Silence

On Tuesday, 18th July 2006, a week after the Mumbai blasts, the whole nation or atleast some parts of it, observed a minute of silence in the evening to "show solidarity" with the victims. The fact that we are in general a very emotional population, this event helped the media to not only increase its TRP but also to exaggerate the import of the gesture. It was a gesture aimed to tell the victims that, "All of us are with you in this moment of tragedy". That's it. But to say that it was a gesture that gave a "strong message to the terrorist" is simply ridiculous and this was what our media did.

Each time a bomb blast takes place injuring innocent men, women and children, apart from the politcal rhetoric about winning the war on terror, these sentimental-solidarity-expressing gestures have become a commonplace in India although neither the government takes any concrete action against the terrorists and their networks nor do we demand that from the government. I believe the only way we can offer some consolation to the victims of terror is by hunting the terrorists down, putting a freeze on their activities and accounts and convicting them for all the heinous crimes they have so far committed.

The power of silence can neither stun nor scare the terrorist. A mere expression of solidarity cannot defeat terror. The sooner the media, the government and we the people realize it, the better it is for the nation.

Insanity unlimited

As a solution to the ongoing "temple scandals" where a number of women (at last count three) entered various temples (at last count the number of such temples was two) they were not supposed to enter according to some medieval rules of the respective temples, the liberals with all their intellect suggested the same old solution of making entry to all temples open to both men and women. But this hasn't quite been implemented. Hence, logically, we can safely assume that this solution doesn't work. So why not try something different?

That different solution entails having entry to temples exclusively to either men or women and in some cases to both. This isn't discriminatory because neither men nor women are allowed access to all the temples. This also promotes the concept of unity of God because more than the temple's deity, the gender of the devotee will be more important. Hence more than being a Shiva temple or Ganesha temple, the temple would be a men's one or women's one.

Further extending this concept to children, we can have children's temple where only children are allowed. Also we can have temples based on age groups. For example, an under-19 temple will allow only people under the age of 19. This will allow temple authorities to market their temples better by providing the facilities that their temple's devotees (or shall I say visitors) would desire. An under-19 temple would not normally need a meditation hall. It can instead have a big internet parlour.

Well, I think I should end this post here. Otherwise I would be allowed only inside an asylum.