I'm alive!!!

If a policeman calls you and a thief calls you, who would you rather go to? Or would feel safer? The answer should be an impulsive one in favor of police, apparently it is not. When this was asked from a few friends of mine. Answer wasn't thief either. It was more disturbing, it was "how does it matter anyway". Thief will behave as a cop, he knows he has nothing to lose while you do. And the police....

I often pose the idealistic, naive blind optimist. And quite truly I don't have any first hand experience either (Thank God for that). If you have lost a mobile, they don't write an FIR, what can you do? Yeah its a law...they have to. But like many other things that have to be done, but ain't, it might not be. So do you have any friend in media or higher in the police to raise this up? No you don't. Assume that they do write a complaint. They might use the word "lost" instead of "stolen", would you be in a state of mind to notice this? Or would you doubt what they have written after you have given the description of incident. You may not. For uninitiated people, things lost are not as severe incident as stolen ones. They don't look that bad on police records. And lost things cannot claimed for an insurance. Assume that they tell you that they have some suspects in custody. Would you go and identify him? When police tells that they have no responsibility of your safety after that.

Yes, we should. Yes, unless we did that there won't be any change. Yes, we can't live our lives in fear. But,we are afraid. We are afraid of police, of thieves, of lawyers, of diplomats, of media, of everybody. We are afraid of biking on metro roads... those who take cycle riksha or cycle or even bikes are most likely to be run over. We are afraid of arguing with a cop, no matter who is on the right side of law. We are afraid of raising voice against seniors at work place. We are afraid of going to Kashmir or Assam, our own land lest some terrorists will kill us. We can not move freely in the night in our cities or fight back if someone hits a child or helpless person in front of us. We are silent victim or witnesses of eve-teasing. We are all one scared lot... Scared with every living breath... scared for every living breath.

Is there too much point in living this way? When all things that we have... money..relations..health don't let us sleep in peace or force us to live a chicken's life? Kill conscience to let the body live? Is this actually being alive? Is it actually worth it?? Ain't we all guilty in spreading this poisoned air of distrust and fear by not fighting against it???

Its just a thought

Today some children were playing "Musical Chair". Its a game where one person plays the music and all others run around chairs put in a large circle. The number of players running is one more than the number of chairs, when the music stops you grab the next chair in front of you. One person who could not find a chair is out. The game continues until there is just one person who could get chair in all the cycles. This player wins. Ideally in the game, you ain't supposed to go back to a chair. You can only run towards a chair in front of you. However, if you are just a few steps ahead of a chair when the music stops there is a tendency to go back. To some extent it is okay. If I quote chilren "itni si cheating allowed hai"... or This much cheating is allowed. Funny, isn't it? We know its cheating, yet to some extent its allowed.

I find the same thing in our daily lives. We allow a little bit of cheating in our lives. It okay to jump a few lights if there is no direct immediate harm (and there is no cop around :)); its okay to take just one shot and drive, its fine to lie once in a while about sick leave, its not so bad to buy pirated DVDs or software. We tend to define our own acceptable limits. Our own standards. Often though there are universally laid standards (called laws)... we ignore them, find loopholes or casually avoid them, knowing you can always escape from petty crimes.

I wonder was there ever or would there ever be some universally acceptable line that we would adhere to even when nobody is watching? Who decides what is acceptable and what not when we don't accept the laws? If its okay to buy pirated movies, what makes us shout when some other country patents our basmati or when Amir does not give Chetan Bhagat his due right as story writer in 3 Idiots? Ain't these all infrigement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)? If we do not mind below age children(read below 25 in Delhi) to drink once in a while or to buy cigarattes from a shop why do we hate when someone gives them drugs? Isn't it all corruption of young minds? There is a line in Shantaram, saying some people are guided by the amount of sin there is in a crime and depending on the sin value, they can neglect/ do not mind doing the crime. While some others are led by the amount of crime in a sin, i.e.. depending on how much value they can make from the crime associated, they will perform the sin. The first may allow you to bribe a man but not kill him. The sin value of man slaughter is more than slaughter of just the soul. The second way may tempt you to sell drugs instead of selling liquor to children.This is because the crime or money involved is more in first. But you cannot separate the sin and the crime. You always weigh them and decide, how much your conscience (or lack there of) can take.

I wonder if we have all unclear and movable lines, do we actually have a line as well? We ignore the rules based on various unrelated parameters. In that case, is there any rule that we will stick to no matter how much is the profit or loss involved? Would there be a standard when all standards are abolished? Or would we always find a euphemism for doing unethical stuff...like "being professional"? I always believe that having 46 chromosomes or straight thumb doesn't necessarily mean you are human. Would there be some definition of humans based on their character traits and not just physical ones?