why do we need laws?

every day when i pass through the two-wheeler parking lot i see the security personnel guiding the students to park their vehicles in an organized manner. just imagine if even one parks the bike in a crooked manner, it will lead to hardships for many. 

this is precisely the case with laws. we would have loved to park where we liked and hate someone telling us where to park. but that is not in the interest of all. so, laws are necessary to bring about some order in society. there is a cost involved in everything. when we are mandated to follow the laws it means giving up some aspects of our personal freedom. but the benefits to the society as a whole are many and that is the reason why we all crib about too many laws but can't imagine a society without them. 

please feel free to comment.

naresh rao

end of censorship

censorship is valid in India. many publications have faced the music- books, plays, movies, blogs and television programmes. as India changes and we become more sensitive to the concerns of different sections of society, all forms of expression will come under increased scrutiny.
one will find it almost impossible to air views on social and cultural issues. the thin line between what is right and wrong will start overlapping under the pressure of interest groups. take 'lajja' for example. if an author wants to put light on the atrocities indulged in by a particular section in society it could be construed as being anti-religion and banned. same is the case with 'final solution' which would be seen as painting the majority community with the communal brush and thus appropriate for ban.
what seems to be the problem is the lack of acceptance of criticism by the individuals in society. every act, every belief and every individual should come under spotlight. it is only through a process of questioning and change will the individual, society and nation progress. what is accepted as right and ultimate has to pass the test of time and if found wanting must be replaced by new ideas and beliefs. this is one lesson we can see from the history of human civilization.

Pressing problem

Emraan Hashmi is in the news- for a change, not for his mouth smacking reason. his allegation that a housing society has refused to give a noc as he was a muslim has set off a debate. it is common knowledge in our country, where from governments to schools and colleges there is a preference for individuals from one community over others, this malice would be reflected in another important aspect of our society- housing communities. the ghetto mentality based on safety in numbers is seen everywhere among all, poor and rich alike.
The Emraan case is spiraling out of control. now there is a fir against both Emraan and Mahesh Bhatt for trying to incite communal passions and thus divide society. some celebrities are already taking sides and based on their personal experiences supporting or criticising Emraan. The larger issue of discrimination on the basis of community affiliation is a serious one that should not be brushed under the carpet. government can do so much, it is up to us to solve the problem. a solution is not simple- a law to punish the guilty for violating the constitution right to reside anywhere in the country and right to equality is only the beginning. each housing society should reflect the diversity that is present in India and not become ghettos for exclusive living.

Indo-US bonhomie

the row over the signing of the deal between India and US on weapon sales with a clause allowing US to inspect the weapons and bases where they will be stored is being covered by the media extensively. the opposition in the parliament has criticized the government for compromising the sovereignty of the country in a hurry to get close to US. has the media been neutral or sided with those opposed to this deal? unlike the previous civil nuclear deal, where the English media supported the stance of the government, there is a bit of skepticism this time around. the issue is whether india has given up too much for too little in return?
the fact that india needs hi-tech weapons for a conventional edge in the sub-continent is obvious. india's most trusted supplier Russia provides most of our present requirements. the fact that we get their latest weapons at reasonable rates and that too at more or less our terms is an important consideration. but of late, india is feeling the strain of depending on one supplier for all its requirements. it is time to spread the net wider and have access to the best weapons money can buy. it is time to be pragmatic and accept the reality that we live in a unipolar world and the best defense technology comes from US.

googled again

Arrogance is the outcome of monopoly. when a company gets into a position from where competitors dont matter, one can be sure that you have a recipe for disaster. google is trying to put together an OS to take on the market leader microsoft (windows OS). Crome OS will debut next year. it is time that people had a choice.
the market leader has been charged many a times with unfair trade practices with an eye on the entire market. in the early 90s apple computers had gone to court alleging that microsoft had stolen its idea for a graphic interface operating system. fortunately, apple lost the case as it opened up the development of this sector to all. the european commission has fined microsoft a few billion for bundling its software for the european market. unless exemplary punishments are meted out the company will continue its practice of driving out competition. over the last two decades it has convinced itself that it is immune to ethical and legal charges.
the bid by google to dent the market share of ms is a much need respite in the interest of consumers. consumer choice is the basis for innovations, economy and good quality and service. the arrogant response by ms to google's effort at chrome os is but one more nail in its coffin. monopoly is bad and it should give way to genuine competition that benefits the society at large.

objectivity vs dialogue

just finished going through a study about the effectiveness of objective reporting versus dialogical presentation of news and issues. in the modern context, objectivity was considered to be the cornerstone of journalistic reporting. but in the present post-modern scenario, it has given way to a dialogical presentation, where the truth is subjective and it is up to the viewers to figure it out through the process of debate and discussion. Both forms have their advantages.
objective in reporting is important to provide facts. but facts by themselves dont always make sense. the complex nature of the world, its politics and so on require the intervention of many opinion leaders to contextualize the facts and allow for it to be of practical use to the masses. ultimately, facts are floating all around but how to understand them is the biggest challenge for us today. media, therefore, has an important role to play, more than ever before. the relevance of news media will be gauged from the utility of what it churns out rather than whether it is objective or not.

In contempt

there is a long running debate on the powers of the courts in India with reference to contempt. in a democracy, the courts, like all other institutions should be scrutinized and its working transparent. the decisions of the courts should be open to criticism and investigation of the process leading up to the decision must be allowed. the law and convention force the media to treat the courts as holy cows.
what is the basis for opening up the courts to pubic criticism? courts perform a vital function in society. there is an assumption that it does it objectively and dispassionately (the assumption must give way to certainity). people will have more trust in courts if they are willing to work in the open and accept responsibility for their actions. the credibility of the judicial system in the country will rest on the acceptance of the same principles that govern other democratic institutions and the sooner the courts acknowledge it the better. nobody will deliberately bring down the institution but any scrutiny will in turn go a long way in curbing corruption and the wrong image that we are left with in the absence of access to facts. the previous government was about to initiate steps to revamp the judiciary. it is time for the government to act in the larger interest of society.