The Case Against Terrorists

[I am NOT an expert in History, International Politics, or Religion for that matter.  Please treat this as a work of purely personal opinion inspired by popular media! Thanks!  :)  ]

The Case Against Terrorists (and the Extremists):

For those who use terrorism as a stick to beat muslims with, saying, “Even though all muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims,” etc., just one question “How is the individual muslim being benefited by terrorism either in short run or long run?”  They are NOT.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MUSLIMS:  In their community and to outsiders, muslims should present terrorists as jokers, something to be not proud of.  Dangerous madmen.  Not heroes.  Heroes do not sneak in and plant bombs, but fight openly.  No one has invited terrorists in India or any country to fight for them.  How can a bomb blast by a terrorist in India benefit Indian muslims?  

Those who say all terrorist are muslims, answer is “They may have been muslims when they were born, but ceased to be when they took to terrorism.”  Let us be very clear about one thing.  Terrorist organizations are POLITICAL and MERCENARY organizations and not at all religious ones.  

India as a country should fight terrorists as an international threat.  Agreed that terrorists routinely recruit Indians too, but obviously their masters are all outside the country.  Indian Hindus should not make the mistake of using terrorism as a whip to lash out at Indian muslims.  There is absolutely no basis for hounding Indian muslims as a means for revenge against terrorists.

As for those misguided amongst Indian muslims, the Indian authorities are doing a commendable job of deradicalizing and discouraging youngsters who have been inspired by the false heroism of these terrorist jokers.

Terrorists today have gone to the level of just being pests, of the poisonous kind, worse than snakes and scorpions.  They hide and attack.

It is said that Islam was spread through violence.  Maybe violence was used but violence has been used by any number of rulers to expand their worldly empires.  That was not violence.  That was open war, invasion, which has happened throughout history and no one particular kingdom or community can be singled out for that in history.

Today the so-called jihadists have no moral justification for their activities.  What they are indulging in is mercenary activities where those higher up in the chain make a career out of terrorist activities by sending the minions on suicidal missions, some of whom might even have been brainwashed that they are being trained for a virtuous mission.

Terrorists would have gained respect if they were rebelling against a particular regime in their own country or they were part of the military of their own country defending their land from invaders.  That is face-to-face war.  What bravehearts do.

Terrorist organizations in the form that they are today are nothing but pawns in the hands of whoever pays them.  Earlier it used to be developed nations, but nowadays it seems it could be anyone..., seriously!

Launching undercover attacks against unaware innocents in a foreign land, just to grab headlines, is not Jihad.  If they are really fighting for a cause, they should stop killing innocents and come out as soldiers in open warfare.

Another worrying trend is sprouting of newer and newer terrorist organizations, just like a free market economy, with competition heating up and everyone in the race for becoming the most popular and thereby being perceived as most efficient, so as to attract the interest of the best "sponsors" who can use them to further their own agenda against any particular regime.

[This article is a product of a fertile mind in free time, not a professional writer, so please excuse for such an abrupt end without a formal conclusion.  I hope to polish up all these writeups some day.  Thanks.]

Loyalty to Employer, Efficiency, etc.

There are some of us who think that loyalty to employer is directly proportional to the number of years you work in a particular organization.  However, I have a slightly different take on this.  The mantra is quality and not quantity.  The reality is that your loyalty is measured by your discipline, quality of work, maintaining confidentiality of your organization’s data vis a vis its competitors.  What plays an important role is your ability to keep a tight balance where you do not compromise on the work that you put in, neither do you put in extra hours to compensate for your inefficiencies.

Freshers in any workplace are young, energetic, mostly bachelors, who can work 24 hours at a stretch, totally living out of their offices or going home only to sleep and change clothes and rush back to office.  The most common misconception every fresher has is that by doing overtime, they would earn brownie points from their bosses compared to their older colleagues who have other responsibilities in lift apart from work.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  When we are freshers, we forget that the older colleagues too were once freshers and that we freshers too are going to be older one day and will not retain the same amount of enthusiasm and energy no matter how capable one might be.

Working extra hours can be seen in another way.  Quite often, those staying back to work extra hours are those who have not been able to complete their assigned tasks within time, work at a slower speed than others, and thus stay back to finish what others finished well in time.  For this inefficiency of some people, others who finish their work on time and leave on time are branded as shirkers.

Don’t just work hard, work SMART.  I admit, this is easier said than done and I have also struggled to implement this principle in my own career.  At least, one can try to work towards this goal.

Television Commercials (Advertisements) on Pay Channels

If we are paying for cable channels, why should we watch adverts?  Aren't we already paying a subscription fee for the channel?  Even though it may be only Rs. 5 per month but multiply this by crores of families and you have a mind-boggling amount per month.  However, channels are already earning crores of rupees from advertisement revenue, so either all channels should be free to air or there should be no adverts.  Why this double whammy for the viewers?

Menace of Spam Calls (Telemarketing)

If we are paying for our phone calls, why should we allow telemarketing calls? It would have made sense if we were getting the service for free.

Smart phone users have many tools to deal with spam calls like blocking a number, installing Truecaller to identify a caller before receiving a call, etc., but the problem becomes acute if one is still using old-style feature phone.

Every afternoon my 65-year-old mom has to keep her phone silent because her own mobile service provider dutifully and punctually calls to offer latest ringtones, caller tunes, free data and talk-time, interrupting her much-needed naps.  Maybe calls from the network provider are out of the purview of DND.

It does not require rocket science to block telemarketing numbers.

DND is not 100% efficient.  

It should not be too difficult to have a system where you can mark a number as spam after ending a spam call.  There can be a particular key combination or every mobile should provide a menu option to report a number as spam in by sending an SMS to TRAI.  If e-mail providers can do it, so can mobile operators.

HOW TO AVOID ABUSE OF THIS FACILITY?

Suppose someone wants to harass you by reporting your number falsely as spam.  This can easily be avoided by following a policy that a number would only be blocked by TRAI if it is reported by at least 10 different subscribers and no two reported numbers can be reported by the same set of 10 subscribers.

Gender in Language - English/Hindi Vs Bengali

Hindi (an Indian language):  Verbs have gender.  Aaya, aayi.

English:  Pronouns have gender.  He/she.

Bengali (an Indian language):  No gender in pronoun or verb.

Bengali language has no distinction for gender in pronouns or verbs.  Is this a deficiency or is it an advanced feature inculcated by forward-thinking intellectuals of earlier times so as not to discriminate between the sexes?

A fact to ponder upon...

FMCG Brands - Small versus Consumer Giants

In developing countries like India, how do you select which brands to buy?  Biscuits, dairy, soft drinks, nutritional supplements, toiletries...

Currently, we follow these rules:

1. Either it is a big brand, e.g., Hindustan Lever, Reliance, P&G, or the product is extensively advertised with lavish advertising budgets on prime time, which makes it appear cool.
2. Or, one has to keep trying different brands and then decide.

In developed nations, the quality control is so strict that manufacturers cannot create or import a product below a certain quality benchmark.  So consumers can safely try any new products.  Not so in India.  Any new manufacturer is eyed suspiciously and maybe 1 out of 100 new brands survives in the market.  Among non-MNC brands, only those who are well established over a few decades are able to survive.  Any product manufactured by new startups finds it very difficult to earn the consumer’s trust.

[To be continued...]



[Comments very much appreciated.  Thanks!]

Experience versus Youth

For the purpose of this article, by experience we are referring to the experiences one gathers in one’s lifetime and the opinion we form of various issues in life, whether we should agree with older people’s opinions, or whether with age people become less brave, less willing to try new things, so become conservative in their approach.

One way of looking at it is that an older person has seen more years of life, say 50 years more than a youngster, so they have seen more ups and downs and know that a period of success in life might not last forever and there are bound to come periods of misfortune, failures, accidents, poor health which teach tough lessons to a person until they can again struggle against odds and get to a more stable position, sometimes if not by themselves then maybe by the success of their children if they have been able to give their children a healthy and disciplined upbringing.  On the other hand, youngsters have a sense of confidence that nothing can go wrong, that they are strong enough, they know how to face life, they can fight any situation, they have enough qualification or skills to earn a good livelihood, and that their fortune can only go in one direction, that is towards the sky.  But, very few of us are lucky enough to have an uninterrupted streak of good luck and successive successes throughout our lives.  It is a law of nature, nothing can be taken for granted.  One thing or the other is bound to not go our way, unexpected situations can develop any time, that is life.

Another way of looking at experience is that different people have different experiences in life.  Older people may feel smug about the fact that they have seen everything, been through all facets of life, and so can give opinions and advice which are bound to prove right, if not immediately then at least in the long run.  However, they must not forget that what they have been through in life might not always be the same for everyone.  Maybe they made some mistakes or were not quick enough to grasp at some opportunity which another person could have handled differently.

Therefore, the younger generation deserves equal respect and have the right to choose whatever path they feel right as long as they handle it responsibly and are willing to take face the consequences for their own actions and be able to live with it.

[Comments very much appreciated.  Thanks!]

Don't Go Deaf, For Your Family's Sake!

Not only will you suffer, forget the art of conversation, miss important information, become out of touch with life around you, but your family will also feel rotten at being unable to assist you at all times.  They will feel guilty that they cannot repeat every sentence to you, sometimes it will be impossible due to various reasons.  Even when someone is helping you with repeating what others are saying, repeating slowly and clearly, they will be unable to pass on any expressions or emotions or nuances that the original speaker used.  You will miss out most of the humor, sarcasm, etc.  This would result in a different meaning than what the original speaker intended, resulting in misunderstandings, unnecessary repetitions, and frustration for all.

Also, in old age, often the only companion is television.  You would need to really turn up the volume to understand anything.  You will bring the whole house down with the loud TV volume, driving everyone mad.

Clearly an undesirable proposition.  So please take care of you hearing and if already impaired, get good hearing aid even if you need to ask for financial assistance from someone for it.  Your family will be grateful for it.

[Comments very much appreciated.  Thanks!]

"Let's" versus "Let us"

Can’t is same as Cannot

Even though let’s is a contraction of “let us” but the “us” in “let us” can either mean first person and second person (speaker and listener) or first person and third person (speaker and some other person/persons).  However, the “‘s” in “let’s” only refers to first person and second person, that is the speaker and listener.

“let us do something”

1. Let us have lunch together.
2. I will talk to Sam about your job.  Let us discuss about it and then I will get back to you.

[Comments very much appreciated.  Thanks!]