The Weakest Link

ra ra shish koom ba

do you really feel that you will be able to rally people together in order to create a collective consiousness? i hate being negative i realllly do, but what have i learned of the desi mentality? man, forget desi mentality but just about people in general. they dont give a sh *t. its only an individuals responsibility when it comes to the individual. there are some poor saps like you and me who will continue to work towards a common good, a commonwealth, but we shouldnt delude ourselves into thinking its really going to go in that direction. people are selfish and one minded. they see only a yard, if that much, infront of their eyes. you use india as your foremost example. im in the states, so my talking about selfish ppl is in even more bitterness. india is a third world country like pakistan and it seems that people have better things to worry about then what state democracy is in. ask a starving man what he needs, ask a thirsty one and ask a cold one. diferent answers ofcourse. i doubt on the streets of india, with the majority of indians can you find a colletive who needs democracy more then food, water and warmth. you are an idealist like i am. we can just keep hoping. once the problems of basic human needs is settled, lets then look towards a govt for the ppl, by the ppl and of the ppl. who knows perhaps with our hope we can instead of breeding the hate that the BGP instills, have tolerance and a sense of good will towards all. nationalism is important, dont get me wrong but not to the point of hate.

your article, joined with the rest of the irritating buzzing may perhaps sing a different tune some day :) buzzing irritatingly is just as important. its a constant reminder like the annoying machar that wont let you sleep. when we keep asking why, we keep the questions alive and can perhaps reach solutions.

z.rizvi

Amar Dev:

Bravo. Such elegant eulogy about our `guilt servicing`.

Questions you raise cannot be easily answered. Despite universal acknowledgement of journey-of-a-thousand-miles-begins-with-a-single-step as individuals we are awed by almighty impotency. Do we dare? Dare we dare?

regards

the only thing we can take responsibility for is ourselves. do that. take that step. don`t compare yourself to anyone else. if that is all you can do, then do that. it is the least you can do. don`t even shirk that responsibility. remember `weakness is the only sin`.

CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD ALONE CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD CROWD

A grain in the sand, indeed !

...SR

Amar Dev
Some thoughts.
You are mixing up democracy with a whole lot of other issues. Democracy has worked really well in India. Apart from a little period of emergency in Indira Gandhi days in 1977 democracy has been rock solid all throughout. In fact, the ability of the Indian electorate to constantly vote out inefficient governments is quite amazing and very effective. Having no viable options in terms of competent candidates and parties with vision is a whole different debate.
Now the issue of accountability in the system is a again a different one and has nothing to do with democracy per se. I mean a democratically elected system CAN be inefficient. The apathy, lack of accountability does have a lot to do with the CROWDS you refer to. Observe people in airports travelling to and from the homeland. Once you are in that Air India `cultural pen` (as naipaul calls them) your crowd ettiquette seems to change. Crowd conditioning reminds you there is no room for the average. Get those elbows up.
You can also observe similar changing crowd ettiquettes by comparing people in trains during rush hour vs non-peak periods, cities vs suburbs, etc.
Going back to the democracy issue. You also have to remember that adopting a democratic system of polity only assures you of `one man one vote`. But in a stratified society `one man one value` will take many years. It is like apporoaching an ideal which arguably no democracy in the world can boast of today. THe political leaders of 1940`s are responsible for instilling this system of democracy in India. They had a vision of creating an egalitarian democratic secular society. THE masses just entrusted themselves to this system that no one really understood. In fact, it continually refines, redefines itself in India and hence evolves. While the Indian electorate may continue to challenge the true meaning of secularism and a truly egalitarian society. THe concept of democracy has been a roaring success. Even the present run of co-alition governments only asserts the extent to which democracy has entrenched itself in the Indian psyche. THe largest minority is not the majority.

regards
RanaRansher

re; sr

sohail saab..you da man :)

Democracy is not sacrosanct, it is just a form of government. It is not a panacea for all the social, or for that matter political, problems. It is as good as its practitioners, i.e., electorate as well as the politicians. As a matter of fact, you can have a progressive and enlightened dictatorship; you can have illeterate and ignorant electorate, and corrupt and inefficient representatives under democratic form of govt. The example of the former is Kamal Attaturk`s, you do not want me to give you examples of the latter. So D is not a holy cow, however it is a good tool in certain hands to milk it to the tits, oops tilt. There is a misconception in the subcontinent that simply holding elections periodically means a democratic form of government exists in the country. So, we have a state of Bihar, India, wherein the state assembly has a 40% of elected legislators who are convicted criminals. To make things worse, when the jailed corrupt chief minister of this state had to leave, guess what, his illeterate wife was ceremoniously installed as the CM. The wife CM, now CM, said without any qualms, that she takes her orders from her jailed master. The IAS officers, Police Commissioners, other VIPs, etc. visit the corrupt ex CM to take his instructions. After all these, mind you, the state is said to be run democratically. A similar situation, though not that extreme, prevails in practically all the states of India. To me this is not a democracy. If you want to put a label, call it Gundacracy. Again, this state of affair is not just due to the politicians, the main culprit is illeteracy and ignorance of the electorate. Just think, a country like India has a 52% literacy rate. As you know, most of the learned and well-informed voters after experiencing a half a century of misrule, the voters have no stomach to vote, i.e. to decide which one is less corrupt/criminal. The result, a majority of voter turnout is the illeterate, the ones that goaded thru threats, bribes, intimidation, casteism, bigotry, etc. In Pakistan, people talk as if they have D, In reality, take one of the lowest illeteracy rate in the world, throw in some feudalism, slavery, private jails, two female brains=one male brain, and the mother of all, theocratic constitution which categorizes its citizinery into 1st class, 2nd class, muslim, non-muslim, etc. If you want to put a label to it, well, you can call it Demotheocracy. But, please donot call it a Democracy. I do not want to give the impression that the writer is against D. No such thing. However, you can not justify all the sham that is going on in these countries under the pretext of Democracy. It is a tool that can generate immense benefits, in the right hands; in the wrong hands, could be disastrous. If you remember history, Hitler was elected democratically. Disclaimer: Did not check for the spelling errors, if any. Sorry.

RE: MAK

``whats the meaning of terrorism ?``

`terrorism` simply means an act of instilling or imparting a feeling of fear (terror) into another individual(s). It has nothing to do with the end purpose, eg. freedom fighting, religious motives, as a passport to heaven, etc. There is no good terrorism, just as there is no `good` badthing. Bad is bad. Terrorism infringes on others` freedom, irrespective of the vested self-interest of the inflictor. Terrorism is bad and bad is always bad. Bad has no context, its universal.

Peace on you!