Another person off to the US; and we are poorer by one more educated, technically qualified person; not to forget her daugther, son and grandchild who she will soon coax to leave, too.
And those of us who stay behind, we smile and say, "well, all the best to you. may God bless you"...and then we go back to the huge task of attempting to bring change to a billion people. But for a little while, the smile is forced, the morale low and the task seems just that teeny-weeny bit huger than before, if that is at all possible.
And nowadays I have a new problem that troubles me. As the steady stream of those who leave wells all around me, consisting of my cousins, my friends, my church crowd; I wonder sometimes if we have made the right choice for our kids. Will they blame us later? Will they reproach us for not having ensured a "cushy" future for them in some Western city? Will they understand the motives that make us stay, that made us tell S's sister not to bother to apply for immigration for us. What price idealism? How do we make up to our kids for years of living in surroundings so inferior to that their friends enjoy in the West?
And yet, all that we believe will be negated if we leave "for the children's sake". We say God is able to take care of us, and our children, right here. We say He put us in India to bring His blessing here. We say its crazy to expect people from other countries to come and bring change here. We say that the primary responsibility of bringing good news to this society rests on us, the people of this land. We say that we should not run after money, or even run after our own dreams, but be willing to give them up for the sake of bringing transformation to this terribly needy society. We say that living like Christ here is a privilege and responsibility.
We say all this; but it is tough to hang on to it when all around are those to whom these things make no sense. Some of them are Christians, some are own dear friends, some our colleagues and friends. They say it doesn't matter where we live and serve, as long as we are serving. They are right in a way, and wrong in a way...and I am too tired to figure out more.
September 28, 2006
September 12, 2006
9/11
P.Sainath had a wonderful article in The Hindu that talked about the three 9/11s of the last hundred years. The one of 2001, the one in 1973 and the one in 1906.
Three September 11s. The first, the best. That was the day Gandhiji launched satyagraha in South Africa, a means of peaceful non-co-operation that is, IMO, the greatest achievement of the twntieth century. It allowed powerless humans to bend the backs of the mighty, purely on the strength of their spirit and unity. No war, no fighting, no weapons, no bombs. A revolution for mankind, indeed. I admire gandhiji for his guts and amazing leadership. To carry off such a thing, in SA and then in india!! The mind boggles.
Then two regressive Sept Nines. In 1973, the day Gen Pinochet came to power, sweeping aside the elected communist govt, backed by the US. Bloodshed, and opression, and a shameless interference form a superpower set to get its own way. Thousands were killed in that bloodiest coup. He was supported and helped for years by the West.
Then the day that the WTC came down. Crazy, angered men willing to risk - no- sacrifice their lives to make the point to the world that they were angry. A crazier response - enough said. What madness to react to force with force; and where will it end?
Give me the first 9/ 11 anyday.
Three September 11s. The first, the best. That was the day Gandhiji launched satyagraha in South Africa, a means of peaceful non-co-operation that is, IMO, the greatest achievement of the twntieth century. It allowed powerless humans to bend the backs of the mighty, purely on the strength of their spirit and unity. No war, no fighting, no weapons, no bombs. A revolution for mankind, indeed. I admire gandhiji for his guts and amazing leadership. To carry off such a thing, in SA and then in india!! The mind boggles.
Then two regressive Sept Nines. In 1973, the day Gen Pinochet came to power, sweeping aside the elected communist govt, backed by the US. Bloodshed, and opression, and a shameless interference form a superpower set to get its own way. Thousands were killed in that bloodiest coup. He was supported and helped for years by the West.
Then the day that the WTC came down. Crazy, angered men willing to risk - no- sacrifice their lives to make the point to the world that they were angry. A crazier response - enough said. What madness to react to force with force; and where will it end?
Give me the first 9/ 11 anyday.
September 08, 2006
Pushing to the front.
When I stop at a traffic signal, it is always amusing to note that the next car that reaches, at least in Delhi, will always ty to maneuvre (spelling?!) such that its nose is just ahead of mine. Very few will neatly stop behind the car ahead! They will move around, blocking the other lanes, if neccesary, who cares, in order to be in position to be first off the blocks.
This selfish and frankly, idiotic mind-set creates havoc with our traffic. There will be four lanes of cars trying to turn right, perhaps, all one or two cars long. In the process, they block the left lane, for those who want to turn left, who cares? If they could just park behind each other, leaving the middle and left lanes clear for others, how much easier life would be, for all.
How does one bring about these changes in our people?
This selfish and frankly, idiotic mind-set creates havoc with our traffic. There will be four lanes of cars trying to turn right, perhaps, all one or two cars long. In the process, they block the left lane, for those who want to turn left, who cares? If they could just park behind each other, leaving the middle and left lanes clear for others, how much easier life would be, for all.
How does one bring about these changes in our people?
Avoid even the appearance of evil
Discussed this with some friends some time ago. The issue was if parents object to mixed gatherings of students for Bible Study (without any elders/ chaperones), on grounds of it leading to undesired intinacy between boys and girls, then we should respect their feelings and avoid such gatherings, or ensure that there are some older people/ couples around. The guiding factor being : "avoid even the appearance of evil". We may know very well that we are quite innocent and parents are getting hysterical over nothing, but if they think it not right, then we should not do it. Avoid...etc.
Well, i had my own experience of this today.
For the second time, the police caught me for what they thought was "speaking on the phone while driving". The first time, the cop pulled me over to the side and demanded that I show him my mobile. Bewildered, i insisited I had not been on the phone, whereupon, obviously not believing me, he turned and moaned to his fellow police-wala about "kaisa jamana hai, ladies bhi jhoot bolti hain". When i showed him my mobile, tucked away inside an inner pocket of my purse, he actually thought I had another which i had thrown onto the back seat when he pulled me over! He let me go, grumbling, only when i opened the back door and invited him to find it.
Today was even more colourful. It ws a nice empty road near RKPuram, and i was coasting along, for once not late or tempted to speed. Imagine my surprise when the police van i had passed a little while back, on the almost empty road, suddenly turned on its siren and chased me! I could not figure out which rule i was supposed to have broken; till the police officer warned me through the mike, and waggling an admonitionary finger , "gadi chalte vakt phone karna mana hai". They ignored my protests.
i realised later that on an empty road, i sometimes take my right hand off the steering wheel, and touch my ear, playing with my hair or my ear-ring. It was this stupid habit which got me noticed by the police, not once, but twice! The greater irony was that not 5 minutes earlier, seeing my home number on the cell, i had pulled over to the side, to take the call from my daughter.
I was quite innocent, but to avoid the appearance of evil, i had better take care in the future that I don't put my hand upto my ear! All the more since my car sports a Christian sticker, and my apparent breaking of the rules would reflect on Christians, and ultimately, on Christ Himself.
Well, i had my own experience of this today.
For the second time, the police caught me for what they thought was "speaking on the phone while driving". The first time, the cop pulled me over to the side and demanded that I show him my mobile. Bewildered, i insisited I had not been on the phone, whereupon, obviously not believing me, he turned and moaned to his fellow police-wala about "kaisa jamana hai, ladies bhi jhoot bolti hain". When i showed him my mobile, tucked away inside an inner pocket of my purse, he actually thought I had another which i had thrown onto the back seat when he pulled me over! He let me go, grumbling, only when i opened the back door and invited him to find it.
Today was even more colourful. It ws a nice empty road near RKPuram, and i was coasting along, for once not late or tempted to speed. Imagine my surprise when the police van i had passed a little while back, on the almost empty road, suddenly turned on its siren and chased me! I could not figure out which rule i was supposed to have broken; till the police officer warned me through the mike, and waggling an admonitionary finger , "gadi chalte vakt phone karna mana hai". They ignored my protests.
i realised later that on an empty road, i sometimes take my right hand off the steering wheel, and touch my ear, playing with my hair or my ear-ring. It was this stupid habit which got me noticed by the police, not once, but twice! The greater irony was that not 5 minutes earlier, seeing my home number on the cell, i had pulled over to the side, to take the call from my daughter.
I was quite innocent, but to avoid the appearance of evil, i had better take care in the future that I don't put my hand upto my ear! All the more since my car sports a Christian sticker, and my apparent breaking of the rules would reflect on Christians, and ultimately, on Christ Himself.
September 05, 2006
Gen patabhiraman "We can do without women in the army"
This issue- of comfort levels with women officers being low, and the gen commenting that the indian army can do without women at lower unit level - is of a while ago, but it came back into our dsicussions, and made me think. Three comments:
Firstly, Sushma Swaraj - and my own - reaction to the general's comments are not based on doubting that comfort levels with women officers is low. It is based on his own decision that the solution is to "do without women"; rather than thinking what can be done to increase comfort levels.
Secondly, in Sunday Sentiments, Karan thapar analysed this. He felt that the reason why jawans are not comfortable with women is that they do not "feel secure with a woman in command", presumably because Thapar thinks they would not "handle a rifle, face the enemy and fire fearlessly to kill". He obviously thinks men soldiers would do all these things, though men who have been in combat often say that they were scared stiff, just wanted to get it over with, and just blanked out on all blood and gore. Even if men are somewhat more likely to be superficially more "fearless" about it, they are as human as women, and as likely to be dead scared within, and NOT want to fight, or die.
Which brings me to the reasons why perhaps having women in the Army is neccessary. If women have been conditioned or are by nature less likely to fight, having them in the fighting units will bring a check on the Army!! Perhaps we would fight less unneccesary wars, and be far more peaceble if there were women as well as men in the army. I'm all for having less or no war.
If however, this "gentle, not-wanting-to-fight" woman is a myth, then again, its only fair that women should be in the army, too. Why should only men risk their lives?
Thats begging the question of whether women are truly afraid, not wanting to fight, gentle and all the rest. I don't know the answer to that one. I don't really think, (ruefully!) that women are as gentle as all that. We can be vicious, mean and destructive. There seems to be no way to objectively assess this, or compare the genders. Nor does expereince help. I am an averagely assertive, and averagely sensitive woman, and no, I would not really like to kill anyone. But which averagely assertive or sensitive man would? We had military training in the Army (yes, i was a medical officer) and the bayonet charge, ripping a straw dummy to shreds did made me feel queasy. The guys ripped the dummy to shred with gusto, but it was all a game, and I'm pretty sure none of my male friends would really like to kill someone. Given an issue of justice, or life or death for a really correct cause, I believe I would fire the rifle if I was in the army still, - and so would my male friends. But I would have to be convinced about the cause. No pre-emptive strikes allowed, please! _,_._,___
Firstly, Sushma Swaraj - and my own - reaction to the general's comments are not based on doubting that comfort levels with women officers is low. It is based on his own decision that the solution is to "do without women"; rather than thinking what can be done to increase comfort levels.
Secondly, in Sunday Sentiments, Karan thapar analysed this. He felt that the reason why jawans are not comfortable with women is that they do not "feel secure with a woman in command", presumably because Thapar thinks they would not "handle a rifle, face the enemy and fire fearlessly to kill". He obviously thinks men soldiers would do all these things, though men who have been in combat often say that they were scared stiff, just wanted to get it over with, and just blanked out on all blood and gore. Even if men are somewhat more likely to be superficially more "fearless" about it, they are as human as women, and as likely to be dead scared within, and NOT want to fight, or die.
Which brings me to the reasons why perhaps having women in the Army is neccessary. If women have been conditioned or are by nature less likely to fight, having them in the fighting units will bring a check on the Army!! Perhaps we would fight less unneccesary wars, and be far more peaceble if there were women as well as men in the army. I'm all for having less or no war.
If however, this "gentle, not-wanting-to-fight" woman is a myth, then again, its only fair that women should be in the army, too. Why should only men risk their lives?
Thats begging the question of whether women are truly afraid, not wanting to fight, gentle and all the rest. I don't know the answer to that one. I don't really think, (ruefully!) that women are as gentle as all that. We can be vicious, mean and destructive. There seems to be no way to objectively assess this, or compare the genders. Nor does expereince help. I am an averagely assertive, and averagely sensitive woman, and no, I would not really like to kill anyone. But which averagely assertive or sensitive man would? We had military training in the Army (yes, i was a medical officer) and the bayonet charge, ripping a straw dummy to shreds did made me feel queasy. The guys ripped the dummy to shred with gusto, but it was all a game, and I'm pretty sure none of my male friends would really like to kill someone. Given an issue of justice, or life or death for a really correct cause, I believe I would fire the rifle if I was in the army still, - and so would my male friends. But I would have to be convinced about the cause. No pre-emptive strikes allowed, please! _,_._,___
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)