Right to Protest

 Democracy has some inbuilt assumptions.

One of them is a right to peaceful protest. The prime example of non-violent protest would be Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

It really does not matter how serious the ruling party thinks the issue being raised is. If a number of people think it needs to be raised, it is serious for them. The rest of the citizens can decide for themselves and either support, oppose or be neutral to them.

But if you take away that right, it can have serious consequences, as history has often shown.

It is in the interest of the government in a democracy to heed such protests, and do something about them before they go out of hand. It's just a part of the democratic structure.

One Mistake, and....

 ..everyone else pays the price. How often do you see this happen? Typically, it happens in bureaucracy, but in corporates and other organisations also, and more frequently than we think. The origins of most restrictive rules lie in this mentality. To punish a vast majority that may be innocent, for the fault of a small minority.

With the bureaucracy which is a faceless entity, it is easier to understand why it happens. Because they can, and it takes a lot of effort to only target wrong-doers. But in other types of organisations, why does it happen so often? Could be the lack of will to confront the wrong-doer. Also to give an illusion of control, maybe.

But the effect it has on the law-abiding right-doers (for lack of a better word) is that it kills their enthusiasm for good. Look around you, and you will find several examples around.

Leaders, in particular, need to be wary and avoid this trap. If you wish to keep the good guys motivated.

Write, Left and Centre

I am no Leftist..Nor a Rightist. I am a Writist! Yeah, just coined the word.

I write, and I have not left it for a long time, nor do I plan to.

What's right, and what's not, is tough to say. It depends on whether you approach it from the Left or the Right..

But write about it, and you find that the Centre could be the way to go. Not because the Buddha advocated it, after being enlightened. But because it seems like the right thing.

So, right away, take up writing..and see yourself leaning in, from both the Left and the Right.

There are always two (or more) sides to a story. And more than one may be right. Right?

There is no Single Right Way

All our life, we are attempting to do things right. But what is right? Who decides? You should decide what's right for you (within bounds of decency, of course). For example, what to wear. Formal clothes are such a pain, for example, particularly when we ape Western wear in Eastern Tropical climates. Why can't we develop our own norms for what is formal, if we need to-or have multiple possible attires, including some traditional options?

It goes on in all walks of life, not just what you wear. Many people have achieved happiness or success doing things which did not feel right to someone or the other. Some were crucified for it historically too. Being judgemental about other people comes a bit too easily to most of us...a lot of us may have been judges in a past life!

Sometimes advice is sane, but mostly, it is a case of one size does not fit all. Career choices are also somewhat similar. I became an engineer (I mean I got a degree in engineering), but I turned out to be a non-engineer-whatever that is. So exploration may be a good idea, as far as your own choices go, so long as you can afford to be independent economically. If you can't, well, follow the advice of all the well-meaning folks and do what's RIGHT.

Right to Recall

Anna Hazare had brought up this idea of a voter recalling an MLA or MP for non-performance. I think the concept is universally useful, not just in voting and politics. It is in fact, transcendental, because if God has this right and decides to use it, life could be so much smoother for the khuda ke bandey who remain on earth!

Remember, it is already practiced widely. Toyota has joined the list of car companies - used to be the Americans earlier- that recalls vehicles for some defect or the other, size of defect could be nano or mega. Publishers can withdraw books because a certain segment of humanity feels offended by it-even the non-reading kind, at times. It is easy to be offended, these days.

So, to get to the point, why not expand the scope of this RIGHT? We can have parents who are disgruntled recalling their children. Not from the playing ground to their homes, but permanently. They can then attempt to correct their mistake by having new children. Imagine how tough it gets for God, with 7 billion of us, to monitor quality?

I should have the right to recall any offensive words I have spoken to people and hurt them- I am talking of genuine hurt here, not the waiting-to-be-offended kind referred to earlier. This might make India and Pakistan friends, and Malik could become a messiah of peace and intelligence.

There should also be a right to recall bullets fired from a gun, which would make the National Rifle Association toothless, and save the lives of six-year-olds who have to die every time a lunatic (why was he not recalled?) goes trigger-happy. In this case, the victim should have the right to recall the bullets.

The possibilities are endless...