The Real Butchers.

During the recent controversy over Saddam’s semi-nude photos getting published in tabloids, one thing that stuck me was constant reference of Saddam as butcher of Baghdad. I am not exactly a Saddam fan but I certainly do believe that he was much better than some of the past and present ‘friendly’ and ‘allied’ members of US. My point is not to list the names here, it requires a separate column, but I want to raise a valid and a very point about US and UK’s direct participation in actually butchering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people during last ten years of war and sanctions and during Iraq’s eight years war with Iran. It makes me wonder whether the whole world is really blind or just dumb. We are living like parasites, just sucking our way through life, oblivious to the surrounding.

Iraq was one of the most advanced nation in the middle-east in 1979 when Saddam came to power. Secular in nature, Saddam’s Baath party had roots in Syria and was founded by a Christian named Michel Aflyak. With Iran revolution on the horizon, US backed Saddam’s party in Iraq. Though there was no direct support of US to Saddam’s power seizure, the intricate web of defense deals became backbone of US-Iraq relations during later years. In eight years war between Iran and Iraq, which killed almost a million people on both side, US actively participated by supplying all kinds of weapons including chemical weapons (remember WMD) to Iraq. This unholy nexus of US-Iraq is well documented and within the knowledge of public hemisphere. But then, Saddam was a friend, ally and business partner of US and thus a pure and a holy person.

Fast-forward the scenario to 1991, when Saddam suddenly become a Satan and his nation became an empire of evil. During 1991 gulf war, US used all the weapons in the arsenal barring nuclear weapons. They killed almost 200,000 Iraqi civilians. The ‘allies’ taught lesson to Saddam for his mischief but the real losers were civilians. The newly coined term ‘collateral damage’ can not explain such colossal civilian loss that can be only being rivaled with wholesome destruction of Tokyo or Munich during onset of WW-II. But the real story begins after the ‘resounding’ US victory over Iraq. The sanctions imposed by US and UK (oh yes! By UN too.) killed far more people than the actual war. According to UNICEF one million children in Iraq under the age of five are chronically malnourished. Also, according to same organization the infant mortality increased drastically from 56/1000 in 1989 to 131/1000. Also, the sanctions led to death of nearly half a million children.

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

All these sanctions, wars and millions of civilian deaths make Saddam a street crook compared with US and UK. I am not supporting Saddam in any way. He was a despot and he is guilty of killing his own people for the lust of power, but the measures taken by US and UK are equally reprehensible. Bestowing the title of Baghdad butcher to Saddam is epitome of hypocrisy and such efforts of painting world black and white show the lack of knowledge and insensitivity towards the reality.

The Ultimate Matrix !

American society is no different than their meat industry. People are reared to be consumers and they are forced to spend more and more money so that corporations will get more and more profit.

When a child is born then corporate America is more jubilant than that baby’s parents. The holy union of a man and a woman is bonanza for corporations. With no investment (remember its union of man and a woman!) they (corporations) are blessed with a consumer.

I am no expert of baby need and there is more probability of me going wrong here, but somehow I feel that the child rearing is structured in such a way that a baby becomes a voracious consumer. Clothes, diapers, toys, more clothes, more diapers, diaper dispenser, (I am going to refer to it as M.C. and M.D.) tiny seating chairs, seating chairs for cars, seating chair holders for cars, M.C. and M.D. milk bottles, more toys, baby food, tonics, medicines, M.C. and M.D. Plus, mind boggling choice for each of the above product makes it impossible to avoid anything. And yes ! there is always sale There is even speculation that, with lobbying and proper advertisements the baby food industry imbibed on the young mothers that if they do not breast feed for long time then they can maintain their body figures. As the child grows, the appetite grows and reaches maximum after age of 18. (I don’t know why age 18, but 18 to 49 is most sought after age group by advertisers)

I am reiterating that I am no baby expert. And I am pretty sure that if anybody questions any of the above mentioned needs then, the argument goes like; these products are paramount for proper growth of a child. May be I am completely wrong here and making unnecessary fuss. But, I do have strange feeling about society is slowly becoming a society depicted in The Matrix – I, but corporations rather than machines taking over the world and harvesting humans for profits.

Or may be I just pessimistic, cynical, incredulous and skeptical. (I know all have same meaning but I am just giving you choice to pick!)

American Meat Industry

America is a bacon of capitalism (and freedom, so they say!) and epitome of professionalism. And this profit oriented mindset blossom most in their meat industry. Americans have voracious appetite for all kinds of meat, particularly red meat. Obviously the meat industry is multi-billion dollar industry. Under the banner of cost effectiveness the production methods have scant respect for life. I am not against eating meat but I believe that life of an animal should be valued. Animals are considered not as a living being but living ‘meat’ or piece of meat.

Injecting hormones, excessive feeding etc are some of the methods employed to produce more and more meat out one animal. The procedure of making tender veal is illustrative. Right after its birth the calf is separated from its mother and confined to few inches of space. If the calf is allowed to move then, its meat is less tender. Injected with hormones for growth the calf is slaughtered after few months.

There is saying in Marathi, “Ati tethey Mati”. It means that anything in excess is not good. The meat industry under the guise of professionalism is doing excess and using brutal methods to produce meat. Systematic destruction of live stock will have adverse impact not only on the society but also on the environment. Obesity and mad cow disease is prelude to what is coming. The future looks scary.

There is nothing new in this blog. But this topic was in my mind for so long that I was feeling itchy. I am quite relieved now.

yuck fou Ram Vilas Paswan

Who is this fucking Ram vilas paswan? How can he hold whole state machinery at ransom? What is more important, a Bihar without Laloo or Muslim Chief Minister? How can he make such a ridiculous demand and get away with it? This is not a good example of functioning democracy. This man does not have majority in the assembly election. He is not even runner up. He have trifle 30 seats or so. If he is thinks that he is only savior of Muslims in Bihar then why didn’t he made that clear before the results? Why didn’t he said, before election that, only a Muslim can rule Bihar? What is the logic behind this demand, because Muslims ruled and raped this land before? Or they are minority and that is the ticket to chief ministership. This is outrageous and sick. This is rape of democracy.

Or is it that the Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh is so large that it is lucrative vote bank now?

Objectifying Subject or Subjectifying Object

There are numerous differences between Indian and Western cultures. But one difference, which I believe is very important and which is missed in most of the literature, is the marked difference in perception of subject and object. In simple terms, a particular incidence which is subjective to western world is objective to Indian mind and vice versa.

The dictionary meaning of the word subjective is proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. Since renaissance in medieval ages the western nations constantly strived to break the shekels of structured and hierarchical society. The regulations of the society, the conventions, which every individual was supposed to follow, were repeatedly questioned. Everything became relative and subjective and open for different interpretations. At the same time the western world was rapidly capturing old eastern world and conquering new world. Add industrial revolution to this and world or at least Europe entered in the new order of market economy. The imperceptive papal power and its rigid Christianity became an obstacle for scientific development. Metaphysical and spiritual development became taboo and subject to backwardness. Materialism became mantra and human thirst to attain the highest physical comfort at all cost attained Himalayan height. Materialism is epitome of objectivism. If you do not attain certain goals or do not own certain things then you have achieved nothing. Driving BMW, having yacht and beach house etc are measures of happiness. But if a person kills another person for no reason then the killer does not necessarily to be bad, there will arguments in killers support. The killer become a subject not an object.

The basic philosophical thought of Indian religion is that the materialistic life is all Maya i.e. unreal. The spiritual and metaphysical development is ultimate way to attain the moksha. (Salvation) Obviously, this was in contrast with the new world order set by conquering Europe. For them, lack of faith in materialism is direct threat to their business and markets. Since then, these capitalistic nations are trying every way to discredit the Indian philosophy, branding it as old, archaic, rigid, discriminatory or simply obsolete. There is no religious head like Pope in any of Indian religion. (I am mainly considering Hinduism and Buddhism). So, no one within the religion tried to break the old way of thinking, which according to majority, if followed correctly is still relevant. The social structure changed over the period of time but society never deviated from basic tenet of religious philosophy that emphasizes more on spiritual development than material development. Indian people are used to see world in black and white. There are certain things that are bad and therefore should be shunned at all cost. People who do those things were treated as culprit and abhorred. There is no subjectiveness in those things. There are different ways to reach god but basically the spiritual ways were objective. There are certain ways set to attain salvation. In contrast, subjective thinking is paramount in materialism. Happiness of a person has nothing to do with his materialistic wealth. Good health and good family is desirable.

There was an interesting opinion poll published in TIME magazine. The question was would you accept pay-raise that would cost your family time? In US around 80% answered positively while in India around 80% or so people answered negatively.