New humanism and role of multi-religious societies

This article focuses on changes affecting the religious beliefs of people, that are shaping our world.

Introduction

Different forces are changing our world all the time. We make all kind of theories about these forces and how these are going to change our world and then something new comes and sends all our theories haywire. Not that it stops us from making new theories!

Over the past few decades, the forces of globalization and the changes in geo-political equilibriums with emergence of a multipolar world where China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Russia and many other countries of Asia, Africa and Americas are finding their voices, have also promoted wide social changes that could lead to new unpredictable scenarios.

The crises of raw materials and food on one hand and the dangers of environmental damage, vie for attention along with the advances in genetic mapping and manipulation, development of new technologies like nanotechnologies, the information revolution, etc. At the same time, the last decades have seen increasing polarisations in religious feelings in different parts of the world. These are among the significant forces shaping the world of tomorrow.

The factors that are influencing and shaping our world are so many and so different, that a wider view of everything and making predictions about future is probably unrealistic and foolhardy.

Three broad trends related to religions

I can think of three broad trends related to the principle world religions over the past 3-5 thousand years:

(1) Infinite variations in religious beliefs is common in all major religions of the world: Looking at the way different religions have evolved, it seems inevitable that each religion tends to develop branches that move in different directions. These religious offshoots can be more or less important over periods of times.

Sometimes these religious offshoots are in conflict with other offshoots, that means conflicts with persons of their same religions. Often each branch of the religion feels that it represents the "true" sense of that religion, while others are betrayers or imposters.

At other times, these offshoots, called sects or some times separate religions, can co-exist in peaceful harmony, and even try some kind of dialogue and collaboration.

No religious group can claim to be exempt from this general rule. In addition to differences between different sects or offshoots of a religion, additional geographical differences also develop, that differentiate people living in one place with those living in another country. For example, Catholics in Spain may have some differences compared to the Catholics in Philippines.

Some examples of different sects (or new religions) developing in a religion are:

The sub-groups among Hindus are innumerable, from Shavities, Vaishnavites, followers of Ram and followers of Krishna. Often the differences in religious beliefs about powers of specific deities, do not exclude respect and worship of other deities, so that fosters infinite variety of beliefs and "encroachments" in to other religious traditions.

Some of the more prominent sub-groups among Muslims include Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Ahmadiya, Deobandi, Wahabi, Ashrafs, Ajlafs, Sufi, Hanafi, Shanafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, etc. The "distances" among some of them are considered big and thus some of them are not even considered as "Muslims" by other groups.

Some of the more prominent sub-groups among Sikhs include Khalsa, Amritdhari, Nanakpanthi, Sahajdhari, Akali Nihang, Nirankari, Namdhari, Radhasoami, 3 HO, etc. The "distances" among some of them are considered big and thus some of them are not even considered as "Sikhs" by other groups.

Similarly Christians include Catholic, Orthodox, Syrian, Jaocbites, Malabar, Methodist, Jehovah's witness and other innumerable groups.

I don't know all the details but I can imagine that Jain, Buddhist, Parsi, Bahai, Jews and other religions, all have some sub-groups.

(2) In all religions, some groups, especially the more orthodox and conservative among them, try to have a dominating role, claim to be the only real religion and dictate rules for the others: This seems to be another common feature of all religions, that more conservative groups among them provoke very strong feelings in their followers and they feel it like their life's mission to ensure that all others follow the "true" path and punish those who try to deviate from the path.

Often such groups come to use violence, verbal or physical, to impose their will on other groups. Usually, they also ask the State to use their religious principles to guide the laws of the country.

(3) Rise of a new humanism among a cross-section of persons in a wide number of countries, influenced by ideas of human rights: Over the past three decades, my work has given me the opportunity to visit a large number of countries in different parts of the world, and increasingly I have met persons of different religions, who share some common beliefs. They believe in terms of individuals' rights, irrespective of their religious beliefs, to live fulfilling lives with dignity.

Some times, their beliefs go against traditional religious beliefs of their individual religions, in areas such as role of women at home and in society, role of religion in the life, possibility of living in co-existence with other religions, role of religious education in their children's lives. Many of them look to and accept the basic principles of Universal Declcaration of Human Rights.

With globalisation and information technology, there is rise in opportunities for social interaction with people of other countries, cultures and religions. TV and films, newspapers and magazines, often talk about and show these relationships and interactions. For example, people from different parts of same countries or from different countries fall in love, some of whom, also marry and set-up multi-religious families.

I like calling this phenonmenon, the new humanism of religions. This new humanism is linked to a crisis of traditional religions, especially in industrialized societies that had strong economic development and a shift from rural to urban societies over the past couple of centuries.

I think that the rise of new humanism of religions is closely linked to the desire of domination by more conservative religious groups to impose their way of religious thinking on everyone. Communities and persons, who have held power for centuries are being threatened by the rise of new humanism of religions.

Challenges of orthodoxies for the future

Over the past couple of decades, slowly issues related to orthodox and conservative versions of Islam have occupied centre-stage of global debate. About 15-20 years ago, Afghanistan, Iran and may be Kashmir in India, seemed like the flash points of Islamic conservatives. Over the past decade, situations in Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, etc. has become more problematic , as country after country (or part of a country), adopts Shariat based laws. Invariably, in such places, communities are dominated by more orthodox and conservative elements and more progressive Muslims as well as minority groups of other religions, face increasing violence and marginalization.

Now as dictators that guaranteed some kind of check on radical Islamic groups in Tunisi, Algeria and Egypt, are being toppled and civil societies are hoping for more democracy, there are increasing fears of rise of these radical Islamic groups. I have heard of stories of violence and verbal assaults against Coptic Christians in Egypt. Situation in Pakistan, after killing of Taseer, seems to be getting worse. Thus fears among minority groups are running high.

M. K. Bhadra Kumar, scholar of political Islam, on Indian Punchline had recently written, "What happens in Egypt will determine the course of Middle Eastern history... Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings as the flames of anger spread in the Middle East."

Many of my Muslim friends insist that Islam is a religion of peace and that Prophet Mohammed never condoned violence on the innocent. However, in the situation today, perhaps the real message of Holy Kuran does not matter. What matters more is how in country after country, the name of Islam is used to silence dissent, conformism to the ideals of "true Islam" proposed by the radical group is compulsory for everyone.

Conservative hardliners were always there in other religions too. Neocon Christians in USA, the conservative hardliner Jews in Isreal supported by groups in USA and other parts of the world, the supporters of Hindu rashtra in India, the Buddhist supporters of Singhalese forces against the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka, the examples don't lack. Conservatives of other religions were always there.

I don't know if the expansion of conservative hardliners in other religions can be attributed only to rise of conservative Islam. However, whatever, other reasons are there, the rise of conservative Islamic groups is going to strengthen this tendency.

What answers can we give?

I believe that we need to have robust examples of different models of religious co-existence. We need to show that conflict is not the only way and that new humanism of religious co-existence can be a better alternative for future of mankind.

The societies that are truely multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious, especially India, need to support all progressive forces from different religions, in presenting alternative models of religious co-existence.

If we look back in history to the periods when conservatives of a religion dominated and influenced the whole world, probably we can look at the rise of orthdox Christianity in the period called as "the dark ages". It stopped human and scientific progress for hundreds of years and led to tragedies of inquisitions, crusades, annihilation of millions of indigenous people in different parts of the world.

The rise of orthodoxy and conservatives, would have an equally damaging impact on human rights, science and progress of millions who live in these countries and their impact will be felt in the remaining world. In the present age of information technology and globalization, how many decades or centuries would these theocracies last, who can tell?

John Butt, an Islamic scholar, in his article "A passage to secularism" in Hindustan Times of 27 January 2011, had written:

The havens of Islamic learning in India are still intact. They are vibrant, not politicised or radicalised. Some of them are admirably progressive, shunning the traditional abhorrence of secular subjects and incorporating them into their curriculum. Not only would students from Afghanistan be exposed to a progressive strain of Islamic learning if they were allowed to come to India for their religious studies, but they would also see religious education as it once was: learning not to fulfil any political agenda but for the sake of learning itself.

I have many Muslim friends from Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who believe in progress and human rights, but I am afraid that in the coming future, their voices are going to be increasingly marginalized and it is going to be increasingly dangerous for them to speak of peace and co-existence with other religions, and to safeguard the human rights and civil liberties of many groups, especially women.

If these lead to reactions of more conservatism from other religions, we are also going to see even more conflicts.

Only India can have that strength with its 900 million Hindus, 120 million Muslims, 30 million Christians and millions of followers of almost every world religion, to oppose such a model of radical and conservative religions, with an example of progress, liberty and peaceful co-existence of different strands of religions, with equal dignity to other religions. But for this India needs to oppose the strengthening of conservative voices, and is that really feasible in the present political scenario?

M. K. Bhadra Kumar, scholar of political Islam, on Indian Punchline  had written about the controversy related to Ghulam Mohammed Vastnavi from Deoband:

How nice if Pakistani madrassas had Vastanvis! Iranian madrassas are full of Vastanvis. How nice if madrassas taught management sciences and the scholars in Deoband ‘googled’ after their evening prayer and supper in the seclusion of their chambers in search of the mysteries of biochemistry... It is atrocious that Vastanvi has no defenders among our national leaders. We shouldn’t repeat the mistake that Pakistan made - remaining silent when we ought to speak. That the Muslims of India do not remain the pocket borough of self-seeking men and politicians and instead move forward is also a national issue. The onus is particularly on our secular political parties to help Deoband move forward with the times.

Given the situation of politics, probably we can't expect our politicians to take sensible action and a stand on progressive ideals. With the vote-bank politics that dominates India, it is going to be impossible to expect India's political leadership to show the required maturity. They have always bowed in front of conservative orthodoxies. This puts a special onus on civil society.

Civil society in India and other multi-religious countries, need to look for ways that show that different religions are not monoliths, but are full of diversity and different ways of interpreting the faith, are all equally important and legitimate. They have to fight against conservatives and hardliners of different religions.

It is only people and civil society that can find a way to ensure that rich diversity, millenniums-old Indian traditions of giving refuge to world's persecuted religions and its history of living together of different religions, can be safeguarded and shown to the world as an example of building new societies. Doing this is imperative to future of India. It will also be important to show to the rest of the world, that an alternative way of co-existence is possible.

***

For what?

A friend has sent this message about a consideration made by the Brazilian nobel prize winner Dr. Drauzio Varella:

"En el mundo actual, se está invirtiendo cinco veces mÃis en medicamentos para la virilidad masculina y silicona para mujeres, que en la cura del Alzheimer.
De aquí a algunos anos, tendremos viejas de tetas grandes y viejos con pene duro, pero ninguno de ellos se acordará para que sirven".

It means:

"In today's world, they spend five times more for virility medicines for men and silicone for women, than for curing Alzheimer. In a few years, there will be women with big tits and men with hard dicks, but they won't remember, these are for doing what!"

***

Changing worlds, changing identities

I was reading about the dramma caused by Joel Stein's column in The Times, the complaints of Indian American community and the subsequent apologies tendered by Stein and Times, and also the opinions of some Indian opinionists about the issue.

The editorial of Sagarika Ghose in Hindustan Times was clear in its advice for the Indian emigrants - if you are going to be in the global marketplace, learn to laugh at yourself and also learn to live with the communities that host you. It criticised the ghetto mentalities of Indian communities and advised them to stay at home in India, if they do not want to adapt to the culture of their adopted homelands.

Another editorial in HT by an Indian-American, Anika Gupta, complained that being an emigrant kid growing up in US, she was forced to learn to laugh at herself since the majority is incapable of understanding diversity. Thus they have had enough and can't be expected to take such irresponsible comments from a person like Stein in 2010.

I agree with some parts of both the views and yet have some problems with both of them. Sagarika Ghose's views are expressed in a superficial and insensitive way. Anika Gupta's view is perhaps too close to her own experience and thus lacks the necessary detachment.

I think that people have a right to express their feelings. If this debate was not about cultures and identities, perhaps we could accept others' feeling without much problems.

If I grew up in a calm area surrounded by green farms and clear skies and today I find that place covered with concrete houses, busy highways, speeding cars and increasing pollution, no one is going to get upset if I decide to write about my feelings, and about how I miss the old days. There will be people who are happy at the change, who look at the change as being "development" and appreciate the comfort of having shopping malls and cinema halls, but even they can appreciate that you are remembering something else, and don't argue about your right to remember the old times with nostalgia.

But the place where you grew up, if it has changed because many emigrants speaking different languages, eating different food, wearing different clothes are living in that place, it is not polite to say that you miss the old times when things were different. If you say that, it is automatically taken to mean that you are a racist or an ignorant conservative.

I don't think that is the best way to look at it - I think that we human beings can appreciate the good things about the changes, and yet miss parts of the past, before the change happened.

On the other hand, being emigrants is complex business. Understanding your own diversity and negotiating how you can live with the culture that surrounds you, can be painful and difficult, at least for some. So you have the right to express your difficulties and ask for respect.

Thus, in my opinion, both the view points are legitimate and should be expressed, without worrying if someone is going to get offended. I agree that emigrants need to express their own issues and difficulties, but we can't ask others to shut up and not say what they feel.

So for me Joel Stein also has equal right to remember the old days before their neighbourhood changed. I can understand it and empathise with it. Even I feel a bit like that, every time I go back to Delhi and look at the way city has changed in the past thirty years. It doesn't mean that I am negating that emigrants don't have difficulties in defining their own cultural identities and negotiating with majority cultures.

Dr Binayak Sen gets bail!

It has been a tough and despairing struggle. To know that Dr Binayak Sen was being left in jail in spite of his long work for oppressed and marginalised, in spite of there not being any kind of reasonable proof against his being a Maoist spy, had been a sad comment on the state of Indian democratic system and the state of its institutions that are supposed to protect the citizens.

In the last one year of the trial, the State authorities had not been able to present any conclusive proof, nothing to justify why it was using a draconian anti-terror law to silence and punish a person like him. If State could do something like this to an internationally known person like Dr Sen, you can only imagine the kind of things that can happen to those are poor and powerless.

Finally today the news that Supreme Court has accepted these arguments and ordered his bail. I feel a sense of anger and frustration, that it had to drag for so long and against all ideas of common sense and decency! Still at least it has happened.

Dams, development and the poor: Medha Patkar

Medha Patkar, the famous activist from India fighting for the rights of poor and voiceless persons, was in Bologna at a meeting organised by CGIL, the workers union.

I agree with most of what she says regarding SEZs, the corruption that pervades most of our system in India, the lack of care about what happens to the poor and marginalised persons for most of well to do India, that is as self-centred like most well-to-do persons in the world. I also agree that the present dominating idea of development is result of a particular view point of developed world that has its roots in colonial past, industrialization and in a belief that nature is for man’s exploitation and thus for most persons the more things you have the better it would be. But I am not sure if poor, just because they are poor, would be happy with another idea of development, for example, the ideas of self-contained mutually dependent small communities with limited material needs envisioned by Gandhi and some other thinkers. Perhaps it is the globalisation or may be a sign of changing times, but I feel that all, rich and poor, share the kind of dreams that are based on material wealth. Perhaps I am wrong!

Here are some excerpts from Medha's speech.
*****

I come from the National Alliance of the People’s Movements in India and also from the struggles in the river valley of Narmada. These years and decades long struggles are still on and have been facing newer challenges because the whole paradigm to which the state and the corporates are committed to, is certainly bringing an onslaught on the population including the indigenous people, farmers, the working class people, artisans, the fish workers and almost 95 or more percent of the working classes.

But it is not only the case of a dam in one single river valley, apply it to various development projects. We realise it that people are bound to assert their right to the local resources which are taken away in the name of development. So sections of the civil society and of course the state, come out with certain symbols of development which fits in their paradigm like large dams or large factories. We question it, from the point of view of how the process of taking away the resources (works), and diverting of these resources from one kind of economy to another kind of economy. We raise this question.

We are also questioning the centralised-based development paradigm and planning process. When centres are in the capitals of the nation states, the communities, the rural as well as the urban communities questioned, “Who decides what is development”? And through what democratic or undemocratic procedures and processes do they impose these plans upon us? It was also bringing out the ultimate ways of managing the resources, beginning with their small units that are the communities, which are also the ecological units. So that there will be no displacement and eviction of people from their cultural, environmental milieu and also from there own kinds of life-styles and economies.

It was one story when this was within the boundaries of one nation state. With the whole paradigm of globalisation, corporatisation and privatisation, it has attained unprecedented scale and unprecedented force, including the use of physical force that the state maintained but also the various factories of the corporate powers which have infested the state itself. The nexus between the state and the corporate power, it wants every piece of land and they are eating our resources in the name of industrialisation, in the name of progress and development. It is not just the rivers, but also ground waters, reservoirs that are handed over to the companies such as Coca Cola, the mineral water bottling plants. The people living on the land with the water resources are waging battles, if not wars. In the name of industrialisation, in the present paradigm, the land is opened to all industries including like your Fiat company from Italy itself.

This has taken a new turn by the states announcing the policies and laws of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). These are officially known as “foreign territories” within Indian territory. These SEZs are large chunks of lands which are acquired partly by the state and partly purchased by the companies, who can purchase not just small farms but whole districts, areas as big as the regions (in Italy) including hills and valleys, because they have already earned so much profit. These zones are the ones which give all concessions and not less than 21 laws for the corporates. They are cutting on the labour legislations which were earned through decade long struggles by the labourers and workers.

I belong since birth to the family of a labour union leader, who was freedom fighter as well and hence I know how hard earned are those labour legislation and yet with the rush of a pen, the legislations are declared “not applicable” to the corporates, that are allowed to operate not just with free trade but also with free operations. With special judges, with no local self-government, even those elected and recognised are not allowed to function in these zones, like the Panchayats. So with these kinds of zones coming up the corporates are not just confident, but are arrogant and aggressive in taking away the lands and every thing attached to the lands.

West Bengal is a left front ruled state for the last more than 30 years. We have always been allies of the left front parties. At the world social forum, at various for a where we raised our voice jointly against the neoliberal paradigm. If you want to have a look at the resolution passed by the parties, various partners and allies in the left front in India – Communist party of India Marxist, Communist Party of India CPI, the Revolutionary Socialist party, the Forward Block, if you look at these four parties, you will find that they unequivocally question the neoliberal paradigm. They question the World Bank, IMF, WTO, they support Cuba and Venezuela and the changes in the Latin American countries such as Brazil and they vow for the people’s rights and the non corporated state.

And yet in West Bengal problems are there, coming up in place to place. In Singur there was a forced acquisition of about thousand acres of land, 997 acres, for a project that was known as Tata’s small car project.

The industries minister of West Bengal told us, when we held the public hearing on the invitation that came from the people, myself along with Mahashweta devi, the well known literary person in India, others like former justice Sengupta and also the radical left wing intellectuals, we all held a public hearing and heard the people. The people had an unanimous voice in opposition to the project. People said that whatever needs to be done, has to be done. The corporates and before the corporates, the faith has to come to us, we are the communities, we have the power and democratic constitutional right and they should say what it is that they are wanting to have, why that project, what is that project going to bring to the nation and to themselves, how are they going to get a share, whether they are going to get it or not? But the Government absolutely said no, that they are not ready to disclose the information. So we as the members of the panel placed our demands to the industries minister and had dialogue with the chief minister also. We were shocked to get the answer such as, “Oh in the neoliberal economy, after all what can we do? We have to bargain with the companies, if at all. We have to accept the land which they choose, we can not choose the land to be given to the industries. If we don’t allow them to get the land which they want they would go away to some other state. Even for the rehabilitation, we have no policy as yet here. We will in the process try to talk to Tata so that we can have some package evolved..”. We were shocked to hear this from the left front leader.

As the struggle began, it has already faced some repression, some of the opposition political parties were involved, so the Government started saying that this is all political. When we came in as people’s movement, they could not say that because we are not for the typical political or electoral politics. We are in the people’s politics. But we don’t consider the parties as untouchables, but we feel that movements are political in themselves. When we as the farmers, fish workers, the displaced people, some of the unorganised sector workers, unions, some of the organised sector worker union, we all said raised the voice of support to people of Singur, they started directing the repression to us.
*****

You can read the full text of Medha's speech and listen to her voice if you wish, on kalpana.it

Guntur comes to Bologna

Mayor's office from Bologna had sent me an invitation explaining that mayors from Indian city of Guntur and Philippines province of Bahol were coming to Bologna as jury members for an ecological project. It seems that Bologna with funding from European Union and in collaboration with a swedish city was promoting this project for the improvement of environment and ecological sustainability and had started with the two pilot projects in India and Philippines.

These days when they speak of global warming and climate change, often they end up by saying that enormous growth in India and China is going to put additional pressure on the climate and that the developing world should look for some alternate paradigm of growth. I find that extremely hypocritical.

The other day I was reading that USA alone consumes hundreds of time more energy than all of Africa and if China and India continue to grow the way they are, by 2020 they will be consuming 20% of the USA energy level. So it is not about reducing India or China's energy use, it is about reducing their own energy use if they are serious about climate change and global warming. In the end every drop counts, but isn't it a little shameless to not to look at oceans and focus only on drops?

European energy consumption is not at the American level but it is probably not too much far behind. How much success have they achieved in reducing their own energy consumption?

I feel that in USA and in Europe, the trend is towards more efficient use of energy, less polluting ways of using energy and there is no attempt to change the general paradigm of living that is based on intensive use of earth's resources. Almost everything, from cars to computers, are going towards "use it and throw it" kind of mentality. So how can they preach to developing world about what others should do?

If the developed world is really keen on reducing pollution in the developing world, they should be willing to waive copyrights and protectionist measures to share ideas, efficient technologies with the developing world, and not allow their own multinationals to shift their polluting businesses in developing world without proper technology improvements.

In Bologna itself, there is lot of pontificating about using bicycle and public transport and not using cars but in reality the city does everything to discourage people from using bicycles and promotes use of cars. In my opinion, as someone who goes regularly to work on bicycle, in the last ten years the number of bicycle users in the city has decreased and number of cars has increased many folds.

I had all these thoughts in my head when I went to this meeting. Fortunately they did not give any hypocrite speeches about climate change and global warming. The emphasis was very much on ecology for improving the lives of people who live in our cities, about improving water supply, solid waste amangement, traffic, greenery, etc.

Kanna Nagaraju, mayor of Guntur was there with his wife, Kirti. Nagaraju a BTech in mechanical engineering was in real estate business when he entered politics 2 years ago and at 25 became one of the youngest mayors of India (or may be in the world?). Kirti is also a BTech, is still studying, doing MBA and the couple do not have a child yet.

Nagaraju's was not a very fluent or coherent speaker but his presentation was good. He presented some big successes in Guntur after this project - they are now testing water supply for pollution and making sure people get drinkable and pollution free water, they are almost near to achieve 24x7 iuninterrupted water supply, they have a new system of solid waste collection from the house holds that is separated for recycling, Guntur is now a garbage free city, they are managing traffic better, building more parks and greenery, etc.

Is the change real or is it just big politicase speech giving by exaggerating whatever little has been done, only persons from Guntur can say. I hope some bloggers from Guntur will send comments.

In the meantime, some pictures from yesterday: (1) Nagaraju (right) with Pamela Lama (Bologna Mayor office), Anna Patullo (Bologna counsellor) and representatives from Phillipines (2) Sogni d'oriente, the Italian-Persian music group that presented some fusion music, (3) products from Guntur on exhibition (4) closeup of Nagaraju with interpreter and Ms. Lama.

Democracy and extremism

Yes, I know it is long time since I wrote anything on this blog except for publishing friends' appeals from Nepal. Now it seems the King in Nepal has decided to give in to the people's movement and peace may return to this beautiful land.

I am thinking about Maoists and if they pose a threat to the country.

I have always maintained that dialogue and democracy are the best way to deal with extremists - by extremists, I mean, those who believe in extreme changes, not necessarily violent. In that sense, I don't agree with repression, banning, jails and fighting to overcome or to contain those we consider "extreme". I believe that if extremists can be made to participate in the democratic dialogue and if they find public support, to be the government, their extremism will be tempered and they will need to become less extreme to fit in with the system.

The increasing forces of globalisation, meaning increasing inter-links between people and countries, should be a safeguard since extremist governments, even if elected, can not break those links and live in isolation.

Another aspect of globalisation is the increasing presence of media, so that when "news" happens like dead bodies floating in Victoria falls in Rwanda, the world will see it. Thus violent abberrations, sooner or later must go away other wise you become an international pariah.

Unfortunately, both aspects of globalisation can be easily manipulated. When economic interests are there, other countries become tolerant of dictators and murderers, and close one or both eyes. And, the international media is fickle, it comes to catch the goriest pictures but here the supply is greater than demand, so it soon leaves to catch other gorier pastures.

So I think that maoists should get a chance to participate in the elections and if they win the elections, they can get a go at the system. Yet, I am worried if the democracy rules are valid for everyone? How about people or groups, that think that they don't believe in democractic ideas but play along only to get into power and then start their dictatorship and repression? And if we end with a Pol Pot and millions of dead, whose fault was it? Or with Talibans?

Falling sick in UK?

I was in London last week.

I went to see Pam at her home. Pam had been in the hospital for back pain. Pam told me about her experience in the hospital. She saw the doctors only on the day of her admission. After that for the next two and half weeks, she never saw her house officer.

The British NHS, national health services had such a reputation with people coming from all over to benefit from the British standard of medical care, what has happened to it?

In the night, the news on BBC mentioned a Mr. Gonsalez, who had killed many persons and the court has sentenced to a mandatory prison for life. There was also an interview with the grandmother of Mr. Gonsalez, who explained that if her grandson was guilty, the state was guilty as well. It seems that she had been complaining about the deterioration in the psychological condition of her grandson for months without any response from social services or the psychiatric services. In one of the letters, she even wrote, "Would you do something only when he kills someone?".

In the morning, flying back to Bologna, I saw the headlines in the newspaper, a private hospital in London is "forced to cut 1000 jobs because of lack of funds".

But UK has the most booming economy in Europe, how can this happen there? While rest of Europe is fighting recession, only UK seems to be going strong, then why did they cut their health service so drastically? It sounds more like a government hospital in India.

I am afraid for our health care services in Italy. With all these magic words of greater efficiency, reducing wastage of resources, more autonomy and privatization, the future does not seem very bright.

*****
I have a new Hindi-Engligh photo-blog, Chayachitrakar. There are mornings, when I don't feel like writing much. It would be simpler to stick in a nice picture and it will be done. That is the logic behind it. I have just one camera, a digital kodak, and I don't know about apertures and time of exposure, etc. I can't even take very sofisticated pictures and I don't like special effects, most of the time. But I think that my pictures have good human angle. May be that is not very modest, but I like the pictures I take!

*****
Here are some pics from London, wishing all the Britishers good health so that they don't need to go to hospitals and if they do, I hope that they are all rich and can go to one of those ultra-modern private places! Cheers.

Policemen in Hyde park - I think they were investigating the camp-fire lit by the two men to cook their food in the open.
The typical London red telephone cabin in Leister square
The Star-wars costumes near Piccadilly circus

Pinter breathes fire

When I first heard that Pinter has won the 2005 nobel prize for litterature, I thought they were talking about Luigi Pintor, an Italian writer who had died earlier this year. Pintor, a rebel, was ousted from the Italian communist party and established his own newspaper and magazine, il Manifesto. He wrote simple, small books, that are a real delight to read with their profound insight into human psyche.

I vaguely knew about Harold Pinter, the British playright. I had not seen or read any of his plays, but I had seen him on the "HardTalk" on the BBC in December 2004, when he had said that both Bush and Blair should be tried for their war crimes. This interview and the episode of HardTalk can still be seen through internet.

His acceptance speech for the Nobel prize is equally hard hitting. He feels that while there has been lot of debate and discussions on effects of Soviet empire and communist rule, similar debate has not touched on american activities of "eliminating people-friendly democracies" by declaring them communists and killing innocents till such countries have despots friendly towards multinationals and american products and at that point, they are called democracies. He gives some examples of Latin America, before talking about Iraq. This speech can be read on internet.

*****

I am sure that Pinter is a wonderful writer and does deserve his nobel prize. Yet, I also feel that Nobel prize committee is biased towards writings in European languages. Otherwise, I can't imagine, how writers of stature of Mahashweti devi can be ignored?

Yet the painful truth is that writers in "local" languages spoken by millions of persons are ignored, till someone can translate them in more "mainstream" languages and then they can be "discovered".