Check This Out

The Senselessness of Party Loyalty

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:04:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:05:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:33:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:53:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:47:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:14:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:51:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:42:00 +0000

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.

Experimental Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:05:00 +0000

A few days ago, the scientists at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) commenced what is being touted as the largest and most expensive scientific experiment in history. They have activated a device known as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27 kilometre long (yes, 27 kilometres) tube super-cooled to 271 degrees below zero (that’s colder than much of outer space) which circulates sub-atomic particles within itself at extremely high speeds (approximately 99.999% the speed of light) and smashes them together in the hope of constructing a working model of the universe as it existed a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. These statistics alone are mind-boggling. What is even more amazing is that colliding two sub-atomic particles together in such a fashion is similar to (in CERN’s own words) “firing two needles, ten kilometres apart, at each other so that they meet halfway”.

In my opinion, this is truly one of those great times in scientific history that very few people have the privilege of witnessing, with other such moments including the 1919 solar eclipse experiment that proved Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to be correct and the legendary incident of an apple falling on Newton’s head (if it ever happened, that is). To me, this experiment is a symbol of how far man can go to satisfy his urge to seek and discover. There is a raw, intense craving that I can feel within these scientists. It is a desire so passionate and so furious, that my own self is humbled in front of it. I feel that the need to know the nature of things is the only thing that distinguishes man from animal and no set of human beings can exemplify this characteristic better than the scientific community.

Therefore, it really infuriated me when I realized how little most people in society knew about this experiment. Even if they did know anything about it, there was a lot of negativity regarding the whole issue. There were some superstitious fools who were convinced that it was the end of the world either because they thought the experiment would go wrong or (far worse), some mysterious omnipotent being (read God) will send down lightning and thunder to wipe out the human race as a punishment for their impunity. The worst (and most saddening) example was the one where a woman in Madhya Pradesh killed herself because she saw something about the experiment on the news and decided that the planet was doomed.

Many others I talked to were critical of the whole idea. Why go through so much trouble? They asked. Why spend so much money and time and effort for so little return? I have a bee in my bonnet with such people. I just hate it when they look at everything from the financial point of view. There are even some who try and convince me that it is criminal to waste so much money on something so trivial when there are millions who are starving. I was fairly outraged at their attitude because I have always supported scientific research and consider statements such as those above as personal attacks upon my beliefs.

However, childish outrage apart, when I introspected on matters again, I realized that some of these points need to be addressed. Most of those who made these arguments were genuinely concerned about what they considered to be an absolute wastage of resources and were demanding answers to their questions. I will get back to addressing the problem of superstition at the end of this article but let me concentrate on the other arguments for now.

So, let’s start the fight. Why should so much money and funding be pumped to answer a trivial question like “Why did the Big Bang occur”? Let me answer that question by saying that ‘trivial’ is a relative term. What one person considers trifling might be the world to another person. Twenty rupees may not mean much to a multi-millionaire but it can mean the difference between life and death to a starving man on the street. Issues such as the Big Bang, the chemistry of stars and ultimately the origin of the universe are not just scientific areas of interest. They are deeply philosophical issues as well and for these scientists (and others like me), gaining a deeper insight into the structure of the universe is another step towards gaining a deeper perspective about one’s own self. It’s about realizing the nature of one’s relationship with the environment in which one exists. Every member of society has the right to use society in a positive way to achieve personal satisfaction. In fact, that is the reason society exists – to provide a mechanism where every individual can maximize his or her own satisfaction as much as possible. For the scientific community, gaining more knowledge leads to such satisfaction.

Of course, society demands something in return. Naturally, it should. Nothing in world is free of cost and if one desires satisfaction, one must pay for it. So what returns does society get from supporting extensive scientific research? Well, firstly, society gets the knowledge acquired from such research. Most of us today do not realize it but almost everything that is a part of our daily life is a result of extensive, often expensive and time-consuming scientific research. Sometimes, the benefits of such research aren’t immediately acquired. When Michael Faraday demonstrated his findings about electricity in front of the King of England, the King chided him for investing in such unnecessary research. Faraday replied that one day, the King would be able to tax people for electricity consumption. It wasn’t until a hundred years later though, that Thomas Edison, Joseph Swan and Tesla pioneered the electrical revolution. Today, Faraday’s prediction has come true. And where would we be without electricity?

Secondly, there are a number of positive side-effects from scientific research. A large number of items that are used in daily life are the spin-offs from scientific research directed elsewhere. The best example of that is CERN’s most famous development – the World Wide Web. The internet started off as a communications network that eased co-ordination between various groups of scientists at the CERN Centre in Switzerland. CERN’s various devices have also been adapted by other organizations for entirely different purposes. For instance, CERN claims that the same method used in their CMS electro-calorimeter to study high energy physics and to search for new sub-atomic particles is used for medical imaging in positron emission tomography (PET) to study body functions and search for cancer.

And thirdly, there’s the educational aspect. Scientific research provides an opportunity for hundreds of bright minds to put their skills to the cutting edge. Scientific research is a challenge that a lot of people relish taking up. It opens up their minds, expands their horizon and provides fresh new perspectives of the world. Scientists have often remarked on how no feeling on earth beats the thrill of discovering some new, something rare and something that no one else has discovered before.

These then are a few arguments on why I feel scientific research should be given a lot of rope. The matter is, to a large amount, a philosophical one, no matter how much one tries to rationalize it and opinion on support for research eventually boils down to the basic ideology of the individual in question. However, though I can understand the scepticism of those who question the rationale behind supporting the cause of science, I refuse to accept their logic. Innovation is what stops any field from turning into a drab, mechanical affair. Such research-driven innovation is what keeps fields like engineering and medicine alive, influencing society directly. Scientific research might even help alleviate the very problems it seems to ignore – poverty, suffering and deprivation.

Before I conclude though, let me just add one last point. The one aspect of this affair that really disheartens me is how ignorant most of us are of scientific research and even science in general. There are news channels that promote experiments like the LHC Collision as ‘the end of the world’. There are films like Love Story 2050 which promote the notion that astrology and astronomy are the same. There are people who commit suicide on such issues. I really think we ought to make ourselves more aware of what is happening around us. Otherwise, you might be the next person considering suicide to be a good option.

A Long Rant on Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:44:00 +0000

Recent events in the Indian political scenario have made me quite sick and I am sure that it is making other people just as sick too. It is quite a painful process to open the newspaper in the morning and force yourself to read about the latest atrocities committed by our dear governments (be it the Central, the State or the Local governments). Some of these incidents are outrageously comical while others are downright sinister. It seems to me as if the quality of governance in this country has gone from the dogs to parasitic bacteria. And parasites they are, these politicians, playing subtle (and not-so-subtle) mind games to acquire as much power as they can.

Some events, such as the recent Amarnath land transfer issue has been positively scary. Though Kashmir had always been a hotspot for trouble in my lifetime, never have I felt such a strong current of separatism washing out of the state. For the probably the first time in years, I am really frightened of the consequences and repurcussions that may arise from a single incident such as this. But do the politicians care? I doubt it. They seem to be hardly concerned about the fact that Jammu & Kashmir might get embroiled in a dangerous inter-community clash. During normal times, this may be bad enough but coming at a time when there are other worries plaguing the nation - a slowing economy, rising prices, terrorism and political turmoil in neighbouring Pakistan - the Jammu & Kashmir row might just be the spark that will ignite the oil spill of destruction across the country. But though both the government and the opposition seem to be very interested in the development of affairs in Kashmir, they don't seem to display either caution or tact while handling this highly sensitive issue.

Why have we ended up like this? Why have ended up with gerontocrats whose only aim and ambition in life is to gather as much power before dying? Does one really want to know? Not really, because the answer is a rather discomforting thought. It is we who took matters out of our hands and placed both the power and responsibility on some one else. Most Indians seem to be proud of the fact that they are citizens of the world's largest democracy. I am not. I am not proud of that fact because it is not a fact at all. India, I recently concluded, is not a democracy.

Of Democracy

If India is not a democracy then what is it? In order to answer that question, one must review the very definition of democracy. Abraham Lincoln gave a very simple definition "A government of the people, by the people, for the people". Nothing really, can describe a democracy more lucidly. But for the sake of technicality, I quote the Oxford Dictionary meaning "A form of government in which people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives"

What do both these definitions have in common? Any fool can see that both definitions lay emphasis on people. Or more precisely, on power being a tool of the people. In other words, a democracy tries to contain the power of decision-making to the citizens of the democracy. But how? Oxford provides the answer: Through elected representatives. So what's new about that? India does have elected respresentatives. Ah, but that's the point - elected representatives are meant to ensure that power to make decisions lies with the citizens. In India, elected representatives don't do that - they keep the power with themselves.

Do the people have a voice?

Does the common citizen have any say in how the matters of the country are run? Yes, they can vote for or against a party once in five years. Let me repeat that - the only time the common citizen gets a chance to demonstrate political power is once in five years. Five years. In five years, a lot of things can happen - both good and bad. The government in power claims credit for the good times and lays blame on others for the bad. So, in almost ninety nine out of a hundred times, a government at the end of five years usually has a mixed report. This confuses the ordinary voter and ultimately, he or she either votes for a party because of some illogical loyalty or he or she will simply give up and not vote at all.

Let me come back to why India is not a proper democracy again. Examine the Lincoln definition of a democracy once more. A government of the people. The Indian political scene is not of the people at all. At least, not of common people like you and me. They consist of seasoned politicians who have either trained themselves or have been trained by someone else to retain as much political power as possible with themselves. Common people really have no voice in the Indian political system.

Take some government project as simple as say, tarring the roads in your neighbourhood. Firstly, the local government rarely listens to your complaints. Secondly, neither you nor your neighbours can decide which contracter is going to be responsible for the tarring of the roads. Thirdly, the duration and deadline of the project is decided by the government, not by you. And finally, the government has no obligation to complete the project and can abandon it whenever it feels like doing so. Strangely, all this is being done, for you.

The Reason for the Madness

Why is the situation so bad, even at a local level? The answer is simple. The situation is horrifying because, we as citizens take no interest in decision-making. We hardly ever bother about taking an active participation in the democratic process. A democracy doesn't function like that. If a government of the people, has no people in the first place then how can it be for the people? We citizens are happy to come to election booths once in five years, vote for someone and then sit back, expecting our representatives to work miracles.

Democracy is not the same as elections. As Ramesh Ramanathan, the founder of the NPO Janaagraha (where I volunteered this summer) put it "Don't move from E to F (Elect to Forget). Start with E and stay on E (Elect and Empower).". Citizens cannot just sit back and complain about the political system. They have to take an active part in it. That is what a democracy is all about. The process doesn't end with voting, it begins with it. After having voted for a candidate, it is the job of the citizens to make sure that their elected representative is doing a good job. Doesn't one do the same thing while hiring a new recruit for a company?

The Whys and Hows

But why should the citizens go through so much bother? Well, if you don't, you end with a scenario like today. When we vote for someone, we give them both power and responsibility. If there is no careful scrutiny to make sure that the powers are being used responsibly, the incentive to shirk responsibility is too high. There are few idealistic people in the world today, with even fewer being in politics.

All right, let's say one wants to be actively involved. How does one go about it? Unfortunately, there is no real concrete platform from where people can voice their concerns, especially on national issues. Urban areas, surprisingly, are much more at a disadvantage, legally, than rural areas because unlike rural areas, there is no equivalent of a panchayati system in cities.

So what does one do? For starters, one should get down from one's ivory tower. Secondly, one should start organizing oneself with others to form collective bodies to represent common concerns. Bureaucracy tends to listen more to organization than to individual. Thirdly, one should take a greater interest in what is happening around one's immediate locality and try to correct any faults within that locality. Only after this, can one try and work their way up to try and influence higher-level decisions.

Efforts are already underway in this direction. Organizations like Janaagraha and Lok Satta are pioneering a concept known as the 'Area Sabha' which may turn out to be the platform that urban citizens desperately need to address their concerns. Local welfare groups have been formed in many cities and many areas to interact with the government over matters regarding their interest. Efforts are on to mobilize rural areas as well. What is required right now is greater awareness followed by greater participation.

Through out this post, I have referred to the government as if it was an entity separate and distinct from the rest of society. The truth is far from it. The government at the end of the day, is an extension of our own selves. Ignoring it is not going to make it go away because contrary to whatever anarchism might say, the government is still the most viable form of self-rule. Remember that term. Self-rule.

Note: I wrote this piece in one long sitting around 1 AM in the morning. Therefore this piece may not have been all that great a read - both grammatically and argumentatively. My sincere apologies for that. Still, it's nice to rant and rave for a while!

Complaints of an Economics Student

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:33:00 +0000

The very first post on this blog was about how people in this country are obsessed with engineering. Looking back, I feel I was rather harsh in my criticisms. It's all very well to say that most people who take up engineering are doing so because they lack a sense of direction but let me be honest with myself...even if many of these people wanted to pursue any other stream, does the Indian system give them any honourable or respectable opportunities to do so?

A recent happening prompted me to consider this matter. Having just started my final year of undergraduation, I, along with most of my classmates, am feeling extremely apprehensive about my future and my career prospects. What job opportunities does a Bachelor of Arts scholar get in this country anyway, even if he is specializing in a practical field like economics? A Master of Arts in economics obtained from an Indian institution (apart from a rare Delhi or Madras School of Economics) is about as useful as a BMTC Bus Pass in Bombay. The only option for most of us is to either attempt to get into an MBA institute or try to gain admission into a good post-graduate programme abroad.

It was while weighing the pros and cons of the latter option that I came upon this interesting piece of news. A lot of good universities in the UK actually prefer to admit mathematics, engineering or statistics students from India into their economics programmes rather than economics graduates. In other words, if two Indian students - one a mathematics major and the other an economics major - from the same college or university applied to an economics course in the UK, the mathematics major has a better chance of getting admission to the programme as compared to the economics major.

Does this make any sense? Why should the specialist be shunted aside in favour of the non-specialist? The answer is that the specialist is not really a specialist at all. Economics today is one of the most dynamic fields to study in. The position of the consumer, the producer and the government change every moment from economy to economy and time to time. Modern economics is no longer merely a Keynes vs Friedman debate revolving around conflicting ideologies of capitalism or socialism...it is now extremely result-oriented and is the nearest humanities subject to an exact science. All this revolves around intricate quantitative and analytical tools that are used daily to solve major and minor economic problems. Therefore, the knowledge of quantitative subjects such as mathematics and statisitics is vital to an economics graduate today.

And yet, to me, it seems as if this transition of economics from dismal to dynamic has been barely noted by Indian universities. To give an example, the University of Mumbai's syllabus for B.A. programme (assuming the student chooses economics) is as follows:

I Year: One Economics paper (Micro-economic theory) along with one paper each of two other humanities subjects plus two language papers

II Year: Two economics papers (Macro-economic theory and Indian Economy) along with two papers each of the same two humanities subjects plus one additional component

III Year: Advanced Economic Theory, Growth and Development and Industrial Relations along with a choice between History of Economic Thought & Econometrics, Mathematics & Research Methodology and Financial Economics and Export Management

As one can see, the average student starts learning economics deeply only when he or she reaches the final year. He or she is introduced to mathematics and econometrics only in the final year. Other special subjects are also introduced only in the final year. Does the student care? Of course not, it's final year, all that he or she is bothered about is getting enough marks in the university exams. No one wants to learn anything apart from strategies on how to do well in exams.

Net result? The student who comes out as a graduate is (unless so talented that it shows) hardly considered employable by most organizations. Far worse, foreign universities are aware of how outdated most of the syllabii in Indian universities are. This is why they prefer a mathematics major to an economics major for their economics programme - atleast they know that a top-ranking mathematics student is good at quantative subjects whereas they cannot be sure with a top-ranking economics student. Can you blame them?

The bottom line of the whole business is that most students really have no choice. There is a sort of vicious cycle going on in the Indian education system today. Most courses are badly-designed, leaving their students with inadequate skills. This prompts most people to opt for courses like engineering which offer a compartively safer prospect. This creates a huge demand for such courses, leading to their development while a social stigma develops about streams like humanities. This in turn leads to further neglect of such courses bringing in another cycle of misery for everyone.

Any chance of change? Perhaps. There are some places where humanities courses are in great demand (like Delhi). Increasing fees for engineering and medical courses are making students and their parents consider options like commerce (a classic case of demand vs supply by the way!). Chartered Accountancy and Law are both gathering immense popularity among a small group of students thanks to a number of good institutes and their reputations. All this will hopefully put the attention on the woeful condition of syllabii and course structures in unconventional fields. But there is still a long way to go.

Two Views, Two Stands

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:09:00 +0000

There were two extremely interesting articles completely unrelated to business and economics in recent editions of Mint. The first one, 'A Battle About History' was written by T R Ramaswami who according to Mint is a "former commercial and investment banker" on the 23rd of May. Ramaswami examines one of the most debated phases in Ancient Indian History - the arrival of the Aryans and the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. This is an issue that has puzzled historians and archaeologists to a great extent. Why did the Indus Valley Civilization die out? Who were the Aryans? Where did they come from? Were they involved in the decline of the Indus Valley cultures? These are questions that have either no answers or hotly debated ones. Opinions abound on who the Aryans were and where they originated from.

Ramaswami is undoubtedly an 'Invasion Theory' supporter. The entire theme of his article can be summed up in his last few lines "Was Ram a Cossack, the most famed of all horse-people? Doesn’t “Valmiki” sound Russian, perhaps a corruption of Vladmikhailovich, who lived in the present Russian town named Sverdlovsk, formerly perhaps Swargalok?". He goes on to say that even if the Invasion Theory is incorrect, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata occurred outside India (possibly in Russia) and were then carried to India by the 'horse-people' where they became a part of folklore.

I may sound elitist over here, but I do believe there is a certain way in which articles ought to be written, especially those that deal with ambiguous issues such as this. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramaswami has not followed this path. There is an inherently I-know-everything attitude to the whole article that tends to sharply divide the readers into either enthusiastic supporters or angry rejectors. Sentences like "Here's what happened..." immediately invokes a "How does he know?" reaction from lots of readers including me. It's no small wonder that a brief glance at the comments section shows one a number of angry replies including some who advise Ramaswami to stick to being an investment banker and not venture into areas beyond his expertise.

The following week, there was a reply by a certain Jaykrishnan Nair who, according to Mint, maintains a history blog and "hosts the Indian History Carnival at Desipundit.com". The article is called 'Genetic Data Refutes Theory'. The difference between Nair's article and that of Ramaswami is starkly apparent. While Ramaswami's article was loud and declarative, Nair maintains a more subdued tone, being more analytical and technical in nature. Nair doesn't support the Invasion Theory and unlike Ramaswami, most of his statements don't appear to be speculative but rather backed by scientific data (more specifically DNA testing). To sum up the differences between the two, Ramaswami, seems to be shouting into a microphone while standing on a stage while Nair seems to be giving a quiet lecture in a small room. And I have noticed, that it is usually these personalized lectures that connect more easily with the audience than a massive congregation.

I am an Invasion Theory supporter myself (though not as over-the-top as Ramaswami) for a number of reasons but Nair's article has certainly made me re-examine my beliefs about history. It will take more than one newspaper article to change a fundamental part of my theories about Indian history but if confronted with enough convincing evidence, I may change my theories in the future.

Which brings me to another small point. It's all very well to criticize Ramaswami for inadequate research, tall claims and (in my case) bad writing but one thing I was offended about was how some comments on his article were directed at his occupation and why he "ought not to meddle in areas beyond his expertise". Please, for the sake of humanity, don't disbelieve someone's theory just because he's not an expert on them. Experts are not always correct and amateurs are not always wrong. And sometimes, it's good to bring in amateur theories because it cleans out years of clutter accumulated through experience. On that note, I'm signing off.

Different Puddles on One Pot-Holed Road

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:17:00 +0000

A few months ago, Mumbai ended up becoming a victim to politics yet again. Raj Thackeray and the MNS lauched an offensive against all north Indians in the city claiming that they took away the jobs of the local Marathi population. A thousand kilometres down south, a long-time resident of Bangalore verbally abused four men from Lucknow calling them "bloody northie outsiders who don't respect the law" (criticizing them for breaking the law is understandable, abusing their place of origin is not). Meanwhile the water wars between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu got worse...leading to even bigger kannadiga-tamilian clashes on both sides of the state border.

I often wonder, where exactly did we go wrong? Was it the demarcation of borders based upon language? Was it (in Bangalore's case) the sudden boom of the IT Industry and all its side-effects leaving local kannadigas desperate for some kannadiga-ness? Was it just apathy and casual neglect of politicians who capitalized on this sloth? Or was it a combination of all these factors? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is certain. This tendency to divide ourselves on the basis of origin has grown remarkably in recent years and shows no sign of stopping.

This tendency obviously existed in the past. The 1947 partition would not have happened without it. On a lighter note, the (in)famous north-south divide was brought about as a result of it. But there was something else that counterbalanced this tendency in those days, at least according to me. In the previous generations, there seem to have been a greater prevalance of an opposite tendency. The tendency to inculcate whatever culture one experiences without compromising on one's own native culture. Does it sound weird? It's not really as difficult as one might suppose it to be. Having never gone abroad, I do not know whether this counter-tendency is unique to Indians. If it is, it becomes all the more important to popularise it. After all, it was this ability of inculcation that has made India the amazing melting pot of cultures that it is today.

For instance, take the example of Sir.M.Visvesvarayya. This man, who has been labelled as the architect of modern Karnataka was born in the village of Muddenahalli in the Kolar district of present-day Karnataka. He studied at Bangalore, Madras and Pune. He then worked for the Public Works Deparment in Bombay, designed a flood protection system for Hyderabad, invented a method to prevent Vishakapatnam Port from soil erosion and was appointed Dewan (administrator) of the Mysore Princely State. As one can see, both his studies and his work took him places. This was in the 1900s. Way before high-speed boeings and airbuses allowed travel from one end of the country to another in a day. Cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad were not the urban metropolises (or nightmares) that they are today and culture shock was probably far more common. But Sir M.V. did not let these things affect him. Unlike so many people today, he did not believe that his entire value system had collapsed whenever he ended up in a new city or region. Instead he just concentrated on getting his work done. Language, culture and food were meant to be taken in stride. He was never caught trumpeting his own culture and trashing anyone else's.

Whenever I hear patriotic activists demanding the abolition of certain languages in schools or attacking other communities, I remember Maasti Venkatesh Iyengar. In these days of kannadiga-tamilian clashes, it should be noted that Maasti's mother tongue was tamil and though he was born in Kolar, he was of a tamilian family. And yet, Maasti is today renowned as one of the greatest poets of 20th Century kannada literature. In fact, most students of kannada would probably know that people called him "Maasti, kannada da aasti" (Maasti - Kannada's asset). Another famous kannada writer V.K. Gokak was a professor of English. Girish Karnad's mother tongue was konkani. Yet both these writers are famous for producing works in kannada. All this seems extremely ironical in today's circumstances but I don't think it mattered much at the time. But just imagine - by politicising certain issues and elevating it to the level of a clash of cultures (as in the case of the kaveri issue) how many writers and poets are we antagonizing and preventing from contributing to our language? Or for that matter, since the issue goes both ways, how many kannadiga writers are being antagonized into rejecting other languages and never adding more to their literature? For me, what matters is that both sides are losing out in this so-called, mountain-out-of-a-molehill clash of languages. By all means, the Kaveri issue must be sorted out. But can it not be done without both sides yelling insults on the other side's language and culture? But I guess people are too stupid to stop listening to politicians.

I can think of several other examples where people have learnt to accomodate new cultures into their lives. I don't even need to mention famous people. My own great-grandfather, a kannadiga by birth, used to deal with the manufacturing of sugar. He first started in Mandya, Karnataka before shifting to the northen sugar belt in modern-day Uttar Pradesh. Based in the town of Mansurpur (near Muzzafarnagar), he was miles away from anywhere near his place of birth or his community. His mother used to visit him occassionally. She could not speak any language other than kannada. But that did not prevent her from sitting with her son's neighbours and somehow attempt to converse. No one knew how she managed it but she always somehow got around the language barrier and converse with her neighbours. She didn't need Abhishek Bacchan and his watt-an ideeyaah cellphone. Similarly, I have either personally known or heard of several people who had biographies such as being born in Mysore, educated at Pune, sent to work at Vizag and retiring to Chennai. They all managed to assimilate all these cultures perfectly well while speaking excellent kannada simply because it's their mother tongue.

There are still people today who are as multi-cultural as shown above but their population is dwindling. This is one community I'm desperate to join but I've still got a long way to go (improving my hindi for a start). Unfortunately, other people do not seem to be interested. On one side we have anglicized wannabe-americans (a group which I was once a part of) who wish to have nothing to do with Indian culture and on the other side, we have narrow minded cultural fanatics who seem to love bashing up other communities (a group I don't want to have anything to do with). If I have to choose between the two, I'd prefer the wannabe americans, but on the whole, I yearn for a greater number of multi-cultural people in society. The interaction of cultures is neither a clash nor a zero-sum game where one culture has to win over the other. India is a splendid place to experience a spectrum of customs, languages, literature and food (the last one being the most important). This isn't an opportunity to be missed.

What shapes you up...

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:04:00 +0000

If I think about it carefully, my own character doesn't seem to have been inspired by those great and magnificent people we learned about in school. Gandhi, for example, featured prominently in all my moral science classes but all I could make out was that he was someone who ate meat, felt guilty about it, confessed to his mother and never ate meat again. As a vegetarian myself, I felt slightly proud that a man who my teacher apparently admired (believe me, those were pretty rare from my point of view) ate meat only once in his life. But apart from that, I got nothing out of the story.

And then there was Ambedkar. The people who set our syllabus seemed pretty obsessed with him and at the beginning of every new year, it became a practice for all of us to go through all our textbooks and find the Ambedkar chapter first. Never fear, he was always there in at least one textbook. Every year, the story was the same. Ambedkar was stripped in class, made to stand in a corner, away from all upper-caste students and was not allowed to touch the water jug. Now before some self-righteous squirt jumps upon me to defend Ambedkar, let me state that I have the highest respect for him but when I was an eight year old kid, this story made no sense to me at all. From what I could make out (at THAT AGE mark you) was that Ambedkar later became a very famous man who abolished such practices. So if such practices are banned now, shouldn't our teachers just tell us not to treat people in that way and leave it at that? Why should we bother learning about the same incident year after year until we got sick of it? In fact, I had gotten so sick of it by Class Eight, I had actually begun to resent him and his annoying habit of popping up year after year in our textbooks and us being forced to write about him in exams. I tell you, if you ever want people to grow up resenting some one, put him in their school textbooks.

No, the repeated drilling of someone's childhood story into my brain didn't teach me anything. Instead, what really got me interested in the concept of untouchability and the social stigma attached to it was a touching story by a man called Shankar in a picture book called Life with Grandfather. Having grown up with my grandparents myself, I could easily identify with the story's protagonist, a small boy called Raja. In one of the chapters of this book, Raja started making friends with a housemaid (whose name I've forgotten) who is an untouchable. The maid starts treating Raja like her own child but she does this behind his grandfather's back since she's extremely frightened of "Big Master". However, grandfather does find out and he is so furious that he banishes the maid from the house and takes Raja for a "purification" ritual.

What really made me wonder is how somebody like grandfather who doted upon his only grandson (as my own grandfather doted upon me) could be so cruel when it comes to untouchables. I think that the story made me realize that most upper-caste people who discriminated against untouchables didn't do so because they were inherently cruel or were natural sadists who sought pleasure by stamping down upon lower castes. These otherwise kind and generous persons (the grandfather in the story was respected widely for his benevolence) had been misled or programmed by some stupid social norm into hating lower caste people. This story taught me that naively hating or retaliating at people who commit such atrocities is not really the answer. A few years later, I figured (again with the help of the same story) that to get rid of something like untouchability, one must remove the mindset, not just merely punish the perpetrators. I came to this conclusion when I was twelve. No moral science textbook had ever taught me such an important lesson. Another important thing that this story taught me was that few characters are purely black or white. Like grandfather, most of us are shades of grey.

However, nothing really challenged my beliefs as much as that amazing comic strip Calvin & Hobbes. Here was this six-year old terrorist and his feline companion who had absolutely no time for social norms or etiquette. They lived for themselves and they lived to challenge the world. I, a boy who was (and to some extent, still is) a wimp who righteously detested any sort of anarchy found Calvin somewhat weird. But at the same time, Calvin often displayed emotions that strongly mirrored my own, only Calvin was more vocal about his opinions. More importantly, this aggressive philosopher made me think. For instance, check out the raccoon story at the beginning of the post. That particular story has been a greater comfort to me than any religious text or philosophy textbook. "What a Stupid World" :D sums it up pretty well.

Here's another one.

I had always been a pro-animal supporter to some extent (by which I mean I don't go to the fanatical level of some PETA activists and at the same time hate senseless killings) but I had always been trounced by need-to-curb-excessive-population reason for hunting. This strip gave me the answer to that argument.

This one however, is my favourite.

An only child like Calvin, I was more or less alone during my childhood and was forced to resort to imagination to keep myself company. I would often get lost in huge expansive landscapes like the one above created exclusively for me by my brain. As I get set to enter my twenties however, I have more or less ceased these activities. My family members no longer need to be converted into aliens or superheroes because I see them doing superhero stuff as they live life everyday. And I'm positively scared of blasting off into space and exploring other planets because I don't want to come back and find out that too much has happened and I have lost a lot of time which I could have spent with my family at home. Still, an occasional flight to Epsilon Eridani or the Andromeda galaxy does help tide over the monotony of life.

So you see, school never really shaped my opinions about life and society. It gave me knowledge but didn't tell me how to use it. In junior college, we were all forced to attend classes where we learned about "the superiority of Indian culture and the beauty of integrating the best of the east and west". After that, I didn't stop hating Indian culture until I went to classical music concerts out of my own free will and learned to appreciate the subtlety of Indian music on my own. I guess it shows that if you try and force something down my throat, I'll won't be able to enjoy it.

A Warm and Prosperous Future?

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:25:00 +0000

I have often wondered a lot about speeches made by politicians during elections and after them. I have never ever heard a single speech that ended with me rooting for the speaker. Sometimes, I wish I could hear a speech like what follows. The problem is that these politicians are so snake-tongued that I can never trust a politician's speech. What matters is his or her work. And you can never know anything about a politico's work until he or she's in power. Sheesh. Anyway, here's a speech I would like to hear.

---

My fellow Indians, tomorrow is going to be a very special day for you and for me. Tomorrow will be the first day of polling. This evening, I will make before you my final speech before the results are declared. I do not deny that I am nervous. One is always nervous when confronting so big for the first time in his life. But I do my best to keep my nervousness down because I know that no matter what, the future is going to be hectic for me and being nervous is not going to help.

During canvassing, I have visited many places, met many people and promised many things. My party has promised you many things. I have talked about our country and its rich history. I have talked about the incredible diversity and sheer potential of its people. It has only been in the past few months that I have realized how vast, how glorious and how magnificent our country is. I have also realized, my friends, that taking charge of the administration of a nation such as this is a huge, incredible responsibility. To protect what is precious in our land is not easy. Neither is making sure that the nation innovates as much as possible at the same time in order to keep ourselves growing.

If indeed i am elected to the post I aspire for, I have an amazing team of people, skilled in various fields and talented at various levels to help me. To help you. To help our nation. But over the past few months, I have realized that this is not enough. No matter how educated or how talented a cabinet of ministers is, no matter how dedicated and conscious the government can be, it is not possible to solve each and every problem that occurs in a country as huge and diverse as ours. I'd like to share something with you, my fellow Indians. No government, on its own, can ever do enough.

Politicians in this country have time and again promised you millions of things over the last sixty or seventy years. Have you ever wondered why so few of these promises have ever been fulfilled? I will tell you. Our goals and aspirations have never been achieved because every government that ever came to power thought too much of itself. Every government, every minister, every politician believed that to be in power is to literally be in power. They believed that to be a part of the government was to control each and every thing that happened within our borders (and sometimes outside our borders as well). Even in these days of liberalisation, the government still believes that it is capable of doing anything it wants, whenever it wants. Which, of course, is not true. A country so huge and incredible like India can never be bound completely by the whims and fancies of the government.

But do you want to know something else, my fellow Indians? My travels in India have taught me another sad fact. The people of India have over the years, come to believe the same thing. Indians today, have this mindset, that the government is behind everything. A number of people believe that the government alone and no one else can save them from their problems. Ironically, the other section of the population believes that the government is the cause of every problem in this country because only the government has the power to cause such problems! Whatever you may believe, my fellow Indians, a lot of you seem to believe that the only body responsible for anything is the government and its affiliated bodies. The sad truth today is that most Indians prefer to sit back and wait for the government to do something for them. Others prefer to stand up and oppose the government on whatever it does.

The fact, my people, is that the government is helpless without you. This brings me back to my original point. No government can ever achieve much on its own. The responsibility is too great. Every government needs help. We will need help, if we get elected. During these last months, you have seen political parties go crazy, promising you unlimited water, free electricity, reservations for various castes, a solution to the Kashmir problem, elimination of terrorism...in short everything under the sun, including the moon. My party however, will offer you only one thing. We offer you a partnership. We can offer you nothing else because we cannot do without you. And you cannot do without us.

A politician in another country, decades ago said "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". I would like to say something similar. Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do with your government. We want you to be a part of what we do. Not just once every five years during elections but everyday and every hour. Our government, people of India, will neither be a benefactor nor an enemy. It will be a friend and a partner whose greatest wish is to help you realize your true potential. We want you to use the government to uplift yourselves.

How will we go about this? If we get elected, my people, I will want you to stand with us every single minute for the next five years. Everyday, I will want you to look around you and see what is happening. Has the neighbourhood school been opened? No? Why not? Find out. Don't just rely on the media though the media is a powerful tool and is well worth using. Find out on your own. Have the roads been completed within the deadline? No? Why haven't the contractors been penalized? Find out.

More importantly, people of India, I want you to keep yourselves informed. In the next two years, I hope to see lots of libraries and resource centres within every citizen's reach. I want you to use them. Learn. Don't just rely on the syllabus taught at school and college. Go out and learn about policies. Get onto the internet and read about economic theories and history. Develop your own views about what happens in the world and in society around you. Do not mindlessly follow the views of others. Ask for proof and evidence to validate their views as well as your own. My party hopes to increase the literacy rate in this country to as high a level that can be humanly possible in five years. But the real journey begins afterwards. I want to see every literate citizen become a responsible citizen and within a couple of decades I hope to see every citizen a literate citizen.

But that is not enough. I will warn you right now, that there might be pain. Some policies that we frame might seem harmful and against the people who voted for us. In fact, there will be some pain. I cannot deny that. But during those times, I hope that you will not abandon us but trust us, as a friend trusts a friend. Believe me when I say that this pain will be temporary. To achieve some gain, there always will be some pain. Please stick with us during those times and do not lose faith in us. Again, keep yourselves informed and try to understand why we will frame our policies in such a way. We will not try and stop you from knowing these reasons. Believe me, these will be for the good of the nation.

I am speaking as if we have already won the elections but of course, the choice to elect us still lies with you. Remember that as friends and partners, you have as much responsibility in administrating this country as any government. So tomorrow, I hope to see each and every eligible Indian come out and vote. Whether you vote for us or not, show us that you take your responsibilities seriously and care for what happens around you and to you as much as we do. That alone will give our party the strength to carry on...whether we win the elections or lose. After all, if you think about it, neither your responsibility nor ours will change due to the elections. All that'll change is our perspective.

So, here's wishing you, people of India, a very good night and a warm and prosperous future

----

What do you think? Reckon you'd vote for this politician?

Life and Death

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:51:00 +0000

Until recently, I used to be a guy who was extremely afraid of death. Most of us choose to ignore it and get on with our lives. Death always seems to happen to someone else and we pretend that that is the way things are. We refuse to accept that one day it will be our eyes that will close for ever and it will be around our limp bodies that loving relatives (if we were loved enough) will gather and grieve. That, to me, was a frightening prospect. The thought of dying one day terrified me.

What was most frightening about death was the uncertainty that surrounded it. No one knows when and where they are going to die. No one knows how they will die. Until it’s too late, that is. Death is the last threshold, the final frontier to cross in one’s life. The greatest uncertainty of all is whether there is something after death. If there isn’t anything, what then? What use are all my accomplishments and achievements if in the end what I get in return is a permanent blackness that will never go away? That used to be my attitude. Until recently.

What happened to me a couple of days ago was nothing short of miraculous. The thing that was so incredible about it was that it all happened in my head. There were no external factors to influence this thought process (unless I counted all those nerdy, scientific books I’ve been reading – and these couldn’t have been more than a distant, subtle influence). It was as if the answer to all my fears was within my head and it just came out by itself.

The key to the answer was to think rationally. Rather than asking why we die, why don’t I ask why we live? Life is a sort of contradiction. Why should life exist at all in this universe? Billions of years ago, for some reason, in the middle of a frothing, seething soup that covered the planet, a few molecules got together and began interacting in a funny way. Billions of years later, those molecules have multiplied and reside within each and every one of us. Why? What are the chances of such a phenomenon occurring? The fact that life came into existence is so thunderously phenomenal that it ought not to have happened.

So you see, the fact that we live is weirder than the fact that we die. The old cliché that “death is natural” takes on a whole new meaning. Death is natural. In fact, it is far more natural than life. The whole universe is in a process of stabilization. Heavy elements like Uranium break down to become lighter, more stable elements. Volatile elements like potassium combine almost immediately with other elements to form more stable compounds. Unstable lava solidifies to become stable rock. Life on the other hand is not about stabilization. It’s about the reactions that take place during the stabilization process. Life thrives upon reactions. Our bodies, no matter how stable they are, are hosts to hundreds of reactions that keep us moving. Therefore, in a stabilizing universe, a bunch of reactions that fuel our bodies cannot be expected to last for ever. The fact that they took place at all is incredible. That is why death, which is the final stabilization in our lives, has to occur. It is natural.

That is when I realized that life is a greater mystery than death. Why did life occur? And why do we exist? Do you know that when two genetic units combine to form a new strand of DNA, the number of permutations and combinations that can occur to shape the characteristics of the new gene runs into millions? And yet, for some reason, not yet known to us, when an egg is fertilized by a sperm, only one set of characteristics emerge and it is this set that makes up the baby which will later be born. Why that particular set? How and why did nature decide what the colour of my eyes and how deep my voice will be? You, who is reading this blog, could have easily been of the opposite sex or have your mother’s smile instead of your father’s but you don’t. Why?

Some people will say “It’s all a part of god’s great plan” Fine. But, assuming that god exists, why should he or she plan it this way? Why did god choose you to be born before your little sister and not the other way around? But I’m digressing from the topic. The point I’m trying to make here is that the phenomenon of life is far more mysterious than the phenomenon of death. And I used to brood too much on what was far less mysterious.

Like I’ve said before, my biggest fear about death used to be the uncertainty that surrounded it and (im) possibility of life after death. But thinking rationally again, our belief in life after death depends upon our definition of life. How can we define life? Is life a situation where a piece of matter can sense what goes around it, reacts to these happenings and (in the case of intelligent life) contemplates about them? In that case, life is nothing more than collection of information, processing it to obtain results and acting upon that information.

If life is such, then our views about life after death become very easy to frame. If life is collection of, processing of and reacting to information, then there can be no life after death because once your sense organs stop functioning, there can be no collection of information. If there’s no collection, there can be no processing and if there is no processing, there can be no reaction. Life ends with death and nothing goes on.

But a lot of us (I say ‘us’ because I include myself in this group) have a ‘gut feeling’ that there is more to life than just a flow of information. There is something greater, higher and more supreme than just simple information when we think of the concept of life. But if this is true, then as of now, we have no clue about what this greater, higher part of life is. We have to try and find out what this is but as of now, we have no idea. But if our gut feeling is true, then this higher, greater thing should be able to survive the death of flow of information. In that case, there is nothing to worry about because something will survive after death.

And should we worry if the answer is otherwise and nothing survives after death? No, simply because there is nothing we can do about it. As I have already pointed out, life is a far more interesting and incredible concept than death. It will do everyone good if we stop worrying about death and start wondering about life and living it properly.

On the Subject of God

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:50:00 +0000

A friend of mine recently passed me this book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a scientist whose name I am familiar with thanks to his previous work The Selfish Gene. When showing me the book, my friend commented “It’s a highly controversial book…but extremely thought-provoking.” Now that I have started reading it, I feel that no other description is more apt.

The God Delusion, in one sentence, is an argument against the existence of god. Now you can see why my friend considered it controversial. In these days, when fanatics from every religion are ready to jump down your throat and claw their way out, even thinking about the non-existence of god is blasphemy. Indeed, ‘blasphemy’ is the term that is used by most English-speaking evangelists (of any religion) while referring to such atheistic beliefs. I have to admire Dawkins’ guts. Not only does he have to contend with hot-headed religious crusaders who will be ready to throw him down the nearest available volcano but also with aghast academic theologians, mortified television evangelists, affronted ritualistic priests, hurt spiritual gurus and last but definitely not the least, a largely god-believing public who think he’s either joking or eccentric (or both). I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s physically attacked by some zealot in the near future.

Why does God make us so emotional? Let’s face it, most of us do not involve god in our daily lives apart from a morning prayer. Whether or not, God grants us success in our lives, most of us do not have any objection to labelling these successes as our own. A lot of us tend to remember god only during dark and difficult times. I do it myself. There’s this popular e-mail that keeps coming back to my account about god and man walking on a beach, leaving two sets of footprints except at more rough places where there is only one set. Man accuses god of abandoning him during hard times but god replies that the one set of footprints belongs to god and he was carrying man in his arms during those times. A rather warm fuzzy story but one which is also truthful. Far from god abandoning man during difficult times, it is man who abandons god during good times. Neale Donald Walsh in his book Conversations with God describes a scene where god tells him “When disease doesn’t exist, people don’t need doctors; when legalities don’t exist, people don’t need lawyers; when conflict doesn’t exist, people don’t need armies; therefore when problems don’t exist, people don’t need God!” Though I’ve taken this sentence slightly out of context, I don’t think people will disagree with the views I’ve put forth over here.

There are millions, especially in India; however who will disagree with me. They’ll claim that god is an integral part of their daily lives. I can just imagine those indignant replies that will be directed at me right now
“How dare you say that, I say? I pray to god at least twice a day. I go to temple once every week. I perform seven pujas a year! If this is not devotion, then what is?”
“I am a devout follower. I perform namaaz every day. I go to the mosque every Friday. I have already gone on Haj once and will go at least two more times. Allah is forever guiding my life.”
“I call myself religious. I go to church every Sunday. I say prayers every night. I’m the one who says grace before every meal, thanking god for what he has provided us. And I am not the only one. There are hundreds like me who involve themselves with god everyday.”

But is this really devotion? Is one’s extent of devotion really measured by how many pujas you perform, how many times you go on Haj or whether you say grace before meals or not? This is the biggest mistake that most religious people make. How many self-declared religious people actually contemplate their nature of existence, on the structure of this universe, on the beauty of this world that we live in or even dwell on the existence and nature of god? Do they ever seek to question why certain things happen in their lives? No. Most people will simply say “It’s god’s will.” But why? Why should god do what he (or she) is doing to you? Why should god grant some people extreme success while punishing others with failure even if the respective parties worked equally hard at achieving their objectives?

To some, that might be blasphemy. But to me, there is no greater objective in any spiritual or religious quest. When a mother tells her daughter that the latter should not consume drugs, the daughter doesn’t blindly obey. She’ll want to know why. If the mother exerts her authority and says “I’m your mother and I’m saying so. That’s why!”, the daughter will go on and try drugs anyway because she wasn’t satisfied with the given answer.. Yet when the gods apparently told us “People of lower castes are polluting.”, nobody wanted to know why. They just blindly obeyed what was written in the Manusmriti and as a result our country is fiercely divided today. Why don’t more people question what is written in our ancient texts? By this I don’t mean just Hindu texts or Muslim works or Christian writings but every religious document in the world that orders society to follow some path in life or the other. I’m not saying that one should blindly rebel against these teachings. By questioning, one should ascertain what principles and laws that are listed in these writings are beneficial to one’s life as well one’s society and what are not. Then, one should incorporate the beneficial parts into one’s life and expel the irrelevant or dangerous parts. That’s the way a society progresses.

What are my personal beliefs? I don’t agree with Dawkins’ view that god doesn’t exist. I guess according to him, I would be labelled a deist. I find it hard to believe that this perfectly structured universe with a number of amazing natural laws was not created by some superior intelligence. I like to think of this universe as a computer programme, ordered to evolve by itself from a few basic laws and constraints which have been fed into the programme by some super-intelligent programmer. The programmer then sits back and watches his world develop gradually. He or she does not intervene, he or she does not interfere. He or she just watches. He or she is neither cruel nor benevolent. He or she just is.

Richard Dawkins classified believers and non-believers into seven different categories ranging from blind devotion to blind atheism and including everything in between (to know more about this classification, read the book – page 73). I personally feel I am a mixture of category 2 and category 6 – I strongly believe in the existence of god but I live my life as if god doesn’t exist. Of course, there are dire circumstances where I abandon all my theories and just pray, hoping to attract the attention of that great programmer and force him or her to intervene. But this is only when I have exhausted all my other options and is more for my own personal comfort and hope than for anything else. And if the dreaded event does pass, I attribute it to god if no other reason can be found.

Meanwhile, I’m hoping to finish The God Delusion before I’m declared a heretic.

Musing on Movies

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:31:00 +0000

Indian cinema is often classified into two categories. Firstly, there is the so-called commercial type. Films belonging to this category are the most recognizable films made in India and the characteristics of these films, I heard, are now considered to be the hallmarks of a typical bollywood film everywhere. These movies often showcase an escape from the reality - exotic locations, expensive cars that never seem to lose their pearl-glow finish (unless they are doomed to be utterly destroyed in a chase sequence), dance numbers that are a riot of colour and noise, gravity-defying action and a happy ending that leaves everyone feeling good about themselves.

P.G. Wodehouse once remarked that there are two types of comedy - one is the romantic type of the sort he writes ignoring reality in general and just having fun and the other type goes deep into life and doesn't give a damn about anything else (a good example of this is J.K. Jerome's Three Men in A Boat). The same can be said for Indian cinema. If the commercial cinema in India is analogous to the romantic type of comedy, the 'parellel' cinema of India can be considered to be the other type that examines life in detail. Often, this genre goes ignored by the public in general but these are the films that usually win awards at international film festivals. Refusing to be driven by glitz or glamour, they focus on the 'reality' of Indian society and the problems that bog it down.

But what depresses me the most is that there are very few films that can actually take the best of both genres and produce a good film that can actually be watched. A pretty good example of this type is Being Cyrus starring Saif Ali Khan, Boman Irani, Naseeruddin Shah and Dimple Kapadia. I don't really feel that Being Cyrus can be classified as either parellel cinema or commercial cinema. But it has borrowed a lot of elements from both genres. The cinematography and the setting of the film reminded me of movies that are normally classified as parellel cinema but the storyline and the casting were clearly developed with a hopeful eye on the mainstream audience.

There are also a lot of commercially-oriented movies that have a certain aura about them that other films of the same category don't. The year 2001 had four major blockbusters - Lagaan, Dil Chahta Hai, Gadar and Kabhi Khushi Khabie Gham. Six years later, most people have forgotten Gadar and remember K3G only when Karan Johar appears in their lives or when they're required to give an example of a movie with a superstar cast. Lagaan and Dil Chahta Hai however are still recalled with fervour. Of course, Lagaan's nomination for the Oscars and the recent DVD release might have helped, but there's no denying that Lagaan had class in spite of a rather incredulous storyline. I still consider DCH to be a turning point in Indian cinema, a film that abandoned tried and tested formulae and yet managed to pull it off.

But what's with the scene nowadays? Every friday, I'm bombarded with atleast a dozen films of various shapes and sizes all vying for my eyeballs. Yet how many of these films have even a remote chance of being remembered a few years from now? How many people would eagerly turn on their televisions in another five years to watch these films again? Yeah sure, a lot of these films are basically money-spinners, not classic hopefuls but still, there has to be a limit on how many of these movies we are confronted with. And so many of these films are so similar that I often find it difficult to distinguish one movie from another.

Well, I just hope the trend changes.

Be Careful With Those Scissors

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:19:00 +0000

I've really had it with these politicians. What in the name of god's heaven do we elect them for? To take care of our needs, right? To ensure that every one gets food, clothing, shelter, education and a good standard of living, no? Did we elect politicians to yell insults at each other? Did we elect them to get offended at anything and everything that happens within 7000 kilometres of the Parliament? Did we elect them so that they can go and fill up our already overburdened courtrooms with stupid Public Interest Litigations on how their honour and integrity has been insulted?

Yeah, you read that right. I've just read a news article about some Congress Party worker in Tamil Nadu filed a case against Rajnikant and Adlabs. What for? He claims that the recent Rajnikant blockbuster Sivaji (produced by Adlabs) insults Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. I had recently seen Sivaji myself and had thoroughly enjoyed watching Rajni being the Bachelor of Social Service (The BOSS) and beating up goons twice his size in abandoned godowns. Neither Sonia Gandhi nor Manmohan Singh made a surprise guest appearance. In fact, the Congress's haath was never seen waving a hello in this movie for the aam aadmi.

OR DID IT? This Congress Worker who I was talking about claims that both Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi could be seen in the film. I was astonished. "Where? Where?" I yelled, frantically digging into my memory for a glimpse of this exalted pair. There cried the agonized social servant, pushing his Congress ka Haath out of the newspaper and pointing at the scene in the villian's office. Ah, yes, there they were, standing next to the villian himself in teeniest of desk photographs on the villian's desk that appeared in the film for about seven seconds.

Blast them. They file a case in court for seven seconds of film? And that too, because of an insignificant photograph that I would have never remembered if it hadn't been for this Congress Worker? Let me see. The villian's office was in a hospital called Adi Hospital but which was clearly recognisable (to me at least) as M S Ramaiah Medical College in Bangalore. Did any student of this college file a case saying Rajnikant and Adlabs were insulting his college and his own college board should be pulled up for portraying M S Ramaiah as a criminal's establishment? Should the people who built that table in his office file a case because the film makers portrayed their product as a villian's table? Should cleanliness inspectors file a case saying that the film is making a mockery of their job because the villian's office looked clean?

I actually did notice that photograph but completely forgot about it later. I wonder what the congress worker will think if I tell him that the first impression I got was that that the villian had just doctored that photo so that he can portray himself as a good guy. In other words, the first thing that occurred to me was that the photograph was fake and I was applauding the director for his attention to such detail. But obviously I was wrong. I'm not supposed to think like that. Shame on me.

I think these self-styled censors and activists are the worst thing that is happening to society. They find fault with anything. The Shiv Sena did just that when they demanded a ban on Orkut. They claimed that all Orkut had was 'I Hate India' groups that were 'dangerous to the nation'. Firstly, making cheap remarks about India on an online forum isn't dangerous, it's just cheap. And secondly, for god's sake, there are plenty of 'I Love India' and 'Jai Maharashtra!' groups as well. There are even some pro-Shiv Sena groups on Orkut. Why must they only look at the 'I hate India' groups? Some claimed that Orkut corrupts young people. On the contrary, I've never seen a better platform for people residing in different parts of the country to come together and discuss relevant issues like reservation and communalism - topics that need to be discussed. Of course, there are some sad, twisted individuals who seem to get a sadistic pleasure out of misusing Orkut. But for every one of these sorry people, there are two others who use Orkut positively. Should you deny the latter a chance to interact with people like themselves?

As far as I'm concerned, such demands for banning or litigations against a few seconds of film isn't social activism. These so-called activists claim to represent the wishes of Indian society and the Indian public. They don't. All they represent are their own wishes and their own feelings. And I think it's time they admit it. It's time they realized that not everyone in society agrees with them on what constitutes insult and slander. Face it, there are people who don't like Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. There are people who are both sadistic and bored, so they make caustic comments on whatever they want. Banning them won't get rid of their attitude. Besides, you can't deny Indian citizens the right to insult who they want to insult because it's a free country and they have a right to express their feelings about something or somebody. If you really want them to go, engage in a discussion with them and make them see your point of view. Don't take the easy way out, you'll only end up tripping yourself.

Of Presidents, Elections and Woman's Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:16:00 +0000

I have made my views clear about how much I loathe the current presidential elections. There is only one word for it - fiasco. I don't know (and I don't care) who's comparatively better but I do know (and care) that whether it's Shekhawat or Patil, this country is doomed. Neither of them seem to fit in Rashtrapathi Bhavan. Do we want a president who claims to channel spirits? A president who seems to have scammed several account holders in her co-operative bank? Or do we want a president who's so cheap that the first image that comes to your mind is that of some sort of political lackey, looking adoringly at fellow politicians while taking the vilest potshots at his rivals?

But what infuriated me the most is how everyone went agog about the fact that Patil might be the first female President of the country. What of it? Are people really such fools to believe Woman's Rights are going to be uplifted the moment Patil assumes office (if she does get elected that is)? Please. When Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister (which is a realistically more powerful office than that of the President), Woman's Rights hardly went anywhere. On the contrary, the much broader concept of Human Rights went down the drain with the imposition of the Emergency. At the risk of sounding misogynist, we don't necessarily need a woman to improve the quality of life for women. We need concerned people who are conscientious about what they do, regardless of their gender. Frankly speaking, I cannot see Patil in that position.

Feminism has always been a hotly debated topic. While it is generally agreed that discrimination against women exists in many societies in the world, a lot of people in a particular society often disagree as to what constitutes discrimination. For instance, when voting rights to women was granted in western countries during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most opponents to this act did not consider Denial of Voting Rights as a form of discrimination.

Similarly, in India, subtler forms of discrimination still exist. The concept of a Woman Staying At Home was so firmly embedded in social consciousness that when women first started working at offices, most people, including other women, labelled them as impertinent, ultra-rebellious or even unfaithful to their husbands. That image of a working woman thankfully no longer exists in most urban areas of India today but it seems to be still rooted in rural and semi-urban parts of the country.

Apart from this particular idea, there seems to be a lot of opinion on what a Good Indian Woman should be like. Good Indian Women are often expected to be submissive, to never disobey their husbands or parents and to keep a low profile. Relatively backward areas of the country still practice that outrageous act of Sati, forcing unwilling wives to join their husbands on the funeral pyre. And of course, a lot of times, women are considered a burden to the family. Many couples still curse their luck when the wife gives birth to a girl and the dowry system is exploited very badly in India.

Comparatively liberal workplaces and a recognition of gender equality in urban areas has helped. But a lot of credit goes to Woman's Rights Organizations and other NGOs for improving the status of women in this country. It takes courage to stand up and speak about any social issue but Woman's Rights (along with Caste Rights and health issues like AIDS) is probably one of the toughest challenges to face due to the strong stereotypical mindsets of most members of society, including women themselves.

Having said that, I think it's important to point out that just because you take a woman out of her home and put her in office, you don't necessarily 'liberate' her. If society can accused of stereotyping women one way, many Woman's Rights Activists can be accused of stereotyping women another way and failing to recognize the fact that every woman is different (indeed every individual is different). If some women feel great being independent and not being confined at home, there are others who'd love nothing more than being a good housewife and taking care of their husbands. It's like remembering that all people who wear skimpy clothes probably have a liberal outlook but not all those who are liberal wear skimpy clothes.

I have quite often witnessed both men and women make statements like "Oh, when all women go to work, society is truly liberated". I have also read reports of how Woman's Rights Activists go on what are called 'liberation drives' where they claim to have freed several women from the clutches of conservative husbands. These reports often make me wonder if among every fifty such freed women, there are at least one or two who stayed at home not because they were forced to, but because they chose to. Does this mean I support Sati if the woman goes willingly to a pyre and isn't forced into it? No, because of the simple fact that death is irreversible and you're denying the woman a chance to change her mind. That chance should always be there.

I'm all in favour of gender equality and I'd love to be in a society where equality is so obvious that there is no debate about the matter. But I also wish and hope that activists are careful enough to ascertain what each woman wants. By all means, please make sure that every woman is aware of the opportunities she has and the rights she deserves. But at the same time, leave the ultimate decision to her.

Meanwhile, I'm getting ready for four years of torture under either Patil or Shekhawat.

We, The Great Indians

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:39:00 +0000

The Great Indian. Now I'm normally against stereotyping of any sort but I just couldn't resist this. As a member of the breed that I'm about to condemn, what better group of people to criticize than my own, the Great Indians themselves?

Firstly, most of the Great Indians always think that they are the best. In my earlier posts, I have often commented on how these Great Indians tend to divide themselves as much as possible - regionally, communally, linguistically, racially, on the basis of caste and of course, on the basis of which house your great-grandfather's mother's brother used to occupy in a native place that you have never visited. And after the Great Indian Divide has been created, the Great Indians then claim that their group is the best. ("What you saying, I say? My great-grandfather's mother's brother lived in a house twice as big as your great-grandfather's mother's brother's."). Russell Peters put it nicely "Americans have got to understand the difference between terrorists and Indians, WE ARE NOT THE SAME!!......terrorists hate Americans,Indians hate EACH OTHER!!" *

If a student from Haryana and a student from Tamil Nadu ended up in the same class in a school in Bombay, be assured that both their families will tell their sons "Don't mix with him! He's from the North/South!". If a mallu ends up doing something wrong, north Indian observers would probably say "Madrassi hain na...isliye..." (This in spite of the fact that Madras or Chennai is hundreds of kilometres from Kerala). Of course, the same thing happens, only in reverse, if some guy from Delhi lands up in Bangalore ("These Northies are invading us!").

Secondly, no matter what people say, the phrase "Unity in Diversity" is still going strong today. Indians may hate each other a lot, but when it comes to disliking foreigners, they forget all their differences and stand together. Those damn Pakis! Those useless Bangladeshis! Those filthy goras! Those bloody chinks! The only foreign breed that isn't commonly insulted in India is the South American. But that's probably because Indians haven't had much contact with them. South Americans are too far off and relatively unimportant to insult.

But a weird fact is that no matter how much Indians hate foreigners, they love to be recognized and appreciated by them. Indians went super-mad when news went around that that Taj Mahal might not make it to the new list of the Wonders of the World. How can this be? How can the world not recognize our greatness? Vote for Taj! Vote for Taj! Show your patriotism! Great Indians also go crazy if an Indian does the teeniest, most insignificant thing abroad. Mallika Sherawat was given a guest role which lasted about ten minutes in Jackie Chan's The Myth but the hype that it generated lasted for ten months. She herself was surprisingly sensible about it ("You have to start small if you're aiming for the big") but the Indian media couldn't stop raving about how Indians are finally going places. Sania Mirza, admittedly, was promising in the beginning but not so much that every government body in the country from Parliament to Gram Panchayat felt justified in "recognizing her" in some way. Sunita Williams is only half-Indian in origin but that didn't stop her samosas from becoming Great Indian celebrities.

Thirdly, the Great Indian doesn't like being deprived of his or her Great Indian Character. The Great Indian Family always sticks together while going on a Great Indian Trip abroad. They play Great Indian Games, do Great Indian Shopping, gape at things in a Great Indian Way, give Great Indian Comments and show the world our Great Indian Pride - the Great Indian Rudeness and the Great Indian Sloppiness. I have personally never been abroad but I have heard from a lot of Great Indian Trusted Sources about the Great Indian Stories abroad. The story of how a kid who wants to take a leak on a plane is told "Yahi kar do beta". The story of how an angry American who complained about 20 year old Indians running up and down hotel corridors was given a "Bacche hain...how can you stop children from playing?" statement from a hurt mother. Oh yeah, Bharat Mata ki jai.

But once again, a weird contradiction somehow makes Great Indians imitate everything they see abroad. If an Indian city has 25 malls in one road then hell yeah, we're cosmopolitan. If software companies in Silicon Valley work from plastic and glass buildings, then hell yeah, Bangalorean companies must do the same (No one cares about how much energy is being wasted with such buildings in an equatorial climate - after all, one must be progressive). Mumbai wants to be like Shanghai and Bangalore like Singapore. What about vada pav and bisi bele baath? Get rid of them, they're traditional and old - they have no place in a modern society.

Ah, the Great Indian is such a bunch of contradictions. But does this mean we should change? Should we pull up our socks and button up our shirts? Should we be careful and politically correct whenever we refer to someone other than ourselves? No. Atleast, not to such a drastic extent that the Great Indian loses his greatness. Half the fun of being an Indian is leading such a moronic lifestyle. But we can try and change a bit. Maybe we can stop attributing every defect in a person to his or her ancestral lineage. Perhaps we can be a little cleaner both at home and abroad. Maybe we can be a little prouder of our roots but at the same time be sensible enough to acknowledge our inabilities.

But knowing the Great Indian, I doubt it.

* However, with the recent Glasgow attack, the difference between Indians and terrorists seems to be dissolving. Indians now hate the west AND each other.

The Government And The Free Market

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:10:00 +0000

Free market theories are full of explanations and reasons for their pushing forward the statement that direct government involvement in the economy retards development. One of their biggest arguments is actually a reply that is given to economists who fear the emergence of monopolies in a free market. Free Market Theorists argue that governments are monopolies themselves and an economy controlled by the state is just a politically veiled monopoly. So ultimately, one has to choose between the chance emergence of a monopoly from the private sector or a certain presence of a monopoly in the form of the government. Obviously, the better choice is the private sector where a monopoly need not occur.

A counter-argument by socialists in reply to this statement was that since the private sector is uncontrolled, a monopoly firm can rise unchecked and will be perhaps unstoppable. On the other hand, if consumers are not satisfied with a State monopoly, they can always vote the ruling government out of power and install somebody else at the head instead (this was an argument that I heard at a debate last year). But of course, history shows us different results. When the public sector started to fail in India, no new government could save it. Instead, it was the private sector that came to India's rescue with liberalisation in the 1990's.

More importantly, the private sector is not really uncontrolled. In a free market, consumers have the power to show who's boss. If they don't like the products of one particular company, they'll simply switch over to another, causing losses to the offending company and forcing it to either improve its products or face closure. Therefore, the argument that public sector companies are actually safer does not hold much water and the risks of a strong private sector don't seem to be any greater than the risks of a strong public sector.

But does this make the government redundant? Should economies do away with governments completely? Perhaps, the government should be thrown out of any economic enterprise altogether and let the more reliable private sector handle everything. But I'd like to disagree. No economy can do away with the government completely. The fact that most government enterprises are usually inefficient does not make any difference. The government cannot be wished away simply because the government does not want to be wished away.

A basic rule that most economists follow is "eliminate what is inefficient". The Public Sector with its sick industries and bloated labour just reeks of inefficiency and therefore must be eliminated according to this rule. But something that a lot of economists overlook is who the Public Sector is providing for. Public Sector Units (PSUs) are theoretically set up to provide services and products to those people who are, for some reason, unable to access such products and services from the private sector.

Admittedly, this wasn't really the norm in India. Most Indian PSUs were set up to fulfill grand agendas of nationalistic governments whose eyes were so set on the future that they ignored the demands of the present. But this is not always the rule. A lot of African economies depend heavily upon their Public Enterprises because the governments are the only bodies that are organised well enough to provide such services.

Joseph Stiglitz, in his book Globalisation and its Discontents gives one such example. A certain African country approached the IMF for funds. As is normal with IMF policy, the country received a number of conditions that it must fulfill before it could receive any aid. That particular African government was in the practice of assisting the country's poultry farmers by providing transportation services through which eggs and chickens could be sent to markets across the country, thereby reducing costs for the farmer. The IMF demanded that the government stop these services and let the private sector take over. Desperate for funds, the government complied and everyone waited for the private sector to magnificently sweep in and reorganize the entire transportation industry. It never happened. Why? Because there was no private sector at all. No one but the government had the resources and organization to conduct such services. And no private party had the initiative to start such a business because of lack of funding. The IMF funds didn't count since the government had never planned to use them for the transportation industry in the first place. They had borrowed those funds for an entirely different area of development. The result? The poultry industry started to collapse. Poor farmers were forced to pay steep prices to get their produce somehow to the markets. Those who could not do so, were forced to go out of business.

The government service provided to those farmers was nothing great. The trucks were old, the drivers corrupt and the roads extremely bad. But there was no alternative. It was government or nothing. Free Market Theorists would probably say that the Private Sector was weak because the government did not encourage investment. But tell me, which investor would want to pour his money into a poor Sub-Saharan African country with no prospects of development in the first place? Which domestic investor would have the means to do so? The way the government so willingly stopped operations proves that it wasn't really interested in providing these services anyway. It wasn't as if they were clutching the transportation industry with a tight fist and refusing to let any one else near them.

Such conditions exist even in India, in spite of a booming private sector. A lot of villages still depend upon the local Community Health Centre for its health care services because these areas don't attract private medical institutions. Most village children who do get an education do so because of a nearby government school. Most private schools do not find such areas economically viable to operate in (not that it is any fault of theirs).

What I believe is that the Private Sector should supply goods and services wherever there is an economic demand (i.e. demand backed with adequate purchasing power) for such goods and the Public Sector should provide the same to those who wish for such but are unable to afford the price. This is not easy of course. There are always rich consumers who try and get the product for a lesser price. But as I have noted before, PSU products are usually (usually!) of lesser quality than those provided by the Private Sector and if the quality gap is sufficiently large, it's highly unlikely that those who can pay for better quality will not do so. Such a quality gap will also motivate poorer sections of society to rise above their current income levels so that they can afford the same quality.

Of course, another point to note is that the government doesn't like being out of the spotlight! I have often noticed Free Market Theorists give an impression (probably unintentional) that one should ignore the government completely - a dangerous thing to do. If a vibrant economy ignores the government altogether, then an impoverished government with a bloated bureaucracy will sometime in the future, try and interfere in the working of this economy. Politicians and bureaucrats are usually attracted to money like moths to a candle flame. We have already seen politicians targeting IT firms in Bangalore, bureaucrats clamping down projects in Gurgaon and netas interfering in private projects in Mumbai and many of these people are obviously looking for some monetary gain. This means that the economy can never ignore the government altogether. Its presence in the economy is assured and if an economy hopes to thrive, it must ensure that a reasonably responsible government is in charge of the administration of the country, regardless of how strong the private sector is.

Some Stupid Statements

noreply@blogger.com (Amogh) — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:24:00 +0000

Here are some things said by people, both famous and not-so-famous, that when looked at in retrospect, seem extremely stupid.

1. "Peace for our time"

Neville Chamberlain , Prime Minister of England, 1938, made this extremely ironic statement in defence of the Munich Agreement that was designed to pacify Hitler's European ambitions. A year later, Hitler invaded Poland and started World War II.

2. "It is my opinion that guitar groups are on their way out"

An employee of Dacca Records said this to the manager of a four-member band at an audition as an excuse for not signing the group on. A few years later, The Beatles became a household name in the west.

3. "It will be over before Christmas"

A popular statement that circulated in 1914 regarding the new war that had just begun. Instead, World War I would drag on for four long years resulting in thousands of deaths.

4. "You will never understand mathematics. You're hopeless."

A German schoolmaster made this caustic comment to a young boy in his class. In 1905, that same young boy would formulate the Special Theory of Relativity (along with other pioneering works) under the name of Albert Einstein.

5. "You're addled."

The Reverend Engle said this to another young boy. This boy would go on to become one of history's greatest inventors. His name was Thomas Alva Edison.

6. "64 KB of RAM is enough for everyone."

Bill Gates made this statement. In a world where computers are quickly exceeding this limit and people still want more.

7. "Spam will be gone in two years."

Bill Gates again, in 2004. Spam only seems to have increased in the last three years.

8. "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai"

A statement that went around after the signing of the Panchsheel between India and China in the late 1950's. A few years later, the countries were at war with each other and Nehru died a disillusioned man. The statement instead became "Hindi-Chini Bye Bye"

9. "The English are a nation of shopkeepers."

Though it's not certain if Napolean Bonaparte ever made this statement, it certainly reflected his attitude towards England. A shopkeeper named Nelson however defeated his forces at sea while another shopkeeper addressed as the Duke of Wellington saw him fall at Waterloo. Never underestimate market forces.

10. "The Second Five Year Plan will be a Great Leap Forward"

Chairman Mao of the People's Republic of China advocating massive industrialization in 1958 in order to convert China into an industrial powerhouse. The Great Leap Forward (as the plan came to be known) is now acknowledged by many as an economic disaster. China's current industrial dominance came into being only decades later due to different economic plans.

There are several other statements that escape my memory. However, these ten statements show how careful one must be while making predictions about the future. Often, we underestimate an opponent's greed (as Chamberlain did with Hitler) or have too much confidence in our own evaluations (as the German schoolmaster regarding Einstein). Often, we would just be victims of fate but many times, we have the opportunity to set things right.