Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What is in the nation and nationality???
I have been feeling quite excited and also quite low.
There are many reasons of this state of mind. When I left India, I was quite low of leaving the country and going to a alien place, about which, I have never been encountered good opinion of the people. Yes, I agree in certain extent, the United States builds is partially responsible for creating many problems in the world. But, I appreciate this country for providing the basic necessities to its citizens and me (non citizen). Here, I am not worried about the police, not worried about to show my identity card, not worried about where and which religion I belong too.
I am not saying badly about India in this blog, but the nation is known by its own people. We the Indian divide ourselves from every possible aspect of human society. Supposing, I am non vegetarian and looking for a rented house in the city of Rajasthan or Gujarat (using as example). There would be high probablity that I would not be successful in one hunt. I have to face discrimination on the basis of this food habit.
I have not yet faced any sort of question of this nature or any discriminatory in nature which would force me to lie or hide my identity. I feel like getting people to ask me, which religion I belong to??
One of my friends from Africa was surprised when I said I am Muslim from India. He never had idea that even Muslim also stay in India. He said that India is a country of Hindu religion. I then said him that if you think India as country, I am Hindu too. In Hindi, India is known as Hindustan and people from Hindustan are Hindu. But, if you would think about the Indian society, I belong to Muslim religious group. After this explanation, he asked me range of questions from geography to history to culture to politics. In last, I felt ashamed when he asked me, why the Hindu kills Christians in India?? Why not Muslim group builds a bridge of coordination with the Indian Christian community?? How could democracy survive and function, if the minority groups would be facing this kind of treatment from the majority??
I used to be assertive in India to criticize the behavior of the right wing Hindu and Muslim groups (Bagrang Dal, VHP, RSS, Tablighi Jamat etc). While coming back from the class, I was thinking why I could not respond him clearly and critically? I felt that the component of nationalism prevented me to defame the name of my country.
I have been feeling quite excited and also quite low.
There are many reasons of this state of mind. When I left India, I was quite low of leaving the country and going to a alien place, about which, I have never been encountered good opinion of the people. Yes, I agree in certain extent, the United States builds is partially responsible for creating many problems in the world. But, I appreciate this country for providing the basic necessities to its citizens and me (non citizen). Here, I am not worried about the police, not worried about to show my identity card, not worried about where and which religion I belong too.
I am not saying badly about India in this blog, but the nation is known by its own people. We the Indian divide ourselves from every possible aspect of human society. Supposing, I am non vegetarian and looking for a rented house in the city of Rajasthan or Gujarat (using as example). There would be high probablity that I would not be successful in one hunt. I have to face discrimination on the basis of this food habit.
I have not yet faced any sort of question of this nature or any discriminatory in nature which would force me to lie or hide my identity. I feel like getting people to ask me, which religion I belong to??
One of my friends from Africa was surprised when I said I am Muslim from India. He never had idea that even Muslim also stay in India. He said that India is a country of Hindu religion. I then said him that if you think India as country, I am Hindu too. In Hindi, India is known as Hindustan and people from Hindustan are Hindu. But, if you would think about the Indian society, I belong to Muslim religious group. After this explanation, he asked me range of questions from geography to history to culture to politics. In last, I felt ashamed when he asked me, why the Hindu kills Christians in India?? Why not Muslim group builds a bridge of coordination with the Indian Christian community?? How could democracy survive and function, if the minority groups would be facing this kind of treatment from the majority??
I used to be assertive in India to criticize the behavior of the right wing Hindu and Muslim groups (Bagrang Dal, VHP, RSS, Tablighi Jamat etc). While coming back from the class, I was thinking why I could not respond him clearly and critically? I felt that the component of nationalism prevented me to defame the name of my country.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
What to change and how?????
Being Obama and Being the President of the powerful Democracy
The change is Obama and the change in being the President of the United States. The coming two months is crucial for the United States and for the world too.
I believe that the changes are fundamental rule of the democratic governance and its institution. However, the demand for change is always appreciated when there is frustration with the ongoing system and the process.
I want to take my reader to just four years back. On that time, there were clear mandate in favor of electing Bush. He was reelected and changed the world and changed the whole perspective of seeing the issue of violence. The war against terror becomes an international agenda of governance and any of the accord or treaty are not free from this word. The security of the humanity is surrounded around the war against terror and its mechanism to stop this menace to spread around the world. The stopping this kind of violence is more challenging for the world than the violence of the “Osama” and its tentacles.
There are many aspects to deal and to criticize the war against terror, but, the world can’t be safe place unless the agents of violence are identified. In the process of identification, many stereotyped have been created and these stereotyped have got strengthen after many incidents of violence.
On the other side of the world (Muslim World) started believing this war as “religious war”. The leaders of the community started preaching that the United States is not enemy of peace but an enemy of “Islam”. Now, the situation is that even the issues of development and governance is seen through this lens of animosity. In India, many political parties started opposing the Nuclear Deal not only on the basis of ideology, but also to get close with the vote bank.
Being Obama and being the President of the United State is not a common platform to see the changes. As the democracy is best but it’s functioning promotes challenges in governance.
Although, the perspective may be repetitive and old one, but the peace never come on the basis of violence mechanisms and tools. We want change not only from being Obama, but also from being the President of the United State. I feel both should be different and coordination between two should harmonious in nature.
The change is Obama and the change in being the President of the United States. The coming two months is crucial for the United States and for the world too.
I believe that the changes are fundamental rule of the democratic governance and its institution. However, the demand for change is always appreciated when there is frustration with the ongoing system and the process.
I want to take my reader to just four years back. On that time, there were clear mandate in favor of electing Bush. He was reelected and changed the world and changed the whole perspective of seeing the issue of violence. The war against terror becomes an international agenda of governance and any of the accord or treaty are not free from this word. The security of the humanity is surrounded around the war against terror and its mechanism to stop this menace to spread around the world. The stopping this kind of violence is more challenging for the world than the violence of the “Osama” and its tentacles.
There are many aspects to deal and to criticize the war against terror, but, the world can’t be safe place unless the agents of violence are identified. In the process of identification, many stereotyped have been created and these stereotyped have got strengthen after many incidents of violence.
On the other side of the world (Muslim World) started believing this war as “religious war”. The leaders of the community started preaching that the United States is not enemy of peace but an enemy of “Islam”. Now, the situation is that even the issues of development and governance is seen through this lens of animosity. In India, many political parties started opposing the Nuclear Deal not only on the basis of ideology, but also to get close with the vote bank.
Being Obama and being the President of the United State is not a common platform to see the changes. As the democracy is best but it’s functioning promotes challenges in governance.
Although, the perspective may be repetitive and old one, but the peace never come on the basis of violence mechanisms and tools. We want change not only from being Obama, but also from being the President of the United State. I feel both should be different and coordination between two should harmonious in nature.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Development in Development Sector
The development is never being a subject of self humiliation itself, because the actors and actions in this subject of human society do support the concept with their best effort. I do believe that the development is essential and time is significant element in this process. However, the changing nature of knowledge and its applications sometime becomes result oriented and sometime pretend to be result seeking enterprises.
There are many challenges in this area of knowledge and the understanding of this subject. A school of thought defines the development is not a time bound phenomena, but reflect after a generation. Another school of thought emphasizes on the building people capacity with a make believe concept of revolution. I don’t subscribe the theory of revolution.
Yes, the revolution is simply possible in democracy and its application. For me, Mr. Manmohan Singh as a Prime Minister of India is at par with revolution. The actor in this development sector dream to bring revolutionary changes in the people life and they work for the revolution. This unconnected dream and reality always make them to believe that the revolution is coming. But they are unable to recognize the revolutionary changes at micro level, which is happening daily in the society.
The difference between the social action and social development is like the difference between culture and civilization. Culture change is not a myth, because the culture is dynamic in nature and the changes are bound to happen in culture sooner or later. While the civilization is static term and the prevailing theoretical argument on “clash of civilization” is fracas. The development player should frame the implementation mechanism in the parameter of social action rather than social development. The efforts of development sector have been significant in the social action rather than social development. Here, the concept of social action is not at all highlights the essence of revolution or “useless advocacy”. I mean to accentuate the values of being concerned with the issue in reality. Once we are concerned with the reality, we would be creative and use the brain to develop tools to push the social action with the project, plan, or proposal.
The essence of revolution or “useless advocacy” is not a bad idea, but who carry forward this idea and with whom you are taking this idea along matters a lot. The political motives stop learning and building capacity of the individual and the community. For me changes are assets for the individual and community, while development is a liability for both the individual and community. I belong to a school, where the issues is not the value addition, but to enable them to add new value in their prevailing system. Enabling others is challenge for both school of thoughts, while both are still struggling to enable themselves in the field of developmental knowledge.
There are many challenges in this area of knowledge and the understanding of this subject. A school of thought defines the development is not a time bound phenomena, but reflect after a generation. Another school of thought emphasizes on the building people capacity with a make believe concept of revolution. I don’t subscribe the theory of revolution.
Yes, the revolution is simply possible in democracy and its application. For me, Mr. Manmohan Singh as a Prime Minister of India is at par with revolution. The actor in this development sector dream to bring revolutionary changes in the people life and they work for the revolution. This unconnected dream and reality always make them to believe that the revolution is coming. But they are unable to recognize the revolutionary changes at micro level, which is happening daily in the society.
The difference between the social action and social development is like the difference between culture and civilization. Culture change is not a myth, because the culture is dynamic in nature and the changes are bound to happen in culture sooner or later. While the civilization is static term and the prevailing theoretical argument on “clash of civilization” is fracas. The development player should frame the implementation mechanism in the parameter of social action rather than social development. The efforts of development sector have been significant in the social action rather than social development. Here, the concept of social action is not at all highlights the essence of revolution or “useless advocacy”. I mean to accentuate the values of being concerned with the issue in reality. Once we are concerned with the reality, we would be creative and use the brain to develop tools to push the social action with the project, plan, or proposal.
The essence of revolution or “useless advocacy” is not a bad idea, but who carry forward this idea and with whom you are taking this idea along matters a lot. The political motives stop learning and building capacity of the individual and the community. For me changes are assets for the individual and community, while development is a liability for both the individual and community. I belong to a school, where the issues is not the value addition, but to enable them to add new value in their prevailing system. Enabling others is challenge for both school of thoughts, while both are still struggling to enable themselves in the field of developmental knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)