- Should we dam auto promotion?
- Is Getting Elected the Best Investment?
- Are you stuck with wrong spouse?
- Why not bury E-mails with the dead?
- How should couples handle money?
- Balance Sheet of our Lives
- Now, Laugh Your Way To Good Health?
- Bondel Laughter Club - Spreading Happiness
- This Website Has Heritage Roots
- Adieu Pus-Pus (Cat)!
- Does Power Beget Wealth?
- Mother’s day:: Mothers Don’t Care How Famous You Are!
- Eco-friendly Coffee – Book by Dr Anand & Geeta Pereira
- John Monteiro - Like old wine, he gets better with age
- Prison Reforms..!
- Difference between Mechanical engineer and Civil engineer
- “Drugs Are No Unqualified Panacea!” – Prof. B. M. Hegde
- Drug Banks for poor patient
- Teacher and pupil
- Husband and Wife
Female: One of the opposing, or unfair, sex. – Josh Billings, famous US DJ.
Of late there have been increasing headlines about attempting to kill girl-child and also attempts to exchange male child for girl-childand even of robbing male child and abandoning girl-child. The pathos of the scene is well reflected in Shobhaa Dey’s column, The Sexes in The Week (22-4-12) under the title The Malefactor – excerpted here.
It’s a story too grisly and gruesome to recount in detail. But worth revisiting if only to underline the tragedy of the girl child and her hapless mother (in this case). Their sole crime? Both belong to the ‘wrong’ gender. Here’s the horrific truth: baby Afreen, born to a young mother, Reshma Bhanu, in Bangalore, is fighting for her life at the time of writing (since dead), after being bitten and battered by her father, Umar Farook, who wanted a son. He had warned his wife she would have to pay him Rs.1 lakh if she made the mistake of giving birth to a daughter.
Well, the scenario developed into something far worse. When the desperate mother brought the baby to hospital, doctors were shocked to see the terrible atrocities such a tiny, fragile little girl had been subjected to. There were bite and burn marks all over her body, and her head had been bashed in, leading to a brain haemorrhage.
A very man - not one of nature’s clods –
With human failings, whether saint or sinner:
Endowed perhaps with genius from the gods
But apt to take his temper from his dinner.
- J G Saxe, US poet (1816-1887).
The question whether it is enough to be uncorrupt oneself or is there a responsibility to ensure probity in those under has come into focus as the following excerpts from an article by Paul Zacharia in India Today (16-4-12) indicate.
Ever since I can remember, A. K. Antony has enjoyed an image of probity, culminating in media clinhes like ‘Mr Clean’ and ‘Saint’. The problem with such cliches is that they make those who bestow them and the bestowed go to sleep. The Tatra truck scandal rudely wakes up the sleepers. As a long-standing witness to Antony’s rise as a politician, I will still stand by his personal probity. But it also raises the question: what are the implications of such ‘personal’ probity in the case a power-politician like Antony?
It will certainly mean that he is not a bribe taker at the personal level, unlike thousands of Indian politicians of every hue we know. In other words, he does not indulge in corruption in order to accumulate wealth for himself and his family. I know I am hanging out a limb by saying this, but shall take the risk. Because the media, even while cranking up clinches, is not a fool and if Antony has single-mindedly devoted his attention to any cause other than power, it is to keeping his hands clean and ensuring that they are exhibited as clean.
The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, or even pay for, a good deal of rubbish. – Justice Robert Jackson
The question of freedom of press comes to the fore every now and then for various reasons – the latest scene of action being the Supreme Court of India. There seems to be a move by the apex court to draw up guidenies for journalists on reporting court proceedings – as reported by J Venkatesan in The Hindu (28-3-12)
The Supreme Court on March 27, 2012 indicated that it would lay down guidelines for the media on court reporting with a view to striking a balance between protecting press freedom and protecting the right to life. A five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices D.K. Jain, S.S. Nijjar, Ranjana Desai and J.S. Khehar said: “We have to balance Article 21(right to life and liberty) with Article 19 (1) (a) (the right to freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press).”
Sincerity is impossible, unless it pervades the whole being and the pretence of it saps the very foundation of character. – James Russell Lowell, US critic and scholar (1819-1853).
There is long-stated saying: you are what you think you are. Film maker Mahesh Bhatt has given us a parallel saying: We are what we want to hide. This he did in an article in India Today (9-4-12) commenting on sex scandals, pornography in Indian society. Some excerpts.
It has become commonplace to catch politicians watching pornography in public. But I am not surprised. Nor am I going to gloat and say Gotcha! It proves beyond doubt that in India, if you’re famous, you are living in an aquarium. Increasingly, high-profile movers and shakers will have people intruding into their sacred space. Privacy can no longer be used as a fig leaf by celebrities of any kind. And in any case, what does that fig leaf cover? That you have a sweet tooth for sex? All through human history, the sexual appetite of human beings has continuously got the better of them. This public distaste for sex is an archaic morality imposed on us. We are all hard-wired into wanting sex. It is the albatross we cannot shake off.
The movie, The Dirty Picture, has been in the thick of controversy, as noted in the following report by Aarti Dhar in The Hindu (24-4-12)
Under sharp criticism for stalling the television premiere of The Dirty Picture on Sunday (22-4-12), the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has said it was only following the directions of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, and the instructions issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Sources in the Information and Broadcasting Ministry said the court order, issued on April 19 in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, asked the Ministry to take necessary action to stop the telecast this film on April 22 on Sony Entertainment Channel during prime time. “If telecast of the film is done by any means, it would amount to contempt of the Honourable High Court, punishable under relevant statutory provisions,” the order said.
Automobiles: ferryboats coming down the street gnashing their teeth. –Francis Yeats-Brown.
In the context of increase in the number of vehicles, limited road capacity traffic snarls, road rage, accidents and deaths, will flying cars hold relief? These are relevant questions. But first the facts.
Drivers hoping to slip the surly – and traffic congested – bonds of earth moved a step closer to realising their dream, as a US firm said it had successfully tested a street-legal plane. Massachusetts-based firm Terrafugia said their production prototype "Transition" car-plane had completed an eight-minute test flight, clearing the way for it to hit the market within a year. "With this flight, the team demonstrated an ability to accomplish what had been called an impossible dream," said founder Carl Dietrich.
If you don’t have this freedom of the press, then all these little fellows are weaseling around and doing their monkey business and they never get caught. – Herold R. Medina, American jurist (1888-1990).
The media, both print and electronic, has done a great lot in exposing misdeeds of those in authority. Some such cases land in court and get reported. Now the Supreme Court is proposing some guidelines for journalists reporting court cases. We carry forward the debate on this by projecting media reaction on the subject as articulated by Siddharth Varadarajan in a centre-page srticle titled “The public needs both gavel and pen” in The Hindu (30-3-12). Some excerpts:
Commenting on this situation, The New Indian Express said, in part:” For those who are familiar with the history of the Indian police, the report that there are three policemen to protect one Very Important Person (VIP), against one policeman to protect a population of 761, is not at all surprising. The primary job of the police, since their inception, has been to protect the life of the ruling class and those who exercise power on their behalf. Though democracy has replaced monarchy and Indian rulers have replaced alien rulers, the attitude of the police has not changed a wee bit. Small wonder that in their scheme of things, VIP duty is more important than protecting the life and property of ordinary citizens.