The Right to Life is dying and we won't stop it

The 9 o'clock news today had a story about 4 policemen kidnapped by the Naxals, who're demanding the release of 8 of their comrades and a stop to Operation Greenhunt. Much in the same way that I'm starting with this to catch your attention, the "catch" used for the story was the family of one of the policemen. His wife and his daughter were shown crying in pain and agony begging for the life of their loved one. The deadline for the government to meet the Naxal demands is 9am, tomorrow.

Should the government bow down to these demands, or any such demands that 'terrorists' make? Precedent tells us that they will. India is a soft state when it comes to negotiation. In 1989, Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of the Home Minister was kidnapped; in 1999-2000 IC-814 was hijacked and taken to Kandahar; in October 2009, 22 naxal comrades were released in exchange for one kidnapped policeman. The agony of the family, the life and liberty of individuals has always won over the greater good of the operation.

In sharp contrast to this, countries the world over follow no-negotiation policies. It's simply good politics to tell terrorists- ''Your kidnapping and trying to get public attention isn't going to work buddy." The US refused to negotiate the release of Daniel Pearl, China would probably hang the people whose release was demanded. The individual and his life simply doesn't stand up against the aims of ending the war on terror and protecting society. Very simply, for some things you can't avoid collateral damage. This argument is stretched to its limit in the movie Watchmen,(based on its graphic novel). *spoiler* The smartest man on earth engineers the killing of nearly half of all mankind which pushes the remaining ones to world peace. Killing millions to save billions. Once it's done, it leads to something good. It's the doing which the world is having problems with. With anti-state movements becoming more sophisticated, we're running out of excuses to not wipe the 'scum' off the face of the earth. If some people get in the way, so be it.

The premium placed on human life seems to be waning. Along with greater good, commodification is coming to haunt us. Presently, humans can't manufacture human life. Sure we can reproduce, but it's still very much the Miracle of Life. Cloning, genetic engineering, maybe even mass production of test tube babies a la' Brave New World isn't as far a reality as we might think. There's this drive towards a great rationality, a great logic, to define the purpose of human life and to make man perfectly suited to fulfill it. The problem is IF that greater purpose is ever discovered, we'll slowly but surely be engineered to perform it. And that will be the death of the individual and all that will matter is the greater good of the community. The Individual's Right to Life will be rendered meaningless.

Is Osama Bin Laden real?

It's been 9 years since the US started its war on terror. Nine long years since the first bomb rained down on Kabul to overthrow the Taliban and hunt down Osama Bin Laden, the world's most wanted man. Capturing Osama won't end the war. You can kill a man but you can't kill his ideas. Capturing or killing him isn't going to vanish away the problems of the region. But then again, we would prefer him dead given the fear and awe his name inspires. Is that possible? Not really if he's not real.

Osama Bin Laden would be the dream of a terrorist who's a brand manager. Masks and beards and voices wouldn't be much of a problem given the kind of technology we have. He would be the One Godly figure spreading anti-West propaganda, video after video, uniting the cause, inviting new members to it. Plus, it becomes kinda hard to catch someone who doesn't exist, it's perfect.

Either there's this deadly terrorist dude somewhere or these Al Qaeda blokes are really smart..

PS- I haven't actually seen George Bush either, but i still think he exists, ditto for Osama. Except Bush is quite a nightmare.

exams

Every year, Delhi University organizes a monstrous number of practicals, written exams, assessment procedures and the works. I'm not a fan of the system and I'll tell you why-

The EXAM is still a ONE DAY test of how much of the entire year's syllabus I can commit to my memory. So if i don't understand jack and I memorize a copy full of notes, it's going to get me through my exams, none the wiser to what economics really means. Sagarika Ghose, IBN journalist and anchor wrote after watching 3 idiots that the entire message- "the-system-sucks-and teachers-are-pathetic-and-who-cares-about-grades-and-the-rat-race-is- foolish." is flawed, and dangerous. While I see her point about making the best you can with what you've got, and just that having access to that system is a HUGE thing for a lot of people, I don't ascribe to the placatory tone of 'aal iz well' that's implicit in that view.

Another point is that 3 idiots, is cinema. Yes, cinema has influence on people, but it's supposed to be entertainment. Let's not castigate it for a message we think is dangerous, especially when that danger is ambiguous. The system is flawed, and we better make a huge hue and cry about it, encourage cinema to take up the social message, as well as journalists, so that we can change things.