I view Kerala as among the most politicised societies in the world. Kerala had earned the distinction of fostering the World’s first democratically elected communist government. Does that explain why its trade union movement turned out to be so irresponsible and unreasonable? Going on strikes at the drop-of-a-hat are next to impossible in most communist regimes, because they do not have the extent of democracy that Indian constitution provides. I am always surprised by the fact that even at the high schools (or middle schools?!), there is a tacit involvement of political parties in grooming their future cadres, through the help of teachers who are active party card-holders. In rest of the world, political participation usually begins at the university level. In the case of Kerala, at colleges and Universities one even comes across lecturers and professors (not sure of the Principals) openly touting their party affiliations.
Another important distinction of Kerala is the active political participation of its religious minorities. Muslims and Syrian Christians have their own political parties, thus giving every issue in the State a religious overtone. The pulpits end up as the election campaign platforms as-and-when-needed.
So what we see in Kerala is an overdose of politicisation, which has the unfortunate outcome of people having a much skewed political awareness leaning towards rights, and conveniently ignoring the obligations that go hand-in-hand. Despite the presence of dime-a-dozen Godmen and Godwomen in Kerala, ones innate sense of right and wrong is sacrificed at the altars of the self-serving agenda of ones kin, class, caste, or religious group.
Perhaps, there-in lies the problem…we have thrown the proverbial baby (ideals of justice and fairness) with the bathwater (the migration of its literate and skilled human potential). What's left behind is anybody’s guess!?!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Family Values being narrowly defined
Closing arguments were heard on June 16, 2010 (Wednesday) in a U.S. federal appeals court in San Francisco in a landmark challenge of California's ban on same-sex marriage. The supporters of existing ban on same-sex marriage described matrimony as an institution intended to promote childbearing and opponents saying the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized it as a fundamental right.
The modern world today is divided between moral, family-loving believers on the one side and supposedly permissive, corrupt, family-destroying secularists on the other. The claim that support for gay rights and gay marriage is synonymous with opposition to family values and sexual responsibility is idiocy, to say the least.
The self-righteous religious conservatives refuse to acknowledge that the pressures endangering the family do not come from some dark-secular-leftist conspiracy, but from cultural and economic forces that affect us all. People are encouraged to put all sorts of things (career advancement, wealth, fame, the accumulation of things, various forms of self-indulgence) ahead of being good parents and spouses. Our workplaces are not as family-friendly as they could be.
Devotion to family values has nothing to do with ideology. The secular and liberal-minded parents do crowd school meetings, flock to their kids’ sporting events, help them with homework and teach them right from wrong on the basis of values. They do not differ much from parents who are active in their religious congregations, and take their family responsibilities as seriously as the believers do.
And those of us who are liberal would insist that our support for the rights of gays and lesbians grows from our sense of what family values demand. How can being pro-family possibly mean holding in contempt our homosexual relatives, neighbors and friends? How much sense does it make to preach fidelity and commitment and then deny marriage to those whose sexual orientation is different from our own? Rights for gays and lesbians don’t wreck heterosexual families. Heterosexuals are doing a fine job of this on their own.
The modern world today is divided between moral, family-loving believers on the one side and supposedly permissive, corrupt, family-destroying secularists on the other. The claim that support for gay rights and gay marriage is synonymous with opposition to family values and sexual responsibility is idiocy, to say the least.
The self-righteous religious conservatives refuse to acknowledge that the pressures endangering the family do not come from some dark-secular-leftist conspiracy, but from cultural and economic forces that affect us all. People are encouraged to put all sorts of things (career advancement, wealth, fame, the accumulation of things, various forms of self-indulgence) ahead of being good parents and spouses. Our workplaces are not as family-friendly as they could be.
Devotion to family values has nothing to do with ideology. The secular and liberal-minded parents do crowd school meetings, flock to their kids’ sporting events, help them with homework and teach them right from wrong on the basis of values. They do not differ much from parents who are active in their religious congregations, and take their family responsibilities as seriously as the believers do.
And those of us who are liberal would insist that our support for the rights of gays and lesbians grows from our sense of what family values demand. How can being pro-family possibly mean holding in contempt our homosexual relatives, neighbors and friends? How much sense does it make to preach fidelity and commitment and then deny marriage to those whose sexual orientation is different from our own? Rights for gays and lesbians don’t wreck heterosexual families. Heterosexuals are doing a fine job of this on their own.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The meek SHOULD inherit the Earth
On April 20, 2010 Bolivian President Evo Morales launched the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, welcoming over 10,000 people from 135 countries, to what he declared to be an alternative to the United Nations climate talks. This World People’s Conference on Climate Change held at Cochabamba in Bolivia was an experiment in replacing the less-than-democratic UN process, with one that invites public participation.
One of the greatest obstacles to fighting climate change is the culture of ignorance and denial surrounding the science of global warming in amongst the conservative and the elites. Statistical analysis of October 2009 from Pew Research Center for United States revealed that certain demographic groups are systematically more likely to reject the consensus that global warming is real. These groups include: older Americans (as compared to the young), Republicans and Conservatives (as compared to Democrats and Liberals), whites as compared to non-whites, men as compared to women, born again Christians, and the wealthy. Most of these variables have one major attribute in common: privilege.
In general, privileged individuals are more likely to be ignorant about the dangers of global warming than those who are less privileged. This shouldn't be all that surprising, given the fact that world’s economic and political elites have benefitted from an unsustainable economic system for decades; a system that allows the degradation of natural environment in the pursuit of profit and greed. The elites reflect the attitude that believes that everything will sort itself in the end, while they will continue remaining at the top of the heap. As for the poor and downtrodden they are destined to anyway suffer and wither, no matter what the outcome is due to climate change.
The rush of global environmental changes is occurring at ever faster (much faster than predicted) rates and governments put forth mild platitudes acknowledging that there is a problem of some kind. They make weak futuristic recommendations to merely pacify the scientists and concerned public. However, things are already starting to look bleak for the poorest of the poor on the planet. Rich nations and poor nations look at long-term challenges of the environment differently. Today, while rich and emerging nations (including India) are basically concerned with their respective ways of life and ongoing competition for global economic and political power, some poor nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia with growing populations and scarce resources are struggling to provide citizens with the means to meet basic human needs, such as water, food, and shelter.
The Copenhagen summit had produced new visions and solidarities among the powerless nations. They include Sub-Saharan Africa and small island nations in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, some of which are only two meters above sea level at their highest point and thus most vulnerable. These are places where millions live on the edge, directly impacted by climate change, dealing with the effects from cyclones and droughts to erosion and floods. Tuvalu (near Fiji), Maldives and other island nations, for example, are concerned that rising sea levels will wipe their countries off the map. They have been vocal in asking for early action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well as halt deforestation and the destruction of the Earth. Theirs is a small but righteous voices speaking on behalf of the planet that is home to us all.
Today pastoralists in arid regions face drought, desertification, and disruptions in water supplies because worldwide rainfall is shifting away from the equator towards the poles, warming the Polar Regions. Canadians benefit the most from this trend. Thus it is widely believed that the first victims of the change in global rainfall patterns will not be people from rich, polluting nations who engage in ruinous consumption, but pastoralists and fishing communities who exist precariously at the southern hemisphere. The sad reality today is that our consumerist society has blinded the world’s privileged elites to the dangers that their actions pose to humankind. Equally problematic is the political lobby (a` la Tea Party activism) that's dedicated to questioning the scientific consensus on global warming.
Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva was among those who addressed the climate justice rally of 100,000 in Copenhagen last December. She was asked to respond to the position of Obama administration that US is willing to pay its fair share, but that donors “don’t have unlimited largesse to disburse.” Shiva responded, “I think it’s time for the U.S. to stop seeing itself as a donor and recognize itself as a polluter, a polluter who must pay. ... This is not about charity. This is about justice.”
How does one challenge the climate change deniers? According to the Pew data, increased education plays a major role in decreasing public ignorance about global warming. Progressive and liberal-minded forces share a major responsibility for educating fellow citizens about the scientific consensus on climate change. While conservative radio, T.V., and think tanks may enjoy a privileged economic position in the mass media, progressives can take advantage of their power in numbers, in addition to the support of the scientific community, in challenging global warming distortions.
I hope that the Knanaya community spread around the globe, doing reasonably well economically, will hopefully take this global challenge personally and seriously. We should take a moment to ponder as to what Christ would have had to say on this issue. If he had attended the Copenhagen summit held last December; he would likely have reenacted his famous Temple scene of lashing out at the profit-mongers. He would have unequivocally rebuked the Wealthy Nations for their militarily oriented and consumptive egoistical life styles. He would have extended his hands of solidarity to the poor nations of Sub-Saharan Africa and the small island nations and declared: “Blessed are the meek and humble…”
One of the greatest obstacles to fighting climate change is the culture of ignorance and denial surrounding the science of global warming in amongst the conservative and the elites. Statistical analysis of October 2009 from Pew Research Center for United States revealed that certain demographic groups are systematically more likely to reject the consensus that global warming is real. These groups include: older Americans (as compared to the young), Republicans and Conservatives (as compared to Democrats and Liberals), whites as compared to non-whites, men as compared to women, born again Christians, and the wealthy. Most of these variables have one major attribute in common: privilege.
In general, privileged individuals are more likely to be ignorant about the dangers of global warming than those who are less privileged. This shouldn't be all that surprising, given the fact that world’s economic and political elites have benefitted from an unsustainable economic system for decades; a system that allows the degradation of natural environment in the pursuit of profit and greed. The elites reflect the attitude that believes that everything will sort itself in the end, while they will continue remaining at the top of the heap. As for the poor and downtrodden they are destined to anyway suffer and wither, no matter what the outcome is due to climate change.
The rush of global environmental changes is occurring at ever faster (much faster than predicted) rates and governments put forth mild platitudes acknowledging that there is a problem of some kind. They make weak futuristic recommendations to merely pacify the scientists and concerned public. However, things are already starting to look bleak for the poorest of the poor on the planet. Rich nations and poor nations look at long-term challenges of the environment differently. Today, while rich and emerging nations (including India) are basically concerned with their respective ways of life and ongoing competition for global economic and political power, some poor nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia with growing populations and scarce resources are struggling to provide citizens with the means to meet basic human needs, such as water, food, and shelter.
The Copenhagen summit had produced new visions and solidarities among the powerless nations. They include Sub-Saharan Africa and small island nations in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, some of which are only two meters above sea level at their highest point and thus most vulnerable. These are places where millions live on the edge, directly impacted by climate change, dealing with the effects from cyclones and droughts to erosion and floods. Tuvalu (near Fiji), Maldives and other island nations, for example, are concerned that rising sea levels will wipe their countries off the map. They have been vocal in asking for early action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well as halt deforestation and the destruction of the Earth. Theirs is a small but righteous voices speaking on behalf of the planet that is home to us all.
Today pastoralists in arid regions face drought, desertification, and disruptions in water supplies because worldwide rainfall is shifting away from the equator towards the poles, warming the Polar Regions. Canadians benefit the most from this trend. Thus it is widely believed that the first victims of the change in global rainfall patterns will not be people from rich, polluting nations who engage in ruinous consumption, but pastoralists and fishing communities who exist precariously at the southern hemisphere. The sad reality today is that our consumerist society has blinded the world’s privileged elites to the dangers that their actions pose to humankind. Equally problematic is the political lobby (a` la Tea Party activism) that's dedicated to questioning the scientific consensus on global warming.
Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva was among those who addressed the climate justice rally of 100,000 in Copenhagen last December. She was asked to respond to the position of Obama administration that US is willing to pay its fair share, but that donors “don’t have unlimited largesse to disburse.” Shiva responded, “I think it’s time for the U.S. to stop seeing itself as a donor and recognize itself as a polluter, a polluter who must pay. ... This is not about charity. This is about justice.”
How does one challenge the climate change deniers? According to the Pew data, increased education plays a major role in decreasing public ignorance about global warming. Progressive and liberal-minded forces share a major responsibility for educating fellow citizens about the scientific consensus on climate change. While conservative radio, T.V., and think tanks may enjoy a privileged economic position in the mass media, progressives can take advantage of their power in numbers, in addition to the support of the scientific community, in challenging global warming distortions.
I hope that the Knanaya community spread around the globe, doing reasonably well economically, will hopefully take this global challenge personally and seriously. We should take a moment to ponder as to what Christ would have had to say on this issue. If he had attended the Copenhagen summit held last December; he would likely have reenacted his famous Temple scene of lashing out at the profit-mongers. He would have unequivocally rebuked the Wealthy Nations for their militarily oriented and consumptive egoistical life styles. He would have extended his hands of solidarity to the poor nations of Sub-Saharan Africa and the small island nations and declared: “Blessed are the meek and humble…”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)