I had to look up the dictionary to find out what exactly the friggin word meant and I found this- 1 a: stern and cold in appearance or manner b:somber, graveaustere critic> 2: morally strict :ascetic 3: markedly simple or unadorned austere office>austere style of writing> 4: giving little or no scope for pleasure <austere diets> (Courtesy Merriam-Webster)
I think the politicians need to understand the usage of the term clearly. I reckon they wanna be '2' and/or '3' i.e. morally strict/markedly simple or unadorned. Ummm...hey wait! Wasn't the nation up in arms against moral policing not-so-long ago? Ah...so that's what they mean when they say the public has a short-memory! Being simple or unadorned is one thing but giving little or no scope for pleasure is quite another altogether now, innit? If people who can afford more than your simple economy class are gonna travel economy class, can the people who travel economy class be allowed to travel business/first class in their stead then? I mean, it is a large population that this nation supports. If the elite travel economy, the aam-junta sure as hell ain't gonna be able to travel economy! For starters, thanks to the entourage of the VIPs, there's gonna be less space for the aam-junta to travel in! Obviously, the politicians will need another quota in the economy class since their plans aren't always in place 60 days in advance now are they? And well, let's not get started on the security issues. If I am sharing the same facilities as a VVIP, I am gonna be subject to quite a security check aren't I? Please, respect my privacy...I dislike being frisked by over-grown males! And well, the fact that they become an easy target for whoever seeks to do harm is another story altogether! Why do it, I implore? Will the Gandhi parivar please spare us these muddled attempts at setting dumbass examples? What are you saving for anyways? Aren't you trying to infuse liquidity in the economy with your fiscal and monetary policies? Well, isn't bureaucratic travel a part of the fiscal expenditure? Aren't you supposed to increase that? (Anyone who tries to friggin tell me that this isn't exactly the kinda fiscal expenditure that should be increased will get six red marks across their face...sarcasm, learn to recognise it sometimes.) Elections must be near...I can see no other reason for such bright wisdom... Apologies to all those readers who were looking forward to something better than politics in this space!
I guess things have simmered down to a large extent for this post to make sense or maybe things have finally begun to take concrete shape by now to warrant this line of thought…
I suppose everyone is aware of the terrorist attacks and more so the hue and cry that the common man has or rather more aptly ‘had’ raised. The one birdie that couldn’t get away and gave a bunch of evidence for us Indians that the attack was orchestrated by our neighbors Pakistan’s guests. Yet, against them the gracious hosts refuse to accept any condemning evidence being provided by India and now, even from their long time allies, the US.
Now that the background is in place (not that it needed to be laid in the first place but…) the part that really troubles me. In all the circles that I know and am a part of, the common Indian man almost everywhere seems to be in support of the idea of waging a war. The act perpetrated by the fanatics that chose to slaughter soft targets was in the easiest of terms, cowardly, nonetheless, war against our neighbors with the intention of prevention of such acts in the future would not only be unwise but would also mean that the perpetrators have gotten to us. The act of war is the final step in cynicism for humanity, the final attempt of humans who feel threatened and need to force their authority on others. As Indians, the acts of terrorism against us, are a mere manifestation of how threatened these extremists feel with the show of solidarity within the country, the much celebrated ‘Unity in Diversity.’ These acts of terror are mere flashes in the pan that fail to threaten us in any way, unless of course we choose to take cognizance of their actions. What does a war mean? Does it mean we are threatened by these acts of terror against us? Do we think that a war against them is the way we are strengthening our beliefs or is it to soothe our egos?
What ends would a war meet? Zilch…because all the war will do is aggrieve the other party. In a bid to eradicate the fanatics, we would also perhaps slay some of the innocent. Tactically it would mean that they would find more reason to perpetrate more lies and subvert more minds. Would be a downright disaster. Moreover, the lives lost in such terror attacks are but a few as compared to the number of lives that would be lost should there be a full-scale war. Even after the war, effective control of the captured territories would be rather difficult as even the US has found out after numerous misadventures be it Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan and Russia in Bosnia, Georgia et al. For us, having conflict areas within the borders is a lot worse than having them outside.
In the same breath, I do not mean that there should be no action against these terror attacks. I just believe there should be a slightly different approach to tackling this menace, the way we are going about it. It isn’t outside our borders that we need be wary, if we are strong within, we would be twice as secure. A lot being said about something concrete being needed to be done…not much in terms of what could actually be done…
on the one hand, we could take strict measures in terms of security and ensure draconian checks and a military discipline in the nation ensuring no more terrorist attacks. This would come at a price, like being subject to frisking wherever we go, from cinema theatres to shopping malls; and the added cost of the freedom we currently enjoy being curbed. Should this actually be done, life as we know it would cease to be. We’d no longer feel secure the way we do now…and dont tell me you feel insecure for a few terrorist attacks…if you do, you let these terrorists win.
We have now started viewing our fellow passengers with a suspicious eye and viewomg every bag of luggage with a hint of fear. The fact that we have reached such a stage is in itself a little sad but between the two evils, I reckon this is the lesser. The best act of defiance would be to continue life as usual as if nothing ever happened but I reckon no society could be as strong or rather as detached to it’s members, to be unaffected by their loss.
Every civilisation has always had the inevitable tendency to collapse upon itself when violent forces become dominant over the peaceful ones. I am sure even you realise we cannot substantially safeguard ourselves against these extremists, whether home-bred or alien…for to do so, we must become extremists ourselves. Are we really at a point where we must? Anyways, this discussion leads to this (and I really wanna wind up, feelin darned sleepy):
Bikram Wisodm: War is the final act of cynicism that us mortals resort to, to impose our views onto others…so cynical is it, that eventually, religion springs anew in a bid to show us the path to peace…ironic is it not then, that religion seems to be the grounds for war at this time???
