It is anticipated that any article written by any person will always have a bias in it. This article is a summary of arguments, manipulated by Tarun Vijay to show a point of view. The entire narrative is written in his perspective, using language as a tool, making use of only those lines in those speeches by famous men to prove a point, that those famous men might not have even been talking about. Tarun Vijay manages to get his point across to the readers, show his anti Jinnah anti Pakistani views, and at the same time talk about the works of Jinnah and other people’s speeches.
Vijay uses historical examples to show Jinnah’s ruthlessness. Starting with talk about an “unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata”, Vijay manages to use his words to stir the feelings within the Indians reading this article. He goes on talking about different events which are once again chosen with a bias, to prove Hindu innocence. Though it would be politically incorrect to state his opinion of supremacy of the PSS, his words, quotations, and historical examples bring that put for him. Vijay uses a quote from the Gita to talk about the RSS. This shows how he uses language, to stir emotions of the readers, at the same time, give the impression that following the RSS is following god, as Gita is the path of worshipping god. Bringing in religion in politics, just like Gandhi did to involve the Muslims in the Non cooperation movement, Vijay reaches out to even those religious people who never really supported the RSS’s extremist views. Seeing this, Vijay’s skill with language, and persuasion can easily be seen.
Bringing in Ethics, and quoting Jinnah when he said h did not want to talk about ethics, Vijay manipulates the mind into thinking that Jinnah was unethical as he killed while Hindus, the BJP and the RSS are all ethical, and politicall correct. Hence bringing in political science, when he brings in the politics of the time, and events that differentiate the BJP from the RSS and politics at the time of the partition and politics today. Though he doesn’t directly insult Jinnah, he uses quotes that insult, and ruin him. The use of ethics, human sciences, and history enhances the effect that Vijay makes on his reader.
Talking about Gandhi raises the flag of patriotism in the reader’s eyes. Gandhi a person of great awe in India, is written about with respect by Vijay, while Jinnah is insulted hence attacking emotions and using this psychological method, Vijay appeals to reader and manages to do just what his initial aim was. The title “He had a pistol. He used it”, itself implies violence, an unethical way of getting what you want and do not deserve. This way, Vijay manages to share his opinion on Jinnah, and brainwashing us readers.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
History Oscar Wilde
It is not about how it is documented, it is about what is documented. I do not agree with Wilde one bit. History has to be made to be written. Though there is importance to those who write it down, there would be nothing to write if it wasn’t for people like Napoleon, and Hitler. Authors can not pick up guns and fight wars, while soldiers might not be able to right as well as the “Wildes” of this world, there is always a normal way of recording historical events.
Wilde claims that his job is more important, but Historians write with a sense of bias, that could easily manipulate history into something is never was. For centuries history was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, so how are the writers more important? Stories then were twisted and turned to suit the speaker, and in this case, stories are manipulated by the author. While an Indian text book talks mainly about the good of Pakistan, a Pakistani one talks about India stealing all Muslim glory. Any author writing about an event will write with a sense of bias, but this was, the historic figures’ true nature, motives, and actions are often not revealed.
There is another way to learn history, but there is only one Hitler, one Gandhi, one Woodrow Wilson, and one Nelson Mandela. We talk about the historians, Steepan Lee, Andrew Ebert, Oscar Wilde, and so many more. If one is out of stock at a book shop, there is always another author we can pick up. When Hitler died, was there another man who was written about? Yes, these authors make it easy for us to learn about history, but if they dint, a movie would, or an auto-biography, in the case of Che Guevara music. There are different ways of passing history on, but there is a man in history, and while these authors distort that man’s views, they can not replace that man, and not even by a long shot can they are taking history’s importance and place. They write, because men sacrificed their lives, invariably giving them something to write on. No event, no book, as simple as that. It is not the interest on him a historian writes the past, but the event in past that we the knowers are interested in, and indeed the Wildes help us in that too.
Wilde claims that his job is more important, but Historians write with a sense of bias, that could easily manipulate history into something is never was. For centuries history was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, so how are the writers more important? Stories then were twisted and turned to suit the speaker, and in this case, stories are manipulated by the author. While an Indian text book talks mainly about the good of Pakistan, a Pakistani one talks about India stealing all Muslim glory. Any author writing about an event will write with a sense of bias, but this was, the historic figures’ true nature, motives, and actions are often not revealed.
There is another way to learn history, but there is only one Hitler, one Gandhi, one Woodrow Wilson, and one Nelson Mandela. We talk about the historians, Steepan Lee, Andrew Ebert, Oscar Wilde, and so many more. If one is out of stock at a book shop, there is always another author we can pick up. When Hitler died, was there another man who was written about? Yes, these authors make it easy for us to learn about history, but if they dint, a movie would, or an auto-biography, in the case of Che Guevara music. There are different ways of passing history on, but there is a man in history, and while these authors distort that man’s views, they can not replace that man, and not even by a long shot can they are taking history’s importance and place. They write, because men sacrificed their lives, invariably giving them something to write on. No event, no book, as simple as that. It is not the interest on him a historian writes the past, but the event in past that we the knowers are interested in, and indeed the Wildes help us in that too.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
CIA report
There is always an ethical issue that rises with interrogations. "Is is ethical to use force on a suspected terrorist?" If the methods used to break a terrorist inflict terror themselves then what is the difference between the good guys and the bad ones? The again a terrorist has no conscience so will guilt and words ever work? Do terrorists deserve to have their rights, or should they be hurt int he same manner that them hurt others. This issue can never really be resolved for the arguments are strong for both sides, and the most compelling arts to the stories of these tortures are that they are always accompanied with a great deal of emotion. This emotion influences the listener making them unable to reason out without bias.
For an American affected by 9/11 and an Indian affected in 26/11 any amount of pain inflicted on a terrorist could be acceptable, but for a mother whose son used terrorism as means to earn money and support her illness, even a pin prick would be too much. There are two sides to all stories, and as seen in Khuda ke liye, often those accused are not the ones guilty of any hostility. There are people who wont break with any amount of talk. An American can promise a better prison facility, and can show pictures of the people who died through a tragedy that he caused, still no compliance can be a result for there are some terrorists who are faithful to their cause. In that case is it right to keep uselessly talking to a man withholding such importing information, or is it right to use force to get a was. Who draws the line which says no threatening can be done for a terrorists needs their rights?
Through this media source the author is trying to convey that we are so often kept in the dark on out own policies. men who interrogate by breaking the law can just leave when they are done to avoid facing charges and most of the times charges are dismissed. Yet one can help but wonder, the people who sit to question terrorists or suspected terrorists are doing so because they made an oath to preserve and protect the country and are just trying to prevent people from getting hurt. But what the author hasn't taken into consideration, talking about the wrong done to people in prison is that they have also taken the oath to prserve and protect the constitution and law of their countries. though people want to take action against these torturers, i cant help but wonder, what if that man has taken 200 people hostage? should he be protected by the same law he has no respect for? As Jack Bauer says in 24, "If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt." Here is a man who who fought only to protect his coutry. is it right to act the say he did?
There is a fine line between terrorism and heroism, but where one line ends and the other begins, is a mystery even this author is unable to answer.
For an American affected by 9/11 and an Indian affected in 26/11 any amount of pain inflicted on a terrorist could be acceptable, but for a mother whose son used terrorism as means to earn money and support her illness, even a pin prick would be too much. There are two sides to all stories, and as seen in Khuda ke liye, often those accused are not the ones guilty of any hostility. There are people who wont break with any amount of talk. An American can promise a better prison facility, and can show pictures of the people who died through a tragedy that he caused, still no compliance can be a result for there are some terrorists who are faithful to their cause. In that case is it right to keep uselessly talking to a man withholding such importing information, or is it right to use force to get a was. Who draws the line which says no threatening can be done for a terrorists needs their rights?
Through this media source the author is trying to convey that we are so often kept in the dark on out own policies. men who interrogate by breaking the law can just leave when they are done to avoid facing charges and most of the times charges are dismissed. Yet one can help but wonder, the people who sit to question terrorists or suspected terrorists are doing so because they made an oath to preserve and protect the country and are just trying to prevent people from getting hurt. But what the author hasn't taken into consideration, talking about the wrong done to people in prison is that they have also taken the oath to prserve and protect the constitution and law of their countries. though people want to take action against these torturers, i cant help but wonder, what if that man has taken 200 people hostage? should he be protected by the same law he has no respect for? As Jack Bauer says in 24, "If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt." Here is a man who who fought only to protect his coutry. is it right to act the say he did?
There is a fine line between terrorism and heroism, but where one line ends and the other begins, is a mystery even this author is unable to answer.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Sigmund Freud- 29th july.
The Electra complex is the psychoanalytic theory that a female's psychosexual development involves a sexual attachment to her father, and is analogous to a boy's attachment to his mother that forms the basis of the Oedipus complex. It was a theory coined by Sigmund Freud a well known pschoanalysis scholar. This complex comes with an attachment for the parent of the opposite sex, and a bias towards them. I do not believe this theory to be true. i believe that the love one feels for their parent is true love. it is the only love free from lust, and greed. I may not be a great psychologist, but i do believe that a child loves his parents in propartion to what they mean to them. i will not be naive and say it is exual, for love for one parent could easily exceed love for the other, but it is not love of a sexual nature, and hence, a girl will not love her father more becasuse she is attracted to him. Psychology is a systematic study field of mental functions and behavior. Though we act in many ways that dont always seem to be righteous, i feel that this theory is putting a perverse label on the love a child has for the people who brought her or him into this world. It would be wrong to even think that way, because it makes the idea of love become a perpetual physical attraction. If an innocent 5 year old loves his parents, it can not be blamed on sexual desire. Even at the age of 15, this loves nature dos not change. Infact it is in these years that teenagers grow apart from their parents because they become closer to their friends. Though i do have in interest in psychology and am in awe of Freud for many of his theories like his dream interpretation, and his research in neaurobehavior, i feel that this one thoery is baseless.
Animal vs Human- 24th july
Animals apparently, so we are told, are not as sophisticated as humans. they do not possess the advancement of a human brain and lack the ability to reason out things. i do not believe this in the slightest of ways. Animals are out in a wild where there prime motive is survival. If humans were set in the wild the way animals are, then they too would act on instinct as once the red-indians and cave men did. Man now says Cave men werent advanced and hence acted with no reason. i do not believe this to be true. when you are out in the wild, money doesnt mean power, so one must act in the present. The truth is that the simple fact that animals act according to their instinct and stay alert is their ability to reason out that it is requried. anials are conditioned the way humans are. For a dog who has been beaten why all men who have come close to her, it is Deductive reasoning to be afraid of all men. It isnt instinct in that case. A bear could see a human and believe he is there to harm and torture his child, and so acts ina ccordance and saves his child fromt he torture by killing it. It might not be the same way a human reasons out his actions, but it is reasoning out nevertheless. Animals too have language and a way to communicate with eachother; dogs bark, cows moo, frogs "ribbet". Humans have separated themselves from animals when they have evolved from apes themselves. what makes us more civilized; the fact that our jungles are made of concrete unlike the animals'? What makes us more civilived; when we kill over money and love and anger? what is it that makes us so special? why have we places ourselves on a pedistal closest to god? How can we say we are the closest to him when we were banished from paradise by him? when i sit to think about it, what separates us from "animals" is nothing else but our ego!
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Science 22nd July
The body is complex and can not ever be completely studied. Even if scientists rip it apart and study every inch of our organs and tissues, they will not know everything there is to know about the body. They will not know how everything works. through it all even today the genetic make up of a human can not be determined. The human genome has thousands f genes yet there is scope for more. Humans use only a small percentage of their brain. DOctors do not know why. Life goes out of us in an instant. what is it that makes us alive. And most importantly going beyond biology, understanding human emotions, understanding human behavior. Humans can be studied but they can never be completely understood. They can be experimented on but no situation can ever be the same, and hence no generalization can be specific enough and all humans can not be studied fully. Human emotions are hormonal changes stimulated by our pituitary glands and they are open to change and alot depends from person to person. while a death can cause one perosn to weep it can put another i shock and disbelief leaving them blank. Movies have the powers to stir some emotions, yet leave many unaffected. Why is it that people have different reactions to the same situations? The questions on emotional functioning can not be answered clearly, showing the limit of the study of humans. there is biology, psychology, anthropology, chemisty, physics, and anatomology, yet all put together still can not define the human as sophisticated as this species is.
Being humans ourselves, we as a race have faild to understand ourselves. We have failed to undetstand what makes us tick and what calms us down. Yes we know that our nervous system does, but howdoes a stimulus affect us all differently? We take life so lightly, without even understanding it. We claim we are the most advanced of all specimens, but we still dont understand ourselves; so what gives us this right?
Being humans ourselves, we as a race have faild to understand ourselves. We have failed to undetstand what makes us tick and what calms us down. Yes we know that our nervous system does, but howdoes a stimulus affect us all differently? We take life so lightly, without even understanding it. We claim we are the most advanced of all specimens, but we still dont understand ourselves; so what gives us this right?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
pablo neruda- If u forget me.
the lines "Well, now,
if little by little you stop loving me
I shall stop loving you little by little.
If suddenly
you forget me
do not look for me,
for I shall already have forgotten you."
What is it in the human psyche that allows him to hold a place so high for ego? Why is it that human emotions allow room for such a vile feeling? love so pure can be diminished with such ease. Neruda claims that if he is loved less, he too will love less. Is this natural or is it being selfish. Is it hormonal to love less when one receives less attention. if one feels that things arent the same will they fight or surrender? if they will surrender then the world wont know true love. love is supposed to be the hardest fight of all, if it could be so shallow that it needs constant pushing,then is it truly love? Our judgment is so clouded by emotion that we have lost our ability to love unconditionally. Our ego has gotten so large that love is no longer that free string-less feeling it once was. Emotion not only clouds reason, but also our actions when it comes to love. Neruda's poem not only teaches me about love but it also teaches about ego. What touches me about this poem is the fact that with such simple words Neruda is able to make me think and feel so guilty for being a human because fact is that we all have ego, and it probably will come in our way before love. My friend once told me that no matter how much you care for a person ego wont let you forgive and forget a betrayal. no matter what the person has done for you, at the end of the day especially for a person with confidence like me will not be able to love the same. If a person leaves me and moves on, i wont wait for them. Truth is very few might, and even if they do, nothing will stay the same. We Percieve things as different and no matter what we do, we wont love the same again. Neruda uses language with such simplicity. He manages to sway the emotions of the readers and make us realize that our emotions are so open to swaying and how our actions can so easily be altered by emotional distress. Humans hold a position too high for ego, and that is why most will not even agree to the fact that this is the truth.
if little by little you stop loving me
I shall stop loving you little by little.
If suddenly
you forget me
do not look for me,
for I shall already have forgotten you."
What is it in the human psyche that allows him to hold a place so high for ego? Why is it that human emotions allow room for such a vile feeling? love so pure can be diminished with such ease. Neruda claims that if he is loved less, he too will love less. Is this natural or is it being selfish. Is it hormonal to love less when one receives less attention. if one feels that things arent the same will they fight or surrender? if they will surrender then the world wont know true love. love is supposed to be the hardest fight of all, if it could be so shallow that it needs constant pushing,then is it truly love? Our judgment is so clouded by emotion that we have lost our ability to love unconditionally. Our ego has gotten so large that love is no longer that free string-less feeling it once was. Emotion not only clouds reason, but also our actions when it comes to love. Neruda's poem not only teaches me about love but it also teaches about ego. What touches me about this poem is the fact that with such simple words Neruda is able to make me think and feel so guilty for being a human because fact is that we all have ego, and it probably will come in our way before love. My friend once told me that no matter how much you care for a person ego wont let you forgive and forget a betrayal. no matter what the person has done for you, at the end of the day especially for a person with confidence like me will not be able to love the same. If a person leaves me and moves on, i wont wait for them. Truth is very few might, and even if they do, nothing will stay the same. We Percieve things as different and no matter what we do, we wont love the same again. Neruda uses language with such simplicity. He manages to sway the emotions of the readers and make us realize that our emotions are so open to swaying and how our actions can so easily be altered by emotional distress. Humans hold a position too high for ego, and that is why most will not even agree to the fact that this is the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
