i have decided to switch to all lowercase titles

And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

-- Pink Floyd, Time 

This post is a continuing thread from the previous post. It contains some random thoughts which are just rehashes of old theist and atheist positions. I doubt this covers any new ground.

Here goes.

(1) It is unfair to ask atheists to prove the non-existence of God, as is sometimes done.

To prove the non-existence of X, one must search the entire universe of discourse (in this case, the entire universe) for X, and when X is not found, only then the conclusion can be drawn that X does not exist. It is a negative search. And very expensive to do.

On the other hand, it is not so unfair to ask a theist to prove the existence of God, because this is a positive task. Someone needs to find only one instance of God and produce him to prove his existence.

Of course the standard response to this is that God is unknowable and all mysterious and such **wooooooooh**. The curtain usually falls on rational discussion at this point.


(2) There are problems with the definition of "God".

First of all, there seems to be a wide lack of consensus on what God is. Ask a Hindu, Christian, Jew, and Muslim individually what God is, and you get very different answers. Some of the answers are scary.

Even so, there are some common attributes that most people assign to God. One of these attributes is: Omnipotent. Apart from the obvious question of, "How on earth can you possibly know that?", another question can be brought up. If God is omnipotent, can he create a Being that is more powerful than himself? If he can, then he is not omnipotent because he must now bow to this newly created entity. And if he can't, then he is clearly not All-Powerful.

You've heard this before. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?

Omnipotence suffers from self-reference. One way to reconcile this is to admit that God cannot be omnipotent--he has his limits. The other way to reconcile it is to suspend logic and disbelief. If there is a third way, do tell.

Omnipotence is also often fucked up the ass by the Problem of Evil, but that is another post.


(3) I don't know why certain people like Behe mess around with science and try to prove its inadequacy to prove the existence of God.

Proving the inadequacy of something does not prove the adequacy of something else, unless you live in a binary universe. It reeks of insecurity. People should simply have the intellectual honesty and the courage of their convictions to say, "I believe in God because I believe in God. It gives me comfort. I have absolutely no idea why, and can provide no explanation. Besides, I don't need to provide an explanation, so there."

This argument will be equally compelling to most fair-minded folks. Instead, these people bash up on science and point to gaps in our knowledge as if that will prove something.

Here's what I would say to Behe and others like him. Do not resort to pseudo-scientific nonsense and tell me that there is evidence all around us that points to an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God. Do not state conclusively that the complexity of the world can be explained only if we accept the presence of a mysterious yet fair-minded father figure.

Instead, do the following. Either:

(A) Stop being so smug and express doubt.

OR, if that does not appeal to you:

(B) Plump for your belief unabashedly by brazening it out. Do not offer hesitation. And for heaven's sake, do not appeal to logic.

Anything else is dishonest and invites scorn. Oh, and if you do decide to follow the second approach, recognize and respect the fact that other people might have different, equally inexplicable, and cherished beliefs. So leave the automatic weapons at home.


(5) Balajee says: "Most of the Athiests I know have a more condescending attitude towards the rest of humanity."

I recognize this to be true but not universally so. And I would like to point out that atheists don't have the monopoly on condescension. Have you ever told a Pentecostal that you are a Hindu and see no reason to be otherwise? He'll offer you a choice among condescension, distaste, disdain, and pity. Atheists haven't cornered the market on condescension yet.


(6) Some people express surprise at an atheist, "You are godless. You don't believe in prayer. What do you use to draw comfort from in difficult times. What do you use to pick yourself up when you are down?"

Coffee.

Response to Balajee, Part Something

Balajee commented:

*Filed along with the 'Flying Sphagetti Monster' Theory*
I liked the Stuhring theory. Clearly, ID has a lot of holes. Holes that are conveniently filled by non-falsifiable notions.

Just one thought though - If you consider all the work, time and effort that mankind has put into documenting religion today - hundreds of thousands of pages of manuscripts, stories, sacred texts, institutions, its mind numbing. Why does it seem to be that 98% of mankind is in some form of grand delusion? Could there possibly be something in there that does not quite fit the scientific framework? It's like looking for life in outer space that fits our definition of intelligence. Why should it fit our definition of life? If the only tool you have is a hammer, all the problems start resembling nails.

I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

But what do I know? My biggest problem right now is figuring out what to do for Lunch.

I will selectively and conveniently pick one statement from your comment to focus on. More discussion of the other points in your comment will follow.

You said: I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

I want to clarify if you are referring to the same ID that Michael Behe holds a brief for. I want to clarify because I think there is a big difference. Or at least, there ought to be.

Balajee, I am philosophically and culturally a Hindu. As far as I can tell, you are too. For any Hindu to back Behe's version of I.D. would be like putting up all his money on a blackjack bet when he is holding a bust card and the dealer is showing an ace.

I will bet my last dollar that Behe's version of I.D. is quite different from yours. What Behe is championing is thinly disguised evangelism masquerading rather unconvincingly as science.

Behe seems to be saying, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer." I will throw in my last remaining cents on the wager that if pressed, he would go on to say, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer, and Jesus is his Son."

If unopposed, he would add, "You devil-worshipping Hindus and godless atheists are going to Hell anyway, unless you repent. Yea, verily. You can, however, draw comfort from the fact that it will be an intelligently designed Hell."

Behe is an insult to science, not to mention the fact that he is also an insult to the larger section of average fair-minded Christians. In my personal opinion, he and his sort are giving Christians a bad name. I only hope that Lehigh University does not make the mistake of removing him from his teaching duties. What we do not need is another martyr like Judge Roy Moore. Did you know that Roy Moore is running for governor of Alabama?

The scientific community is doing a stellar job of showing up Behe's non-scientific, logically untenable mumbo-jumbo for what it is. But that is because they can still get to him since he is still part of the scientific community. Once out of his teaching job, I think we'll only see him on Evangelical cable channels, safely out of reach of scientific peer review and doing far greater damage as a result.

People like you and I do not fit into Behe's worldview. It would be a serious error thinking that he is doing this for science, or for theists around the world, or for the larger section of humanity, or whathaveyou. His list of beneficiaries is not that long.

I don't claim to know your mind, but I am aware of the general worldview of a Hindu theist. I would be a fair bet that when you--as opposed to a Behe--talk about an Intelligent Designer, you are talking about a Greater Force, an Unit Law that does not discriminate against a particular section of humanity because they read the wrong book. 

And the presence of this one Greater Force seems conceivable to me. It sounds like a fair conjecture. As a matter of fact, it may also be a cooperative effort by several Greater Forces that makes things so. Why only one?

But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.

I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.

I have a Problem with Gravity

I have a problem with Gravity. It does not strike me as a particularly satisfying organizing element of the space-time continuum. I have a theory that I want taught alongside Gravity in public schools in the United States. I developed it over the course of a particularly insightful afternoon and without the help of any mind-altering drugs whatsoever.

I am calling it the Stuhring Theory. It is a needlessly complex theory and even I don't understand it completely even though I theorized it. But the essentials are quite simple.

At its heart, it makes this simple and smug statement: We are not held down by Gravity or centripetal force or what have you; we are held up by stuhrings.

It says that we are all--each man jack of us--held up by invisible lines of force called stuhrings. This is why we are able to stand up straight, walk around, and flap our arms and stuff. This is what makes birds fly and airplanes go up and planets and stars go around.

Somebody up there that I am for the moment calling Gus (Great Underhanded Stuhring-puller), has all the stuhrings attached to his hands ... no wait, what I meant was, he has all the stuhrings affixed to his tentacular extremities; yes, that sounds more scientific. And since we are all held up by stuhrings, we move and shake when he pulls on these stuhrings. Gus also is, what we refer to in scientific terms as, a "mean ol' nasty", because he sometimes makes me fall down.

I will now submit that my Stuhring Theory be taught in public schools. Why not? The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum cannot be explained by Gravity alone. Scientists themselves admit this. Therefore it can be explained by stuhrings.

I take my cue from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design follows a similar reasoning. Some people say: Biochemical complexity cannot be explained by evolution, hence Intelligent Design should be taught as science in schools.

Now substitute "The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum" for "Biochemical complexity", "gravity" for "evolution", and "Stuhring Theory" for "Intelligent Design" and we reach the same square on the chessboard.

I have a request of you. Please take a close look at my Stuhring Theory and tell me exactly how it is any less or any more suitable for teaching than Intelligent Design. I'm serious, tell me where the holes are. I will then patch 'em up, refine ze theory and submit it to the Dover School Board--or whatever the heck passes for the Dover School Board--and respectfully ask them to teach it alongside Gravity.

You see, opening the door of the Science class in public schools a tad too wide is a little risky because it lets in assorted nutcases like me. And that my dears, is a scary thought. Even to me.

Intelligent(?) Design

[Jyoti and Rob have a few comments on my last post called "The Dilemma". I tried to respond as best as I could. This response of mine, which is in reply to Rob, became too long and so becomes a post. Rob's comments are in blue italics below.

Let me also take this opportunity to say a little something about Rob, whose blog is here. I started reading his blog because he made me think. He is a South Park Republican, something that was new to me at the time. Many of his posts are interesting examples of a South Park Republican's views. His description of himself on the blog is priceless: "Geek, Musician, History Buff, South Park Republican. I don't blindly subscribe to either party's full agenda- just enough of each to piss off the other."]

Rob answered my question about whether deeply religious folks are comfortable in the company of science-minded folks:

Oh, heavens no. At least not the one's I've met. They have too many precious assumptions challenged. That makes them squirm.

Yes, that was my suspicion too.


I guess was referring more to the proponents of Darwinism, as opposed to pure science-minded individuals.Proponents aren't nessearily scientists- Just in need of a handy soap box.

I am not sure who exactly fits the description of "proponent of Darwinism". Does being a proponent of Darwinism prevent you from being science-minded? Some people like Stephen Gould who are scientists by profession are proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. A much smaller number subscribe to Lamarck's theory. Are they are not science-minded?

It is true that proponents aren't necessarily scientists. However, just as you don't have to be a  mathematician to do math, you don't have to be a scientist to be science-minded. For instance, I am not a scientist by profession, but I nevertheless see the value of the scientific method.

Rob says about scientists:

Science? You're right.. If given enough evidence to test, they would do what they do.. Which is quantify that which is in front of them. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design, there's more of a sneaking suspicion than actual empirical evidence.

If I have my theories correct, I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. I am not sure why you club them together. My post referred to Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who champions Intelligent Design, explains the difference: "Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."

So there you have it. Creationism does not depend on evidence, in the professor's own words.

And of course, when you jettison the requirement that something needs evidence to be accepted by fair-minded people, the possibilities become limitless.

So much for Creationism.

The professor was not done, however. He went on to make several other interesting statements about Intelligent Design.

He said that he personally believes the designer is God but said that belief is not part of his intelligent design theory.

If you understood the above statement, do explain it to me in some detail. I would much appreciate it.

Meanwhile, let me take a stab at it. The professor seems to be saying that there is evidence of intelligent design but that each of us is free to insert his or her own belief into the slot where the actual designer is supposed to be sitting. Since the professor has opened up the floor, once again the possibilites boggle the mind. John might say, for example, that the designer is a bored alien named Bob from the fourth binary system in the Crab Nebula, while Jim will counter that he has a nagging suspicion that it is Pat Robertson's janitor. 

Now this sort of free association sounds like a very fun activity to do, but it is surely not science, is it? Or is science defined a little differently in the United States than in other parts of the world?

The professor then went on to contradict himself by saying that the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God.

He then inserted his foot deeper into his mouth by saying, "You can't say that because you don't have a natural explanation for something now, you won't in future."

Please note that going by this logic, I can say all manner of unnatural things right now, based on flimsy suspicion in the fond hope that the future will take care of making me look less like a blubbering halfwit. I can further insist that said things without natural explanation be taught to impressionable young children in schools using public money. But isn't that kinda the same as saying that our children should be taught about supernatural things in school? In Science class? 

Well, then why not teach the GS Theory, i.e Ghosts-n-Spooks Theory, also? Evidence, you say? Pish-tosh, we know how much value that has. According to Professor Behe, none.

I now know which college my child is NOT going to.

Okay, let's brush aside everything that I just said. Let's wipe the slate clean.

I personally think that there is some meat to the ID theory. Maybe there is a chance that there exists a Great Force--An Unit Law if you will--that describes the complexity of nature as we see it. But why do we assume that this Unit Law is something called God that is also worthy of our worship? It may be a blind, idiot, and mindless force, maybe something like Gravity. Why do we automatically assume that it is a benevolent, kind, and just force that from time to time speaks to us words in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Words that we then furiously scribble down in 500 page books. Why do we assume that this God, when it so pleases him, sends prophets down to earth for our salvation? And what the heck is salvation anyway?

Why do we call this theory Intelligent Design? I know why the good professor Behe calls it so. He says that the complexity of the world cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Fair enough. He says that the complexity of nature indicates that there is an intelligent creator. Fair enough.

Now, since we are free-associating, this is what I think. I have noticed that the world is not only complex, it is also flawed. Many species are flawed in design and become extinct. Even within a particular survivor species, there exists large differences in natural endowments. This ensures that some individuals within the species are more handicapped than others and don't make it. 

Then why do we call it Intelligent Design? Can I submit a new theory called Brain-dead Design? Can I say that yes, there may be a greater force, but that it is quite likely an idiot. Or at least designs like an idiot some of the times? Can I further insist that this BD theory should be taught to your children, using your tax dollars, in public schools?

Why not?

The Dilemma

There is a logic trap that most of us fall into at some point in our lives: the False Dilemma. The False Dilemma occurs when a limited number of options are presented, when in reality more exist. It is also called a False Choice.

The False Dilemma works on the basis of an over-simplification of choices. I might say: Something is not A, therefore it must be B. This is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility that the something may be C, D, E or a zillion other things.

In multi-valued logic, saying something is not A only implies that it is not A. It does not automatically follow that it is B.

Take the current rumble between Creationists and Darwinists everybody else. A Creationist's entire brief revolves around proving that Darwin is wrong. Okay, let's make this simple. Let's say that Darwin is wrong. So what? How does that make Creationism right?

Another example is this. When I watch TV, I sometimes flip channels and I hit these Christian Evangelical channels. Sometimes I linger and watch these shows (and believe me, they are shows). One time, there was this guy sitting with flipcharts and whatnot explaining how radiocarbon dating does not date things reliably beyond ten thousand years. Hence, he said loudly, this world must have been created not more than ten thousand years ago. That is a false choice.

I am guessing that the only people more brain-dead than flipchart guy must be the people who watch flipchart guy with devotion and straight faces. At least flipchart guy is getting paid.

If we follow these false choices all the way through, many interesting claims can be made. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid.

For example: "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence there is a Creator God." You will notice that I can substitute almost anything for the phrase "hence there is a Creator God" and it will make precisely zero difference to the truth of the statement.

I could say for instance, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence the founders of Ben & Jerry's are really purple aliens."

Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence smearing pineapple jam on your toes in a slow circular motion will make you smarter."

Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence polyunsaturated fats are bad for you." In this case, the two clauses are individually true, but the link is bogus.

When you do not respect the causality between a premise and a conclusion, you can say anything followed by anything else. Maybe somebody will even give you your own TV show.

Dear Anon

Dear Anon: Thanks for your comments and questions. The answers are quite simple really and follow. A word of caution: the answers are not interesting even though the questions are. Apologies in advance since the shortcoming is entirely mine. A profitless note to you: You really should get a name. It gets hard to tell you apart from the other Anons after a while.


The questions:

Interesting reads Sougata and Balajee (must allow anon comments B). you sound fierce.
How about a post from you 2 to cool some of that rage, say, a post with a line or 2 commenting on these:

music that you like,
how you met your wife,
your fav pic of yourself-c'mon post just one,
if you had a million $$ would you still work where you do,
your pet peeve,
your high school sweetheart,
what you think death is,
if you could undo one thing

...Then we can seethe on....


The answers:

I like Kishore Kumar and rock ballads.

I met my wife by chance.

I will look for my fav pic, but this may take a while because all my pictures are terribly unflattering. Since I am not above small vanity, picking out the most acceptable picture is not going to be an easy task.

Yes, I think I will choose to work. I have the sinking feeling that it's no longer strictly about the money.

My pet peeves will not fit into this one post; that is why I maintain this blog.

I cannot imagine why anybody would be curious about my high school sweetheart. In any case, there is nothing to tell.

Here's how the Oxford dictionary defines death: 1 the action or fact of dying. 2 an instance of a person or an animal dying. 3 the state of being dead. 4 the end of something. I believe the Oxford dictionary.

I would not undo a single thing. What's more important, I cannot undo a single thing. We are ruled by entropy, my dear anonymous friend. And entropy is quite the bitch about letting us undo stuff. Because it likes to always and necessarily increase to a maximum. And sadly, it is irreversible. You cannot turn smoke and ash back into a tree.

Note to Balajee: Please Turn on Anon

Balajee: I don't know if you are in the habit of reading the comments on my posts. Please see comment #5 on my last post, which is also directed at you.

Also, please gather from the comment that either you or I (or both) have been advised to just cool it. Pretty sane advice, if you ask me.

La Nuit Bengali

Balajee has a very nice post on his blog. He talks about his daughter who'll come into this wonderful and complex world of ours in six weeks. I wish him and his wife Anu the best with their approaching parenthood. He also talks about how India has changed since he last saw it three years ago. It is a very interesting read.

He also asks some pointed questions about Indian cricket, including one directed at me. The question, slightly paraphrased, is: Why do Bengalis insist on supporting Ganguly, given his obvious incomptence as a batsman and his inability to captain the team to success?

It is an interesting question. Why indeed do Bengalis support Sourav Ganguly? I think there are two reasons.

Part of it is parochial regionalism laced with a healthy shot of narrow chauvinism. Who cares about the team, as long as a person from MY state gets to lead it, I suppose. And part of it is because Bengalis are idiots. Let me prove that second part.

When it becomes necessary to prove something true, it is sometimes easier to start with an assumption which is the opposite of what you believe, and prove that to be false.

Let us start with the assumption that Bengalis are NOT idiots. 

Now picture this. It is the decade of the 70s in Bengal. The Mass of Bengalis (MOB, for short) who live there is doing its day job, sitting around, talking about cricket, scratching its ass, and generally getting on with life. Life is good. A few hiccups here and there, but the script is being mostly followed. One evening, as MOB is getting ready for dinner, it hears a knock on the door. A little ticked off, it being dinner time and all, it gets the door in a bit of a huff. And finds a greying old man, wearing a twinkle in his eyes and black horn-rimmed glasses on his nose, standing outside the door in the gloomy light of the late evening.

Old Man: I'll get down to business without beating around. Guys, I don't know how to break it you gently; but you have made a frickin' mess of running things for yourselves here.

Bengalis: Beg pardon?

Old Man: A snafu, if I ever saw one. You, my dear misguided friends, need help. In my personal but studied opinion.

Bengalis: What the heck are you talking about? What mess? I think we've done quite well for ourselves. Our per-capita is among the highest in India. We have thriving heavy industries. It was a bit of bother losing that large chunk of land to East Pakistan during Partition because it was a good farmland and a source of raw material to feed the industry, but I think we'll live. Literacy is not great but increasing. It is in any case not significantly lower than any other state. Our educational institutions still rank among the best in India. So what gives?

Old Man: And that is your story?

Bengalis: Well, actually there's more. Not to boast, but our recent history is rather glorious, wot. We were considered to be the leaders in the fight for independence. From within us emerged veritable giants like Swami Vivekanada, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. Spiritually, politically, intellectually, economically, we were
pretty much swingin'. And the future looks good, we dare say.

Old Man: Snap out of it, guys. You haven't done squat. I have here with me what I call *fanfare* The System(TM). All I ask is that you try The System for sometime. Say about five years or so should do it. It takes a little time to work; what good thing doesn't? But if you think you are prosperous now, come meet me in five years after you've tried my System.

Bengalis: Well, okay.

Old Man (blinking): Huh? Okay? Did you just say ok?

Bengalis: Yeah, you heard us. Okay, we'll try it. You have an honest face.

Five years pass. Bengalis are a little poorer, thanks in no small measure to the System. It is not too much cause for alarm yet, but a few large industries have closed their doors or moved their shops elsewhere because trade-unionism is getting just a wee bit out of hand. Adult literacy isn't even crawling slowly upwards, it's frozen. What was merely a trickle of illegal immigrants from across the Bangladesh border has become a steady and strong stream. Rumor has it that the old man is in the know and on the take about this immigration thing. He encourages it in exchange for support for his System by the immigrants. The state of West Bengal, which usually ranked in the company of a Maharashtra or a Gujarat when considering human development indices, is now increasingly being mentioned alongside a Bihar or a Uttar Pradesh.

Sure enough, after five years, Bengalis hear a knock on the door. The Old Man stands there, looking a little sheepish.

Old Man: Okay, alright, before you jump down my throat, let me say it out loud myself. I know things are not so hot.

Bengalis: We wouldn't exactly put it that way.

Old Man: Alright, alright, go easy on me man. Sheesh. So things are super suckass. You happy now?

Bengalis: What's up with you? We think you've done a great job. Look around you. Things are so nice. We've never had it better. Here's our check, we'll buy another five year's supply of The System.

Old Man: (faints)

We know how this story ends, don't we? That Old Man is the Communist Party of India. And he has been in charge of Bengal's destiny for over two decades now, and counting. Bengal is near the bottom of the heap today--economically and culturally. Years of the Grand Old Man's dirigiste communism has beggared Bengal. Yet the Grand Old Man is in charge. Why? Because Bengalis have repeatedly elected him as their leader. And he didn't even have to resort to hard sell.

A group of clever, perceptive, foresighted people cannot keep choosing corrupt, rapacious goons to lead them. Goons that have made it a business of systematically impoverishing those that they rule. But Bengalis have repeatedly done this very same thing. Ergo, Bengalis are idiots. Not only that, they are masochists to boot.

---

IMHO, asking whether Bengalis are smart is like asking if the management of Apple Computer was smart. Both of these people took a promising something (a lead in technology in the case of Apple, an economy in the case of Bengalis) and totally blew it. Going by that rubric, no we are not smart.

Folk wisdom tells us that stupid people don't get rich. But how stupid do you have to be to actually travel in the reverse direction, to go from riches to rags?

At the time of independence, Bengal had a few things to boast of. What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow, and all that sort of thing. Or so I have been told.

And then we elected the Communists. And there was no looking ahead after that. Too, we didn't elect them just once, we elected them again. And again. And again. There are limits to how much one can flog himself, I would think. But no such luck here.

Today, Bengal is an economic basket case full of defeated people. It's industrial base is gone, thanks to rampant trade-unionism that has paralyzed manufacturing. Even it's much talked about "culture" is now flapping in the wind. I remember a time when Hindi cinema stole liberally from Bengali cinema (now they have switched to stealing from the South, the unoriginal bastards). Giants like Ritwick Ghatak, Bimal Roy, and Satyajit Ray strutted about. Now it's the reverse. Bengali cinema now looks to tired Bollywood movies for inspiration. Bengali literature hangs on, but only just. Adult literacy is barely over 50 percent.

There is glimmer of hope. The Leftists in Bengal are waking up, taking a whiff, and making noises about creating a pro-investment environment so that they don't miss out on the incumbent software boom. Having missed out on every other boom before this, they are not taking any chances with this one. But alas, I am a realist. Does the proverbial leopard change his spots? Nuh-uh. Do people really change? Nuh-uh. I have a feeling that the Commies are not quite done with Bengal yet.


Rather Lengthy Postscript:

(1) I do not write the above with any pride or glee. I am a Bengali and it brings tears to my eyes to see my people reduced. I have seen the hopelessness and helplessness. For quite some years, I lived it. So I know what I am talking about. And remember that I come from a background that is more privileged than most. I shudder to think of the Bengalis living close to subsistence under the Leftists.

(2) Any Bengalis reading this blog and intending to jump down my throat please note that starting to fix something is a two-step process. You have to first recognize that something is wrong with it, and then, determine what is wrong with it. And sometimes one must resort to rhetoric to get the first task done. The tale of the downfall of Bengal is not a splendid one. It cannot be told gently. I'm sorry.

(3) Rhetoric aside, this is what I truly believe. The intelligence of Bengalis is normally distributed with the same skew and kurtosis as the intelligence of any other group of people. Yes, I know my statistics; ha, ha. Put simply, they are no smarter or dumber than any other group of people. I would bet that if you took the normal curve of Bengali IQ and superimposed it on the normal curve of say, Bihari IQ, they would be indistinguishable. Nature is equally kind (or equally unkind, depending on your point of view) to every group of people. It is Nurture/Conditioning that makes our natural attributes appear different. And conditioning is a very powerful force. As a small example, consider the former East Germans and West Germans. Similar groups of people with similar natural attributes. Yet it took only two generations of good old Soviet-style conditioning to make them appear quite different from each other.

Explanations

The recent bombings in London have created a lot of talk about radical Islam. A lot of illiberal talk. This must stop. Yes, you heard that right. This hate-mongering must forthwith stop. So what if these guys sometimes blow up women and children? There are some second-order benefits of Radical Islam (RI, for short) that are lost on you folks who like to bash it. There are some definite upsides to RI that the gullible among you just don't get. Time to fix that hole.

Every cloud has a silver lining. This, munchkins, is also true of Radical Islam. Because RI has vomited up...er, what I mean, is...spawned a shiny new profession that gainfully employs many. That is the benefit. These professionals proudly call themselves the Apologists for Radical Islam, or ARIs for short. This is not quite the same as dhimmis. Dhimmitude is lowly and passe; ARI gets you spots on TV shows.

Skeptics should note that being an ARI can be quite profitable. Witness the wise and noble Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek and one of my absolute favourite heroes (hey, there's no accounting for taste, to each his own and all that), who recently appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and forwarded a rather interesting theory of why exactly British Muslims are inclined to terrorism. He said that we must keep in mind the general underprivileged condition of the Muslims in Britain before pointing our forefingers in their direction and jumping up and down like we have a colony of fire-ants in our pants.

Another ARI: Richard Bennett commented on rediff.com about the cause and effect between the London bombings and the war in Iraq. "If in Iraq you play, London must pay." He didn't write that pome, I did. Nice, no?

Or take another personal favourite apologist of mine called Ms. Teesta Setalvad, who heads a very liberal (and I use the word "liberal" in the sense of "illiberal bigoted fundamentialist") organization called Sabrang Communications or somesuch. This is the person who wagged her carefully manicured finger at us after the Godhra train-burning and reminded us that yes, fifty-nine innocent people were incinerated including women and small children, but we must not forget the provocation. Exactly what sort of provocation this was that justified the barbecuing of sixty-odd human beings, she did not say. I guess I am slow so I still don't quite get it.

I would request all to note at this point that all ARIs are not necessarily Muslims. In fact, some of the biggest and loudest ARIs are often non-Muslim.

The more illiberal of us like to point out that these ARIs are--either knowingly or simply because they are logically-challenged cretins--bearing out the unfortunate law of unintended consequences. 

Good intentions don't always lead to desirable consequences. The unintended consequence in this case is that the ARIs are doing the very large section of average moderate Muslims a huge disfavour by attempting to rationalize the behaviour of a deranged minority. They are also contributing to the fog of war by distracting us with non-issues and therefore shielding Islam itself from critical examination and reform.

Most ARIs suffer from a peculiar kind of hubris. They don't consider the rest of us to be too bright. Hence, out of the goodness of their tender hearts and strictly for our edification, they point out a few "root causes" that sometimes cause Islamic terrorists to lovingly place powerful explosives within easy reach of children.

Let us consider some of these causes that are cast about hither and thither.

(1) Yes, what the terrorists did in London was wrong, but they were simply acting out of the sense of outrage that they felt about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now far be it from me to question the general intelligence behind that reasoning, but my limited grasp of logic leads me to conclude that the speaker of that above sentence is kinda...like...you know...saying that a British Muslim identifies more with a Muslim in Iraq than with his own British countrymen.

Or put another way, religious identity takes precedence over national identity. And that we should be understanding of this.

Now I always try to revere wise men and imbibe their wisdom. And the best way to do that is to imitate them devotedly. I will be more than simply understanding about this.

So thus, without further ado, and purely in the spirit of emulation, I sincerely request all my fellow Hindus in India to start identifying with our Hindu brothers in Bangladesh more than our own Muslim Indian citizens. In fact, I would ask them to lovingly displace one Muslim from India for each Hindu displaced from Bangladesh. I would request them to gently and thoughtfully dishonour exactly one Muslim woman for each Hindu woman abducted in Bangladesh. I would also like them to, with tender care, level exactly one mosque for each temple desecrated in Bangladesh.

I would also like to apply this guiding model of Hindu behaviour retroactively, so that we take into account all Hindus brutalized in and displaced from Bangladesh (and oh by the way, Pakistan) since 1947. And when my dear Hindu brothers reach this stage of evolution, I would request the likes of Mr. Zakaria and Ms. Setalvad and other assorted liberal folkses to kindly be understanding about this.

There is a lot one can learn by simply paying attention to these clever ARIs, no?

(2) We must understand and empathize with the fact that the general poverty of the Muslims in Britain and elsewhere leads to their radicalization.

Yes, of course. And once again, having internalized that sage piece of observation, I would like to make an observation of my own. I have noticed that there are a lot of poor Hindus in India. And to these poor oppressed brethren of mine, I would like to extend a call to arms. Any Christian in India who is richer than you is fair game, my poor Hindu friend. Every Muslim who is more prosperous must be stripped of his wealth and made poor (so that he, in turn, can take up arms against you).

Yes, I like this logic. Very appealing. And I am, as the days go by, filled with admiration for these ARIs who take such pains to educate us about the finer points of liberalism and go to such lengths to keep us honest.

Fucking worm-infested, regressive cretins.


Postscript and Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hindus actually do any of the things that are suggested above. That would be stupid. My intent is to point out, with a parallel, the utter ridiculousness of suggesting that anybody should be understanding of terrorism.

Second, it should be noted that when people of the likes of Zakaria--who is a high-profile editor of an influential magazine--make excuses for radical Islam by appealing to poverty or when someone else brings up Iraq to justify terrorism, it sets a dangerous mood. Because it implies that terrorism is a justified policy tool for expressing social or economic dissatisfaction and political disagreement. It implies that I am within my rights to go blow up uninvolved bystanders simply because I disagree with my government's foreign policy, or because I don't have a job. No right-thinking person would do this. These are not root causes; these are dangerous cop-outs.

Third, it occurs to me that ARIs often ignore Occam's Razor. One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Poverty and outrage over Iraq are needlessly contrived explanations for radical Islam. The insight that a statistically significant section of Islamic folks preach virulence against non-Muslims, coupled with the fact that the much larger section of moderate, educated, peaceful, spineless, yellow-to-the-core Muslims sits there with its head stuck firmly up its ass in fear of fatwas and such, is the simplest explanation for radical Islam that I would personally buy.

10 Kinds of People

There are 10 kinds of people in the world -- those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't.

Category: Attempted Humor

Balajee commented on my last post that the job of God is up for grabs and George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have submitted their resumes.

Balajee, I was thinking. Maybe we can persuade Monisha Koirala to apply. She'd make one hubba-bubba Goddess. It'd be fun worshipping her, wot?

I mean, I’ll let you folks be the judge, okay? Here are your candidates for God(dess). Take a good look-see and then tell me if there is any room for doubt.

God Candidate #1: Mata Anandmayee Pujjya Sri Sri Sri Sonia-ji-ji-ji (A single Ji can scarcely convey the reverence an average Indian feels for her.)

















God Candidate #2: Dubya

















God Candidate #3: Monisha, in her God work clothes (left) and in her chill-out, "I so Human" clothes (Right)

It is not even remotely a contest. Oh, and in case Monisha is busy and cannot be bothered, my next vote would go to the entire Russian women's tennis team.

In a related development, upon hearing that George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have applied for the position of God, (A) Bin Laden, (B) Mr. A. B. Vajpayee and, (C) all Democrats who rooted for John Kerry, have submitted their own nominations for the post of Satan.

This just in. In a late move, Ralph Nader, seeing how it was an election and all, has submitted his nomination also. In an even later move, both he and his Ego have been stripped naked, whipped raw and chased out of town by some seriously pissed-off Democrats.

Postscript: Here's some food for thought, though. If Monisha does indeed become Goddess and her administrative skills are anything like her acting skills, we are looking at serious trouble.

The Boon

One evening I sat and called on the Big Guy. You know, the Big Guy in the Sky. The Head Honcho. The Big Cheese. They say you really gotta pray long and hard to get his...beg pardon, His, attention. And even that is iffy.

They are wrong. It took about fifteen minutes. And He was standing in front of me.

He was smaller than I expected and several pounds overweight. He needed a shave.

"Wazzup?" He said.

"I need a boon."

He belched. He had onion on his breath. And alcohol.

His shirt was half-buttoned; looked like he might have put his clothes on hastily.

"Yeah well, who doesn't?"

"So you'll give me a blessing then?" I asked.

He scratched his stubbly chin and looked at me with a shrewd eye, sizing me up. Then He shrugged, "Awright, let's boogie. But make it quick. You kinda caught me in the middle of something."

We had a short conversation then.

He offered comfort. I asked for strength.
He offered fame. I asked for sweat.
He offered love. I asked for respect.
He offered friends and lovers. I asked for loneliness.
He offered peace. I asked for pain.
He offered More. I asked for Less.
He offered to make me a ruler of Men. I asked Him to make me a ruler of Myself.

He shrugged and said that He didn't have these things to give that I asked for, I was on my own on this, so sorry. I smiled and said that I understood completely.

He said that I was a little weird. I thanked Him for his time.

He didn't stay long.

I sat by myself after He left and thought of cabbages and kings. Outside, it grew dark as the ebony night slowly strangled the yellow evening.

Good going, Mr. Singh

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met with the U.S. President George Bush in New York and minced no words when he pointed out that Pakistan was still being cozy with terrorists. Mr. Bush looked suitably surprised.

"You don't say", were his exact words.

They also fruitfully discussed cooperation in the nuclear sphere between India and the United States.

According to reports, while greeting the prime minister, Bush said, "You are a good man and I can do business with you."

"Why do you wear that funny hat?" he later added.

All Hail The Mother

I hear they are making a movie on the life and times of Sonia Gandhi. This of course makes her a bit of a living legend as far as politicians go. Even Rajeev Gandhi did not get this sort of honor. Neither did Indira. No one decided to make a movie about their lives while they were still alive. And a movie about Vajpayee? Yes, I hear the laughter too.

I will watch this movie of course. I will watch it closely and try to get a sense of the attributes that someone must possess or cultivate to enable her to rule over a nation of a billion people. A billion foreigners.

I personally think that the Imperial British needlessly committed a lot of money and troops in their troubles to conquer and rule India. It could have been done rather simply and without much fuss, as Sonia has just demonstrated so convincingly. All it needed was a bit of social engineering.

All Hail Sonia, the Brilliant White Mother Goddess. We bow to Thee.

And thank you for governing us skinny brown assed bastards. May your rule be long and fruitful.

The Solution

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said:

YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

-- From the Principia Discordia

Rant #567 (And Some Bad Poetry)

I have nothing meaningful to contribute so I shall rant. Rather weakly, too.

I noticed today with a tingling feeling all over that www.rediff.com, an otherwise excellent source of news about all things Indian, has decided to go all politically starched and straight on us. They are now publishing stuff from assorted Pakistani columnists.

In itself, this ain't so bad a thing. There are many balanced, insightful Pakistani journo-types out there who can make a point. Ayaz Amir comes to mind. Besides it is always useful to throw out an opposing point of view. You know, just to mix it up a little.

But when you start reprinting utter drivel written by an established moron and position that as an opposing opinion, a reality check might be in order.

Okay, some background. Rediff did a piece on the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. Two pieces in fact. One by an Indian strategic analyst and one by an odious, mixed-up, halfwit Paki.

I will not post the link to the Paki rant which loudly proclaimed that the Pakis won the war [Aside: Most military analysts--as opposed to jingoistic fundamentalist vapid half-literate cretins--agree that it was a pointless, short war that ended in bit of a stalemate for both sides]. Here are some excerpts from the idiot:

Ayub Khan's political strength also weakened. Like Winston Churchill, he won the war but lost the elections after the war. The US was also against Khan.

...

Nishan-E-Haider (Pakistan's highest military award) Aziz Bhatti became our hero. He died defending the lines near Lahore and became a legend. Many novels have been written on him. [All of them raging best-sellers, I'm sure -- Sougata]

Outside the Lahore radio station a post box was kept in which people would submit patriotic poetry. I wrote poetry too. A poem I wrote for the Pakistan Air Force became very popular:

Yeh hawa ke rahion/Yeh badalon ke sathion/Harfanshan Mujahidon/Apni jaan pe khel kar/Tum bane salamati/blah,blah,rot,rot

I wrote a comment on the article and sent it to Rediff. They will delete it. Because they are a rather prop-ah sort of magazine, you see. They have low tolerance for people like me.

Here's the short comment, for the record:

Aziz Bhatti -- what a funny name.

Sir, your poetry is incomprehensible, if not reprehensible. It is also indefensible (See, I can be a bad poet too!). It is also laughable. Among other things.

Sir, please give it a rest.

Rediff, I have no problem when you decide to reprint a Paki's rants. But did you *have* to get a idiot Paki? Couldn't you get a decent, rational, well-informed one? One whose head wasn't firmly stuck in the sand. Or up his own you-know-what. There do exist some such, you know.

Oh, and a note to whoever does the screening of comments: Before deleting this comment, please show it to your sainted boss or editor or whoever and ask him to pay attention to the above paragraph. It'll improve the quality of the magazine and not drive away existing eyeballs. Please do not become unselective in an effort to become balanced.

 

Eighty-Twenty

Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself.

The quote above comes from Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist and sociologist from the early 1900s. He is perhaps best remembered for the "80-20" rule. He studied the distribution of real wealth in early twentieth century Italy and discovered that eighty percent of the land was controlled by twenty percent of the population.

A generalized rule followed from this observation: eighty percent of an effect is usually accounted for by twenty percent of the set of causes. For example, 80% of the revenue of a business is generated by 20% of its products. Or 80% of the time to manufacture a widget is taken up by 20% of the set of processes required to manufacture it. A company can use a Pareto distribution in each case to identify its most profitable products or improve its most inefficient processes.

 
This general law of statistical distribution, which seems abundantly obvious to us now in hindsight, has become a widely used tool for things like root-cause analysis and studies of economic and social phenomena. In manufacturing root-cause analysis, for example, it is found that eighty percent of production errors are caused by twenty percent of the process. A Pareto distribution can be used in this case as a prioritization tool in order to focus on and amend the errors with the highest severity.

Pareto also contributed to the study of the (micro-)economics of consumer choice by forwarding theories on utility maximization and indifference curves.

The 80-20 rule, by the way, is another example of hindsight bias. The rule seems so patently plain to us today because we have assimilated its wisdom over time. As a matter of fact, it almost seems like an insult to the intelligence of the readers of this blog to describe it in any detail. "I knew that, annoying cretin," is the average reaction I suppose, "As a matter of fact, I could have discovered it myself if this Pareto bloke hadn't beaten me to it."

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not.

By George

I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

One of my favorite stand-up comics is George Carlin. Irreverent, outrageous, with malice towards all; he is a treat to watch. If you have Comedy Central on cable you can sometimes catch his shows. You are all Diseased is a good show. Please note that if you do watch him, remember to bear with him. He starts slow, but like most things worth the mention, he's good in the middle.

Here are some opinions that George holds. He holds them rather loosely but, and will give them to you readily:

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. 

I don't like to think of laws as rules you have to follow, but more as suggestions. 

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. 

Some national parks have long waiting lists for camping reservations. When you have to wait a year to sleep next to a tree, something is wrong. 

The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in opposite directions.

The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I’m just not close enough to get the job done."

Ah Discordia!

I have suddenly, and without serious provocation, decided to become a committed Discordian. What (on earth) is a Discordian, you may ask. Wikipedia has this definition.

Discordianism is a modern, Chaos-based religion or pseudoreligion founded in either 1958 or 1959. It has been described as both an elaborate joke disguised as a religion, and as a religion disguised as an elaborate joke. Some of its followers make the claim that it is "a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion." It can be viewed as a simple rejection of reductionism and dualism, even falsifiability — not in concept different from postmodernism or certain trends in the philosophy of mathematics. It has also been described as "Zen for roundeyes," and converges with some of the more absurdist interpretations of the Rinzai school.

Discordians worship Eris, the Greek goddess of Discord. You know, that hoochie who caused so much grief by supposedly causing the Trojan war. Legend has it that she is some serious badass and mean like you wouldna believe. We Discordians maintain that she is merely misunderstood.

Discordians live by the following two rules, or not:

(1) There are no rules anywhere.
(2) The Goddess Prevails.

To add to the confusion, we also have a law of Fives that we strictly follow, or sometimes ignore depending on mood:

(1) ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.
(2) The Law of Fives is never wrong.

I've been told that we also have a Book. Not a book, stupid. A Book. It is yay big and brown in colour. Of course, I may be wrong about the colour. It is called the Principia Discordia and contains within its pages--about 523 pages cover to cover not including the preface--absolutely everything worth knowing. And some stuff that is outright pornographic...no wait, that's a different book.

The Principia Discordia is organized along the lines of the Bible.

Well, don't hold me to any of this, I sure haven't read it.

Oh, by the by, the Principia Discordia is based heavily on and steals liberally from an earlier source called the Honest Book of Truth (HBT), which is lost to us forever. Legend has it that the HBT was taken by a garbage collector who refused to return it.

Here's some philosophy from the Book that I found useful, and I am saying that only to get you to read this stuff:

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making. With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us.
The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

And he was a Tentmaker

And that inverted Bowl they call the Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop'd we live and die,
Lift not your hands to It for help -- for It
As impotently moves as you or I.

-- Omar Khayyam

The Existential Angst of a Hindu Terrorist

I was reading a past issue of Time magazine at a hair salon the other day.

An article on terrorism in Iraq by Sunnis caught my attention. On one of the pages of that article was a sidebar. A sidebar authored by a couple of Indians (I wants to riddle you heh: how many Indians does it take to author a sidebar. One to hold it and another to screw it in, no wait, that's a lightbulb, ha, ha).

Now we all know that sidebars serve an important purpose. I don't know what that important purpose is, but this one seemed to serve the important purpose of being a Guilt-ridden Overly-PC Over-compensator.

Terrorism is not the exclusive preserve of Islam, the sidebar informed us. Lest we, the average impressionable reader, think it. A suitable supporting example was provided by the Indian authors who had Hindu sounding names.

A Hindu organization called the LTTE, operating in Sri Lanka, has carried out the most suicide bombings of any terrorist organization in the world, they informed us. 

What, misinformed reader, you thought we Hindus were spineless cows, did you? You wouldn't know it by simply looking at us, but we are second to none when it comes to blowing up women and children. Don't go by our general economic success or levels of education or principles of religious tolerance and secularism. It's all an elaborate charade. We are a violent, bigoted people, bent on converting people to our violent, polytheistic, illogical point of view. Whenever we have been in the majority in any country, we have visited terrors on the minority and exterminated or converted them mercilessly and caused a huge reduction in their population. We have brutally suppressed freedom of religion. We have also been a bunch of prolifically-breeding-royal-pain-in-the-asses when in the minority in any country, and have insisted on our own medieval personal laws and contributed to fragmentation and partition of the host country. 

We are terrible. In fact, we make Islam really look like a "religion of peace."

The above paragraph, minus my weak sarcasm, contains a premise. The premise is that terrorism is not the exclusive preserve of Islam. This is followed by what seems to be an inductive proof.

I follow the premise. I agree with it. Any sufficiently bigoted moron can pick up an automatic weapon and become a terrorist. So it is quite true that Islam does not have an exclusive monopoly on terrorism (even though this fact is scant comfort to people who point out that eighty percent of radicalism in the world today can be laid at Islam's doorstep).

But I have a bit of a problem with the proof.

It is true that LTTE uses terrorism. But what exactly makes the LTTE a Hindu organization? I do not get that. Is it because its leader Prabhakaran is a Methodist? Is it because the LTTE co-founder and primary theoritician Anton Balasingham is a devoted Christian? Or is it because that almost thirty percent of its members are Christians? Or perhaps because their stated aim is to establish an autonomous Tamil homeland within Sri Lanka? And of course, as any cretin with half a brain knows, when somebody says Tamil, they really mean Hindu.

No wait, I know what it is. Most of the members of the LTTE are Hindus. So that's what makes it a Hindu organization. So that's how it is. 

It is crystal clear to me now. In fact, I have just learnt an important lesson. It is always wise to view an organization in terms of the religious identity of its majority group, no matter what the stated aim of the organization is.

Thanks to that epiphany, many things now fall into place. The Republican party is a Christian organization, I have just realized. Come to think of it, so is the Democratic party. FIFA is a Christian organization. The Olympic Committee is Christian. The United Nations is a Christian organization, soon to become Islamic. Microsoft is Christian (Damn those Christians, they control everything). India, however, is a Hindu nation, and don't you forget it.

To take an ethno-political issue and give it a religious spin requires a certain kind of gall and dishonesty. That, and the knowledge that your average reader, an American, is really not terribly informed about anything that goes on to the east of Europe (or even in Eastern Europe, for that matter) and will swallow as gospel anything that is reported in an important-looking piece of glossy paper. That helps too.

Time is a widely respected magazine. Americans--who publish it--place great faith in it. It is also read faithfully and uncritically by the gaggle of brainwashed Macaulyites which most educated Indians, myself included, are.

So I wonder, given the circulation numbers of Time and its associated ability to form opinion, does this (mis-)characterization of the LTTE as a Hindu terrorist organization constitute libel?

I Despair, Therefore I am

I sometimes go and idly look at the noisy, vast, labyrinthine spiderweb of the blogosphere. Some blogs are truly awe inspiring. A hundred links to everywhere. Links to the latest news, latest gossip, whatnot.

Makes me feel small and stupid and uninformed. Self-awareness comes late to some, but when it comes, it sticks.

Discussion Question: Didn't somebody or the other say that you are truly enlightened when you have achieved complete self-realization. So how about a guy who realizes very completely that he is small, stupid and uninformed? Is he now enlightened? Has he attained Buddha-hood? Please tell to me. I wants to know.

Getting back to what I was saying, I have often resolved to be johnny-on-the-spot with the latest news. "If it's happening in the world today, it'll be on my blog tomorrow; complete with a half-assed analysis," I have frequently said to myself. But as the sage among us will appreciate, there is an universe of difference between saying pretty stuff and actually getting off your dead ass and doing it.

So, the short takeaway is this. You want latest news, intelligent analyses, hot pictures of Ashley Simpson, go look at a newspaper.

Having set expectations, here is an article from rediff.com from July 21:

A Dalit autorickshaw driver was blinded in a Bihar village for asking Rs 50 as fare.

Sanjay Paswan, in his early 30s, was blinded by a group of five men on Tuesday in the presence of a village headman of Balua panchayat in Maner near Patna.

Paswan's relatives said that after the incident, the local police refused to lodge a police complaint as the attackers enjoyed political patronage.

"When he asked for the fare, they abused and threatened him. Then, they beat him and dragged him to the village mukhiya (headman) where he was beaten up again. Finally they blinded him with an umbrella," Paswan's younger brother said.
Read more at: http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/21dalit.htm

If you did bother to read that complete article right now, or have read it before, I am sure that you, like me, will be intrigued by the title of the story. Which goes: "Dalit blinded for demanding fare". Why is the title phrased like this? Wouldn't it convey an equal amount of relevant information if it were worded thus: "Man blinded for demanding fare".

I scanned the story carefully. Nothing in it suggested that Mr. Paswan's being a Dalit specifically contributed to getting his eyes poked out. Or that had he been a non-Dalit, he would have avoided this hideous fate.

There was also no mention of the caste of the attackers. I didn't see anything that suggested that (A) they were of a higher caste and (B) it was precisely this fact that caused them to attack and brutalize Mr. Paswan. The article only said that the attackers enjoyed "political patronage."

Now let's get two things out of the way.

(1) My heart goes out to Mr. Paswan and I futilely hope that God will visit terrible judgement on his attackers. What else do you want me to say? The law will certainly not visit anything on them; this is Bihar we're talking about here.

(2) I identify myself as a Hindu to the core but I am the first to admit that a statistically significant section of Hindus are casteist bigots. That includes some close family and some of my friends and close acquaintances. (You want gentle truth, get out of my blog.) Also, I know that egregious stuff goes on in Bihar and elsewhere in India in the name of caste.

But that sort of reporting as noted above is irresponsible and leading because it insinuates a high-caste on low-caste crime without backing that up with sufficient proof. I don't know if the bias is due to an error of omission (maybe Mr. Paswan's being Dalit really had something to do with his fate and the reporter simply forgot to mention it) or commission. 

If it is not one of omission, I would say that there is an excellent chance that this reporter, this Sahay guy, is also a bigot. And I wonder, is this sort of wording deliberately calculated to inflame passions and further embitter and pit Hindu against Hindu? And I am stupefied by the fact that it is another Hindu who is doing the embittering and pitting.

I despair for my country and for the culture that I grew up in. And I feel lonely in my despair.

An Unasked-for Explanation of my General Rudeness towards Gandhi

Why do I Gandhi-bash so? Some reasons that come to mind.

(A) It is satisfying and safe. He's dead and can't defend himself.

(B) I am a contrarian. Whenever I see a million people worshipping an object, I question the quality of that object. Intelligence is not exempt from the laws of statistics. One person is smart. A million people, on average, are dumb.

(C) I have way too much time on my hands.

I have noticed that we Indians tend to glorify our heroes a bit much. Why do we do this? Do we lack heroes? Do we miss having role models? Is this why we concentrate all our lovin' on one individual? Is this why we pick one well-known hombre, inflate his qualities and put him safely up on a pedestal out of reach of all criticism?

Why is Gandhi a "Mahatma"? Why does Subhash Bose not get that honor? Or Khudiram Bose? Or Bhagat Singh? Or Aurobindo Ghosh? Or wasshisname that blew up the British courthouse? It bothers me that a certain, admittedly famous, individual named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi gets so much attention.

That is why I bash Gandhi. Because somebody has to overcompensate, no?

I also think that we lack a certain persepective in thinking about Gandhi and other similarly famous men. 

Some perspective, guys, is all I ask. Some perspective.

Gandhi was a man.

A man who contributed to our freedom struggle. Was he a great soul, as the moniker says? He was no more or no less so than the scores of other leaders who also contributed their blood and sweat to the freedom struggle. He was obviously not a coward, as some recent Hindi movies would have us believe. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and not back down from your convictions, even when they are demonstrably wrong on more than one occasion. He was no more a coward than George W. Bush is a coward. But simply being courageous does not make you great.

We humans are not terribly discerning in handing out certificates of greatness. Take as an example, Aleksandros the Macedonian. Pray tell, why do we call him Alexander the Great? To an impartial observer, this particular character would strike me as a man with way too much time and an excellent army (which his father, Prince Philip of Macedon, had painstakingly built up) on his hands. A man who used this army to carve a path of destruction through the Ancient World for no apparent reason other than bragging rights. What legacy did he leave the world? The Hellenic legacy in the east, such as it is, was promptly wiped clean with the Islamic invasion of Persia.

Was the size of his empire impressive? Well, first, the size of one's empire does not make one great, it makes one colonial. Second, his empire was quite provincial when compared to the colossal empire that Chengiz Khan and his successors, Ogotai and Kublai, built up. Or compared to the British colonial empire. Even the Mauryan empire comes close in size. And quite frankly, people like Chengiz and his grandson Kublai Khan left a more lasting legacy in China and Russia than Alexander did on the lands he conquered. Same goes for the Brits; they left a mark, and how. So why is Chengiz Khan not billed Chengiz The Great?

Ergo, one must be careful when evaluating a man's reputation of greatness. This applies to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi also.

Yabbut, but he must have been an extremely smart man to have three hundred million people follow him devotedly, I hear some people say.

Sometimes people follow a man not because the man is smart, but because the people are not terribly bright. Take a Laloo Prasad Yadav. Is he smart, because of his unchallenged position in Bihari politics? No, Biharis are dumb, for tolerating him. 

Is Jyoti Basu, who lorded it over Bengal for 21 years and paupered it with a defunct ideology, smart? No, Bengalis are f***ing obtuse, for being so easily led. Do not ascribe to greatness what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Here's Looking at You, Gandhi

The more I read about M.K Gandhi, the more intrigued I become. Some of the contradictions and holes in the mahatma's position are big enough to sail supertankers through.

For example, the super-pacifist had no qualms in recruiting soldiers for the British during World War I, hoping to get some political mileage and inconsequential scraps from the British in return. The very secular mahatma also, ignoring better and saner advice, lent his whole-hearted support to the regressive and Islamo-fundamentalist Khilafat movement, and I personally would lay directly at his doorstep the Hindu vs Muslim riots that followed in the wake.

To add to the confusion, the mahatma suddenly lost his drafting zeal and turned into a conscientious objector during World War II. So much so that he even sent a few inane letters to Western leaders asking them to respond to Hitler's aggression with non-violence. I don't have the text of the letter handy to quote from, but it reads like something straight out of Alice in Wonderland. 

His plan for India was something similarly obtuse, because he was apparently of the notion that we should surrender our lands to the advancing Japanese.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I am of the mind that such a man could only have flourished in India, with our dimwitted, airy-fairy, undiscerning, uncritical notions of pseudo-tolerance. Any other country would have committed him a long time ago.

Also, being the prudent and calculating Gujju-bhai that the mahatma really was at heart, he saw the futility of trying any of his regular childish blackmail tactics on Jinnah. Had he tried for example, to go on a fast to make Jinnah back down from the Partition, Jinnah would simply have let him starve to death.

He also had no hopes of fasting into submission the rampaging Pakistani mobs who were butchering Hindus and Sikhs who found themselves on the wrong side of Partition. So he instead chose to blackmail the purblind cretins in India into giving the Pakis 55 crore rupees even as the Paki army regulars and tribesmen invaded Kashmir. Father of the nation indeed. A deadbeat, abusive stepfather, more like.

Even his contribution to our freedom must be seen in perspective. I quote from Koenraad Elst:

It cannot be denied that Gandhian non-violence has a few successes to its credit. But these were achieved under particularly favourable circumstances: the stakes weren’t very high and the opponents weren’t too foreign to Gandhi’s ethical standards. In South Africa, he had to deal with liberal British authorities who weren’t affected too seriously in their power and authority by conceding Gandhi’s demands. Upgrading the status of the small Indian minority from equality with the Blacks to an in-between status approaching that of the Whites made no real difference to the ruling class, so Gandhi’s agitation was rewarded with some concessions. Even in India, the stakes were never really high. Gandhi’s Salt March made the British rescind the Salt Tax, a limited financial price to pay for restoring native acquiescence in British paramountcy, but he never made them concede Independence or even Home Rule with a non-violent agitation. The one time he had started such an agitation, viz. in 1930-31, he himself stopped it in exchange for a few small concessions.

It is simply not true that India’s Independence was the fruit of Gandhian non-violent agitation. He was close to the British in terms of culture and shared ethical values, which is why sometimes he could successfully bargain with them, but even they stood firm against his pressure when their vital interests were at stake. It is only Britain’s bankruptcy due to World War 2 and the emergence of the anti-colonial United States and Soviet Union as the dominant world powers that forced Clement Attlee’s government into decolonising India. Even then, the trigger events in 1945-47 that demonstrated how the Indian people would not tolerate British rule for much longer, had to do with armed struggle rather than with non-violence: the naval mutiny of Indian troops and the ostentatious nationwide support for the officers of Subhas Bose’s Axis-collaborationist Indian National Army when they stood trial for treason in the Red Fort.

---

Are the Indians I meet who uncritically sing praises of the mahatma, and his uber-flunky butt-boy J. Nehru simply ill-read or just plain stupid? I certainly hope that it is the former, because that at least can be rectified.

Why look to the past and criticize dead men, you ask? Well, simple. The past can be a learning opportunity. Unlike the present or the future, the past has a distinct advantage: it has been recorded. The mistakes have been made and the effects of those mistakes duly noted.

 
It requires skill to deal with the present and tremendous foresight to anticipate the future. But how much of a fundamental moron do you have to be to ignore the past, which has been meticulously recorded for you?

Postscript: It may seem a little unfair of me to mention a Hitler in the same breath as a Gandhi. But I think that they were similar in at least one important respect--they both advocated total ideologies devoid of moderation. Hitler trained his guns on others, Gandhi turned the gun on himself and on those around him. Hitler was a sadist, Gandhi was a masochist. Both caused grief to people around them.

Idle Historical Questions

Why did Mohandas Gandhi not use his "fast unto death" tactic to force Jinnah to back down from his Partition Plan? He certainly used it on everyone else.

One must ask: Did he use this stupid tactic of his only when he was reasonably sure of a favorable outcome? To put it another way, did he use it only on the vast majority of backbone-free, bovine, uncritical Hindus, who would indulge him every time?

And is it thus fair to conclude that this tactic of Satyagraha, i.e. fasting/blackmailing unto death, only works against emotionally immature, terribly obtuse opponents, and stands no chance against a strong, determined one?

What good is a tool, moral or otherwise, that can only be used against the weak and stupid, eh?

The Last Question

The following is the best science-fiction short story I've read. Even if you don't like science fiction, give it a shot. You may be surprised to find resonance. In fact, I guarantee that you will.

http://www.aronson.co.il/adin/TheLastQ.htm

Symphony in Saffron

This is not breaking news, I know. 

I have observed that BJP, the "Hindu Nationalist" political party of India, suffers from extremely poor media management. I have watched with a sense of wonder the BJP (and the Hindutva folks in general) get bashed to putty by the media for transgressions that other, more "secular" folks get away with fluently.

Our language often reveals our biases. Take the term "Hindutva Brigade", for example. It is used often by the media to refer to the BJP. A flippant, mildly derisive term. Suggestive of rabble. Like the Keystone Kops. Suggestive of militancy. But the media never says, "Islamic Squad" or "Congress Horde", even when referring to those with blatantly pro-Muslim sympathies and decidedly un-secular and unconstitutional positions.

Or take the use of the term "Hindu Right" which is used with effect to paint a broad section of Indians who hold certain views or support certain policies. The vapid morons that infest the Indian media probably don't read the same sort of literature that I do, but in my book, (A) enacting the Uniform Civil Code, (B) removing any special status from Kashmir, (C) curbing illegal immigration, (D) kicking to death with nailed jackboots the unsavory bastards who instituted and perpetuated mindless sops like the Hajj subsidy, and (E) wanting to reduce the birth rate in India, all appear to be very middle-of-the-road and Centrist policies. So why does a Hindu who holds these views deemed to be from the Hindu Right? Shouldn't he be called a Hindu Centrist? Or just Centrist? Is his being Hindu relevant in some way?

Disclosure: I am a Centrist.

So we see that those who support the BJP and its pretty secular policies get no love from the media (the BJP is no more or less secular than the Congress, my little chickadee; pull it out of your behind). But as is my contention, a significant part of it must be blamed on poor media management. 

Let me bring up an example.

Recently, Praveen Togadia, a card-carrying member of the VHP, which is a sister organization to the BJP, shot off his mouth on the population issue.

Aside: It is popular knowledge that India has a population problem. Which is understating it. As everybody is well aware, India, to be blunt about it, needs to put a rubber on the end of its stick. Right now, as we speak.

Mr. Togadia, god bless his soul, was particularly concerned about this here population problem that India faces. And his concern was sharp when it came to the growth of Muslims. The Muslims were outbreeding the Hindus at a comfortable clip, he noted. His solution? Hindus should have more children.

Yes, that's right. Hindus should have more children to counter the Muslims and to add to the groaning weight of human beings that India already supports.

He did not advocate birth control. He did not talk about education about birth control. He did not talk about the economics of over-population. He instead suggested that we Hindus hit the hay and have some fun.

Now Mr. Togadia is associated with the Hindutva folks and like it or not, with the average, fair-minded Hindu on the street. He is also an embarassment to us all when he makes such statements. I am sitting here stratching my head and thinking why he does not have a full time spin doctor assigned to him.

I know that every cause needs its goons, but are people like Praveen Togadia really necessary?

Predictably, the media lost no time in jumping down the Hindu throat. I read the story on http://www.rediff.com/ a few weeks ago. Many reactions to Togadia--all unflattering--were reported. A Muslim leader from the Muslim Personal Law Board or somesuch came out (of the woodwork) and said, "Higher birth rates is not a solution. We should not make such statements."

Thanks, Mr. Togadia, for that. I do hope that you are as aware of the stark irony of this as the rest of us are. Because when a Muslim lectures to you about the virtues of a small family size, you are definitely not following the instructions on the label right.

Hold The Press!

I forgot to mention, under "Books that mean a lot to me":

(0) The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien.

(1) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (a trilogy in five parts).

(2) Little Women by Louisa May Alcott.

(3) Anything by Jules Verne.

Shame on me for missing those.

Book Tagging

This is a very belated response to Sukanya Majumdar's book tag. Sorry Sukanya, but better late than too late, true?

Total books I own: Dunno. "More than a few" is my best guess.

Last book I bought: Indian Controversies: Essays on Religion in Politics by Arun Shourie

Last book I read: Am reading the above book right now.

Books that mean a lot to me:

1. Anything by Saradindu Bandopadhyay. He, in my opinion, is the best short story writer who has written in Bangla. For that matter, I cannot think of any author in any language I know who can equal him.

2. Anything by Rajshekhar Basu. Nom de plume: Parashuram. The other brilliant short story writer of Bengal.

3. Anything by the Ray family. Upendrakishore Rowchoudhury, Sukumar Ray, and Satyajit Ray. Grandfather, father, and son. How so much talent can pass on from one generation to the next without dilution is still a mystery to me.

4. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer. I love history and particularly like reading about the Great War, Part II.

5. Even though I am male and hetero, I have liked Pride and Prejudice. Besides being a deliciously sweet story, it is also a lesson in how to write in the English language.

6. I like Oscar Wilde's stories, plays and poems. Have you read The Importance of Being Earnest or The Ballad of Reading Gaol?

7. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. A jarring, dystopic, disturbing work.

8. Datta and Debdas. Both are novellas by Saratchandra Roy. To those who cannot read Bangla, allow me to say that Debdas, notwithstanding the stereotypes it brings to mind thanks largely to the morons who infest the Hindi movie industry, is the most heart-wrenching and dignified story of love I have ever read. It is a tale of dignity. A story that loses everything in the translation. Thanks, Dilip Kumar and Shah Rukh, for hamming it up and making it painful for those of us who know better. Trust the Hindi movie folks to do the usual bang-up job of turning the sublime into the ridiculous.

9. The dohas of Kabirdas. He was a wise, wise man.

10. The poetry of Omar Khayyam. Beautiful!

11. Scaramouche by Rafael Sabatini.

12. Stuff by Albert Camus.

13. Stuff by Stephen King.

(Some eclectic, anything-goes sorta list this is turning out to be!)

14. Stuff by George Orwell

15. Arthur C. Clarke -- how can I forget him?

16. Lolita -- Vladimir Nabokov

17. Everything by Isaac Asimov -- The Last Question is the best science-fiction short story I've ever read. It exists online and I will post the link.

This is by no means a complete list. It also not ordered. I cannot remember everything that I have read. And I am sure that I have missed mentioning many, many more that have impressed and influenced me.

Oh, Frederick Forsythe.

And G.B. Shaw. And Shakespeare.

And Dave Barry. And Bankimchandra Chatterjee.

And Wuthering Heights. And Robert Heinlein. And Maugham (read Of Human Bondage). And Michael Crichton (read Sphere, the book. Avoid the movie).

Like non-fiction? Read The Mythical Man-month. Read The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris. Read Christopher Hitchens. Read The Final Verdict by Aroup Chatterjee, which is a damning indictment of that "saint", Mother Teresa.

Try Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell. Try Out of Africa, Dinesen. Try Peter Drucker.

And so many more come to mind. So many. This book tagging thing is quite unfair.

I shall stop.

P.S.: Oh, I need to pass on the flame and tag a few, according to established procedure. So, Balajee, Rob and Jyoti, you are it.

Never

Never be mediocre.

Be excellent; or be inadequate. But never mediocre.

Never.

Still Keeping it Short

There is this peculiar two-legged animal that exists on this good planet of ours. And competes with humans for the limited available resources that God has seen fit to put on his own green earth.

It is a strange and exotic animal. One that I am trying to understand and analyse. And I hope to complete this analysis some day soon and publish my findings in a learned journal, before I finish my tour of duty and go into the Great Yawning Beyond.

There is no accepted taxonomy for this animal at the time of this writing. But if one were to exist, it would say: "The Great Indian Mud-Dwelling One-Horned Non-Resident Leftist Liberal", and be classified under Invertebrates.

Interesting animal, this Great Indian Mud-Dwelling One-Horned Non-Resident Leftist Liberal. Or GRIMONOLL, for short. If you forget, just remember that it rhymes with "obscene troll".

I will one day lay out my limited take of this creature in some detail. But for now, let me consider a statement that this creature makes (this animal possesses a somewhat advanced larynx that enables it to sometimes create a sequence of high-pitched, harsh sounds that a lot of humans take for speech).

The statement is along the lines of: "India is going to the dogs. And the fault, in case you can't tell, lies squarely at the doorstep of those senseless brutes, the Hindu Nationalists. Always stirring up trouble, those Huns. And insisting on unreasonable things like an Uniform Civil Code, equal status for all states in the Union, cutting off illegal immigration into a country that already cannot provide jobs to a signficant number of its own citizens, stuff like that. Hmmphh, imagine that. Too much nationalism is not a good thing, I tell you. It destroys. Somebody should tell that to the Hindu Nationalists. Those Nazis!"

Now, the Grimonoll can be engaged in debate and nailed to the wall as a trophy with each one of the above points, but it is a tiresome and pointless exercise for the average human with things to do.

But I will say this much to a Grimonoll, if one ever wanders upon this blog (some of them actually have Internet access, which mystifies me greatly): Rest easy, my little, tortured, confused Grimonoll. Too much nationalism has never been India's problem.

Too Much Heaven (Or Sun)

Does it take a lot away from your heterosexuality if you tune into a music station while driving, find Barry Gibb singing Too Much Heaven, and don't change the channel?

I was driving to work Friday and this song was playing and I didn't change the channel. Doesn't know why, I doesn't.

Nobody gets too much Heaven no more
It's much harder to come by
I'm waiting in line

Nobody gets too much Love anymore
It's as high as a mountain
And harder to climb

Corny.

But I still didn't change the channel.

Going soft. And possibly in the head.

Fractured Wisdom

[Not too long ago, my sister was struggling with her decision to go to New Zealand to seek higher education. We exchanged a few emails then. It was not an easy decision for her because of several reasons and hurdles, and she needed some cheering up and pep talk once in a while. So one day, in a flashy-washy of inspiration, I came up with this cheesy-weesy bit of wisdom that I promptly sent her way. I put it up here, with a few minor embellishments to make it blog-worthy, just so you guys will have something to guffaw about in the evening at your respective country clubs. Remember to put my name in the credits, though.]

You know, there are only two basic types of people on earth--only two--and don't let anybody tell you different. 

The fighter and the peasant.

The fighter fights. It doesn't matter what he or she's fighting. The issues vary, what matters is that the fighter reacts. The peasant takes care of farm and looks after the chickens and sometimes cheers (or jeers) when the fighters go off to a war.

Being one type or the other does not imply success (however one defines success), merely two divergent worldviews. Some fighters fight all the way to the top and become kings and lords; and some just bleed to death on a nameless battlefield.

Some peasants, for their part, build fortunes by working hard with what they have and generally staying close to the ground. Some farm the same little patch of land all their lives to sustain an existence.

Fighters are marked by resistance. Peasants are marked by acceptance. And sometimes it is better to be a peasant than a fighter. Because fighters are often frustrated by the system, having no idea how to work it--there is no sadder sight than a bitter, lonely, thwarted, aging fighter. Peasants, on the other hand, are more comfortable with the system because they instinctively know how to work within the framework and flourish within it.

But sometimes it is better to be a fighter. To stand up and call it the way you see it. To not compromise, even against the seemingly inevitable. To push the boundaries, to stretch the limits of the possible. To fight for an unreachable ideal. To fight for a hopeless love. To scream your lust into the bitter, acrid wind of a lost battle.

Both are valid worldviews and there is no value judgement that I'm making here. The world needs both types. A world full of fighters would be chaotic. A world full of peasants would be dull. All I'm saying is that maybe one is born a certain way, with a certain "type-ness", if you will, encoded into them at birth, and you can no more change this "type-ness" later on than you can change your blood type.