I recently witnessed one of these so-called "Reality Shows" on television. I should confess I am not a regular viewer of television programmes. In fact, I normally see TV programmes only when they are "forced" on me because I happen to be in a house where the set happens to be switched on. And this was no exception. But this time it was one of those unreal shows in Hindi. And I almost wanted to give the guy who made the programme such a blow that he would never think of making such a programme again. Well, that needs a bit of explanation, I guess.
I saw bits of the song that the contestants had apparently sung after which each one was told to wait to learn what their fate was going to be. Then I saw all of them seated in a row. The anchor then gave each of them a small white board and a pen. Then each person was asked to write on the board, horror of horrors, who they would like to see out of the contest that day!
I thought this was the height of absurdity. I already do not like these programmes because they appear to be competitions among singers but they do not really test the musical abilities of the individuals. First of all, they need viewers to vote for their favourite participants and the winner is based on the number of votes (s)he receives. The participants are asked to beg viewers to vote for them, which, I feel, is humiliating. This leads, I am told, to participants paying people to vote for them, and, apparently, even hiring people to sit and send messages! Since the whole idea is to make huge profits, and the rewards offered also are out of the world, such manipulations automatically become part of the scheme.
Moreover, it is not enough that the participant sings, he needs to "perform"! That is, they need to appear in a dress that suits the song and kind of dance around the stage while they sing. I am totally unable to understand this. Which of the great musicians of this part of the world would have been able to do such things? Kumar Gandharva? Thyagaraja Bhagawathar? Omkarnath Thakur? Semmangudi? Or even Mohaamed Rafi? Yesudas? Latha Mangeshkar? None of the great singers I know of Only in movies do we see people singing and dancing. And they used to do that in reality only in the initial days of the "talkie". Why, even those judges who sit and make comments would fail miserably if they tried to do that. That kind of performance has been a part only of rock concerts, where we see Michael Jackson (or someone else) jump around with a microphone or threaten to break the microphone stand. Such "performance" has never been a part of the music in this part of the world. So obviously, that has come from the West. Here, the emphasis has been on the purity of the note (Sruthi), bhava or emotion and things like that. Music has always been primarily an audio performance. I don't understand why such alien ideas that cannot go with our music should be brought into these "unreal" shows.
But to ask the participants to name the persons they would wish to see gone is the height of indecency. We have plenty of other reasons to differentiate people - religion, caste, language, region, colour, whatever one could think of. And now why do these guys want to create animosity among singers from different places? Next, I guess, they would be asking people, "which of your friends would you like to see dead today?" This is outright ridiculous! These are shows that shouldn't be shown or shot.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Cayambe, Ecuador
From Asuncion, I went to Quito, Ecuador, with my friend Juan Carlos. You can read about this in my blog Free as in Freedom. We reached Quito on 5th May and were there till 10th. But in-between we were invited to visit Cayambe, where Rafael Bonifaz's father is the Governor (they call him Mayor). We went on 8th to Caambe and returned to Quito the next day. But this was perhaps the most memorable part of my visit to Latin America.
On 8th morning, Charles Escobar, with whom we were staying, went out on a visit with his family, and told us that Quiliro would be coming to pick us up. Quiliro turned up in a taxi at about 8 am and we went to the office of an association of electronics engineers where two or three people were waiting for us. Rafael Bonifaz soon joined us. We were discussing largely Free Software and how it was adopted in India. As we talked, Juan spoke about the encounter in the office of intellectual property and said how he wanted them to disappear. I disagreed and explained how the IP regime came about to help society and why it is still important in some respects. I gave the example of the Aranmula Kannadi and explained how the know-how could have come into the public domain if it could have been patented. This led to an argument which, I thought later, could have been avoided. I should, perhaps, have been more in control of what I spoke. I felt that Juan was demanding virtually impossible things and that would reduce the possibility of someone sympathetic to our cause listening to us. Happily, Juan does not seem to have taken offence at my verbal assault. We then left with Rafael to his native place in the mountains of Cayambe.
Rafael selected a long route that went through the mountains so that we could see some beautiful sights. And were they beautiful! I got to see some of the most beautiful landscapes I have ever seen! And we stopped on a couple of occasions just to take photographs. I am yet to see the photos (they are still in Juan's camera) but I wonder whether they have really been able to capture the beauty of the place. Finally we turned off the road (the Pan American Highway) into an old place that has apparently been turned into a kind of hotel with food and accommodation. Rafael's father was waiting for us and we sat down on one of the benches that were arranged on the verandah inside. My answer to his first question "What would you like to have?" reflects the beauty of the place. I said, "Nothing. This place alone is good enough". Yes, the courtyard was paved with smooth stones and the whole place looked like a beautiful picture! And the weather was cool. making it a very pleasant experience. Rafael's father started with a brief history of the place. Apparently, it had once belonged to his great grandmother. She was disinherited because she married a Peruvian guy. But she could buy it back because of some circumstances that forced the family to sell the land. There stands a very old church that was the first building to be built there some four hundred years ago.
We were soon joined by the Director of school education and a technologist and they wanted me to describe how Kerala migrated to Free Software (FS) and why it happened in Kerala. I virtually repeated my presentation at the Free Software Asuncion conference and answered the questions about "why Kerala" as well as I could. Along with Rafael, we then discussed strategies to migrate the schools to Free Software. My strategy was to influence the natives, who were apparently a n important part of the population, But it turned out that teachers were already asking for training in FS because they had got some computers with FS. The only thing that apparently had to be done was to provide training to them and show them a few applications that can be used for teaching and learning.
By this time it was night fall and getting rather cold. Rafael lit the fireplace, and this was my first experience sitting in front of a fireplace. We were shown our room, which was wonderful with wooden floor and very old wooden furniture. All of us had dinner together and Juan took several photographs. There were apparently several other people staying in the place who all came for food around the same time. Rafael then showed us the place from where we could connect to the Internet. I preferred to use a desktop computer there while Juan went to collect his laptop. We sat there for a long time. By the time we decided to go to our room, which was not late by any standards, the whole place was in darkness and we had to depend on Juan's mobile to give us some light (mine was already out of charge). In the room we were discussing for a long time about Western music before we went to sleep.
The next morning, we got up and quickly got ready because Rafael had told us that we would go to his brother-in-law's pet project, the equator monument. But he (brother-in-law, Cristobal Cobo Arizaga) appeared while we were having breakfast and explained to us why the present method of drawing maps with the North on top is unscientific. He said that the North star is actually temporary and would change over a few thousand years. In the map with North on top, the map divides countries into top and bottom countries. He said that the only direction that was permanent was the East, where the Sun always rises. Therefore, he said, maps should be drawn with the East at the top, and that would give equal importance to all countries to the North and South of the equator. He explained how the ancient people of the region had identified the exact position of the equator and built a monument there, which is not largely destroyed. He said that they needed to observe the heavens to calculate the time when the seeds have to be sown and the yield has to be harvested.
I had a different take on the last part. I felt that humans were perhaps driven by curiosity always, as we are today. My feeling is that people intuitively knew when cultivation should be done, when rains would come and things like that. We see this happening even today in regions where modern education has not corrupted the minds of people, and in animals who hibernate or migrate. They don't have any need to observe the heavens and do calculations to determine when to hibernate or when to start moving to another part of the world, often very far away. I believe that the ancient people also had this intuitive knowledge. Modern humans tend to think only in terms of logical analysis whereas there seems to be a lot of evidence to show that human beings depended on their intuition for many things in life. But Cristobal didn't seem to understand what I was trying to say or to agree with me.
We then went to the monment which they had built exactly on the equator and the view from there was simply fantastic. At one point of time, the clouds were arranged in such a manner that the hills in the background looked like a picture. Again Juan took photographs but I wonder whether they have succeeded in absorbing even half of the beauty. And I am sure this is not because of the photography skills of Juan. I think one needs to really be there to fully enjoy the beauty of the place. Juan purchased a DVD-CD set for $20 from there, the money going for the maintenance of the site. The DVD contains a video explaining all the ideas, but the commentary is in Spanish though it has subtitles in English. This makes it difficult to see the video because one has to concentrate on the subtitles. I thought it would be good to dub it in English.
From there we returned straight to Charles' place. Quiliro had invited us to go to see the pyramids, but we decided not to because we wanted to take some time off and catch up with our email and things like that. So we returned to Charles' house and Rafael went back quickly because he had a family meeting to attend. Thus ended a wonderful part of the trip to Ecuador. I hope to put some photographs here as soon as Juan uploads them to the Hipatia gallery.
On 8th morning, Charles Escobar, with whom we were staying, went out on a visit with his family, and told us that Quiliro would be coming to pick us up. Quiliro turned up in a taxi at about 8 am and we went to the office of an association of electronics engineers where two or three people were waiting for us. Rafael Bonifaz soon joined us. We were discussing largely Free Software and how it was adopted in India. As we talked, Juan spoke about the encounter in the office of intellectual property and said how he wanted them to disappear. I disagreed and explained how the IP regime came about to help society and why it is still important in some respects. I gave the example of the Aranmula Kannadi and explained how the know-how could have come into the public domain if it could have been patented. This led to an argument which, I thought later, could have been avoided. I should, perhaps, have been more in control of what I spoke. I felt that Juan was demanding virtually impossible things and that would reduce the possibility of someone sympathetic to our cause listening to us. Happily, Juan does not seem to have taken offence at my verbal assault. We then left with Rafael to his native place in the mountains of Cayambe.
Rafael selected a long route that went through the mountains so that we could see some beautiful sights. And were they beautiful! I got to see some of the most beautiful landscapes I have ever seen! And we stopped on a couple of occasions just to take photographs. I am yet to see the photos (they are still in Juan's camera) but I wonder whether they have really been able to capture the beauty of the place. Finally we turned off the road (the Pan American Highway) into an old place that has apparently been turned into a kind of hotel with food and accommodation. Rafael's father was waiting for us and we sat down on one of the benches that were arranged on the verandah inside. My answer to his first question "What would you like to have?" reflects the beauty of the place. I said, "Nothing. This place alone is good enough". Yes, the courtyard was paved with smooth stones and the whole place looked like a beautiful picture! And the weather was cool. making it a very pleasant experience. Rafael's father started with a brief history of the place. Apparently, it had once belonged to his great grandmother. She was disinherited because she married a Peruvian guy. But she could buy it back because of some circumstances that forced the family to sell the land. There stands a very old church that was the first building to be built there some four hundred years ago.
We were soon joined by the Director of school education and a technologist and they wanted me to describe how Kerala migrated to Free Software (FS) and why it happened in Kerala. I virtually repeated my presentation at the Free Software Asuncion conference and answered the questions about "why Kerala" as well as I could. Along with Rafael, we then discussed strategies to migrate the schools to Free Software. My strategy was to influence the natives, who were apparently a n important part of the population, But it turned out that teachers were already asking for training in FS because they had got some computers with FS. The only thing that apparently had to be done was to provide training to them and show them a few applications that can be used for teaching and learning.
By this time it was night fall and getting rather cold. Rafael lit the fireplace, and this was my first experience sitting in front of a fireplace. We were shown our room, which was wonderful with wooden floor and very old wooden furniture. All of us had dinner together and Juan took several photographs. There were apparently several other people staying in the place who all came for food around the same time. Rafael then showed us the place from where we could connect to the Internet. I preferred to use a desktop computer there while Juan went to collect his laptop. We sat there for a long time. By the time we decided to go to our room, which was not late by any standards, the whole place was in darkness and we had to depend on Juan's mobile to give us some light (mine was already out of charge). In the room we were discussing for a long time about Western music before we went to sleep.
The next morning, we got up and quickly got ready because Rafael had told us that we would go to his brother-in-law's pet project, the equator monument. But he (brother-in-law, Cristobal Cobo Arizaga) appeared while we were having breakfast and explained to us why the present method of drawing maps with the North on top is unscientific. He said that the North star is actually temporary and would change over a few thousand years. In the map with North on top, the map divides countries into top and bottom countries. He said that the only direction that was permanent was the East, where the Sun always rises. Therefore, he said, maps should be drawn with the East at the top, and that would give equal importance to all countries to the North and South of the equator. He explained how the ancient people of the region had identified the exact position of the equator and built a monument there, which is not largely destroyed. He said that they needed to observe the heavens to calculate the time when the seeds have to be sown and the yield has to be harvested.
I had a different take on the last part. I felt that humans were perhaps driven by curiosity always, as we are today. My feeling is that people intuitively knew when cultivation should be done, when rains would come and things like that. We see this happening even today in regions where modern education has not corrupted the minds of people, and in animals who hibernate or migrate. They don't have any need to observe the heavens and do calculations to determine when to hibernate or when to start moving to another part of the world, often very far away. I believe that the ancient people also had this intuitive knowledge. Modern humans tend to think only in terms of logical analysis whereas there seems to be a lot of evidence to show that human beings depended on their intuition for many things in life. But Cristobal didn't seem to understand what I was trying to say or to agree with me.
We then went to the monment which they had built exactly on the equator and the view from there was simply fantastic. At one point of time, the clouds were arranged in such a manner that the hills in the background looked like a picture. Again Juan took photographs but I wonder whether they have succeeded in absorbing even half of the beauty. And I am sure this is not because of the photography skills of Juan. I think one needs to really be there to fully enjoy the beauty of the place. Juan purchased a DVD-CD set for $20 from there, the money going for the maintenance of the site. The DVD contains a video explaining all the ideas, but the commentary is in Spanish though it has subtitles in English. This makes it difficult to see the video because one has to concentrate on the subtitles. I thought it would be good to dub it in English.
From there we returned straight to Charles' place. Quiliro had invited us to go to see the pyramids, but we decided not to because we wanted to take some time off and catch up with our email and things like that. So we returned to Charles' house and Rafael went back quickly because he had a family meeting to attend. Thus ended a wonderful part of the trip to Ecuador. I hope to put some photographs here as soon as Juan uploads them to the Hipatia gallery.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Education Minister and Television
Today (April 29) was a less busy day compared to yesterday, but there were things to be very happy about. The Deputy Minister for Education wanted me and Juan to meet her at 4 pm. We reached there before time and had to wait for some time to see her. The place was a relatively unimposing building, but there were some security people were posted. But I thought it was so much more accessible than the office of a minister of the Kerala government (which itself is simpler than those of other states). Nicolas Cabellero, who was apparently close to her, and Gladys Canese from MMSL were also present and it was he who mainly talked to her.
The minister turned out to be rather young for a senior politician, but she was very pleasant and informal. The discussion was mainly in Spanish because the Minister apparently was not fluent in English. It was mostly Nicolas and Juan who spoke. Nico put forward some suggestions to the Minster that she apparently favoured. It was all about introducing Free Software in the high schools, something on Free Hardware and about introducing some high level IT. I am not clear about all of them, but Nico is supposed to send me a mail where he will describe the main thrust areas.
Discussing with the Vice Minister of Education. Lucho sits separately, disinterested. Nicolas Cabellero did most of the talking. Gladys is next to him.
The Minister is all attention, and Juan is relatively quiet.
One for the records. The Minister next to me, with Nicolas, Gladys and Juan
The next place was the TV station where they had scheduled a programme with Juan and me. Going to the TV station was just like going to any other place, unlike in India where one has to go through security checks. We just walked in and told them who we were and why we were there, and we were asked to wait till the studio was ready.
Waiting in front of the TV studio. It was rather cold that night.
After some time, a lady invited us inside and dis a minimal make up on us. Though Lucho was person who took us there, he opted not to be in the programme. We then went to the studio where the news was being telecast. We waited on another side where the programme was scheduled to be shot. The programme started after the news and the first item was an interview with an agriculture guy. He was talking about GM crops in a favourable way and Juan was getting angry with him.
The agriculture guy promoting GM crops
After his interview, we were invited and Juan and I sat opposite each other with the interviewer on my left. Since the programme was in Spanish, most of the discussion was with Juan, who was brilliant. He started by saying that it was good to speak after a person who favoured GM food because that was the wrong thing to do. And that seems to have got the favour from the interviewer (who turned out to be quite a senior guy in the TV company, the Executive Director, in fact). His questions to me were mainly about the IT at school programme. But at one point, he asked me why anyone should be afraid of freedom. I couldn't understand why he was asking such a question (I still don't), but answered, after some initial fumbling, that people who come out of a long period of control could be afraid of freedom because there was no one to tell them what they should do, and they were not able to take their own decisions. Later, Juan told me that my reply was good. The interviewer gave us his cards and we left quickly because the shooting of the next programme was to start. Later, Juan told me that there were several mails to the station during our programme and they were all in favour, even wanting to get in touch with us (so apparently our emails were shown on the screen). On the other hand, the mails that they go when the first guy was talking were all negative. Good reason for the Executive Director to feel happy with us.
Juan and I at the TV show
That is me on TV in Paraguay
The minister turned out to be rather young for a senior politician, but she was very pleasant and informal. The discussion was mainly in Spanish because the Minister apparently was not fluent in English. It was mostly Nicolas and Juan who spoke. Nico put forward some suggestions to the Minster that she apparently favoured. It was all about introducing Free Software in the high schools, something on Free Hardware and about introducing some high level IT. I am not clear about all of them, but Nico is supposed to send me a mail where he will describe the main thrust areas.
Discussing with the Vice Minister of Education. Lucho sits separately, disinterested. Nicolas Cabellero did most of the talking. Gladys is next to him.
The Minister is all attention, and Juan is relatively quiet.
One for the records. The Minister next to me, with Nicolas, Gladys and Juan
Waiting in front of the TV studio. It was rather cold that night.
The agriculture guy promoting GM crops
Juan and I at the TV show
That is me on TV in Paraguayഎന്താണു് ജീവന്?
(തേജസ് പത്രത്തിന്റെ നാലാം പേജില് ഫെബ്രുവരി 25നു് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച ലേഖനം.)
പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കു് പരിണാമം ഉണ്ടാകുന്നുണ്ടു് എന്നു് ഈയിടെ കണ്ടെത്തിയതായി ആഗോള ശാസ്ത്രവാര്ത്തകള് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടു ചെയ്യുന്ന വേള്ഡ് സയന്സ് എന്ന വെബ് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണം പറയുന്നു (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100101\_prions). ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരെ അത്ഭൂതപ്പെടുത്തിയ ഒരു വാര്ത്തയാണിതു്. കാരണം പ്രിയോണുകള് വെറും പ്രൊട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളാണു്. ജീവനുള്ള ചെടികളും മൃഗങ്ങളുമാണു് പ്രൊട്ടീന് ഉത്പാദിപ്പിക്കുന്നതെങ്കിലും ഈ തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ജീവനുണ്ടു് എന്നു വിശ്വസിക്കാന് ആരും തയാറാവാത്തതില് അത്ഭുതമില്ലല്ലൊ. പ്രിയോണുകള് പരിണാമത്തിനു് വിധേയമാകുന്നുണ്ടു് എന്ന കണ്ടുപിടിത്തം അടിസ്ഥാനപരമായ ചില ചോദ്യങ്ങളിലേക്കാണു് നയിക്കുന്നതു്. പ്രിയോണുകള് എന്താണെന്നും അവ പരിണാമത്തിനു് വിധേയമാകുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില് അതുയര്ത്തുന്ന ചോദ്യങ്ങളെന്താണെന്നും നമുക്കു് പരിശോധിക്കാം.
1984ല് ഇംഗ്ലണ്ടിലാണു് ആദ്യമായി പശുക്കളില് ഒരു പ്രത്യേക രോഗം കണ്ടതു്. രോഗം തുടങ്ങുമ്പോള് പശുക്കളുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തില് വല്ലാത്ത മാറ്റങ്ങളുണ്ടാകുന്നു. പിന്നീടു് ഒരുമാതിരി ``വട്ടുപിടിച്ചതുപോലെ'' നടക്കുകയും തീറ്റ കുറയ്ക്കുന്നില്ലെങ്കില് പോലും പശു മെലിയാന് തുടങ്ങുകയും ചെയ്യും. ക്രമേണ പശുവിനു് എണീറ്റു് നില്ക്കാന് പോലും വയ്യാതായി ചത്തു പോകുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു. പശുവിറച്ചിയും എല്ലിന് പൊടിയും മറ്റും അരച്ചു് പശുത്തീറ്റയില് ചേര്ക്കുന്ന ഒരു പതിവു് ഇംഗ്ലണ്ടില് അക്കാലത്തുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അവിടെ നന്നായി വളരാത്ത സോയബീനിനു പകരമായിട്ടാണു് ഇവ ചേര്ത്തിരുന്നതു്. അങ്ങനത്തെ തീറ്റ കഴിച്ച പശുക്കളിലാണു് ഈ രോഗം കാണുന്നതെന്നു് മനസിലായി. രോഗം വന്ന പശുക്കളുടെ ഇറച്ചി ചേര്ത്ത തീറ്റ കഴിച്ച പശുക്കള്ക്കാണു് രോഗം പകരുന്നതെന്നു് പിന്നീടു് മനസിലായി. ഈ രോഗം ആദ്യം കണ്ടെത്തിയപ്പോള് അതു് ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരെ അത്ഭൂതപ്പെടുത്തുകയും വിസ്മയിപ്പിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.
ചില രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു് ബാക്ടീരിയയോ വൈറസോ അല്ല, വെറും പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളായിരിക്കാം എന്നു് 1960 കളില് ചില ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞര് സങ്കല്പിച്ചിരുന്നു. അള്ട്രാവയലറ്റ് രശ്മികളേറ്റാല് എല്ലാ സെല്ലിലുമുള്ള ഡി.എന്. എ. (DNA, Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid) തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ക്ഷതമേല്ക്കുമെങ്കിലും ചില രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുന്ന രോഗാണുക്കള് നശിക്കുന്നില്ല എന്ന കണ്ടുപിടിത്തം വിശദീകരിക്കാനാണു് ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു സങ്കല്പം ഉണ്ടായതു്. മേല്പറഞ്ഞ, ``പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗം'' (Mad Cow Disease) എന്നു പേരിട്ട, രോഗം ഒരു പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രയാണു് ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു് എന്നു് സാന് ഫ്രാന്സിസ്ക്കോയിലെ കാലഫോര്ണിയ സര്വകലാശാലയിലെ പ്രൊഫ. സ്റ്റാന്ലി പ്രൂസിനര് 1982ല് തെളിയിച്ചു. അദ്ദേഹം തന്നെയാണു് ഇത്തരം പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് പ്രിയോണ് എന്നു പേരിട്ടതും. കണ്ടുപിടിത്തത്തിനു് 1997ലെ വൈദ്യശാസ്ത്രത്തിനുള്ള നൊബെല് സമ്മാനം സ്റ്റാന്ലിയ്ക്കു് ലഭിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.
പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗത്തെപ്പറ്റി ഒരു വാക്കു്. ബൊവൈന് സ്പോഞ്ചിഫോം എന്സെഫാലോപ്പതി \eng(Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, BSE) \mal എന്നാണു് പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗത്തിന്റെ ശാസ്ത്രീയനാമം. ഈ രോഗമുള്ള പശുവിന്റെ ഇറച്ചി കഴിച്ചാല് മനുഷ്യനു് ഇതുപോലത്തെ ഒരു രോഗം ഉണ്ടാകും. അതിനു് വ്യത്യസ്തമായ ക്രൂട്ട്സ്ഫെല്ഡ്റ്റ് ജേക്കബ് രോഗം (variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) എന്നു പറയുന്നു. (ഇതേ പേരില് അറിയപ്പെട്ടിരുന്ന മറ്റൊരു രോഗമുണ്ടു്. അതില്നിന്നു് തിരിച്ചറിയാനാണു് ഇതിനെ വ്യത്യസ്തമായ ക്രൂട്ട്സ്ഫെല്ഡ്റ്റ് ജേക്കബ് രോഗം എന്നു വിളിക്കുന്നതു്.) പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗമുള്ള പശുക്കളെയെല്ലാം കൊന്നൊടുക്കി തീയീട്ടാണു് ഈ രോഗം ഇല്ലാതാക്കിയതു്.
എല്ലാ ജീവിവര്ഗങ്ങളിലും ഒരു തലമുറയില്നിന്നു് അടുത്ത തലമുറയിലേക്കു് സ്വഭാവസവിശേഷതകള് പകരുന്നതു് ജീവജാലങ്ങളില് അടങ്ങിയിരിക്കുന്ന കോശങ്ങള്ക്കുള്ളിലെ ഡി.എന്.എ. തന്മാത്രകളിലൂടെയാണു്. ചെടികളുടെയും മൃഗങ്ങളുടെയും മനുഷ്യരുടെയും കോശങ്ങളിലൊക്കെ ഈ തന്മാത്രകളുണ്ടു്. ബാക്ടീരിയ പോലെയുള്ള ഏകകോശ ജീവികളിലും ഈ തന്മാത്രകളുണ്ടു്. വൈറസുകളിലാണെങ്കില് ഡി.എന്.എ. തന്മാത്രകള് മാത്രമെയുള്ളൂ. മറ്റു് ജൈവരൂപങ്ങള്ക്കുള്ളതുപോലെ കോശമില്ല. കോശമില്ലാത്ത ഒരു വസ്തുവെങ്ങനെ ജൈവരൂപമാകും എന്നു ചിലര് സംശയിച്ചിരുന്നു. എന്നാല് വൈറസുകള് പ്രത്യുല്പാദിപ്പിക്കുകയും ചിലവ ജൈവകോശങ്ങളെ നശിപ്പിച്ചു് രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നതിനാല് അവ ഒരു ജൈവരൂപമാണു് എന്നുതന്നെ എല്ലാവരും അംഗീകരിച്ചു.
എന്നാല് പ്രിയോണാവട്ടെ വെറും പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രയാണു്. പ്രോട്ടീന് എന്നതു് എല്ലാ മൃഗങ്ങളുടെയും ശരീരത്തിലുള്ള, അത്യാവശ്യമുള്ള, ഒരു വസ്തുവാണുതാനും. അതെങ്ങനെയാണു് രോഗകാരണമാകുന്നതു്? അതു് മനസിലാക്കാന് പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളുടെ ഒരു പ്രത്യേകത മനസിലാക്കണം. പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള് വളരെ വലുതാണു്. വലുപ്പം കാരണമായിരിക്കാം അവ സാധാരണഗതിയില് മടങ്ങിയാണിരിക്കുന്നതു്. ഒരു പ്രത്യേക രീതിയില് മടങ്ങിയിരുന്നാലേ പ്രോട്ടീന് ശരീരത്തില് വേണ്ടവിധത്തില് പ്രവര്ത്തിക്കൂ. തന്മാത്ര നിവര്ന്നു പോകുകയോ മടക്കം മറ്റൊരു രീതിയിലാകുകയോ ചെയ്താല് ആ തന്മാത്രകൊണ്ടു് ശരീരത്തിനു് പ്രയോജനമില്ലാതാകും. ചില പ്രോട്ടീനുകള് വല്ലാതെ ചൂടാകുകയെ തണുക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുമ്പോള് നിവര്ന്നു പോകും. അങ്ങനെ ആയാല് ആ പ്രോട്ടീന് ശരീരത്തിനു് ഗുണം ചെയ്യില്ല.
പ്രിയോണുകള് എങ്ങനെയാണു് രോഗമുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു്? ഒരു കോശത്തില് പ്രിയോണ് കടന്നുകഴിയുമ്പോള് ആ കോശത്തിലുള്ള മറ്റു പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളെ അതു് നിവരാന് പ്രേരിപ്പിക്കും. അങ്ങനെ കൂടുതല് പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള് ശരീരത്തില് അവ ചെയ്യേണ്ട കര്മ്മം ചെയ്യാതാവും. അങ്ങനെ ശാരീരിക പ്രവര്ത്തനങ്ങളെ സ്വാധീനിച്ചുകൊണ്ടാണു് പ്രിയോണുകള് രോഗമുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു്. അങ്ങനെ പ്രിയോണുകള് പുനരുല്പാദിപ്പിക്കുന്നില്ലെങ്കിലും എണ്ണത്തില് വര്ദ്ധിക്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. ആ അര്ത്ഥത്തില് പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കു് ബാക്ടീരിയ, വൈറസ് തുടങ്ങിയ ഏകകോശജീവികളുമായി സാമ്യമുണ്ടു്. അപ്പോഴും ഒരു ചോദ്യം അവശേഷിക്കുന്നു: എല്ലാ ജന്തുക്കളുടെയും ശരീരത്തില് അടങ്ങിയിരിക്കുന്ന ഒരു രാസവസ്തുവായി പ്രോട്ടീനിന്റെ തന്മാത്രകളെങ്ങനെയാണു് ഒരു ഏകകോശ ജീവിയെപ്പോലെ പെരുമാറുന്നതു്?
പണ്ടൊരു കാലത്തു് ചെടികള്ക്കു് ജീവനില്ല എന്നു് കരുതിയിരുന്നു. ജഗദീശ്ചന്ദ്ര ബോസ് ചെടികള്ക്കു് ജീവനുണ്ടെന്നു് തെളിയിച്ചു. വൈറസുകളെ ജീവികളായി കണക്കാക്കാമോ എന്നു് പലര്ക്കും സംശയമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. പൊതിഞ്ഞു വച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ഡി.എന്.എ. (അല്ലെങ്കില് ആര്.എന്.എ.) തന്മാത്രകളാണു് വൈറസുകള്. സ്വഭാവസവിശേഷതകള് ഒരു തലമുറയില്നിന്നു് അടുത്ത തലമുറയിലേക്കു് പകരുന്നതു് ഡി.എന്.എ. വഴിയാണെന്നു മാത്രമല്ല ഒരു ജന്തുവിന്റെ രൂപവും നിറവും സ്വഭാവവും പോലും നിര്ണ്ണയിക്കുന്നതില് സുപ്രധാന പങ്കു് വഹിക്കുന്നതു് ഡി.എന്.എ. ആണു്. എന്നിരുന്നാലും ഒരു കോശം പോലുമില്ലാത്ത വൈറസിനെ എങ്ങനെ ഒരു ജീവിയായി കണക്കാക്കും എന്നു് സംശയമുണ്ടായെങ്കില് അതില് അത്ഭുതപ്പെടാനില്ലല്ലോ. പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കാണെങ്കില് കോശവുമില്ല, ഡി.എന്.എ.യുമില്ല! അവയെ എങ്ങനെ ജീവിയായി കണക്കാക്കാനാകും?
ഇതു് സങ്കീര്ണ്ണമായ ഒരു പ്രശ്നത്തിലേക്കു് വിരല് ചൂണ്ടുന്നു എന്നെനിക്കു് തോന്നുന്നു. പ്രിയോണുകള് ജീവികളല്ല എന്നു് സമ്മതിച്ചാലും മറിച്ചു് അവ ജീവികളാണു് എന്നു് സമ്മതിച്ചാലും പ്രശ്നമുണ്ടു്. പ്രിയോണുകള് ജീവനില്ലാത്ത വസ്തുക്കളാണെങ്കില് വൈറസുകളെയും അതുപോലെതന്നെ കാണണ്ടേ? പ്രിയോണുകള് പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളാണെങ്കില് വൈറസുകള് ഡി.എന്.എ. (അല്ലെങ്കില് ആര്.എന്.എ.) തന്മാത്രകളല്ലേ? രണ്ടും തന്മാത്രകള്. പിന്നെ വൈറസില് എവിടെനിന്നു് ജീവന് വന്നു? വൈറസിനു് അധികമായുള്ളതു് ഒരു ആവരണം മാത്രമാണു്. അതിലാണോ ജീവന് കുടികൊള്ളുന്നതു്? അങ്ങനെയെങ്കില്, കോശത്തിനുള്ളില് കടക്കുന്ന വൈറസ് ആവരണം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ച ശേഷം കോശത്തിലെ ഘടകങ്ങളുടെ സഹായത്താല് പുനരുല്പാദനം നടത്തുമ്പോള് വൈറസിനു് ജീവന് നഷ്ടമാകുമോ? മാത്രമല്ല, മനുഷ്യന് ഉള്പ്പെടെയുള്ള ``ജീവജാല''ങ്ങള്ക്കു് ജീവന് എന്നൊന്നുണ്ടോ? അതോ ഇതൊക്കെ നമ്മുടെ തോന്നല് മാത്രമാണോ? ഉത്തരം കിട്ടാന് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടാണു് ഈ ചോദ്യത്തിനു്.
മറിച്ചു്, പ്രിയോണുകള് ജീവികളാണു് എന്നു് സങ്കല്പിച്ചാലോ? അങ്ങനെയെങ്കില് സാധാരണ പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ജീവനില്ലേ എന്ന ചോദ്യം ഉയര്ന്നുവരുന്നു. ഇല്ല എങ്കില്, പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കു് ഏതു് ഘട്ടത്തിലാണു് ജീവന് ലഭിക്കുന്നതു്? പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രയുടെ മടക്കു് നിവരുമ്പോഴോ? മാത്രമല്ല, പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ജീവനുണ്ടാകാമെങ്കില് മറ്റു് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കും ജീവനുണ്ടാകില്ല എന്നു് എങ്ങനെ ഉറപ്പിച്ചു് പറയാനാകും? കല്ലിനും മണ്ണിനും പോലും ജീവനില്ല എന്നു് എങ്ങനെ ഉറപ്പിച്ചു് പറയും? ആധുനിക ശാസ്ത്രത്തിന്റെ പുതിയ ചില കണ്ടുപിടിത്തങ്ങള് ഇത്തരത്തിലുള്ള ഉത്തരം കിട്ടാത്ത ചോദ്യങ്ങള് ഉയര്ത്തുന്നു. %ശാസ്ത്രത്തില് ഒരു കുതിപ്പുചാട്ടത്തിനു് സമയമായി എന്നാണു് ഇതു് കാണിക്കുന്നതു് എന്നു് ചിലര് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു.
പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കു് പരിണാമം ഉണ്ടാകുന്നുണ്ടു് എന്നു് ഈയിടെ കണ്ടെത്തിയതായി ആഗോള ശാസ്ത്രവാര്ത്തകള് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടു ചെയ്യുന്ന വേള്ഡ് സയന്സ് എന്ന വെബ് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണം പറയുന്നു (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100101\_prions). ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരെ അത്ഭൂതപ്പെടുത്തിയ ഒരു വാര്ത്തയാണിതു്. കാരണം പ്രിയോണുകള് വെറും പ്രൊട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളാണു്. ജീവനുള്ള ചെടികളും മൃഗങ്ങളുമാണു് പ്രൊട്ടീന് ഉത്പാദിപ്പിക്കുന്നതെങ്കിലും ഈ തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ജീവനുണ്ടു് എന്നു വിശ്വസിക്കാന് ആരും തയാറാവാത്തതില് അത്ഭുതമില്ലല്ലൊ. പ്രിയോണുകള് പരിണാമത്തിനു് വിധേയമാകുന്നുണ്ടു് എന്ന കണ്ടുപിടിത്തം അടിസ്ഥാനപരമായ ചില ചോദ്യങ്ങളിലേക്കാണു് നയിക്കുന്നതു്. പ്രിയോണുകള് എന്താണെന്നും അവ പരിണാമത്തിനു് വിധേയമാകുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില് അതുയര്ത്തുന്ന ചോദ്യങ്ങളെന്താണെന്നും നമുക്കു് പരിശോധിക്കാം.
1984ല് ഇംഗ്ലണ്ടിലാണു് ആദ്യമായി പശുക്കളില് ഒരു പ്രത്യേക രോഗം കണ്ടതു്. രോഗം തുടങ്ങുമ്പോള് പശുക്കളുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തില് വല്ലാത്ത മാറ്റങ്ങളുണ്ടാകുന്നു. പിന്നീടു് ഒരുമാതിരി ``വട്ടുപിടിച്ചതുപോലെ'' നടക്കുകയും തീറ്റ കുറയ്ക്കുന്നില്ലെങ്കില് പോലും പശു മെലിയാന് തുടങ്ങുകയും ചെയ്യും. ക്രമേണ പശുവിനു് എണീറ്റു് നില്ക്കാന് പോലും വയ്യാതായി ചത്തു പോകുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു. പശുവിറച്ചിയും എല്ലിന് പൊടിയും മറ്റും അരച്ചു് പശുത്തീറ്റയില് ചേര്ക്കുന്ന ഒരു പതിവു് ഇംഗ്ലണ്ടില് അക്കാലത്തുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അവിടെ നന്നായി വളരാത്ത സോയബീനിനു പകരമായിട്ടാണു് ഇവ ചേര്ത്തിരുന്നതു്. അങ്ങനത്തെ തീറ്റ കഴിച്ച പശുക്കളിലാണു് ഈ രോഗം കാണുന്നതെന്നു് മനസിലായി. രോഗം വന്ന പശുക്കളുടെ ഇറച്ചി ചേര്ത്ത തീറ്റ കഴിച്ച പശുക്കള്ക്കാണു് രോഗം പകരുന്നതെന്നു് പിന്നീടു് മനസിലായി. ഈ രോഗം ആദ്യം കണ്ടെത്തിയപ്പോള് അതു് ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരെ അത്ഭൂതപ്പെടുത്തുകയും വിസ്മയിപ്പിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.
ചില രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു് ബാക്ടീരിയയോ വൈറസോ അല്ല, വെറും പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളായിരിക്കാം എന്നു് 1960 കളില് ചില ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞര് സങ്കല്പിച്ചിരുന്നു. അള്ട്രാവയലറ്റ് രശ്മികളേറ്റാല് എല്ലാ സെല്ലിലുമുള്ള ഡി.എന്. എ. (DNA, Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid) തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ക്ഷതമേല്ക്കുമെങ്കിലും ചില രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുന്ന രോഗാണുക്കള് നശിക്കുന്നില്ല എന്ന കണ്ടുപിടിത്തം വിശദീകരിക്കാനാണു് ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു സങ്കല്പം ഉണ്ടായതു്. മേല്പറഞ്ഞ, ``പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗം'' (Mad Cow Disease) എന്നു പേരിട്ട, രോഗം ഒരു പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രയാണു് ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു് എന്നു് സാന് ഫ്രാന്സിസ്ക്കോയിലെ കാലഫോര്ണിയ സര്വകലാശാലയിലെ പ്രൊഫ. സ്റ്റാന്ലി പ്രൂസിനര് 1982ല് തെളിയിച്ചു. അദ്ദേഹം തന്നെയാണു് ഇത്തരം പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് പ്രിയോണ് എന്നു പേരിട്ടതും. കണ്ടുപിടിത്തത്തിനു് 1997ലെ വൈദ്യശാസ്ത്രത്തിനുള്ള നൊബെല് സമ്മാനം സ്റ്റാന്ലിയ്ക്കു് ലഭിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.
പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗത്തെപ്പറ്റി ഒരു വാക്കു്. ബൊവൈന് സ്പോഞ്ചിഫോം എന്സെഫാലോപ്പതി \eng(Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, BSE) \mal എന്നാണു് പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗത്തിന്റെ ശാസ്ത്രീയനാമം. ഈ രോഗമുള്ള പശുവിന്റെ ഇറച്ചി കഴിച്ചാല് മനുഷ്യനു് ഇതുപോലത്തെ ഒരു രോഗം ഉണ്ടാകും. അതിനു് വ്യത്യസ്തമായ ക്രൂട്ട്സ്ഫെല്ഡ്റ്റ് ജേക്കബ് രോഗം (variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) എന്നു പറയുന്നു. (ഇതേ പേരില് അറിയപ്പെട്ടിരുന്ന മറ്റൊരു രോഗമുണ്ടു്. അതില്നിന്നു് തിരിച്ചറിയാനാണു് ഇതിനെ വ്യത്യസ്തമായ ക്രൂട്ട്സ്ഫെല്ഡ്റ്റ് ജേക്കബ് രോഗം എന്നു വിളിക്കുന്നതു്.) പ്രാന്തിപ്പശു രോഗമുള്ള പശുക്കളെയെല്ലാം കൊന്നൊടുക്കി തീയീട്ടാണു് ഈ രോഗം ഇല്ലാതാക്കിയതു്.
എല്ലാ ജീവിവര്ഗങ്ങളിലും ഒരു തലമുറയില്നിന്നു് അടുത്ത തലമുറയിലേക്കു് സ്വഭാവസവിശേഷതകള് പകരുന്നതു് ജീവജാലങ്ങളില് അടങ്ങിയിരിക്കുന്ന കോശങ്ങള്ക്കുള്ളിലെ ഡി.എന്.എ. തന്മാത്രകളിലൂടെയാണു്. ചെടികളുടെയും മൃഗങ്ങളുടെയും മനുഷ്യരുടെയും കോശങ്ങളിലൊക്കെ ഈ തന്മാത്രകളുണ്ടു്. ബാക്ടീരിയ പോലെയുള്ള ഏകകോശ ജീവികളിലും ഈ തന്മാത്രകളുണ്ടു്. വൈറസുകളിലാണെങ്കില് ഡി.എന്.എ. തന്മാത്രകള് മാത്രമെയുള്ളൂ. മറ്റു് ജൈവരൂപങ്ങള്ക്കുള്ളതുപോലെ കോശമില്ല. കോശമില്ലാത്ത ഒരു വസ്തുവെങ്ങനെ ജൈവരൂപമാകും എന്നു ചിലര് സംശയിച്ചിരുന്നു. എന്നാല് വൈറസുകള് പ്രത്യുല്പാദിപ്പിക്കുകയും ചിലവ ജൈവകോശങ്ങളെ നശിപ്പിച്ചു് രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നതിനാല് അവ ഒരു ജൈവരൂപമാണു് എന്നുതന്നെ എല്ലാവരും അംഗീകരിച്ചു.
എന്നാല് പ്രിയോണാവട്ടെ വെറും പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രയാണു്. പ്രോട്ടീന് എന്നതു് എല്ലാ മൃഗങ്ങളുടെയും ശരീരത്തിലുള്ള, അത്യാവശ്യമുള്ള, ഒരു വസ്തുവാണുതാനും. അതെങ്ങനെയാണു് രോഗകാരണമാകുന്നതു്? അതു് മനസിലാക്കാന് പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളുടെ ഒരു പ്രത്യേകത മനസിലാക്കണം. പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള് വളരെ വലുതാണു്. വലുപ്പം കാരണമായിരിക്കാം അവ സാധാരണഗതിയില് മടങ്ങിയാണിരിക്കുന്നതു്. ഒരു പ്രത്യേക രീതിയില് മടങ്ങിയിരുന്നാലേ പ്രോട്ടീന് ശരീരത്തില് വേണ്ടവിധത്തില് പ്രവര്ത്തിക്കൂ. തന്മാത്ര നിവര്ന്നു പോകുകയോ മടക്കം മറ്റൊരു രീതിയിലാകുകയോ ചെയ്താല് ആ തന്മാത്രകൊണ്ടു് ശരീരത്തിനു് പ്രയോജനമില്ലാതാകും. ചില പ്രോട്ടീനുകള് വല്ലാതെ ചൂടാകുകയെ തണുക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുമ്പോള് നിവര്ന്നു പോകും. അങ്ങനെ ആയാല് ആ പ്രോട്ടീന് ശരീരത്തിനു് ഗുണം ചെയ്യില്ല.
പ്രിയോണുകള് എങ്ങനെയാണു് രോഗമുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു്? ഒരു കോശത്തില് പ്രിയോണ് കടന്നുകഴിയുമ്പോള് ആ കോശത്തിലുള്ള മറ്റു പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളെ അതു് നിവരാന് പ്രേരിപ്പിക്കും. അങ്ങനെ കൂടുതല് പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള് ശരീരത്തില് അവ ചെയ്യേണ്ട കര്മ്മം ചെയ്യാതാവും. അങ്ങനെ ശാരീരിക പ്രവര്ത്തനങ്ങളെ സ്വാധീനിച്ചുകൊണ്ടാണു് പ്രിയോണുകള് രോഗമുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു്. അങ്ങനെ പ്രിയോണുകള് പുനരുല്പാദിപ്പിക്കുന്നില്ലെങ്കിലും എണ്ണത്തില് വര്ദ്ധിക്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. ആ അര്ത്ഥത്തില് പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കു് ബാക്ടീരിയ, വൈറസ് തുടങ്ങിയ ഏകകോശജീവികളുമായി സാമ്യമുണ്ടു്. അപ്പോഴും ഒരു ചോദ്യം അവശേഷിക്കുന്നു: എല്ലാ ജന്തുക്കളുടെയും ശരീരത്തില് അടങ്ങിയിരിക്കുന്ന ഒരു രാസവസ്തുവായി പ്രോട്ടീനിന്റെ തന്മാത്രകളെങ്ങനെയാണു് ഒരു ഏകകോശ ജീവിയെപ്പോലെ പെരുമാറുന്നതു്?
പണ്ടൊരു കാലത്തു് ചെടികള്ക്കു് ജീവനില്ല എന്നു് കരുതിയിരുന്നു. ജഗദീശ്ചന്ദ്ര ബോസ് ചെടികള്ക്കു് ജീവനുണ്ടെന്നു് തെളിയിച്ചു. വൈറസുകളെ ജീവികളായി കണക്കാക്കാമോ എന്നു് പലര്ക്കും സംശയമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. പൊതിഞ്ഞു വച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ഡി.എന്.എ. (അല്ലെങ്കില് ആര്.എന്.എ.) തന്മാത്രകളാണു് വൈറസുകള്. സ്വഭാവസവിശേഷതകള് ഒരു തലമുറയില്നിന്നു് അടുത്ത തലമുറയിലേക്കു് പകരുന്നതു് ഡി.എന്.എ. വഴിയാണെന്നു മാത്രമല്ല ഒരു ജന്തുവിന്റെ രൂപവും നിറവും സ്വഭാവവും പോലും നിര്ണ്ണയിക്കുന്നതില് സുപ്രധാന പങ്കു് വഹിക്കുന്നതു് ഡി.എന്.എ. ആണു്. എന്നിരുന്നാലും ഒരു കോശം പോലുമില്ലാത്ത വൈറസിനെ എങ്ങനെ ഒരു ജീവിയായി കണക്കാക്കും എന്നു് സംശയമുണ്ടായെങ്കില് അതില് അത്ഭുതപ്പെടാനില്ലല്ലോ. പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കാണെങ്കില് കോശവുമില്ല, ഡി.എന്.എ.യുമില്ല! അവയെ എങ്ങനെ ജീവിയായി കണക്കാക്കാനാകും?
ഇതു് സങ്കീര്ണ്ണമായ ഒരു പ്രശ്നത്തിലേക്കു് വിരല് ചൂണ്ടുന്നു എന്നെനിക്കു് തോന്നുന്നു. പ്രിയോണുകള് ജീവികളല്ല എന്നു് സമ്മതിച്ചാലും മറിച്ചു് അവ ജീവികളാണു് എന്നു് സമ്മതിച്ചാലും പ്രശ്നമുണ്ടു്. പ്രിയോണുകള് ജീവനില്ലാത്ത വസ്തുക്കളാണെങ്കില് വൈറസുകളെയും അതുപോലെതന്നെ കാണണ്ടേ? പ്രിയോണുകള് പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകളാണെങ്കില് വൈറസുകള് ഡി.എന്.എ. (അല്ലെങ്കില് ആര്.എന്.എ.) തന്മാത്രകളല്ലേ? രണ്ടും തന്മാത്രകള്. പിന്നെ വൈറസില് എവിടെനിന്നു് ജീവന് വന്നു? വൈറസിനു് അധികമായുള്ളതു് ഒരു ആവരണം മാത്രമാണു്. അതിലാണോ ജീവന് കുടികൊള്ളുന്നതു്? അങ്ങനെയെങ്കില്, കോശത്തിനുള്ളില് കടക്കുന്ന വൈറസ് ആവരണം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ച ശേഷം കോശത്തിലെ ഘടകങ്ങളുടെ സഹായത്താല് പുനരുല്പാദനം നടത്തുമ്പോള് വൈറസിനു് ജീവന് നഷ്ടമാകുമോ? മാത്രമല്ല, മനുഷ്യന് ഉള്പ്പെടെയുള്ള ``ജീവജാല''ങ്ങള്ക്കു് ജീവന് എന്നൊന്നുണ്ടോ? അതോ ഇതൊക്കെ നമ്മുടെ തോന്നല് മാത്രമാണോ? ഉത്തരം കിട്ടാന് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടാണു് ഈ ചോദ്യത്തിനു്.
മറിച്ചു്, പ്രിയോണുകള് ജീവികളാണു് എന്നു് സങ്കല്പിച്ചാലോ? അങ്ങനെയെങ്കില് സാധാരണ പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ജീവനില്ലേ എന്ന ചോദ്യം ഉയര്ന്നുവരുന്നു. ഇല്ല എങ്കില്, പ്രിയോണുകള്ക്കു് ഏതു് ഘട്ടത്തിലാണു് ജീവന് ലഭിക്കുന്നതു്? പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രയുടെ മടക്കു് നിവരുമ്പോഴോ? മാത്രമല്ല, പ്രോട്ടീന് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കു് ജീവനുണ്ടാകാമെങ്കില് മറ്റു് തന്മാത്രകള്ക്കും ജീവനുണ്ടാകില്ല എന്നു് എങ്ങനെ ഉറപ്പിച്ചു് പറയാനാകും? കല്ലിനും മണ്ണിനും പോലും ജീവനില്ല എന്നു് എങ്ങനെ ഉറപ്പിച്ചു് പറയും? ആധുനിക ശാസ്ത്രത്തിന്റെ പുതിയ ചില കണ്ടുപിടിത്തങ്ങള് ഇത്തരത്തിലുള്ള ഉത്തരം കിട്ടാത്ത ചോദ്യങ്ങള് ഉയര്ത്തുന്നു. %ശാസ്ത്രത്തില് ഒരു കുതിപ്പുചാട്ടത്തിനു് സമയമായി എന്നാണു് ഇതു് കാണിക്കുന്നതു് എന്നു് ചിലര് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു.
(ഈ ലേഖനം ക്രിയേറ്റീവ് കോമണ്സ് by-sa ലൈസന്സില് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു.)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Paraguay
I am writing this from Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay. The first impressions I got when I was travelling from the airport to the hotel by car was the similarity in landscape with Kerala, and the general cleanliness of the environment. There was very little litter on the streets or garbage on the sidewalks. The air was cool and the traffic was light, as it used to be in Bangalore a couple of decades back. Overall a nice place, I thought. I came here for speaking at a Free Software conference, Free Software Asuncion 2010, and I was happy that this was such a nice place. I had collected data on Paraguay for my presentation and it had shown that the literacy was something like 91%. Overall, I thought, this place has similarities to Kerala. The interest the government is showing in Free Software is another factor that confirmed this thinking. I was also happy to see that Asuncion had been voted the cheapest city in the world five consecutive times.
Paraguay is similar to Kerala in other respects also. The country has very few industries, and has to depend on imports even for food, even though it is an agricultural economy. Further, as in any Latin American country, the people talk a lot and do much less. We may find similar characteristics in Kerala too, though saying so would be automatically be very controversial. However, Paraguay is also very different from Kerala in that it has a much larger area (about ten times that of Kerala) but much less population (about a fifth of Kerala) so that the average population density is about 15 per square kilometer whereas it is close to a thousand in Kerala.
But in just a couple of days I started realising that these similarities were superficial. One night about ten of us were walking to a restaurant when a person stopped us full of concern and asked us where we were going. When someone in the group told him, he told us that it was dangerous to go beyond the place where the restaurant was situated. He had thought that we were out just for a walk. The next day, as three of us went in search of a restaurant, we had to beat a hasty retreat from one point because one of us realised that it was dangerous to go further. I was told that a young tough guy could suddenly attack us with a knife or a gun. Well, this is something very unfamiliar in most parts of India.
Later, I learnt that there was a heavy concentration of population in the region around Asuncion. To the north was a large very thinly populated area. And in that area was a small region dominated by German immigrants who have kept the local people as virtual slaves, and the government had almost no control over the region. Well, this again is something not at all familiar in India. To the East of this region, near the border to Brazil, apparently there is a large community that lived on producing marijuana, and they were mostly Brazilian immigrants. In fact, they thought themselves to be Brazilians, and I believe they have even hoisted flags in schools there.
Though the country is basically an agricultural country, the land is held by a very few people. I am told that 90% of the land is with 2% of the people. The statistics on education seems to be suspect. Almost everything is imported. Though the country produces a lot of electricity, it is in collaboration with a couple of other countries, and Paraguay uses only a tiny percentage of the power it produces. People hardly read newspapers, but there are a large number of glossy (that is silly) magazines that are apparently read mainly by the rich. How different from Kerala! How easily appearances can deceive!
Paraguay is similar to Kerala in other respects also. The country has very few industries, and has to depend on imports even for food, even though it is an agricultural economy. Further, as in any Latin American country, the people talk a lot and do much less. We may find similar characteristics in Kerala too, though saying so would be automatically be very controversial. However, Paraguay is also very different from Kerala in that it has a much larger area (about ten times that of Kerala) but much less population (about a fifth of Kerala) so that the average population density is about 15 per square kilometer whereas it is close to a thousand in Kerala.
But in just a couple of days I started realising that these similarities were superficial. One night about ten of us were walking to a restaurant when a person stopped us full of concern and asked us where we were going. When someone in the group told him, he told us that it was dangerous to go beyond the place where the restaurant was situated. He had thought that we were out just for a walk. The next day, as three of us went in search of a restaurant, we had to beat a hasty retreat from one point because one of us realised that it was dangerous to go further. I was told that a young tough guy could suddenly attack us with a knife or a gun. Well, this is something very unfamiliar in most parts of India.
Later, I learnt that there was a heavy concentration of population in the region around Asuncion. To the north was a large very thinly populated area. And in that area was a small region dominated by German immigrants who have kept the local people as virtual slaves, and the government had almost no control over the region. Well, this again is something not at all familiar in India. To the East of this region, near the border to Brazil, apparently there is a large community that lived on producing marijuana, and they were mostly Brazilian immigrants. In fact, they thought themselves to be Brazilians, and I believe they have even hoisted flags in schools there.
Though the country is basically an agricultural country, the land is held by a very few people. I am told that 90% of the land is with 2% of the people. The statistics on education seems to be suspect. Almost everything is imported. Though the country produces a lot of electricity, it is in collaboration with a couple of other countries, and Paraguay uses only a tiny percentage of the power it produces. People hardly read newspapers, but there are a large number of glossy (that is silly) magazines that are apparently read mainly by the rich. How different from Kerala! How easily appearances can deceive!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Abandoned and the Abused – 1. In Hospitals
(This is the first part of an article I wrote along with Sundar in 2008-09. We failed in getting it published.)
On 8th March, 2008, which incidentally was the International Women’s Day, a daughter visiting her mother at the Pavlov Mental Hospital, Kolkata, was shocked to see everybody in the female ward naked. The reason, apparently, was that the patients have only three sets of dress each and the washerman comes only once in a fortnight. The question remains why the patients do not have more dresses, and why the washerman does not come more frequently. When Anjali, the Kolkata based NGO, and the West Bengal media raised hue and cry, the government ordered an inquiry. The inquiry may come up with answers and the government may initiate some remedial measures. This would soon be forgotten and another Inquiry Committee would be constituted to look into the next blatant human rights violation reported.
This incident is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Three years ago, a sweeper of another Kolkata hospital kissed a woman patient and the hospital staff refused to perceive this as sexual harassment. Beating the patients who ‘act difficult’ or ‘refuse to be medicated’ was also perceived to be ‘normal’. Government mental hospitals in India are often run in an irresponsible manner, violating many of the rules stipulated by the government itself, as report after report has shown. Hospitals lack sufficient infrastructure, are under-resourced and overcrowded. Patients are abused, bullied, molested, harassed and physically assaulted and their rights, ignored.
Dehumanising
In most mental hospitals, you would not be allowed inside, unless you are a prospective 'inmate'. No visits to the wards even if you are a journalist; especially if you are a journalist. The hospital authorities apparently want no interference from outside. They apparently don't want the public to know what is happening inside. Every one of us has the right to know what exactly is happening inside hospitals, any kind of hospitals. Not only because they are spending public money, the money we pay as taxes. In the case of mental hospitals, it is also because they are supposed to take care of one of the most vulnerable sections of society. And, we as citizens have a right to know what is happening there. Especially because tomorrow one of us also could be a patient there.
The authorities may say that everything is fine inside. But when someone found that the female patients in the Pavlov Mental Hospital, Kolkata, had no clothes on, they cried foul. Not because the patients had no clothes ("what is wrong in that?" said the nurses), but because someone discovered it! What happens inside the closely guarded gates, apparently, is purely the business of the "authorities".
A hospital with 800 patients may have 400 beds and even fewer mattresses. This may be the situation in most public hospitals. But mental patients are people without voice because no one takes them seriously. So, we have to speak for them. The food is often of low quality. The amount ear-marked for a meal might have been based on an estimate made a decade back, and not revised. There does not appear to be a system for regular revision and adjustment for inflation. The mentally ill are, anyway, it is perceived, not going to know what they are eating. Even if they know, who is going to listen to their complaints? We need to change this notion. Most mental patients do understand what is going on around them. All mental patients are not totally devoid of consciousness or feelings. And they too are humans and have their rights.
The patients are never taken out. Once inside, it is almost forever. Even prison officials at times refuse to take back the prisoners admitted to mental hospitals for treatment. Very few are lucky enough to be discharged and accepted back by society, and there seems to be no reliable data on the number of persons who have been cured but still languishing in the hospitals. Sometimes, the hospital refuses to discharge a patient who has been cured if his/her family is not willing to come and receive him/her. This could mean hospitalization for life. If a person has recovered, (s)he should be discharged voluntarily, on her/his own responsibility. Being mentally ill doesn't mean that they cease to be human beings or that they could be deprived of their human rights. "Few dispute that mental hospitals have long since been dehumanized through neglect, and had failed to meet patients' needs" write Philip Bean and Patricia Mounser (Discharged from Mental Hospitals, Macmillan in association with Mind Publications, 1993). Though written in a somewhat different context, this is valid even today in our country.
Most mental hospitals lack the infrastructure needed to handle the number of patients they get. And they lack the manpower too. Even the employees who are there are often posted as ‘punishment transfers’, says the report Quality Assurance in Mental Health by the National Human Rights Commission, 1999. Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT) is used routinely, though it is a controversial treatment and adverse effects have been reported (http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/154oa157.html). As per law, ECT can be given only with the consent of the patient, and that too, only under anaesthesia. And it has to be modified ECT, where the so-called peripheral seizure (the epilepsy-like effect that is often frightening) is suppressed using a drug. Most hospitals do not even have an anaesthetist. Patients are hardly consulted. And ECT without anaesthesia is most often used instead of modified ECT, according to the 1999 report of the NHRC.
"The study shows that all relatives signed consents; many reported that the details of ECT were discussed with them and alternative treatments offered and they were happy with the outcome. Yet many relatives also perceived that they were forced to provide their consent. Even the minority of patients who signed the consent form could not recall the details of the procedure. Many patients also reported coercion." report A.P. Rajkumar, B. Saravanan and K.S. Jacob (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Oct-Dec 2007). "After much brutal experimentation and research, the developed world banned direct ECT in the early 1960s. Many European countries have phased out even modified ECT, while in the US its usage has come down drastically after the 1980s, following class action." ECT was apparently abandoned after it was found that up to 20% patients suffered vertebral fractures and many of them suffered from terror and trauma. In this respect, India remains a primitive country where 52 per cent of institutions still use ECT without anaesthesia and only eight institutions have facilities for routine electroencephalography monitoring. (Voices of people who have received ECT, by A.P. Rajkumar, B. Saravanan and K.S. Jacob)
Perhaps the overall Indian experience of institutionalized care is far from civilized. "The findings reveal that there are predominantly two types of hospitals," the report by the National Human Rights Commission (cited earlier) evaluates. "The first type does not deserve to be called 'hospitals' or mental health centres. They are 'dumping grounds' for families to abandon their mentally ill member, for either economic reasons or a lack of understanding and awareness of mental illness. The living conditions in many of these settings are deplorable and violate an individual's right to be treated humanely and live a life of dignity. Despite all advances in treatment, the mentally ill in these hospitals are forced to live a life of incarceration."
"The second type of 'hospitals,” the NHRC report continues, "are those that provide basic living amenities. Their role is predominantly custodial and they provide adequate food and shelter. Medical treatment is used to keep patients manageable and very little effort is made to preserve or enhance their daily living skills. These hospitals are violating the rights of the mentally ill persons to appropriate treatment and rehabilitation and a right to community and family life".
Not that there aren't well-run mental hospitals in the country, but they are too few and too far apart. One such is the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Surgery in Bangalore. Another is the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IBHAS) in New Delhi, the only mental hospital where the public can enter and take a look around, like most other ordinary hospitals. So, not that it is impossible. Mental hospitals can be run just like any other hospital, and maintained clean. If only there is a will.
There have been changes in some of the hospitals in the country after the report came out, which have been discussed in the updated 2008 publication Mental Health Care and Human Rights from NHRC and NIMHANS. There are some positive changes in some hospitals, but a tremendous lot remains to be done.
"It resembles like a jail (sic). There are two closed wards. The rest are barracks and cells." says the NHRC report about the hospital in Varanasi. "Surprisingly, there is not a single nurse posted in the hospital, or nurse's post." says the report about the Bareilly hospital. "The attenders use long lathis to control the patients (who) often get beaten up." This is about the Agra Manasik Arogyasala. According to the report, the nurse-patient ratio here is 1:225, instead of the stipulated ratio of 1:3!
The updated report of 2008 says: “Insufficient seating, no drinking water or toilet facilities for out patients and their families. There is no proper facility for registration and recording of out patients. No separate MRD. … No managing committee to oversee day to day management of the hospital and to take decisions. No PSWs, Clinical Psychologists, Psychiatric Nurses.” The report doesn't say whether more nurses have been appointed, or whether the patients are still locked up in cells.
Remember the Erwadi incident where mental patients chained to their beds died in a fire not long ago (see Box 1)? Some action was taken at that time, but matters seem to be becoming as bad as before. As in any other, in the case of mental hospitals also, we need to keep a constant vigil.
But that is not enough. “According to NIMHANS, there are over two crore persons in our country who are in need of treatment for serious mental disorder and about five crore people who are affected by common mental disorder. About 30 to 35 lakh persons need hospitalisation at any time for mental illness. In contrast, there are about 29,000 beds available.” says Sri Akhil Kumar Jain, IAS, Secretary General, NHRC, in his preface to the report Mental Health Care and Human Rights published by NHRC and NIMHANS in 2008. As per an estimate, around 12% of all patients in India are mental patients, yet only about 1% of the health budget is allocated for mental health. There is a ten-fold shortage of psychiatrists in India. There are only 3,000 psychiatrists in India as against a demand for over 32,000.This means that mental hospitals are under-staffed and lack sufficient infrastructure, reflecting our society's lack of concern for mental patients.
Mental patients, being what they are, are extremely susceptible to abuse and exploitation. A mental patient who is on the streets can deliver a child every ten months. Even women in a hospital may not be safe: they can be sold for a night, for a consideration, in cash or kind. Or be exploited by the hospital employees. There have been allegations of boys being sodomised. There were allegations that men were surreptitiously allowed into the women's ward in a government mental hospital at night. That was a quarter century ago. In 2003, a young schizophrenic in-patient at NIMHANS was raped by an out-patient while she was sitting outside. The rapist happened to be HIV positive. The hospital refused to take the responsibility for the incident. Recently, it was reported locally that a patient who asked for some more curry was beaten. Remember Oliver Twist?
There was a case in which a person was admitted to a mental hospital and given treatment for four years to make his sexual orientation "normal". "During counselling therapy sessions, the doctor explicitly told the patient that he needed to curb his homosexual fantasies, as well as start making women rather than men the objects of his desire. The doctor also administered drugs intended to change the sexual orientation of the patient, providing loose drugs from his stock rather than disclosing the identity of the drug through formal prescription. The patient reports experiencing serious emotional and psychological trauma and damage, as well as a feeling of personal violation, due to these actions. This form of psychiatric treatment, reflecting an understanding of homosexuality as a disease, represents a serious contravention of internationally recognized psychiatric guidelines and human rights standards." (see here) The case was raised before the NHRC in 2001.
Pathetic, to say the least, was the case of Machal Lalung of Mikir Chuburi in Morigaon district, arrested in 1951 for voluntarily causing grievous injuries. Since he was mentally unfit to stand trial, he was sent to the mental hospital. He remained there, as the case never came up for trial. His release in July 2005, after more than 50 years in prison, came after the National Human Rights Commission intervened.
In 2007, Mr. Deenadayalam, 54, was admitted to the Institute of Mental Health at Kilpauk in Chennai on an order by the Tambaram Judicial Magistrate, although he had no mental illness. He was illegally detained for 30 days. In this instance, the person could escape through a habeas corpus petition filed in the High Court. Else, the story itself would not have come out.
And, allegedly, at least some hospitals have become dumping grounds for aged people who are no longer needed by their families. And not just the elderly. It was not long ago that Tehelka exposed a doctor who was willing to certify a woman as mentally ill without even seeing her. The deal was settled for just Rs. 10,000, so that a journalist could get rid of his "undesirable wife". While this was only a story used by Tehelka to expose the racket, who knows how many women would have spent their "married" lives in the several mental hospitals in the country! Remember the story of Anjana Mishra!
The question naturally arises, "How come, if things are so bad, no one has been complaining?" The question, unfortunately, is based on a wrong premise that no one has complaints. Remember what a patient told one of the authors (Sundar) about the condition of their cell. Patients do have complaints. But who will listen to them? They are, after all, "mad". Their relatives, in most cases, are not bothered. They would like to somehow get rid of the “lunatic” in their family, delete them from their lives.
Box 1: The Erwadi incident
Mental patients are often locked up, chained and sometimes even beaten. They are treated like criminals. See what happened in a mental hospital in Erwadi. “The chain is blackened and the ring is horribly twisted but still fastened to the charred stump – of a leg. Mentally challenged and physically shackled he was, yet Murugaraj had desperately tried to free himself. Twenty seven more mentally ill people died with him in the early hours of August 6, 2001, when a fire engulfed the thatched roof of the Moideen Badhusha Mental Home at Erwadi, a fishing village 27 km south of Ramanathapuram town in southern Tamil Nadu in India. They were stripped of dignity when they lived - chained, confined and ill treated. The manner of their death was even worse.” wrote Asha Krishnakumar in Frontline (Vol. 18, Issue 17, Aug. 18-31, 2001) about the incident that suddenly brought the issues of the mentally ill into public conscience.
As usual, the hullabaloo died out soon after and people forgot everything about it; perhaps they thought that everything would be taken care of. Yet, when the Punjab and Haryana governments submitted affidavits to the Supreme Court stating that no one in the state was kept chained, the Tribune showed that there were still persons with mental illness kept chained in various places, though may not be in hospitals. In 2007, NDTV visited a famous dargah in Hyderabad only to find that the mentally ill still continue to be chained in gross violation of human rights
The Erwadi incident did make a difference. Enquiries were conducted. The licences of mental hospitals in the private sector were examined and some were cancelled. But "violation of human rights is committed in hospitals where basic amenities and services are not provided, inhuman and degrading treatment is very common and patients are subjected to ill treatment and abuse." says a report.
Box 2: Hell on Earth
Conditions in mental hospitals have been intolerable always. “A total of 200 women. Some in dark cells. They have to piss and shit into a small pit…In front of a cell, a plate full of shit. There are no toilets in the cell. Everything has to be done into a pit. A woman might intelligently have done it in a dish and shoved it out of the grill and could have gone to sleep. Or else she would have to sleep on the floor. The stench is unbearable. No one will remove that plate. It would be the plate from which she eats…In one cell a man lay hugging another. ‘You should have come before 10 a.m. You won’t be able to stand anywhere. Shit will puddle everywhere. They will pour a bucket of water over it. Then it will have a unbearable stench!’, says a patient.’ This was what one of the authors (Sundar) saw in one of the hospitals that he visited in the mid 1980s. (Ee Bhraanthaalayathinu Naavundaayirunnenkil (Malayalam), Mathrubhumi Publications, Kozhikode, 2007).
Things did improve, certainly. But not necessarily everywhere, and never as much as it should have. "As one approaches the wards, a strange stench hits the nostrils. The sight is even more horrifying and nauseating. To the wooden railings of the long verandah are tied — actually tied with ropes — the patients diagnosed as violent, sitting on their own human waste. On either side of the verandah are located the two toilets – unusable and filthy. The toilets have absolutely no water, either running or stored." wrote Anjana Mishra in Manushi (No. 120) about the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi, where she was forcibly admitted by her husband. "Fortunately, I came out of that hell alive but the nightmarish memories continue to torment me, constantly reminding me of other women, young and old, whom I have left behind, probably doomed for life, and whose desperate letters, pleading to be rescued, remain unanswered." she wrote. This was in late 1990s.
The way food is served to mental patients in hospitals leaves much to be desired. Look at what Anjana Mishra (real name) has to say: "The dining hall, situated a little away from the wards, constitutes the most unhygienic part of the entire establishment. Dirty wooden tables line the wall, with the remnants or leftovers of earlier meals, especially, rice and dal particles. Almost a dozen dogs loiter around. The afternoon meal consists of coarse, half-cooked rice, watery dal and a tasteless, odourless curry. All of this put together can kill the appetite of even the hungriest human being. Again, privileged patients, like myself, were entitled to a piece of fried fish, a little curd and a pappad. All the patients eat in a child-like fashion, hogging a mouthful and then taking a walk, then coming back for a second mouthful. The dogs happily lick the plates in this interval. ... Some of the very ill patients even put their food on the floor and have it along with the dogs, while the ayahs in charge exchange gossip." (Manushi, No. 120)
Recently, in a mental hospital in West Bengal, a woman who asked for an extra serving of curry was beaten with the ladle by a woman employee! The unionized militant employees of the hospital apparently believe they have every right to do that.
The names of all persons mentioned in the article are changed to protect their identity.
(This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike Licence India 2.5. The article may be reproduced in any media in its original or modified form provided this note is also included.)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
What is Life?
Recently I saw a report that stated that scientists have found that prions undergo Darwinian evolution. The study from the well-known Scripps Institute at Jupiter (not the planet) in Florida, the US, is striking because prions have always been considered as lifeless molecules. The discovery that they cause illness and death was itself shocking. But the recent discovery, I think, raises fundamental questions about what is life. Let me explain this a bit.
Prions were so named by Stanley Prusiner, M.D., a professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, won the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1997. Prions were found to be responsible for the disease Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), popularly known as Mad Cow disease. This disease was found to affect humans who eat the meat of cattle affected by BSE. In humans, the disease is known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, It is a degenerative neurological disorder and is fatal. "The first symptom of CJD is rapidly progressive dementia, leading to memory loss, personality changes and hallucinations. This is accompanied by physical problems such as speech impairment, jerky movements (myoclonus), balance and coordination dysfunction (ataxia), changes in gait, rigid posture, and seizures. The duration of the disease varies greatly, but sporadic (non-inherited) CJD can be fatal within months or even weeks", says Wikipedia.
Now prions are just molecules of protein, nothing more. Prions are not cells, have not DNA, and cannot reproduce. This was the reason for the astonishment when prions were found to cause a disease. How can prions cause a disease? It was found that they really do not reproduce themselves in the cells they infect. Prions become problematic because they are not in "proper shape". Proteins, you see, are large molecules and they normally exist in a folded form. The way they are folded is very important for their function. If they are folded differently or get opened out, they do not function in the normal manner they are expected to. Some proteins open out, or denature, when they are heated or cooled beyond the temperatures they are normally expected to encounter. Apparently, this is the reason for egg white becoming, well, white when heated.
Now, what happens with prions is that they induce other protein molecules to fold in the way they (prions) are folded. That is, though prions cannot reproduce themselves, they get other protein molecules to become prions. Thus, when prions infect a cell, the population of prions in these cells increases. And those molecules of proteins lose the ability to function properly and contribute to more protein molecules getting converted to prions. This goes on till the infected animal dies. The new discovery is that prions also undergo evolution. "The study from Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Fla. found that prions can develop many mutations. Mutations that help the prions to withstand threats then tend to persist in a population of prions, while other prions are destroyed. This eventually leads the prions to develop adaptations such as drug resistance.", reports World Science. In other words, prions seem to show all signs of a living organism, including the capability to evolve according to changing environment.
Once upon a time, people believed that life could be formed from inanimate matter. Later we realised that inanimate matter cannot lead to the formation of life, that it was tiny, invisible, seeds or eggs that led to apparent growth of life forms from "dead" matter. But then, the theory of evolution came along and we explored the possibility of life having evolved from non-biological matter on the Earth. Then came Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe who declared that life originated in space and the Earth was seeded from space, and even that it may be life that is controlling the Universe. And, of course, in the 1960s, James Lovelock put forward the Gaia hypothesis where he defined Gaia as "a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet." So was the whole system acting like a living organism?
Long ago, people thought of plants as non-living things. When bacteria were discovered, they were thought to be the smalles living organisms. Then came viruses, and they did not have a complete cell, only the genetic content, the DNA, or the RNA. Now how could that be a form of life? Should viruses be counted as life forms? It is essentially just a molecule, a molecule of DNA, though. But still just a molecule. How can it be a form of life?
And now here comes a simple molecule of plain protein (Imagine, just a molecule!) that appears to show signs of life. It not only creates more of its own kind, but also apparently undergoes evolution. Now, where is the "life" part here? What is it that gives it "life"? What really is life? Is the Earth living? Of course, we don't see any signs of life. The Earth doesn't reproduce itself as far as we know. We know so little about the Universe that I wouldn't dare to say that we know that planets do not produce more planets. Yes, this may sound totally absurd, but remember, I am only saying that we don't know. Once upon a time we hardly even imagined that a molecule could cause diseases, let alone reproduce and evolve. Once upon a time we believed that life on Earth is unique and that life formed on Earth. No longer. There is solid evidence to show that much of what we see as interstellar clouds could be microscopic forms of life. Once upon a time we believed that the Universe is expanding at an increasingly slower rate, and that it would stop expanding and start collapsing one day. No longer. We now understand (I wouldn't say know) that the expansion of the Universe is becoming faster, and we are not able to explain why.
In short, so long as we don't know what exactly is happening, we have to assume that anything is possible, however absurd it may sound, so long as we know that it is impossible. I know that the above statement is also ambiguous. What do we mean, for instance, when we say know? What we know today could turn out to be wrong tomorrow. Of course, that is how knowledge progressively approaches "truth". We cold go on wondering about such things, but let me stop before it becomes too metaphysical. My intention was just to point out that we hardly understand "life" and when we say that something is lifeless, we may soon have to change our opinion. Let us, at least, remember that we know so little about the world we live in.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Say No to Wars
"The concept of a just war emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence." said Barrack Obama in his speech accepting the Nobel peace prize. It echoes a feeling often repeated, that war could be more "just" or "morally acceptable" if civilian casualties are low or even absent. I think this is a rather dangerous sentiment. Let me try to present my reasons below.
Let me start with the following statement, "Killing is unacceptable, except for food". I would include killing of all kinds, whether people or animals. Many people may question this premise, but I consider this the basic "law" of nature. No animal kills another except for food, and I am yet to hear of an animal killing another of its kind for whatever reason (even for food). I am supported by the popular saying in India that translates roughly as, "You are absolved of the sin of killing if you eat it".
If killing, except for food, is unacceptable, then killing a person, for whatever reason, is unacceptable. This would include killing even the worst criminals. This may be difficult for many people to accept, but I don't see any way in which we could morally justify killing even a serial killer. We could, perhaps, find reasons based on other considerations, but not on moral ones. This becomes a difficult question and I shall try to look deeper into it later. But right now let me proceed with the problem of the morality of 'civilian deaths' and 'military deaths'.
Why do we feel that civilian deaths cannot be justified? I can think of only two reasons: i) civilians are unarmed and defenceless, so it is not fair to attack them; and, ii) they are not directly involved in war. Let us analyse these reasons. Yes, civilians are generally unarmed. They are not trained to fight. So they do not get a fair chance to defend themselves. But, does this mean that soldiers can be killed because they are armed? Because it is "you or me"? This is true in hand-to-hand combat, especially as in olden days when people used to fight with swords or spears, the better man survives. But, in today's world where one could be killed by a shell fired from kilometres away, by a land mine or a bomb dropped from an aircraft (or even a cruise missile fired from the other side of the globe), this argument does not seem to be valid. It is not one-to-one fight any longer. The individual soldier, however brave he is, or however good a fighter he is, simply has no chance against the killing power of the opposite army. So it hardly matters whether a soldier is armed or thoroughly trained in warfare. Anyone could get killed in a war irrespective of whether he is armed or not.
But, yes, soldiers are directly involved in any war. In a way, wars are all about killing the soldiers of the other party. But everyone would agree, I hope, that that is not the end. A war is almost always about territory - land and the people who live there. So, it is really about the civilians and the power over them. Soldiers are merely "civilians" who take the responsibility to defend the territory. And, of course, the land and the civilians provide them support in the form of food, medicines, arms and ammunition and an assurance of a comfortable retired life if they are not killed. No army can survive without support (voluntary or forced) from land and people. That is why cutting off supply routes is one of the important tactics adopted in any war. In other words, we cannot deny that it is the countries that are at war, the lands and the peoples, not just the militaries.
I hope this won't be interpreted to be a justification for killing civilians. I am trying to say that killing soldiers is as bad. Killing human beings, especially in the name of war, is totally avoidable. No other animal on earth indulges in such cruel and wasteful activities. And the death of a person, whether a soldier or not, is equally painful to his/her family. Nothing can really compensate for the death of a person. In my opinion, it is this pain inflicted on people, often people who never wanted any war, that makes killing immoral. And that pain remains the same, whether the person who died is a civilian or a soldier.
Most people in any country would want peace, and not war, except in certain situations. Such situations are often caused by a few people in search of power. While at one time it was the kings who wanted to expand their empires, today it is again such megalomaniacs who create wars. The difference is that today, perhaps, more wars are started also for economic reasons - access to resources or markets. But that is just another kind of power. Of course, wars could also be triggered by the actions of a country that cause problems for a neighbouring country. Even these, I think, could be avoided if global pressure could be brought on such countries.
Apart from all this, we need to remember that wars waste a lot of resources - resources that could have gone to reduce hunger and malnutrition. I am not aware of any study in that direction, but, possibly, climate change would have been less severe if the fuel used for all the wards during the twentieth century had been saved. We are already talking about peak oil (oil production reaching a peak before declining), and people have started talking about such peaks related to other resources (even water!). And the environmental wounds caused by a war takes a pretty long time to heal. We certainly cannot afford to go on causing such extensive (and intensive) damage to our environment.
So rulers of the major countries need to sit and decide about abolishing war. It cannot be just about nuclear weapons. A nuclear war today can easily lead to total destruction of the life on earth. So, talking about using nuclear weapons is like talking about suicide. One good part about suicide is that one does not survive and suffer. But conventional war is more like a failed suicide attempt where the person suffers serious injury that maims him for life. He has to live and bear it. Let us not do that.
Let me start with the following statement, "Killing is unacceptable, except for food". I would include killing of all kinds, whether people or animals. Many people may question this premise, but I consider this the basic "law" of nature. No animal kills another except for food, and I am yet to hear of an animal killing another of its kind for whatever reason (even for food). I am supported by the popular saying in India that translates roughly as, "You are absolved of the sin of killing if you eat it".
If killing, except for food, is unacceptable, then killing a person, for whatever reason, is unacceptable. This would include killing even the worst criminals. This may be difficult for many people to accept, but I don't see any way in which we could morally justify killing even a serial killer. We could, perhaps, find reasons based on other considerations, but not on moral ones. This becomes a difficult question and I shall try to look deeper into it later. But right now let me proceed with the problem of the morality of 'civilian deaths' and 'military deaths'.
Why do we feel that civilian deaths cannot be justified? I can think of only two reasons: i) civilians are unarmed and defenceless, so it is not fair to attack them; and, ii) they are not directly involved in war. Let us analyse these reasons. Yes, civilians are generally unarmed. They are not trained to fight. So they do not get a fair chance to defend themselves. But, does this mean that soldiers can be killed because they are armed? Because it is "you or me"? This is true in hand-to-hand combat, especially as in olden days when people used to fight with swords or spears, the better man survives. But, in today's world where one could be killed by a shell fired from kilometres away, by a land mine or a bomb dropped from an aircraft (or even a cruise missile fired from the other side of the globe), this argument does not seem to be valid. It is not one-to-one fight any longer. The individual soldier, however brave he is, or however good a fighter he is, simply has no chance against the killing power of the opposite army. So it hardly matters whether a soldier is armed or thoroughly trained in warfare. Anyone could get killed in a war irrespective of whether he is armed or not.
But, yes, soldiers are directly involved in any war. In a way, wars are all about killing the soldiers of the other party. But everyone would agree, I hope, that that is not the end. A war is almost always about territory - land and the people who live there. So, it is really about the civilians and the power over them. Soldiers are merely "civilians" who take the responsibility to defend the territory. And, of course, the land and the civilians provide them support in the form of food, medicines, arms and ammunition and an assurance of a comfortable retired life if they are not killed. No army can survive without support (voluntary or forced) from land and people. That is why cutting off supply routes is one of the important tactics adopted in any war. In other words, we cannot deny that it is the countries that are at war, the lands and the peoples, not just the militaries.
I hope this won't be interpreted to be a justification for killing civilians. I am trying to say that killing soldiers is as bad. Killing human beings, especially in the name of war, is totally avoidable. No other animal on earth indulges in such cruel and wasteful activities. And the death of a person, whether a soldier or not, is equally painful to his/her family. Nothing can really compensate for the death of a person. In my opinion, it is this pain inflicted on people, often people who never wanted any war, that makes killing immoral. And that pain remains the same, whether the person who died is a civilian or a soldier.
Most people in any country would want peace, and not war, except in certain situations. Such situations are often caused by a few people in search of power. While at one time it was the kings who wanted to expand their empires, today it is again such megalomaniacs who create wars. The difference is that today, perhaps, more wars are started also for economic reasons - access to resources or markets. But that is just another kind of power. Of course, wars could also be triggered by the actions of a country that cause problems for a neighbouring country. Even these, I think, could be avoided if global pressure could be brought on such countries.
Apart from all this, we need to remember that wars waste a lot of resources - resources that could have gone to reduce hunger and malnutrition. I am not aware of any study in that direction, but, possibly, climate change would have been less severe if the fuel used for all the wards during the twentieth century had been saved. We are already talking about peak oil (oil production reaching a peak before declining), and people have started talking about such peaks related to other resources (even water!). And the environmental wounds caused by a war takes a pretty long time to heal. We certainly cannot afford to go on causing such extensive (and intensive) damage to our environment.
So rulers of the major countries need to sit and decide about abolishing war. It cannot be just about nuclear weapons. A nuclear war today can easily lead to total destruction of the life on earth. So, talking about using nuclear weapons is like talking about suicide. One good part about suicide is that one does not survive and suffer. But conventional war is more like a failed suicide attempt where the person suffers serious injury that maims him for life. He has to live and bear it. Let us not do that.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
World Mental Health Day, October 10
October 10 is observed as World Mental Health Day. I was not in a position to write this earlier. But I had the satisfaction of seeing an article I wrote in Malayalam on the status of mental patients and mental health centres in India published in the newspaper Thejas on that day. I am reproducing it below.
ഒക്ടോബര് 10 ലോക മാനസികാരോഗ്യ ദിനമായി ആചരിക്കുകയാണു്. മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള അറിവു് എല്ലാവരിലും എത്തിക്കുക, മാനസികാരോഗ്യ പ്രശ്നങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാകാതിരിക്കാനും ഉണ്ടായാല് ചികിത്സിച്ചു് ഭേദപ്പെടുത്താനും മറ്റും ആവശ്യമായ സൌകര്യങ്ങള് എല്ലായിടത്തും സൃഷ്ടിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള സാഹചര്യം ഒരുക്കുക എന്നൊക്കെയുള്ളതാണു് ഈ ദിനാചരണത്തിന്റെ ഉദ്ദേശ്യം. അറുപതിലധികം വര്ഷങ്ങള്ക്കു മുമ്പു് സ്ഥാപിച്ച മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തിനുള്ള ആഗോള ഫെഡറേഷനാണു് ഈ ദിനാചരണത്തിനു് മുന്കൈ എടുക്കുന്നതു്.
ഏതു് സമൂഹത്തിലെയും ഏതാണ്ടു് പന്ത്രണ്ടു് ശതമാനം പേര്ക്കു് മാനസിക പ്രശ്നങ്ങളുണ്ടു് എന്നാണു് കണക്കാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നതു്. ഏതാണ്ടു് നാലു് പേരില് ഒരാള്ക്കു് ജീവിതത്തില് ഏതെങ്കിലും സമയത്തു് ചികിത്സകൊണ്ടു് പ്രയോജനം ചെയ്യാവുന്ന മാനസികാരോഗ്യ പ്രശ്നമുണ്ടാകുന്നുണ്ടത്രെ. എന്നിട്ടും മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തേപ്പറ്റി നമ്മള് അപൂര്വ്വമായേ സംസാരിക്കാറുള്ളൂ. ആരോഗ്യരംഗത്തെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള ചര്ച്ചകളില് മാനസികാരോഗ്യം വരാറേയില്ല എന്നു പറയേണ്ടി വരുന്നു. ഇതിന്റെ കാരണത്തിനു് ഒരുപക്ഷെ അധികം അന്വേഷിക്കേണ്ടതില്ല. ഒരു വലിയ വിഭാഗം ജനങ്ങള്ക്കു് മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള അജ്ഞതയും മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങളോടുള്ള ഒരുതരം ഭയവും വെറുപ്പും ഒക്കെത്തന്നെയായിരിക്കണം കാരണം. ശാരീരിക രോഗങ്ങള് പോലെ തന്നെയുള്ളതാണു് മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങളെന്നും അവ ചികിത്സിച്ചു് മാറ്റാവുന്നതാണെന്നും മനസിലായിക്കഴിഞ്ഞാല് മിക്ക സമൂഹങ്ങളിലും ഇന്നു് നിലനില്ക്കുന്ന മേല്പറഞ്ഞ കാഴ്ചപ്പാടുകള് മാറേണ്ടതാണു്.
മാനസികരോഗമുള്ള ഒരു വ്യക്തിയുടെ പെരുമാറ്റം മറ്റുള്ളവരില് ഭയമോ നിസ്സഹായതയോ ഒക്കെ ഉളവാക്കുന്നതു് സ്വാഭാവികമാണു്. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ ആയിരിക്കണം ഏതോ പിശാചിന്റെ ഫലമായാണു് മാനസികരോഗങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാകുന്നതെന്നു് പണ്ടു് വിശ്വസിച്ചിരുന്നതു്. ഇന്നും അങ്ങനെ വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നവരുണ്ടു്. പല ശാരീരിക രോഗങ്ങള്ക്കും അത്തരത്തിലുള്ള കാരണങ്ങള് ഒരുകാലത്തു് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നല്ലോ. എന്നാല് അതു് ശരിയല്ലെന്നും രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു് പ്രധാനമായും രോഗാണുക്കളാണെന്നും തെളിഞ്ഞതിനു് ശേഷം അത്തരം വിശ്വാസങ്ങള് വളരെ കുറച്ചുപേരേ വെച്ചുപുലര്ത്തുന്നുള്ളൂ. എന്നാല് മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളുടെ കാര്യത്തില് അന്ധവിശ്വാസങ്ങള് നിലനില്ക്കുന്നതു് രോഗത്തിനു് ചികിത്സ നല്കുന്നതിനും രോഗിയെ ശരിയായ രീതിയല് ശുശ്രൂഷിക്കുന്നതിനും തടസ്സം നില്ക്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. അതുപോലെതന്നെയുള്ള മറ്റൊരു പ്രശ്നമാണു് ശാരീരികരോഗങ്ങള് പോലെതന്നെ പല തരത്തിലുള്ള മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടു് എന്നുള്ള തിരിച്ചറിവില്ലാത്തതു്. അതുകൊണ്ടു് എല്ലാ മാനസികരോഗികളെയും `ഭ്രാന്തന്മാരും ഭ്രാന്തികളും' ആയി മുദ്രകുത്തുകയാണു് സമൂഹം ചെയ്യുന്നതു്. ജലദോഷം പോലെ നിസ്സാരമായതു മുതല് അര്ബുദം പോലെ കഠിനമായതു വരെയുള്ള മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടു് എന്നു് നമ്മള് തിരിച്ചറിയേണ്ടതുണ്ടു്.
കുടുംബത്തില് ആര്ക്കെങ്കിലും മാനസികരോഗം ഉണ്ടെങ്കില് അതു് ഒളിച്ചുവയ്ക്കാനാണു് നമ്മളില് പലര്ക്കും താല്പര്യം. മറ്റുള്ളവരറിഞ്ഞാല് നമുക്കു് ജീവിതത്തില് പ്രശ്നങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാകുമോ എന്ന ഭയമാണു് പലപ്പോഴും ഇതിനു് കാരണമാകുന്നതു്. ഈ സ്ഥിതിവിശേഷം മാറേണ്ടതുണ്ടു്. എങ്കിലേ മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങളെ മറ്റു രോഗങ്ങള് പോലെ തന്നെ കാണാനും അതിനു് വേണ്ട ചികിത്സ നല്കാനും കഴിയുന്ന സാഹചര്യം ഉണ്ടാകൂ. കൂടാതെ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ തന്നെ മാനസികരോഗ ചികിത്സാ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളിലെ ഇന്നത്തെ ദയനീയാവസ്ഥ മാറണമെങ്കില് അത്തരം ആശുപത്രികളും മറ്റു് ആശുപത്രികളേപ്പോലെ ജനങ്ങള്ക്കു് കയറി കാണാന് കഴിയുന്ന സ്ഥിതിയിലാവണം. പൊതുജനങ്ങളെ മാനസികാശുപത്രികളിലേക്കു് കടത്തിവിടാനാവില്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നവരുണ്ടാകാം. എന്നാല് അതു് സാദ്ധ്യമാണെന്നു് തെളിയിച്ചുകൊണ്ടു് പൊതുജനങ്ങള്ക്കു് പ്രവേശനം അനുവദിക്കുന്ന ഒരു ആശുപത്രിയെങ്കിലും ഇന്ത്യതില് തന്നെയുണ്ടു്.
ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മാനസികാരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളുടെ സ്ഥിതിയെപ്പറ്റി ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മനുഷ്യാവകാശ കമ്മീഷന് പഠിച്ചു് 1999ല് ഒരു റിപ്പോര്ട്ടു് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിരുന്നു. അതനുസരിച്ചു് മിക്ക ആശുപത്രികളുടെയും അവസ്ഥ കഷ്ടതരമായിരുന്നു. "രണ്ടു തരത്തിലുള്ള ആശുപത്രികള് ഉണ്ടെന്നാണു് ഈ പഠനം കാണിക്കുന്നതു്. ആദ്യത്തെ തരത്തിലുള്ളതിനെ ആശുപത്രികള് എന്നോ മാനസികാരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളെന്നോ വിളിക്കാനാവില്ല. സാമ്പത്തിക കാരണങ്ങളാലോ മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളെപ്പറ്റി അറിവില്ലാത്തതിനാലോ മാനസികരോഗമുള്ള ബന്ധുക്കളെ കൊണ്ടിടാനുള്ള സ്ഥലങ്ങളാണവ. ഇത്തരം പല ഇടങ്ങളിലെയും ജീവിത സൌകര്യങ്ങള് പരിതാപകരവുമാണു് ഒരു വ്യക്തിയ്ക്കു് മനുഷ്യത്വത്തോടെ ചികിത്സിക്കപ്പെടാനും അഭിമാനത്തോടെ ജീവിക്കാനുമുള്ള അവകാശം നിഷേധിക്കുന്നതുമാണു്."
``രണ്ടാമത്തെ തരം ആശുപത്രികള് അടിസ്ഥാനപരമായ ജീവിതസൌകര്യം നല്കുന്നവയാണു്. അവയുടെ പ്രാഥമിക കര്മ്മം രോഗികളെ കസ്റ്റഡിയില് വയ്ക്കുക എന്നതാണു്. ഭക്ഷണവും താമസിക്കാനുള്ള ഇടവും അവര് നല്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. എന്നാല് രോഗികളെക്കൊണ്ടു് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടില്ലാതിരിക്കാന് ആവശ്യമായ മരുന്നുകള് മാത്രമാണു് അവിടെ നല്കുന്നതു്. സാധാരണ നിലയില് ജീവിക്കാനാവശ്യമായ കഴിവുകള് വളര്ത്തിയെടുക്കാനുള്ള ശ്രമങ്ങളൊന്നും അവിടെ നടക്കുന്നില്ല. ശരിയായ രോഗചികിത്സയും സമൂഹത്തിലേക്കു് മടങ്ങിപ്പോകാനുള്ള പരിശീലനവും ലഭിക്കാനും സമൂഹത്തില് കുടുംബത്തോടൊപ്പം ജീവിക്കാനും ഉള്ള രോഗിയുടെ അവകാശം ഈ ആശുപത്രികളില് നിഷേധിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു.'' 2008ല് മനുഷ്യാവകാശ കമ്മീഷനും ബാംഗ്ലൂരിലെ നിംഹന്സ് (NIMHANS) എന്ന മാനസികാരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രവും ചേര്ന്നു് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച പുതുക്കിയ റിപ്പോര്ട്ടില് 1999നു് ശേഷം ആശുപത്രികളില് വന്ന മാറ്റങ്ങള് വിവരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടു്. പല ആശുപത്രികളിലും കാര്യമായ മാറ്റങ്ങളൊന്നും ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല എന്നാണു് ഇതില്നിന്നു് കാണുന്നതു്.
``മൊത്തം ഇരുനൂറു് സ്ത്രീകള്. അതില് കുറച്ചുപേര് ഇരുണ്ട സെല്ലുകളില്. അവര്ക്കു് മൂത്രമൊഴിക്കാനും വെളിക്കിറങ്ങാനും ഒരു കുഴി. ... ഒരു സെല്ലിനു മുന്നില് ഒരു പ്ലേറ്റില് നിറയെ മലം.'' കാല് നൂറ്റാണ്ടു് മുമ്പു് കേരളത്തിലെ ഒരു മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രിയില് കണ്ടതു് എഴുതിയിരിക്കുകയാണു് ഈ ഭ്രാന്താലയത്തിനു് നാവുണ്ടായിരുന്നെങ്കില് എന്ന പുസ്തകത്തില് സുന്ദര്. പഴയ കഥ, ഇതൊന്നും ഇപ്പോള് ഉണ്ടാവില്ല എന്നു തോന്നാം. കേരളത്തിലെ ആശുപത്രികളില് ഒരുപക്ഷെ സ്ഥിതിയില് മാറ്റമുണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ടാവാം. എന്നാല് 1996-97 കാലഘട്ടത്തില് റാഞ്ചിയിലെ മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രിയില് അഞ്ജന മിശ്ര എന്ന യുവതി കണ്ടതു് എന്താണെന്നു് നോക്കൂ. "വാര്ഡിനടുത്തേക്കു് ചെല്ലുമ്പോള് ഒരു വല്ലാത്ത നാറ്റം. കാണുന്നതു് അതിനേക്കാള് ഭീകരവും ഓക്കാനം വരുത്തുന്നതുമാണു്. നീളമുള്ള വരാന്തയുടെ കൈവരികളിലേക്കു് കയറുകൊണ്ടു് കെട്ടിയിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു അക്രമാസക്തരെന്നു് കരുതുന്ന രണ്ടു് രോഗികളെ. അവര് ഇരിക്കുന്നതു് അവരുടെ മലത്തില്. വരാന്തയുടെ രണ്ടറ്റത്തുമാണു് കക്കൂസുകള് -- ഉപയോഗിക്കാനാവാത്തവണ്ണം വൃത്തികേടായതു്."
2008 മാര്ച്ച് 8നു് കൊല്ക്കത്തയിലെ പാവ്ലോവ് മാനസിക രോഗാശുപത്രിയില് അമ്മയെ കാണാനെത്തിയ മകള് കണ്ടതു് വനിതാ വാര്ഡിലെ രോഗികളെല്ലാം പൂര്ണ്ണ നഗ്നരായിരിക്കുന്നതാണു്. കുട്ടിയെ കൂട്ടിക്കൊണ്ടുവന്ന ഡോക്ടര് ഇതില് പ്രതിഷേധിച്ചപ്പോള് ആശുപത്രി ജീവനക്കാര് അദ്ദേഹത്തെ തടഞ്ഞവച്ചു് മാപ്പു പറയണമെന്നു് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു. വിസമ്മതിച്ച ഡോക്ടറെ സൂപ്രണ്ടു് വന്നു് മാപ്പുപറഞ്ഞാണു് രക്ഷപ്പെടുത്തിയതു്. രോഗികള് നഗ്നരായിരിക്കാന് കാരണം അവര്ക്കു് മൂന്നു് വസ്ത്രങ്ങളെ ഉള്ളൂ, പക്ഷെ അലക്കുകാരന് രണ്ടാഴ്ചയിലൊരിക്കലേ വരൂ, എന്നതാണത്രെ. എന്തുകൊണ്ടു് കൂടുതല് വസ്ത്രങ്ങളില്ല, അല്ലെങ്കില് എന്തുകൊണ്ടു് അലക്കുകാരന് കൂടുതല് തവണ വരുന്നില്ല എന്ന ചോദ്യം അവശേഷിക്കുന്നു.
മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രികളില് കഴിയുന്ന രോഗികള് നമ്മുടെ സമൂഹത്തിലെ അംഗങ്ങളാണു്. നമ്മളേപ്പോലെയുള്ളവരാണു്. നമുക്കോരോരുത്തര്ക്കും, മറ്റേതു രോഗവും എന്നതുപോലെ, മാനസികരോഗവും ഏതു് ദിവസവും ഉണ്ടാകാം. നമ്മളാരും ഒരു രോഗത്തിനും അതീതരല്ല. എന്നാല് മാനസികരോഗം ഉണ്ടു് എന്നു് നമ്മള് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്ന വ്യക്തികള് പറയുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങളൊന്നും ആരും കാര്യമായി എടുക്കാറില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ അവര് നിസ്സഹായരാണു് എന്നു നമ്മള് ഓര്മ്മിക്കണം. പകപോക്കാനായി മാനസികരോഗിയായി മുദ്രകുത്തി ആശുപത്രിയിലാക്കുന്ന കഥാപാത്രങ്ങളെ നമ്മള് സിനിമയിലും സീരിയലുകളിലും കാണാറില്ലേ? മുന്പു് സൂചിപ്പിച്ച അഞ്ജന മിശ്ര അതുപോലൊരു ചതിയില് പെട്ടു പോയ സ്ത്രീയാണു്. പകപോക്കാനല്ല, ഭാര്യയെ ഒഴിവാക്കാനായി ഭര്ത്താവു് ചെയ്തതാണെന്നു മാത്രം. ഇത്തരം അനേകം സ്ത്രീകള് മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രികളില് ഹോമിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുണ്ടു് എന്നു് അഞ്ജന തന്നെ പറയുന്നു. ഇതെല്ലാം നമ്മുടെ സമൂഹത്തിനു മേലുള്ള വലിയ കളങ്കങ്ങളാണു്.
മാനസികരോഗചികിത്സാരംഗത്തു് വലിയ പുരോഗതി കൈവരിക്കാന് ആധുനിക വൈദ്യശാസ്ത്രത്തിനു് ആയിട്ടുണ്ടു്. ആത്മാഭിമാനത്തോടെയും സ്വന്തം കാര്യങ്ങള് സ്വയം ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ടും ജീവിക്കാനുള്ള കഴിവു് മിക്ക മാനസികരോഗികള്ക്കും ശരിയായ ചികിത്സയിലൂടെ നേടാനാവും. ആ സ്ഥിതിക്കു് നമ്മുടെ സഹോദരന്മാരെയും സഹോദരികളെയും ഇങ്ങനെ ക്രൂരമായി ശിക്ഷിക്കുന്നതു് മഹാപാപമാണു്. മനുഷ്യരാശിയോടു ചെയ്യുന്ന അപരാധമാണു്. ഇതെല്ലാം മാറ്റാന് നമ്മളാലാവുന്നതെല്ലാം ചെയ്യുമെന്നു് നമുക്കു് ഈ മാനസികാരോഗ്യ ദിനത്തില് പ്രതിജ്ഞയെടുക്കാം.
ഒക്ടോബര് 10 ലോക മാനസികാരോഗ്യ ദിനമായി ആചരിക്കുകയാണു്. മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള അറിവു് എല്ലാവരിലും എത്തിക്കുക, മാനസികാരോഗ്യ പ്രശ്നങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാകാതിരിക്കാനും ഉണ്ടായാല് ചികിത്സിച്ചു് ഭേദപ്പെടുത്താനും മറ്റും ആവശ്യമായ സൌകര്യങ്ങള് എല്ലായിടത്തും സൃഷ്ടിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള സാഹചര്യം ഒരുക്കുക എന്നൊക്കെയുള്ളതാണു് ഈ ദിനാചരണത്തിന്റെ ഉദ്ദേശ്യം. അറുപതിലധികം വര്ഷങ്ങള്ക്കു മുമ്പു് സ്ഥാപിച്ച മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തിനുള്ള ആഗോള ഫെഡറേഷനാണു് ഈ ദിനാചരണത്തിനു് മുന്കൈ എടുക്കുന്നതു്.
ഏതു് സമൂഹത്തിലെയും ഏതാണ്ടു് പന്ത്രണ്ടു് ശതമാനം പേര്ക്കു് മാനസിക പ്രശ്നങ്ങളുണ്ടു് എന്നാണു് കണക്കാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നതു്. ഏതാണ്ടു് നാലു് പേരില് ഒരാള്ക്കു് ജീവിതത്തില് ഏതെങ്കിലും സമയത്തു് ചികിത്സകൊണ്ടു് പ്രയോജനം ചെയ്യാവുന്ന മാനസികാരോഗ്യ പ്രശ്നമുണ്ടാകുന്നുണ്ടത്രെ. എന്നിട്ടും മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തേപ്പറ്റി നമ്മള് അപൂര്വ്വമായേ സംസാരിക്കാറുള്ളൂ. ആരോഗ്യരംഗത്തെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള ചര്ച്ചകളില് മാനസികാരോഗ്യം വരാറേയില്ല എന്നു പറയേണ്ടി വരുന്നു. ഇതിന്റെ കാരണത്തിനു് ഒരുപക്ഷെ അധികം അന്വേഷിക്കേണ്ടതില്ല. ഒരു വലിയ വിഭാഗം ജനങ്ങള്ക്കു് മാനസികാരോഗ്യത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള അജ്ഞതയും മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങളോടുള്ള ഒരുതരം ഭയവും വെറുപ്പും ഒക്കെത്തന്നെയായിരിക്കണം കാരണം. ശാരീരിക രോഗങ്ങള് പോലെ തന്നെയുള്ളതാണു് മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങളെന്നും അവ ചികിത്സിച്ചു് മാറ്റാവുന്നതാണെന്നും മനസിലായിക്കഴിഞ്ഞാല് മിക്ക സമൂഹങ്ങളിലും ഇന്നു് നിലനില്ക്കുന്ന മേല്പറഞ്ഞ കാഴ്ചപ്പാടുകള് മാറേണ്ടതാണു്.
മാനസികരോഗമുള്ള ഒരു വ്യക്തിയുടെ പെരുമാറ്റം മറ്റുള്ളവരില് ഭയമോ നിസ്സഹായതയോ ഒക്കെ ഉളവാക്കുന്നതു് സ്വാഭാവികമാണു്. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ ആയിരിക്കണം ഏതോ പിശാചിന്റെ ഫലമായാണു് മാനസികരോഗങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാകുന്നതെന്നു് പണ്ടു് വിശ്വസിച്ചിരുന്നതു്. ഇന്നും അങ്ങനെ വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നവരുണ്ടു്. പല ശാരീരിക രോഗങ്ങള്ക്കും അത്തരത്തിലുള്ള കാരണങ്ങള് ഒരുകാലത്തു് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നല്ലോ. എന്നാല് അതു് ശരിയല്ലെന്നും രോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കുന്നതു് പ്രധാനമായും രോഗാണുക്കളാണെന്നും തെളിഞ്ഞതിനു് ശേഷം അത്തരം വിശ്വാസങ്ങള് വളരെ കുറച്ചുപേരേ വെച്ചുപുലര്ത്തുന്നുള്ളൂ. എന്നാല് മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളുടെ കാര്യത്തില് അന്ധവിശ്വാസങ്ങള് നിലനില്ക്കുന്നതു് രോഗത്തിനു് ചികിത്സ നല്കുന്നതിനും രോഗിയെ ശരിയായ രീതിയല് ശുശ്രൂഷിക്കുന്നതിനും തടസ്സം നില്ക്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. അതുപോലെതന്നെയുള്ള മറ്റൊരു പ്രശ്നമാണു് ശാരീരികരോഗങ്ങള് പോലെതന്നെ പല തരത്തിലുള്ള മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടു് എന്നുള്ള തിരിച്ചറിവില്ലാത്തതു്. അതുകൊണ്ടു് എല്ലാ മാനസികരോഗികളെയും `ഭ്രാന്തന്മാരും ഭ്രാന്തികളും' ആയി മുദ്രകുത്തുകയാണു് സമൂഹം ചെയ്യുന്നതു്. ജലദോഷം പോലെ നിസ്സാരമായതു മുതല് അര്ബുദം പോലെ കഠിനമായതു വരെയുള്ള മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളുണ്ടു് എന്നു് നമ്മള് തിരിച്ചറിയേണ്ടതുണ്ടു്.
കുടുംബത്തില് ആര്ക്കെങ്കിലും മാനസികരോഗം ഉണ്ടെങ്കില് അതു് ഒളിച്ചുവയ്ക്കാനാണു് നമ്മളില് പലര്ക്കും താല്പര്യം. മറ്റുള്ളവരറിഞ്ഞാല് നമുക്കു് ജീവിതത്തില് പ്രശ്നങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാകുമോ എന്ന ഭയമാണു് പലപ്പോഴും ഇതിനു് കാരണമാകുന്നതു്. ഈ സ്ഥിതിവിശേഷം മാറേണ്ടതുണ്ടു്. എങ്കിലേ മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങളെ മറ്റു രോഗങ്ങള് പോലെ തന്നെ കാണാനും അതിനു് വേണ്ട ചികിത്സ നല്കാനും കഴിയുന്ന സാഹചര്യം ഉണ്ടാകൂ. കൂടാതെ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ തന്നെ മാനസികരോഗ ചികിത്സാ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളിലെ ഇന്നത്തെ ദയനീയാവസ്ഥ മാറണമെങ്കില് അത്തരം ആശുപത്രികളും മറ്റു് ആശുപത്രികളേപ്പോലെ ജനങ്ങള്ക്കു് കയറി കാണാന് കഴിയുന്ന സ്ഥിതിയിലാവണം. പൊതുജനങ്ങളെ മാനസികാശുപത്രികളിലേക്കു് കടത്തിവിടാനാവില്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നവരുണ്ടാകാം. എന്നാല് അതു് സാദ്ധ്യമാണെന്നു് തെളിയിച്ചുകൊണ്ടു് പൊതുജനങ്ങള്ക്കു് പ്രവേശനം അനുവദിക്കുന്ന ഒരു ആശുപത്രിയെങ്കിലും ഇന്ത്യതില് തന്നെയുണ്ടു്.
ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മാനസികാരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളുടെ സ്ഥിതിയെപ്പറ്റി ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മനുഷ്യാവകാശ കമ്മീഷന് പഠിച്ചു് 1999ല് ഒരു റിപ്പോര്ട്ടു് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിരുന്നു. അതനുസരിച്ചു് മിക്ക ആശുപത്രികളുടെയും അവസ്ഥ കഷ്ടതരമായിരുന്നു. "രണ്ടു തരത്തിലുള്ള ആശുപത്രികള് ഉണ്ടെന്നാണു് ഈ പഠനം കാണിക്കുന്നതു്. ആദ്യത്തെ തരത്തിലുള്ളതിനെ ആശുപത്രികള് എന്നോ മാനസികാരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളെന്നോ വിളിക്കാനാവില്ല. സാമ്പത്തിക കാരണങ്ങളാലോ മാനസികരോഗങ്ങളെപ്പറ്റി അറിവില്ലാത്തതിനാലോ മാനസികരോഗമുള്ള ബന്ധുക്കളെ കൊണ്ടിടാനുള്ള സ്ഥലങ്ങളാണവ. ഇത്തരം പല ഇടങ്ങളിലെയും ജീവിത സൌകര്യങ്ങള് പരിതാപകരവുമാണു് ഒരു വ്യക്തിയ്ക്കു് മനുഷ്യത്വത്തോടെ ചികിത്സിക്കപ്പെടാനും അഭിമാനത്തോടെ ജീവിക്കാനുമുള്ള അവകാശം നിഷേധിക്കുന്നതുമാണു്."
``രണ്ടാമത്തെ തരം ആശുപത്രികള് അടിസ്ഥാനപരമായ ജീവിതസൌകര്യം നല്കുന്നവയാണു്. അവയുടെ പ്രാഥമിക കര്മ്മം രോഗികളെ കസ്റ്റഡിയില് വയ്ക്കുക എന്നതാണു്. ഭക്ഷണവും താമസിക്കാനുള്ള ഇടവും അവര് നല്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. എന്നാല് രോഗികളെക്കൊണ്ടു് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടില്ലാതിരിക്കാന് ആവശ്യമായ മരുന്നുകള് മാത്രമാണു് അവിടെ നല്കുന്നതു്. സാധാരണ നിലയില് ജീവിക്കാനാവശ്യമായ കഴിവുകള് വളര്ത്തിയെടുക്കാനുള്ള ശ്രമങ്ങളൊന്നും അവിടെ നടക്കുന്നില്ല. ശരിയായ രോഗചികിത്സയും സമൂഹത്തിലേക്കു് മടങ്ങിപ്പോകാനുള്ള പരിശീലനവും ലഭിക്കാനും സമൂഹത്തില് കുടുംബത്തോടൊപ്പം ജീവിക്കാനും ഉള്ള രോഗിയുടെ അവകാശം ഈ ആശുപത്രികളില് നിഷേധിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു.'' 2008ല് മനുഷ്യാവകാശ കമ്മീഷനും ബാംഗ്ലൂരിലെ നിംഹന്സ് (NIMHANS) എന്ന മാനസികാരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രവും ചേര്ന്നു് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച പുതുക്കിയ റിപ്പോര്ട്ടില് 1999നു് ശേഷം ആശുപത്രികളില് വന്ന മാറ്റങ്ങള് വിവരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടു്. പല ആശുപത്രികളിലും കാര്യമായ മാറ്റങ്ങളൊന്നും ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല എന്നാണു് ഇതില്നിന്നു് കാണുന്നതു്.
``മൊത്തം ഇരുനൂറു് സ്ത്രീകള്. അതില് കുറച്ചുപേര് ഇരുണ്ട സെല്ലുകളില്. അവര്ക്കു് മൂത്രമൊഴിക്കാനും വെളിക്കിറങ്ങാനും ഒരു കുഴി. ... ഒരു സെല്ലിനു മുന്നില് ഒരു പ്ലേറ്റില് നിറയെ മലം.'' കാല് നൂറ്റാണ്ടു് മുമ്പു് കേരളത്തിലെ ഒരു മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രിയില് കണ്ടതു് എഴുതിയിരിക്കുകയാണു് ഈ ഭ്രാന്താലയത്തിനു് നാവുണ്ടായിരുന്നെങ്കില് എന്ന പുസ്തകത്തില് സുന്ദര്. പഴയ കഥ, ഇതൊന്നും ഇപ്പോള് ഉണ്ടാവില്ല എന്നു തോന്നാം. കേരളത്തിലെ ആശുപത്രികളില് ഒരുപക്ഷെ സ്ഥിതിയില് മാറ്റമുണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ടാവാം. എന്നാല് 1996-97 കാലഘട്ടത്തില് റാഞ്ചിയിലെ മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രിയില് അഞ്ജന മിശ്ര എന്ന യുവതി കണ്ടതു് എന്താണെന്നു് നോക്കൂ. "വാര്ഡിനടുത്തേക്കു് ചെല്ലുമ്പോള് ഒരു വല്ലാത്ത നാറ്റം. കാണുന്നതു് അതിനേക്കാള് ഭീകരവും ഓക്കാനം വരുത്തുന്നതുമാണു്. നീളമുള്ള വരാന്തയുടെ കൈവരികളിലേക്കു് കയറുകൊണ്ടു് കെട്ടിയിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു അക്രമാസക്തരെന്നു് കരുതുന്ന രണ്ടു് രോഗികളെ. അവര് ഇരിക്കുന്നതു് അവരുടെ മലത്തില്. വരാന്തയുടെ രണ്ടറ്റത്തുമാണു് കക്കൂസുകള് -- ഉപയോഗിക്കാനാവാത്തവണ്ണം വൃത്തികേടായതു്."
2008 മാര്ച്ച് 8നു് കൊല്ക്കത്തയിലെ പാവ്ലോവ് മാനസിക രോഗാശുപത്രിയില് അമ്മയെ കാണാനെത്തിയ മകള് കണ്ടതു് വനിതാ വാര്ഡിലെ രോഗികളെല്ലാം പൂര്ണ്ണ നഗ്നരായിരിക്കുന്നതാണു്. കുട്ടിയെ കൂട്ടിക്കൊണ്ടുവന്ന ഡോക്ടര് ഇതില് പ്രതിഷേധിച്ചപ്പോള് ആശുപത്രി ജീവനക്കാര് അദ്ദേഹത്തെ തടഞ്ഞവച്ചു് മാപ്പു പറയണമെന്നു് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു. വിസമ്മതിച്ച ഡോക്ടറെ സൂപ്രണ്ടു് വന്നു് മാപ്പുപറഞ്ഞാണു് രക്ഷപ്പെടുത്തിയതു്. രോഗികള് നഗ്നരായിരിക്കാന് കാരണം അവര്ക്കു് മൂന്നു് വസ്ത്രങ്ങളെ ഉള്ളൂ, പക്ഷെ അലക്കുകാരന് രണ്ടാഴ്ചയിലൊരിക്കലേ വരൂ, എന്നതാണത്രെ. എന്തുകൊണ്ടു് കൂടുതല് വസ്ത്രങ്ങളില്ല, അല്ലെങ്കില് എന്തുകൊണ്ടു് അലക്കുകാരന് കൂടുതല് തവണ വരുന്നില്ല എന്ന ചോദ്യം അവശേഷിക്കുന്നു.
മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രികളില് കഴിയുന്ന രോഗികള് നമ്മുടെ സമൂഹത്തിലെ അംഗങ്ങളാണു്. നമ്മളേപ്പോലെയുള്ളവരാണു്. നമുക്കോരോരുത്തര്ക്കും, മറ്റേതു രോഗവും എന്നതുപോലെ, മാനസികരോഗവും ഏതു് ദിവസവും ഉണ്ടാകാം. നമ്മളാരും ഒരു രോഗത്തിനും അതീതരല്ല. എന്നാല് മാനസികരോഗം ഉണ്ടു് എന്നു് നമ്മള് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്ന വ്യക്തികള് പറയുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങളൊന്നും ആരും കാര്യമായി എടുക്കാറില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ അവര് നിസ്സഹായരാണു് എന്നു നമ്മള് ഓര്മ്മിക്കണം. പകപോക്കാനായി മാനസികരോഗിയായി മുദ്രകുത്തി ആശുപത്രിയിലാക്കുന്ന കഥാപാത്രങ്ങളെ നമ്മള് സിനിമയിലും സീരിയലുകളിലും കാണാറില്ലേ? മുന്പു് സൂചിപ്പിച്ച അഞ്ജന മിശ്ര അതുപോലൊരു ചതിയില് പെട്ടു പോയ സ്ത്രീയാണു്. പകപോക്കാനല്ല, ഭാര്യയെ ഒഴിവാക്കാനായി ഭര്ത്താവു് ചെയ്തതാണെന്നു മാത്രം. ഇത്തരം അനേകം സ്ത്രീകള് മാനസികരോഗാശുപത്രികളില് ഹോമിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുണ്ടു് എന്നു് അഞ്ജന തന്നെ പറയുന്നു. ഇതെല്ലാം നമ്മുടെ സമൂഹത്തിനു മേലുള്ള വലിയ കളങ്കങ്ങളാണു്.
മാനസികരോഗചികിത്സാരംഗത്തു് വലിയ പുരോഗതി കൈവരിക്കാന് ആധുനിക വൈദ്യശാസ്ത്രത്തിനു് ആയിട്ടുണ്ടു്. ആത്മാഭിമാനത്തോടെയും സ്വന്തം കാര്യങ്ങള് സ്വയം ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ടും ജീവിക്കാനുള്ള കഴിവു് മിക്ക മാനസികരോഗികള്ക്കും ശരിയായ ചികിത്സയിലൂടെ നേടാനാവും. ആ സ്ഥിതിക്കു് നമ്മുടെ സഹോദരന്മാരെയും സഹോദരികളെയും ഇങ്ങനെ ക്രൂരമായി ശിക്ഷിക്കുന്നതു് മഹാപാപമാണു്. മനുഷ്യരാശിയോടു ചെയ്യുന്ന അപരാധമാണു്. ഇതെല്ലാം മാറ്റാന് നമ്മളാലാവുന്നതെല്ലാം ചെയ്യുമെന്നു് നമുക്കു് ഈ മാനസികാരോഗ്യ ദിനത്തില് പ്രതിജ്ഞയെടുക്കാം.
(ഈ ലേഖനം ക്രിയേറ്റീവ് കോമണ്സ് by-sa ലൈസന്സില് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു.)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Future of Governance
What will be the kind of government people will have in different parts of the world after, say, thirty, forty or fifty years? I am sure there are people who believe that the capitalist system will become prevalent all over the world, becoming the predominant form of society. There will also be people who believe that socialism will spread to many countries in fifty years' time and continue to spread to other countries. There also are people who believe that there could be other forms of society that would develop in the coming decades.
One indication of the form that may soon evolve is the new modes of production witnessed in the development of Free Software. Here, people collaborate to create something with apparently no incentive. Well, there is the incentive of popularity, recognition and even fame that contribution to Free Software may bring. But not money, at least for a number of developers who are not employed by Free Software companies like Red Hat or SuSE or even companies that contribute to Free Software like Sun Microsystems.
But, if we take the case of Wikipedia, for instance, contribution to it brings you nothing. Not even the names of contributors are mentioned anywhere. Yet, millions of articles go written in more than 250 languages! This is simply stupendous! Unbelievable even a few years ago. And inexplicable from the point of view of any kind of economics. Does this indicate a new and evolving form of collaborative production? Can this kind of production be extended to other areas also? Can, in other words, a new form of economy come into existence where production is no longer centralised, controlled by a few people? Can there be an economy that needs no money?
While these may sound absurd to many people who cannot escape from the modes of thinking that we are familiar with in this money-based economy, there are many people who think that it could be possible. There are different groups in different parts of the world, such as the P2P Foundation established by Michel Bauwens and the Oekonux group established by Stefan Merten, who are seriously discussing such possibilities.
I had the good fortune to meet and interview Mr. Bauwens and Mr. Merten earlier this year. The interview with Mr. Bauwens has already appeared in Malayalam in the latest issue (July 17, 2009) of the magazine Samakalika Malayalam. The English version of the interview has appeared in Infochange India. The interview is under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives India 2.5 (by-nd) licence. So it may be reproduced in any media provided this licence statement is also included. Just for your information, in case you would want to reproduce it somewhere :-)
One indication of the form that may soon evolve is the new modes of production witnessed in the development of Free Software. Here, people collaborate to create something with apparently no incentive. Well, there is the incentive of popularity, recognition and even fame that contribution to Free Software may bring. But not money, at least for a number of developers who are not employed by Free Software companies like Red Hat or SuSE or even companies that contribute to Free Software like Sun Microsystems.
But, if we take the case of Wikipedia, for instance, contribution to it brings you nothing. Not even the names of contributors are mentioned anywhere. Yet, millions of articles go written in more than 250 languages! This is simply stupendous! Unbelievable even a few years ago. And inexplicable from the point of view of any kind of economics. Does this indicate a new and evolving form of collaborative production? Can this kind of production be extended to other areas also? Can, in other words, a new form of economy come into existence where production is no longer centralised, controlled by a few people? Can there be an economy that needs no money?
While these may sound absurd to many people who cannot escape from the modes of thinking that we are familiar with in this money-based economy, there are many people who think that it could be possible. There are different groups in different parts of the world, such as the P2P Foundation established by Michel Bauwens and the Oekonux group established by Stefan Merten, who are seriously discussing such possibilities.
I had the good fortune to meet and interview Mr. Bauwens and Mr. Merten earlier this year. The interview with Mr. Bauwens has already appeared in Malayalam in the latest issue (July 17, 2009) of the magazine Samakalika Malayalam. The English version of the interview has appeared in Infochange India. The interview is under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives India 2.5 (by-nd) licence. So it may be reproduced in any media provided this licence statement is also included. Just for your information, in case you would want to reproduce it somewhere :-)
Friday, May 29, 2009
Humanity in a Trap
Well, this is not really a post, but a link to an earlier post. I have to do this because the earlier post was started in December 2008, but completed only today. Yet, the post lies somewhere, far below, and no one may get to see it unless someone takes the trouble to search it out. So, I thought, I will give a link here so that people will see it. It is about Climate Change, the impending energy crisis and what we should probably do. The post is here. Please do read and comment.
Well, this is not really a post, but a link to an earlier post. I have to do this because the earlier post was started in December 2008, but completed only today. Yet, the post lies somewhere, far below, and no one may get to see it unless someone takes the trouble to search it out. So, I thought, I will give a link here so that people will see it. It is about Climate Change, the impending energy crisis and what we should probably do. The post is here. Please do read and comment.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Slumdogs and Millionaires
Interesting story in The Age, an Australian newspaper (thanks to my friend Sundar for sending me the link):Who'd want to be a (Slumdog) Millionaire? It seems the producers have become millionaires with the film succeeding both in the box office and the Oscar nominations. But two of the main actors, Rubina and Azharuddin, who were paid very little for their efforts (that lasted one year) are back to their poor squalid surroundings and struggling to live and study. Rubina was, apparently, paid $ 1060 (something like Rs. 50,000) and Azharuddin $ 3600 (about Rs. 1,76,000) for one year's work.
"The child actors' parents have accused the hit film's producers of exploiting the eight-year-olds, disclosing that both face uncertain futures in one of Mumbai's most squalid slums." says the report.
Is it fair to expect someone taking a movie to help the people in his story financially? I don't know. But I know one thing. When the producer makes such a movie, it is only fair that (s)he pays his/her workers properly, whether they are established actors or children from a slum. Is Rs. 50,000 good enough for a year's work? I don't think so, but I am sure there are people who are paid less in the country. But I don't think that justifies a low pay either. In any case, I think it is really low for a child who did a role in a film, and that too working for one year. Is what Azharuddin got low? Well, to be frank, I don't know.
But the point is not simply that of paying a worker. It is also a moral question of making use of the pitiable state of some people to make money abroad and then leaving them in their misery. Just today I was told that the people who made the Tamil film Thannir Thannir, the story of a village that thirsts for water, left the people to their fate after making the movie. I can already hear people ask, "Then what should a film maker do? His job is to make movies. And, in any case, the movie helped to bring attention to the plight of the people, did it not? What more do you expect?"
True. But why did these people decide to take a movie on the plight of the poor? Was it out of empathy? Did they hope to find some solution to the problems these people are facing by letting others know about it? Or, did they think that this theme would sell well? In the former case, it is empathy that drives the decision. Therefore, one would expect empathetic behaviour from them -- at least use some of the money the film makes to help these people. In the latter case, it is only fair that the people who contributed to the film share some of the economic benefits. So, I think, in either case, there is nothing wrong in expecting some contribution from the film makers to alleviate the misery of the people whose story they are telling. But we didn't see that happening in either of the two cases mentioned above. At the same time, someone just mentioned to me this evening that all profits from the movie are earmarked for charity by its producer Anil Kapoor. I don't know how far it is true. But if it is, and he keeps his word, I withdraw all the above comments and apologise.
PS: Today's newspaper carried a report that said that the profits from the movie have been earmarked for development of the Mumbai slum that featured in the movie. If this is true, and they do indeed put money from the movie into the slums, then I sincerely apologise and withdraw my criticism. (Added on February 1, 2009)
Interesting story in The Age, an Australian newspaper (thanks to my friend Sundar for sending me the link):Who'd want to be a (Slumdog) Millionaire? It seems the producers have become millionaires with the film succeeding both in the box office and the Oscar nominations. But two of the main actors, Rubina and Azharuddin, who were paid very little for their efforts (that lasted one year) are back to their poor squalid surroundings and struggling to live and study. Rubina was, apparently, paid $ 1060 (something like Rs. 50,000) and Azharuddin $ 3600 (about Rs. 1,76,000) for one year's work.
"The child actors' parents have accused the hit film's producers of exploiting the eight-year-olds, disclosing that both face uncertain futures in one of Mumbai's most squalid slums." says the report.
Is it fair to expect someone taking a movie to help the people in his story financially? I don't know. But I know one thing. When the producer makes such a movie, it is only fair that (s)he pays his/her workers properly, whether they are established actors or children from a slum. Is Rs. 50,000 good enough for a year's work? I don't think so, but I am sure there are people who are paid less in the country. But I don't think that justifies a low pay either. In any case, I think it is really low for a child who did a role in a film, and that too working for one year. Is what Azharuddin got low? Well, to be frank, I don't know.
But the point is not simply that of paying a worker. It is also a moral question of making use of the pitiable state of some people to make money abroad and then leaving them in their misery. Just today I was told that the people who made the Tamil film Thannir Thannir, the story of a village that thirsts for water, left the people to their fate after making the movie. I can already hear people ask, "Then what should a film maker do? His job is to make movies. And, in any case, the movie helped to bring attention to the plight of the people, did it not? What more do you expect?"
True. But why did these people decide to take a movie on the plight of the poor? Was it out of empathy? Did they hope to find some solution to the problems these people are facing by letting others know about it? Or, did they think that this theme would sell well? In the former case, it is empathy that drives the decision. Therefore, one would expect empathetic behaviour from them -- at least use some of the money the film makes to help these people. In the latter case, it is only fair that the people who contributed to the film share some of the economic benefits. So, I think, in either case, there is nothing wrong in expecting some contribution from the film makers to alleviate the misery of the people whose story they are telling. But we didn't see that happening in either of the two cases mentioned above. At the same time, someone just mentioned to me this evening that all profits from the movie are earmarked for charity by its producer Anil Kapoor. I don't know how far it is true. But if it is, and he keeps his word, I withdraw all the above comments and apologise.
PS: Today's newspaper carried a report that said that the profits from the movie have been earmarked for development of the Mumbai slum that featured in the movie. If this is true, and they do indeed put money from the movie into the slums, then I sincerely apologise and withdraw my criticism. (Added on February 1, 2009)
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Mere Desh Ki Dharti
"Mumbai-based filmmaker Sumit Khanna first embarked on the pesticides trail when he noticed the absence of the common sparrow from the green fields of Punjab. "Why is it, I thought to myself, that the sparrows have stopped making the fields their home despite the apparent presence of food? And then I discovered that the crop is so heavily sprayed with pesticide that no bird or beast can hope to survive in the fields," says Khanna. This process of discovery took the route of a 58-minute documentary film, financed by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust (PSBT). To add a touch of irony, Khanna titled his film Mere Desh Ki Dharti, a popular song from a Hindi film that pays tribute to the abundance of food, water and happiness in India." This is a quote from an article in Infochange
I am reminded of very similar ideas expressed in a book that ultimately turned out to be one of the pioneering books on the environmental movement. It was written by Rachel Carson and was called Silent Spring. She starts with the concern about birds disappearing, and along with them, bird songs. And she goes on to show, in chapter after disgusting chapter, how technology in the form of chemicals that kill insects has destroyed bird populations. How nature has been silenced. How humans took 'control' of nature and came pretty close to destroying themselves.
Have we not learnt any lesson from all the heart-breaking episodes that Ms. Rachel described almost a half century ago? Do we have to replay all those absurd scenes again? Do we have to repeat all the mistakes that the West made? Are we always going to be followers of the so-called "developed" world? Why are we afraid of following our own path of progress? I admit that the 'West', or the 'North' as some prefer to say, has succeeded in brainwashing us into believing that theirs is the only way to achieving "development". This is a word I dislike using in this context, since it signifies growth, and I believe that growth is not the way to go forward. Continuous growth signifies infinite resources, since growth generally is taken to mean increasing consumption of resources. So I prefer the word "progress", which really does not imply growth (as in "progress along our way", for example).
Even if there is no destination, which seems to be clear, let us look for progress on our path, than for growth and development. Let us look for more equitable sharing of resources, less conflicts within society, less contradictions with nature. Let us think more of co-operation that competition. Let us forget about efficiency and think more about equity, for instance. Yes, that should be our path, and we could, perhaps, progress continuously along this path without creating trouble for other species. We are quite suited to set an example for the world in this matter, due to our unique history and philosophy of 'live and let live'. So let us lead the world rather than follow others.
"Mumbai-based filmmaker Sumit Khanna first embarked on the pesticides trail when he noticed the absence of the common sparrow from the green fields of Punjab. "Why is it, I thought to myself, that the sparrows have stopped making the fields their home despite the apparent presence of food? And then I discovered that the crop is so heavily sprayed with pesticide that no bird or beast can hope to survive in the fields," says Khanna. This process of discovery took the route of a 58-minute documentary film, financed by the Public Service Broadcasting Trust (PSBT). To add a touch of irony, Khanna titled his film Mere Desh Ki Dharti, a popular song from a Hindi film that pays tribute to the abundance of food, water and happiness in India." This is a quote from an article in Infochange
I am reminded of very similar ideas expressed in a book that ultimately turned out to be one of the pioneering books on the environmental movement. It was written by Rachel Carson and was called Silent Spring. She starts with the concern about birds disappearing, and along with them, bird songs. And she goes on to show, in chapter after disgusting chapter, how technology in the form of chemicals that kill insects has destroyed bird populations. How nature has been silenced. How humans took 'control' of nature and came pretty close to destroying themselves.
Have we not learnt any lesson from all the heart-breaking episodes that Ms. Rachel described almost a half century ago? Do we have to replay all those absurd scenes again? Do we have to repeat all the mistakes that the West made? Are we always going to be followers of the so-called "developed" world? Why are we afraid of following our own path of progress? I admit that the 'West', or the 'North' as some prefer to say, has succeeded in brainwashing us into believing that theirs is the only way to achieving "development". This is a word I dislike using in this context, since it signifies growth, and I believe that growth is not the way to go forward. Continuous growth signifies infinite resources, since growth generally is taken to mean increasing consumption of resources. So I prefer the word "progress", which really does not imply growth (as in "progress along our way", for example).
Even if there is no destination, which seems to be clear, let us look for progress on our path, than for growth and development. Let us look for more equitable sharing of resources, less conflicts within society, less contradictions with nature. Let us think more of co-operation that competition. Let us forget about efficiency and think more about equity, for instance. Yes, that should be our path, and we could, perhaps, progress continuously along this path without creating trouble for other species. We are quite suited to set an example for the world in this matter, due to our unique history and philosophy of 'live and let live'. So let us lead the world rather than follow others.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Thoughts about New Year
Today is supposed to be New Year day. I looked around in the morning to see what was new about the day. I found the day to be very similar to yesterday. It was rather cool outside my house, the same as yesterday. I heard the same kind of bird songs. The same plants and trees stood in the same places, fortunately. The house also looked the same. The newspapers for the day were lying in the courtyard. And I read about people killed in accidents, about people murdered by individuals or state machinery, about people who committed suicide, about poverty, about joblessness and about political manipulations. And my house maid did not turn up, just as yesterday. So what is new? What was the big celebration people indulged in yesterday about? I hope you understand my doubt.
If I had a paper calendar, I would have had to replace it with a new one. Since I didn't have, well, it was just like any other day. Just that, hence forth, I would have to write 2009, instead of 2008, when I want to write the date on a cheque leaf, for instance. Well, but this kind of thing happens often, every day, in fact. Because every day the date changes. Once in a while the month also changes. So, of course, it is only fair that once in a longer while, the year also changes. This happens to be how we record the passage of time. Yes, sometimes we also need to write the time somewhere -- for instance, in a gate pass when we enter some institutions. Why fireworks and drunken displays when the date changes from December 31 to January 1?
In Kerala, India, where I stay, the year does not start on January 1. It starts on Chingam 1, where Chingam is the first day of the local calendar. But that is not celebrated. In many parts of the country, New Year is celebrated on April 14, the day when the Sun, the provider of all wealth, reaches the first point of Aries. In Kerala we have the traditional Onam festival some time in August or September. This is considered as a harvest festival. This was the time when paddy was harvested and people got their basic food grain. This was the time when the heavy rains from the South West monsoon ended and made life easier for the people. This would naturally have been a gime to celebrate. April 14th is also celebrated in Kerala as Vishu (interestingly, there is a similar celebration, Bihu, in the northeastern state, Asom, on the same day). But this is a short, one-day celebration. Interestingly, Vishu is also considered as a harvest festival. What I am trying to say is that such celebrations have always been associated with something good that happens at that time. But what about January 1? I am not able to find anything special about that date, in Kerala, India or anywhere else. In fact, in much of the northern hemisphere, which has most of the inhabited land, the temperate regions will be in the middle of winter and very cold.
Come to think of it, almost any day must be a new year's day in some part of the world. Even within India itself people follow different calendars in different parts of the country. And each one of them must have some history related to that region, and, therefore, related to the geography of the region. And, therefore, there could be reasons for celebration at that point of time. But what relevance does January 1 have for people in Kerala? Apart from the fact that many employees of government and private organisations get their salary that day? Aren't we aping the West again here?
Let me make one thing clear. I am not against using a common calendar all over the world. It does make things easier for a lot of people (though computers and the Internet should be able to handle the problem of multiple calendars easily). And New Year's eve has become an occasion for people to get drunk and drive madly. It is good that the police has put an end to the latter this year, but this was not always the case. What a waste of energy both human and fossil fuel! And what a meaningless and vulgar adoption of culture from the West.
Today is supposed to be New Year day. I looked around in the morning to see what was new about the day. I found the day to be very similar to yesterday. It was rather cool outside my house, the same as yesterday. I heard the same kind of bird songs. The same plants and trees stood in the same places, fortunately. The house also looked the same. The newspapers for the day were lying in the courtyard. And I read about people killed in accidents, about people murdered by individuals or state machinery, about people who committed suicide, about poverty, about joblessness and about political manipulations. And my house maid did not turn up, just as yesterday. So what is new? What was the big celebration people indulged in yesterday about? I hope you understand my doubt.
If I had a paper calendar, I would have had to replace it with a new one. Since I didn't have, well, it was just like any other day. Just that, hence forth, I would have to write 2009, instead of 2008, when I want to write the date on a cheque leaf, for instance. Well, but this kind of thing happens often, every day, in fact. Because every day the date changes. Once in a while the month also changes. So, of course, it is only fair that once in a longer while, the year also changes. This happens to be how we record the passage of time. Yes, sometimes we also need to write the time somewhere -- for instance, in a gate pass when we enter some institutions. Why fireworks and drunken displays when the date changes from December 31 to January 1?
In Kerala, India, where I stay, the year does not start on January 1. It starts on Chingam 1, where Chingam is the first day of the local calendar. But that is not celebrated. In many parts of the country, New Year is celebrated on April 14, the day when the Sun, the provider of all wealth, reaches the first point of Aries. In Kerala we have the traditional Onam festival some time in August or September. This is considered as a harvest festival. This was the time when paddy was harvested and people got their basic food grain. This was the time when the heavy rains from the South West monsoon ended and made life easier for the people. This would naturally have been a gime to celebrate. April 14th is also celebrated in Kerala as Vishu (interestingly, there is a similar celebration, Bihu, in the northeastern state, Asom, on the same day). But this is a short, one-day celebration. Interestingly, Vishu is also considered as a harvest festival. What I am trying to say is that such celebrations have always been associated with something good that happens at that time. But what about January 1? I am not able to find anything special about that date, in Kerala, India or anywhere else. In fact, in much of the northern hemisphere, which has most of the inhabited land, the temperate regions will be in the middle of winter and very cold.
Come to think of it, almost any day must be a new year's day in some part of the world. Even within India itself people follow different calendars in different parts of the country. And each one of them must have some history related to that region, and, therefore, related to the geography of the region. And, therefore, there could be reasons for celebration at that point of time. But what relevance does January 1 have for people in Kerala? Apart from the fact that many employees of government and private organisations get their salary that day? Aren't we aping the West again here?
Let me make one thing clear. I am not against using a common calendar all over the world. It does make things easier for a lot of people (though computers and the Internet should be able to handle the problem of multiple calendars easily). And New Year's eve has become an occasion for people to get drunk and drive madly. It is good that the police has put an end to the latter this year, but this was not always the case. What a waste of energy both human and fossil fuel! And what a meaningless and vulgar adoption of culture from the West.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Hospitals or Hell?
This is the title of an article on mental hospitals that I wrote along with my friend Sundar. The article finally got published in Counter Currents. I am happy that something finally has appeared in the media, but sad that this did not happen earlier. A more elaborate article by both of us on mental patients and their pitiable condition in India is pending with Frontline for quite some time, though they have agreed to publish it. A slightly longer version of the current one was not accepted by another web magazine because they felt a study on a specific hospital was more appropriate. I am happy that this has finally appeared and hope that someone will take notice of the matter. And, maybe, do something about it. In any case, I urge you to read it and talk about the issue. Thank you.
The link to the article once again: http://www.countercurrents.org/sasikumar011208.htm
This is the title of an article on mental hospitals that I wrote along with my friend Sundar. The article finally got published in Counter Currents. I am happy that something finally has appeared in the media, but sad that this did not happen earlier. A more elaborate article by both of us on mental patients and their pitiable condition in India is pending with Frontline for quite some time, though they have agreed to publish it. A slightly longer version of the current one was not accepted by another web magazine because they felt a study on a specific hospital was more appropriate. I am happy that this has finally appeared and hope that someone will take notice of the matter. And, maybe, do something about it. In any case, I urge you to read it and talk about the issue. Thank you.
The link to the article once again: http://www.countercurrents.org/sasikumar011208.htm
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Climate Change, Energy Crisis and Development
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that climate change is real, that human beings are causing it and that we seem to be heading for a real bad time. Global mean temperature and temperature at specific locations could go up by a few degrees by the end of this century and the mean sea level could rise by several centimetres as a result of polar ice melting and water expanding with increase in temperature. The global warming could lead to reduction in total rainfall, while, at the same time, increse in severity of rainfall events and drought. All this could result in reduction in food productivity especially in the tropics (while productivity could increase in the temperate regions for temperature increases up to 3 degrees but would reduce for higher temperatures), increased sea erosion and loss of land to the ocean, and various other problems. The main cause for all this is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is a result of the large-scale consumption of fossil fuels on the one hand and deforestation on the other.
There is a group of people who still believe that all this is humbug, that the changes we see in the atmosphere are simply normal changes. They, therefore, argue that there is no reason for us to change our life styles. Unfortunately, the United States has accepted this argument and refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol that aims at reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, mainly by developed countries. A major mistake such people are making is that, if they, by some chance, happen to be wrong and IPCC happens to be correct, entire humanity could be severly affected, if not wiped out. That is, of course, assuming that they are sincere to themselves. If global warming continues, it could possibly even lead to a major catastrophe that could even wipe out life on this planet. We could hardly do anything beyond a point. As of now, it is the poor nations and islands who suffer most, and, of course, the poor in the developed countries.
Fortunately or unfortunately, this is happening at the same point in time when petroleum is runnign out. In a way, this is good, because that would certainly put a halt to our consumption of petroleum and tend to reduce the production of carbon dioxide. But in a way it is bad because we will have to face two crises at the same time. While, on the one hand, we could be faced with changes in the distribution of diseases and the availability of food grains in some regions, we will also have to tackle the problem of fuel for transportation. This is complicated by the problem that real figures on petroleum availability are not available because observers believe that the figures given out by the oil producing countries are not reliable.
Let me also point to a third potential crisis that may be approaching. And this is the loss of traditional knowledge. A lot of knowledge that could probably have helped us face some of the problems that could arise in the near future, as discussed above, is being lost because they are not properly documented and because they have been replaced by new knowledge from the West that is considered "superior".
There is no need to emphasise the role of the West in creating the atmosphere for causing these problems and the role they have to play in solving them too. We should ralise that the problem of global warming and climate change has its roots in the Industrial Revolution, when human power was replaced by machine power, which, in turn, required power from coal and then petroleum and electricity. All this did, certainly, lead to an improvement in human living conditions. But we should not forget to also see the misery that it created. Admittedly, much of that misery has disappeared from the developed world, and, maybe, given enough time, it would disappear from the developing world too. But we are running out of time. More importantly, we have lost many of the skills that we had before. We have come to a high energy economy and it would be really tough to go back to a low energy economy. Humanity is simply consuming much more than its fair share of resources. And, in the process, we have destroyed much of the flora and fauna that we had.
India and China have a big role to play in both mitigating the crises and in protecting the traditional knowledge. These are two countries that have the largest populations in the world and also are wealthy in terms of traditional knowledge. And this traditional knowledge is disappearing fast. And, while it may be possible to regenerate the lost flora and fauna, though extremely improbable, it may take eons to recreate lost knowledge. We have to admit that we have behaved badly with our Mother Earth.
The way I see it, the greatest tragedy is that we have not learned a lesson. We are still trying to find technological solutions to the problems we have created in nature. We are still trying to find alternate sources of energy. We fail to see that no one expected any problem when humanity started using petroleum as a source of energy. It became a problem when the use of petroleum became widespread. When millions of automobiles started running on petroleum. Are we sure that the alternate sources of energy that we are looking for also will not create such problems when they become ubiquitous? Do we know what problems await us when millions of square metres of solar cells are manufactured and deployed? Or when millions of windmills are deployed all over the world? Or when thousands of nuclear reactors are built and they start producing spent fuel?
I feel that humanity has got into a trap -- the trap of over-ambition and over-confidence. The consequences of the actions of my generation, and of the previous couple of generations, are going to be borne by my children and theirs. And this is certainly not a comforting thought.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that climate change is real, that human beings are causing it and that we seem to be heading for a real bad time. Global mean temperature and temperature at specific locations could go up by a few degrees by the end of this century and the mean sea level could rise by several centimetres as a result of polar ice melting and water expanding with increase in temperature. The global warming could lead to reduction in total rainfall, while, at the same time, increse in severity of rainfall events and drought. All this could result in reduction in food productivity especially in the tropics (while productivity could increase in the temperate regions for temperature increases up to 3 degrees but would reduce for higher temperatures), increased sea erosion and loss of land to the ocean, and various other problems. The main cause for all this is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is a result of the large-scale consumption of fossil fuels on the one hand and deforestation on the other.
There is a group of people who still believe that all this is humbug, that the changes we see in the atmosphere are simply normal changes. They, therefore, argue that there is no reason for us to change our life styles. Unfortunately, the United States has accepted this argument and refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol that aims at reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, mainly by developed countries. A major mistake such people are making is that, if they, by some chance, happen to be wrong and IPCC happens to be correct, entire humanity could be severly affected, if not wiped out. That is, of course, assuming that they are sincere to themselves. If global warming continues, it could possibly even lead to a major catastrophe that could even wipe out life on this planet. We could hardly do anything beyond a point. As of now, it is the poor nations and islands who suffer most, and, of course, the poor in the developed countries.
Fortunately or unfortunately, this is happening at the same point in time when petroleum is runnign out. In a way, this is good, because that would certainly put a halt to our consumption of petroleum and tend to reduce the production of carbon dioxide. But in a way it is bad because we will have to face two crises at the same time. While, on the one hand, we could be faced with changes in the distribution of diseases and the availability of food grains in some regions, we will also have to tackle the problem of fuel for transportation. This is complicated by the problem that real figures on petroleum availability are not available because observers believe that the figures given out by the oil producing countries are not reliable.
Let me also point to a third potential crisis that may be approaching. And this is the loss of traditional knowledge. A lot of knowledge that could probably have helped us face some of the problems that could arise in the near future, as discussed above, is being lost because they are not properly documented and because they have been replaced by new knowledge from the West that is considered "superior".
There is no need to emphasise the role of the West in creating the atmosphere for causing these problems and the role they have to play in solving them too. We should ralise that the problem of global warming and climate change has its roots in the Industrial Revolution, when human power was replaced by machine power, which, in turn, required power from coal and then petroleum and electricity. All this did, certainly, lead to an improvement in human living conditions. But we should not forget to also see the misery that it created. Admittedly, much of that misery has disappeared from the developed world, and, maybe, given enough time, it would disappear from the developing world too. But we are running out of time. More importantly, we have lost many of the skills that we had before. We have come to a high energy economy and it would be really tough to go back to a low energy economy. Humanity is simply consuming much more than its fair share of resources. And, in the process, we have destroyed much of the flora and fauna that we had.
India and China have a big role to play in both mitigating the crises and in protecting the traditional knowledge. These are two countries that have the largest populations in the world and also are wealthy in terms of traditional knowledge. And this traditional knowledge is disappearing fast. And, while it may be possible to regenerate the lost flora and fauna, though extremely improbable, it may take eons to recreate lost knowledge. We have to admit that we have behaved badly with our Mother Earth.
The way I see it, the greatest tragedy is that we have not learned a lesson. We are still trying to find technological solutions to the problems we have created in nature. We are still trying to find alternate sources of energy. We fail to see that no one expected any problem when humanity started using petroleum as a source of energy. It became a problem when the use of petroleum became widespread. When millions of automobiles started running on petroleum. Are we sure that the alternate sources of energy that we are looking for also will not create such problems when they become ubiquitous? Do we know what problems await us when millions of square metres of solar cells are manufactured and deployed? Or when millions of windmills are deployed all over the world? Or when thousands of nuclear reactors are built and they start producing spent fuel?
I feel that humanity has got into a trap -- the trap of over-ambition and over-confidence. The consequences of the actions of my generation, and of the previous couple of generations, are going to be borne by my children and theirs. And this is certainly not a comforting thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
