ARCANE ARGUMENTS

Stability of nature Vs Rights of animals

Being at the highest level of evolution, humans gifted with intelligence is currently  ruling the earth. And humans have taken it as their responsibility to maintain the stability of nature not just in the name of obligation to nature  but with the future in view. As a result we hear of conservation of endangered species.

It just passed through my ear without making any impact until I happened to be at the Zoo at Trivandrum.

Conservation for whose sake?How do a tiger benefit by having its family or genus conserved?The answer would be for the sake of entire nature,as the food chain would be affected.What caused this imbalance in food-chain?The thoughtless activities of humans.And the conservationists  admit with regret and with some pride that now they are correcting by conserving. In this name the hapless animals that happens to be caught spend their lifetime behind the bars.They are given food and water and some lucky animals even get an acre of land for themselves.But just a question-given all these facilities and the intelligence to end ones life what would you choose?Suppose after a 10000 years you gets caught by your successors far different from humans and if they treat you similarly what would be your reaction?And what if they force breed you?Is nature more important that freedom of its children?It is better to be short-sighted and compassionate that to be an advocate of future.Life is just a matter of moments be it the life of humans or birds.

Life is not a matter of masses.The life of a single individual and a 1000 individuals are  just the same.Future irrespective of its length is of lesser importance than the present moment.True that hierarchy exists in nature.But it is the only option behind nature.And every animal plays the role of predator and prey.Humans being at the highest level is exempted out of the role of prey. Humans may crush ants beneath the feet,but elephants can do the same to humans. Thus in a way nature ensures justice to all.But when humans starts playing the role of rulers of nature this simple rule is shamelessly violated.Just as it is an injustice to experiment on a human being it is an injustice to experiment on an animal.Intelligence and hierarchy may be justification for anything but never for taking away freedom without giving back even companionship.

A single peacocks or tigers freedom is far more important than the conservation of its own genus, the benefits of which, it is even unaware. Freedom is the rule of nature,it is the birth right of animals and humans irrespective of the justification they may produce for denying the unlucky few of the same, is going against nature. Mother Nature would prefer getting destroyed or would device its own methods for self-protection rather than watching her kids being deprived of the basic rights.

(Dharma the bull,now seems to be standing on a single leg).

IN DEFENSE OF SUICIDE

   As per section 309 of Indian constitution suicide is a punishable offense. It says-"whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offense, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both". Suicide as a law and order question is on the safer side-while killing others can disturb the balance of the society, killing oneself can't. A major argument raised by religion against suicide is that-since birth is not a person’s choice, death should not be self chosen. Ignoring this let us look into the other realities.
   Life is a duration of time during which "I" is valid. It is important that one remains in the state of mind that pleases him/her during this period. Happiness is desired by everyone, although unattainable at times. However it can't be sustained/attained in anarchy-it is from this realization that all the orderliness of society roots. Long- sightedness which extends for a lifetime is often carried further.
  Everything has an end, be it today or tomorrow .Thinking as a human being with a life span of few years, today and tomorrow makes a big difference. But not while thinking as a part of the universe whose origin and end is well beyond human reach. Living based on the fallacy that life is a duty roots from the concept of God-The best example of human creativity. God was not the product of a sudden stroke of imagination. It evolved as a necessity to put the distracted minds at ease-an axiom in the attempt to prove life.
  To explain life one need not jump into the past or future, the simple truth of life is the present seconds-these seconds with the vast potential to unfold ecstasies before us. A life can be said to be meaningful when the majority of the seconds are spent in a pleasant state of mind or in attempts to achieve the same. So when a person feels that future has nothing for him/her, he/she has a birth right to conclude life. Kanu Sanyal-The Naxalete leader ended his life recently and the news was highlighted in newspapers. Any interview explaining his state of mind before death would not have attracted even a 10th of this attention. Suicide is often treated with shock or sympathy. And this is what drives suicide that roots from short-sightedness.
To suicide is not cowardly, it is not bravery as well, it can be a sensible decision at times. At times the child has to be operated out.


  Irrespective of what drives a person to suicide it should not be treated as an offense. Section 309 of IPC gives an impression that Indian constitution is shallow. Existence of such a law will not prevent suicide. And the value of human life is to be upheld by living a life of quality, and not through a law. Law Commission report tabled in RajyaSabha last year recommended the removal of section 309 as it is a hindrance to provide psychological aid to people who attempts suicide. Mental disorders need to be cured. But the desire to bring about emotional stability should not stand in the way of differences in the same aspect. Take the case of Vincent Van Gogh-he suffered from bipolar mental disorder says description. How can one suffer from being oneself?


Once when a lady's husband died, she jumped into his funeral pyre as he was everything to her. Next when another lady's husband who was not everything to her died society pushed her into fire and called it sati. Years later it got reversed. Will the society that drags a woman back from her husband’s funeral pyre ensure her happiness for the rest of her life?  The question of lady's children remains. If they were something big enough to keep her alive she would not have attempted suicide. All living beings are selfish when it comes to matters of life and death.


Just because the heart and kidney of two persons function similarly mind can’t be expected to be. Thoughts can’t be confined to boundaries. The degree of passion varies from person to person and accordingly the definition of life. I don't intent to justify or to promote suicide that results from momentary emotional outbursts. Nor do I say that we should be indifferent to the pain of our fellow beings. Instead it is the opposite that I wish to convey. Life is not an endeavor that is to be accomplished for the sake of some unknown.
It is from out of complexities that simplicities arise. Many people fail to understand the simplicity of life as they fail to get over the complexities. Reluctance to accept suicide as something natural roots from the fear that it will increase its number. But it is the reverse that will happen. By accepting the simplicity of life, it is not anarchy but peace that is going to result.