Once again as this third rock from the sun comes full circle (ellipse to be exact), it finds many of its inhabitants in the exact same spot it had left them 365 days ago - thinking where they will be, once again, 365 days from today.
It’s a scary day this. And though on paper it may seem that new year’s is nothing more than another date in the calendar (a new calendar altogether though) and the effect of which is mainly limited to a really convincing hangover, but it’s a day which brings along with it all the ghosts a year gone by. For some they are friendly spirits, reminding them of greener pastures accomplished, for others they are bleak and ghastly reminders of opportunities squandered and time let trickled away. And for some yet, it is but a miracle to be able to see that final digit at the end of the date-line roll over.
This one single day is like an engine hauling behind it an entire barrage of carriages accumulated over the years and no one no matter where they are or who they are can get off the track soon enough. This day hits us all, some more than others, but everyone nonetheless, and for all the partying and revelry, there is always that one question asked –‘ what have I done this year?’ It is a question we all ask ourselves and it is a question we find ourselves answering even without trying, because after all, this is the only answer we can give truthfully.
Have I fulfilled all the things I set out to do this year?
Have I made my life worthwhile?
Have I done some good?
Have I screwed up real bad?
Have I done anything?
Everything answered at once. An entire year of your life dissected in a single go and I don’t know about you, but I usually find myself looking at a system i do not like and wish to change (but seldom do). And as a result I find myself making resolutions, silent promises of change that harbors the hope that things can be better. I find myself promising myself better and brighter things. i find myself believing in things i hadn't dared thought about earlier, and i find myself giving my all to make them true. A whole revolution later i usually find myself back at square one.
but that's not the point, is it?
This day is unlike any other, though in form and structure it may resemble the other 364 days to follow, its spirit is not the same. The simple changing of notation is enough to give us the confidence to dream once again, to set out on new adventures even though their success might be limited. Its like a spark that ignites tonnes of fuel strapped to a rocket, the turn of the starter that throws the engine into gear and sends a car screaming across the asphalt and though disaster is always a strong possibility, life would be meaningless without it.
Welcome to a new year, welcome to a whole new life.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
speak free, my friend
This is a slightly modified version of a speech I gave at a recent debate. The topic was ‘Is the government right in controlling freedom of speech?’. The following is a copy of what I spoke with a few additions now that I don’t have any time restrictions.
‘For man has learnt no greater weapon than the use of his tongue’
Good afternoon,
What we have here today is a very sensitive topic. Sensitive because the extent of the freedom of speech, like every other freedom, is a debatable one. It cannot be boundless; it cannot be limitless, because such freedom for any person is bound to tread upon the freedom of another at one point or another. But is this reason enough to have our fundamental rights governed by a third party? Or should we take the responsibility on our own shoulders?
I support the latter but one has to understand that responsibility of speech is one that varies from person to person. Speech, words are unlike anything else in this world. It has the power to incite the mind and lead people to do great things and more often than not, it is used to provoke unreasonable and violent actions. This reaffirms my call for a personal responsibility, and this accountability is one that increases with one’s standing in society because each person’s words carries with it also the weight of the level of his social ladder standing. Everyone, especially people higher up, need to realize this because even a few misplaced words by them could have violent fallouts. We in India are all too aware of that fact.
Though most people do exercise caution it would be fair to say that there will always be a fair share of idiots in this world. People who are either too naïve to realize the consequences or those so blinded by their vested interests that they refuse to see anything beyond their own nose. Rakhi Sawant and Varun Gandhi are sparkling examples of the two types. (you decide which is which)
If so, don’t we need someone to keep tabs on such people, you may argue. To make sure that no one creates a nuisance for society on a whole? To keep the rest of us safe from the inevitable consequences? True, but does this mean our fundamental rights should be stepped upon. Should the government constantly look over our shoulder to tell us what to say and when to say? And more importantly, is the government the right institution for the job? Does it not have its own agenda to further? Is it too not comprised of individuals just like us, with self-interests and ambitions? Then how can its judgment be above suspect? And if not the government, who then has the right and the balanced sense of propriety to draw the line for us? Surely no one. Because if we go down this path of controlled and regulated speech, there is no going back. History has shown us time and again that speech restrictions are more often than not misused by those in power. The fallen German empire and the present day scenarios in China and Myanmar should serve as stark reminders to us of why we this road is not to be tread. You may argue in favor of economic and national growth but at what cost? Should democracy be sacrificed? Because the roots of democracy lie in free speech and opinion. To stifle those is to kill democracy itself.
Then what about the blatant misuse of this freedom? Surely there needs to be a check to that?
The answer to these questions lies in John Stuart Mill’s work ‘On Justice’. He stated that there are two types of negative speeches. The first is the HARM inducing and the second is the OFFENCE inducing. If someone by his words is directly provoking others to violence then he/she should be dutifully punished by the law but if someone is just stating an opinion, no matter how opposable or immoral it may seem to others (eg. The Khusboo case), no one has the right to stop them because they are personal opinions and we are all entitled to our own. It is here the government has to play watchdog and ensure that the guilty and severely punished and the opinion makers protected from the so called moral police.
It is a thin line but one that needs to be tread if democracy is truly to be protected or else it will be like what George Washington said,
‘our freedom to speech taken away, dumb and silent we may be led like lambs to slaughter’.
‘For man has learnt no greater weapon than the use of his tongue’
Good afternoon,
What we have here today is a very sensitive topic. Sensitive because the extent of the freedom of speech, like every other freedom, is a debatable one. It cannot be boundless; it cannot be limitless, because such freedom for any person is bound to tread upon the freedom of another at one point or another. But is this reason enough to have our fundamental rights governed by a third party? Or should we take the responsibility on our own shoulders?
I support the latter but one has to understand that responsibility of speech is one that varies from person to person. Speech, words are unlike anything else in this world. It has the power to incite the mind and lead people to do great things and more often than not, it is used to provoke unreasonable and violent actions. This reaffirms my call for a personal responsibility, and this accountability is one that increases with one’s standing in society because each person’s words carries with it also the weight of the level of his social ladder standing. Everyone, especially people higher up, need to realize this because even a few misplaced words by them could have violent fallouts. We in India are all too aware of that fact.
Though most people do exercise caution it would be fair to say that there will always be a fair share of idiots in this world. People who are either too naïve to realize the consequences or those so blinded by their vested interests that they refuse to see anything beyond their own nose. Rakhi Sawant and Varun Gandhi are sparkling examples of the two types. (you decide which is which)
If so, don’t we need someone to keep tabs on such people, you may argue. To make sure that no one creates a nuisance for society on a whole? To keep the rest of us safe from the inevitable consequences? True, but does this mean our fundamental rights should be stepped upon. Should the government constantly look over our shoulder to tell us what to say and when to say? And more importantly, is the government the right institution for the job? Does it not have its own agenda to further? Is it too not comprised of individuals just like us, with self-interests and ambitions? Then how can its judgment be above suspect? And if not the government, who then has the right and the balanced sense of propriety to draw the line for us? Surely no one. Because if we go down this path of controlled and regulated speech, there is no going back. History has shown us time and again that speech restrictions are more often than not misused by those in power. The fallen German empire and the present day scenarios in China and Myanmar should serve as stark reminders to us of why we this road is not to be tread. You may argue in favor of economic and national growth but at what cost? Should democracy be sacrificed? Because the roots of democracy lie in free speech and opinion. To stifle those is to kill democracy itself.
Then what about the blatant misuse of this freedom? Surely there needs to be a check to that?
The answer to these questions lies in John Stuart Mill’s work ‘On Justice’. He stated that there are two types of negative speeches. The first is the HARM inducing and the second is the OFFENCE inducing. If someone by his words is directly provoking others to violence then he/she should be dutifully punished by the law but if someone is just stating an opinion, no matter how opposable or immoral it may seem to others (eg. The Khusboo case), no one has the right to stop them because they are personal opinions and we are all entitled to our own. It is here the government has to play watchdog and ensure that the guilty and severely punished and the opinion makers protected from the so called moral police.
It is a thin line but one that needs to be tread if democracy is truly to be protected or else it will be like what George Washington said,
‘our freedom to speech taken away, dumb and silent we may be led like lambs to slaughter’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)