The Senselessness of Party Loyalty

The last few months have seen my daily life undergo a series of changes which have resulted in me shifting my lodgings from South Mumbai to Santa Cruz, with several trips to and from Thane thrown in as a bonus. Admittedly, travelling long distances by local train has been rather annoying after almost two years of being spoilt in the cosy confines of Fort. Things have become easier in the past three or four weeks though, allowing me to avoid train travelling as much as possible. Nevertheless, exactly a week ago, after a rather pleasant afternoon with a bunch of friends in Colaba, I had to catch a train at CST for Thane. I usually feel a little thrill while travelling this route in full since the CST-Thane line happens to be the oldest railway line in Asia and my rather over-imaginative mind finds commuting on this route irrationally exciting. However, this time, all I felt was dismay. The compartment was over-flowing with angry, irritable people, packed together like sardines and as we approached Thane, pandemonium erupted with people pushing, shoving, squeezing and even punching around at random strangers. You know, the usual. I was berated by a completely unknown character for breaking his glasses (I had never seen the fellow in my life, much less his glasses) and another stranger scolded him for breaking his glasses. Somebody lost a bag, I nearly ended up tearing my own and one chap ended up with an elbow in his face. We got out, yelled at each other, stood on the platform, glared around and then proceeded towards the exit. One chap wasn't able to alight in time and the train unceremoniously carried him off in the direction of Kalyan as he looked on, helplessly. All in all, it was a normal evening on the Central Line.

In the middle of all that though, there was one abnormal creature who bore his burden with stoicism that reminded me of the Britons in the Asterix comics. Keeping an upper lip so stiff that you could mistake it for cardboard, his five-foot-five frame silently waded through the viscous mass of humans that enveloped him and he alighted from the train in a manner dignified enough to be worthy of royalty, utterly oblivious to the chaos that swirled around him. Catching my eye, his serious demeanour vanished and his face broke into a smile.

"Happens all the time!" he yelled, pointing at the battlefield behind him (for some reason, people on the train always assume I'm new – maybe it's just the way I look). "But don't worry...Congress has won. They will fix it this time!"

It was a completely random statement, coming out of the blue and I seriously doubted it, considering how pathetic the Congress-NCP coalition's track record was. I decided to just smile, nod and carry on. However, there was a bit of distance left to cover and my new friend accompanied me until the exit.

"Don't worry, don't worry..." he kept saying. "I have always voted for the Congress and they will do wonders, don't worry. NCP is weaker now, so Congress will be able to do more! I'm attending an Indira Gandhi memorial service tomorrow. Great woman, great woman. I have always been a Congress supporter and they have always done good. You just wait and see!"

With these grandiose words, the man once again stiffened his upper lip and vanished into the crowd outside the station. Too tired to think of anything else, I trudged towards the spot where private buses were lined up to take me to my final destination for the day. Thane, being a separate town in a separate district, is not covered by Mumbai's BEST bus services and the local TMT buses are so infrequent that I have always found it better to travel by these private vehicles. On the way, I found myself dwelling on the man's words. I found it interesting, perhaps even amusing, that someone can be so loyal to a particular party that they refuse to find fault with it. The man had easily laid all blame for bad governance on the NCP. The thing is that such people aren't exactly rare. There are thousands and thousands of such people who, for all their education and experience, continue to blindly put all their faith in one political outfit and castigate all others throughout their lives. In my own family, one will easily be able to find several BJP enthusiasts who have supported the party ever since it was formed and through all its ups and downs, regardless of all its bad points.

I have refused to do the same. The state of politics in this country is so rotten that is difficult for me to find any great differences between one party and another. Sure, each political outfit claims to represent a particular group of people and each has, in theory, a basic ideology that determines its activities. But at the most realistic level, every party is full of just two types of politicians. The first type is the corrupt opportunist whose only objective is to obtain as much wealth as possible, regardless of the means and the second type is the fiery zealot who takes his ideology so seriously that he becomes blinded by it and refuses to acknowledge any other set of values as valid. Neither type appeals to me and since there is no party that is not characterized by such individuals, I simply refuse to consistently support one party over another. Instead, I tend to play the Machiavellian card, considering different candidates during different elections and choosing to support the party that appears to be the least horrendous of the lot. Admittedly, in a political scene such as India's, this methodology doesn't seem to have any more impact than the method of blindly supporting a particular party or group. However, I feel a lot less uncertain about my choice at the end of it. Also, it's a lot more fun!

Political loyalty is stupid. There is absolutely no reason why one should become attached to a particular party or leader, even if their ideology agrees with one's own ideology. The only reason why one should support a particular party in a particular election is if that party seems to be capable of delivering the goods. Unfortunately, most people tend to look at the leaders rather than the party itself while making a choice. The reality is that leaders in a democracy are usually constrained by their party personnel. A perfect example would be B S Yediyurappa, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, who is at the moment, facing the prospect of being booted out of office simply because of two of his junior ministers. Similarly, we have the case of Rosaiah, the CM of Andhra Pradesh, whose every action is being questioned and criticized by the supporters of Jaganmohan Reddy. It is very rare to find leaders who are able to control their parties effectively though there are certain prominent examples such as Sonia Gandhi, Deve Gowda, Karunanidhi and Sharad Pawar. However most of these examples tend to exhibit the other extreme – the leaders have so much control that the rest of the party is forced to resort of sycophancy and flattering to get their way (the most obvious example of this is the Congress Party). It is easy to see why such leaders attract blind loyalty – the public feel that someone who has such control will always be able to get their way within the party and will therefore be more effective in power. What they fail to overlook is that such leaders may have their own plans to execute once they come into power. To be fair, these leaders may have done a bit but it cannot be denied that they have personal agendas to fulfil and these take precedence over objectives such as development and welfare. Therefore, once again, I cannot really expect them to deliver on their promises, at least, not completely.

Political loyalty is also blinding. Someone who becomes attached to one particular party for a long time is likely to become so devoted to it that he or she will consistently refuse to recognize any major fault with it. Any criticism directed towards that party's functioning will be labelled as "anti-(insert party's name) propaganda". Anyone who even dares to disapprove of the party leaders is an enemy. The party's ideology will seem flawless (no ideology ever is). And it would seem to such people that anyone who belongs to such a party is incapable of wrong-doing. I remember how after the Karnataka Assembly Elections last year, I had spotted some BJP supporters dancing and yelling slogans in the streets, disrupting all traffic. When I mentioned this to a pro-BJP relative the next day, he frowned at me and said "BJP workers don't do such things. Don't make such statements." The same relative had no trouble believing that Congress supporters were causing mayhem after the national elections this year (and they were). Such faith in a party's sanctity is not only unfortunate but also unnerving. It makes one wonder as to how we consider ourselves to be a true democracy where informed voters make rational choices. But then again, such loyalty doesn't seem to be restricted to India. Anecdotal evidence from countries such as the United States show how ridiculously rigid some people can be when it comes to elections. There are people around the world who seem to take pride in the fact that they have voted for one and only one party throughout their lives.

At the end of the day, political loyalty on a massive scale makes a mockery of democracy. It enables political parties to create rigid vote-banks and essentially "freezes" votes. Elections will then be determined by the votes of a very small percentage of the population and no such election can be considered part of a rational democracy. On a more general level, it tells us a lot about ourselves. It shows us that we are a people who are too reluctant to think, too lazy to participate and too narrow-minded to make a change.

Kapil Sibal and His Proposals

Kapil Sibal recently brought out some extremely radical proposals to reform the education system in this country. While his proposals have attracted both praise and criticism, they surprisingly haven't undergone as much analysis as I had hoped they would.

The truth is that I am always suspicious of grand, sweeping reforms. They promise a lot but always deliver below expectations and sometimes, such overhyped claims have disastrous consequences (just recall Mao Tse-Tung's "Great Leap Forward" or closer home, the glorious dream of Nehruvian planned economy). That is why it is all the more surprising as to why such a vast shakeup of the education system isn't being subject to greater scrutiny. This of course, doesn't mean that I am in any way, against educational reforms. I have personally suffered due to this groaning arthritic dinosaur that we call an education system and I definitely feel it is time to bring in some change. The question is whether Kapil Sibal is bringing in the right kind of change.

There are some proposals put forward by Sibal that I am pondering over right now. For instance, his decision to replace the current system where a student is judged by his or her percentage in the exams with a percentile or a graded system. Grades seem fine to me but percentiles don't. If a student is being evaluated, he or she ought to be judged according to certain absolute and fixed parameters which do not depend upon the relative performance of a student's peers. Some might argue that some of the most renowned institutions in the country (such as the IIMs) depend upon percentiles but my position is that at Class 10 (or 12), you ought not to judge someone's capability to be in a particular institution. Rather, you should be judging certain basic and essential skills that every person requires in order to survive in life. This is why grades are better than percentiles at the Class 10 or 12 level.

Grades are also better than percentages because that way, they do not reduce the admission process to an unholy lottery. Tell me, what is the difference between a student who scores, say, 94% and another who scores 95%? Nothing but pure luck. Yet, if a college's cut-off is 95%, the second student gets in while the first does not. Grades are not wholly devoid of such flaws (for instance, it does seem unfair to bring someone with 90% and 80% under the same category) but they are infinitely better in the sense that they will force colleges to stop relying on worthless cut-off percentages and make them examine other aspects of a student's character such as his or her acumen in sports or cultural activities. So please, Mr Sibal, if you are planning to replace the percentage system, bring in grades, not percentiles.

Another proposal by Kapil Sibal is something that I am totally against and this is the introduction of a common education board across the country. India is a country with a variety of people belonging to all sorts of economic, social and cultural classes and to bring them all under one board is really ridiculous. By doing so, you are condemning every student to be subject to a syllabus that caters to the lowest common denominator and in a country like India, that common denominator is very very low indeed. The lowest and most downtrodden classes of the country need an education system that is vastly different from a system that caters to the upper classes and for this, the presence of multiple education boards is a must. Sure, it creates elitism and all that, but these are side-effects whose influences must be borne and reduced as much as possible. Perhaps, the best solution would be to treat all students coming from every board as equal (in other words, banning separate requirements for students of different boards). Perhaps not. These are issues that still need to be tackled but a common nation-wide board of education is definitely not the solution.

Finally, there is Kapil Sibal's proposal to allow foreign universities to set up campuses in India and private universities to operate as well. The move to introduce foreign universities is a welcome one. Such a move will create competition and hopefully, force Indian universities to ramp up their programmes in retaliation. Anyone who is afraid that Indian students will be 'corrupted' by these universities should remember that hundreds of Indians go abroad every year and many of them come back. Additionally, I'm sure the government will make some efforts to monitor these universities.

With regard to private Indian universities, my views are mixed. I do believe that the whole concept of not allowing private funding for universities should be done away with. At the same time, I am a little concerned about the prospect of 'shareholder universities'. I have doubts about this concept regarding the extent of influence that shareholders might exert upon university boards and whether this may result in some negative pay-off. However, it is time we acknowledged that our present state of funding educational institutions is pathetic.

All in all though, none of this really matters to me right now. Hopefully, I will be done with education in a few years and won't have to worry about nonsense such as entrance exams and cut-off percentages anymore. However, I am still concerned about such matters simply because I have seen my share of misfortunes due to an unsympathetic and inefficient educational system and am eager that no one else experiences it.

The People of the Street

Just about half an hour ago, I had stepped out to have dinner at a nearby restaurant and was on my way back to the hostel when I decided to walk towards VT Station so that I could buy some peanuts. In my opinion, peanuts are probably the most enjoyable stuff to buy off the streets near VT – they are warm, satisfyingly tasty and quite light on the pocket. Therefore, I strolled down the road towards the station and then, on that road – Mahapalika Marg – that I saw the banana vendor. He was seated a little distance away from entrance to Cama Hospital (which, by the way, is now heavily – and quite belatedly – guarded by about half-a-dozen policemen) on the footpath, hopefully trying to sell his last bunch of plantains. He had a cheerful expression on his face that matched the tone of his voice as he called to the passersby. As I walked past him, I realized that it was nearly ten o clock and the few people on the footpath were some of the last stragglers who were running to catch the train home. Why was this man still here? Obviously, he wasn't leaving until he sold his final bunch of fruit.

It then struck me (after nearly two years of living in this area) how hard-working the people of the street actually are. This notion had always been at the back of my head, a sort of subliminal admiration for the dedication that these men put into their work but this was the first time I actually thought about it clearly. As I made my way back from the peanut vendor (another worker who put in late hours at work), I decided to buy some bananas from this guy. After all, it had been quite some time since I had eaten any fruit. I made my way to him and it was then that I realized that he was disabled – his right arm was only a stump. But what really caught my attention was the way he shrugged off his disability. He briskly cut a dozen bananas for me and deftly placed them in the packet that I was holding open for him. He wasn't there to showcase his plight but to conduct business. He pocketed my ten rupee note with a nod of thanks and the transaction was completed. I made my way back in a rather pensive mood.

I am the sort of person who detests beggars (of any sort). I dislike begging and during the few times I have been forced to beg or plead for something, I have always ended up with a bad taste in my mouth. Therefore, I tend to look down upon most beggars, including those of the street. But men like the one I mentioned above are not beggars, they are something else altogether. They are extremely remarkable people who, over the past two or three years, have earned my immense admiration. Their occupations are rather humble, such as selling panipuri or driving a taxi but they go about their work with a sense of pride that I haven't seen in most of the few top-notch executives I have met. These are the men and women who brave all sorts of odds to do what they do. They have to face the ire of policemen and civic officials for clogging up the footpaths; they have to put up with the rudeness and condescension inflicted upon them by their customers; even the weather doesn't spare them with monsoon showers frequently depriving them of much-needed livelihood. Yet, they carry on because they have no choice. Giving up their occupations means descending back into the chaos from which they are struggling to rise and therefore, they are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to keep their businesses functioning.

They are at their spots the moment the day begins. Time is indeed money for them and they refuse to compromise on it. They stay at their spots until they sell every little item that they had brought with them, for to waste any is to waste money. Money is important to everyone in this world but for these people, it is crucial to gather as much as possible. One may never know when the next bribe-seeking cop might turn up or when the BMC might confiscate their wares. More importantly, for these people, the money is a sign that all their effort isn't going to waste – that it was worth it to refuse the guild of beggars and strive for a more dignified way of life. A sign that one day, they might be able to move further up the social ladder and ensure a better future for their families. It is this hope of moving from mere survival to a more leisurely life that keeps them going. Personally, they have provided me with confidence more than once. Sometime last year, I was travelling in a taxi when the driver burst into conversation. Happily ignoring my complete ineptitude at speaking Hindi, he told me how he had arrived in Mumbai six years previously and had started off as a milk delivery boy in Dadar. Now, several years later, he drives a taxi on weekdays and an ambulance for a hospital on weekends, earning far more than he ever did in his village near Nagpur. "Mehnat se kuchh bhi ho sakta hai saab!" he told me with a grin on his face. Whenever I feel like complaining about how life is tough for me, I now remind myself of him. If I have it bad, he's had it much worse. People like him can teach people like me a thing or two about determination to succeed and dedication to one's work.

This is why I often feel angry or uncomfortable when I see such people eking out a living on the streets. I don't feel sorry for them but I do feel that they deserve better. The recession may be making a lot of upper class and middle class families uncomfortable but it is particularly overbearing on these people. Educated professionals will at worst, have to compromise on their pride and make do with low-paying clerical jobs until the tide turns in their favour but for the workers of the street, there is no such fallback. If they are forced to shut down their businesses, they often find it extremely difficult to get going again. The fact that many of them actually do get back to work in one way or the other is quite remarkable. I feel that these people deserve better simply because their work and their effort make them worthy of such reward. The problem is how exactly does one help them? I personally feel that the best way to help them is not provide them with sops or subsidies or financial aid (as useless politicians tend to do) but with tools and technology that can make their work easier. Prosthetic limbs for the disabled workers, for example, can be highly useful. Education and awareness can again greatly help these workers. Micro financing (not grants) can also be constructive. However, since these workers function in the informal economy, it is difficult to design a functioning system for the provision of such services. As unappealing as it may be, the government should probably be roped in to some extent. Government interference in the informal economy almost always ends in disaster but its presence may turn out to be vital.

The road ahead for such systems to increase the welfare of these street workers is quite long and clearly winding and it will be quite a while before any sort of meaningful assistance trickles down to them. However, I only hope that their determination to rise above their given status does not falter and that they inspire others from low-income backgrounds to rise along with them. These are people who turn away from the appealing paths of begging and crime to establish an identity of dignity for themselves. I hope that people like me understand that and appreciate the part they play in society and in our lives.

Festivals and Related Complaints

Ah Holi...that great festival of colours where everyone seems to go mad...I absolutely hate it.

Now I hope no one gets me wrong. Just because I happen to be an anglicized snob doesn't mean that I grudge the average Indian his bit of fun. In fact, I quite enjoyed watching (that's the limit of my participation – watching) my friends leave their rooms wearing white t-shirts and return wearing pink. They had fun and I'm quite happy about that. What I can't stand, though, is how people in this country seem to think that celebrations are special occasions to do whatever one feels like, regardless of rules, law or a sense of propriety. Time and again, I have witnessed people lose their senses and do absolutely ridiculous (often downright illegal) things. What I can't comprehend is how and why they get away with it.

Take, for example, the numerous small celebrations that occur around the locality of Malleswaram in Bangalore (where, incidentally, my home happens to be located). Malleswaram is one of the comparatively older areas of the city and it has quite a few temples including the famous Kaad Malleshwara temple after which, the area is named. Now, atheist as I am, I have no problem with these places of worship. In fact, the undying presence of these temples has been a source of some comfort to me since they are some of last structures from my childhood that continue to exist in a rapidly modernizing neighbourhood. However, in recent years, these places have become rather upbeat, going in for grandiose celebrations and extravagant revelry whenever a festival comes along. As a result, I am often forced to stay up as late into the night, fervently hoping that the loudspeakers go bust. Horrifying songs dug up from some absolutely unknown bollywood and sandalwood movies blare defiantly until around half past one after which, I assume, the loudspeakers do go bust. The irony is that this is Bangalore, a city which, according to law, should shut down by eleven thirty. However, the cops are mysteriously missing and as I try and stuff my head into the pillow, I catch myself wondering if they are taking part in the celebrations themselves.

Things are just as bad here in Mumbai. The Ganesha festival is witness to mobs (yes, mobs) roaming around on trucks, reminding me of World War II photos of tanks rumbling through Paris. Nothing wrong with that, of course, until one takes into account the behaviour of these crowds. They yell obscenities at people on the streets, ogle openly at any unfortunate woman on the footpath and sometimes (I actually saw this) throw things at her to get her attention. The situation is made worse when political parties decide to use these festivals as a platform to promote themselves. Kannada Rajyotsava (the anniversary of the founding of Karnataka) has, of late, become horrendous, with raucous masses, supported by several parties, dancing away in the narrow streets and blocking the flow of traffic in a city which is already notorious for road problems. But the worst offender when it comes to festivals is Holi. On this day, people just lose it, be they in Bangalore or Mumbai. Some crowds of celebrators throw almost every rule out of the window and try and drag others into it as well. I am quite glad that my friends who celebrated Holi today were rather understanding and just let me be. Too often, in the past, people who I barely know have dragged out into the streets and doused me in colour, completely disregarding my (loud) squawks of protest. Colour gets splattered everywhere, rubber tyres are burnt (I have no idea why) and bhang flows down the streets like rainwater. The last is something I just can't comprehend. How, in the name of all that is great, is marijunana so openly circulated and distributed without one single person raising the slightest voice of concern, anger or outrage?

Hypocrisy. At least, that's how it looks to me. On one hand, we have (yes, here I go again) righteous moralistic ultra-activists making deprecating statements about nightclubs and rock concerts and on the other hand, we have those same people doing nothing when people indulge in what is arguably far more shameful behaviour during festivals. Do they consider such behaviour a part of Indian culture? If yes, then to hell with their definition of Indian culture. I want no part in it. More importantly, we have cops eagerly raiding and arresting hundreds at rave parties (there was one in Bangalore a few days ago – about a hundred were arrested) for circulating drugs but doing a disappearing act when it comes to cracking down on the highly prominent weed addicts during Holi. By all means, please do your duty and crack down on drugs but for heaven's sake, don't be two-faced about it. If you have no compunctions arresting one group of people, you should have no qualms about arresting another. Perhaps, I is the thinkings, one is wee bit scared of upsetting the political bosses? I can't think of any other explanation. Otherwise, why oh why, Mr. Policeman, are you so eager to hang around clubs and concert venues, ready to rush in at 11:30 and so reluctant to do the same during other noisy events?

It isn't just religious celebrations either. When we won the Twenty20 World Cup, a huge parade was organized in Mumbai for our team. Perfectly fine, nothing wrong in that. But that day, some girls from Jai Hind College who happened to be near Wankhede Stadium were openly molested by bystanders (click here for the related news report). Apparently, people think they can do anything they want as long as they are in a crowd. And I don't think I even need to mention occasions like New Year's Eve when all hell seems to break loose. What is it about these occasions that make people think that they can break every law and disregard every principle of decency or propriety? I am afraid that is a rather difficult question to answer. But I do know this – whatever may be the reason, law breaking is not acceptable in any situation. Festivals are times for us to feel good about ourselves and our place in society but that doesn't mean we do it at the cost of other peoples' peace of mind.

P.S. I just realized that this post has way too many commas. My apologies. I will try and control myself next time.

The Stupidity of the Moral Police

News this week has been dominated by two events. The first was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh suddenly being admitted to hospital to undergo a heart surgery. Thankfully, that went off pretty well and the man is now on the road to recovery while newspapers and television channels discuss whether Sonia Gandhi has something against Pranab Mukherjee. The other incident, a more distasteful one, is what I will be discussing in this blog post. You guessed it, it is the Mangalore pub brawl where a bunch of 'activists' attacked a pub claiming that such establishments go against Indian culture.

Anyone who has read my earlier blog posts will know whose side I will be taking. In fact, I don't see why anyone would want to take the side of the Sri Ram Sene and its leader Muthalik. Unfortunately, people are taking their side and that is why I am writing about this issue. Moral policing, as a term, is a complete misnomer for it is neither moral nor does it involve policing, in its strictest sense of the term. It is, instead, a euphemism for goondagiri. These so-called 'Moral Police' and 'Social Activists' are no more than ruffians, scoundrels and hooligans of the worst type. The worst, because they justify their loutish, sub-animal behaviour with twisted reason and inane logic.

I'm personally not too fond of nightclubs. I go to them occasionally with a group of friends and far from them being exotic places of intrigue and passion, I find them quite pedestrian. I can have the same fun and enjoyment at any other place provided I am with a bunch of good friends. On the whole, I would much rather go to a restaurant or a cafe with those friends and chill with a couple of beers while classic rock plays in the background. Of course, to Muthalik and his gang, such things are one and the same. Anything 'western' is taboo and that includes beer, classic rock and quite possibly restaurants as well. What I would recommend for such idiots is the essay One Hundred Percent American by A.G. Gardiner. While Muthalik might balk at the title of the essay, let me describe some of the issues that Gardiner points out in his essay. Gardiner talks about how, the so-called One Hundred Percent American gets up in the morning wearing pyjamas that were invented in India; to an alarm clock first designed in Europe; washes his face using a piped water system conceived in the Indus Valley and ancient Rome; uses a toothbrush once again invented in Europe; drinks milk which was first used as a food by Eurasian hunter-gatherers; reads a newspaper which was invented in Britain and thanks god for being One Hundred Percent American.

Let me commandeer this concept for the benefit of moral policemen in India. Muthalik, members of the Sri Rama Sene and any other fool calling himself a moral policeman, let me ask you this. If you are against everything western then why do you travel by roads, trains or aeroplanes? They are all western inventions, ban them. Why do you drive around in cars? They were invented by Daimler and promoted by Ford. One is a German and the other, American. In other words, they are western and must be banned. Why do you watch television? Why do you listen to the radio? Why do you read newspapers? Ban them. Or do you strictly restrict yourself to 'culture'? In that case, let us ban the violin from Carnatic music. It is western influence, after all. Let us ban...I know! Let us ban Zubin Mehta from practicing his profession. After all, he is promoting western music, isn't he? Let us ban the works of B.V. Karanth and Vijay Tendulkar. Both of them worked indoors while Indian theatre is traditionally an open-air phenomenon. Let us prohibit the thousands of musical collaborations that occur between Indian and western artists every year. Pandit Ravi Shankar is a criminal because he worked with George Harrison, isn't he? Let us ban English novels. Let us ban English! Let us tear down all those heritage buildings in South Mumbai. Let us demolish Rashtrapathi Bhawan, Parliament House, India Gate, Gateway of India, the Taj Mahal Hotel and the Lutyens Bungalows because they are all examples of western architecture. In short, let us ban ourselves because all of us have been influenced by western cultures in one way or the other.

The sheer hypocrisy of these moral policemen is so blatant that I am constantly surprised as to why people even consider supporting them. The truth of the matter is that pubs, nightclubs and other such establishments are unfortunately seen as the haunt of the elite and this irritates the people who cannot gain access to them. This notion is hyped even more by media such as films which offer these people a so-called glimpse into these places but in reality presents a rather glamorized and distorted picture of them. This divides the (for the lack of a better word and not in a derogatory sense) 'have-nots' into two groups. There are those who promise themselves that they will work hard to earn enough money in order to lead such lives and there are those who distance themselves from such lifestyles, claiming that they find it immoral and unethical (and there is nothing wrong in that). Things do start going wrong however, when the latter group starts taking an active stance on this issue. It is one thing to have a personal opinion and quite another to force everyone to accept your opinion as well. When you are propagating your ideas as right and others' as wrong, you risk crossing a very fine line that distinguishes between healthy activism and domineering subjugation. As far as Muthalik is concerned, he went way beyond this line, as did several other activists in recent years.

What angers me the most is the attitude of Chief Minister Yediyurappa. Far from condemning the incident, he pompously declared today that he will 'not allow pub culture to flourish'. Mr. Yediyurappa, let me remind you that as an individual, you have the right to your own opinion regarding pubs and the environment they foster but in your capacity as the Chief Minister of Karnataka, you have absolutely no right to decide what sort of culture the citizens of your state wish to follow. You can go against the crimes and illegal activities that may flourish in such a culture such as date rape or drug dealing but you cannot decide whether dancing at a nightclub or having a drink with your friends is right or wrong because as much as you may hate it, there is nothing illegal about such activities. Let me also remind you that you weren't made Chief Minister by divine right and that you were elected by the people of Karnataka for certain reasons. I personally voted for the BJP in the state elections last year. Why? I voted for you because I thought that out of all the useless parties that were thronging the elections, the BJP seemed to be the least useless of the lot. You were talking about development then, about how to improve Bangalore's broken infrastructure, how to attract more industries to the state, how to increase literacy levels and provide for economic growth. I voted for you when I heard you saying such things because I thought that, like Narendra Modi in Gujarat, you will move away from communalism or moral policing and concentrate on development.

Clearly, I was wrong. You ended up forgetting all about development. Instead, you always seem to be in the news for reasons I didn't elect you. First, you support goons who vandalize churches in Mangalore. Next, you indulge in beating up people in Belgaum (an issue where I feel both the Shiv Sena and the Yediyurappa government overreached themselves). Now, you come out in favour of more thugs who advocate an environment of intolerance instead of supporting those who were victimized by them. Don't forget, Mr. Yediyurappa that the only reason I did not vote for the Congress was because they clearly didn't want to field S M Krishna as their Chief Ministerial candidate. Krishna has his vices and bad points, but he certainly has a better record than you as far as development is concerned. So, if like Mayawati, you want to make statements like "We had a landslide victory...therefore the people support us" remember that I, for one, did not vote for this. I don't really like dancing at nightclubs but I do like going for a beer with my friends in the evenings. Neither activity makes me immoral. I am still against drunken driving, drugs, rape or any other such activity. I am still concerned about my country and the way it is managed by politicians like you. I still want to work towards creating a society where people can live in an environment of freedom and justice. And that is more than I can say for your goonda friends at the Sri Rama Sene.

Myths?

The article Modern India's Myths by columnist Tavleen Singh in the January 4^th edition of the Indian Express makes for an interesting read. In that article, Tavleen Singh attacks what she calls "Myths about India" by which she is referring to several arguments that are purportedly made by "Self-Loathing Writers, Historians, Hacks and Politicians who became such a noisy chorus in the international media after the attack on Mumbai". These arguments include the notion that India as a unified entity did not exist before 1947, there was no such thing as a "Hindu India" in the past and India herself should be blamed for terror attacks upon its soil. I would like to make some points that I feel are germane to the content in the article.

Firstly, let me consider the argument over whether India as a unified territory existed before 1947. There is a ring of truth in the refutations made by Singh. For instance, she asserts that long before the creation of the Indian state, there was a country called Bharat, whose boundaries were perfectly understood by ordinary Indians across India. To prove her point, she notes that people from various communities and regions across the subcontinent have been attending the Kumbh Mela centuries before the Indian State was created. This is a fair point, but only to a certain extent. The idea of India is significantly different from that of the country, Bharat, which existed before it. No doubt, there are fundamental similarities between the two since one was born out of another, but they are as different as mother and daughter. This difference is brought about by two political factors – democracy and secularism. Bharat or Hindustan or Old India or whatever one wishes to call it was neither democratic nor secular. Modern India is both (at least in principle). Thus, though I agree with Tavleen Singh about the sociological congruence between Bharat and India, I must point out that, politically, there is a vast difference between the two.

Secondly, Singh makes a very good point about the idea of a 'Hindu' India before the advent of Islamic rulers from the Central Asia. Hindu India, as far my knowledge of history goes, did exist. The Gupta Empire that spanned the subcontinent was ruled by a number of Hindu kings and many historians have dubbed this era as the 'Golden Age' of Ancient India. Besides, for several hundred years, large parts of India were Hindu kingdoms and these kingdoms continued to exist right up to even British times. However, Tavleen Singh does not specify which part of ancient Indian history she was referring to when she mentioned 'Hindu' India. It would be fallacious to assume that India was Hindu-dominated for the whole of the ancient period. In fact, after Ashoka became the emperor of the Mauryan dynasty, Buddhism began to flourish as a major religion in the country and continued to do so until the rise of the Guptas. I like to believe that the idea of a unified subcontinent began with the Mauryas. In other words, as far as I am concerned, neither the Aryan nations nor the Indus Valley Civilization can be considered as true Bharat. But this is just a personal opinion and I do not wish to push this view upon others.

The third so-called myth that Tavleen Singh attacks is the most contentious of the three. She feels that it is ridiculous to blame actions of the Indian state for jihadist attacks upon its soil. I don't fully agree. While I concur that some liberals have taken this point to foolish levels by linking every terror act to an atrocity committed by Indians, I must affirm that Indians have committed crimes in the past that have a direct link to the Islamic terrorism being practiced against the country at present. The riots in Gujarat, though maybe not as horrific as the Rwanda genocide or the Somalian atrocities, were heinous nevertheless and probably fostered a sense of persecution in many Muslims. Fundamentalists based abroad most probably capitalized on this sense of horror to create support bases for themselves in India. In fact, the rise of organizations such as the Indian Mujahedeen may have been the direct result of such persecution mania. Therefore, while we Indians should not feel squeamish while dealing with terrorists, we must take care to avoid collateral damage. This does not mean we should forsake a strong fist for a weak finger but rather ensure that the fist punches only those who deserve it.

I would like to conclude by saying that Tavleen Singh makes some very good points but she ignores some ramifications of the issues she criticizes. These issues are not myths as much as they are misunderstandings and generalizations. I myself don't have much sympathy for liberals who advocate giving up Kashmir or blindly support a particular group of people calling them victims of 'Indian imperialism'. However, I accede that sometimes, what they say needs to be heard.

 

 

 

Interrelations

It really amazes me how so many subjects we study in schools and colleges are so interconnected. The clear-cut precise borders that were demarcated for us by our teachers become extremely blurred and sometimes even get decimated as one studies higher and higher levels. I do believe someone once made a comment about how knowledge is essentially a bunch of different rivers emptying into a single ocean. I couldn't agree more. Science may be the Ganga and humanities the Brahmaputra but they both end up reaching the Bay of Bengal. Taken in another sense, people may try and classify the world's waters into four or five different oceans (to say nothing of several hundred seas) but one just needs to glance at an atlas to realize that all the oceans are essentially just one big body of water. The same can be said of knowledge.

Those who don't agree can sample the following argument. What's the connection between a pair of birds with ticks on their heads and the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker threatens to blow up two boats (one carrying immured criminals and the other ferrying common citizens)? Moreover, how does one connect both of these, somehow, to the oil crisis that nearly crippled America in the 1970s? The answer can be summed up in two words – Prisoner's Dilemma. Prisoner's Dilemma is a concept in Game Theory (a statistical subject with applications in various fields) which I think was conceived in the 1950s (not too sure) and later substantially improved by Robert Axelrod, a political scientist. The basic premise of the concept is fairly simple. Assume that you're a prisoner about to be incarcerated by the police for a crime that you committed in collaboration with another person. Now, let us suppose the police have enough evidence to immure both of you but in order to strengthen their case in court, they need an open confession from one of you. They come up with a clever strategy where they place you in one room and your partner in another. Then both of you are offered the same deal: If one of you confesses the crime (and in the process, implicating both collaborators), the informer will be let off, free, while the other will be given an extremely heavy punishment. However, if both decide to squeal, both will be heavily sentenced. If neither lets out any information, the police still have enough evidence to convict both of you but the sentence will be much lighter compared to the earlier scenarios. The ultimate decision will, however, be left to the prisoners themselves. Finally both of you are told that the other prisoner is being offered exactly the same deal at the same time.

The 'dilemma' comes from the fact that you, being cut off from you partner, have no opportunity to communicate with him and come to a joint decision. Therefore, your sentence depends not just on your decision but also on how your partner behaves. The best option, rationally speaking, would be to keep your mouth shut, hoping that your partner would do the same. If your ruse succeeds, the police will not be able to get a confession and therefore will have comparatively lesser evidence in court, thereby forcing the court to award a light sentence. But what if you don't trust your partner that much? What if you expect him to squeal? In such a case, the apposite move would be to confess as well since you will have no wish to languish in prison while your partner roams around free. Your partner, not trusting you either, will come to the same rational conclusion. As a result, both of you end up confessing – which means that both of you end up in jail for a long long time! In real life, the outcome of this dilemma depends very much on how your partner behaves as well as how you expect him to behave.

All this is very well but how does it relate to birds suffering from the itch or Hollywood movies? I got the bird example from a book by biologist Richard Dawkins called the Selfish Gene (Chapter 12 - "Nice Guys Finish First"). This book, by the way, happens to be one of my favourites. Do read it if you can. Coming back to the bird example, Dawkins explains that these birds end up helping themselves by picking the ticks from each others' heads (should be a funny sight, I must say). Through this symbiotic agreement, all birds put in little bits of individual effort to get rid of a common anathema. But problems arise when some birds become 'cheats' that is, they get ticks picked off their own heads while not performing the same tasks for others. In such cases, the birds face a Prisoner's Dilemma – will the other bird co-operate or cheat? What should be my decision? Whether birds get rid of their itch or not may seem to be a prosaic subject to the layperson but such examples often form the basis of evolutionary theory as Dawkins illustrates in his book.

The Dark Knight example must now seem fairly easy. The Joker planted explosives on both boats and placed the trigger for each boat's explosives on the other boat. He then told the people on both boats that unless one of them pressed their trigger first (and in the process, exploding the other boat), he would destroy all of them. The people on both boats faced a Prisoner's Dilemma (incidentally, with real prisoners). How would the people on the other boat act? Can they trust the others to not blow them up?

What about the oil crisis? The oil crisis of the 1970s was brought about largely due to the actions of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) which is often cited as the quintessence of cartelization. Cartels, by their economic definition, are collaborative groups of players in a market who come together for mutual benefit. A standard strategy that most producer cartels follow is to collectively raise prices of the product that they are selling (in OPEC's case, the product was oil). This allows all the players to get better revenues since they are now charging higher prices for their products – something that would have been impossible in perfect markets since competition drives prices down. However, cartels, in normal circumstances, are fundamentally unstable because they always face a Prisoner's Dilemma, especially when demand for the product is less. When demand is low, the producer always has an incentive to cut prices to attract more customers. Therefore, in a cartel, the partners are constantly watching each other. Will the other dude cut prices and attract more customers? More importantly, should I cut mine first and gain a larger market share? Cartels usually fall apart because of questions such as these. It's only in special cases (oil, diamonds, uranium) that cartels usually have a good chance of surviving (OPEC, De Beers and the Nuclear Suppliers Group).

Prisoner's Dilemma and similar game theory concepts are not the only things which connect several varied subjects. There are more connections being found every day between what were often considered fundamentally disparate subjects. Recent years have seen the development of interdisciplinary sciences such as Econophysics, an offbeat area where formulae and concepts used in physics are incorporated into economic theories (though I have no clue how effective this has been). School students who take up biology hoping to escape the influence of mathematics may be horrified to know how calculus has become an important part of higher biology. Again, in economics, more and more researchers are realizing the need to understand human psychology in order to formulate theories better (something which, in my opinion, ought to have been done a long time ago). I hope this trend continues. For a geek like me, the more knowledge one acquires, the more satisfied one feels.

 

Who Should We Blame?

I think the title of my post says it all. Who should be blamed for the fiasco that occurred one and a half days ago that allowed several gun-wielding goons to run berserk in the most posh part of the biggest city in India? Do we blame intelligence for failing to gather information about this event? Do we blame the Coast Guard or the Navy for not stopping the boat carrying the terrorists at sea? Do we blame the police for not responding quickly to the situation? Do we blame Shivraj Patil for candidly announcing the details of Operation Black Tornado without any concern for secrecy? Or do we blame the system for not training our forces, for not giving them adequate equipment, not installing enough warning systems or not instilling a need for decisiveness? The answer is pretty complicated.

First, let me deal with the immediate reasons for the inefficient manner in which the counter-strike was conducted. Yes, the police ought to be blamed for not responding quickly and decisively. Why weren't the perpetrators at V.T. stopped at the station itself? How were they allowed to get out of the station and reach Cama Hospital and Metro Cinema? Pictures show them swaggering down the street, clearly confident that they wouldn't be challenged. This was on Mahapalika Marg where the both the High Court and the BMC Headquarters are situated. Azad Maidan Police Station is just over there. The Police Commissioner's headquarters is not far off either. And yet, those maniacs walked down the road as if they were taking a stroll. What about the shootout at Leopold Cafe? Colaba Police Station is barely five minutes away – by foot. Why wasn't the response quicker than what it was?

What about intelligence? Unfortunately, Indian intelligence leaves a lot to be desired. Over the last one year, we have failed to predict attacks at several places including big cities like Delhi, Jaipur, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. Why bother to even mention small towns like Malegaon? Moreover, how good is our counter-terrorism technology? Why did we fail to pick up the boat carrying those terrorists when it approached Mumbai? Surely, all the boats and ships entering Mumbai are registered with the authorities or are they? Even if there is a registration process, why weren't any checks conducted on the boat in question as it landed at Mumbai? Again, what was the Coast Guard doing when this boat appeared in Indian waters? Were they challenged? A week ago, the entire nation was boasting about the prowess of the Indian Navy as the INS Tabar sunk a pirate ship off the Somalian coast. Will we do so now?

Our politicians are an easy lot to blame. Not only, like Shivraj Patil, do they bungle up counter-terrorist operations, they also retard ongoing investigations. The whole month was punctuated with the Sangh Parivar and the Shiv Sena angrily attacking the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) for arresting Sadhvi Pragya Thakur. The previous month had had the ruling government poking its nose into the Jamia Milia Islamia encounter in Delhi. Far more disgusting is the fact that after making statements like "presenting a United Front", the Congress and the BJP waited for barely 24 hours before launching verbal assaults upon each other for being against the cause of counter-terrorism.

It is with the politicians that I, personally, nurse the biggest grudge. We have always known how corrupt, inefficient and heartless they all are but the past few days have seen them reach new depths in callousness. The NSG Commandos who were dispatched from Delhi were delayed thanks to a VIP who wanted to escort them. I couldn't help feeling angry when I saw Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi arrive in a limousine at JJ Hospital to "meet the victims". Whoever asked them to come here at all? Operations were still being carried out at the Taj at that time and surely the security provided to these two VVIPs could have been diverted there had they decided not to fly in. Have they no such concerns? Narendra Modi did a slightly better job by immediately convening a meeting to discuss the weaknesses in security around the Gujarat coast but then he too stooped to milk the issue for political gain by coming down to Mumbai and making impressive statements. The BJP splattered advertisements all over the place mocking the Congress for not doing enough to tackle terrorism and asking people to vote for the saffron party instead. Do we really need electoral statements when the country is trying to get back on its feet? The Shiv Sena and the MNS, thankfully, haven't featured themselves much in the media during this issue (at least, in the media that I have access to). I only hope they are not biding their time, waiting for the right moment to come out and blow their own trumpets. That will be just as disgusting as what the Congress and the BJP are doing right now.

On an even angrier note, these politicians who make hugely sympathizing statements when we are under attack do nothing when the nation is at peace. The last three days have seen numerous reports about how badly trained and poorly equipped our policemen are to handle attacks such as these. People make excuses saying that India is a developing country and it cannot afford extensive training and sophisticated equipment. Please. By that argument, India ought not to have nuclear weapons. India ought not to have superb warships such as the INS Tabar and the INS Mysore. India should not be in possession of indigenously developed missiles such as the Agni III. A friend of mine rightly remarked that India has more than enough money; it's just that it's not being channelled into the right areas. It's all going into the pockets of our beloved politicians. You can blame our police forces for shoddy responses but the root of the problem is that they are not effectively trained or equipped. And the reason for poor training is the fat khadi-clad politician hogging away our public funds.

There is however, one group of people who have not been blamed for this gory spectacle, largely because they are seen as victims. In reality though, a portion of the blame ought to be attached to them. I'm talking about the common people. Average citizens like you and me do share the responsibility for scale of damage that this attack has caused simply because, like the political class, we did nothing when all was peaceful. Did any of us bother to find out how secure we are against terrorism? We didn't. Did any of us demand to know how much money was being provided for upgrading and training of urban security forces? I don't think anyone did. CNN-IBN had conducted a sting operation more than two years ago, smuggling 'contraband' by boat from the Arabian Sea, landing upon the Maharashtra coast and carrying the crate of 'contraband' right up to the Gateway of India. Did anyone raise a voice then, asking our netas what was going to be done to prevent such incidents? Nope. As a result, the Gateway of India (or rather the hotel in front of it) is burning today. I didn't do anything either and today I'm paying for it.

Over the past few months, I have become more and more convinced that being a citizen of a country is not very different from having a majority stake in a company. When you invest a large amount of money to purchase a major shareholding in a company, you don't sit back and do nothing, do you? Even if you don't take part in active management, you nevertheless keep a track of what your company is doing, what activities it is pursuing and how beneficial or detrimental these activities are for you. If you have a problem with what the company is doing, you say so. If there are no effective channels by which you can communicate with your management, you demand for such channels. You don't just pump in money and ignore what the management is doing with that money. Yet, that is what people do with their most important stock – the government. They pump in almost a third of their annual income into the coffers of this company and then don't give a damn about what the management does with it. Citizens will ultimately pay the price for not taking an active interest in their dividends from the government. South Bombay, assuming that it will always be safe from calamity, never took an active interest in voting or elections. That assumption was shattered this week. Even a fortress cannot defend its residents by itself. It needs good soldiers to man the ramparts. South Bombay didn't bother to look for these soldiers.

In summary, everyone has some blame to shoulder. Policemen for inadequate responses, intelligence for poor and shoddy work and the public for choosing to remain detached from it all. However, in the end, the biggest culprits remain the politicians. I feel no guilt when I declare them the scum of the earth, parasites that pollute our communities and try to bleed out the prosperity hard-working citizens create. It is a sad state of affairs in a country that hopes to become a superpower in the next quarter-century. I frankly don't care about such things. Just give me a respectable source of income, a comfortable home, a loving family and a safe community to live in. As long as we concentrate on that, I don't give a damn about how much of a superpower we are.

In the Middle of it All...

I suppose everyone in Mumbai remembers where they were the night before last (26^th November). It is not likely that they are going to forget it soon. The events of that evening are very much going to be embedded in every Mumbaikar's memory for quite some time. The city is no stranger to terrorist attacks but this was extremely different from either 1993 or 2006. Some people are calling it 'India's 9/11'. It may very well be so but even if it wasn't called that, it was still an attack that I will recount for quite a few years with apprehension.

I had gone to meet someone in Prabhadevi that day and returned to the hostel around a quarter to nine. My hostel is located at the rear end of the St. Xavier's College campus which shares a boundary with Cama Hospital on one side. A small lane leading towards the Times of India office separates the campus from Rang Bhavan and G.T. Hospital on the other side. Walk down the road from the campus and you will reach the BMC Headquarters and V.T. Station. Walk in the opposite direction and you will come up to the Metro Cinema junction.

My roommate was supposed to leave Mumbai that night by a train from Dadar. Around a quarter past ten, he had just finished packing up everything and I was doing some insignificant work on my laptop when we suddenly heard a staccato of explosions in the direction of V.T. Station. Presuming them to be fireworks, I nonchalantly continued with my work when the explosions happened again. This time, I heard people screaming in the distance, prompting me to look out of the window. My window looks out towards V.T. but the view of the station is blocked by several buildings in between and all I could see was the dome of the station's heritage building. The explosions occurred again and this time, the tube-light in my brain flickered and I began to wonder if it was gunfire. My roommate looked worried but he was determined to leave and carried his luggage out, promising to give me a call once he reached Dadar station. As he left, I heard the gunfire once more and this time, the screams were all too clear.

Meanwhile, the sound of the shots had brought many of the hostelites into the corridor but there was no panic. On the contrary, most of us imagined that the perpetrators would be stopped quickly and there would be no way they would leave V.T. Within a few minutes however, one of the hostelites came out of his room and told us that this was a major operation and other places in South Bombay had been targeted as well. He had just received information that both the Taj and the Oberoi hotels had been attacked.

Puzzled and more than a little worried, I went to one of my friends' rooms and there I learnt that three of my friends had gone out and were known to be somewhere near Metro Cinema. Suddenly the gunfire occurred again. This time, it sounded a lot closer. All of us were getting quite excitable now and there were people running up and down the staircase and bursting into rooms trying to find out if everyone was in the hostel. A couple of bigger explosions suddenly took place and our building vibrated slightly from the impact. Some of us rushed to the terrace to see what was happening in spite of admonishments from the rest of us. My roommate called me and told me that he was coming back. A policeman had intercepted him and ordered him back into the hostel. Leaving his luggage with the security at the entrance, he came back to our room. The shots were loud and clear now and seemed to be coming from Cama Hospital. Another fairly big explosion shook the building again. We decided to switch off the lights and abandon all rooms at the back which faced Cama Hospital (including mine). Meanwhile there was no news from the three who had been stuck outside. We later learned that they had had a horrifying time trying to find shelter. The management at Metro Cinema were not letting them in while the police were trying to drive them away. They somehow managed to contact someone who had an apartment nearby and arrange for shelter there. Before they could leave however, the terrorists managed to reach Metro Cinema and an exchange took place between them and the police. Luckily, the three managed to escape unharmed and made their way to the apartment.

Back in the hostel, a few of us had gathered together in one room and were trying to find out what was happening. Our conversations were punctuated with explosion and sporadic gunfire. Those who had gone to the roof came back with a grisly tale of being witness to explosions tearing people apart in Cama Hospital next door. Then, one of the terrorists on the ground saw them and made as if to shoot them. The hostelites quickly abandoned the terrace and came down again to the relative safety of their rooms. Those of us who had gathered together kept looking out of our window, hoping not to see any terrorists on the campus. We kept getting calls from people frantic with terror, checking on us and asking us if we were safe. The hostel's General Secretary was busy trying to find out how many hostelites were outdoors. Meanwhile the terrorists had reached the narrow lane between the campus and GT Hospital and an altercation took place over there. Now the battle was truly happening all around us. Strangely none of us in the room were actually panicking. We were scared, no doubt, but not driven mindless. We kept our cool, continued talking in low voices and waited.

At last, around one in the morning, the gunfire ceased. We waited for another half-hour before concluding that whatever happened had ended, at least for now. We didn't know of course, that the Taj and Oberoi were still under attack (our hostel doesn't have cable tv and therefore, we couldn't check any news reports). Finally, around a quarter to two, I went back to my room and somehow drifted to sleep. I woke up again at around a quarter to six in the morning. The sky was turning a pale blue and dawn was not far off. I cautiously looked out of the window and I could make out several policemen on the roof of one of the buildings outside. I don't like giving in to dramatics a lot but as I munched an apple and watched the sun rise behind the dome of V.T. Station, I couldn't help feeling that it was an extremely unreal dawn. It was clearly going to be a long long day.

(Image: The view from the window of my room taken at approximately 6 AM on the day after the attack at VT Station. Please DO NOT reproduce this image anywhere without my prior permission)

Terrorism, Religion and Perceptions

Exams ended this afternoon and in celebration, a bunch of us decided to go and watch a movie. We ended up watching Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies (Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe) at Sterling Cinema. I wasn’t too sure if I was in the mood for a violent, grisly movie after the pain of exams (especially since the Indian Express had trashed it the previous day) but I changed my mind once it began. The movie was fantastic. It had all the usual Hollywood paraphernalia and quite a bit of hyperbole but it wasn’t the typical American-cowboy-turns-spy-and-saves-the-world-with-fancy-gadgets sort of movie. On the contrary, it portrayed a rather critical picture of the America’s so-called war on terror and the way American agencies operate while combating terrorists. The best part was that it ended the way I wanted it to end, leaving me rather pleased with the whole result.

Of course, one cannot rely upon Hollywood to provide accurate information on the inside working of the CIA, but I think it pretty much sums up how I view the issue of the war on terror – that terrorism is indeed the bigger threat but the Americans aren’t all that admirable either. While I do believe that American military intervention has given the world a few benefits – the removal of the Taliban from Afghani government for example – I also feel it has caused massive collateral damage. Americans are hated a lot more across the world and even generally tolerant nations now regard them with suspicion. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people are celebrating the financial crisis that is plaguing the American economy at the moment.

Having said that, I have to assert that fundamentalist terrorism is, any day, far worse than the Americans. The issue of fundamentalism is something I feel very strongly about. The absolute fanaticism with which these people (are they people?) embrace violence is ridiculous but at the same time, frightening. That men with minds of their own can twist and be twisted into murderous machines of destruction is a reality that is all too grim and unsettling.

Let’s consider the case of that brilliant young engineer who was arrested for being a member of the Indian Mujahedeen. I have forgotten his name at the moment, but I do remember news reports that said he used to get more than 95% in his exams and he was working for Yahoo! for a salary of almost 20 lakh rupees a year. Let’s also not forget those two equally brilliant professionals from Bangalore who a couple of years back, tried to set a British airport on fire. What prompted these intelligent young men to throw away everything that they had acquired through years of hard work and end up working against the very mechanisms that gave them such status?

I remember one passionate blogger (who said he was a Muslim) angrily call these men ‘dumbfucks’ because not only did they throw away their own careers and lives but also deepened the resentment of society against Muslims in general. I agree that these men are dumbfucks but why did they go down that violent path? A report (once again, in the Express) reported the Indian Mujahedeen member saying that he was attracted to religion because he had started to feel alienated after reaching the higher levels of society. Excuse me? If you feel alienated, does that mean you go and help those people who tear up innocent lives and cast them into oblivion? Do you consider that to be an act of religion?

Religion, country, community...what are all these concepts? They are just perceptions. They are just ways in which you look at society and society looks at you. Religion is not a bunch of laws in ancient books that have handed down from century to century. It is the way in which these laws are perceived. Tradition is not about what your ancestors used to do. It is about how you think you can best emulate your forefathers. Heritage is not some ancient relic that has stood the test of time. It is the emotion that this relic invokes in us. If one examines these concepts carefully, one will realize that all of them are...concepts. Emotions. Perceptions.

Human beings find it convenient and comfortable to classify the world around them into tiny little boxes so that everything becomes nice and organized. They then select a box that they have carved out for themselves and wage a war against all the other boxes. Hindus against Muslims, Christians against Jews, Maharashtrians against North Indians, Insiders against Outsiders, Us against Them...the list goes on. But they don’t just conduct a war on their own. They are always trying to acquire sympathizers and supporters from the other little boxes when they attack one particular box. To do this, they justify their actions with twisted logic. They quote verses from old books, they talk about culture, they rant and rave about outsiders. So what’s the worst part about all this? It works.

What the individual doesn’t realize is that the ultimate authority on any such matter is the individual himself. Every person ultimately ends up interpreting religion or culture in his or her own way. They try and associate these concepts with what they believe is happening around them. Religious authorities are just catalysts. The main reaction takes place within the individual’s own head. This is why a sentence like ‘Thou shalt preserve thy culture’ can interpreted by one person to mean living a traditional lifestyle and by another person to mean militaristic evangelism. Different people tend to view such statements differently.

The implications of this are enormous. When an individual realizes that the ultimate interpretation is made by her alone, she will be forced to use her own judgement and conviction during the process. One will no longer need to depend upon a religious person or authority for spiritual guidance. This ultimately means that religious authority will have lesser control over the minds of men, thus reducing the chances of manipulation. Religion will then become what you interpret religion to be, and not what somebody else considers it to be. One’s belief (or even disbelief) in God will become one’s own choice as will be the way in which they lead their lives.

My own religious beliefs have gone through a considerable amount of transformation over the last one year and some of my earlier posts in which I have written about my belief in God and religion are now no longer relevant in my life. But this is the way I believe it should be. One’s perception always changes with experience and it is important to gain as much experience as you can. This is why I believe that sticking fanatically to any concept will only retard your spiritual and mental growth in the long run.