Jinnah article

This article, right from the beginning is biased against Jinnah, and is highly in favor of Hindus. This alone, makes it clear to the reader that he is reading one strongly backed up perspective having a confirmation bias. The writing and the tone used in emotional and incites people against the Muslims, and Jinnah particularly. The fact that the article starts with “I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it." So said Mohammad Ali Jinnah while delivering his presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946.” Shows how biased it would be. The aim of the article is to support the RSS as other parties are bad. The knowledge issue is not clearly defined but what I concluded out of it is that it aims at showing how other parties are bad and being firm and unmovable is better.
The article is biased towards Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee who converted 90% of Indian Muslims into Hindu. At the same time the author criticizes Jinnah to such an extent, that the reader ends up believing that he was not even a proper Muslim. Furthermore, he states how Jinnah was the root cause of many problems and followed a strict policy against the Hindus leading to massacres and calamities. Thee article highlights how other parties do not stick to their word and decisions.
Every party follows propaganda to gain votes and let other parties down; it is justified and acceptable in the world of politics but this article reignited the fire that was actually starting to cool down. Is it justified to bring up hatred for Muslims after 60 years? The writer is completely pro- Hindu and anti Muslim and reiterates the fact that only Hindus belong on this holy land. The sentiments of only one religion have been taken into consideration and that is not justified. The religion of Hinduism believes in ‘non –violence’ or ahimsa but they are looking up to a man, who is going against these holy principles. This is what the article fails to bring out. Although this article may incite some 100-300 people, it may not have such a great impact as people, no matter what, realize when only one perspective is given to them, and tend to get skeptical after a while. Although, it is justified to some extent, as Hindus have been oppressed by Muslims, this article is extremely biased against Muslims explicitly criticizes Jinnah. This did not work for me.

Religion

According to me religion is believing a particular entity. It is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth. It is channeling you belief to a particular entity or supreme power. We can identify one’s religion by the practitioner’s prayer, rituals, music, art etc, but also through society and politics. Religion gives one a direction to project his faith in, and each religious movement be it Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam etc. has a certain set of rituals which differentiate it from other religions. Religion takes into consideration emotional and social interests of people and people follow a religion. People have different views about religion according to their way of life, and kind of person he is. A person may take religion to be a way of life and live by it, while other would question its existence. Again, it depends on one’s background, lifestyle and perception.
Some people believe that following a particular religion is he only path to attain salvation, and reach God, but that does not hold necessarily true. One can believe that God exists within him, but we have been made to believe that defying or not following one’s religion is not ethical. People follow a religion as it is often something they identify themselves with. They have particular common traditions and rituals which they associate with their religion. A scientific study says that people who follow a particular religion tend to be more content with life, as one turns to religion which is a gateway to the supreme power or God who answers all their questions and solves all their problems. A study also says that believing in religion fosters a sense of community and unity, and in order to survive people need people. In this age of depression, work load, tense relationships, people believe that there is one unbiased entity to which they can look and discuss their problems. A large purpose of believing in a particular religion is purpose of life and the values that come along with it. It serves as a support system for people but sometimes one can do unethical deeds in the name of religion. Political parties often do things which are not justified, on the name of religion. There are biases in religion. A person who believes in religion will always gather evidence to prove that the religion exists, and anything related to the religion is justified. A particular culture would have a different religion, while an Arab or Islamic country has a population following the religion of Islam. The people may not want to follow the religion but the fact that they are from this country makes it necessary for them to follow it. Following a religion has a sentimental value, as people are emotionally attached to the religion they follow. They look up to their God and believe in his existence above anything. There is also fear of society, and of God is they defy or do not follow rituals related to a religion. For example, in Jainism the followers fast, during an eight day holy period called Pajuushan. Followers may not know why they do this but they still follow it. Why is it that everything is followed in these eight days but after that, one returns back to his normal original way of life?
Religion brings people closer and unites them. It gives a person an identity; brings together people using the same language, having the same culture. It imparts values and knowledge and helps one to lead a better life. I don’t believe that it is a way of life, but instead a part of life. It involves spirituality which is essential in ones life. It is not easy to change from one religion to another, or start believing in a religion when you previously do not believe in any as one has been attached to an idea which is difficult to let go of. As perceptions may change after a passage of time, ones belief in religion can also change.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/02/does-religion-m.html

Religion

According to me religion is believing a particular entity. It is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth. It is channeling you belief to a particular entity or supreme power. We can identify one’s religion by the practitioner’s prayer, rituals, music, art etc, but also through society and politics. Religion gives one a direction to project his faith in, and each religious movement be it Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam etc. has a certain set of rituals which differentiate it from other religions. Religion takes into consideration emotional and social interests of people and people follow a religion. People have different views about religion according to their way of life, and kind of person he is. A person may take religion to be a way of life and live by it, while other would question its existence. Again, it depends on one’s background, lifestyle and perception.
Some people believe that following a particular religion is he only path to attain salvation, and reach God, but that does not hold necessarily true. One can believe that God exists within him, but we have been made to believe that defying or not following one’s religion is not ethical. People follow a religion as it is often something they identify themselves with. They have particular common traditions and rituals which they associate with their religion. A scientific study says that people who follow a particular religion tend to be more content with life, as one turns to religion which is a gateway to the supreme power or God who answers all their questions and solves all their problems. A study also says that believing in religion fosters a sense of community and unity, and in order to survive people need people. In this age of depression, work load, tense relationships, people believe that there is one unbiased entity to which they can look and discuss their problems. A large purpose of believing in a particular religion is purpose of life and the values that come along with it. It serves as a support system for people but sometimes one can do unethical deeds in the name of religion. Political parties often do things which are not justified, on the name of religion. There are biases in religion. A person who believes in religion will always gather evidence to prove that the religion exists, and anything related to the religion is justified. A particular culture would have a different religion, while an Arab or Islamic country has a population following the religion of Islam. The people may not want to follow the religion but the fact that they are from this country makes it necessary for them to follow it. Following a religion has a sentimental value, as people are emotionally attached to the religion they follow. They look up to their God and believe in his existence above anything. There is also fear of society, and of God is they defy or do not follow rituals related to a religion. For example, in Jainism the followers fast, during an eight day holy period called Pajuushan. Followers may not know why they do this but they still follow it. Why is it that everything is followed in these eight days but after that, one returns back to his normal original way of life?
Religion brings people closer and unites them. It gives a person an identity; brings together people using the same language, having the same culture. It imparts values and knowledge and helps one to lead a better life. I don’t believe that it is a way of life, but instead a part of life. It involves spirituality which is essential in ones life. It is not easy to change from one religion to another, or start believing in a religion when you previously do not believe in any as one has been attached to an idea which is difficult to let go of. As perceptions may change after a passage of time, ones belief in religion can also change.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/02/does-religion-m.html

Nulear deal K&W

The article deals with the nuclear deal involving Iran , which is an Arabic country, and USA on the other hand. When something is to be agreed upon, co operation should exist between the two parties which is clearly lacking in this case. Iran has offered to engage in discussion regarding other issues except for the nuclear issue, which is USA’s key concern. There exists a communication gap between the two sides which in turn is giving birth to suspicion. Both these countries evidently have different motives and views on this issue and are thus unable to come to a consensus. There is clearly a point of difference between the two countries as USA has “made clear to the Iranians that any talks we participate in must address the nuclear issue head on, while the Iranians offered "comprehensive" talks, but did not mention its nuclear programme. As the discussion between the two countries has not been very successful the USA has now involved the P5+1 countries in this matter. They have already formed a preconceived notion towards the Iranians and believe that they are secretly developing nuclear weapons although Iran denies the fact. These countries, which consist of the UK, China, France, Russia , the US and Germany have been declared as countries having their own nuclear weapon resources and share the same ideas about managing them. They expect to have serious and factual discussion with Iran regarding the nuclear issue and believe they can come to terms “in that face-to-face venue.” There is vast difference in the ideologies of the nations and as the P5=1 countries share similar views; they have already formed a negative opinion about Iran while forming a collaboration amongst themselves. They have adopted an attitude of hypocrisy by stating that Iran has no rights to nuclear weapons and that it may use it for wrong purposes, while they themselves refuse to discard their nuclear weapons. This is their biased perspective, but when viewed from a neutral point of view it is wrong to assume that Iran may misuse the weapons while the other countries may not. Although the opinion of the Western countries is not justified, the fact still remains that Iran is noncommittal and refuses to talk about the nuclear issues, which at this time, is of their prime concern. Looking at it from Iran’s point of view, America is a danger to other countries as earlier it has previously attacked Iraq due to its oil monopoly issues, and thus it fears that it could do something same in case of Iran. Thus, the countries share totally different perspectives and refuse to co operate. The past histories they have shared, and reputations they have acquired globally also stand as an obstacle, preventing them from instilling faith and trust in each other. The countries lack transparency and open mindedness. Iran has to be more open and co operative while US and the P5+1 should abstain from prejudice and bias to enable a smooth progress of this issue.

nuclear issue article

The article deals with the nuclear deal between Iran on one hand and USA on the other. There is a problem of miscommunication which is an obstacle between the countries. For a deal to take place there has to be contact so that there are no loop holes and transparency prevails; but in this case language which plays a vital role is not prevalent as US only wants to talk about the nuclear deal while Iran on the other hand has other issues which it wants to discuss. Language is a way of knowing and unless both the countries do not communicate about the issues they have in hand, there will always be a sense of suspicion and uncertainty. The USA has adopted a self-centered attitude and the person who makes the claim appears to be biased towards it as Iran is portrayed as a country hiding important information, whereas this claim may not hold entirely true as the person making it may be under pressure from a higher authority who is trying to bring out the positive side of one country while hiding the points which may bring out some negativity. The evidence provided in the article may not be entirely true as it is a recollection of facts, using memory, which can be biased to what it wants to portray and what appears to please it. The claim creates a negative opinion about Tehran by adding “The West fears that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons - a claim denied by Tehran” which cannot be entirely trusted as no evidence is provided. There is a mention of ‘last week’ in the article which adds mathematics to it but the duration could also be manipulated which could cause another misunderstanding in the situation. there is a sense of selfishness on part of both Iran and the US as they chose to overlook other issues and refuse to be flexible and co-operative: “Iran has always defended its right to continue its nuclear programme”. Emotions somewhere play a role in the matter but should not overpower logic as it is a professional issue and personal enmity between the countries, or other issues, should not intrude. The article brings out how there is miscommunication and issues are being avoided by Iran, which is disrupting the flow of the nuclear issue that needs to be resolved.

reflection

In class, we read about an article that stated that history is not entirely true and that there are some facts that are hidden from us. History is actually a selection of selections and it is usually impossible to deal with it in its entirety. This effectively means that it is twice removed from what actually happened. Although it is a reconstruction of the past and the study of it, it involves social bias and also since most governments take a great interest in the way history is taught in schools, it is easy for national pride to dictate a one sided interpretation in which a particular country’s achievements are highlighted and its mistakes are overlooked. For example, in schools which teach American history, they do not mention the Vietnam War as America lost it.
We discussed facts that we previously believed or thought were true, but after a certain period of time; we realized that there is much more to it than what is presented to us. We learn something, and later realize that either it is untrue or that the information we learned of was not complete. Theatre arts is which such subject that I was interested in, and had a brief idea of what it is, but my knowledge was incomplete. In my opinion, the plays I watched were what they were in front of my eyes. I did not think of the fact that a production itself was divided into three stages: the pre-production, show day and post production, especially about the post production or post show day, I was completely unaware. Only after learning the subject in the IB, did I realize that after the show, the actor is still in process, that is, he is till in character, and approaching him is not advisable as he needs his space. It was told to me, that meeting the actor immediately after a play would help me in extracting information out of him, but I was wrong, as it is against the theatre etiquette.
Another fact that I believed was true, was that the legendary film star, Heath Ledger, died due to an over consumption of drugs after acting in the movie, ‘the dark knight’. We studied Method acting in theatre arts, in which an actor completely gets into the role of the actor in such a way, that he starts living and thinking like the character. It is difficult to draw a line between the actual life and the life of the character. This is exactly what happened to Heath Ledger, when he completely got into the character of the joker, that it traumatized him which led to his death. Facts are presented in front of us, but hey may or may not hold true. Information given to is cannot necessarily be taken at face value as al the sources are not reliable. There is a bias involved be it a higher authority or government propaganda or a personal bias. History is a recreation of memory, and memory cannot entirely be trusted. What I initially thought was true, is an alteration of the same truth, and as time passes we become aware of more facts and more truths, and start looking at things differently.

what is history, but a fable agreed upon:)

History is a subject we have been learning in school ever since we reached that stage of understanding what “past” is. Reading about what happened million of years before we were born astounds us, and interests us. History recreates the significant events that took place in the past; be it a war, a movement, an assassination or a person who contributed to changing the world or at least affecting it in some way or the other. While studying about history in class, one quote that struck me, said by Napoleon Bonaparte, is “What is history, but a fable agreed upon”. This gave me a chance to think, as I have viewed history with only one perspective, and that is that all that I have read is entirely true and un biased. The facts presented to us are no different from what they were at that time, but what we fail to consider is that the authors writing the text books, are under pressure of the higher authorities and the history they write should be appealing and not against a particular sect of society or country. This level of pressure must have always remained and what is passed on to us is some what fabricated. Although it is passed on through generations, it is obviously an account of someone’s memory, as someone has to start it. There has to be a person who has witnessed the event that took place, or lived during that era and memory cannot be trusted upon entirely because consciously or subconsciously it absorbs what actually appeals to it. Similarly, history, in which memory plays a crucial role, is an account of what is appealing to a particular section or country, and at some level, is selective. It cannot be termed as a fable, as there is evidence that certain events did take place; but if thought, it is a story, an account but agreed upon by generations, historians, and supported by evidence. While reflecting upon this quote, I put myself in this situation to understand it better. If I write an account of an incident that took place, and generations read and agree upon it, as I have backed it up with evidence it is similar to history although it is not as the event that took place is of no importance to anyone in this world accept for me, but it has been agreed upon and thus that it how history actually is. One macro history is created by combining several micro histories and that is what is presented for us to read and learn. It is actually sort of a fable as it cannot be entirely relied upon, but the fact remains that we believe and agree to what we know. We agree upon the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a legendary President, but are unaware of the fact that he was a tyrannical racist. The first war of independence, the Vietnam War, WW1 and 2 are undoubtedly history but what is presented before us may not be entirely what it actually was, and there may be certain facts that may not be disclosed to us, for the mere sake of appealing some authority or presenting only what may be accepted. I have never thought about history to be untrue or facts that could be hidden, and learning about that has been interesting in its own. Calling history a fable is demeaning to the subject but if viewed or thought upon with another perspective, it is actually a story or account agreed upon.

The manner in which prisoners are abused and ill- treated is vaguely known of, but majority of the issues which take place, and the magnitude of abuse they undergo in secret prisons, are far away from habitation and also, our knowing. The media source highlights one such, of the many incidents which take place, in this case in a CIA secret prison Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The issue which has been dealt in this article is whether the way in which these prisoners are ill treated and put under emotional and physical torture, to give out information, is ethical or not. One may think that ultimately they are prisoners; it is justified if they are tortured and abused as they have anyway committed serious crimes, but on the other hand, there is another perspective to it and that is that this is morally wrong. No matter how severe the crime committed, threatening an al Qaeda prisoner “with a gun and an electric drill” cannot be justified as it is firstly illegal, and secondly ethically incorrect.

The person making the claim has based the article on the knowledge he has, and the facts given to us are narrated from his perspective. Some events have taken place in the past, and there could be a national bias involved in the claim made taking into account the fact that the news has been reported from Washington, there may be a bias towards the CIA and the American government involved. There are chances that the information provided is not completely authentic and there may be certain issues that have not been brought out in the open as is mentioned that “A CIA spokesperson would not talk about the specifics of the inspector- general’s report” and thus the article cannot be completely trusted. When I read the article, I am, somewhere biased towards the prisoners as my emotions are an obstacle to the fact that they are criminals, but on the other hand the person making the claim is biased to his/ her country, and government. This incident, though mentioned has not been dealt with the seriousness it actually deserves, and when they leadership found out about the incident they were only “angry as hell”. When viewed with another perspective, although the claim is totally against the act of the CIA, there are chances that the incident may have been blown out of proportion, and again the fact may not be in place. The person who makes the claim was not an eye witness to the incident, and thus either the event may have been exaggerated and described in emotional language, or played down or ignored. It depends on us, whether or not to believe the claim strictly according to the details provided, or rationalize and think of the chances of another possibility. What the knowledge claim implies is that ethically it was wrong to treat the prisoners in such a manner, but on the contrary, no strict measures have actually been taken against this. Although there is empathy towards the prisoners, the article highlights all the measures taken by Bush, though not sufficient enough. Not enough details are given about the atrocities these prisoners under go whereas it is needed to make people aware and take a stand against it.

The facts provided to us, involve Mathematics, as we have been given values of the year, the number of sailors dead in the USS Cole and also the number of times interrogations have taken place and the prisoners tortured. The numbers could have been manipulated according to what the person who put the claim up actually wants. The articles argues upon whether the treatment the prisoners underwent was right or wrong, but the possibility, that the CIA agent who committed this illegal act, would have done so on been provoked emotionally has been overlooked and not discussed. We are taking this possibility for granted are biased towards the prisoners, on the basis of the information given to us.

The prisoners have been ill treated, and although this incident may not affect out lives personally it is essential to have our own opinion on it. What is morally wrong is wrong, and should be prevented from happening. If the claim is true, it is necessary for us to care, not only because as individuals, our opinions define who we are, and one should have a clear idea about what they believe. Our beliefs affect our actions and the stance we take, can either change something wrong, or not. Moreover, the ill-treatment of the prisoners is ethically wrong, it should be given thought as such a situation could repeat itself, and if firm action is not taken against this, it may become something very casual.

Media source- Article on dangeroud ritual practiced in India.

Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge and can rightly be considered something people would identify our country, India, with. Blind faith, ignorance, believing and practicing something without taking into account its consequences and effects on society is one of the evils created and suffered by society, especially in our country. The practice of throwing babies off the temple roof is something completely revolting and pathetic in my opinion and that too on the pretext of ''It is to give them courage, intelligence and strength”.

I saw this practice on a news channel and I was petrified and disgusted at the thought of people belonging to the 21^st century still following such practices. I had an outburst of emotions and although I tried extremely hard to find something logical about this practice, I could come to no conclusion. The entire practice does not only prove how blinded the people are by old customs and traditions but it is also completely wrong ethically, as the children are too young to understand what they are being put through and thus, cannot even voice their opinion on the injustice they have been put through. What was also shocking about this practice is that the civil authorities also support this task. Watching and also reading about this practice affects my emotional side to a great extent, and no matter how I perceive it, it will always be wrong.

These practices completely ignore science and are biased to the superstitious beliefs which the society has been passing down through the centuries. When questioned, the people resorting to these practices say that this has been done to please God and is for the goodwill of their own children so that they grow up to be bold and courageous as being thrown from great heights is one of the greatest fears faced by humanity. Do they ever take into account the consequences? How it could mentally affect the child if the impact of the fall remains in his memory? If the child died or met with a very serious injury? Is there any guarantee that something unfortunate would not happen only because it has not happened so far? No. there is absolutely no guarantee for this, but for the people, it is a confirmed pass to the gateway of pleasing their God and the guaranteed fact that their children are going to grow up to be brave.

Science has been proven and every hypothesis is backed up by numerous proofs before it is certified as a theory. This practice of throwing babies completely ignores Science and is blinded by superstition. Scientific knowledge is when the data is proved to be right through observation, experimentation and a hypothesis. Superstation does not involve knowledge or any logic and thus risking the life of your child for something that is most likely to not occur is ethically wrong.

The world has progressed in every field and thus, one expects maturity and literacy to also increase and advance but these practices are a shame to this modern society and the civil authorities who support these practices are a greater shame. These ignorant and foolish acts have been questioned numerous times but nothing has been done to actually stop them. Not only is this morally wrong, devoid of knowledge, but is also a scar on society:

''This is an old tradition. Our elders used to do this and now we are
continuing this and it will continue in future as well. The children
will be healthy and we will get God's blessing if we throw them off the
temple,'' said another mother.”

This statement itself is a proof of the ignorance of the people and shows how they are lagging behind in this modern world of technical advancements. A question of conflict does not arise as there is absolutely no reason to justify or support this practice. This evil and disappointing practice should be put to a complete end as it is totally useless and extremely dangerous. It is like one is deliberately putting an end to his child’s life as there are more chances of a threat to his life, than there are for his goodwill.

Man does many things, some of much may be justified and the others which are completely wrong and immoral. It is essential to take into account the consequences of the acts so as to not regret doing them in future. Forgetting to reason out and think logically can only lead to dangerous or wrong decisions as there should always be a balance of reason, and emotion, and although traditions are important, science should never be completely overruled by superstition.

[Article can be viewed on this link and also came on 'Aaj Tak' news channel]

http://www.metrojoint.com/blog_more/Dangerous_Ritual___Babies_Thrown_off_the_Temple_Roof/pid/28759/userid/34445