India and Italy- A Clash of Civilizations?

I am here trying to see the issue between India and Italy over the death of two fishermen in the Arabian Coast.

Both countries have a lot to share, culturally and politically. Both countries are the cradles of two great civilizations, ancient Roman civilization and The Sanatana Dharama of India. The Roman culture and religion has been forgotten a long while ago in Italy whereas the greater truths of Sanatana Dharma still exist in India.

Italian nationalist struggle and leader like Giuseppe Garibaldi greatly influenced Indian struggle for independence, especially a leader like Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. Along with that, the present president of Indian National Congress is an Italian by birth.

Though the two countries have a lot to share, some recent developments resulted in a rupture in the mutual love and respect. The clash originated after two fishermen got killed by the Italians in Indian Ocean in February 2012. I will here discuss the arguments of Italians and try to answer from my point of view.

India has Unlawfully Detained Two Italian Sailors- Italy

India didn't detain anyone illegally, but very legally only. If the Govt of Italy just ask those two mariners, how they were being treated here, they will get answers. They were spending their time in a govt guest houses, near the Italian embassy, unlike other prisoners. We won't give any Indian prisoners special privileges during X'mas, but we gave that to the Italians. Even then you guys are criticizing Indian court proceedings. India is not Mussolini's Italy, and the place of cruel Sicilian mafia guys. Here, "separation of powers" still exists, means, the legislator or the executive will not interfere in the proceedings of the court! The Italian citizens should feel shame the way they behaved in India, without any honour. Their representative in India gave the word that the mariners will return to India, but once they reached Italy, you forget your word.

The Murder Happened In International Waters

There is, of course, a dispute between whether the act mentioned is in the international jurisdiction or in the Indian coastal side. And I accept my ignorance in the issue. But the present issue has nothing to do with this dispute. The issue is that the Supreme Court of India has been hearing the case on the present issue and the Italians were under custody. First, they requested that they need to visit their homeland for celebrating X'mas. Somehow, the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed to let them go, which is unprecedented in the judicial history of India. They came back and had been under custody again. In the last time, they again requested the Court that they need to go back to the country for casting the vote. As India respects democratic principles a lot, the Court has agreed on this too. The Court got a ‘Word’ from the Italian Ambassador that they will come back to the country for the future proceedings and the Court asked the govt to set up a special court for the smooth proceedings. In between, the Italian govt declared that they will send the mariners back. So, it is a question of word, the honour of word, for the first case. The Wikipedia quotes on the issue, "India cited extra-territorial provisions of its own law[40] stating that irrespective of the location of the ship (whether in international or territorial waters), a crime had been committed against Indian citizens on an Indian ship and hence India had the jurisdiction to prosecute and try the case. Furthermore, India has pointed to the absence of any international treaty regarding immunity from prosecution for Vessel Protection Detachments (VPD) on board privately owned commercial ships. India has also highlighted that there exists limitations to functional sovereign immunity such as when commercial activity is involved and drew attention to the fact that the Italian Navy marines were working on a contract basis for the protection of the private interests of the ship owner and therefore could in no way be treated as a discharge of sovereign functions.[41] India has signed but not ratified the yet unimplemented United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004.[42][43][44]". See this argument also, "Enrica Lexie was under its flag. Hence, in accordance with the U.N. Convention of Law of Seas (UNCLOS), Italy should try the two marines. India’s position is that St. Anthony, the fishing vessel aboard which the two fishermen were killed, was an Indian vessel; and under Indian law and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention), India has jurisdiction. India and Italy are signatories to both these conventions. But while Italy needs to show exclusive jurisdiction, India only needs to show that it also has jurisdiction."

The Word

The Italian govt and their representatives are not discussing anything about the word given by the Italian ambassador. Do they think it is diplomatically or in any other way correct for him to give a false promise, and what is the impact of that? Do we Indians then consider Italians as worthy of any good qualities? As for the case, I think Italians got the best advocate and counsel in India. Harish Salve is not just a normal person to take up this issue. Now, he says, Italians insulted him. And should we think that an eminent advocate like him propagating lies. They cheated India as well as their own counsel here. It is not because of his personal merit, the court has granted his request, but because he is a representative of a Nation. By discarding the very word, Italy insulted India, for that they need to answer.

No evidence to prove that it is the Italians who killed the fishermen

They argue that there were other ships at the same time there, and the Kerala Police, without any investigation, simply went and arrested the Italians through cheating. This is one of the best jokes I have ever heard. The thing is that, the Italians don't respect India and its judicial system, a typical arrogance of the White Man. You guys still think you are the masters of the world. What about the investigations of the most celebrated Scotland Yard? I remember reading about their investigation on Bob Wolmer’s murder. The Kerala Police is much better for sure. First of all, we don't have to frame anything against anyone, but even your mariners won't say they did not fire at Indian fishermen. If we have to frame a case against Italy, there should be a reason, any enmity against them. The Italians don't know the value of human lives and thinks that you can do any atrocities against anyone. In the mean time, I have read some superb stories of the judicial system in Italy, into which they are trying those mariners. Now, I know whether we get justice!!

The whole prosecution's case will be thrown out from ANY western court as there are no strong evidences against them

It is correct, but not any court who considers the case in an independent manner. The two facts that the Italians gloriously put before are nothing but fabricated by them to hide their heinous acts. First, you argued that there is no evidence to prove that the mariners of the Italians are the ones who fired. The two affidavit submitted by the mariners in the Kerala High Court admitted that a military action was done. So, I would say the arguments mentioned are childish including the distorting of evidence. The police conducted post-mortem in the proper way. Then, they are criticizing the incineration of the bodies of the fishermen; which is part of the religious belief of the Hindus, that after death, we will incinerate the bodies. In this case, the act was done only after the proper procedures. The thing is that they won't respect Indian laws and our traditions, which will have serious repercussions, if not now, later.

Let us wait and see what will happen to the issue amidst Indian Prime Minister's warning.

Reference:

Wikipedia-

Rahul: The King in Waiting

There are agreements and disagreements among political commentators on considering Gandhi’s role in India’s political struggle against the British. Some passionately argues that the contribution of Gandhi is unequivocal, his is the most. Whereas some others even criticize calling him ‘Father of the Nation’. In my opinion, Gandhi did some really great work for the nation, but the only thing he did wrong to the nation is selecting Nehru as the leader of the nation. It is because of his sole support, Nehru turned out to be an unquestionable leader in the modern India. The problem of Gandhi is not in supporting Nehru, but his lack of farsightedness, he failed to see that instead of democracy, we would get Nehru Dynasty in India. See the decision of CWC( Congress Working Committee) to select Rahul Gandhi as the next leader of Congress and therefore, the nation.

The leaders representing the nation should not have any other interest other than national interest. If we check this decision based on this criteria, what argument do they have in support of Rahul. How he can lead the country in the most difficult days? Does he prove himself in any way in the past? Does he have any leadership quality? Is he an able orator, or an efficient administrator? We can’t give any positive answers to these questions without a shadow of doubt. The problem is that Indian National Congress is not a democratic party. If the party is democratic, the leaders will have some kind of national interests instead of vested interest. If that was the case, even the name of Rahul won’t be there in the Congress.
We need a change. The real challenge that lies in front of India is not Pakistan, not terrorism, not economic issues, but making India a democratic secular nation.

The West Wind- Will it Destroy India?

The entire media and people are now frenzied to support Narendra Modi, the new icon in India, the new middle class driven India who favors industrialization, technical development coupled with a strong fundamentalist Hinduistic notions. Why I am against Modi? It is because several reasons. Or rather I am not against Modi because I don't know Modi personally. But I am afraid of this media which celebrate this man. I don't think that the media, literary figures and such so called independent people will check everything objectively and come out with their findings. Someone who has gone through the nature of Indian media would easily find out the media people will stand with those who are successful and celebrate them. The same is the case with Modi. Or in other way, he is successful in wooing the media with the support of effective media managers. But media is a double edged weapon I would say. They don't have any specific commitment other than for money. If you think the media spend their pages with praises for Modi do those things because of their love for Modi, or for India's development( as he is celebrated as an icon of development) or for their commitment to the Hindutva. Not at all. It is simple, they can sell him than Rahul Gandhi; means the market value of Modi is higher than Rahul. The moment they see the market value decreasing, they will start throwing stones instead of roses.

Then, you may ask this market value of Modi itself shows Modi has more supporters in the grass root level and more Indians wanted to see him as the next PM. As I said earlier, I don't have any specific reasons to feel hatred towards Modi, it is his supporters I detest the most because I could see those who support Modi are against secularism, about the basic concepts of equality and justice. These are the things I dread most. When they speak of Muslims, or of Christians, you can see their tongue changing venomous. If anybody thinks India is the sole property of Hindus and all others have to live here under the mercy of Hindus, it is dangerous than being wrong. This claim is both historically and logically wrong. So, the victory of Modi will in a way toll the death bell of the democratic system in India.

If I come back to the praises that Modi gets from the media, I am less afraid. It is a double edged weapon as I said earlier. Once Modi receives a trivial set back or his media managers fail to satisfy them, they will fight back more fiercely than ever. Even then, I would say I am a little bit upset about the language that I could see in the newspapers. It is sillier than the old panegyrics used by old poets to praise the kings and queens. It is just “Deepasthambham Mahascharyam, Namukkum Kittanam Panam”, as told by Kunchan Nambiar. Even then, when we associate the Fourth Estate with higher claims of objectivity and read newspapers columnists refer Modi as the West Wind which will change India to a better future, I feel nervous. I simply could not digest it( read http://www.firstpost.com/politics/theres-a-wild-west-wind-blowing-and-his-name-is-modi-560966.html). Remember, the West and their rule in India was disastrous and terrible in the past. The East has its own dignity.

What is wrong with being apolitical?

The disturbing question every political philosopher or any serious observer of Indian democracy would be ‘where we are really heading at?’ The never-ending controversies, coupled with corruption cases made the people to have a strong disbelief in the democratic process. Even those who have some revival during Hazare movement also lost any small fragment of faith. In this juncture, I would like to ask this question: “What is wrong with being apolitical?”

Every politician and political philosopher would start criticizing the very idea of being apolitical, but can’t they see it is the need of our time. When all the systems that are working in the society befool us, when everything is corrupted, every politician, bureaucrat, media guys are under the shadow of doubt, will we not forced to discard the long-held beliefs and values? If we do not doubt the present system, if we do not question the essentialized notions, how can we think of an alternative?

Even after witnessing these mass homicides in the name of religion, race, caste and creed which are in tune with the results of the battle for power, how can we trust the system. Those who still follow the dictates of the party leaders have to understand one thing, i.e., they are making the country from bad to worse. Any ordinary party worker who claims that “we are right, others are wrong” won’t be aware of the cruelties they are inflicting upon the nation.

I would say only one thing that it is time to completely revamp the basic tenets of Indian constitution and political set up. Hazare might have asked only for a strong Jan Lokpal in which even the Prime Minister should come under. But the real issue is that we have to redefine even the basic principles, rewrite the constitution. There should be a strong governmental system..

The point is that while discussing about revamping the system, I am not an apolitical person, but very much political. I can’t help it. If we want to run our country successfully for some more decades, these changes are necessary, but we can’t give any guarantee how long it will last. The idea that one can rule, or lead another person in life itself is absurd, non-human. Man essentially is free, and he will always crave for freedom. Those systems of governments which failed to understand this can’t last long. The basic goal of governments should be to give complete freedom to humans ultimately
ASVDNC566ZG8

New Trends in Malayalam Novel: Reading "Aadujeevitham"

The novel Aadu Jeevitham by Benyamin foregrounds the life experience of the Malayalees in the Arabian countries through the shared experience of the life of the central character, Najeeb. For us, the image of Gulf countries often correlates with big buildings and luxurious life style. We often hear stories of fortune attained by many people and more and more of us are tempted to get to that ‘heaven’ once in a life time. The novel demystifies these generalised ideas about the Gulf countries and foregrounds the dark sides of mass migration and exploitation. My attempt in this review is not to discuss such sociological aspect of the novel, but just to mention the philosophical side of the experience of the central character. Throughout the work, we can see that the central character experiences the hardship more or less alone. Yet, throughout the story, an unknown power follows the character and helps him to confront the exploitation. A religious reading of it can chalk out the presence of an all powerful God in the life of each and every one of us.

Michael Bakhtin developed the idea of “dialogism” to show the importance of dialogue in a multi-cultural society. He interpreted ‘dialogue’ as an interaction “between mind and world”. The existence of humans is possible only through ‘dialogue’ and the absence of it will lead to death. As far as the structurality of the novel is concerned, it is not about dialogism as it does not focus on “hetroglossia(multiple voices)”. On the other hand, we can hear only one voice, the voice of the author. It goes to the extent that the voice of the author and the voice of the central character merge into one unified whole; a nullity of multiple voices. If we deal with the philosophical dimensions of the existence of the central character, it shows the significance of dialogism through its absence. From the beginning of the life of Majeed in the Gulf itself, he was prevented from any human contact; the only companions were the sheep that he was supposed to look after and his Arbab. As far as the character of Arbab is concerned, he is not talkative, and not at all humane in his relation with Majeed. Besides, language acts as a barrier between them.

Even in this complete absence of ‘dialogue’, Majeed manages to adapt to the changes because in the absence of linguistic dialogue, a psychological dialogue is possible for him. He communicates with the sheep, names them and at one particular situation, has sex with one among them. In his physical absence from his family and relatives, he had an exceptional relation with the sheep, so he names them as his acquaintances. He communicates with the sheep, to himself, to the god. It is this dialogue with his inner self, with the god, or even the non-human entities that made existence possible for Majeed. In the absence of dialogue, no life exists.