Theory Of Relativity - III

The first part contained the relative use of Science, while the second part concentrated on the excessive use of the ‘relative’. But both the parts have one thing common—apart from the main theme of relativity—and that is the medium of expression, the language.

When the language is so adept at explaining behaviours—scientific and human—how can it remain elusive to the effect of relativity?

       

Hence in the third part—the last one—I would like to discuss certain aspects that are again obviously known to all. Still I take it up as cognizance of the fact that any discussion on relativity would be incomplete without acknowledging—which we fail to do, failing to recognize its importance, as is with all things that are obvious—the medium that allows us to express our relative views on relativity encompassing disparate domains. Yes, you have guessed correctly—the English language. In fact it is an ode to Queen’s language—a medium is needed to express the findings—realisations as well—the lack of which would erroneously manifest the non-existence of any finding(s).

Though the language and its usage is resplendent with innumerable examples to represent the cause, I shall consider only some of them—frankly speaking I do not have the true estimate of number of such representatives, given the infinite ocean of the language in which we are fortunate to sail. Furthermore it is dependent upon the perception of the person concerned, so permutations and combinations totaling to give the exact number too, would be anything, but finite!

Thus Theory of Relativity decides a specific action to manifest resistance, rigidity, conviction or selfishness.

        An act resulting out of sheer conviction of one person might be termed as resistance or selfishness by others—depending upon their perception of the matter. At the same time a person might effectively be resistant to something or might be acting out of sheer selfishness—but is of the perception that by doing so his/her conviction is being followed.

The words are relative in the sense that they are directly dependent upon the situation at hand—as also on the perception of the people involved in it. Thus, different people, under different conditions, might ‘label’ a similar sort of action ‘differently’ for different perceptions. Just like my penchant for writing—which is my passion, backed by my conviction that I need to share my views—might be termed as madness, by others!

Furthermore, accuracy is referred to as ‘frighteningly accurate’ and imperfection as perfect as in ‘perfection in imperfection’. And the best one to me is our Independence—which is actually In dependence as I have mentioned earlier as well…it is an independence from the foreigners but again it is relative ……as now we are in dependence and slave to our vices as well as to that of our politicians’.

Hence the issues that ‘concern’ me might not be worth a thought for others—to them it being too obvious to be important and hence, redundant. I don’t blame them, as it is again a matter of perception and relativity, which it leads to—things important to others might not be so for me. But the things that I have mentioned here are obviously relatively important with their inherent relativity, to merit my time and attention to ultimately gain identity as this piece!

Thus interpretation, based on an individual’s perception is relative. But deliberate misinterpretation is distortion to the extent of manipulation.

Hence it is not always the literal meaning that gets implied. Relative use of words and their interpretation—again a relative action—changes the meaning…some sort of linguistic alchemy in operation…. with human perception being the alchemical agent.

Sushmita Mukherjee,

11^th August 2010.

Theory Of Relativity - II

The first part has been dedicated to the ‘relative’ use of Science—as misuse and abuse—as a cause of a neither dormant nor extinct—volcano of a debate, “Science is a boon or a bane”—instead a very much active one.

But as I have mentioned—oops sorry, rather in trying to take a peek into what Einstein had possibly intended with and for, his theory of relativity—relativity has no boundaries. It transcends all and encompasses all—that which comprises our life and the world as a whole.

Science, we all would accept can never be wrong or could never harbour negative intentions for mankind—at least this remains an absolute philosophy. Yet it is again the paradoxical element of life that keeps alive and fans the above-mentioned debate—to keep it on its raging course unabated. Hence the very mankind for whose betterment Science stands for—and whose advancement too is brought forth by mankind—some of the members of that same species is utilizing it for the purpose it never was meant for—harming, again the same, mankind.

Not only in the field of Science, but life in itself, we have ended (yes) up misusing—and that too by an excessive ‘use’ of relativity. If relativity pervades the entire canvas of life, then life too would engulf relativity by getting it ‘used excessively’ by the inhabitants of this earth. And that is what has happened; to lead to the society in which we live today…bad is the excessive use of anything.

In the ‘relative’ society that we live, we do not consider ourselves to be a part of a bigger family—nation as a whole, to subsequently embrace the entire world as our own.

The simplest example is the distortion of the word ‘cooperative society’, due to this relative approach, albeit excessive. Our actions manifest cooperative as, to co-operate, but towards ‘co-ntradictory’ causes—only to satisfy our own desires with no concern whatsoever for that of others’.

This is the reason our country projects a very dirty—literally—picture to the world. The roads are littered with ‘what not’. Even the residential colonies and housing complexes too give them a stiff competition in the race for ‘un-cleanliness’

     People by their behaviour prove that the ‘carpet area’ of their ‘house’ is their own and hence needs to be kept clean. Rest—the common area—is not their responsibility and hence can be littered with…as a consequence the whole area becomes a big waste-bin, but they are not bothered. No sense of belonging for anything or anyone outside their four walls.

While we were in Bihar people use to prefer Bengalis for tenants—I too being a Bengali took pride in this fact—stating Bengalis keep the house clean. But having shifted to Kolkata, my pride turned to shame—as I have unravelled one of the main reasons behind the cleanliness that they maintained—they throw the unwanted items out of their houses on the roads, in the campus…. whichever turns out to be at fault, by being adjacent to their house! They do not even labour to get up and throw the waste in the bin, when a huge expanse of a bin is easily available to them—at a ‘window’s throw’ that is at a ‘stone’s throw’! Naturally the house would remain clean and only clean.

This I do not state to demean the place where I live. In fact the same story is prevalent all over the country, and hence the cumulative image. I have just stated my findings—one of relative cleanliness. If only we could accept the simple fact that each and every part of our nation is our own—though I know with blatant show of extremism in regional feelings, it is difficult to inculcate and maintain; and about this I have talked of in my blog: “Empowered State and Belitted Nation”—roads, forests…everything, then India too with its rich natural resources—though fast depleting—would look clean like other countries. Very often the first impression turns out be the last impression.

      

Poverty is cited as one of the main reasons for the lack of cleanliness. But this too is a relative approach—adopted only to avoid responsibility and evade accountability—in totality.

     Needy people do not come and litter the surroundings of our abode with half-eaten packets of biscuits, wafers, etc. Rather they act as scavengers—picking up things as useful, which we consider waste. So all blame cannot be levied on them—an already deprived class of our society—for the mess, the rest of the society plays a major part in creating.

It needs to be humbly accepted that it is our self-serving, extreme use of relativity that has primarily led to this negative outcome—instead of blaming the rest and the sundry; we need to reflect on how we are contributing to the menace.

        If we could cleanse ourselves from within, to bond with our surroundings as our very own, only then we can cleanse the image of our nation—which we have converted into a literal, absolute and not relative, waste bin. 

Sushmita Mukherjee,

 August 9, 2010  

Theory Of Relativity - I

Relativity of relativity makes it a diverse field. Manifestation of relativity in all walks of life is quite apparent. Hence a specific domain for relativity becomes difficult to assign. At least this is a fact—absolute—in this relative world that we all cohabit! And with the confidence in this ‘absolute-ness’, I have dared to title the current ‘piece of thought’.

The original theory, of this name, by the genius of Albert Einstein I am not going to delve in and dwell upon—for the simple reason that I am not at all qualified for the job. But yes, his theory has given me the courage to look beyond the realms of Physics and Chemistry and realise the omnipresence of relativity. My realization of the said omnipresence is the product of my experiences in life and their retroanalyses. All theories have physical significance—events from our day-to-day life inspiring their inception. And when I decided to go ahead and translate my thoughts in this regard little did I know I would get validation from Einstein himself, through his analogies! No, no, not my theory but my application of the original by extrapolation to life, as is evident from the following anecdote: Albert Einstein was often asked to explain the general theory of relativity. "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour," he once declared. "Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity!"

All theories—generalizations—are based on the execution of the three steps: experiment, observation and inference—in the order of their mention. When an experiment yields an unprecedented—in its unexpectedness—result for the first time, it is termed a fluke; recurrence for the second time elevates it to the status of coincidence, which is maintained over a specific statistical value. But when the frequency of its occurrence becomes too frequent it necessitates a promotion to generalization! This I have realized during the course of my training as student and teacher of Organic Chemistry, which has forced me to generalize that, “Frequent Occurrences of Coincidences Leads to Generalization”.

This holds true in life as well, rendering this thought absolute. And the beauty and efficacy of science—with its wonderful theories—increase manifold if they are assimilated and integrated, and ultimately incorporated, in life. Only then they could be of use, in the absolute sense, to mankind—the primary reason for their coming into being.

But as I have stated, life as a whole is masked in relativity—in fact absolute relativity. Our life is an outcome of the way we react to our surrounding—people, environment, issues, incidents…..And the way we react depends upon how we relate to these parameters. Relating with people around us in a specific manner either enriches or blemishes, our life with relationships—healthy or unhealthy.

And if science could be extrapolated to life then the extrapolation could be in the reverse direction as well.

The way various chemical compounds relate to each other decides how they would specifically ‘inter-act’ with each other, which gets manifested as unique reactions. This has enriched us with an indispensable branch of science—Chemistry.   

Also with advancement in science the problems that earlier either used to go undetected or suffered from lack of solution are joining the list of ‘erstwhile-s’—both in their non-detection as well as solution. This is evidenced in the aftermath of the ensuing technological as well as medical wonders—the latter being an extrapolation of the former at times. No longer a breakthrough in one specific field remains confined to the limited domains of that field. They are being used by various disparate ‘disciplines’ to anoint themselves with the tag, ‘universal’.

But relativity is absolute!

Despite all these we still cannot deny the fact that ‘instead of human-beings being at the mercy of science for betterment of life, it is science that is at the mercy of its human handlers’. The nature of the dividend—positive or negative—it yields would depend upon how the scientific information is used. This fact, we are being blatantly forced to accept by the ‘terror inciting & inflicting groups’, who by their misuse of science actually abuse science and mankind. And it is not dividend that is yielded, but deficit that is incurred—dividend and deficit being the two sides of the ‘coin of relativity’. And this misuse is not restricted to only the terrorists—rather has become all pervasive with respect to its users.

This menace is a ‘by-product’ of the progressive world. But the way it is gaining identity it’s getting elevated to the post of ‘the product’ and not remain a mere ‘by-product’ seems frighteningly imminent. As the world progresses so does the menace—but at a brisker pace—gaining alarming proportions; after all downhill reactions are always faster.

Nothing can be absolute in this world—an absolutely relative place. Not even science. This is a fact. Yet the fact of the matter is the fact that life is a paradox and in this paradoxical life we cannot deny the equally paradoxical absolute—ness of relativity.

Thus my theory—if of any consequence—of relativity is that, “Relativity is absolute and if not absolute, at least relatively absolute”.

Sushmita Mukherjee,

31^st July, 2010.  

Googly of GOOGLE

The indispensability of Google in our life manifests itself with an ever-increasing magnitude. And why not, given the fact that Google has become our information manual for whatnots. Whatever we don’t know or don’t want to exert our brains for, we very spontaneously ask Google for the answer…and more often than not it comes up with the right answer.

For that all of us are thankful to Google—rather to the people (wo)manning the Google. Because it is they who feed the data…which necessitates updating the database continuously.  This has led to our high demands from them…that they quite capably meet. But this demand has thrust on them huge responsibility…well, nothing comes for free. It is a two-way traffic.

They are supposed to be 100 % accurate with the information they provide. Anything less than 100%, however inadvertent, doesn’t go down well with people…rendering Google responsible of irresponsible ‘behaviour’.

Given what they stand for, I too thus find their act of showing PoK in Pakistan—not once but twice—a highly irresponsible act. And at the same time immeasurably offending too, given the fact that it is ‘Google’—synonymous with authenticity—who is providing the ‘mis-information’.

I don’t know whether the Indian Government asked for a clarification—leave aside an apology—'for this act. And if this were any indication, then very soon we would come to know of various COAP and COIT—Chinese Occupied Arunachal Pradesh and Chinese Occupied Indian Territories—from Google. China—as reported—did force a leading mobile phone company to indeed show parts of Arunachal as Chinese territories; though China later on refuted this report.

Paradoxically enough, showing PoK in Pakistan and potentiality of ‘exposing’ COAPs and COITs would have juxtaposed impacts.While the former going ‘un-protested’—at least as far as the information available to me—once again reinstates India’s character as being a spineless nation—the latter would be real eye-openers for the citizens of the country. There is a reason behind this claim of mine. When there were definite reports of Chinese incursion(s) in Arunachal, the then concerned minister—and who is now the troubleshooter of this current government—negated the claims, claiming that sanctity of India’s sovereignty has not been compromised.

Reports of Chinese incursion(s) though continues to trickling in, which are invalidated as many times by the ministers…whom one would now prefer to call Swayam Sevaks (Self serving) and not Jan Sevaks (Public servants), which they proclaim themselves to be. Due to the majority of such members of our parliament…our Parliament resembles a PIT—Politicians Interrupting Truth—with a TIP—Traitor(s) Infested Parliament

In spite of knowing all this we can’t do anything but accept the ‘official information’ that is offered to the nation.

But yes, Google with its Googly (of placing PoK in Pakistan)—and a very serious one at that—has trespassed into the domain of our Politicians. And have the politicians protested? No. And if my instinct and analyses is anything to go by, they haven’t protested because they themselves are Manipulators Par Excellence…charting their own MAP… for which they don’t need the help of Google …which stands for Manipulators @ Perfection—!!! 

Sushmita Mukherjee,

November 4, 2010.

Common Wealth

The proverbial Pandora’s box finds a new synonym in the Commonwealth Games, 2010…hosted by our nation’s capital.  Though I am apprehensive that after this fiasco of ‘the games’ it would be called the ‘Sham Capital’. Not to mention the ignominy of the continuously accruing ‘shame quotient’. God only knows what else will tumble out of the ‘sham closet’…the Commonwealth Village. It really seems that we are going back to our roots, with the hissing of the snake taking us back… to the village!

I do not wish to give the details of such undesirable incidents for the reasons:

(i)                  I do not have the statistical corroboration…in the form of the exact data.

(ii)                Already people are having to endure enough shame…with the details being covered by both the print and electronic media…and for that I congratulate them. Otherwise we would have been kept in the dark… about the irremovable dark clouds of corruption—yet again—with dignity of the nation being held as a ‘hostage’.

(iii)               Such incidents are likely to pile on, to ultimately reach infinite proportions.

(iv)              I wanted to shed some light from a different context…though the fact that ‘shams’ always lead to ‘shame’, remains irrefutable.

I really ponder as to how are we going to redeem and salvage the respect and dignity of the nation. Through the ‘bribing lure’ of a progressively manipulated economy and an infinite market for ‘what not’s’? Well under the circumstances it would be barter… of our self-respect.

The question arises: Is self-respect…including that of the nation… a commodity?

At least not to a common man/woman. Even though wealth is not common…rather most uncommon possession of a common man/woman. And in this regard Mr. Azim Premzi’s article in the TOI, dt. 28.08.10, sums it up best.

Ambition is justified and a natural reflection of an intention for progression. But when this intention leads to regression…that too knowingly…it becomes ‘hypocrisy’.  That is where this progression has led…to regression. The infrastructure building measures are detectable by only infrared rays! And we have not been able to even preserve the facilities…whatever little…of the yore.

World’s largest democracy’s craving to host the CW games…otherwise would be deemed natural…but not when that democracy is India. India ranks amongst the world’s 10 most poor countries. The majority of the population finds it impossible to fulfill their basic needs…because wealth (?!) is uncommon to common people. Still we want to hold the Commonwealth Games…that too with misdirected intentions.

So echoing what Mr. Premzi has done…and what I am sure 95% of the citizens agree with…did India need to hold the Commonwealth Games? And most important, could we hold an event of such a magnitude when intentions of the people involved, is very common (something at last!)…of not intending to do the needful?

I do not know the real reason behind this decision to hold the games…and more so when the efficient inefficiency of the executive machinery was assured. But I can speculate on the probable consequences…a couple of them, out of the possible many… of the Commonwealth Games.

(i) We Indians are going to feel a burning pinch on our pockets, in the form of further (?!) price hike on the goods of our daily needs.

(ii) And part of the deficit incurred by the games would be levied on us with an increment in ‘taxes’…equivalent to being punished without committing a crime.

(iii) While the culprits…the elite class…including some of our Most Precious (MP’s) citizens would remain unaffected…and if are affected that would be for the better (for them, of course).

So in the very near future, we Indians…reeling from the after effects of the Commonwealth Games…are likely to shout at the top of our voices… C’mon Wealth!

Sushmita Mukherjee,

27^th September 2010.

Dearer MPs

Our dear MPs—the members of parliament—had raised a furor over the 3-fold salary hike that had been gifted to them…demanding in the lines of an old advertisement for the soft drink Pepsi that proclaimed, “Yeh dil maange more”…give us more…and they have indeed managed to extract more…

The raise in their salary has raised a furor in various circles and I am sure the MPs must be feeling this feeling expressed by others, to be utterly unjust…given that all other professions have an increased pay packet, than what it used to be. Hence to them this furor over the raise, and over their furor, is beyond comprehension…but is it actually so? Are they so naïve? I think not…though yes, as is the human nature…what others get always seems to be more than what the self gets. Thus if they felt that they were still the underpaid class…. one cannot blame them!

Though on going through the detailed research and the corresponding reports in The Times of India, Kolkata, dt. August 22, 2010, one would realise how misplaced is the wails of the MPs…that saw them thronging the well of the House (in parliament) in opposition to such a meager (?) hike in their salary. The TOI has quite explicitly reported the details and analysed the implications of this decision of pay-hike—more specifically the extent of the raise. And as if this was not enough it has been incremented further (TOI, dt. August 23, 2010)—typifying the efficiency of the government in appeasing but not in governance.

The salary hike is just the tip of the ice-berg—given the perks, amounting to gratis—considering the almost unlimited privileges being accorded to them…. in a country where a large number of people do not have the privilege of even the most elementary means of sustenance…food, clothing and shelter…and the representatives of the same people ‘were’ to earn Rs.57 lakhs annually (only the salary and not the lump sump package, as the amount excludes the unlimited allowances)….and it being too insufficient a raise, was raised within a span a of a day to Rs. !.6lakhs per month as the lump-sump pay packet, which includes still, not all of the allowances…still they are not happy as they had wanted the monthly salary to be Rs.80,001…to do justice to their self-implanted tag of ‘servers of the underprivileged’…Well, it could happen only in India and that too so blatantly.

The report, based on the original hike, has bared the implicit impact of the increment—104 times that of per capita GDP of the country—that is, they would be earning 104 times more than the annual income of an average Indian—citizens whom the MPs are supposed to serve! Herein certain questions are craving for answer:

(i) Aren’t they costing India too much?

(ii) Are we in a position to afford it?

But they weren’t happy…so to appease them the govt. has partially(?!) acceded to their demands.

It is a forgone conclusion that they do not have a conscience—most of them—and even if they have, they are deaf to it. Their grudge raises a question mark over their credibility as citizens of India. Yes, they have the right to voice their dissent…but on valid grounds…even they are aware whom they are serving…self or the nation.

A very startling realization has struck me. Even the original hike in salary of the MPs being 104 times greater (I haven’t been able to calculate that, after the latest increment as it states that the basic hasn’t been raised only the allowances have been!) than the per capita GDP of our country implies that the average salary of a common (wo)man is that much lesser, which in turn necessitates a downward motion for the growth of the country.

Therefore the salary of an MP is inversely proportional to the growth of the country and directly proportional to corruption. Look at Kenya, where this figure is 180—strife with corruption where the common man is starving while the politicians are thriving (same as in India)—courtesy this disparity, which is another name of corruption. And as opposed to these two countries— in Japan and Singapore—the respective corresponding figures being 6 and 4—records a speedy and steady growth, rather a democratic growth—sans corruption, whose index are these figures and manifestation is in the growth. I don’t know what the economists would say. But the plain truth is visible to one and all.

‘We, the people’, in general do not know the nuances of economics nor do we know how to manipulate it. But the people who matter are aware and quite capable. Still they went ahead and did what they did. No body knows more about finances than our respected PM—undoubtedly an academician par excellence. And our FM—the troubleshooter for this UPA government—too knows the financial implications of this hike. So what was (were) the compelling reasons behind the decision?

True, the MPs have the right to ask why this furor over their salary hike when it is quite natural in all other sectors as well. But then do they, as such, only rely on their salaries for sustenance…the past is strife with shames of frauds and scandals, present is either shielding many such scams or hatching them for the future…. and the trend is likely to continue till eternity…it seems. The MPs have forgotten that it is us they represent and their increment in salary would be levied on us as tax and indirectly as price rise. Instead of being for the people they prove they would do anything to be against them…till the next elections are around…and they entice with crocodile promises.

The way they have extorted the rise, and raise over this rise, is a very crude display of blackmailing the government. And when does one give in to the blackmailers—to save or shield somebody/something—very dear. So even if the demands are dearer, it becomes worth acceding to.

Hence I refuse to accept that our PM and FM hadn’t calculated how this pay hike and hike over the hike, for MPs, would reflect against the per capita GDP. They are very capable; there is no doubt about that. Then why did they use their capabilities in less than desirable manner? There must be a serious and valid reason behind it. And I find the answer in the timing of this decision, and the common factor ‘M’ –in PM, FM and MP. ‘M’ stands for Vitamin M = Money…and not Mother India. This ‘M’ and the timing are in synergy—if my perception is correct. The lure of more ‘M’, lures away… diverts, diffuses, dissipates…the ammonia fumes of Bhopal…and now the ‘visible’ ghosts that were tumbling out of the Bhopal-closet would again be allowed ‘immunity’ in ‘invisibility’.

Thus, though the MPs might have become ‘dearer’, but they would never be ‘dear’ to the citizens—for us it shall always be our ‘Dear Nation…Mother India’—above everything else.

Sushmita Mukherjee,

23rd August 2010.

Euthanasia by Default

The word “Euthanasia” got added to my vocabulary as I read the masterpiece, “Doctors”, by Erich Segal, about 22 years back. Though I must admit the deeper meaning and the bigger picture projected/incubated by the word, in the canvas of life, I could grasp only with the ‘passage of time’—which when translated to its effect implies ‘experience’.

The true essence of a word goes well beyond its literal meaning. It rather depends on its interpretation, distortion, manipulation, assimilation, extrapolation and integration. These operators at times work in tandem—some, if not all. While at other times they are mutually exclusive in their operation. And Euthanasia too is not immune to this norm—as is normal. We have a tendency to lynch a word, try its elasticity—synonymous to versatility and wide ranged applicability—till it reaches plasticity.

Thus when I gradually began to grasp the gravity of the implications of the word I started to gravitate towards either end of the fulcrum—pros and con of the effect imparted by what Euthanasia does. But before dealing with the pendulum of my analytical mind, I need to delve a bit on Euthanasia. Although I am sure almost everybody knows what is Euthanasia—especially my friends from the medical fraternity and legal field, but the teacher in me refuses to proceed further without a proper groundwork!

Euthanasia, as per Wikipedia (our fastest and most commonly used tool for accessing information), has its root in Greek: ‘eu’ meaning ‘good/well’ and ‘thanotos’ meaning ‘death’. The word was first used to signify a peaceful death, devoid of suffering, but was later on modified, by extrapolation by none other than Francis Bacon. He said that Euthanasia is definitely a peaceful death sans suffering but brought about by a physician who helps the patient suffering from an incurable disease and unbearable pain, to get rid of it. The physician at the behest of the patient helps alleviate the pain in the only possible way—by helping him/her to end the life.

Later on, it started being referred to as the practice of ending a life in a manner, which relieves pain, and suffering. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of Euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering”. Well there are many camouflaged, heavily loaded words used as preconditions for a process to be qualified as Euthanasia.

I do not want to enter into an ongoing raging debate all over the world over Euthanasia. But I need to put forth my views in order to validate my purpose behind this piece.

The first word that comes to mind on learning of an unnatural death—of a person, inflicted by another person—is ‘homicide’. Even ‘suicide’ is an act of ‘homicide inflicted by the self on the self’. ‘What led to it’ always comes as an after thought. So Euthanasia too apparently would likely come under it. Maybe this is the reason why it has not been legalized. It is deemed legal in not even a handful of countries, Netherlands being one of them, but then the Euthanasia has to of the “Voluntary” variety and needs to fulfill the conditions (laid down by deciding authority) to qualify for the procedure. And as I write this piece, Germany has made Euthanasia legal.

Euthanasia—ethical or unethical, notwithstanding—has been categorized as:

(i) Voluntary: - The patient unable to bear the pain—caused both by the illness as well the treatment that it necessitates—gives his/her consent….in fact urges with the attending doctor to bring an end to the suffering.

(ii) Non-voluntary: - The consent is unavailable from the patient, one of the example being that of child euthanasia.

(iii) Involuntary: - The consent of the patient is not taken and hence is equivalent to murder.

And even after these categorizations the true Euthanasia is considered to be the first one, Voluntary Euthanasia.

But what about the doctors? What do they do? Irrespective of the “Rights of the Terminally Ill Patient”, they are bound by the Hippocratic Oath. Though I am not the right person to comment upon it, but still there is one point in that oath that I find ‘double-edged’. The proclamation, “I shall not harm my patients”. What is actually harmful depends entirely upon the situation. Aspirin is great for some people while it is devastating on the ‘system’ of others. Likewise, if the situation of a patient is irreparable, the pain irreducible and the necessary drugs to fight the (lost cause) illness aggravate the suffering as an undesirable contra-effect, then is the continuance of the medication healthy or harmful? But then their hands are tied in the tug-of war between ethics of oath, supported by their conscience and contradicted by rational mind. ‘I can’t play God’, that is their overwhelming thought.

In fact, Euthanasia has also been aptly described as “Assisted Suicide”.

Thus is an act of homicide, at its face value. In spite of knowing that ending a life or aiding in culminating the pain, by terminating the working of the heart, would alleviate the pain, release and relieve the soul from the entrapment of the physical sufferings, at least I can’t actively participate in such an act and am happy that am not a doctor! Though of course I can passively play my part…..by doing what I can, legally, with the backing of the conscience. That is pray for the “Mukti” (release), but don’t inflict it—directly or indirectly by assisting in its execution. And this is all what we do normally. Not because of the “Oath of Hypocrisy” that we seem to have taken by default by dint of being born as humans. But because of our belief in the Supreme Being—as we live in a God ‘fearing’, if not ‘abiding’, society. We accept that the rights to ‘create or terminate’ life resides with God and not with us. As also to bestow the grace of (being) ‘Mercifully Killed’, to terminally ill patients.

But as it happens with various issues, there comes a time when the onus of decision-making cannot be passed on as a buck. We are forced to become ‘active’ from ‘passive’ participants. This is encountered when complications arise during childbirth. Till today various deaths are reported during childbirths—sometimes of both the mother and the child and at times either of the two. These occurrences befall unexpectedly most of the time. But when complications are pre-indicated and the death of one of them is imminent, both the Hippocratic Oath, as well as Oath of Hypocrisy, are tested. The doctor envisaging the improbability of saving both the mother and the child and unable to ignore the Oath that takes cognizance of even an unborn child, wants the decision made by the family members, thereby absolving the conscience (doctor’s) of any guilt. While the family members faced with such a difficult situation are afraid to come up with an immediate answer lest they end up being supporters of Oath of Hypocrisy. Whom do they choose, mother or the child—none has committed any crime to be discriminated against? Yet they have to decide and normally the decision is in favour of (saving) the mother and against the child. Then is it not an enforced Euthanasia by default with respect to the child and that too non-voluntary?

Not only this, but there is another instance—and quite prevalent in India where financial conditions of the majority of the population is very bad, the projected economic growth notwithstanding —where the financial constraints doesn’t allow the treatment to be continued, the patient dies and the family members are rendered mute spectators. I know it is Destiny but is not this Destiny reached via a form of Euthanasia, albeit by default. Because that is what it is, allowing a loved one to die, having no other option—that is what has been said of Euthanasia—to assist in dying; in hopeless and unbearable circumstances.

The countries which do not support Euthanasia legally, what do they have to say about these “Euthanasia(s) by Default”?