Are we Really Civilized?

When I think through myself and see the happenings around, I always have this question intriguing me, Is there a clear demarcation between the right and the wrong? People do have different views for this question. The opinion from the major group is, “Yes, there is a clear demarcation”. This pops up another subjective question, Can this line of demarcation vary from a person to person? Or can it vary time to time for a same person? Ideally it shouldn't vary because this line helps to measure ourselves if we are a better person each day. If this line fluctuates then we don't have a proper reference to evaluate ourselves.

At present, we try to dilute the line of demarcation for our personal benefits and push it towards the wrong end. Thereby the right things gets a wider bandwidth which makes us assume that we are doing right but actually we are not. To quote a trivial example, many of us skip the traffic signal and u turns, and we pretty much know it is wrong and it affects others who follow the rules but we still go ahead and break the rules to save some of their time, eventually not a great time though. This is violating the morals for personal benefits.

If we are doing it unintentionally and correcting later after realizing, makes us a better person, but doing it intentionally to achieve personal benefits without caring about the loss of others is highly unacceptable. If these small mistakes are left unnoticed, how do we evaluate ourselves on a day to day basis to become a better person? Instead the line of demarcation is pushed here saying this is not wrong as it is common.

Let's make it little complicated here, is killing someone considered wrong? The direct answer here from most of us is yes. If killing a person for self-defense is considered wrong? So, Does the act of right and wrong is defined based on the situation? My perspective here is a no, if we can justify our act, everybody will have their own justification for their actions to prove it right.

The modern civilized world works in this justification theorem called the moral dilemma and ethical dilemma. Moral and ethics are the synonymous words which can be used interchangeably. There is a marginal difference between the two, ethics is the set of rules set by a culture or group and they are consistent with respect to the context, whereas morals are the basic principles irrespective of the group, culture or context. The former example deals with the moral dilemma whereas the later can be considered as an ethical dilemma. 

As a matured human being we are expected not to have moral dilemma at least for the better civilized life.

An ask to the motive of our PM “Go Cashless"

Demonetization is the most trending topic post banning the higher denomination notes (500, 1000) by our honorable Prime Minister to eliminate fake currency notes and black money. Initially I was under the impression that it is a bold move towards corruption and black money but later realized that it would have been a bold move only if it was preceded by few steps, Moreover this step is just a temporary solution leading nowhere. The PM also wants to make India a digital or cashless economy by spreading the mantra "Go Cashless". In my experience following that will lead you in trouble not by non-government related entities but by government related entities.

During the demonetization period I made a trip to Delhi with enough cash to spend at non digital places like tea stall, food etc... I planned to pay digital at the hotel we stay assuming they transact more amount but to our surprise the tea stall and the tender coconut stall had paytm but the government based hotels and food stalls, the so called "Bhavans" didn't have a card swiping machine.

Off late, I faced an incident which made me badly write this blog against the Go cashless mantra is because the execution of it failed miserably and it leads common people in trouble though they want to support the anti-corruption and digital economy badly. The incident goes like this, I had parked my bike in no parking where there was no sign of no parking. Leaving that issue as secondary, since it was no parking the bike was seized by the police. When I reached the place to get my seized bike back there was no police there. Few non-government officials said that the fine amount is ₹750. They also mentioned that need we need to wait a lot if we have to pay the fine and the other option is to give ₹500 and take the bike without fine receipt. My motive was that if I had parked incorrectly I will pay to the government and there is no necessity to pay these guys. After half an hour to 45 minutes wait the police had come and I gave my card to pay the fine, 750 is not the amount to be carried in pocket if we have to “go cashless”. To my surprise he had no swiping machine and he said fine has to be paid by cash only. I had ₹730 with me but not ₹750 so I asked if something can be done as nearby ATMs are not working due to demonetization. To my shock the police asked me to give ₹500 non-government people and take the bike which I didn't want to do. Even the non-government guys said that I am just short of ₹20 if something can be adjusted. The police shamelessly asked if that guy can compensate the ₹20 and went for the next round making us wait again.

My point is that they get so many ₹500’s without taking receipt can’t they adjust ₹20 and give a receipt? What if we don't have ₹500 by cash as well? Finally had no other option but to pay 500 and get my bike. Then I understood that the police deliberately comes late and gets a share from the non-billed ₹500s. So many ₹500s are converted to black money like this.

Do you think demonetization will end these activities? If a police is standing there always with a swiping machine then we can go cashless else how can you expect us to go cashless? When the government related transactions are not digitalized then how do you foresee India as a cashless or digitalized economy?

Please give it a thought and start the work from your end and not just ask people to go cashless and end in trouble. Please digitalize government transactions by providing swiping machine wherever needed.

Human Behavioral Evolution - My Perspective

It is been proved scientifically that human beings are evolved from animals in various aspects like bipedalism (walking in two legs), large and complex brain, ability to make and use tools, ability to understand language, symbolic expression, art etc. along with these traits human behaviour is also considered to evolve with time. The human behavioral evolution is nothing but the evolution of morality, restraining individual's selfishness and building more co-operative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. In that scenario Man is a social animal and we are considered to be the most evolved species. So, it is necessary for a human being to show the maximum evolution of morality in our behaviour and mannerisms. But do you think we have evolved morally in our behavioral aspects?? May be, May not be. Why do I have this confusion when science proves that human behaviour has evolved morally?? Evolution of morality is a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. I do agree the act of right and wrong are abstract, what sounds right to one person may sound wrong to the other. But still certain basic things are considered wrong irrespective of the circumstances, individuals and perspectives of the situation and one such act is "Honour Killing" (act of killing people to maintain their social status). I am unable to call from my memory when the act of killing has become an honour. In my perspective even animals will not do this outrageous act of killing their own species. Hence I am not sure how can we claim that we have evolved ethically when compared to animals??

According to the psychology, the complex human behaviour is composed of three elements of personality known as Id, Ego and SuperEgo. The Id is driven by the pleasure principle, which makes all efforts to fulfill the desires, needs and wants by any means. However, it is not always possible to be ruled by the pleasure principle as it leads to disruptive social setup. Ego develops from Id and ensures that the impulses of the id can be expressed in manner accepted by the real world. Ego is based on the reality principle which strives to satisfy the desires of Id in realistic and socially acceptable ways. The last component of personality is the superego. The superego is the aspect of personality that holds all our moral standards and ideals that we acquire from both parents and society, the sense of right and wrong. Human who are supposedly evolved in their Superego component of rational thinking and mannerism doesn't even think before assaulting their opposite gender. We hear a lot of rape cases starting from the Delhi gang rape till now or even before. They behave like a violent animal that lost its senses. A Strong animal attack the less strong animal E.g. Lion attacks deer, this is an animal behavior. In some or the other scenarios we human also attack the weaker people (weaker by whatever means) and derive pleasure out of it or de-stress ourselves. 

Considering another scenario, What runs through your mind when you see a pizza delivery guy rushing in a road with high-speed? At first thought, I felt, what is the necessity to rush so fast? What if something happens to him or the people around in the road? On second thoughts, I understand that people scream at him if he delivers late and that is the reason for him to rush. In several scenarios top class (person who is little above in the social status) shouts at the pizza delivery guy or the waiter in the hotel for a little delay in their service. Considering the traffic and the preparation time it is fine if he delivers late by 15 or 20 minutes. I don’t see any necessity to screech at him. I am not able to find the development of SuperEgo component in these situations rather it is just the Id component working under pleasure principles like in animals to satisfy the needs. Is this an evolution of morality??

We claim that we have evolved from animals in all possible ways but I don’t think we have evolved a lot from animals at least in the moral behavioural aspects. Sometimes animals behave better than human beings in my perspective :(

A Concern on my Country

From the day we got independence, there are quite some changes in our country right from Politics, Culture, Fashion, Media, Social structure and what not, but do you think there was an equal amount of change in the Constitution of India? The price of petrol has increased, we have started watching Bollywood and Hollywood movies, our outlook has changed; but our law is still outdated. The amendments in the Indian Law is comparatively less when compared to the other socio-economic factors. Do you think the existing law prevents all sorts of crime, corruption or any other illegal activities happening in the country? No, because the crime rate has just increased. We are humans; we have the ability to think what is right and what is wrong unlike animals. For some un-evolved human beings the so called sixth sense (rational thinking) doesn’t function properly and they do behave like animals and disturb the human community. That is when we are in need of Law. Are these people punished in front of law? If the answer for the above question is No, then it is high time to change our constitution to do some good to our nation.

We, the citizens of India have a bad habit of forgetting things; we only remember things as long as the issues are sensationalised by media. This is taken as an advantage by the people who commit crime, corruption, etc. Do you know the verdict for the 2G scam? Do you think the Delhi rape convicts are given the right punishment? The common wealth game scam where we failed to host the foreigners made them to look down upon our nation. Many mercy pleas were accepted without a proper reason.  As days pass, we forget these things. In this process we forgot our fundamental rights as well (I had to Google :P).

• Right to equality – including equality before law – which is not happening, if you have power and money irrespective of the crime/corruption you are left unpunished. 
• Right to freedom – including freedom of speech and expression – People were arrested when they posted their opinion on social sites. And now comes the Gay sex ban as well.

Our Indian law is based on the school of thought that thousands of criminal can escape from the eyes of law but one innocent should not be punished. This loophole ended up freeing so many crooks, the result of which is an unbalanced law.  Burning issues like 2G Scam, Common wealth scam, Lokpal bill did not have any proper closure, but today the Indian Government is banning Gay sex. I believe this is not really an issue which needs a judgement. It is every individual’s right to freedom to live the way they want. The Lokpal bill which was proposed as an amendment to prevent corruption was clogged as it did not get the needed support.  People who have the authority to support are already corrupt and hence did not want the amendment against corruption. Therefore these Law amendments should rest with the common man and not only with the Powerful.

The whole point of my blog is that we have improved a lot in many a facets from the day we got independence but our law has not. In those days people worked selflessly to get independence for our nation. But what have we done with that independence?  The politicians from the same blood are least bothered about the sacrifices that their ancestors did to the nation. The Indian Law needs the right amendments to maintain law and order. The Indian Constitution should be a friend of common man and not support Power and money. It is not just the duty of politicians but that of every citizen to strive and achieve this state of utopia.

Women - As Portrayed by Kollywood Songs

I am writing this blog with a concern which has been bugging my mind for a long time and finally I want to let my thoughts out of my mind and reach people. My concern is the way women are portrayed in the Kollywood movie songs (since I understand the lyrics better there :P ). Let it be "Kadhal en Kadhal (Mayakkam Enna)" or "why this Kolaveri (3)" or "Pengal Endral Poiyyae Poi thana (Neethane En Pon Vasantham)" or "Hey Baby (Raja Rani)" or many more. Why do media always portray women in the negative shade? I could have written this blog when the thought struck me for the first time but I thought this is just one song for fun but when the trend increased I couldn't digest the fact of fun on the self-esteem of women at stake!! Let me share my view on the above songs in the movie they are in.

 
Let me start with Mayakkam Enna – Kadhal En Kadhal – In this movie the heroine is not ditching the hero even though the hero is psychologically depressed. The hero has a song stating “Adida avala, vetra avala” for the heroine, whereas the hero gets a sympathetic song “Pirai thedum Iravilae” when he is in the depressed state.

     

In the movie 3 – why this Kolaveri?  The hero (Dhanush) could not handle his bipolar disorder and attempts suicide leaving the heroine alone. Just because of one sentence the heroine said that she is going to US which was already discussed between them, the hero has this song. In spite the heroine (Shruthi Hasan) married him against her parents wish.

     
In the movie Neethane En Pon Vasantham - Pengal Endral Poiyae Poi thana- this is the height of everything I described. First of all I feel the movie is a crap where the hero does everything and finally blames the heroine. The worst part is, the director made the story in such a way that the heroine is dumb enough to accept whatever hero says without even giving a second thought to it due to her mad love with him (kadhal kannai maraikum enbargal buthiyayum maraithathu ingae :P )  

In the movie Raja Rani – Hey Baby - Not only the hero (Arya) but also the heroine (Nayantara) is not happy with the marriage, but only Arya has a song asking the girl to move out of his life and especially the line "nimadhiyae illa machan pona ava veetuku" as if the heroine feels happy when he comes :P . My concern is this, why does the media portray women in the negative shade though they have the same feeling (why didn't people have a song for the heroine asking the hero to move out of her life)   

Though heroines don’t ditch the heroes, why do the media have a SOUP SONG for guys portraying women in the negative shade?? Don’t you think you have the responsibility to convey the right message to the people?? Why is this happening?? Is it because majority of the people working and writing the song are men where you unknowingly from your subconscious mind blaming women for all the faults?? Why do you convey this kind of message unnecessarily when this is not needed in the first place? Actually speaking we can count the number of songs on motherhood which actually tells the sacrifice the women do than this type of songs. I actually don’t want you people to praise women but please don’t put their self-esteem at stake when it is not necessary at all. Media - when you interview these people please put forth these questions instead asking what was the funny incident that happened in the shooting spot or rather digging out their personal life. 

My humble request to lyricists or directors - just because you get a mass hit out of these songs please don't portray women in negative shades unnecessarily!!