimes while interrogating prisoners. So-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like mock executions and threatening prisoners with guns and power drills are not only reprehensible but illegal." In anticipation of the release of the report Monday, Romero added, "Releasing the report with minimal redactions is essential to knowing what crimes were committed and who was involved." The release of the inspector-general's report comes as Attorney General Eric Holder is considering whether to appoint a prosecutor to investigate the CIA interrogation program, begun by the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks

K@W
K@W Assignment: Report to detail alleged abuse inside CIA Secret Prisons.

The article given has been uploaded recently from a CNN website and is dealing with the issue of alleged abuse of terrorist inside CIA secret prisons. The knowledge issue of the aricle is: Is it ethical to threaten/torture a terrorist in order to extract vital information.
The media have hyped this incident up. The knowledge issue made is invalid and a very narrow-minded statement made. However, to torture a terrorist or anybody in order to extract vital information is uncivilized behaviour. Nevertheless, in special cases where the terrorist is not willing to co-opperate extremem measures such as threat have to be used. Afterall, it is not about the protection of one man, or a city, or a state, but it is about the protection of an entire contry.
In the article, there is no where a mention that the terrorist was tortured or even touched by a CIA interrogator. In fact, it is clearly stated that the CIA interrogators used “guns and electric drill to try to scare” the terrorist. They were trying to scare the terrorist, not out of hatered or contempt, or even revenge; it was for their country’s safety. There is a possibility that some questioning must have been done between the CIA interrogator and the terrorist, but if the terrorist refuses to speak, how else will the information be pulled out? Is it possible and maybe known or expected that if a CIA interrogator or for that matter anybody from an enemy country gets caught by a terrorist oragnisation, they will shoot hi m then and there. Within the Taliban, there is a terrorist tribe, who are inhuman and work with reason that suites themselves. For example: if this terrorist tribe gets hold of an outsider in their area, they will kill him. Nothing new, expected! But How do they kill him/her? They take nails and a hammer and nail the outsider in the skull until he dies. This is not only torture but also the most inhuman and outrageous behavior a man can have. The reson behind nailing the foreigner is because they do not want to waste bullets, as they are expenssive; nails are vey cheap and work well.
The CIA interrogators are no where even close to what the talibani terrorist tribe do, then why is the media exaggerating the issue and making matters worse? Terrorists must not only have trained to cause terror but also to withstand it. Even if a gun was fired in a room next to one terrorism suspect, it is not a new thing that will traumatize them. They are use to the sound of bullets and bombs, it is the language that they speak. After the retrospection of the matter it can be said, that it is indeed unethical to torture but if need be threat can be used to some extent.
Even if a terrorist might have killed a million people it is because he/she is on a war field and the word ‘kill’ has been rooted in him/her. Still, this does not make them stone harted or inhuman. In fact, psycology studies say, that after committing such grave crime, generally the accused experiences a catharsis. Therefore, torture and threat, traumatize the terrorists even more, because many of them are undergoing a process in which they not only feel guilty but miserable for committing such deeds. In order to extract information subtle ways exist which do not require guns or drills. Instead of threatening the terrorist, scientific devises such as lie ditectors, can be utilised. If CIA interrogators threaten terrorist and use guns and drill to cause trauma, then there is no difference between them and their enemies (terrorists). It will be like the saying: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” The world is ment to progress and improve, by taking revenge terrorist, the CIA interrogators are repeating history, where no one used reason or logic and were driven by emotion, which caused the World Wars.
The bias is towards the ‘wrong’ doings of the CIA interrogators, the article is against the act of threatening of the terrorists. There is not even the slightest inclinination towards the CIA interrogatrors. Thus, without any hesitation it can be said that the knowledge issue of the article is a very narrow-minded statement made. The acts of the terrorists have been overlooked and only the minor threats made, for the extraction of vital information, have been exagerated by the media and has caused turmoil. If the knowledge claim turns out to be true, then as the article states the interrogators should be “sharply reprimanded” and “pulled from the programme”. This is a critical issue as it deals with the entire country’s protection, for if the terrorist oragnisation gets to know that a specific country has one of their men in captive bounds and he is being ill-treated, it can be dangerous to the country. The terrorists can at anytime attack the country. Thus, it is a fundamental issue and should be dealt with in a subtle manner.

Monday, July 27, 2009

The following article was an email sent to me. It is originally a work od the author Deepak Chopra.

From: tanaazs@hotmail.com

Subject: Making Yourself Irresistible....simple...&...superb!!!...by Deepak Chopra

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:27:49 +0000

The Article:

When you exhibit positive and negative qualities, you are not flawed; you are complete. When you are comfortable with your shadow, when you embrace your shadow because this is how the infinite consciousness made you, then you are attractive beyond measure, and your life is an adventure. You are natural when you are comfortable with your ambiguity, and nothing is more beautiful than being natural. When you are comfortable with both your strengths and weaknesses, you radiate simple, unaffected humanity. This is the essence of being lovable because you are not subject to behaviors that drive love away. You do not constantly look for approval by getting caught up in thinking: What do others think of me? Am I superior, am I inferior? Do people like me, or do they dislike me? You don’t constantly compare yourself to an ideal that doesn’t exist. Your ego doesn’t say to you, “I’m not good enough. I’m not pretty enough. I’m not handsome enough. I’m not rich enough.”If your experience of yourself is object-referred, it is fear-based and resistant to what is. If your experience of yourself is self-referred, it is love-based and accepting of what is. Self-referred people are natural and unaffected by the opinions of others. They are innocent, simple and childlike. Thank you, God, for making me just like I am. I have good things, and I have bad things; I have all things in me. I am complete. Self-acceptance, total self-acceptance, means self-forgiveness. When you forgive yourself and stop judging yourself, then you won’t judge others, and there will be less conflict in the world.All relationship is a mirror to the self. Identify the qualities that attract you to others, and the qualities that repel you. Write them down on a piece of paper. This is who you are. And if you accept yourself as you are, and love yourself as you are, you become immensely attractive because you are natural.

K@W:

The source of the above article is an email sent to me. It is a perfect example of what a person who reasons with the heart and not with the mind, will perceive about life. The thought process is completly opposite from that of a human being who thinks logically and expects a provable reason to any topic/matter. Such thinking generally deals with emotion rather than reason. However, it will not be correct to say that a man of science and mathematics will disaprove of this article, because the author himself is a doctor in the US and treats cancer patients via yogic chants and other experiments regarding spirituality and not modern science. The first sentence of the article talks about how man can be complete by attaining the knowledge of exhibiting positive as well as negative qualities. A man who works with reason rather than perception and emotion may give a counter argument by stating that the human body and mind can never attain a complete stae as every secound it develops and evovles. It is a vicious cycle. "Life is an adventure." one point which all agree upon. However, the reasons do differ. Both, a man who thinks with his heart and a man who thinks with his mind will agree that adventure in life only occurs by progress. But, the term progress also varies, for one it may be progress of the mind, spirit and soal, whereas for the other progress may mean the progress in technology or economic growth and development. The author's sayings are similar to that of the Buddha's who says that love must be so powerful that it cannot be conqured. To a common man, this may sound foolish or even wise but difficult. It is not easy not to hate a person. In this case there is a clash between reason and emotion. The common man would not mind loving all, but according to his reason it is not possible to love everybody. The author's teachings may sound gibberish to the self oppsessed people who cannot think of anything else but themselves and what people think about them. First, it is not ethical to judge and by not judging yourself you will autimatically stop judging others. Nevertheless, there are a few people in the world who try their best but cannot stop judging, others and themselves. Ego is something that science cannot understand. it is not created by a hormone, nor is it created by technology. Ego is the peak of all emotions and cannot be understood by the lay man. Ego is something that affects an individuals perception and thus perception of different poeople vary. Thought of every individual is like their perception is varies due to certain factors such as emotion, ego, background, etc. Where one thinks from is very important. The language communicted by the mind and the heart ae poles apart and therefore the action done is also very different. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to only think from the heart or to only think from the mind. One should know when to listen to the reason and when to give in to emotions. This in my opinion is true progress.