Model UN: Breeding pointless leadership – The Express Tribune Blog
I do agree with the writer when she says that nowadays, more emphasis is given my many participants as well as the organisers of MUNs on the social events that take place after the sessions,rather than giving more importance to the sessions and their purpose themselves.
However, since I have personally taken part in an MUN(the lyceum Mun, aka LYMUN), I would beg to differ with Hira Siddiqui's statement that these MUNs are pointless since they achieve nothing. They create an awareness of world politics and issues in young students, a fact which has been dismissed by Ms. Siddiqui, but is nonetheless highly pertinent, because being politically aware,as well as being aware of the major issues surrounding you is much better than being ignorant. Having awareness might, at some point in the student's life, prompt him/her to join the efforts being carried out to resolve world issues such as poverty,HIV/AIDS,gender discrimination,etc. Also, contrary to what Ms. Siddiqui has pointed out, MUNs do involve debates on the Palestine/Kashmir issue-infact,these two are included in the key issues discussed in these conferences.
From a personal point of view, I would encourage all school and university students to take part in atleast one MUN during their high school/college years as it would help them gain immense knowledge about world politics and issues.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The national stupor
The national stupor
I have been an avid reader of Mr. Cowasjee's weekly column since many years,and I know he is well known for being blunt and brutally honest in his opinions about the state of affairs in our nation and about Pakistan's politicians, but this is probably the first time he has written against a leader so openly.While Mr. Cowasjee's excessively harsh and sardonic remarks about the president sound quite valid to me(as well as to many other Pakistanis),I am concerned about his personal safety,which might come into danger if his article is reported by any pro-government person as damaging to the government's image(we have a law for that too,now,in order to ensure no harm is done to the current leaders even verbally). Mr Cowasjee has the courage to say what many citizens of Pakistan would like to say publicly but are afraid of voicing their opinions out of fear of being punished by the authorities for it(and this happens in a so-called 'democratic' nation,imagine).Mr Cowasjee has correctly pointed out that the predicament of a large number of the flood affectees is one of the major concerns that the government should be addressing right now but has conveniently ignored it. As Mr Cowasjee has stated,it has been reported that atleast 6 million out of the 20 million flood affectees are still waiting to be rehabilitated. Since the government seems to be in no mood of entertaining the flood affectees' woes,I think its our job as responsible citizens to do whatever is in our capacity to rehabilitate them .We should collaborate with NGOs who are involved in flood relief work,or should organize as groups and do the work independently.Mr Cowasjee's cries for action will remain unheard unless we actually wake up from our stupor and jolt into action.
I have been an avid reader of Mr. Cowasjee's weekly column since many years,and I know he is well known for being blunt and brutally honest in his opinions about the state of affairs in our nation and about Pakistan's politicians, but this is probably the first time he has written against a leader so openly.While Mr. Cowasjee's excessively harsh and sardonic remarks about the president sound quite valid to me(as well as to many other Pakistanis),I am concerned about his personal safety,which might come into danger if his article is reported by any pro-government person as damaging to the government's image(we have a law for that too,now,in order to ensure no harm is done to the current leaders even verbally). Mr Cowasjee has the courage to say what many citizens of Pakistan would like to say publicly but are afraid of voicing their opinions out of fear of being punished by the authorities for it(and this happens in a so-called 'democratic' nation,imagine).Mr Cowasjee has correctly pointed out that the predicament of a large number of the flood affectees is one of the major concerns that the government should be addressing right now but has conveniently ignored it. As Mr Cowasjee has stated,it has been reported that atleast 6 million out of the 20 million flood affectees are still waiting to be rehabilitated. Since the government seems to be in no mood of entertaining the flood affectees' woes,I think its our job as responsible citizens to do whatever is in our capacity to rehabilitate them .We should collaborate with NGOs who are involved in flood relief work,or should organize as groups and do the work independently.Mr Cowasjee's cries for action will remain unheard unless we actually wake up from our stupor and jolt into action.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Oklahoma and Sharia law
Oklahoma and Sharia law
I personally support the Oklahoma government's ban on Sharia law,since in my opinion,having a separate system of laws for a minor religious community creates more problems than solutions for the members of that particular community as well as for the rest of the population.
The major problem with the Sharia law is that its implementation varies in different Muslim nations in accordance with their leaders' wishes. This means that the law is not always implemented in its true form,and thus ends up benefitting certain people at the cost of oppressing or harming others.
A classic example of this is the enforcement of the 'Hudood Ordinances' and the blaspemy laws as part of the sharia law under General Zia-ul-Haq's regime in Pakistan in the 1980s. According to the blasphemy laws, any person found disrespecting the Holy Quran or the Holy Prophet(pbuh) was to be given lashes as punishment. It should be noted that this law is not laid down either in the Quran or in the books of Ahadith(sayings of the Holy Prophet). The blasphemy law is implemented in Pakistan till this day,and has often been used by people who wrongly accuse their non-Muslim enemies of disrespecting the Quran or the Prophet in order to take their revenge with them and easily get away with it.
It is also important to note that the Sharia does not address a number of issues facing Muslims,such as marital rape.Since marital rape is a punishable crime in the U.S, implementing the Sharia law in Oklahoma would automatically make many Muslim women who are victims of marital rape unable to seek justice.This in turn will lead to greater injustice, oppression and volence in society.
Hence,to me it seems quite sensible of the Oklahoma government to propose a ban on the implementation of the Sharia law for Muslims in the state.It is an act that will ensure equality and peace for not just theMuslims residing in Oklahoma,but for the rest of the residents of the state as well.
I personally support the Oklahoma government's ban on Sharia law,since in my opinion,having a separate system of laws for a minor religious community creates more problems than solutions for the members of that particular community as well as for the rest of the population.
The major problem with the Sharia law is that its implementation varies in different Muslim nations in accordance with their leaders' wishes. This means that the law is not always implemented in its true form,and thus ends up benefitting certain people at the cost of oppressing or harming others.
A classic example of this is the enforcement of the 'Hudood Ordinances' and the blaspemy laws as part of the sharia law under General Zia-ul-Haq's regime in Pakistan in the 1980s. According to the blasphemy laws, any person found disrespecting the Holy Quran or the Holy Prophet(pbuh) was to be given lashes as punishment. It should be noted that this law is not laid down either in the Quran or in the books of Ahadith(sayings of the Holy Prophet). The blasphemy law is implemented in Pakistan till this day,and has often been used by people who wrongly accuse their non-Muslim enemies of disrespecting the Quran or the Prophet in order to take their revenge with them and easily get away with it.
It is also important to note that the Sharia does not address a number of issues facing Muslims,such as marital rape.Since marital rape is a punishable crime in the U.S, implementing the Sharia law in Oklahoma would automatically make many Muslim women who are victims of marital rape unable to seek justice.This in turn will lead to greater injustice, oppression and volence in society.
Hence,to me it seems quite sensible of the Oklahoma government to propose a ban on the implementation of the Sharia law for Muslims in the state.It is an act that will ensure equality and peace for not just theMuslims residing in Oklahoma,but for the rest of the residents of the state as well.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Movie Review-The Joneses
'The Joneses' is a somewhat social commentary on today's consumerist society(the American society in particular). The movie revolves around a 'perfect' couple, Steve Jones(David Duchovny) and Kate Jones(Demi Moore), and their teenaged children Jenn(Amber Heard) and Mick(Ben Hollingsworth).Their family is envied by everyone in their posh,suburban neighborhood filled with Mcmansions and all the trappings of the upper-middle class.Kate is portrayed as the ultimate trend-setter-beautiful,sexy,dressed head-to-toe in top designer labels. Steve,on the other hand, is the most admired and successful businessman who has it all: a gorgeous wife, a big house and an endless supply of high-tech toys. The children,Jenn and Mick, rule their their new school as they own everything hip and trendy such as cool clothes,fast cars and the latest gadgets.
However,no one knows the truth about the so-called perfect family, which calls itself a 'unit' when no outsider is around. As the story unfolds, we are shown that the Joneses 'family' actually consists of four unrelated people who are hired by a firm to sell a high-end lifestyle,including the most expensive cars,clothes,etc in different parts of the U.S in order to promote consumerism in those areas. Each member of the 'unit' competes with each other in terms of the percentage by which the sales of the products they promote goes up. In a sense, each individual member of the unit is a salesperson,but has to carry out their job indiscreetly so as not to let the neighborhood find out what they are actually doing.
The movie subtly shows how the concept of increasing consumerism adversely affects the lives of people on a daily basis by focusing on how the Joneses' spending habits lead to their own and their community's downfall.So the lesson the movie teaches is a rather pertinent one in the current age,which is characterized by a never-ending increase in wants,leading to the eventual destruction of many people's lives.
While Demi Moore and David Duchovn played their roles really well,Amber Heard,who plays the Joneses' daughter,is wears an expressionless look throughout the movie,which is somewhat annoying. Overall,the movie is good in terms of the storyline,acting and continuity.
Rating: 4/5
However,no one knows the truth about the so-called perfect family, which calls itself a 'unit' when no outsider is around. As the story unfolds, we are shown that the Joneses 'family' actually consists of four unrelated people who are hired by a firm to sell a high-end lifestyle,including the most expensive cars,clothes,etc in different parts of the U.S in order to promote consumerism in those areas. Each member of the 'unit' competes with each other in terms of the percentage by which the sales of the products they promote goes up. In a sense, each individual member of the unit is a salesperson,but has to carry out their job indiscreetly so as not to let the neighborhood find out what they are actually doing.
While Demi Moore and David Duchovn played their roles really well,Amber Heard,who plays the Joneses' daughter,is wears an expressionless look throughout the movie,which is somewhat annoying. Overall,the movie is good in terms of the storyline,acting and continuity.
Rating: 4/5
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Movie Review-Peepli Live
Peepli Live, a low budget movie produced by Aamir Khan and his wife Kiran Rao, is a social commentary on farmer suicides in India, as well as on dirty politics and media sensationalism. Set in the village of Peepli, which has a huge population of farmers, the film stars a number of relatively unknown actors(infact,some of the actors are actually residents of Peepli). The film focuses on one farmer, who contemplates committing suicide in order for his family to get compensation money of Rs 100,000. The money will help the family pay the mortgage for their residential land, which is currently facing the threat of government seizure.
What unfolds next is a plot consisting of several characters and agencies such as various political parties, news channels and journalists, which become embattled in a broil over their varying decisions regarding the farmer's fate.The audience is exposed to the ugly side of the news media, namely sensationalism and propaganda, as well as the (forceful) influence of politicians on decisions regarding pressing social issues (farmer suicides,in this case) and the way they are relayed to the public through the media.
Naseerudin Shah(the only famous actor in the movie), who plays the agriculture minister, is perhaps the person whose role and acting stand out the most. He portrays the conventional, selfish and ruthless politician, and this is highlighted magnificently in a scene where, when being questioned in a television interview about the solution to farmer suicides, he replies in a matter of fact tone,"more industrialization!"
The protagonist in the film does not have many dialogues and has a somewhat blank countenance throughout, but on the other hand, this could have been done deliberately to show his utter helplessness in making a decision about his own life in the faces of journalists and politicians.
The only drawback in the movie is the language, which being a particular Hindi dialect is hard for many people to understand.
On the whole, Peepli Live gives a very realistic and somewhat frightening picture of ugly politics and media sensationalism. The ending left me with a bitter taste,since it gave a very dark and pessimistic view of society and its savagery.
rating: 4/5
What unfolds next is a plot consisting of several characters and agencies such as various political parties, news channels and journalists, which become embattled in a broil over their varying decisions regarding the farmer's fate.The audience is exposed to the ugly side of the news media, namely sensationalism and propaganda, as well as the (forceful) influence of politicians on decisions regarding pressing social issues (farmer suicides,in this case) and the way they are relayed to the public through the media.
Naseerudin Shah(the only famous actor in the movie), who plays the agriculture minister, is perhaps the person whose role and acting stand out the most. He portrays the conventional, selfish and ruthless politician, and this is highlighted magnificently in a scene where, when being questioned in a television interview about the solution to farmer suicides, he replies in a matter of fact tone,"more industrialization!"
The protagonist in the film does not have many dialogues and has a somewhat blank countenance throughout, but on the other hand, this could have been done deliberately to show his utter helplessness in making a decision about his own life in the faces of journalists and politicians.
The only drawback in the movie is the language, which being a particular Hindi dialect is hard for many people to understand.
On the whole, Peepli Live gives a very realistic and somewhat frightening picture of ugly politics and media sensationalism. The ending left me with a bitter taste,since it gave a very dark and pessimistic view of society and its savagery.
rating: 4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)