When we pass thru a market place and come across a beggar, a weak sounds resonates the ears “Allah Ke Naam Pe De De” . Listening to this, we murmur ourselves “Mainu Ki!”. How pathetic we are and our mind-set. Cannot we share the alms the God has bestowed on us by providing with income. It is quite simple to make evasive action. What pleases God if we share something with the beggar.
We always consider ourselves “privileged” and the beggar a pathetic soul. In general, we do not like beggars and their state-of-affairs.

We are always in search of somebody of our level.
Are we here for partying or entertainment purposes?
Life of a human being is not to please the ‘mind’ or ‘mood’ but to do service to ‘soul’. Because soul is the particle of God and God realization should be the ‘aim and objective’ of life.

Same soul exists in each and every human being. Whether a beggar or a rich man. Why don’t we share the alms received from God with those who ‘have not’. The creator is one and we all are his creation. Whether rich or poor. Money cannot provide peace. If we are in search of real peace, then we should always help others who ‘have not’ , and not always please our ‘mun’.

In doing so, then one day God will be pleased with our deeds and will, perhaps merge our soul in him, if that is the aim of our life.

War helps no one on this planet – specially not the people, plants and all living beings who inhabit it. One Vorld One Universe One Mankind is the guiding principle, which will help resolve all issues. One would like to promote world peace, but with dignity for all and without compromise to extremism. There are hardly any who talk about peace in the present scenario in Europe. However two leaders who stand out and are proactive about peace are undoubtedly Modi and Macron. PM Modi’s role came into limelight during SCO summit, but ever since war began he has been talking about peace privately to Putin and also Zelensky. On the other hand President Macron met President Putin in Moscow, way back in February 2022 aiming for a de-escalation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advice to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine war during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit at Samarkand in Uzbekistan has created hopes that perhaps it might be a catalyst to the end of Russia-Ukraine war. While his intervention has received approval from the world leaders, it has also grabbed the attention of leading international press and media

Japanese publication, NHK headlined “Indian PM Modi tells Putin to pursue peace”, Even Chinese media approved of it as the Hong Kong-based l South China Morning Post reported: Now is ‘not a time for war’, India’s Modi tells Russia’s Putin who agrees to ‘end this as soon as possible.’

Politico from US reported; “India’s Modi tells Putin: This is ‘not the era for war” and US News headlines was “Indian PM Modi Tells Russia’s Putin Now ‘Is Not an Era of War”.

On Internationally telecast media, while expressing his concerns about the impact of the war on food and energy security, PM Modi told Putin, “Today’s era is not of war and I have spoken to you about it on the call. Today we will get the opportunity to talk about how we can progress on the path of peace. India and Russia have stayed together with each other for several decades,”

“We spoke several times on the phone about India-Russia bilateral relations and various issues. We should find ways to address the problems of food, fuel security and fertilizers. I want to thank Russia and Ukraine for helping us to evacuate our students from Ukraine,” the Prime Minister added.

International media appreciated PM Modi’s diplomatic tact, who in a friendly manner pushed the concerns of the world at large to its long-standing friend Russia.

CNN appreciated PM Modi’s understanding of the situation and reported ” Indian leader Narendra Modi tells Putin: Now is not the time for war”

Washington Post, headlined “Modi rebukes Putin over war in Ukraine”.

“India’s Leader Tells Putin That Now Is Not an Era for War,” The New York Times said in its headline

Following the SCO summit, India’s role as a peace maker was applauded at the 77th UN General Assembly by world leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed that Indian PM Modi was right when he said that time is not for war, not for revenge against the west or for opposing the west against east. It is time for our sovereign equal states to cope together with challenges we face: . German envoy quipped “very well put” to PM Modis remark on the Russia Ukraine conflict. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan cited Modi’s remark urging Putin to end the war.  Other world leaders like Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov,also cited Modi’s advice in their speeches. Indian External Affairs Minister summarized; “I am concluding this week with the sense that India really matters more in this polarised world and much of that is also due to the Prime Minister’s leadership, his image, what he has done on the global stage,”

PM Modi also had a telephonic conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wherein as per official sources, he conveyed India’s readiness to contribute to any peace efforts in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. he stated that there can be no military solution to the conflict and reiterated his call for early cessation of hostilities and the need to pursue the path of dialogue and diplomacy..

Unlike India, France did not take a neutral stand at UN and voted against Russia in the security council. Yet even before PM Modi’s advice to President Putin Macron has been advocating a reconciliatory approach. As reported by world media, including EuroNews

As far back as May 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron has warned against humiliating Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, if and when any peace settlement is agreed.

He told reporters in Strasbourg that once the war ends, Moscow and Kyiv will eventually have to sit down and negotiate with each other, so any further tensions will only serve to the detriment of the situation.

“We will have a peace to build tomorrow, let us never forget that,” Macron said on Monday. “I mentioned this earlier. We will have to do this with Ukraine and Russia around the table. The end of the discussion and the negotiation will be set by Ukraine and Russia. But it will not be done in denial, nor in exclusion of each other, nor even in humiliation.”

Macron also laid out his vision of a broader community of European democracies that would allow for deeper cooperation between non-EU countries. (EuroNews 9th May)

Even earlier on February 7, 2022 NY Times headline news was “Macron meets Putin in Moscow, aiming for a de-escalation”. It went on to add “President Emmanuel Macron of France, who has positioned himself at the center of Europe’s furious diplomatic maneuvering over Ukraine, said on Monday that the continent was at a “critical crossroads” as he met in Moscow with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia”..However there were murmurs of disapproval by some other countries watch the vido below to get both sided of the story.

Our Columnist Sunil Sarpal recalls the recent background to this war.

The war between USSR and Ukrain broke out approx. 6 months ago.  The cause of disenchantment was that USSR did not want Ukrain joining NATO.  USSR feared that if Ukrain, whose border separates the two nations, join NATO, other NATO affiliated nations’ forces could line up Ukrain border and intimidate USSR.   As of now, the situation has unfolded that 20% Ukrain territory is under USSR control and the war goes on unabated.  The devastation took place because of the war is unprecedented. 

Is Zelenskey responsible for the war or Putin ?

Putin’s invasion of Ukrain proved a total miscalculation.  As days progressed, it seems that the war will go on and on.   Because Ukrain forces retaliated in such a manner that USSR  forces ran away from the warring zone, leaving behind tanks, arma and others weapons in order to save their lives. 

On both sides, the loss of lives and infrastructure took place as never before. 

When war broke out an assurance came from none other than USA to Ukrain that they are whole-heartedly behind them, but USA never sent his forces to Ukrain.  Of course, sanctions and war-related weapons etc have been supplied by them as well as by Germany.  The fear factor on the part of USA could be that if their forces join hands with Ukrain, it would turn out to be a world war.  

If Ukrain President Zelenskey is so very stubborn to prolong the war and asking for help from USA and other nations, then Ukrain inviting more trouble.  The complete devastation of Ukrain could be averted if Zelenskey relents to Putin’s stand.  On the face  of USSR might, Ukrain’s defeat is on the cards whatever or how much coming their way. 

In this war, both Putin and Zelenskey are held responsible because of their respective stands.  Attempts have been made to kill both Putin and Zelenskey separately thru bombs but both escaped unscathed.

But will the momentum for peace, proposed by pacifists like Modi and Macron, gather pace or will temporary victories or setbacks of either side stall the move towards détente, remains to be seen – Manohar Khushalani.

This is a first of what may be a set of posts around the same theme- recovery in mental health or recovery from mental health issues, regaining one’s sense of wellbeing after an emotional/psychological setback.

The past year has gone in a lot of work in this area (also among the reasons I could not write on this blog). So now is the time to talk about the work which has been done away from the public eye.

Let me begin with the book, which comes out later this year, I put to bed a few months ago. Currently the last phase of that is underway- on the production front.

As an aside, a somewhat disconcerting thought which has always been there at the back of my head is that when we say the word ‘recovery’ in the context of mental health it conjures a particular kind of image. Recovery is often mistaken to be the recognition of someone’s suffering as a diagnostic reality. (Oh, but this was not the disconcerting thought I had in mind- it was about my book and how academic it is!)

“Oh, now I know why I was feeling so bad. I have anxiety after all“.

“I got a diagnosis of PTSD and chronic depression. I was also wondering what is going wrong.”

This description of suffering and its reframing into a diagnostic “truth” is what happens all the time in the field of mental health, something that troubles me immensely. But I will not go into that trouble right now. I better share with you what is the problem for me to solve here- the problem of talking about recovery.

I recovered from bipolar disorder. It may sound like something un-relatable, for one is not supposed to. In other words I am an outlier by all standards. This sudden disclosure is not part of my identity politics and I do not use mental health as a means for attention-seeking for I am troubled by it. For me my positioning is an ethical stance which comes with an agenda, largely research driven.

My agenda

My agenda post my own recovery was twosome. First it became to map my own recovery- for how did I recover?

I had no clear cut ways to share with another. I am talking about the year 2011. That was the time I started on recovery research, and a number of articles followed in diverse journals across the globe- Psychological Studies, Canadian Journal of Music Therapy, World Cultural Psychiatry Research Review and others (you are welcome to check them from my linkedin profile, ResearchGate or Academia networks. Oh yes, there is one article which is just a click away in which you can both read my (less academic) writing and hear my (self composed) songs (ghazals to be more precise). A longer piece of writing about the ghazal and its role in my healing is there in the World Cultural Psychiatry Research Review (2015).

My second agenda is/was to see if one person can recover, why are others not able to. Or rather, what is it that does not allow more people to recover- which became my PhD research (2016-2020)

Three decades in the field and five decades of life behind me, I know there was none other than this which was my goal, at least for now- recovery research. So while the research was done as a PhD and barriers to recovery found the next and more befuddling (may I say unenviable) option is how to tell others they can recover as well?

This is what I am doing nowadays- creating those other resources to disseminate the findings from my work, advocacy about recovery from mental health issues and suchlike things.

I am not going to say further in this post except having introduced the context- of who I am, where I come from and why I talk about recovery so much. And yes the resources I am busy creating- resources for recovery, advocacy and helping others recover just as well as me.

The first put to bed was the book of course. I will talk about it closer to the time it publishes (later this year)

The second is DIALOGUES FOR RECOVERY with the support and handholding by Vidya Sagar, Chennai. Here is a sample of that work, though we are not yet adept with this sort of work. Whatever else is unfolding is still firming up and I will share about them in subsequent posts. But I invite you to read the writing I have shared, which are scores of articles about my recovery and where I stand today, or what ideas I propagate via diverse means. The video that follows is a sample. There are at least five others of its siblings you can check from the same link and you get to hear my other ideas too (not mine solely, of course for we all stand on the shoulders of giants after all) …

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many of us to change the way we go about our daily lives. With those changes, some of us are experiencing a wave of losses: economic, social, physical and emotional. For some, these losses may build up and lead to feelings of grief.

So this time we’re going to talk about Grief – a natural response to loss. It’s the emotional suffering you feel when something or someone you love is taken away. Often, the pain of loss can feel overwhelming. you may experience all kinds of difficult and unexpected emotions, from shock or anger to disbelief, guilt and profound sadness. The pain of grief can also disrupt your physical health, making it difficult to sleep, eat, or even think straight.

Coping with the loss of someone or something you love is one of life’s biggest challenges. You may associate grieving with the death of a loved one – which is often the cause of the most intense type of grief – but any other loss can also cause grief. For example, divorce or relationship breakup, loss of health, losing a job, a miscarriage, loss of a friendship, a loved one’s serious illness etc.

Whatever your loss is, it’s your personal thing and you shouldn’t feel embarrassed about how you feel, or believe that it’s somehow only appropriate to grieve for certain things. If something or someone was significant to you, it’s normal to grieve the loss you’re experiencing.Just because you cannot see the emotional wounds like physical wounds, doesn’t mean you aren’t suffering. 

Symptoms of grieving:

While loss affects people in different ways, many people experience the following symptoms when they’re grieving. Just remember that almost anything that you experience in the early stages of grief is normal—including feeling like you’re going crazy, feeling like you’re in a bad dream, or questioning your religious or spiritual beliefs.

Shock and disbelief: Right after the loss, it can be hard to accept what has happened or one can even deny the truth. You may keep expecting the lost one to show up, even though you know they’re gone.

Sadness: You may experience profound sadness, feelings of emptiness, despair, loneliness. You may also feel emotionally unstable.

Guilt: You may regret or feel guilty about things you did or didn’t say or do. You may even feel guilty for not doing more to prevent your loss, even if it was completely out of your hands.

Anger and Fear: Even if the loss was nobody’s fault, you may feel angry with yourself, God, the doctors, or even with the person who left for abandoning you. A significant loss can trigger a host of worries and fears. You may feel anxious, helpless, or insecure.

 So there is no right or wrong way to grieve, but there are healthy ways to deal with this. And to have a better understanding let’s get to know about few Myths and Facts about grieving:^​*​

Myth: The pain will go away faster if you ignore it.

Fact:  Ignorance will only make it worse. For real healing, it is necessary to face the grief and actively deal with it.

Myth: Be strong in the face of loss.

Fact:  Feeling sad, frightened, or lonely is a normal reaction to loss. Crying doesn’t mean you’re weak.

Myth: If you don’t cry, it means you aren’t sorry about the loss.

Fact: Crying is a normal response to sadness, but it’s not the only one.

Myth: Grieving should or shouldn’t last for a long time.

Fact: Every individual is different and so is their healing period. So there is no specific time frame for grief.

Myth: Moving on with your life means forgetting your loss.

Fact: Moving on means you’ve accepted your loss- but that’s not the same as forgetting. You can move on with your life and keep the memories.

Ways to Cope

While grieving a loss is an inevitable part of life, there are ways to cope with the pain, come to terms with your grief, and eventually, find a way to pick up the pieces and move on with your life.

• Acknowledge your pain. Denial will not help. You can try to suppress your grief, but you can’t avoid it forever.
• Accept that grief can trigger many different and unexpected emotions and you having any kind of emotion is absolutely ok.
• Understand that your grieving process will be unique to you. Don’t be hard on yourself and please avoid comparing. It’s easy to compare ourselves to individuals who are coping differently with the current situation. Especially when we’re already feeling low, it can drain us of our limited energy and can lead to resentment towards others and towards ourselves. Instead, focus on your own strengths and coping strategies. Listing your strengths and issues you have overcome is an effective way of highlighting and celebrating your own ability to cope.
• Cry it out if you want to. Express your emotions. Talk about your loss, the happy and unhappy memories.
• Accept that many people feel awkward when trying to comfort someone who is grieving. Grief can be confusing, sometimes frightening emotion for many, especially if they haven’t experienced a similar loss themselves. So it’s ok if someone doesn’t understand it. But don’t use that as an excuse to retreat into your shell and avoid social contact. If a friend or loved one reaches out to you, it’s because they care.

• Express your feelings in a tangible or creative way. Even if you’re not able to talk about your loss with others, it can help to write down your thoughts and feelings in a journal, for example. Or you could release your emotions by making a scrapbook or volunteering for a cause related to your loss.
• Fix your routine. At a time when life feels particularly chaotic, setting a routine is important and ensures we have a mixture of social, physical and educational activities in our day. Routine doesn’t mean rigidity, but it can offer a sense of control.
• Support yourself emotionally by taking care of yourself physically. Little bit of body movement through yoga or any kind of physical workout will help you.
• Try to maintain your hobbies and interests. There’s comfort in routine and getting back to the activities that bring you joy and connect you closer to others can help you come to terms with your loss and aid the grieving process
• Draw comfort from your faith. If you follow a religious tradition, embrace the comfort its mourning rituals can provide. Spiritual activities that are meaningful to you—such as praying, meditating.
• Seek out support from the people in family and friends who care about you or even you can go for professional support.

“All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.” – Havelock Ellis

It may be a common sense assumption that when someone enters the world of treatment for their emotional or mental health issues their intention is to be relieved of their suffering, emerge healed and whole from the treatment. But does it really happen? Is there any way to know how many people actually exit the (mental health) system? Is anything going on in the treatment process that can actually lead to someone’s recovery?

By and large experiences of vast numbers of people are that once they enter into the system they are told by psy-professionals (and other medical professionals) of all hues that they would now have to rely on psychiatric medication for the rest of their lives. This insistence on medication, which is borne out of the agreed upon knowledge which all psy-professions draw from, invalidates the day-to-day suffering of people into a predetermined ‘illness’ category, complete with a diagnosis and prognosis. In 2019, I wrote this article which can be downloaded or read here or here which problematizes this aspect of treatment and questions what the goals of such treatment are.

It may be common sense assumption that when someone enters the world of treatment for their emotional or mental health issues their intention is to be relieved of their suffering, and emerge healed and whole. But does it really happen? Is there any way to know how many people actually exit the (mental health) system? Is there anything going on in the treatment process that can actually lead to someone’s recovery?

Research suggests that recovery is mostly not a goal psy-professionals target when they start treating people for their mental health issues. For most people the starting of treatment itself is ‘recovery’ because according to professionals the fact that people’s suffering has been recognized is itself a great victory over their ignorance: of being a mere suffering, while it is actually a real ‘illness’. However the truth from a ‘patient’s’ perspective is that until people take pharmacological treatments they believe themselves to be ‘ill’ or ‘sick’ and therefore not quite recovered. From the ‘patients’ ‘ position it is the ending of the treatment process and exiting psychiatry that counts as real recovery, not interminable treatments. Whether or not mental illness is a real illness is itself a topic of big discussion and debate, which I postpone for another location as of now.

Knowledge about recovery missing

When there is a gap in the social knowledge about a situation it has consequences; both for individuals, families and society as a whole. For example until penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flemming, a number of people would die for reasons as simple as flu or pneumonia. Antibiotics gave a new lease of life to people around the world and heralded a new era which cumulatively brought newer efforts that prolonged human life expectancy.

In the context of mental health when people are not aware that they can recover and they choose instead of continue taking medication, their lack of information is a knowledge or information gap. Instead of recovery their bodies become sites for testing newer drugs, yet no advancement produces the desired ‘cure’. When drug treatments continue for decades people not only become chronic patients, they also slowly develop  co-morbid conditions such as thyroid malfunctions, liver damage, akathisia (I have written about it here), seizures, lupus and scores of other conditions, not to mention the ‘regular’ issues of hypertension, diabetes etc.

A lack of information about the possibility of recovery, which leads to never ending treatments is the issue  addressed here. This knowledge or the lack of it, also called epistemic ignorance in research, becomes an issue of justice first of all. When people have unequal access to information in society, even though we  live in the information age: the internet having created unprecedented possibilities for diffusion of ideas, only the idea of rising incidence of mental health issues are widely publicized, especially by the media and myriad psy-professionals. Treatments that do not end and progressively disable people, making them socially outcast and confined to their domestic spheres become an issue of justice- for what then are these treatments intended for?    

Why human rights issue

When a patient or their caregiver is told by a psy-professional that their treatment is for life more often than not they do not question it, but accept the ‘diagnosis’ as a truth or fact. Treating people and the inability to produce a healing or cure, or letting them exit psychiatry by supporting drug withdrawal is not common or heard of. Long periods of remaining on these drugs makes people more and more disabled and socially marooned   for they lose the confidence to deal with life, situations and other people.

The information of recovery is a right to knowledge about the idea of recovery. It is a   right of every person who is on drug treatments to know how long their treatments would be and what alternatives exist. Until people do not realize that their interests and rights are being compromised if they continue taking drugs passively it will not help them, while pharma corporations will keep making steady incomes and rising profits. This is a gap of knowledge which can only be filled by people who have taken the path of recovery or who understand the injustice of denying people the knowledge about their mind and body. In one of my future pieces I will write about how the new Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 also does NOT support recovery and ensures people remain ‘patients’ ad infinitum, once they enter into the mental health system (that being the work I did for my doctorate)

Thank you for reading. If there is something more you would like to know about recovery from mental health challenges, or have a personal concern, you are welcome to post a query or comment in the comment box below. Prateeksha would be happy to respond to it, if necessary, even with a new blog post.

Thoughts on Easter and Pesach by Raj Ayyar

First, a beautiful quote from that wise Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh:

Some people live as if they are already dead. There are people moving all around us, who are consumed by their past, terrified of the future, and stuck in emotions like anger and jealousy.
They are not alive–they are just walking corpses!
If you look around, you will see people going around like zombies.
We must practice resurrection. With an in-breath, bring yourself back to your body.
Joy, peace, and happiness are possible. You have an appointment with life, and that life is always in the here and now.

If one enters into the archetype of Easter, viewing the Resurrection story as great mytho-poetry, there is no conflict with scientific paradigms and language games. It’s only when religions assert their propositional truth (ex. the creationist dogma), literally that they embark on a collision course with science.

In that spirit, after the great bluesiness of Good Friday when there is a great emptying of the Christ, the immanent Logos on the cross (‘kenosis’ in Greek), there comes the light climax of the resurrection story.

On Good Friday, the Christian God incarnate is literally dead, and it is ironic that the great atheist Nietzsche (the child of a strongly Lutheran family), echoes the Good Friday motif when he declared in The Gay Science: ‘Have you not heard? God is dead.’

On Easter, Yeshua joins the pantheon of resurrected gods and heroes. including the Egyptian Osiris and the Greek Dionysus.
I think we all go through symbolic deaths and resurrections many times in one’s life–the loss of a relationship, a job, deep depression, and feelings of abandonment.

Resurrection is the symbolic transcendence of all that dead and deadening stuff, a new awakening of hope and joy.
Pesach or Passover is a Jewish festival that celebrates liberation from bondage, oppression, and dependency. In the great story of deliverance (Exodus in the Torah),

Whether you are Jewish or not, you may want to take inventory of all the circumstances in your life–connected to your job, relationships, career, academics, etc., that you find oppressive. What is the one toddler step you can take here and now to free yourself?

Of all the things one gets to hear about mental health, we often do not hear the word ‘recovery’. This implies that though society encourages people to examine distress-causing issues through the lens of suffering or accessing mental health treatments, the acceptance of people once they enter treatment regimens is markedly changed. Do treatments have to continue for life and if yes, then what is the goal of such treatments? Do we need to talk about recovery at all, for is not the start of treatment the start of recovery itself? The answer to this question is both yes and NO, for it depends upon whose perspective is considered. In other words, depending upon stakeholders the perspective changes!

Introducing the series

This weekly series, much like the writer behind it, is dedicated to the idea of ‘recovery’ . It brings together an experience of engagement with the field for nearly three decades, of which the last decade (2010-2020) is spent exclusively on the idea of researching about ‘recovery’ or whether it is viable for a vast majority of people. This recovery series will principally be a response to the queries the writer, in her role as therapist, receives from diverse platforms, including emails which reflect people’s struggles to reclaim their mental wellness and lives, instead of necessarily looking at them through diagnostic categories.

Why should recovery matter?

When someone accepts the medical diagnosis of a mental health issue, they enter into the stage of becoming a patient. In that role they keep on getting treatment for years and years, and there seems to be no exit; especially when the diagnosis is schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Not only psychoses, increasingly people are coming under the remit of mental health diagnoses and unable to exit the ‘system’ for a lack of alternatives to reclaim their mental health and a reinforcement received from different ‘professionals’, the social milieu saturated with claims of rising incidence of mental health issues and efforts which are purportedly directed at stigma reduction. In such an environment anyone who gets a diagnosis, and their families, are so overwhelmed by the one sided representation of mental health as an illness claim that to think about recovery is certainly not on anyone’s mind; but only to get themselves/loved one treated and manage the ‘illness’.

A vast majority of people are unaware that mental health issues are not measurable ‘illnesses’ which can be established by any scientific evidence, pathological tests or measurements via any scales etc. What can be called ‘illness’ is dependent largely on the capacity of the person who is observing the disturbed person to pronounce a behaviour as ‘illness’ or an ab-normalcy; which in research is called epistemic privilege (someone’s knowledge given more credibility than another’s). This is NOT to say that a person who is experiencing suffering is faking their suffering or masquerading. This is to acknowledge their suffering as a reality which needs a different handling than a simple classification into a predetermined diagnostic category. This is simply to say that mental health issues are not biological illnesses which are treatable via biochemical means, the way they are made out to be- they are deep emotional disturbances which can also be resolved by talking, discussion and other ways, which we will examine in future articles here.

Recovery matters because the alternative, of lifelong patient-hood, is a painful, debilitating, disabling option for people/families and thereafter for society. It not only makes people dependent and insecure it leads scores of families into a downward spiral of infirmity and poverty. The usual option someone has is to either remain a patient, or having become a patient for a short while, when overwhelmed by suffering, take the path to recovery by slowly building their capacities to deal with life and its vicissitudes- a journey familiar to this writer. From thereon springs this urge to share these ideas/research and findings with fellow human beings and let others comprehend that if one person can recover, so can another- for this is how one lamp kindles another’s wick.

In the forthcoming posts you will read (when the posts are not direct responses to queries)

• Why the idea of recovery is tied to human rights,
• What are the three ways in which people can understand recovery
• Why a majority of people do not believe they can recover
• Stigma in mental health
• Psychosis and recovery

This ESSAYS on the Concept of a “RIGHT TO LIVE” by Marion Harroff–Tavel

In memory of Yougindra Khushalani

Just as peace is not simply the absence of war, but rather a dynamic process of co-operation among peoples, life is not simply the antithesis of death, but rather a period of time during which every human being should be able to develop fully in dignity and in enjoyment of the respect of others. This was the profound conviction, imbued with humanity and solidarity with the most vulnerable among us, that inspired Yougindra Khushalani, an eminent Indian lawyer and Vice President of the Association of International Consultants on Human Rights (CID), to conceive the idea of a “right to live“. It is to this intelligent, highly motivated and courageous woman, whose own life ended so tragically early, that the authors of this collection of essays^​*​ pay tribute by developing the ideas that were so dear to her, each in his own special sphere of interest. All the contributors are eminent figures in the world of human rights and international humanitarian law, which she studied in depth during a period spent at the International Committee of the Red Cross.

How does the “right to live” differ from the more familiar “right to life“?

The right to life, guaranteed by numerous provisions of human rights instruments and international humanitarian law, is specifically asserted in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which permits no derogation from this right, even when an exceptional public emergency is threatening the life of a nation. As stated in Article 6 of the Covenant, it is an “inherent right” of every human being. The article goes on to say: “That right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. Several paragraphs of the same article deal with the death penalty, which is also the subject of an essay in the book, based on the preparatory work in drafting the Covenant.

The “right to live” is an extension of the “right to life“. To live is more than simple existence; it implies the enjoyment of living conditions conducive to the full development of the human person. To have enough food, a home, adequate education and medical care, to be able to work under proper conditions, to move about and express oneself freely, to grow up in a healthy and peaceful environment where all traditions and cultures are respected; these are some aspects of the “right to live”. Furthermore, during the time given him, from birth to death, every individual should be free from fear, fear of insecurity, fear of ill-treatment, torture, “disappearance”, summary execution or the menace represented by the arms race. Even in wartime, indeed, particularly in such circumstances, a “margin of humanity” must be preserved thanks to international humanitarian law. It is difficult to sum up in a few lines the rich content of this work, which covers a score of subjects such as the right to a decent environment, to development and to communications, and the issues of peace, disarmament and scientific and technological progress. Several of the problems involved in giving effect to the “right to live” are also taken up: the role that could be played by the many existing voluntary organizations in improving the quality of life, the protection of migrant workers, the impact of the “brain drain” on developing countries, the “right to live” in the African context, the right of children to be protected from death, disease and exploitation. Finally, the right to be different—from the point of view of a woman from the Third World, Yougindra Khushalani, who attached the greatest importance to the need to respect the cultural identity of peoples. The book concludes with several essays on State responsibility for the protection of the “right to live”.

This publication is far from being a heterogeneous collection of mismatched opinions; it is a harmonious work which illuminates the central theme of the right to live from various angles. In this respect the task undertaken by the general editor, Daniel Premont, has proved a success.

Is now the right time to put forward a new human right on the basis of the concept of a “right to live“? Isn’t this idea in effect a synthesis of all human rights? These questions remain open, and it is up to each reader to form his own opinion. The value of this “comprehensive and evolutive” concept of human rights, to borrow the title of one section of the book, seems to us to be essentially an educational matter. As one of the authors says, work to raise young people’s awareness of human rights issues must not be limited to providing them with information, but must help prepare them to live together in harmony in tomorrow’s society, a society which the adults of today find it difficult to imagine. This is a major and difficult educational undertaking. An approach to the problems of the human community based on the concept of the “right to live” would help stir the awareness of children to values such as respect for life and tolerance, would open their eyes to the realities and diversity of the world and, most important, would give them a sense of their own responsibility by making them realize that solidarity among human beings is the source of collective and individual fulfilment.

Marion Harroff–Tavel

Other Links to Dr. Yougindra Khushalani
https://onevorld.org/2020/02/23/dr-miss-yougindra-khushalani-endowmentlecture-in-mumbai-university/

The small choices in our life make us who we are today. Some are made subconsciously in childhood.

The most difficult family member and the adorable one both influence our lives in some way. We adopt some qualities of each one of them, which quality? Is an individual choice.  

As a child, I was fearful of my school teachers and grandparents. My granny was so controlling and manipulative that she could make the other feel guilty of her actions. Grandfather was a strict, disciplined yet balanced and fair person. My father was full of love, no-demands, calm, and self-content – a happy soul.

Papa was often taken for granted by everyone, even by the children, yet he was relaxed about it; whereas granny was popular among family, relatives, and friends. She used to get all the attention.

The choice I made subconsciously as a child was that “I will never manipulate”. I was straight forward, sometimes too sharp and brutal, which granny hated.

Everyone in the family used to please granny to keep her happy but I did the opposite; often got into argument and fight with her. I thought “If I am not doing anything wrong then why should I please her?”

As a result, she created resistance for me at every step. Deep inside I loved her and wanted her to love me back in the same way.  I became hard, rigid in my own way; the ego of being honest and truthful.

I felt it is not my cup of tea to control any relationships.  In frustration fighting on small things, I did not know how to handle the opposition due to my concept of perfection and reacted many times.

Later in life, this harder version of myself helped me to realize ‘enough’, this is due to my subtle restlessness and fear. I started meditating and felt the softness. Things started improving.

Another choice I made consciously changed my life.  My daughter Vrinda, was five years old. One evening at the swimming pool, after playing with her friend Molu, she came to me and asked, “Can we go to the coffee shop with Molu and her family to have snacks?”.

I was not on talking terms with her mother, we had fought lately.

I said, “Baby your friend did not ask me, neither her mother?”

Innocently Vrinda said to me, “But she asked me and I am asking you!”

For a few seconds everything stopped in me, I had two choices “Her happiness or my ego?”

I should make a gentle excuse to my daughter and divert her attention.

But I could not do so and, although it was painful, I said with some difficulty, “Ok baby I will go with you”

I became friends with her mother and family again. It might appear to be a trivial decision, but it reflected in my subsequent life. I experienced infinite love, crossing the human potential and its manifestation and the divine reciprocated.

It was difficult, full of conflicts, fluctuating, yet no part of life I regret. When I look back it was a beautiful and unbelievable journey. 

I feel there are no black and whites, the choice is between good and better, and who decides that? closing our eyes, inner peace will decide.

It is Mahavir Jayanti today, one of the most important days in the Jain religious calendar. As the Jain community celebrates the birth anniversary of Bhagwan Mahavir by exchanging greetings on email or whatsApp messages, it seems Nature has taken upon itself to celebrate this auspicious day on a grand scale, Universal in nature. The Universe knows no geographical boundaries, hence the divine celebrations are playing out on the entire planet.

The Corona virus has mandated we rethink how we live, consume, and treat others. I will briefly mention only two principles that Lord Mahavir gave to the world that seem like a balm on the Corona-ed human soul.

The current state of the world is very appropriately reflected by the opening lines of Charles Dickens famous novel A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, …” It tells about a time of chaos, conflicts, and despair, as well as happiness. It, in fact, tells us about the time of extreme opposites without any in-betweens.

Something similar is unfolding on planet earth today.

As I sit pondering over the birth celebrations of Lord Mahavir since when I was a child, the images of community events where school-children performed plays and songs depicting the life of the Teerthankara, the liberated One, flash before my eyes. It was a time of community gathering, celebrations, much fun and socializing, followed by lots of sumptuous food eaten together. I recall with much nostalgia the annual speech I was asked to deliver, in English (at age 7 onwards, because I studied in a convent school!), on his life and principles. I knew by rote the main tenets of Jainism and Lord Mahavir’s three-fold path of Right Faith, Right Knowledge and Right Conduct. For many years it continued thus, and I could have rattled off the entire Four-fold or Eight-fold Path (they are different for ascetics and householders) without pausing for a breath. Yet there was no deeper thought, no time for reflection on the teachings of this noble, liberated soul. Posters and banners proclaiming the lofty tenets of the world’s most non-violent religion were put up all over town, but how much was followed by people is anyone’s guess. As indeed it often happens in most religions.

However, today, as I sit locked up in my house – Coronavirus indeed has locked up indoors practically all humanity, I am having some Eureka moments! Yes, the wisdom of all my Mahavir-Jayanti speeches, scripted by people more learned than a 7-year-old, is gradually dawning on me. I feel the lessons humans have failed to learn by volition are being taught by Nature, à la science experiments demonstrated in a lab. Humans are perforce made to sit back while Nature takes over and teaches. The coping stone of Mahavir’s teaching has been “Live and Let Live,” kindness to all beings and cruelty towards none. He even went to tell humanity that plants too have a life, and therefore deserving mindfulness from humans.

The fact that the deadly Corona virus most probably originated from wet animal markets in China has forced mankind to rethink cruelty towards animals. In India most slaughter houses are shut, people are shunning animal flesh, eating healthy and vowing to continue with their kindness towards other living creatures. Humans are not the only inheritors of this beautiful planet. We have encroached in most downright manner, the habitat of birds and animals, cocking a snook at the principle of “Live and Let Live”. Now when the world, locked up behind closed doors, sees animals hitherto unseen on the roads roam freely, does it realize that in our race “to live” we forgot to “let others live”. We need to let the animals and birds, the air and water, sky and earth breathe and own their space in the universe. Our rapacious ways and the choices we make will not only kill them, but spell our own doom. In fact, we can live only if we let others live. The choice we had in “Live and Let Live” is long gone.

Another important tenet that Mahavir gave to humanity, and my most favorite one, is the beautiful precept of Aparigraha, or, in simplistic terms non-attachment to material things. Aparigraha is one of the virtues in Jainism, and one that was uncannily prescient when Mahavir expounded it more than 2,500 years ago. It is also one of the five vows that both householders and ascetics must observe. Non-Violence, Non-Stealing, and Truthfulness we all believe are necessary virtues, but when it comes to Aparigraha we are neither aware nor believe the same is very important virtue in higher pursuit of life.

Aparigraha is the virtue of non-possessiveness, non-grasping or non-greediness. Aparigraha is the opposite of parigrah, and refers to keeping the desire for possessions to what is necessary or important, depending on one’s life-stage and context.

In my current ruminative mood, I was wondering that the end of winter is usually the time for big-ticket sales in all shopping malls as well as online commerce sites. At this time of the year, one would have seen teeming crowds stocking up on “discounted goods,” unmindful of their need. But forced lock-downs the world over have seen people managing with what they have and no one is any the worse for it. When man‘s avarice could not be checked by any wise person’s advice, Nature had to step in and teach mankind a lesson it is not likely to forget any time soon. Instead of hoarding unwanted stuff, most people are decluttering their homes and spring-cleaning wardrobes. The world is seeing the benefit of minimalist life. This minimalist lifestyle, or Aparigraha was preached by Lord Mahavir at a time when the world probably was still unspoilt by abundance of material possessions. While excess consumption leads to bigger houses, faster cars, fancier technology, and cluttered homes, it never brings happiness. This, the world is being forced to see in the times of Corona virus. “A tomb now suffices him for whom the whole world was not sufficient,” said Alexander, the great Greek conqueror about himself just before he died.

We don’t need a full house, we need a full life. This is going to be a life-changing resolution. Lord Mahavir’s other teachings of Forgiveness, Compassion and Sacrifice are as pertinent in the new world order when there seems to be a tectonic shift in human consciousness. Of that later!