How liberal are we?
Pakistan's deepening troubles should make us think about the prospects of liberalism in our part of the world.
We in India can sit back and congratulate ourselves that we are not Pakistan, but the truth is that there are violent forces in India who are not above acting in the same way.
Events in the Arab world have fascinated us over the past several weeks, with Libya now taking centre stage. However, we cannot afford to lose sight of what is happening next door to us. It was the lawyers of Pakistan who had helped to bring down President Pervez Musharraf not so long ago and had been celebrated as liberal and progressive. Also there is considerable anger over the relationship with the United States. It is true that the US has not played its cards terribly well
Broadly speaking though, Pakistani liberalism, such as it is, is under enormous pressure. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, perhaps less so in Libya and the Gulf, indicate that there is a liberal-minded constituency powerful and able enough to come out into the streets in the service of freedom and moderation in social life. Can the same be expected in Pakistan? So far we have seen little or no sign that the Pakistani middle class and its liberal leadership will rally against extremism.
We in India have had our dark episodes like the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation in the 1990s, the Staines killing in Orissa and the murderous attacks on Christians over the past decades. There are other reminders of how fragile things are: every so often, authors and filmmakers being berated by political parties and mobs because their works apparently 'offend' the sensibilities of one community or another. Inability of M F Husain to return to India with any guarantee of safety, the government's stand on the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, attacks on Valentine's Day celebrations or on women who drink in Bangalore pubs prove that the record of Indian liberalism is an uneven one, and it is a brave person who would say that there will not be more outrages on individual and group freedoms in India in the years to come.
UDRS is better than human umpires
There are people both for and against the use of Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) in any cricket match.
Pakistan-Canada cricket match was a tense affair. It appeared as if Canada would win. But it was UDRS that brought about a fair result by overturning a number of wrong decisions made by the on field umpires.
UDRS has not gained acceptance as an integral part of the game although most of the countries are willing to use it. The board has given a chance to prove its worth by agreeing to use it in the World Cup. UDRS has made the best of this opportunity and proved its worth.
Those who are against the use of UDRS say that it is not perfect. But it's not logical to say that because a certain technology has a less than 100 percent success rate, it should not be employed at all. Although UDRS doesn't get it right every single time, it does cut down on the number of wrong decisions.
The other argument is that technology dilutes the purity of the game and that human errors are the part of cricket's charm. But it has been found that such systems reduce the scope for unfairness in the game. Ultimately, it is the players' skill and effort that will decide the final result.
It's true that the review system is not foolproof and this was evident in the India-England match. It was found that system is susceptible to controversies. It defies the principle of finality of umpires' decisions. The umpires feel that it is disastrous for them to abdicate their authority in favour of a machine. But umpires must display sportsman spirit and accept the superiority of the machine.
Another thing is technology can be erroneous. A lot depends on the proficiency of the person operating the review system. Umpiring decisions are not without human error either. Hence committing of minimum errors is part and parcel of cricket. The question is who commits less errors? It is definitely UDRS, and not human umpires, who commits less errors. Hence there is nothing wrong in using UDRS in a cricket match.
What's wrong with brain scan?
Two British criminologists have said brain scans can help reveal tendencies to be violent in children as young as four years. They feel youngsters could be treated to ensure violence doesn't become a character trait in adulthood.
But some people are against such brain scans. They believe that good parenting and caring social environments are key to human development. They say that the brain structures of psychopaths and criminals make them behave callously and unemotionally. They don't agree that character is biologically pre-determined. According to them to attribute everything to how we are made physically would render us no more than machines. Being human is much more, and personality is shaped through adolescence and beyond. Their questions are: Who's to guarantee interpreting brain scans won't be open to abuse? What is the criterion for 'abnormality'? There are badly behaved and aggressive children who turn out to be perfectly responsible members of society - and this, without the help of any special remedy. According to them science should be based on empirical fact.
.But there are people who support this idea of brain scanning and treating. According to them the British criminologists are right by saying that brain scans can help detect violent tendencies in children and treatment can arrest potential criminal conduct. That doesn't mean they disregard the role of care and conditioning in shaping individuals. It simply establishes an empirically verifiable link between brain make-up and anti-social behaviour. Studies over the last few decades have led researchers to conclude that there is a strong link between genetics and biological disorders. Behavioural genetics is a new field of study that maps genetic traits in connection with behavioural disorders. How is this any different from what the criminologists have suggested? Nobody is saying that certain individuals are born criminals. It is just that some people might carry biological traits that make them prone to violence. Since such traits can be detected early, the knowledge would surely help parents take precautionary measures such as counselling and redouble their efforts at creating the right kind of atmosphere for their wards.
Despite guidance, a child may grow up to be anti-social. Yet parents persevere in providing the best for their children. If a child's brain scan can help them do that, why should anyone object?
Pakistan's deepening troubles should make us think about the prospects of liberalism in our part of the world.
We in India can sit back and congratulate ourselves that we are not Pakistan, but the truth is that there are violent forces in India who are not above acting in the same way.
Events in the Arab world have fascinated us over the past several weeks, with Libya now taking centre stage. However, we cannot afford to lose sight of what is happening next door to us. It was the lawyers of Pakistan who had helped to bring down President Pervez Musharraf not so long ago and had been celebrated as liberal and progressive. Also there is considerable anger over the relationship with the United States. It is true that the US has not played its cards terribly well
Broadly speaking though, Pakistani liberalism, such as it is, is under enormous pressure. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, perhaps less so in Libya and the Gulf, indicate that there is a liberal-minded constituency powerful and able enough to come out into the streets in the service of freedom and moderation in social life. Can the same be expected in Pakistan? So far we have seen little or no sign that the Pakistani middle class and its liberal leadership will rally against extremism.
We in India have had our dark episodes like the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation in the 1990s, the Staines killing in Orissa and the murderous attacks on Christians over the past decades. There are other reminders of how fragile things are: every so often, authors and filmmakers being berated by political parties and mobs because their works apparently 'offend' the sensibilities of one community or another. Inability of M F Husain to return to India with any guarantee of safety, the government's stand on the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, attacks on Valentine's Day celebrations or on women who drink in Bangalore pubs prove that the record of Indian liberalism is an uneven one, and it is a brave person who would say that there will not be more outrages on individual and group freedoms in India in the years to come.
UDRS is better than human umpires
There are people both for and against the use of Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) in any cricket match.
Pakistan-Canada cricket match was a tense affair. It appeared as if Canada would win. But it was UDRS that brought about a fair result by overturning a number of wrong decisions made by the on field umpires.
UDRS has not gained acceptance as an integral part of the game although most of the countries are willing to use it. The board has given a chance to prove its worth by agreeing to use it in the World Cup. UDRS has made the best of this opportunity and proved its worth.
Those who are against the use of UDRS say that it is not perfect. But it's not logical to say that because a certain technology has a less than 100 percent success rate, it should not be employed at all. Although UDRS doesn't get it right every single time, it does cut down on the number of wrong decisions.
The other argument is that technology dilutes the purity of the game and that human errors are the part of cricket's charm. But it has been found that such systems reduce the scope for unfairness in the game. Ultimately, it is the players' skill and effort that will decide the final result.
It's true that the review system is not foolproof and this was evident in the India-England match. It was found that system is susceptible to controversies. It defies the principle of finality of umpires' decisions. The umpires feel that it is disastrous for them to abdicate their authority in favour of a machine. But umpires must display sportsman spirit and accept the superiority of the machine.
Another thing is technology can be erroneous. A lot depends on the proficiency of the person operating the review system. Umpiring decisions are not without human error either. Hence committing of minimum errors is part and parcel of cricket. The question is who commits less errors? It is definitely UDRS, and not human umpires, who commits less errors. Hence there is nothing wrong in using UDRS in a cricket match.
What's wrong with brain scan?
Two British criminologists have said brain scans can help reveal tendencies to be violent in children as young as four years. They feel youngsters could be treated to ensure violence doesn't become a character trait in adulthood.
But some people are against such brain scans. They believe that good parenting and caring social environments are key to human development. They say that the brain structures of psychopaths and criminals make them behave callously and unemotionally. They don't agree that character is biologically pre-determined. According to them to attribute everything to how we are made physically would render us no more than machines. Being human is much more, and personality is shaped through adolescence and beyond. Their questions are: Who's to guarantee interpreting brain scans won't be open to abuse? What is the criterion for 'abnormality'? There are badly behaved and aggressive children who turn out to be perfectly responsible members of society - and this, without the help of any special remedy. According to them science should be based on empirical fact.
.But there are people who support this idea of brain scanning and treating. According to them the British criminologists are right by saying that brain scans can help detect violent tendencies in children and treatment can arrest potential criminal conduct. That doesn't mean they disregard the role of care and conditioning in shaping individuals. It simply establishes an empirically verifiable link between brain make-up and anti-social behaviour. Studies over the last few decades have led researchers to conclude that there is a strong link between genetics and biological disorders. Behavioural genetics is a new field of study that maps genetic traits in connection with behavioural disorders. How is this any different from what the criminologists have suggested? Nobody is saying that certain individuals are born criminals. It is just that some people might carry biological traits that make them prone to violence. Since such traits can be detected early, the knowledge would surely help parents take precautionary measures such as counselling and redouble their efforts at creating the right kind of atmosphere for their wards.
Despite guidance, a child may grow up to be anti-social. Yet parents persevere in providing the best for their children. If a child's brain scan can help them do that, why should anyone object?
No comments:
Post a Comment