Aruna Shanbaug case
Arun Shanbaug was a nurse who was molested and raped by a ward boy many years back. Since then she has been lying in a state of coma. Someone filed a case saying that she should undergo mercy killing. The learned judges of the Supreme Court said “No' and in their judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case added: "Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialization and corruption, we cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery."
The question is whether India is ready for a meaningful debate on euthanasia? But let us first acquaint ourselves with a few basic facts pertaining to Aruna Shanbaug and the demand that she be put to death, which set all of this in motion.
Fact number one: Aruna is, by all accounts, a happy, responsive person, though she is seriously physically incapacitated. Fact number two: Aruna has a loving group of friends and care-givers who feel strongly attached to her and would do everything to keep her alive, pain-free and happy. Fact number three: Aruna is not being kept alive through heroic measures. She is not on life support but rather on "love support" This has ensured that during all these years, and even today, she does not have a single bed sore. This in itself is close to a medical miracle. With this kind of specialized care, the urge to end life prematurely is negated. We need to ponder these facts before we ask for her death.
In which cases is euthanasia advisable? Research studies have shown that unresolved personal conflicts, the attitude of the family, the feeling of having become a burden, and an inability to find meaning in suffering together cause greater anguish to patients than just physical discomfort . This is certainly true for many in India where a majority of patients with debilitating illnesses are so dependent on family members that they begin to see themselves better dead than alive.
In many cases, the cost of keeping someone alive over a long period can be prohibitive. In this case also mercy killing is justified. It relieves pain and suffering and thereby preserves the dignity of a person right till the last.
Aruna Shanbaug case is an exceptional one and the court has given the right verdict in this case.
Everyone should be a winner
Winning and losing are a part of life. They are two sides of the same coin. Winning and losing come in cycles; neither is permanent. Today's victor is tomorrow's or yesterday's loser. And today's loser might well be the champion next year or the next. While we are fully aware of this, we continue to crave for victory and live in dread of losing, although we know in our heart of hearts that one is invariably followed, with the passage of time, by the other.
The human mind exults when it can do something better than the other person or other team. And sometimes it becomes difficult to conclude whether our win or their loss causes greater satisfaction. Just as victory brings extreme emotions, so does defeat. How often we have seen that today's heroes become tomorrow's non-heroes or villains? Today's idols are smashed tomorrow, when they fail to perform. Such is the price of celebrity status; such is the price of victory.
What about the loser? We owe a great deal to the loser, for without a loser, there cannot be a winner. Let the winner have respect for the loser, for without the loser, the winner too disappears.
When someone loses, there are enough people to ridicule, criticize and berate the losing team members. But these critics don't realize that the losers are already getting together and planning their next move, their comeback, so that they can regain their lost glory. It is only a matter of time before the tables are turned, before the tide is reversed, and the winner is on the losing side. .
Is it possible to play without having losers and winners? Because if we are going to win at someone else's cost, it is only a partial victory. For a total or absolute victory, everyone should be a winner. This is something that we should ponder about.
India's Libya decision is wrong
Did India do the right thing in abstaining from the vote on UN Resolution 1973 on Libya? No! India should have voted for the no-fly zone and for the authorization to use all means, short of occupation, to protect the Libyan people for three main reasons.
The first is that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is busy killing defenseless people, and India should have supported what is a morally proper move to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
The second reason is that since the Arab League and Muslim opinion in many places were behind 1973, India, as a member of the UN Security Council for the next two years, would have earned the understanding, if not gratitude, of these countries by voting for the resolution.
The third reason is that India would have done well strategically. New Delhi would have been regarded as a power player, as a 'constructive' member of the global community, and would have built bridges to the US and other western powers. This would have strengthened India's case for permanent membership of the Security Council.
Voting in favour of the resolution would have been right on moral, political and strategic grounds. Clearly, Gaddafi's men are killing ordinary unarmed citizens as well as those who might be lightly armed. After putting an end to Gaddafi the opposition in Libya is bound to be democratic and respectful of human rights. The groups fighting Gaddafi are drawn from diverse clans and tribes but the common aspect about them is they all believe in democracy. Once Gaddafi is gone they will live in peace with each other. Bad as Gaddafi is, intervention would leave Libyans happier.
Intervention by largely Western forces will mean modernization of Libya after Gaddafi is gone. The Libyans who are rebelling against Gaddafi are liberal modernizers and they are pro-western simply because of their liberalism.
India should have supported intervention on humanitarian grounds and this move would prove extremely beneficial for India in the future. That India has made a wrong move will become clear in the months and years ahead.
What's wrong with the book?Joseph Lelyveld's book, Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India, has become controversial. Indian politicians are not happy about the book's purported description of Gandhi's years in South Africa during the early 20th century, particularly that part of the volume carrying letters between Gandhi and his German friend, Hermann Kallenbach. The Centre is outraged enough to consider a ban. Modi has actually banned the book in Gujarat. Maharashtra is close to following suit.
Is the outrage based on misunderstandings? The author talks about Gandhi's letter to Kallenbach which is intimate in a typically Victorian manner, mentioning bodies, lust and slavery and this can tend to give a wrong idea to an average reader. In the book, it appears as if Lelyveld is referring to Gandhi as 'bisexual'. Even the remarks about indigenous Africans attributed to Gandhi shows as if Lelyveld's is referring to Gandhi as 'racist'. The author says that he didn't mean that. But our politicians are not listening. So it is clear that Gandhi's followers are provoked by 'racism' charge and sexuality angle. The book is accused of consisting of perverse writing which has hurt the sentiments of those with capacity for sane and logical thinking.
But defenders of the book say that an average Indian readers are intelligent and mature enough to make up their own minds about what offends or doesn't. They say that there is no need to burn, bury or ban books to convince them. Such politics will fail to project our country as one with a mature democracy that upholds freedom of expression.
Gandhi himself has chronicled his trials with "truth" in detail, leaving diaries and letters for future generations to read and interpret for themselves. These writings themselves prove as to how complex a personality was Gandhi.
We have seen intolerance of views with regard to other icons as well. Evidently, the more India marches ahead, the more illiberal its politicians seem to get.
Today belongs to the corruptForget your BAs, MAs and PhDs - Bribery is the criterion of qualification. Today if you're not corrupt then you're totally uneducated and useless fellow. Today a worth of a person is decided by how much bribe he or she gets. More bribe you get, more qualified you are for the topmost job. That's how the things stand today.
In the past people used to proudly put BA or B Sc or B Com after their names to indicate that they are graduates in Arts, Sciences or Commerce. Today, the only degree that matters is the one issued not by a university of education but by the university of corruption. What counts is not whether you're a BA, or an MA, or a PhD. All that counts is whether you know the art of corruption and if you know it then how well do you know it.
In days gone by, if you sported a BA, or an MSc or a PhD, people knew that you were qualified in a particular academic discipline and evaluated your worth to society accordingly. A BA would look down on a mere Matric-pass, an MA look down on both, and a PhD look down on the whole lot. Today, it's the turn of the Masters in corruption to look down on those who are BA or M Sc or PhD. The acid test today is: are you qualified enough ever to have received a bribe? If not, you're a total failure in the school of corruption, which is another word for the school of life in 21st century India.
Receipt of a bribe - no matter how small - indicates that someone, somewhere, has deemed you to be important enough to be given a ghoos in return for a favour or service which is in your power to render to the briber. Once you've passed the bribe test you're qualified and termed as a success.
The honest people, even though they are highly educated, are considered as uneducated and useless since they just don't know how to be corrupt. They can't stoop down to the level where they can accept bribe whether big or small.
Today the qualified people are the corrupt politicians, babus, defence personnel, judges, even the cop on the beat receiving his regular hafta from truck drivers and roadside chaiwallas.
Desperate situations call for desperate remedies. Corruption is become the most serious ailment the Indian society is suffering from today and if something drastic is not done in this direction at the earliest, then God alone knows as to where our country will find itself in a few years
Arun Shanbaug was a nurse who was molested and raped by a ward boy many years back. Since then she has been lying in a state of coma. Someone filed a case saying that she should undergo mercy killing. The learned judges of the Supreme Court said “No' and in their judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case added: "Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialization and corruption, we cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery."
The question is whether India is ready for a meaningful debate on euthanasia? But let us first acquaint ourselves with a few basic facts pertaining to Aruna Shanbaug and the demand that she be put to death, which set all of this in motion.
Fact number one: Aruna is, by all accounts, a happy, responsive person, though she is seriously physically incapacitated. Fact number two: Aruna has a loving group of friends and care-givers who feel strongly attached to her and would do everything to keep her alive, pain-free and happy. Fact number three: Aruna is not being kept alive through heroic measures. She is not on life support but rather on "love support" This has ensured that during all these years, and even today, she does not have a single bed sore. This in itself is close to a medical miracle. With this kind of specialized care, the urge to end life prematurely is negated. We need to ponder these facts before we ask for her death.
In which cases is euthanasia advisable? Research studies have shown that unresolved personal conflicts, the attitude of the family, the feeling of having become a burden, and an inability to find meaning in suffering together cause greater anguish to patients than just physical discomfort . This is certainly true for many in India where a majority of patients with debilitating illnesses are so dependent on family members that they begin to see themselves better dead than alive.
In many cases, the cost of keeping someone alive over a long period can be prohibitive. In this case also mercy killing is justified. It relieves pain and suffering and thereby preserves the dignity of a person right till the last.
Aruna Shanbaug case is an exceptional one and the court has given the right verdict in this case.
Everyone should be a winner
Winning and losing are a part of life. They are two sides of the same coin. Winning and losing come in cycles; neither is permanent. Today's victor is tomorrow's or yesterday's loser. And today's loser might well be the champion next year or the next. While we are fully aware of this, we continue to crave for victory and live in dread of losing, although we know in our heart of hearts that one is invariably followed, with the passage of time, by the other.
The human mind exults when it can do something better than the other person or other team. And sometimes it becomes difficult to conclude whether our win or their loss causes greater satisfaction. Just as victory brings extreme emotions, so does defeat. How often we have seen that today's heroes become tomorrow's non-heroes or villains? Today's idols are smashed tomorrow, when they fail to perform. Such is the price of celebrity status; such is the price of victory.
What about the loser? We owe a great deal to the loser, for without a loser, there cannot be a winner. Let the winner have respect for the loser, for without the loser, the winner too disappears.
When someone loses, there are enough people to ridicule, criticize and berate the losing team members. But these critics don't realize that the losers are already getting together and planning their next move, their comeback, so that they can regain their lost glory. It is only a matter of time before the tables are turned, before the tide is reversed, and the winner is on the losing side. .
Is it possible to play without having losers and winners? Because if we are going to win at someone else's cost, it is only a partial victory. For a total or absolute victory, everyone should be a winner. This is something that we should ponder about.
India's Libya decision is wrong
Did India do the right thing in abstaining from the vote on UN Resolution 1973 on Libya? No! India should have voted for the no-fly zone and for the authorization to use all means, short of occupation, to protect the Libyan people for three main reasons.
The first is that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is busy killing defenseless people, and India should have supported what is a morally proper move to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
The second reason is that since the Arab League and Muslim opinion in many places were behind 1973, India, as a member of the UN Security Council for the next two years, would have earned the understanding, if not gratitude, of these countries by voting for the resolution.
The third reason is that India would have done well strategically. New Delhi would have been regarded as a power player, as a 'constructive' member of the global community, and would have built bridges to the US and other western powers. This would have strengthened India's case for permanent membership of the Security Council.
Voting in favour of the resolution would have been right on moral, political and strategic grounds. Clearly, Gaddafi's men are killing ordinary unarmed citizens as well as those who might be lightly armed. After putting an end to Gaddafi the opposition in Libya is bound to be democratic and respectful of human rights. The groups fighting Gaddafi are drawn from diverse clans and tribes but the common aspect about them is they all believe in democracy. Once Gaddafi is gone they will live in peace with each other. Bad as Gaddafi is, intervention would leave Libyans happier.
Intervention by largely Western forces will mean modernization of Libya after Gaddafi is gone. The Libyans who are rebelling against Gaddafi are liberal modernizers and they are pro-western simply because of their liberalism.
India should have supported intervention on humanitarian grounds and this move would prove extremely beneficial for India in the future. That India has made a wrong move will become clear in the months and years ahead.
What's wrong with the book?Joseph Lelyveld's book, Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India, has become controversial. Indian politicians are not happy about the book's purported description of Gandhi's years in South Africa during the early 20th century, particularly that part of the volume carrying letters between Gandhi and his German friend, Hermann Kallenbach. The Centre is outraged enough to consider a ban. Modi has actually banned the book in Gujarat. Maharashtra is close to following suit.
Is the outrage based on misunderstandings? The author talks about Gandhi's letter to Kallenbach which is intimate in a typically Victorian manner, mentioning bodies, lust and slavery and this can tend to give a wrong idea to an average reader. In the book, it appears as if Lelyveld is referring to Gandhi as 'bisexual'. Even the remarks about indigenous Africans attributed to Gandhi shows as if Lelyveld's is referring to Gandhi as 'racist'. The author says that he didn't mean that. But our politicians are not listening. So it is clear that Gandhi's followers are provoked by 'racism' charge and sexuality angle. The book is accused of consisting of perverse writing which has hurt the sentiments of those with capacity for sane and logical thinking.
But defenders of the book say that an average Indian readers are intelligent and mature enough to make up their own minds about what offends or doesn't. They say that there is no need to burn, bury or ban books to convince them. Such politics will fail to project our country as one with a mature democracy that upholds freedom of expression.
Gandhi himself has chronicled his trials with "truth" in detail, leaving diaries and letters for future generations to read and interpret for themselves. These writings themselves prove as to how complex a personality was Gandhi.
We have seen intolerance of views with regard to other icons as well. Evidently, the more India marches ahead, the more illiberal its politicians seem to get.
Today belongs to the corruptForget your BAs, MAs and PhDs - Bribery is the criterion of qualification. Today if you're not corrupt then you're totally uneducated and useless fellow. Today a worth of a person is decided by how much bribe he or she gets. More bribe you get, more qualified you are for the topmost job. That's how the things stand today.
In the past people used to proudly put BA or B Sc or B Com after their names to indicate that they are graduates in Arts, Sciences or Commerce. Today, the only degree that matters is the one issued not by a university of education but by the university of corruption. What counts is not whether you're a BA, or an MA, or a PhD. All that counts is whether you know the art of corruption and if you know it then how well do you know it.
In days gone by, if you sported a BA, or an MSc or a PhD, people knew that you were qualified in a particular academic discipline and evaluated your worth to society accordingly. A BA would look down on a mere Matric-pass, an MA look down on both, and a PhD look down on the whole lot. Today, it's the turn of the Masters in corruption to look down on those who are BA or M Sc or PhD. The acid test today is: are you qualified enough ever to have received a bribe? If not, you're a total failure in the school of corruption, which is another word for the school of life in 21st century India.
Receipt of a bribe - no matter how small - indicates that someone, somewhere, has deemed you to be important enough to be given a ghoos in return for a favour or service which is in your power to render to the briber. Once you've passed the bribe test you're qualified and termed as a success.
The honest people, even though they are highly educated, are considered as uneducated and useless since they just don't know how to be corrupt. They can't stoop down to the level where they can accept bribe whether big or small.
Today the qualified people are the corrupt politicians, babus, defence personnel, judges, even the cop on the beat receiving his regular hafta from truck drivers and roadside chaiwallas.
Desperate situations call for desperate remedies. Corruption is become the most serious ailment the Indian society is suffering from today and if something drastic is not done in this direction at the earliest, then God alone knows as to where our country will find itself in a few years
No comments:
Post a Comment