Is it legitimate to give J&K the status of a special state?

(Article written here is purposely for social media and not for personal affair. Find it at http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/04/is-it-legitimate-to-give-jk-the-status-of-a-special-state/)

We are driven by five genetic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom, and fun. And the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

There are 27 states in India and also there is Jammu and Kashmir. A state with so many tags attached to it ranging from ‘land of militancy’, controversial state and ofcourse, a special state. The image projected so far by every mode of communication spills the beans Kashmir is the most pampered state of India and by India and invariably the most privileged. Kashmir is the only state in India which enjoys special autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India according to which, no law enacted by the Parliament of India, except for those in the field of defence, communication and foreign policy, will be extendable in Jammu and Kashmir unless it is ratified by the state legislature of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India over Jammu and Kashmir has been extended. Jammu and Kashmir is also the only Indian state that has its own flag and constitution, and Indians from other states cannot purchase land or property in the state.

Sometimes, it seems too obvious to call Kashmir a much pampered state, always in demand by father-son democracies, India and Pakistan respectively, and still hit in the news for almost all mishaps. Or is it just India’s poor governance that never let the agitation settle down in the region? Also the question why Jammu compared to Kashmir is quieter and safer? One reason generic in sense for calling Jammu a better place than Kashmir is that there are lot of Punjabi’s settled there who don’t allow local hooligans to muddle routine with rare rowdiness. Also most of the people in Jammu are employed (self-employed to be precise) and keep themselves busy for any transgression. But then what made Kashmir so disposed to petty larceny? Many of us were taken aback when Kashmiris burnt the Indian flag on 15th Aug in 2008 while hoisting the Pakistani flag a day before in Srinagar. Should that be taken as a clear indication of their edginess to set themselves free from India and merge with Pakistan or is it a camouflaged act bamboozling both the countries thereby establishing as an autonomous state? The BSF, the military and the para-military forces are constantly vigilant in the region, preventing militancy. Each day there is news of martyrdom of some defence person fighting intruders or slewed with stones by some protestors. Do incidents like these in other states make such headlines? Everyday, there is a case of rape or physical harassment in some part of the country but why is Kashmir’s episode always a hit? Are people in other states not as valuable as Kashmiri’s? One of my college mates is from Kashmir and his anti-Indian dialogues can instigate any fanatic chauvinist to eradicate such minds. He shares that the impertinence of military men in the region towards women is very much overdosed and they find it amusing to handpick females and commit horrendous crimes. To some extent it is true, but it is also true that things like these are always presented with exaggeration. And why must always the defence men be blamed when the government itself is equally lazy in arriving at a quick and true decisions for cases like these; the Shopian case is still a smoking example.

Too much relaxation in the prices of routine items and no intervention in the local businesses from any other state leave the state to enjoy the luxury of utilizing the resources thoughtlessly; Kashmir is undoubtedly the ‘entry-restricted’ paradise of India. And as a result, the frequent protests against the Indian government, proneness to militancy, the constant attention from security forces and, yet, the unsatisfied people have always tickled minds to envy the state for all the reasons. What if J&K too is made a normal state just like Pakistan has kept the PoK? The step will only help the existing situation to improve. Hyderabad too has Muslim population but it is hardly upset because of communalism and it is India’s one of the most developed states. Permitting people from other states to start businesses there will generate employment for the locals which as of now is a threatning problem in the region especially in Kashmir. Also the interaction with the rest of India may adjust the thinking of the local people.

The issue of Kashmir for Pakistan will never die out and she will never accept it as a part of India. India has already been doing much to win the hearts of Kashmir people and in the process has lost many of its soldiers. A lot of luxury has been enjoyed and now it’s time to realize that too much pampering always spoils a child. Make Kashmir a normal state and let people learn from people and not by the administration. Sometimes it is required to give a second thought if Punishment is the last and the least effective instrument in the hands of the legislator for the prevention of crimes.

Manufacturing Growth and Rising India

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/03/manufacturing-growth-and-rising-india/

What’s wrong with Live-In Relationships?

Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh, geographically have their boundaries in India yet they are independent countries. Call them as partners living with us, breathing same air and enjoying almost same climatic conditions. We never heard of any major clashes with any of these partners, did we? If whole nation can afford to share a common place, then why can’t a society tolerate two loving bodies sharing same home which is in no way comparison to these countries?

A man and a woman (or in some cases the same sex people) staying together in the same house or at same address for certain long period of time, as if they were married, though not, is known as Cohabitation. The court assumes that they are having a sexual relationship as well as a married couple would. There are certain rights and regulations given by the court to such unmarried couples. There may be several reasons for these couples to stay as a single yet living together as if married to one another. Some states do not allow such relationship and term it as criminal offence under adultery law.

Let us ignore those live-in relationships which exist for the purpose of buying flats and homes in a city where both need to meet their professional needs as many landlords don’t prefer to keep singles as tenants. Also overlook people belonging to same sex and having such relationships. We better concentrate why live-in relationship is so bluntly rejected by our society.

People say marriage is a sacred affair. So are they saying those who get married are pure and those who live in with their partners are not? Marriage by itself, as a concept, is neither sacred, nor non sacred, except according to the feelings and beliefs of those engaging in the marriage. If you believe marriage is not sacred it will not be sacred for you and if you think it is sacred and your partner agrees, then your marriage will most likely be sacred, at least in your experience of it. Similarly if you decide to live in with your partner, make necessary commitments and stay honest with purpose of loving each other and also to check compatibility, it will be a sacred issue and not a sin which is more likely to be taken by our society.

Also there are people who call Live-In relationships as ‘Fashion’. How many of you face a situation where a particular category of people would call a person ‘dude’ just because he enjoys EPL more than IPL; buying a costly pen a flaunty act; talking to a girl as casually as you talk to boy a playboy act? Seriously, we need to change our attitude towards many things in life. Everyone knows the core-nature of Indian society and when two people decide to live together without marriage, they definitely must have thought hundred times about the consequences and the tolerance level they would need to develop to face everything of this kind. So do you think those two guys would just move in together for the sake of being ‘cool’ and look fashionable? Of course not!

But did anyone ever try to find out how and why live-in relationship evolved? It’s a very well established fact that Indian society has more number of arranged marriages than love marriages. Now if suppose the families are conservative enough not to allow the couples meet before marriage, to get acquainted with each other and figure out the compatibility level between the two and with the families as well. Then do you think such a marriage would be successful? While live-in relationship is a tool based on mutual understanding helping couples, already in love spend more time together. They also want to make sure if they are compatible before accepting each other as partners for life. Many people you talk to, today may not like to marry someone with whom they have not lived first. It’s better to know someone’s bad and good habits and change it or get used to it before moving into a legal relationship than realizing troubles and irking because of same habits after marriage.

Families can allow their wards to live-in with their match and find out if his/her future partner is good enough to sustain a life long relationship. The success or failure rate of cohabitation is almost same as that of a ‘perfect ceremonial’ marriage. Live-in relationships are not a freedom of exploring some real sensitive areas including sex. It is a step before marriage and not a substitute of marriage.
It is not a concept that is bad but our attitude that makes it look bad.

The Luxurious Heritage: Udaipur

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/03/the-luxurious-heritage-udaipur/

Secularism V/s Pseudo Secularism

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/03/secularism-vs-pseudo-secualrism/

Length of a hockey stick equals a cricket bat! And popularity?

Hockey world cup is on and once again we are cornered by same deliberation, if hockey is still the favourite game of India and lures the public equally good as done by cricket? But a more important point at issue is, is it wise to compare two games which are out-and-out different in style and content, though share some similarities: 11 men, one ball and a stick. As a matter of fact, the hockey stick is 38” long which is equal to the length of a cricket bat.  Obviously, the game cannot be compared on the basis of diversion as different people have different predilection but yes, we can compare these two sporting events on the basis of performance and hence popularity.

Let us start with Cricket which seems to bring smile to many young faces. A week ago, India swept away the series against South Africa with 2-1 and not so old incident, we won the T-20 world cup, 2007 (though it was clinched by Pakistan in 2009). The IPL is one more of its kind that fascinates almost everything under the sun. Conflating all formats of the game, it may be right to say that Indian Cricket is at its best.  The saying ‘All happens for good’ is proved by this sport and consequently, the market is gaining from it. The sport analysts say Indian Cricket is full of many heroes; as anticipated, they don’t the use the word-performers. And the sponsors see these heroes as panacea for selling their shampoo, hair-oil, soap and much other stuff. The management listens to such people, invest and bet on youngsters. At the end, it’s not only money, but also the enactment, performance and the upshots that matter. And for all these things it can be well said that cricket has a good hegemony over all above mentioned. The scenario increases fanaticism for the game.

Dispensing with the comments of Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi, we now look at one of the most oblivious games of India, our National Game-Hockey.  The game began to be played in early forties and one of the greatest tragedies that it suffered was its most glorious segment preceded the era of live television. Hardly anyone of us know Aslam Sher Khan, brought in as a desperate substitute during Kuala Lumpur world cup 1975 to take a penalty corner and then banging in the hit that took India to final. When India won the only cricket world cup title in 1983, a dramatic shift of interest was observed in people, government and media. For this reason, it can be said that Indian hockey’s decline accorded with the arrival. However, there has been less effort and more politics in resurrecting the past glory of the Indian Hockey. Hockey took a backseat and even the good efforts and good show my players did not enthuse many to bring the game back in the same frame where the Cricket lies today. Surprisingly, the government remembers Hockey only when during World Cups, Olympics and Asiad. The government’s attitude shared during two simultaneous wins: T-20 world cup and Asia cup in 2007 seemed very forlorn. Indian cricket team received Rs 2 crores as a tournament prize after winning the T20 World Cup. BCCI, the governing body of Indian cricket announced Rs. 8 crores for winning the final. BCCI even gave away Rs 4 crores for reaching the final and Rs. 1 crore for Yuvraj Singh alone. Players received cash awards up to Rs. 21 lakhs from the state governments to which they belong. Funniest! Robin Uthappa received Rs. 3 lakh from government of Kerala, just for the reason that his mother is from Kerala. Players received apartments worth Rs.25 lakhs from Sahara. A new award, ’Jharkhand Ratna’ honour wass introduced for the first time which was  presented to Dhoni for making the state proud, on the 7th foundation day celebration of the state on November 15 at Ranchi. Even the erstwhile kings of the country might have envied this Maharaja’s treatment.

And what was the reward of winning Asia Cup team? Individual greeting message was sent by our Honourable President. IHF had announced an incentive for the team where they would receive Rs 1000 for every goal scored and lose Rs 2000 for every goal conceded. What a lucrative incentive! The state governments did not even send a congratulatory note to the respective players of the state; forget about the honour and prize.

Now the question is, if this is the attitude of government towards the two games then why is it playing a diplomacy of keeping Hockey as the national game of India when major percentage of Indians watch and enjoy cricket more.  It is quite fathomable that because of corporate funding and advertisers’ input, cricket is becoming richer and right now, it’s impossible for hockey to raise the popularity index close to cricket. But now is the time when corporate, media and Indian Hockey Federation should come forward and take care of the future of hockey and its players while government should play vital role to keep as well as grow Hockey as the favourite game of the country. Incentives, prizes and support should be made lucrative so that people crave to become a hockey players rather than joining the mad rush of becoming cricket players. Some day it will find Harsha Bhogle to figure out its sociology. In the Indian subcontinent, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and even the tribals, have excelled in the game. Dileep Tirkey, 25, and a tribal from Orissa, was our national captain, and he did not need the benefit of any reservation from any Mayawati. Professional sport is the world’s fairest social equaliser. Hockey has the potential of becoming an Indian equivalent of European and Latin American football as a socio-economic, ethnic homogeniser in a sporting melting pot. The football world is full of stars that came from nowhere to lead the big leagues. If cricket cannot do it as effectively as hockey or football, it is because it still is an upper-class game, requiring facilities, a pitch, gloves and pads, and lots of coaching. It doesn’t have the rough-and-ready character of a contact/speed sport that readily absorbs raw talent and lets it flourish.

After all, in which other sports do you see a Nagpuri or a Munda or a Santhal or a Manipuri becoming the captain of the national team?