Should Kasab be served the death penalty?

What is it with Ajmal Kasab that the judicial system is still not handing him the death penalty? Why are tax-payer's hard-earned dollars going in to look after him for all these years in jail? Why is he not killed cold-bloodedly - as he has so casually and eagerly killed so many of our people?

On the night of 26th November, 2008, all of India felt the tremors from the cold-blooded terror attack on its own soil - in the heart of cosmopolitan Mumbai. The 2008 Mumbai attacks (also often referred to as 26/11) were a coordinated series of bombing and shooting attacks across the largest city in India - Mumbai. These attacks began on the 26th of November, 2008 and went on till November 29th, 2008. In total these attacks left at least 308 people wounded and 164 people dead. The world was left in horror as another September 11, 2001 situation began to unfold in India.

All the terrorists were Islamist from Pakistan, and as confessed by Kasab, they were all trained by the ISI. They were also all given reconnaissance assistance - and a meticulously well-devised plan to destroy and create a path of destruction around high-profile places in Mumbai.

The attacks took place in the Oberoi Trident Hotel, Mazagoan Docks,Metro Cinema, St. Xavier's College,Leopold Cafe, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Taj Mahal Tower and Palace, in a lane near the building of the Times of India and Cama Hospital. A taxi in Vile Parle was also attacked. It took endless hours of dedicated men and women to control, capture and kill the attackers and all of India stood by in alert NSG Guards were rushed in and Operation Black Tornado was conducted in an effort to purge the place of all terrorists - this led to the deaths of all the attackers, bar Ajmal Kasab.

Only one terrorist survived the ordeal. His name is Ajmal Kasab. In 2010, on 6th May Ajmal Kasab was found guilty on five counts and sentenced to death. That however, is still to happen!!!:(

According to NDTV, the Maharastra Government has, since 2008 when Kasab was captured, till date paid over 25 crores to keep the mass murderer alive. What justice is that - we have so many, many innocent and hungry mouths, dying due to malnutrition and here the Government spends so many crores feeding and looking after 1 man, who has brought so much grief to the whole nation and to some families in particular. How ironic is it that state is spending so much on security for Kasab when he was the cause of such brutality in the same same state! (1)

The question therefore arises that should we follow through with the death sentence or not? I would be very happy to hear from all my readers whether or not they feel that Ajmal Kasab should be dealt a death penalty or not for his part in 26/11.

(1) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ajmal-kasab-s-security-food-and-medical-bills-cost-maharashtra-govt-over-rs-25-crores-196451

The death penalty - Should we or should'nt we exercise it?

The death penalty has many names - Lethal injection, execution, capital punishment to name a few. In olden days, capital punishment was prevalent in most societies in some form or the other. However, as societies became more civilized the death penalty was revised and completely obliterated in some countries. Currently it has been abolished in 97 countries, some countries have not had a single death sentence dealt out in the last 10 years. Only 57 countries in the world still allow and practice capital punishment. The only society where capital punishment has never been followed is Kievan Rus.(1)

Amnesty International together with the UN General Assembly are calling for an execution moratorium, hoping eventually to phase it out completely. Currently however, approximately 60% of the world lives in countries where the death penalty is still being practiced. Four of the most populated countries in the world still allow the death penalty, although in 3 of them, the U.S., India and Indonesia it does not happen very often. China is the only heavily populated country in the world that actually, still makes use of capital punishment on a mass scale.

Amnesty International says that in 2011 only 21 countries have actually used the death penalty as punishment for crimes committed. China does not formally leak out information of the death penalty doled out in its country, however, numerous executions have taken place there. If the statement is to be believed then hundreds of people are executed in China each year. The beginning of the year 2012 saw at least 18,750 people on death row globally.(1)

Banner #8 | Size: 125x125 Image ©2011 Carson Services, Inc.

Now the burning question is, should the death penalty be allowed or not. What do you think?

Some of the pros for levying the death penalty, in my opinion, are:

1. Justice is served. When some innocent person's life has been violated then it is only befitting that his killer's life should come to an end as well. Why should he be alive to see the beauty of the world, and enjoy his relationships while the victim lies cold in his grave. Where the punishment is not befitting the crime, justice is not served and that is not fair to humanity at large.

2. If a person is not made accountable for his actions, by counter-actions on behalf of the justice-givers then it leaves the door open for others to follow suite, knowing that they will only get a 'rap on their knuckles' and be let off - therefore it does not act as a deterrent as a death penalty would.

3. When they get away with murder once, why won't they do it again? So, to save the life of this murderer we may put many more lives in danger. Is that fair?

4. The cost of keeping a person alive, just because we do not wish to be 'barbaric' and take his life in return for his having done exactly that to another person - is huge. Why should honest, hard-working tax-payers pay for the criminal's free stay in prison. That money could be much better used elsewhere, including in looking after the millions who, globally, live under the poverty level.

5. In earlier days, mistakes did take place and innocent people 'were sent to the gallows' but now-a-days with the heavy screening and matching of DNA those are things of the past. Should we still hang on to the 'no death-penalty' wagon just because of that?

6. It also helps the victim's family, who have needlessly suffered a lot to know that the person who killed their loved one, was killed in return, so it helps bring about closure and some relief in their lives.

Some of the cons for levying the death penalty, in my opinion are:

1. By allowing the death penalty we actually do the same thing - we kill someone, so we lower ourselves to his level. By allowing it we are as guilty as he was. Should we really do that?

2. The victim is dead already, what good will it do to him if we put his perpetrator to death as well.

3. It is 'barbaric' and 'gruesome' - completely out of the dark-ages; to put someone to death, in such a cold-blooded way.

However, all said and done - in my mind - we as a society, owe it to our citizens to allow them to feel safe and secure in the knowledge that no one will harm them. However, perchance someone does harm them, they need to know that justice will be upheld.

If we let the victims get away, we are actually, in my opinion, accepting what they do and condoning it and encouraging others to do the same. I know it is 'barbaric' to follow this path, however, it seems to me - to be the only fair way of dealing with the situation. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," (Hammurabi, 1792-1750BC King of Babylon) It seems to me to be, the only fair way of deterring people from doing the wrong thing. Innocent lives should not be lost because the law is too lenient in doling out punishment to wrong doers.

(1)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment)

Pregnancy after Rape...... Then What??? - Abortion, Adoption or Keep the Baby????

Raped!!! -- What a horrifying situation to find oneself in, yet it happens the whole world over and even as I write at this moment, someone somewhere is being violated thus. What a sad world we live in! What joy does it give a rapist, to rape someone - even knowing that his advances are unwanted. How can anyone dehumanize himself to such an extent? Its hard to believe that the same body which holds the image of God within oneself - also, holds the image of the devil within itself. And when the devil lets himself out tragic things happen.

I would not wish it on my worst enemy (luckily I believe in making friends - not enemies) - but some people rape their wives, partners, friends and even their own family members. What a lot of sick people there are in the world.

What trauma must a person go through, when rape takes place, before, during and after the deed. Such a violation of one's temple (I equate one's body as one's temple - because the God in that person resides there). The feeling of being unclean, the humiliation if one goes to the cops to lodge an FIR - the endless questions they get asked about the most personal details of the rape. It must seem like they are being verbally raped again. What a whammy it is in their lives.......!!! Somehow, though, with the help of loved ones and friends they begin to build their lives again and then.........!!!

Get Linked from 16,000 + sites with one click.
Here comes a double whammy - the rape has taken a more sinister form -- in the shape of a little person on his/her way. I shudder when I think of all the emotions that must go through the raped person's mind knowing that the rape was not all... Now here is a lifetime of feeling the rapist's presence around them coming their way, in the form of a little bub.

I often put myself in that person's position and think, 'how would I have felt, if that had happened to me. I love children, always wanted a dozen. I do not believe in abortion, I believe in responsible parenting.

However even despite all that, I don't think I would have ever gone through the pregnancy to bring forth the rapist's baby. It is easy for pro-lifers to say "have the baby and adopt it out" - but really is that what would be best for the baby.

It would be hard enough for the victim to deal with the rape. Now this, Oh my Gosh!!! If she has the baby she will have to live her whole life loving a child, but hating its father who has so violated her. How will she explain to her child that he/she was born out of an act of violence rather than love? How will the child feel about it? How will the child deal with such terrible news? (And invariably such news does leak out). How will it effect the child's attitude towards the world and among other things, what if history repeats itself and the child becomes a rapist like his dad - how would she cope with it?

What would you and I feel if we were the child in question. I can't answer for you, but I might even hate my mother for letting me be born under the circumstances. And that again would be a double whammy for the child and the mother. How would the baby have felt to know that the father had raped his mother and he was not born out of love but out of lust? Is'nt life hard enough as it is, without throwing in such horrendous things for a child to have to deal with?

People will always have an opinion as to what the victim should do, but she needs to do what is right for her and for the child. She may decide to have the baby, because her religion forbids her to get rid of the child. Well, I would not listen to a religion that told me that, because, I would think of what the child would have to go through in life, rather than worry about those that are least affected by it all. But then, that is me, and fortunately, I have never had to deal in real life with this situation - but I do have sympathy for the victims (both mother and the unborn child) and I can empathize with the dilemma they find themselves in.

The only good news in this whole scenario is that there is help out there for all three people in the equation as there are now a lot of counselling and trauma centers, and they deal with helping not only the victim but the rapist as well, to figure out what is wrong with him and why he did what he did.
So to all those unfortunate women out there who have been in this sitation, my heart goes out to you. I wish I had more than just words to help apease your pain, however, I sincerely say to you, "Do what you think is best for you and the baby". You have to live with the decision you make for the rest of your life -- so make it a decision that fits in with your being. Don't let judgmental people makes decisions for your life. They don't have to live your life -- you do.
Banner #8 | Size: 125x125 Image ©2011 Carson Services, Inc. Ablewise.com Free Classifieds

http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/RITU2800/

IS IT RAPE IF A WIFE SAYS "NO" BUT IT STILL HAPPENS?

Rape as described by Dictionary.com is "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." That pretty well sums up what constitues rape in general terms.

However, unfortunately, it happens many times over, in many homes all over the world. Women are treated as a sex object and their wishes are disregarded by their husbands, who consider themselves to be their lord and master.

I have heard from at least a dozen married women who have told their husbands that they do not wish to have sex with them - that day or any other day - but their "nos" have been left unheaded, while the male in question has had his bit of fun - if it was that!

I have also heard men say that it is their right since they are married to the woman in question - and it is not rape at all. I ask you - what do you think?

I heard one sad story from a lady who said that her marriage went the wrong way from day one, when she told her husband of a few hours that she would like to wait a few days, till they got to know each other before taking a toss in the hay. They had a traditional arranged marriage and were virtually strangers to each other. Her husband, she said, laughed at her and said, "what, not make love to my wife on my wedding day?" and that was the end of the discussion. He was a man used to making love, she was a virgin. He had watched oodles of porn and nothing mattered to him but getting what he wanted.

So, she told me, "it was slam, bam, thank you maam" and he had his wish (what joy he got from it I wonder), and he immediately went into a drunken slumber while she says she bled profusely - due to the roughness he showed with her and the fact that she had been a virgin till then - and she spent the rest of the night in tears - her dreams of a happy marriage shattered on the very first night itself. She said that although she is still married to him - their marriage died that very night that they got married. She is unfortunately still bound down by the old traditions of India and will not take a divorce, although, there is no happiness in her marriage.

It stands to reason - that if a man is so thick-skinned and inconsiderate that he can force himself upon a poor defenceless woman then how can she ever be happy with him. If on his first night with her he has no gentleness or consideration for her, how can one ever expect him to have consideration later.

For a man sex is a physical appetite - as unemotional as the need to eat food, but, to most women sex is an emotional need - an expression of her love for the man in question. Men complain that their wives no longer want to be made love to. What they fail to realise is that either their wives are physically tired due to the demands made on them by children, housework, job etc. (which means the husbands are not doing anything to help out - so they are full of energy while the poor wife is juggling with the jobs on hand and the energy she has in her to get the most important things done}and by the time the night comes she is just too exhausted and all she wants to do is shut her eyes and fall off to sleep.

Or else, the wife is not having her emotional needs met, and when her emotions are denied her need or desire for sex dries up as well.

I have had some ladies tell me that their men treat them most disrespectfully, yet, they want them to be ready to have sex with them whenever they feel like it. And one lady said to me "If I cannot have the love, respect, trust and consideration that I deserve and desire - I don't feel like having anything to do with my husband. And I as a woman, can relate to that.

Spousal rape was not considered rape until the latter part of the twentieth century. The reason for that was that till then,the woman was treated as a belonging rather than a person and having married the man it was considered that she had consented in her duty to keep him sexually satisfied.

However, with the emergence of women's rights and equality between the sexes, spousal rape - at least in the western world - is recognized as such and punishable by law in many countries.

I would be very happy to hear what you think of this issue. Please do leave a comment for me - if you have any opinion at all about it. I am trying to do a kind of a study on this issue.

The Theory of Karma - is it right or not?

It's strange, but, although a large percentage of us humans are educated and intelligent people - we still seem to have not much thinking power of our own. Some of us blindly follow, rituals, religious beliefs and philosophies that have been passed down through the ages - but, in my opinion anyway some of them are flawed. One such theory that I cannot seem to digest is The Theory of Karma. I maybe totally off the bat and you may think that I am totally crazy, but these are my thoughts anyway and I would like to put them before you. Please feel free to comment in anyway you wish. I would love to hear your theories on this controversial Theory of Karma.

In simple terms, the Theory of Karma says that whether we are happy or unhappy, rich or poor, sick or in perfect health, etc. is all due to our past life's deeds. If we were good in the past life and performed good deeds, we are born in rich families and rich countries and likewise if we are poor and miserable - we must have performed bad deeds in our past life, for which we are being punished in this life.

In fact, I actually had one very wealthy relative tell me while she was talking to me that it was her karmas in the last life which made her rich in this life - and I thought to myself - if God was so happy with you, why did he punish you by taking away your husband when he was still a young man - even though you both were so happy together. Seems to me though, that her yardstick for measuring her goodness in her past life was money. I would have thought that the fact that her husband had been taken from her so young, so tragically might have been construed as some bad karmas from her past life - but no money was the deciding factory. Strange, but then it's a strange world out there anyway!

I have had many well-meaning friends try and ram this undigestable (to me anyway) Theory of Karma down my throat. However, it just does not go down well with me. My main objection to it is simple. In my opinion God is all good and all just. And a just God would never punish me or anyone else in this life for something that I did in the last life, but cannot remember and will never remember. Just as you don't punish someone for something they have done unless it can be proven that they have done it - so too in my humble opinion - God would never punish me for something I cannot possibly remember. After all if I cannot remember it how can I accept punishment for it. A just God - and God is just, so I believe - would never do that to any of us.

I have thought about this at length, because I told you I don't believe in the Theory of Karma as the world sees it. I have my own Theory of Karma - warped though you might think it to be - in my mind it makes perfect sense.

My Theory of Karma is that we human beings are souls being recycled constantly, life-time after life-time. And, in these life-times our souls go through a rigorous filtration process as they seek "antim moksh" or "eternal salvation" Only the purest of pure souls get "antim moksh" (and as little children we used to talk about when we die we become a star in the sky - I would like to think that this is true and that someday, many life-times from now when my soul has been purified to the hilt and climbed up to the top of the ladder of filtration of souls - I too will reach that level when my soul will no longer be recycled, but will stay in the Kingdom of Heaven - a bright and shining star looking down upon the world as Mother Theresa probably is at the moment).

So how does this filtration take place and why is there so much disparity between one soul and the next. Why is one born in war-torn countries, or lands where famine is taking place, or in a murderer's home, etc. After all the harder a person's life is the more chances that they will take the easy way out and do wrong things in order to get what it is they are after.

In my opinion, it's like this. Just as we have a CEO in a business, who normally is someone who has worked his way up the ladder in his job situation - and is there at the top because he was the best - so too, there is a rough filtration process that God puts us through all our lives. And depending on how we accept and deal with the challenges He/She throws in our way - we either rise or fall down the ladder. Those people who have miserable lives, but still make the most of their life and live it well, without doing anything to harm or hurt others they go up a rung of the ladder in each life-time till they reach the very top (if they ever get there). And the harder their life is on earth the closer they are to the top. It's always hardest at the top of everything worthwhile, is'nt it?

We are born where we are born because that is where we are on the ladder leading towards "eternal salvation". So, in my thinking because we are rich and have a good, healthy and happy life - it does not indicate that we have won God's favour and so are being bestowed with these luxuries. On the contrary, in my opinion, those who have a miserable life of poverty, hunger and disability, etc. are probably on a higher rung of the ladder towards "eternal salvation" than we are. And that is why their test in life is far harder than ours. Just as with each level of education, the exams get harder and fewer people reach there - so too with the filtration process, the tests get harder (hence all those born in poverty and misery as opposed to those born in healthy, happy homes) and only those souls who still lead exemplary lives despite their misery go higher up in the ladder till finally they reach levels of a saint and make their exit from this world - to the world above.:)

http://pinterest.com/pin/70509550386329049/

Blood transfusions - a way of life for some!

I wrote earlier about the dilemma I was placed into regarding my mother and her urgent need for blood. Being a rational, progressive thinking person I did not need to think about ethics - because to me it is perfectly ethical that if blood is needed blood should be given. The only thing that worried me was, 'what will happen if contaminated blood is given to her by accident.' However, her need for the blood was more than the risk involved especially at her grand age of 83. However, she is the lucky one, as am I and most of the people I know - as we do not constantly need blood transfusions to survive.

There are, however,a small percentage of people who do need blood, on a regular basis, or else they would cease to exist. Among them are people who have major thalassemia (a by product of two parents who have minor thalassemia).

I am fortunate that, although, I have minor thalassemia myself, my ex-husband did not have the same. It took me all of 25 years and a trip to Saskatoon Hospital, Canada; and a very painful bone-marrow test to find out that I had minor thalassemia - it was never diagnosed in India. Whenever, I would feel fatigued and low in India the docs would pass it off as anemia. Eventually an Indian doc in Canada diagnosed for me that I had had this disorder since my birth. I was then told that I was fortunate that my husband did not have the same disorder or else it could mean a very tragic case of a child with major thalassemia.

I was expecting my first child at that time, and although I did not quite understand the docs apprehension till he had tested my husband for the same I do unfortunately, understand it quite well now as we have a beautiful young lady in our family who has the terrible disorder we are talking about.

Now-a-days in India there is quite a lot of awareness of this disorder, which I am thankful for, but still I am sure there must be many people out there who do not realize that this is a genetic defect and if anyone in one's ancestry has this dreadful disorder the chances are that they could have it too. Furthermore, if two minor thalassemia people create any offspring together the rate of major thalassemia children born (I have been given to understand) is 1 out of every 4. A very high rate of risk.
Strangely just because one sibling has it does not mean that the other one will also have it. Anyway, to come back to the point I am making is that my lovely niece, who is such an inspiration to us all and a joy to be around, needs blood transfusions every 3 weeks or so in order to stay alive and this has been the scenario since she was born. In fact, well-meaning but ill-advised people had even asked her parents not to give her the first transfusion and to put an end to it before it even started. Luckily for us all, her parents chose to do it otherwise.

Life has been very hard for them all. How can it be otherwise when you see your child have to go through transfusion after transfusion - but what a lot of joy we would have missed out on if they had pulled the plug on her all those years ago. Today, she is happily married to someone who also unfortunately has the same disorder - but, together they will give each other strength - and at least they have one another who really understands what the other is going through.

My question is - how can parents who have so lovingly nurtured the baby till she is born, just decide to let her die because she needs blood and they don't want her to have it. Is that not as good as murder? That child is already there - do these children not have a right to live? In my opinion, they are probably on a higher level than the rest of us on the runk of the ladder that leads to eternal salvation (antim moksh - if you believe in it - as I do. But, that is a whole new controversial topic on the Theory of Karma as its stand today and I will discuss that on another day.)

What gets to me about religions such as Jehovah's Witness is that a lot of their brethren are very highly qualified lawyers, doctors, engineers - people with a lot of grey matter. Where then is that grey matter when they blindly follow the dictates of a religion - just because they are born into it and brought up to believe that whatever it says must be unquestioningly followed? How is it that such smart people cannot rationalize and see that God wants us to live as best we can. Yes, we should not kill someone to take their blood and use it for ourselves, but, if blood is needed and available it should be given to enable a good quality of life. If everyone followed their reasoning and religion many people who live reasonably good quality of life today - myself included, may not have been here to enjoy the world and the children and grand-children they so love.

https://twitter.com/RAAK51/statuses/199451393889804288

Blood transfusions..... should we or should'nt we?

The harrowing 8 days are finally over! I took my darling mother into hospital, not knowing whether I would be bringing her back alive - praying, hoping and cajoling God to give me some more time with her. And He/She answered my prayers.:) I finally brought her back with 4 units of foreign blood in her body - a new lease on her life..

When the doc told me that she needed blood transfusions - my mind was very ill at ease, knowing that if she received contaminated blood she could end up worse than she already is. The doc and other people put my mind at ease, telling me that it was all screened for illnesses that already exist and are known. Still it is a big decision, luckily all close members of my family and friends agreed that she should have the blood asap. And she did, and with that my precious mother started to come back to life.:)

It did set my mind thinking though, to the strict and unrelenting thoughts of Jehovah's Witnesses with regards to blood transfusions. They absolutely forbid it, no matter what - even if it is a matter of life or death. The Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that that is most unethical, their version or reading of The Bible forbids it. They consider that blood transfusions are somewhat like cannibalism, whereby you drink another's blood. There have been quite a few documented cases regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and their refusal to take or allow family members to be given blood, even when the eventuality would be an untimely death of the loved one.

It brought back a case I had heard of where a young girl was fighting for her life in Alberta, Canada; and her father - also a member of the Jehovah's religion, went against his beliefs and religion and allowed for her to be given transfusions in order to save her life. He was shunned after that by the rest of his family and religious brethren and even his daughter, whose life he saved - sometimes hated him and once in a while loved him, for giving her a chance at life through transfusions.

There was another case in 2004 when a 23 year old woman, with a 6 month old baby refused to take a transfusion, but, the Court allowed for it to be given. The reason for that decision was that the child had no other family and the baby needed her. What would make a mother want to take such a decision, I wonder, knowing that if something happened to her - as it was likely it would - then her baby would probably end up in an orphanage (if he was lucky) or else on the streets. Which is more important - the young baby or someone else's interpretation of what The Bible says?

How must a person feel when they know that a simple transfusion could save the life of their loved one - but, their religion forbids it. Why are people so easily lead by what people tell them about religious beliefs, that they would endanger the life of those they love just to follow the dictates of a religion that they have grown up with. This herd mentality, without using one's own reasoning and logic really astounds me. You find some of the most intelligent people so badly tied up in their religious beliefs that it makes you wonder if they really have a mind or reasoning power of their own. Is it really unethical for us to allow transfusions and allow another person's blood into our bodies? If so, then organ donation should also be frowned upon and forbidden.

However, I for one am an organ donor in the eventuality of my untimely or timely death. I feel that,that is the least I can do to help someone else live. I see absolutely nothing wrong in being a donor or a recipient. I am also glad that I do not belong or allow myself to blindly follow the dictates of any religion and that I did not have to think and rethink about whether or not to allow my mother the blood she needed to survive.