China is not India's enemy, and the Government of India under Narendra Modi should stop making China the enemy only to appease the United States. Both China and India have emerged from two great ancient civilizations with ancient ties. Both China and India have struggled through the present and the previous century to pull billions of people out of poverty, to seek a better life for their combined 2.7 billion people, and to recast the world order that emerged after World War II into a more just and equitable world order. The United States might feel threatened by China's rise, but why should India? Why should India begrudge the hard work and efforts of 1.4 billion Chinese seeking a better life when that is exactly what 1.3 billion Indians are also striving for. Why should India with its anti-colonial and non-aligned past team up with the United States to "contain" China so that US global imperial hegemony is not challenged? India should welcome the possibility of an Asian century and a multi-polar world.
It is not in India's national interest to make an enemy out of China. We are neighbors. India's path to development and economic growth needs a peaceful and friendly neighborhood and friendly economic ties with China. India and China must work toward attaining a relationship like that shared between Canada and the United States. The entire country of Canada separates the United States from the State of Alaska, yet the mutual trust and friendship between Canada and the United States ensures that the United States does not worry that Canada might annex Alaska.
India was in violation of international law in the Doklam Standoff, which has just ended with the withdrawal of Indian troops. The Indian Army had entered Chinese/Bhutanese territory without the invitation of either. Bhutan did not endorse the Indian intervention nor said that it was on their invitation. The Bhutan Foreign Office in its Press Release had admitted that Doklam is disputed territory, China claims it as Chinese. Where was the need for India to get involved? The Chinese Army already controls the territory. Bhutan has not claimed a Chinese invasion. The dispute about the extension of the Chinese road further from Doka La Pass is at best a bilateral dispute between China and Bhutan, which according to treaties between the two countries, is to be resolved peacefully.
What if China were to enter Pakistan occupied Kashmir? What if tomorrow Pakistan were to invite the Chinese or the US Army into Indian Kashmir because Pakistan claims it as disputed territory? Would India like that? India keeps insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute with Pakistan and that the US and China should keep out. So, shouldn't India have applied the same principle to Doklam? Chinese troops have never entered Kashmir, China has respected the bilateral nature of the Kashmir dispute. But after Doklam, they might not want to.
China has not violated international law or Indian sovereignty by "building up" or supporting Pakistan, so this is irrelevant to the Doklam issue. The US has built up Pakistan even more, so why doesn't India lash out toward its "ally" the US? Will this justify India invading US territory? Should India unilaterally intervene in the United States' disputes with third countries because the US has supported Pakistan? So why apply this principle to China?
India is pushing China in Doklam and elsewhere to help the US contain China. But the Chinese will never back down under this Indian Army posturing. And Bhutan, that values happiness, does not want to end up as a war zone.
India is not threatened by China or any expansionism by China, India is being puppeteered by the United States to contain China to further US interests. India is the aggressor here, egged on by the US. India needs to partner with China for economic growth, and not play US war games. There has been no Chinese aggression against India for several decades. Even in Kashmir, China has not entered Indian territory.
India had entered territory that is admittedly disputed between China & Bhutan. So, the aggressor here even according to international law was India. It is good that better sense has finally prevailed upon the Indian Government and they have withdrawn the Indian troops from possible Chinese territory.
The right to privacy is an inherent, natural, universal, and inviolable human right also recognized as such by international law. It is inherent in the very concept of a human right to life and liberty. It is a natural right inherent in the very fact of being human. Natural human rights are not bestowed by the State. They exist because of the intrinsic nature of the human spirit, of human person-hood, of human endeavor, and the human experience. Without these natural human rights, human beings would not be able to live as human beings live. The right to privacy is also part of the fundamental human right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Human beings are independent and self-autonomous. They are autonomous physical and conscious beings. Being human means having the ability and the right to live your life according to the individuals’ choices, desires, needs and wants. A human person has the right to choose the kind of life he wants. Being human means being free to live your life with liberty, dignity, and privacy. The right to free speech and the right to freedom of conscience and thought guaranteed as fundamental human rights under the Indian Constitution also point to the inviolability of an individual’s right to choose.
Now of course, the State can restrict all rights of man but in democratic, liberal societies which are based upon respect for fundamental human rights, the State can encroach upon fundamental rights only to serve legitimate purposes and objectives of public interest and constitutional governance and additionally the State must do so in the least restrictive and most reasonable way possible. This principle narrowly limiting the power of the State to restrict the fundamental human rights of Indian citizens runs through all of Part III of the Indian Constitution containing the chapter on fundamental rights.
Human persons have the right to live their own lives without intrusion or interference or restriction by the State unless such restrictions are imposed by reasonable laws and are necessary for legitimate public interest and governance objectives. Human persons have the right to personal space and to personal lives. Humans are not born to serve a preordained existence, like bees for instance. The essence of being human and of living the human existence is to be free. To be free to be different. To be free to be self-contained. To be free to pursue your own self-determined destiny. The very evolution of the human civilization is based upon human persons daring to be free, daring to dream of and then daring to achieve what was thought impossible, upon human persons breaking barriers, climbing obstacles, doing what no man has ever done before and going where no man has ever gone before. To live the human experience, human persons have always asserted their natural human right to their own spaces, whether it be personal, social, family, work-related, recreational, spiritual, mental or in any other aspect or endeavor of human life. This is the human right to privacy. The right to be let alone. The right against unwelcome forceful intrusion. Without this right, human persons can neither exercise their right to liberty nor their right to human dignity nor can they live out their self-determined destiny.
Humans in modern, civilized and right based societies also normatively expect that the State will protect them from malicious and harmful interference, obstruction and intrusion into their lives by other individuals. Thus, modern States make laws to protect a person’s body, property, home, reputation, right to work, etc. Similarly, the State must also enact laws to protect a person’s human right to privacy.
Obviously, there are spaces where the right to privacy can be enforced and where it cannot. A person can expect privacy in his home, his office, his private communications, in record-keeping by the State, etc. But a person cannot undress on a highway and then claim that passersby violated his privacy by seeing him naked.
Just like the right to life, the right to privacy has no limit. The State cannot dictate to a man how a man should live his life, if the man breaks no law. The State also has no right to tell a man how private or public he should be in his actions. The State can only intrude on a person’s privacy under very strict conditions, i.e, for legitimate, constitutional objectives necessary for public interest and constitutional governance, and then too only through laws made by Parliament which are fair, reasonable and least restrictive.
The right to privacy is a stand-alone natural human right right. It is also a part of the human right to life and the human right to liberty. And it is a part of all other fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Indian citizens have the right to privacy in the practice of religion. They have the right to privacy in what they read, write, think, say, or do until they decide to make it public. The State cannot intrude unless the strict conditions that justify State intrusion exist.
The Supreme Court of India in the expected nine-Judge Constitution Bench ruling on the right to privacy will need to spell out in the abstract the strict conditions which would justify State invasion into the right to privacy of Indian citizens. These conditions should be at least as stringent as those prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, if not more stringent. However, the contours of the right to privacy and its detailed multiple meanings can only be fleshed out on a case-by-case basis where the facts of each case will determine the nature of the right and whether the State has unconstitutionally and unlawfully restricted the right in the facts of that case.
India is violating international law in the Doklam Standoff. The Indian Army has entered Chinese/Bhutanese territory without the invitation of either. Bhutan has not endorsed the Indian intervention nor said that it was on their invitation. The Bhutan Foreign Office in its Press Release has admitted that Doklam is disputed territory, China claims it as Chinese. Where is India involved? The Chinese Army already controls the territory. Bhutan has not claimed a Chinese invasion. The dispute about the extension of the Chinese road further from Doka La Pass is at best a bilateral dispute between China and Bhutan, which according to treaties between the two countries, is to be resolved peacefully.
What if China were to enter Pakistan occupied Kashmir? What if tomorrow Pakistan were to invite China or the US Army into Indian Kashmir because Pakistan claims it as disputed territory? Would India like that? India keeps insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute with Pakistan and that the US and China should keep out. So, shouldn't India apply the same principle to Doklam? Chinese troops have never entered Kashmir, China has respected the bilateral nature of the Kashmir dispute. But after Doklam, they might not want to.
China has not violated international law or Indian sovereignty by "building up" or supporting Pakistan, so this is irrelevant to the Doklam issue. The US has built up Pakistan even more, so why doesn't India lash out toward its "ally" the US? Will this justify India invading US territory? Should India unilaterally intervene in US disputes with third countries because the US has supported Pakistan? So why apply this principle to China?
India is pushing China in Doklam to help the US contain China. But the Chinese will never back down under this Indian Army posturing. And Bhutan, that values happiness, does not want to end up as a war zone.
India is not threatened by China or any expansionism by China, India is being puppeteered by the US to contain China to further US interests. India is the aggressor here, egged on by the US. India needs to partner with China for economic growth, and not play US war games. There has been no Chinese aggression against India for several decades. Even in Kashmir, China has not entered Indian territory.
India has entered territory that is admittedly disputed between China & Bhutan. So, the aggressor here even according to international law is India.
Dead, in the long run,
turn that
dirge
into stand-up comedy.
Try out some slap-stick.
fall, stand, fall, stand, fall ...
The job lost,
the money gone,
the heart hurt,
the love rejected,
the ambition dead,
the friend betrayed,
the opportunity missed,
the trust abused.
Exploit that
divorce!
Treasure
the endless inspiration.
Balance on one leg,
teeter,
then fall off the trapeze.
Enjoy,
as you fall,
there is no after-party.
Embarrass yourself,
provide comic relief.
Your audience
will love you
for the schadenfreude,
when the joke falls flat.
Drop those skeletons.
expose.
Then stand,
take a bow
and laugh center-stage.
© Seema Sapra 2009
I wanted
To kiss
A lion on the mouth
But the lion
Decided
To travel down south.
So I packed
My bags
And got on the train
For the lion
Was by then
Sitting in a plane.
I arrived
At night
In Chennai city
Where the lights
In the rain
Looked very pretty.
I followed
His tracks
And knocked on a door
But the lion
Was tired,
Sleeping on the floor.
When I woke
The lion
I showed him my pout,
But the lion
Ate me up
Was hungry no doubt.
© Seema Sapra 2009
This poem was inspired by a youtube video see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wso13n4kHZ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ephp&feature=player_embedded
I look inside these days,
hunker down,
calm the waters ,
embrace the fear,
and carve the space.
Will wander again,
but for now,
small worlds are enough.
© Seema Sapra 2009
