Ideally, the press and the journalists try to expose what is hidden beneath the rug. Not by peeping into individuals’ lives, for we are a billion people, but it happens particularly with whom we call celebrities. It is a cost to their celebrity-status that they have to undergo a scrutiny by the journalists. But at times, there are more to celebrities than a page-3 party. They get into controversies. The way media works; it ends up choosing its targets. The more interesting the enemy (the more articles can come up on the person), the better. When it comes to the case of the infamous painter MF Hussain Vs his controversial paintings, it was a case of MF Hussain Vs nascent Right-wing protestors, for the media. Who was to generate more news, buzz and gossip? It is an easy guess – the later. So it seems to me that the media chose its sides very smartly. MF Hussain became a hero, and his opponents - the Right-Wing ‘Saffron’ ‘Elements’ – became the villains. But, I think in the middle of this comfortable arrangement, bits of truth became victims. 

I think not much analysis has been done on many aspects of the ‘MF Hussain Controversy’. His personal life has not been analyzed much – which could have given us some insights on the ways he chose. Demographic Profile – is what I mean. His decision to take up a Self-Imposed Exile was not evaluated enough with what could be the other possible reasons behind the decision to call it quits. I wished to research and write more on this, but I face a time constraint. But I read a very interesting piece by the fearless and reckless all-time famous journalist from India, Khushwant Singh. Let us read what he says here: 

I got to know him during my stint in Bombay. He had already earned a name for himself as a modern artist and established a personal trade mark going bare-footed and carrying a two-yard long paint brush. He was a tall, well -built, handsome man with a beard. His infatuation for Bollywood stars, particularly Madhuri Dixit were bazaar gossip. By the time I got to know him, he was infatuated with Kamna Prasad. And she with him.  

When he was invited to visit Pakistan, he persuaded Kamna to come with him. Once there he became very casual towards her. She cut short her visit and returned to Delhi. He sensed he had offended her and asked me to plead with her on his behalf to forgive him. He also added that he would dedicate his autobiography to her. No one knows how his family and six children took his philandering with women because they never spoke about it to outsiders. 

I am not sure how many of you knew what Khushwant Singh revealed above. At least I didn’t read about this episode anywhere else. Since it’s coming from Khushwant Singh’s pen, I would assume it to be true.  

Hint of another aspect behind him: 

He fled the country and settled down in Qatar. By then each one of his paintings were fetching crores of rupees. He did not know what to do with money. He bought six expensive cars. 

A man who doesn’t wear a shoe, needs to travel by six expensive cars, right?  

What do these facts tell you? Doesn’t it give hint about a face of MF Hussain which most of us don’t know about? Has our media examined his other interests, except his flag-bearing act for the ‘right-of-expression’? Has our media showed us his sides where he is not having a ‘halo’ around his head? If not, then how are we expected to make an educated opinion?  

- Rahul

The world will remember ‘Three Idiots’ (3-Idiots) as an Amir Khan movie. Out of the many other hugely celebrated movies he has acted in, 3-Idiots is one of the most discussed ones in the recent times. 3-Idiots is the story of a man who not only lives life his own way, but also inspires others to go beyond what the society thinks conservatively fit for them. The movie scoffs at our society’s those typical blue-eyed guys like Chatur who toe the line and attain success by definition which encourages obedience and disheartens those who break the mould and want to build a life creatively on unusual patterns. Promotion of this ‘idea’ was very much needed for India which has already crossed its period of licence-Quota-Raaj and now thrives on creativity and new-age technologies. We no longer need lines of babus to fit the kind of jobs the colonial governments (pre and post 1947) would open up, but now we need guys who transcend the expectations and can provide innovative solutions to unique Indian cases and concerns. Who fits this more than a guy who became (in)famous even as the 3-Idiots gained popularity? That is Chetan Bhagat.  

I have interacted with Chetan once. Having done his engineering (and hence satisfying his typical Indian parental expectations) and then going ahead and having an MBA from IIM-A (and hence proving his academic excellence), Chetan Bhagat did join the rat race as anyone given his profile was expected to do. But then, he moved ahead and did what others rarely do – follow one’s dreams. If writing was the passion in his life, he can be put in the category of achievers rather than dreamers. His books created a completely new set of readers (college going kids who previously wasted time surfing the net rather than reading literature) and showed to the aspiring Indian writers how to be famous (his books came at a price under Rs 100 and were available everywhere). Through his every book, he sent out a message that mobilised the youthful energy of our nation that would create a better India.  

It was not a surprise to discover that Chetan Bhagat’s most famous debutant book ‘Five Point Someone’ (5.Someone) was chosen to be made into a movie. That Bollywood movies are often cheap duplicates of foreign-made movies is well known. These movies in general run because of the face value of actors and actresses rather than on the strength of a storyline or on any other aspect of moviemaking. Bollywood movies in general scarcely addressed the issues our youth faced, and hence such a movie would be an idea welcomed by all. There a change came in the form of 3-Idiots and became an instant hit all across India. But what came in its fringe was a disturbing trend.  

The audiences found it surprising that the movie didn’t acknowledge on screen that it was based on Chetan Bhagat’s novel. This declaration would obviously not have deteriorated its popularity in any way and such a declaration is definitely an expected thing. Therefore, it was natural for Chetan Bhagat to express displeasure about his missing name. And then the hell set loose. I watched in horror as the producer Vidhu Vinod Chopra and director Rajkumar Hirani of 3-Idiots publicly (on TV screen during a press conference) denied that their film was based on Chetan Bhagat’s 5.Someone. It was appalling to see Amir Khan himself taking up the mike and literally spitting venom against the author, repeating that the movie was not based on his novel and accused Chetan of garnering cheap publicity by claiming authorship. To any journo who challenged them, the movie makers asked: have you watched the movie as well as read the book? They claimed that the two were entirely different, which of course was untrue. 3-Idiots is an adapted Bollywood version of the novel 5.Someone merely changing the storyline to give Amir Khan’s character a larger-than-real-life image.  

3-Idiots grossed Rs 400 Crores plus. Chetan Bhagat had to leave claims and his most famous book (whom he calls his baby) got lost to the Bollywood-wallahs craving for exclusive name and fame. Today people remember Amir Khan when they think of 3-Idiots. They take inspirations from the larger-than-life character he played on screen, asking others to be humane and follow their dreams. But the reality of his real life, as evident from this case, is that that he rather portrays the picture of the villains whom the 3-idiots fight – be it the controlling Professor or the intelligent Chatur. If sacrificing others on way to our own success, stealing credit from others and caring about only our own name and fame is what the villains in the movie personified, the makers of 3-Idiots including Amir Khan definitely are the villains which the idiots warned us against. And ironically, Rancho, the lead character from the movie, is portrayed in the real life by no other than Chetan himself. Setting out to follow his dreams (writing), inspiring others to get their goals (his books setting the youth pulse all over India), and winnig hearts on the way (fan following that Chetan enjoys) – are not these what Rancho tried to depict? Is the whole episode therefore, in a way, victory of screen life over real life? Its disturbing if the answer is yes.  

Club Chetan’s accusations with other controversies around the movie (the producers paid a paltry Rs 10,000 to National Innovation Foundation (NIF) for using several innovations and scientific inventions in the movie; Amir Khan’s overzealous creativity costed a hotel-owner in Varanasi to lose his licence; there were allegations of using abusive words against singer Sonu Nigam over payment of royalties), and we realise that this movie’s success is imbedded with so many forced failures for the righteous. The success and failures in this case also tell about our fixation for the cheeky performances rather than for soulful efforts.  

Yet all is not lost until we surrender our individual discretions to discriminate. Heroes on the screen can be failures in the personal life (Amir fathering illegitimate son with British journo Jessica Hines), while those who don’t get to have their names on the screen can be real life heroes (I count Chetan Bhagat as one such). In the end, wealth, clout and being celebrity won’t count more than having a clear conscience.  

- Rahul

(Controversial)

Business of 'Faith-for-Help'

Christian charitable organizations the world over are often accused of converting native people from other religions into their own organized faith. In India, the Church and the missionaries have a long history of converting Hindus into their own faith. A population which is economically poor, and is divided into castes and sub-castes, is a perfect grazing field for them.

But when it comes to Mother Teresa, we all keep her in high reverence her for the work she did to help the poor. Still, there have been some voices; I particularly heard some from my friends in Kolkata that even she indulged in this business of conversion. I didn’t want to believe this accusation - after all, her image in my mind was beyond such selfish motives of ‘faith-for-help’ scams. Incidentally, today I came across an interview of Sister Nirmala, the succeeding head of Mother Teresa’s Missions of Charity. [Complete Text here] Here is a part to refer:

Q: What was Mother’s attitude toward Hindus and Muslims?

Sister Nirmala: She respected everybody’s religion; she helped them to live whatever they have received in their faith, as best as they could. Her whole idea was: “This is what they should do, and if some day God gives them the grace of faith, they may be able to respond generously to that call.” But she wanted everybody to be wholehearted in whatever they believed.

Q: Did she try to convert them?

Sister Nirmala: No, but she would have been happy if people received the grace of faith. She prayed for the grace of faith. Some of them converted: a few.

I wonder what she respected everybody’s religion for! If she really thought their religions were 'true', she would never have prayed for they getting 'grace of faith', which Sister Nirmala uses as a synonym for 'Christianity', or better, 'Catholicism'. Isn’t it? It is like I telling you: "I think the sweater you are wearing is really nice one and is adequate for the occasion, but I wish some day you get a high-neck one with vertical stripes instead of horizontal." There is an internal conflict here.

Even Sister Nirmala’s reply when asked if Mother Teresa converted people into her own faith, gives away more. She says like, “No, she didn’t convert people, but would have been happy if people converted.” I pity those poor 'few' people who gave her 'happiness' by converting to Christianity. Just imagine their condition. They have been very poor with no regular sources of income. Some of them had bore the brunt of ugly caste based discrimination. Here comes a lady who was awarded Nobel Prize way back in 1979 (and Bharat Ratna came chasing a year after in 1980), with so much hype around her name and a hallo around her self, to help this person. Now let us say he is helped with free food and a job in a cottage industry. He is indeed in debt of these missionaries. Now one day he comes to know that Mother would be 'happy' to see him praying in front of Christ’s idol, with a cross around his neck. Won’t this poor fellow feel humble enough to oblige her by going through the rituals? (It is another matter that when faced with crisis, he will still pray Hanuman Ji) This is the way the mission works ' most of the times! And when a generation will pass, his children will lose their 'convert' tag and would start to 'praise the Lord' or the 'only true and living God' and the spiraling business of conversion would continue.

So now I am thankful to the 'grace of God' that he answered the doubt in my mind. Now I am sure that she too converted people into her own religion of birth - (Is not it hypocritical that nuns like her hold fast to their own birth-religions but pray for others to leave their own?) - if not directly, then indirectly for sure.

(Rahul)

P.S.: The only argument many of us have supporting these religious missionary organizations doing charity is that they are helping the poor and needy. My reply to them is: Is not this the job of our government to provide all poor and needy with food, support, and education? Then why to get such religious and communal organizations fulfill their agendas in the name of social work? Why should the native religion of India ' Hinduism ' suffer just because our government is inadequate in resources? No wonder, these missionaries collect thousands of Crores of donations abroad and come to India to do the business of 'Faith-for-Help'.

What makes us what we are?

If we look at lives of others, we end up wondering. There are great personalities who have done stupid mistakes. There are charismatic leaders who are caught in corrupt scandals; gentlemen with name and fame but without a character, funny and cool people but who made a few one's life hell, smiling people with nasty intentions, the list can go on. What makes them what they are?

Our life experiences shape us in many ways. Our upbringing makes a lot of difference. The values that our parents and elders imparted to us, not by preaching but by living, last with us forever. Our companions, our lifestyle, our role-models, all shape us to some extent, varying in extent from person to person. But largely, it is an invisible, unconscious part of our self which makes a lot of difference. This explains why two people who have gone through the same experience come out as two very different persons.

The case of Kamal Hassan's life and his wives presents an interesting example.

Kamal, Vani and Sarika - Who they are

Kamal Haasan is a living legend in Tamil and Hindi Film industry; an extremely talented method actor; appreciated by most and loved by many. Starting as a child actor at the age of 6 he has won many national film awards. Vani Ganpathi is a great classical dancer. Beginning to dance at the age of 4 and performing at 7, she trained under some great artists, and has performed all over the world. Sarika is an extremely talented and a national award winner actress. She started her filmy career as a child actress at the age of 6, and acting was her first love.

Their Married lives

Kamal Haasan and Vani Ganapathi married in 1978. After marriage, Vani's dance took the backseat. The couple didn't have a child and in the meanwhile Kamal started living with another actress Sarika. Sarika delivered a daughter without getting married to Kamal and hence Kamal divorced his wife Vani to marry Sarika. Kamal and Vani had remained together for 7 years before separation. When Kamal married Sarika, she was at the peak of her career. She decided to leave acting and be with Kamal. She had another daughter in 1991. But Kamal was now attached with another actress and Sarika's life became difficult; marred with depression. She happened to have a near-fatal fall from the terrace of her house, which the press called a suicide attempt. Seriously injured, she recuperated for a long time. Ultimately Sarika and Kamal decided to divorce after being married for about 18 years.

Reactions

The psychologies of the three people going through the tough times are very different. Kamal remained very busy in his work and films and he explained his indifference and apathy to his wives in this way. When Sarika fell from her terrace, Kamal recorded the incident for his future reference, while having a bizarre screenplay in his mind. And he visited Sarika only once while she was in a hospital after her surgery.

When Kamal Haasan divorced his wife Sarika reportedly to live with another actress, his ex-wife Vani Ganapathy said, “Kamal uses sadistic tactics to compel his women into a divorce. I have gone through it and it is now Saarika who will have to go through it".

Now let us see what these three people have learnt from their experiences:

Sarika on marriage

(Sarika came back to films after a long gap of 17 years. She lives with her daughters. She has chosen not to speak anything about her past experience or marriage, but here are some excerpts from her interview.)

"Like any other mother who takes a break to rear her children, and later comes back to her profession, I too did the same."

"My daughters are my best friends."

"I don't want my children to go through what I did. I was always insecure when I met educated people. They don't have to grope in the dark like me."

"In your dark phases, you seek answers to so many things, you are lost and restless but when you are out of it, you feel relieved. It's like attaining nirvana."

"Two individuals, after a long relationship, can go their own separate ways and yet remain friends. Why will I not do a film with Kamal Haasan? After all he's India's best actor!"

Kamal Haasan on marriage

(Life of Kamal Haasan remained the same. He has been busy in his work and is reportedly attached to new girls.)

"I’ve never believed in marriage. It was only because I loved the women that I went through it to please them. Marriage, like religion for me, is an imposition."

"All I can say is that marriage is a folly that is slowly becoming redundant."

"I have four vaccination marks. In our time, they were a necessary ordeal. It’s different today. I’m hopeful that one day like the vaccinations, the institution of marriage too will go away."

Vani Ganpathi on marriage

(When her marriage with Kamal ended after 7 years, she shifted to Bangalore and started her dance institute called Sanchari. She lives single and didn't remarry.)

"There is no particular reason to say that one needs to stay single. It depends on experiences one has had in life. But I do not want to ridicule marriage. It may work well for some, not so well for others. And many who are unhappy with marriage may be inspired to get back hearing stories of people living happily."

"Security, love, desire ? these things can give you joy or pain. You don’t know what you will get."

"I believe relationships involve a lot of these emotions (hurts and happiness at times). In the end though, I have realised that if people do not put in effort to make a relationship work, it won’t work. No relationship between any two people can ever be taken for granted."

I Think

See how different are the learning that these three people got from their experiences.

Sarika seems to have digested all. Sarika had left her studies for her career in acting. When she married Kamal, she decided to leave her profession to make her marriage successful. Her marriage should have been successful by popular judgements, because she and Kamal had lived-in for years before marriage and had two children. But when her dreams shattered and she found out that it was nor working, it was devastating for her. We don't know if her fall from terrace was a suicide attempt or not, but it is evident that her dreams were shattered and she was heart wrenched. Now, she has accepted what happened in the past and decided to move ahead. She is more mature now and has learnt lessons. She has a dream ' to make her daughters successful and a purpose in life ' to build her acting career again. It is indeed a success story.

Kamal seems to be out of his mind. He, in order to justify his failed marriages, is blaming and discounting the institution of marriage itself, comparing marriage with vaccinations. Men will be men. Freedom to them means living with other women while they are married to one, making other women pregnant and then they don't want the hassles of divorcing one to get another. What they don't see is how many dreams they have shattered, how many lives they have destroyed. Today, women like Vani and Sarika have survived all, and are still standing on their feet. Because they are strong, financially and politically. It doesn't work this way for all women. Wishing the institution of marriage to go away so that they can live with as many women as they wish, without any responsibility and blames, is both childish and corrupt.

I am all praises for Vani. She didn't decide to keep silence and hence she doesn't suffer somewhere the way Sarika does. Her marriage failed because of another woman, but she accepted the reality and walked away alone. She is independent and found her way alone. By getting back to her love of dancing, and becoming a teacher and thereby spreading her knowledge and expertise, she chose to act and stand up to what life can bring in front of her. Her decisions and her actions, her unrepenting attitude, and her words where she says, "If people do not put in effort to make a relationship work, it won’t work; no relationship between any two people can ever be taken for granted", means a lot. She has accepted the realities, learnt lessons and moved ahead. This is the right attitude.

(Rahul)

Nervous Govt now chants ‘Ram naam’ [Link]

A deeply embarrassed government has decided to withdraw from its affidavit in the Ram Setu case the portion which said there is no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or other characters of the Ramayana. The government will file a supplementary affidavit in the Supreme Court on Friday.

.

The top Congress leadership has also sought details on the movement of the file. It ostensibly emanated from the ASI and traveled via the ministry of culture, where it should have been studied by minister Ambika Soni (currently in Japan). Then it went to the law ministry headed by HR Bhardwaj. “Somebody has played mischief or has been grossly derelict,” said a source.

On Thursday, Bhardwaj told reporters, “Ram is an integral part of our history and culture. Ram ki vajah se saari duniya exist karti hai. It is an article of faith and cannot be made a matter of litigation.”

Bhardwaj quoted liberally from scriptures to negate the impression that his party is anti-Hindu as its adversaries would make it out to be.

But the minister sidestepped the twin questions of fixing responsibility for the mishap and whether Ram Setu was ? or wasn’t, as claimed by the original affidavit-a man-made structure. “I am not authorised to take action,” he said to the first query. As for the second, he said that it was for the Court to go into the merits of the case.

This is not the first time that the government has messed up things. It did so when it did not advise Sonia Gandhi on the office of profit issue when she became the National Advisory Council (NAC) chairperson.

It happened again when George Fernandes was given a clean chit on the defence deals scam. At that time, the Law Ministry claimed that it was not consulted when, sources said, it had in fact been consulted on the matter. An angry Pranab Mukherjee, then defence minister, reportedly even threatened to quit at the time.

Blasphemy, oh yes!

The controversy:

Quoting TOI: "In the midst of a political controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana."

Opposition BJP blasted the Congress-led UPA government, accusing it of “blasphemy”. They mentioned that even Constitution of India contained images of Rama, Sita and Hanuman.

What is Blasphemy?

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of one or more Gods. In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the deity or deities of their established religions and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.

Blasphemy laws - nowadays often altered to include blasphemy regardless of religion - exist in several countries, such as in:

·        Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the penal code)

·        Denmark (Paragraph 140 of the penal code).

·        Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)

·        Germany (Article 166 of the penal code, see also the Manfred van H. case)

·        Greece

·        Islamic Republic of Iran

·        Ireland

·        Iceland

·        Italy

·        The Netherlands (Article 147 of the penal code)

·        New Zealand (Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961)

·        Norway (section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code never applied).

·        Spain (Article 525 of the penal code)

·        Switzerland (Article 261 of the penal code)

·        The United Kingdom

In the third book of the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy “shall surely be put to death”. Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of any other prophet mentioned in the Quran. The Quran also states that it is blasphemy to claim that there is more than one God or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017). Speaking ill of God is also blasphemy. In Islam, blasphemy is considered a sin.

What to infer from this case?

The point is, in order to prove that the Rama Setu had nothing to do with Rama, why did the government comment on Rama Himself? As a matter of fact, this government affidavit actually declares that:

·        Sacred Hindu books like Ramayana have nothing in real, Hindu Gods are not real, and Hinduism is based on false stories. 

·        All religions being practiced in India should request GOI and ASI to "Certify" themselves, whether they are "based on historical proofs" or not.

Why couldn't the government say, for example, "ASI is not able to find any proof", that the Rama Setu or Adam's Bridge "is connected to" Rama? Government it seems has not chosen the right words to say (or it has!).

The believers will say that the fact that ASI or any other organization has not been able to find a scientific proof behind something, doesn't make it "false". Plus, any government in a democratic country should respect the matters of faith.

References:

Link1, Link2, Link3, Link4, Link5, BBC News | ENTERTAINMENT | ‘Eyes’ sparks blasphemy row, B.C. NRI, Hindus outraged over bikini blasphemy, Dean suspended for blasphemous paintings of deities! - Hindu …, Stop the Blasphemy of the Ramayana Petition

Popular Decision may not be the Right one

By Kumar Rahul Tiwary

One of my friends sent this case to me:  

A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other abandoned. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track.

One train is coming, and you are just beside the 'track interchange'. You can make the train change its course towards the abandoned track and save most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the train go its way?

Let’s take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make…………….

Most people might choose to divert the course of the train, and sacrifice only one child. You might think the same way, I guess. Exactly, I thought the same way initially because to save most of the children at the expense of only one child was rational decision most people would make, morally and emotionally.

But, have you ever thought that the child choosing to play on the disused track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place? However, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who chose to play where the danger was. This kind of dilemma happens around us everyday. In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society, the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority, no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are, and how far-sighted and knowledgeable the minority are. The child who chose not to play with the rest on the operational track was sidelined. And in the case he was sacrificed, without any concern who was right and who was wrong.

The great critic Leo Velski Julian who told the story said he would not try to change the course of the train. We should not sacrifice "right" at the luring of a "popular" decision. “What’s right isn’t always popular; and what’s popular isn’t always right.”

After reading this piece about making bold right decisions, I thought about another two real life cases: Nathuram Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi and Rajiv Goswami killed himself (although he was saved, he died afterwards because of the injuries).

One important question that comes to me is; who should have died, if it was necessary for one of them to die, in order to solve a problem. Nathuram Godse killed Gandhiji, because he thought him responsible for the massacres of Indians during partition riots. If Gandhiji didn't give his consent for partition of India, there won't be any partition on religious lines, and so no communal riots and no molestations of women. But here again we miss to reach the basic question: who was the creator of this partition? Was it Mahatma Gandhi or was it Muhammad Ali Jinnah? For how many years, either within or out of the Indian National Congress, did Jinnah demand the formation of a separate Muslim state [Link1][Link2]? Was not Jinnah "fundamentally responsible" for the partition? Any attempt by Gandhiji to stop that communal partition would have resulted in communal riots any way, in order to support their demands of a separate state. Therefore, if Nathuram was real patriot, why didn't he kill that "root cause" in 1946 instead of sacrificing that Mahatma in 1948?

Similarly, there was a single person vastly responsible for implementing the caste based reservation system in the name of Mandal commission report ' VP Singh. But the over enthusiastic young man, Rajeev Goswami, took the extreme step and burnt himself. He was not a single case, as in the anti-reservation protests, several other young students all over India attempted this extreme step of suicides in order to force the government to stop implementing Mandal commission's caste based reservations. But why did Rajeev sacrifice himself? It goes without saying that a right sacrifice in this condition should have been the person fundamentally responsible for the condition. After all:

“What’s right isn’t always popular; and what’s popular isn’t always right.”

There is another decision which stands apart: the decision by LTTE to kill India’s former PM Rajiv Gandhi. It is important to note that the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, which introduced Indian peacekeeping force in the north Sri Lanka and devastated the LTTE, was signed by Rajiv Gandhi along with Sri Lankan President JR Jayawardene [Link]. LTTE incurred huge losses. Whom to blame for this loss? Think from the mind of a terrorist. If they had to kill at least one, whom they would choose to kill? A Sri Lankan President or an Indian former PM? Sri Lankan Presidents may come and go; they will continue fighting the LTTE. But Rajiv Gandhi was more responsible, and killing him would have sent a message to the nearest neighbor India for generations to come. Therefore, while Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, JR Jayawardene died a natural death at the age of 90 [Link]. This decision of the LTTE has gone down well. No subsequent Indian government has been dare-devil enough to get its hands into the Sri Lankan affairs.

Could we think of any more such 'right' decisions? Of course there are many. 

Please note that the interpretation of these cases and the manner of comparison with the case of children playing on the track is my personal opinion. There has been no attempt to glorify the act of killings or suicides which are extreme steps and should be avoided at any cost.