Nafisa Joseph is a former beauty queen, currently employed as a Video Jockey at MTV. She has chosen to go the way most 'celebrities' go—fighting for causes. She is currently an animal rights activist, working for an organization called 'People For Animals'. But what's so special about Nafisa Joseph?
The specialty of Nafisa lies in the fact that she seems to crystallize, hold together, in the form of a single individual; the disparate ideas, thoughts and feelings which has given rise to brouhaha of animal 'rights'. Nafisa is a perfect example of a product of our times, her values are those that have entered her mind by a process of osmosis, by permeation from the intellectual climate around her.
How does on study what goes on in Nafisa's mind? Simple. All you have to do is read her articles (www.timesofindia.com). If one follows her articles, one can sense a vaguely placed love for animals and a passionate hatred for mankind. This is despite her attempts to refute such accusations leveled against her. Two features are common to all articles in her column, "Nafisa for Animals": a morality of altruism and an assault on human intelligence. One doesn't have look too far or read between the lines to come to this conclusion, Nafisa tells it her herself, the words speak for themselves.
Observe her in action, answering some questions about why the organization which she works for (People for Animals), seems to be bothered about animals when people suffer more than animals. Her reply was;
"...we may be the most evolved species of the lot, and can dominate all life, yet, we cannot do without them (animals). If there were no animals, soon there would be no people. So, PFA (People for Animals) is not about animals, but about us and our future generations."
What does she mean? She is implying that humans are basically parasites on animals and the existence of humans is a product of the benevolence of the mute animals. Which is why we have to preserve them and save them. And observe her usage of the phrase-"future generations". If there is any limits to the heights (or depths) of altruism that a man can reach, he will have to beat Nafisa first. Observe her shifting the weight of her altruist concerns for animals onto the 'lives of future generations' to escape the question of her botheration and preoccupation with animals when humans seem to be suffering more than animals.
Animals don't have any 'rights' whatsoever, and neither do the pieces of unborn protoplasm—our future generations. Animals can't think, and our 'future generations' haven't even been conceived: one set of creatures—the animals exist without minds and the other set—our future generation doesn't even exist. They cannot and should not be man's concern.
Her hatred for mankind is more blatant, she revels in all her glory, saying;
"In fact, for a clean and green world, the only species quite expendable is the home sapiens"It is not surprising that in an article titled "For animals means for life", Nafisa is talking about the 'expendability' of mankind.
In the latter half of her article, she spares no effort praising ants, their organized community living and their 'advanced system of communication'. We can observe her inserting comments like "...and more importantly, each ant works for the good of the whole group", and "...and we have much to learn from the ants".
This kind of an skewed ideology that we have to replicate ant society amongst humans and "learn much from them" because "they have been around...since the days of dinosaurs" is nothing but simple plain and pure hatred for man's ability, more importantly, man's mind. Nafisa's 'subtle' suggestions that men should live like ants and work for the "good of the group" doesn't help much to hide her altruist creed. And her attempts to make us appreciate the 'advanced communications systems' of ants when her programs on MTV reach millions of homes via satellite shows that she is just plain.