July 20, 2014

World stands a mute spectator to Gaza conflict

Most countries are only talking politics (Source: Google)
The kidnapping and killing of three Israeli students has reopened a vicious circle of hate, revenge, killings and war in West Asia. 

The ongoing Israeli onslaught in Gaza has entered its second week and the death toll continues to mount. 

More than 300 people have lost their lives and around 50,000 have been rendered homeless, but the world stands a mute spectator.

The scenes of death and chaos aren’t as disturbing as the fact that, apart from condemning the offensive, no nation has even tried to intervene. 

India itself has taken a very cautious stance on the issue. 

Parliament refused to have a debate over the issue since India shares diplomatic ties with both Israel and Palestine. 

India is the largest customer of Israeli military equipment; the West Asian nation is our second-largest military partner after Russia. 

India has also recognised Palestinian statehood following its own declaration in November 1988.

If India took a well-calculated stand, the United States made sure there were no second thoughts on its stand when President Barack Obama said: “Our understanding is the current military ground operations are designed to deal with the tunnels. 

"And we are hopeful that Israel will continue to approach this process in a way that minimises civilian casualties.” 

The way most countries have reacted to the conflict makes it clear they are talking politics, and that the lives at stake are none of their business. 

Instead of demanding a halt to both Hamas and Israel’s war campaign over the Gaza strip, Western powers have chosen to take sides. 

According to the West, if it wasn’t for Hamas’s rockets fired out of Gaza, all of this bloodletting would end. 

It does not matter which side is wrong and which is right, for hundreds of lives have already been lost and the brutal reality is that the bodies will keep piling up if the rest of the world does not step in.

© 2014 Nasreen Ghani


July 13, 2014

India does not have the money to spend on statues

The Statue of Unity - Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
IN his first Budget, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley pointed at India’s poor performance in the Human Development Index survey. 

He said India’s performance continues to be below the global average in most of the HDI indicators like life expectancy at birth, mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling. 

Yet he chose to allocate Rs 200 crore for the Statue of Unity, a figure of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel while he sanctioned Rs 100 crore for girl child education.

Such allocations are unusual in developing nations where elections are still being fought on issues of bijli, sadak and paani. 

Political parties including the BJP had targeted Mayawati for building the Rashtriya Dalit Prerna Sthal in Noida at a cost of Rs 685 crore, but now it is okay to construct a statue and spend crores on it while children starve to death in a country grappling with poverty, sluggish growth and a daunting deficit. 

Jaitley’s allocation would certainly not be enough since the actual cost of building the statue is pegged at Rs 2,500 crore. 

So what does Prime Minister Narendra Modi plan to do apart from asking people to donate funds? 

Does he expect states to follow in the steps of Gujarat and make a provision for a Rs 100-crore fund for the statue in their budgets? 

And why only blame Modi or Jaitley, the Prithviraj Chavan-led Maharashtra government recently sanctioned a budget of Rs 100 crore for a Chhatrapati Shivaji statue. 

While millions of people in India are still uneducated, don’t have homes to stay in, sleep on empty stomachs and die because of unavailability of medical aid, a substantial amount of the nation’s money is being used to build sculptures. 

No matter which way I say it, the fact remains that it’s a top-down expenditure of public funds and it isn’t unpatriotic to question its usefulness, especially at a time of economic anxiety.


© 2014 Nasreen Ghani


July 6, 2014

Indians hit new low over Sharapova

All it took to offend 'patriotic' Indians this time was ace tennis player Maria Sharapova admitting that she did not know who Sachin Tendulkar was. 

Tennis player Maria Sharapova
What hypocrites we Indians are! It turns into a life and death situation if a top Russian tennis player does not follow cricket and has no clue about Tendulkar, but it is all right if more than 90 per cent of Indians don't know what their national game is and who captains the team. 

Some of our Bollywood actors have no clue who the country's President is! 

The outburst on social networking sites including Twitter and Facebook is less about Indians being hypocrites than it is about the patriarchal mindset of Indian men, who have all the time in the world when it comes to demeaning a woman. Any woman, even Sharapova. 

Sharapova's Facebook page was bombarded with such horrid comments that most aren't even print-worthy. 

If cricket is religion and Sachin is God, then all of his followers who went after Sharapova seem to be imps from hell. 

As much as Indians believe that cricket is the only sport being played out there, it is a fact that football, rugby and tennis are watched and loved far more worldwide. 

How many of us know anything about tennis? 

Let me only count our cricket players and keep the rest of the population out of this one - ask any Indian cricket player who Sardara Singh is. I am certain most would not know he is the Indian hockey team captain.

You may even have something to say to Virender Sehwag, an Indian, who did not know who legendary cricket players Vinoo Mankad and Pankaj Roy were, even though they played the same sport for the country. 

If Sharapova's confession was honest, the Indian cyber-reaction to it was pure filth.

© 2014 Nasreen Ghani


June 29, 2014

Why tongues should stop wagging over Preity

NO
Actor Preity Zinta (Source: Google)
, I wasn't present when Preity Zinta and Ness Wadia got into a fight - and yes, you weren't either.

I don't know what happened between the two, and the same goes for you.

The allegations made by Preity Zinta are disturbing, but not more than all the talk surrounding the issue.

Tongues have been wagging ever since the FIR was lodged, men's and women's both. 
The most troubling of all has been this one particular line. And I have lost count of the number of times I have heard it. 

"There are gang-rapes being reported from every nook and corner of the country and instead the cops are focusing on Preity's tiff with her lover. It is an obvious waste of resources."

So are you telling me that a girl who has been abused should not report matters just because there are bigger problems here? That I should not report a rape incident because someone else was gang-raped or murdered? 

According to the law, harassing a person is and will always be a crime.

We have the orthodox mindset at work again: "Suits a woman right for being in a live-in relationship. 

"She has been in a live-in with Wadia. What is the big deal if he abused her verbally? It happens; plus girls like 'her' deserve it." 

Are you really implying that assault, verbal or physical, in marriage will also be justified? And that you are OK if a woman is harassed over dowry? 

You might as well be justifying and sympathising with jilted lovers throwing acid on their exes. Well, people like you will do better behind bars. 

Indians cannot get enough of the publicity notion, either. "She is a fading actress and needs publicity to survive." 

If anyone of you ever gets the chance to meet Preity, you will be ready to die and kill for a picture with her. This pretty much trashes the theory of a 'fading actress'. 

Just because Preity is an actor, does not mean the public can indulge in character assassination.

I certainly do not have the right to comment on anyone's character - and neither do you.


© 2014 Nasreen Ghani


June 22, 2014

Much ado about the fair railways hike

Indian Railway horror (Source: Google)
I am an avid traveller and have always enjoyed travelling, but there is not one such instance that I have travelled with a free mind. 

Whenever I had to take a train, the first and the foremost concern for my family was how safe I would be while travelling. 

Who would want to hear about their loved one being hurled out of a moving train if they resisted eve-teasing or rape?

And so I never had the luxury to travel in a general compartment. 

And, what about the quality of food? I remember one instance where a friend couldn't stop throwing up after she had food provided by the railways. We had to abandon our journey and get down at the next station to rush her to a hospital.

I can vouch that no one would like the idea of spending a vacation in a hospital bed.

The lesser said the better about the toilets. Each one of us makes sure we don't eat or drink before boarding a train. Using a toilet in the train has been one of the most harrowing experiences. I would rather go out in a field than be in a train toilet. 

All this only points to the deteriorating condition of the railways' services - a fact which the public transporter will grudgingly admit. 

Certainly the Indian Railways require some serious overhaul and maintenance to ensure that train journey is a pleasurable experience for the millions of train commuters. 

Going by the Indian Railways' financial health, all this will undeniably require more funds. 
The fare hike will help Indian Railways raise an additional Rs 8,000 crore in the fiscal 2014-15. 

The Narendra Modi-led NDA government's decision to hike passenger fares does come across as a harsh decision to many, but it is time for the public to look at the bigger picture.

I am sure the hike will pinch pockets, but I wouldn't mind paying a little extra if it means safer train journeys, availability of food that is edible and access to clean toilets.


© 2014 Nasreen Ghani