நம்ம மகாத்மா

ஒரு தொலைக் காட்சியின் காணொளியை எனது வலைப் பதிவில் தருவது இது இரண்டாவது முறை என்று நினைக்கிறேன். முதல் முறை சுப்ரமணிய சுவாமியின் பேட்டிஒன்று. இது இரண்டாவது. காந்தி பிறந்த நாளில் மிகவும் காத்திரமான ஒரு கட்டுரை எழுத வேண்டும் என்று நினைத்தேன். ஆனால் அது கை கூட வில்லை. இந்தக் கானோளியைக்கண்ட பிறகு எழுதாமல் இருப்பதே நல்லது என்று தோன்றியது. அடிப்படைச் செய்திகள் கூடத் தெரியாத நமக்கு என்ன மிகப் பெரியக் கட்டுரை தேவை என்று தோன்றியது.

தேசப் பிதா... மகாத்மா பற்றி என்ன தெரிந்திருக்கிறது நமக்கு. நமது கல்வி முறை தேதிகளை நினைவில் வைக்கச் சொல்லிக் கொடுத்தாலும் நமக்கு அது மனதில் பதிவதில்லை. கல்வி முறை பற்றியும் அதிகம் சிந்திக்க வேண்டியிருக்கிறது.

பாருங்கள்

namma mahatma di msmorethan143

MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

SUFFERING, JOY, and HOPE

When we are put to test, or unwanted events happen, we drown into the sea  of tears, and sadness. Suffering never comes alone. It comes as a legion - one after another. We will not have time even to count them. We suffer so   much that even the good things seem as bad. We do this, and then a little while later do that unfortunately they turn against us. We keep on doing it, nothing seems to work well, nothing seems to be on our favor.

But 

On a sudden day, it is very bright. That gentle breeze that enters the room in the window seems to bring everything fresh. From that time on everything seems to fall in its place. Everything works so well. Good things, like the bad ones, do come in group - one after another. Even the bad events look good - they seem a blessing in disguise now. How happy one is when everything happens as expected.

What we often forget is the link? 

The efforts that we took to set things right. The hard work that we put in to straighten things up. 

Unless one makes such an effort, will he taste such a honey. Could it be possible that things fall on their places, if there had been no such efforts? Without our efforts nothing happens. But they are forgotten in the sudden transition.

That is why it is good not to get drowned in sadness - not good to sit idly without any efforts - keep on trying, Hoping that things will fall on their places.

I have gone through such difficulties ... I hoped ... and I hope ....

அன்பின் வன்முறை ....

இஸ்லாமியர்களின் ஒட்டு மொத்தக் குரல் உலகம் எங்கும் எதிரொலித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது. ஏறக்குறைய ஒரு வாரத்திற்கு மேலாகியும் அது குறைவதாய்த் தெரியவில்லை. அநேகமாக இன்னும் அதிகமாகலாம்.

அமெரிக்காவைச் சேர்ந்த முறையான அடையாளம் இல்லாத ஓர் அமெரிக்க யூதர் இஸ்லாமியர்களின் மீது மிகுந்த வெறியோடு, எந்தவிதமான அடிப்படைத் தரவுகளுமின்றி மிக மோசமான ஒரு குறும் படத்தை இயக்கப் போக உலகமெங்கும் இருக்கிற இஸ்லாமியர்கள் ஒட்டு மொத்தமாக அமெரிக்காவிற்கு எதிராகத் திரும்பியிருக்கிறார்கள். 

லிபியாவில் அமெரிக்க தூதர் கொல்லப் பட்டதாகவும் அவரோடு இணைந்து மேலும் இருவரும், பாகிஸ்தானில் இதுவரை பத்தொன்பது நபர்களும் கொல்லப்  பட்டதாகவும் செய்திகள் தெரிவிக்கின்றன. ஆனால் பாகிஸ்தானில் கொல்லப்பட்டவர்கள் அமெரிக்கர்கள் இல்லை - அவர்களும் பாகிஸ்தானியர்கள் என்றே நினைக்கிறேன்.

இதோடு இணைந்து இந்த சமயத்தில் பிரெஞ்சு பத்திரிகை ஒன்று நபிகளின் கார்ட்டூன் ஒன்று வெளியிட இந்தப் பிரச்சனை இன்னும் அதிகமாகிறது. மத சம்மந்தப் பட்ட கோட்பாடுகளில் கைய வைக்கிற யாரும் மிகக் கவனமாய் இருக்க வேண்டியது அவசியம். ஒரு தீப் பொறி ஒரு காட்டை அழிக்கும் வல்லமை படைத்தது என்பதை இந்த நிகழ்வு சுட்டிக் காட்டுகிறது. அமெரிக்கர்கள் கிறித்தவக் கடவுளைக் கிண்டலித்து பழகிப் போனவர்கள். இப்போது அவர்களின் கோபம் இஸ்லாமியர்கள் பக்கம் திரும்பியிருக்கின்றது. இதை அவர்கள் கருத்துச் சுதந்திரம் என்று நியாயப் படுத்தலாம். ஆனால் இது அவ்வளவு சுலபமாக ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளப் படாது. ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளவும் முடியாது.

உலகின் எல்லா நாடுகளும் ஒருங்கே அமெரிக்காவின் கருத்துச் சுதந்திரம் என்கிற கோட்பாட்டை அவர்கள் பாணியில் யாரும் புரிந்து கொள்ள முடியாது. அப்படி எல்லாரும் அதே விதமாகத்தான் புரிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டுமென்றால் அமெரிக்க ஏகாதிபத்தியத்தை ஏற்றுக் கொண்டதாகத் தான் அது இருக்கும். 

ஒரு மனிதனின் தவறான கருத்தை கடுமையாக எதிர்க்க வேண்டியது அவசியம்தான். ஆனால் அதற்காக வன்முறை எதிப்பை ஒரு போதும் நியாயப் படுத்த முடியாது.  

அடிப்படையில் எல்லாம் சமயங்களும் 

அன்பைப் போதிப்பவைகளாகவே இருக்கின்றன. 

ஆனால், அதில் இருக்கும் உறுப்பினர்கள்

தாங்கள் போதிக்கும் அன்பே உயர்ந்தது என்று சண்டையிடப் போய் 

அவர்கள் அனைவரும் 

தாங்கள் போதிக்கும் அன்பிற்கு எதிரானவர்களாகவே ஆகி விடுகின்றனர். ஆனால் இதை அவர்கள் உணராமல் இருப்பதுதான் 

பிரச்சனையின்  ஆணிவேரே.

கொசுறு:

இன்னொசென்ஸ் ஆப் முஸ்லீம்ஸ் - முழு ஸ்கிரிப்ட் - சொடுக்கவும்.

Extreme Individualism

It was shocking to watch a short movie titled ‘innocence of Muslims’.  The title had, as far as I am concerned, nothing to do with the so called ‘a short movie’. It was neither a documentary nor a movie in the technical sense of the term. It was not a documentary because it never stated any facts, it had no coherence, and it was not well presented. What one sees in the movie is the hatred towards a particular religious community while praising or attempting to praise Judaism.

One man in the United States had produced such a devastating movie irresponsibly deceiving even the actress in such a way that it is a movie on some clash between some clans in ancient Egypt. If this is what he had done with making of a movie, one can understand well how the movie itself has lots its credibility. Although a particular country cannot be held responsible for one man’s fault, it is high time that a country such as the United States revalues and redefines its understanding of ‘the free individual’. It is not only for the United States but also for other countries which are attempting to replicate the U.S. Model in their own country.

A lot has to do with the historical events and the development of understanding the Individual. One can see it in differences between the Europe and the U.S. Model. There are lots of differences between the two in many respects. The main one that is often noted of Europe is its secular character understood in terms of the rise of unbelief. The majority of them are not believers in the traditional religion, and more not active believers in any religion for that matter. On the contrary United States has more active believers statistically. The former, in spite of having less believers, respects the believers and their system of beliefs that give value to the individual, whereas the latter in spite of its religious character at large displays hatred towards other religious beliefs. It does not mean that I favor secular contents and want to promote secularization. 

What I see much more important is the difference between the conception of the individual understood in terms of rights. While the element of sociality is still operative in the Europe although very mildly, even the milder connection between the individual and the society is cut off in the U.S. Model. One could say that it has taken the path of extreme individuation where sociality is almost invisible. 

[I who am neither an European nor an American acknowledge that I may be wrong and I need to substantiate it with facts, for now it may be seen hypothetically.] Freedom has to be understood as an "Exercise concept" as Charles Taylor puts forward. 

Democracy and Demonstration

India is a country partly ruled by the majority, partly ruled by the law. It gives an equal status to all the citizens of the country yet it tries to fulfill the wish of the majority. In the synchronizing model [of both Republic and democracy], the sufferers are the people because they do not have either control over the rulers or do not receive what they are supposed to receive by the benefit of the law. It is also because the law is in the hands of the few and sometimes dictated by the rulers themselves. 

In the continuous protest that we witness in Tamil Nadu, one can hope to explain the complexity of the phenomenon. The rulers see the manifestation of the people as irrational and as a divisive factor that goes against the rational decision of the majority. The vast majority of the people are made to rationally believe that the nuclear plant is the only option available to the continuous 'power cut' they experience in the country.  Joining hands with the rational belief of the government and the indifferent majority, the 'media' [some of them]     makes a propaganda writing against the protests of the people for their‘collective good’, say the safety of the present and future generation. They write that these manifestations do show that the protesters are against the unity of the country. 

The truth is that some rulers, and a pillar of democracy in fact do not understand that India is also a country that values the protection of every citizen. They think that demonstrations and protests are dangerous to the unity of the nation. They are against the demonstrations only to create an opinion of the majority. They do not understand that these protests are the sources that strengthen the system of the Indian governance in which every body’s right can be protected. It is only the recognition of these protests that strengthen the unity of the country. 

Only when the voices of protests such as these are not respected and the recognition is suppressed, then there emerges a danger of division. The voice for fragmentation may become stronger when the collective rights of the people are not respected. 

Therefore those who oppose a legitimate protest should understand that by supporting a majoritarian decision or the silent acceptance of the decision made by the majority, they are only perpetrating the system of tyranny and not of ‘democracy’ which seems their conviction.

TEACHERS

Everyone will agree that teachers have a role to play in our life. Some value it positively and others negatively. Those who have had great teachers will appreciate teachers and those who have ‘bad’ teachers will hate them if not curse them.

A good teacher is great not because he is an intellectual but because he is able to relate with the students well in such a way that he could motivate them to think on their own and to understand life in a better perspective. But our educational system does not demand teachers who can play the kind of role that they can play in the aspect of motivation.

All that our system demands is that one can be a good teacher when he has the ability to transfer from the ‘printed format to the unprinted format’, that can be stored in the mind! In this way the teachers have no the active role of a teacher. However we still are able to find good teachers in this format too. The students who have the ability to draw the impressions of the mind to the practical problems do appreciate such teachers. Say those who are good computer engineers will definitely appreciate the teacher’s contribution and his communicative skills because of which the student had an interest for the subject.

Some do not have good teachers not because they are bad as such as but lacking the skill, i.e. the ability to communicate well either from the printed one or from their memory. It is because of this some students hate a subject not because the subject is less interesting but because the teachers are less interesting.

I am talking of good teachers in two senses: one who can communicate well the subject matter and one who can relate well with the students who can inspire them in the minimum way, at least. Even if the communication skill is lacking in a teacher, he could very well be called a good teacher because of the second. Because one likes the teacher, one may also develop a liking for the subject.

Well. I want to speak about a good teacher in another sense, not restricted to the realm of the school education. Hr is one who can help the students to become teachers of their own life. A teacher here is called good not because he makes his students well informed and thus able to communicate back to others what he has learned, but because he makes the students to think, ask questions, and to make him a teacher of his own. The teacher makes the students to live on his own independent of the teacher – not in the sense of searching for a job and live on his own but one can know the meaning of being human in the world and to set the framework of his life. In this way even a teacher of history can make the students to ponder from the events of history to think of the contemporary situations. But I do not know whether the educational system will allow such teachers to flourish at all.

I have had good teachers in all sense: A teacher who is good communicator but not kind; a teacher who is gentle and a good communicator; a teacher who is gentle but not a ‘motivational teacher’’; a teacher who is gentle, intellectual, communicator as well as motivational. 

I want to write about everyone – but not now. For now, Thank you my teachers …

*************************************************************

What to say of millions of our children 

who have no opportunity 

to meet a teacher yet?