"My relative is in the armed forces"...
..and that makes you the last person in the world who will find out about what's really going on in conflict areas. A CA or a CEO would not want his family to know who all he has to cut deals with and what anti-public crimes he's been party to. The MD of a processed food company is highly unlikely to tell his closest relatives what all chemicals they are putting in their products. His folks might pick a clue if he starts getting organic food home, but the information is usually not easily forthcoming.
Put aside the sky-high pride for sometime. Even the ca, ceo etc jobs are very honourable; you have no right to say that they are all dishonourable jobs while your uncles/dads/brothers is more honourable or more unquestionable. You probably think it so, but please put it aside for some time.
"It is difficult for a man to understand a truth if his career depends on him not understanding it". -- ever heard this proverb? It's a universal truth; so please apply it at home too.
It is seen that people privy to violations or inconvenient truths are a lot more probable to confide about them with close friends who they see as neutral, and not to their loved ones. A difference might be in sharings with the most intimate partner: wife or husband, which would happen in the wee hours with crying and sharing vulnerabilities and uncertainties, thought-rumblings to. Does your uncle like doing cry-sessions with you in the middle of the night? No? Then you're simply not "In", buddy. Just accept it. Failing that, one would reach out to their college-time buddy or so who's now far removed, no army etc connections and no close contact with rest of family and so is neutral.
But if you're not that intimate partner or old time best buddy - if your source of information is just an uncle, a father, a brother - then its safer to assume that you will never know about the down-sides or the compromise factors of the career of the person you hold as a hero. They will be obliged to share only the positive sides of their careers with you. This happens in every career; it happens even more so with students sent abroad to study at great expense. Its time we stopped making armed forces service as an exception : that too a sector where there is an added national security factor to not tell one's family the full details. If your relative is in the armed forces, then you will be the last person in the world to know anything controversial about it, the same way as a person whose relative is a GMO company rep or Coke ka ceo or whatever.
So stop using the false logic that because you have a relative in it, you will know better than others if there's something controversial about it.
Once upon a time there were two neighbouring countries whose leading political parties ran on black money funded by overlapping groups of elite friends, who also ran the media of these countries, monopolized many essential resources and who sold weapons to the militaries of both sides and made enormous profits.
They had a secret strategic partnership: everytime one country's leadership started losing popularity because of corruption or bad governance or some scam coming to light, the other country would do something like firing on the border, killing a key commander or hanging a captive or attacking a base or city or so. While it would never be something that translated to all-out war, it would bring matters to a "boil" and successfully distract that country's people from the problems they were uncovering at the time, making them focus all their attention on the "external enemy" instead.
The owned media of both countries would also be put on the job to establish "public demand" for war through highly dramatized and selective reporting, nonstop warmongering rhetorics instead of news, daily clamouring for a "surgical strike", "moo-tod jawab" (jaw-breaking answer), "sending a signal" etc to make it look like the leadership has to now meet the public's "need" for "revenge" and "justice". Old war stories and hero stories would be looped over and over for stoking nostalgia of the good old days when we could all just kill each other, and the public would be told they have an obligation to live up to the honour of their heros and founding fathers.
While conveniently omitting the fact that these two countries have the world's highest rates of child malnutrition and lowest rates of real literacy for primary school children, can't fix even one issue that much poorer countries have already resolved, are buying globally rejected goods and obsolete polluting technologies in the blind dash for development and are already the laughing stock of the world.
After a few weeks of belligerent posturing, the obvious control mechanisms would kick in, other nations would intervene, plead both to avoid all-out conflict, not wipe out all life on the planet, etc and the leaderships would "grudgingly" accept to step-down despite "public demand for bold action" as a sign of their "maturity" and "statesmanship". Some meetings with lots of good food would resume as "peace talks", all just passing time for the next conflagaration.
By this time the original issues would be long forgotten, some heavy expenditures like troop mobilizations and weapons purchases (and so commission!) would already be done and so the leaders and their elite bosses would go laughing all the way to their banks.
At this time anyone who dared to question the leadership could easily be accused by their herd-mentality and patriotism-high friends of being a traitor and anti-national and all voices of sanity were ridiculed.
This way the leaderships of both countries stayed in power for long, with their own mutual rotations of two parties (again with the same black money funders so duopolies faking to be opponents) to keep up the illusion of democracy.
Untill one day the peoples of the two countries realized that they have a lot more in common with each other than they have with their own leaders, that their real enemies were the ones pulling the strings from behind the scenes, and that the first step to truly secure their country and stop these attacks, firings etc was to stop voting for candidates running on questionable black money funding sources in the next elections.
What does patriotism look like to you? Someone displaying anger at some enemy or judging others for not loving <insert word here> enough, or someone actually doing something for the benefit of their fellow beings?
Is true patriotism all about words and posturing, or about doing?
Here is an example of what real patriotism looks like, in my view:
https://www.facebook.com/icestupa/posts/1085531041555163
LADAKH SHARES ITS EXPERIENCE WITH SIKKIM IN AVERTING A KEDARNATH/ PHUGTAL TYPE DISASTER
A company that needs to change the laws of the land to protect its profits... is a company that is incapable of doing business and one that a wise investor would do well to steer clear of.
Because the political equations could change at any moment and there is no real security for the investment.
The very basic requirements for being a businessman include being able to successfully turn a profit while operating well within the laws of the land.
Electoral reform: A simple and interesting proposal has come from the Jill Stein camp (green party presidential candidate in US elections): a priority vote system that can get rid of the fear of "wasting your vote".
Suppose there are parties A, B, C. The incumbent is A, totally corrupt and at any cost you dont want them to win. B is the biggest opposition but you know they also have corrupts and criminals among them, just as much black money in funding, etc. C is new, shows most promise for bringing the change you wish to see, you really like and trust their candidate for your constituency and you want them to represent you.
But they are new, have very little funds for outreach, and might not get the numbers needed. It might also be an independent candidate. And the fear in your mind is: by voting for C, you might decrease B's lead and unwillingly end up making A win, which you want to avoid at all costs.
So out of fear of A winning, you pick "the lesser evil" and vote for B even though your original choice was C. This is fear-based politcs, and i liked Stein's quote on this: "the politics of fear has only delivered us what we feared the most".
Under the new proposed system, you vote for: C, B, [others in decreasing order of preference].
After first round of counting, if C doesn't get a clear majority, then your vote is automatically transferred to B. So it will never work in A's favour. This way, you can vote for those you like best, instead of "least worst", without any fear of "wasting" your vote. Takes the fear out of politics.
But even before we manage to bring in such a system, think : Instead of voting for the lesser evil, how about if we disposed of these never-ending speculations (typically pushed by the media that is secretly biased) and simply voted for the greater good? Even if that candidate doesn't win, won't you have made an investment for a future election where your candidate will have better ground to stand on thanks to prior votes earned? Can any vote made for positive change ever truly be 'wasted'? Or is that also a manipulation being used to game you? What improvent are you making in your children's lives by voting for the lesser evil? So the next time you go to vote, kindly leave your fear outside the polling booth.
PS: Are you from the US? Check out the electoral option that the media doesn't want you to know about : http://www.jill2016.com/plan
I seriously think the GPS transmitters need to go on ST buses first.
There we have the longest wait times,
Ability to get some real full-fledged work done if we know where our bus is and how long it'll take to come,
serious consequences for missing a bus,
Not having * any * other * way * to get to the destination,
also a valid use case for chasing down and catching a missed bus.
Writing this from an st stand in a town in maharashtra, waiting at 6pm for a bus that was scheduled to arrive at 3.30 but the inquiry desk has no clue whats the holdup and how long it will take. My destination is not very popular and if the bus doesnt come or if i miss it, i might have to stay here overnight.
And leave aside gps.. there's a valid case for simply having the conductors tweet or post or sms to a common app about the comings and goings, which stop passed, telling if the bus is too crowded or so.
9 August 2016: A Day of Reflection
Reaffirming Solidarity -- Towards Justice, Peace, and Hope
Today, Irom Sharmila makes a move towards freedom, by giving up her fast, which has lasted nearly 16 years. We feel deep respect for Irom Sharmila's non-violent struggle and her indomitable spirit, and support her decision to give up the fast. The struggle for peace and justice will continue.
On 9 August, 1942, Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders of the Quit India movement were arrested. The British government promulgated the Armed Forced Special Powers Ordinance on 15 August 1942, to quell the Quit India movement.
The government of India promulgated the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958; and subsequently imposed it in several parts of the country. People in Manipur, including Imas (`mothers': elderly women activists), Meira Paibis (women's groups, literally women holding `mashaals'), and many civil society groups, are struggling for AFSPA to be repealed, in the interests of peace and justice. They want good governance to be restored in the state. Experts argue that the Act perpetuates violation of fundamental democratic rights. It grants excessive powers, and impunity, to armed forces. Atrocities against ordinary citizens have been documented over the years.
FORWARD IN YOUR NETWORK TO LET PEOPLE JOIN PEOPLE'S ACTION
In 2012, the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of India, alleging 1,528 fake encounters in Manipur since the 1980s. The Court ordered investigation into six cases, all of which were proved to be fake encounters: killing of innocent persons, by armed forces or police commandos. The Court has ruled that all the remaining cases must be thoroughly probed. It has questioned impunity, ruling that armed forces cannot use excessive force even in areas that come under AFSPA.
Humane, democratic solutions are needed to solve real problems faced by people; dialogue rather than repression. We stand in solidarity with democratic people's movements in Manipur, and elsewhere in the country -- being waged today by dalits, women, minorities, workers, people with disabilities, sexuality rights activists, and other marginalised sections. We -- ordinary people, students, teachers, feminists, activists -- care for democracy and human rights, peace and good governance, accountability and justice. We feel that we are all responsible for helping to bring this about. We need to listen, learn, and together search for ways to move ahead, to actually resolve many very difficult situations.
We propose 9 August 2016, as a day of reflection: upon our own ethics and politics, upon freedom, justice, peace -- and hope. We will sit together that day, in quiet companionship. We will sit at Jantar Mantar -- from 2.30 to 6.30 p.m. Do join! We may sing some songs, read poetry, draw, sit in a circle, talk…; some may want to fast for the day, they could break their fast at 6. We would like to light candles as it gets dark. We are not planning this as a protest. Rather, a moment of quiet solidarity.
Please feel free to forward this to others who may be interesting in joining on the 9th. And, do bring along poetry, umbrella, mats, water, candle, posters, or anything else you'd like to share. This is a spontaneous action with no central organizing committee; your participation helps lend it meaning!
- Shanti, Deepti Priya, Runu Chakraborty, Nandini Rao, Shraddha Chikerur, Uma Chakravarthy, Ravi Nitesh, Devika Mittal, Sampurna Trust, Save Sharmila Solidarity Campaign, Ninglun Hanghal, Felix Padel, Malvika Gupta, Dhruva Narayan, Sunita Kumari ….
