It's really annoying how often people tend to think they are more capable to make the choices for another human being. Almost every day one comes across one more self-righteous fool trying to dictate how someone else needs to live his/her life. I never quite understand why as long as someone's decision is not having a bearing on your life (and the butterfly effect argument is too dumb to count) why you would want to interfere in that person's life.
These days there's this case in the news about a mentally-challenged orphan pregnant rape victim in Punjab being stopped from having her child. Thankfully the Supreme Court let her go ahead with her decision. It's her body, her child. One really doesn't know what the child would want, and till it's born I think the mother is the only person, at least in this case, who can decide for it. Why the hell do apparently well-meaning people want her child to be aborted! There's so little that lady has to live for. Why the hell can't you let her be happy if she feels she can take care of the child!
Monsieur Sarkozy decided to ban the hijab in France. Because it is a secular country. I don't know what the definition of secular is. I have always believed that it is not banning the expression of any religious belief, but instead ensuring that people from all communities are allowed full freedom to wear, worship, speak, celebrate in any manner they want to as long as they are not harming anyone else. Barring a Muslim woman from wearing a headscarf or a Sikh man from keeping a turban, irrespective of whether that person wants to do it or not, is not secularism. It's autocracy.
It's no different from a Muslim emperor in medieval times allowing people from all religions to stay in his kingdom as long as they paid a tax for being allowed to stay there. It's no different from Muslims in a certain Well-known State in Western India living under the constant threat of another riot.
Nicolas Sarkozy might believe that he has done a great deed by liberating Muslim women. I might be wrong, but I do believe that the hijab holds a more important position for at least some Muslim women living in France than just something forced onto them by their fathers or brothers.
Which brings me to the Section 377 decriminalisation case. There have been all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds saying all sorts of things about how homosexuality is against our culture, is unnatural, is criminal, is a portent of the end of mankind and so much more.
The funniest bit that I saw on TV was in an NDTV debate hosted by Vikram Chandra where a high-school kid said with a lot of conviction that sex is only meant for having kids. Damn, that kid is up for so much revelation some time soon.
Or maybe not.
But, on a more serious note, I was just peeved with the time that was being spent on the issue. I know it's one of those things that need to be discussed in the open and not brushed under the proverbial carpet, but while doing that it's really annoying seeing people like Baba Ramdev saying things they obviously have no clue at all about. Why do these people feel it's so important to dictate what I do in my bedroom. Or, for that matter, even what their son/daughter does in his/her bedroom.
I doubt most such people would even have a clue about it actually.
Posts
City Life – Carrom Club, Khwaja Mirdard Basti
23 hours ago
10 comments:
When a country (govt.) is said to be secular, it means none of it's decisions will be based or affected by religion (the whole separation of church and state - or in this case church, mosque, temple, etc etc etc). So Sarko banning the scarf may have been a political ruse to make the Christian conservatives on the right happy, but if looked at purely from a non-conspiracy theorist angle, purely on the principle of secularism, then there's nothing wrong with it because it's a case of the country's laws is taking precedence over the religious laws, and not necessarily about giving the people the religious freedom to do all they want. Some time back, in the UK, Muslim women refused to remove the burqa for photographs on documents like the license, passport, etc. and they made a big deal when the govt put it's foot down and said they have to take it off. If the line isn't drawn somewhere, then even this case should have been termed as curtailing religious freedom right?
To add to Karthik Shetty's comment, may I recommend a wonderful essay by Amartya Sen in his book, 'The Argumentative Indian' on the same topic?
He clearly explains the different interpretations of secularism. How it is more of separation of state and religion in France, and more about personal freedoms in other places, like say India.
[Karthik] I had read your post on this, so do have an idea of your opinion on this.
The need for drawing a line somewhere does not justify drawing one anywhere arbitrarily.
I didn't even look at the French ban from the perspective of the Conservative right happy, but just the fact that under the premise of separating state from religion you are making people do things they don't want to seemed quite, well, unstately.
[Anonymous] Haven't read the book. And of course, being an Indian (not very argumentative though), I'll probably look at the French law from my understanding of secularism. The moment the state interferes in freedom of religious expression, I begin to find its claim of secularism rather hollow.
Cluelessness might still count as an excuse in the lamest sort of way. But then there are people like Karan Johar, aware of the appeal they have among masses, and then go on to make crap like Dostana. That movie disgusted me.
"It's really annoying how often people tend to think they are more capable to make the choices for another human being."
"There's so little that lady has to live for. Why the hell can't you let her be happy if she feels she can take care of the child!"
Contradictory huh ? you too ended up interfering in her life :)
[geetika] Yep, I had some issues with the film too, but Baba Ramdev probably is taken more seriously by people than a comedy film made by Karan Johar. And I am guilty of having enjoyed parts of Dostana.
[Anonymous] Huh?
But isn't it also important to see what will be the future of that baby.The question is whether a mentally-retarded woman, whose mental age is of a minor, can decide for herself about the baby. If she can't, then who decides? What about the future of the baby? Isn't that important? What kind of life can she give to her baby? Would she even understand the joy of motherhood or even her inability to provide for her child!Too many questions!
Well, if you remember there was another case, couple of months back about a couple who wanted to terminate the pregnancy too late (after 20 weeks or so). Why can't the parents decide whether they want the kid, of course, if it does not get into the issues of terminating a girl child, etc.
[penandpaper] This whole 'joy of motherhood' thing is too overdone I think. If an animal can feel the joy of motherhood I am sure a human-being with the 'mental age of a minor' can do it too. And even if she can't, even if the baby's life might be in danger, who has a stronger right to decide than the mother. Isn't even the life of a child the prerogative of the parents in our septic world?
And I also believe that, even if it's wrong, parents do have the right to terminate the child, for whatever reasons they feel right. Just as I felt there was no reason for those parents, from the case you mention, to go to the court, I also feel that if a couple genuinely feels that a girl-child is a burden worthy only to be killed, they should be allowed to go ahead with it. It's a different matter that I think it's not the right reason.
Well, if "joys of motherhood" and for that matter, anything which separates animals from human is of no consequence and if a life like an animal's is worth living, then surely she can give birth to her child. Then why does she want the child at all! The child is being touted as the only blood relation she would have or something she could live for so-on and so-forth! Then nothing really matters.
I really don't know who really has the right to decide. The court must be having a tough time in all such cases.
But one thing I know for sure, if you know you cannot give a good upbringing / life to a child, what right you have to bring her into this world! Who decides!
I meant anti-septic actually.
Post a Comment