A Day of Bundh - idling hours

What does a Bundh do? For one it is definitely a form of protest. But then does it mean that my right to protest should impinge upon other's right of not agreeing to the method of protest? It surely does. The example is here there and everywhere whenever, particularly in this state, a Bundh is called by the Political Party that is in Power or that has "Power". So the various Organised bodies under such situations take unanimous decision of ensuring that the right to disagree is not made manifest. Result? You have a day when most of the commercial establishments keep their units closed lestno unwanted damage takes place. And of course the general people who are not directly involved in the process get engulfed by a situation of decreed non action. The visual manifestationof this situation is that onsuch a "Bundh" day youdo not have many people venturing beyond their"Para" or "Mohalla" perimeters. And when the day is over you have one side calling it a grand success because people have participated "voluntarily" to make the Bundh a success, whereas theotherside saying what purpose did it serve?

Lo behold, theChannels would jump on the bandwagon of making hay by airing programmes where you will see a large participation fromwhat we know as renowned Personalities with benches and rows full of a number of common man faces. The microphone would be graciously held up to the lips of one such common face to voice his or her opinion, andweshall see thegreat show of participation inthe ongoing debate.
Life goes on, and Bundh goes on. The daily wage earners dafinitely have a bad day. Yet it is the daily wage earners who because of their sheer number in our country are the most used section whenever there is a call for the polity to express their opinion on the state of affairs in general. Each and every Politicianis appears so worried that this section is most deprived. What a travesty of values. Is "anybody" bothering? I guess not.

Delhi High Court's Judgement on Article 377

The Delhi High Court in it's Judgment on the sensitive subject of Homosexuality had, as being reported by Media, upheld that a part of the provision in the Article which laid down that having sexual relation between two individuals of same sex even if by mutual consent is illegal, is a violation of certain articles in the constitution that lay down the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India of an Individaual and hence ultra vires.

Immediately the Religio Political Leaders had stepped in with their comments and fervent reaction as the Court by virtue of the judgement had stepped into their turf. Article 377 had termed such acts of homosexuality a punishable offence to the extent of either Life Imprisonment or Imprisonment upto Ten Years with Fine. Surprisingly the precursor of this provision was a provision introduced by Lord Macaulay nearly a hundred and fifty years ago in the Penal Code that carnal attraction and intercourse by and between individuals against the laws of the nature was a severly punishable offence.

Surprisingly it is not just moral policing,but much more than that. It is in effect peeking into or behind the closed doors of an individual's bedroom in the intimate matter of what he does or does not do on sexual preferences.

And what is more annoying and laughably frustrating is the argument given by social moral police that the judgement in effect would promote the demonstration of such preferences and thereby vitiate the family values and age long tenets on which the foundation of family lies.

The myth of such argument is self defeating in the sense that it admits that the preference exists because they fear that the judgement would promote the "Demonstration" and yet denies it's existence like the Ostrich by trying to say that don't let the matter have a rightful place in the domain of civility. Rather let it be concealed and suppressed to let it become a sore and then take the primeval action of medival era by ostrasizing the protagonists.

Do we or do we not want a society that has the right approach of selecting to agree or disagree on issues in life without the sanctimonious acrimony that we have been noticing on the media. After all we are a civilised lot.