Should we celebrate?

Shibu Soren got life sentence. Navjot Singh Sidhu is convicted. Sanjay Dutt is convicted. These are big names and influential personalities. Shibu is from the ruling party. Sidhu is from major opposition party. Sanjay Dutt is son of a politician and an actor. But somehow Indian judicial system seems to have transcended these ecclesiastical power structures to treat them as any Indian citizen.

Should we celebrate?

Haven’t we come long way when no politician could be convicted, where any influential person could get a free ticket out of the trial dockets?

Is this the beginning of a new era? Or is it a small anomaly or a blip on the radar?

Reservations XIV: Corporate responsibility- mandatory?

Earlier, I had worked in really large organizations and now I run a small organization and I know the pitfalls of mandatory policies to implement reservations in Indian industry. I know the implications and consequences of such policies and I would not like to go that path if given a choice. Mandatory provisions, if they are similar to what are practiced in Indian government, are going to affect the Indian industry in many ways. Imagine promotions being made on caste lines and imagine you can’t fire someone because he is from a lower caste, etc.

If given choice I wouldn’t want to go that path of mandatory reservations policies that are similar to the ones practiced in Indian government offices. Instead, I want our industry to wake up and embrace voluntary practices so that Indian government can be assured that we are wise and mature enough to implement policies that actually bridge the gap between different social groups in our industry. As a wish I do not want these policies to be enforced upon us.

However, I do not see any voluntary action on part of Indian industry. I don’t see a single action from them that suggest they are going to embrace this voluntarily. Indian industry is not even ready to disclose their numbers- on how many backward communities are on their payroll, how many women, how many Muslims, Christians, etc. The voluntary disclosure of such numbers is only the first step. What follows next is the realization- that we have gone wrong somewhere. So that we can then ask some hard questions to ourselves- Where did we go wrong? How can we include certain parameters and provisions to take care of correcting these under-representations without affecting our corporate functions? Should we come up with our own strategies to combat this problem? If indeed our rolls are filled with people from single class, shouldn’t we be ashamed of ourselves?

But then, if we were indeed that wise and mature, we wouldn’t have had caste-based-discrimination in the first place, right?

Should the government impose mandatory policies right away? Should the government first give the room and space for Indian industries to rectify their systems and then see if they have made enough progress before enforcing the mandatory policies? What is the right way to do it? Should we trust the Indian industry to take up this task on its own or let the Indian government mandate the task?

I would like to give an example here. Imagine India started to see a fall in the ranks of its army and defense forces. Let’s say, it has been agreed by experts that a quarter-million force is necessary to provide an adequate deterrence to an external aggression. And let’s say we realize that there is only a fifty-thousand force since no one is keen on joining the forces. To overcome this problem, Indian Army could start off with providing incentives to people to join, and if even that doesn’t work, it may start making mandatory policies to recruit people. This is not a far-fetched scenario. Many countries in the world have mandatory recruitment into their army for certain period of time. This allows them to maintain a credible army at all times. In absence of volunteers many countries resort to mandatory enlistment.

The same analogy can work for Indian industry. Indian government should allow Indian industry to voluntarily come up with different mechanisms to address the gaps in the representations of different classes of people. Meanwhile, the Indian industry should quickly take this opportunity and start implementing the policies to bridge gaps between various classes right away. In absence of such voluntary actions from Indian industry, the Indian government will have no choice but resort to the mandatory provisions.

I wish that companies like Wipro, Infosys, Tata, Reliance, etc, which are big names of the Indian industry should readily embrace voluntary methods. By doing that, they will set an industry standard which other companies like ours can embrace without having to resort to mandatory provisions. I am sad to see that many of these companies are running away from embracing this voluntarily. Such apathy will only take us down the mandatory path.

Can and should Caste be abolished?

During my discussions on various topics on Reservations-based-on-caste, many commenters expressed their opinion that caste should be banned. They thought it was the bane of society which should be quickly done away with. They also believe strongly that caste-based-reservations are just a political means employed by wily politicians to further their interest by playing with vote banks. They do not see any merit in such reservations and some even believe that these reservations are actually an anathema to the lower castes themselves and that it does not seem to reach the one on the bottom layer.

Can caste be abolished?

No. I don’t think caste can be abolished in India. When I was young and was going to college, even I had entertained this idea to a great extent. Somehow, I thought that caste can be abolished, I thought of different mechanisms by which caste does not appear in our daily lives. I even came up with methods to do it- thought that people should change their last names, that they should never utter their caste to anyone, that they should never mention it in any document, and that those who discuss one’s caste should be fined or imprisoned, and so on. You have to forgive me- I was young, and I thought I knew everything.

Caste, like any other identity that people grow up with, cannot be abolished or done away with using external forces. At the most, we can outlaw, abolish or discourage certain practices- such as sati, untouchability, discrimination, etc. But we cannot easily abolish identities- such as national identities, castes, religions, languages, etc. Communism tried to abolish and root out religion and failed bitterly. After the end of cold war, we see that religions in those regions thrive as usual and may be with renewed vigor.

Caste is too tightly and deeply ingrained with our religion (Hinduism) and our way of life. Its an institution in itself and has survived for eons and is not going to go away that easily either. It even seems to transcend religions and percolate into other religions even after people get converted. Though we seem to dwell on the negative aspects of caste, in fact, it is quite useful to many people, either to establish camaraderie between groups, make marriages, establish clans and groups, and also to further their interests of their groups by association and identity. Concept of caste is extremely close to our religion and our philosophies itself which we seem to be very proud of. To stultify caste would be tantamount to renouncing many of our philosophies, heritage, culture, history, etc- and I am not sure if this is an agreeable proposition to many Indians.

Should caste be abolished?

I don’t think there is a necessity to consciously make attempts to abolish caste. Any attempt to abolish caste will only renew the divisions further. People will only identify with it more religiously and fanatically. As seen from histories of different lands, such identities cannot be taken away from the people. The more you try, the more they hold onto it dearly. Instead, we should work towards mechanisms by which caste becomes redundant. An identity becomes redundant when it does not give any benefit whatsoever by clinging to it. As humans we have lost some of the identities through the course of human history. These identities fade away only when we see that there is no additional benefit from holding onto that identity. That is the only way we can do away with cast, by making it redundant and unimportant.

The way it would become redundant and unimportant is when each caste has access to opportunity equally, where this identity is no longer a dominant force in availing education and employment. That is when caste is just another unimportant identity that can be easily done away with. Even if it does exis, that is when it does not seem to govern one’s ability to social status, marriage, education, employment, opportunity, etc. Only when we reach that stage as a society, caste becomes an unimportant identity. Therefore, there is no need to abolish it. It should be made redundant and unimportant making it ineffective.

Reservations XII: Corporate Responsibility [Reposted]

[I have reposted this article. I apologize for this. For the first time, I had written about myself in one of the comments, and it was taken out of context by other bloggers. They ridiculed and made a mockery of it. Hence, I have deleted that article and reposted the article. I shall add all comments you have written].

I am coming back to this topic after a long time since there is an ongoing discussion in the media, industry and the government on whether there should reservations for backward castes in the industry.

Should there be reservations in the private industry for backward castes?

Usually my answers to these questions are unambiguous, but here, I would like to discuss certain issues before I give out my answer.

In my opinion, Indian industry has certain social obligation which it has to fulfill. Promoting backward castes and minorities is one of those social obligations. It can fulfill this voluntarily or it can be enforced. Indian industry had more than fifty years to prove that it was in consonance with social policies of India, i.e. promoting backward castes and minorities, but it has not taken any measures in that direction. The Indian industry, being completely dominated by the same graduates who seem to oppose reservations in every form, wants to keep it ‘unpolluted’. The Indian business leaders give out excuses such as ‘quality’, ‘excellence’, ‘merit’, ‘global standards’, etc, to shirk from this responsibility. They seem to believe that inviting backward castes and minorities into their industry will somehow dilute these attributes- excellence, quality, merit, etc. To be able to compete with world organizations, they say, ‘they need to keep up the highest standards’ and that unequivocally means ‘backward castes based on reservations are not welcome’. They believe it is the duty of only the government to uplift these classes and not theirs. Why? Because they have bigger battles to fight- such as upholding Indian industry to make it competition worthy to take on global giants. In such big and lofty fights, there is no place for such backward and degenerate concepts as reservations.

And whom are they fighting? They want to take on the biggies like GE, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Cisco, etc. And what do these big companies practice that our Indian companies do not? Voluntary affirmative action! While most of these companies (those who are based in US) make sure they have the appropriate representation of the minorities- Blacks, Hispanics, Women and the handicapped, Indian industry looks at such a things distasteful, out of sync with the globalization, anachronistic with modern times. For some reason, these companies in US seem to highly competitive in spite of their policies to include minorities. Our industry does not seem to believe the same. They shy away from any provision which makes them disclose the numbers to indicate representation of backward castes, minority religions and women. Why disclosing those numbers is an anathema suggests something sinister. This attitude is reflected amongst many privileged classes of India who do not want to ‘discuss’ the issues of caste, religion, sex, with the pretense that such discussions will unnecessarily bring about divisions in the society. They want to believe and want us to believe that one can make such caste difference disappear away by just not talking about it or addressing it. While they do not want to discuss such issues, they merrily carry on their discriminatory machines.

Now, that the Indian Government has stepped down saying they are going to enforce reservations, the industry scrambles to put together a voice saying they would want this voluntary and not mandatory. If it was meant to be voluntary, why did they not embrace this voluntarily for more than fifty years? If their intentions were indeed honest, why did they wait for government to impose it onto them?

A mere look at Indian industry will give you how lopsided its representation is. I know of an Indian company with around 2500 people or more, and one look at the roll suggests that Muslims comprise less than 1% of the company. Since I cannot recognize one’s castes from their names, I am not able to say how many backward communities are represented. Here’s a report which has done some observations. According to this report, 88% of the respondents were Hindus, while only 5% were Christians and 2% Muslims. However, 71% belong to the ’savarna’ upper castes (about half were Brahmins). If one includes the 15 % who are from dominant agricultural castes, 44 fully 86% of respondents come from upper castes and/or economically better-off communities.

The industry has ensured it remained mostly Hindu and that too mostly upper caste. While the aim of the reservations has been to increase the presence of backward castes in education and professional environments, Indian industry has somehow escaped that responsibility on the name of ‘being competitive’.

And who is talking about competitiveness anyway? All the top Indian IT companies also hire from private institutions whose only entry criterion is money. More than 80% of the students in such institutions get admission by paying money in various categories, such as NRI quota, management quota, etc. These top IT companies unashamedly and unabashedly hire 60% of the class students from such colleges to create ‘competitiveness’, ‘excellence’ and ‘quality’, while they believe that backward castes and minorities are going to dilute those causes. I do not trust Indian industry. It is filled with the same people who want to ensure the privileges are enjoyed by a certain class. Since the government has brought on reservations in Indian academia and government companies, they want to keep their bastion strong in the name of competitive Indian industry refusing to give up their positions to include minorities and backward castes. Though the Indian industry avers it is going to do it voluntarily, I do not trust they are going to do it.

So, let me answer the question above. In light of what has happened in this country, it is foolish to expect and believe that Indian industry will voluntarily implement policies to promote backward castes and minorities. Since, private industry in India is becoming a big employment provider, it is imperative that government of India impose clauses and provisions which mandate these companies to correct the imbalances in their representations and hire people from backward castes and minorities in an effort to maintain the representations at appropriate levels. A mandatory disclosure is needed. Measures such as not giving sops, tax benefits, government contracts, land benefits, etc, should be taken up to discourage the companies who do not maintain adequate representations.

Reservations XIII: How Indian industry discriminates

I didn’t think I would write another one on this topic, but then I never thought that I would write the first twelve of them either. In this section, I want to address how hiring at some of the private Indian industry seem to further the caste-based-discrimination.

How does Indian industry participate in continuing the discrimination?

Many of us believe that discrimination is overt- that you consciously discriminate the other person because you got to know his/her caste. That’s not how it actually works. Discrimination works in many subtle and subconscious ways, and they all constitute discrimination. Here, I give you an example of how hiring happens in an Indian industry.

Imagine a software company X that goes to a college Y to hire its students 'from the campus'. You get a bunch of young people writing an entrance test. Only those who exceed a predetermined score are called for the next phase- of an interview. After the interview (that may include group discussion and few other tests), company X shortlists the candidates and rolls out appointment letters to these students and hope they do eventually turn up on the joining date. [It’s another story that some of these students never show up on the intended date.]

Now, what’s happening here? First, the entrance test does not take into account the issues of cultural and social diversity of the students. It has been argued long ago that most IQ tests are culturally biased. Even if we all agree on this shortcoming, we do not take necessary measures to correct this bias through other means, such as selecting students from different pools of cultural and social groups. I illustrate this by giving an example. When a medical student applies to an American university, he does not necessarily get the admission based on his scores in the entrance test. He is pitted against others in the pool he represents. Therefore, an Indian is competing against other Indians or South-Asians, a Pacific Islander is competing against others in his group, a Black American is competing against others in his group and so on. [It doesn't vary even if all these students are coming from the same American high school or college]. This process is designed in such a way that while those who excel in the entrance test are given due consideration, the others who come from minority groups are also represented in a certain predetermined or agreed percentages. The same process, in a different form, is also used by American industry where an adequate representation of such minorities is an important goal and achievement. Most Indian companies do not follow any of such methods in its hiring. Therefore, though we seem to give reservations at education institutes we seem to obliterate those responsibilities after their graduation. Those who seem to pass these entrance tests are usually coming from the same single group that always had the social advantages. And those who could not make it are those who alywas had the social handicaps and which could not be overcome in a few years of education. So, in effect, you have a very small number of socially backward students passing these entrance tests.

Second, the interview process eliminates most of these socially backward students from the race. In an interview (or a discussion group), most often, the socially advantaged groups (read, upper caste Hindu) fare well. They seem to display the necessary behaviors and body language, have necessary communication skills that an industry looks for. Without giving due weight to other factors such as his/her social class, economic class, religious background, etc, the company X is not making an attempt to consider these aspects of a student. Most backward-caste and other minority group candidates get booted out in this phase. What you get at the end of this phase are primarily upper caste Hindu group. This is reflected in statistics in many Indian industries as well.

So, by not taking these 'other factors' into consideration during the entrance test and interview process, most Indian companies seem to further the discrimination in a very subtle and subconscious process. Most of us may not know the other person’s caste or social class, but by looking solely at his percentages, entrance test scores, and interview performance, we tend to miss the larger picture of including socially backward groups and minorities. If one were add suggested parameters into the process such as economic and social class, religious background, sex, etc, we can work towards a fairer representation of different classes.

Therefore I urge Indian industry to either include voluntarily the necessary parameters based on socially backward groups, minorities, sex, etc, or be ready to implement the policies as mandated by the Indian government.

India: North and South Debate

Today there was show on CNN-IBN discussing South India in which Rajdeep Sardesai posed several questions and collected opinion polls. Before discussing those numbers I want to say two things.

1. I thank Rajdeep Sardesai for posing such questions. Debate, when carried out maturely, can be constructive. Though I may not agree with his propaganda machine, some of his efforts to bring forth serious topics are worth commending.
2. Such opinion polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. The respondents are usually from urban middle class and may not truly represent the opinions of wider spectrum.

On Identity

26% of South Indians living in South India consider themselves South Indian first and Indian next. Of these states, in Kerala, 48% consider themselves South Indian first and Indian next, while in AP, only 12% consider themselves South Indian first and Indian next.

Since I am discussing this topic of identities, I want to dwell upon it a little further. In my earlier discussion I explained why some Muslims do not sing Vande Mataram. In that discussion, many respondents commented that Muslims consider themselves Muslims first and Indian next, which according to them is not a healthy sign for India. They believe that Muslims have allegiance with their religion first, which can be considered unpatriotic or traitorous in certain scenarios, such as invasion from an Islamic country.

I believe that most of us have multiple identities, and coming up with hypothetical scenarios in which these identities are in conflict is purely an academic argument. One can live with multiple identities without a conflict. Even when faced with hypothetical scenarios, for example, a war with Muslim nation, it is not easy to say with confidence what one person will choose over the other. Moreover, it is not even clear who represents what? In previous wars with Pakistan, many Indian-Muslim soldiers participated in the war and came out with flying colors. There are no cases of Indian-Muslim soldiers deserting India to join Pakistani Army. Is it important to ask what comes first- his religious identity or national identity? If it is religious identity, is he less patriotic or doesn’t deserve to live in this country (as some commenters suggested)?

Can one be a human and be Indian? Can one be a male and be Indian? Can one be Brahmin and be Indian? Can one be Tamil and be Indian? Can one be homosexual and be Indian? We can easily construct hypothetical scenarios where each of these identities can come in conflict with the national identity. Is it important for us to determine if each of those identities are less important to us than the national identity to measure our patriotism?

Based on the above results from CNN-IBN, should these 26% of South Indians be considered unpatriotic and traitorous because they consider themselves South Indians first? Should 48% of Keralites be kicked out of the country for being loyal to Kerala first? Based on these figures, should we construct a hypothetical civil war in India and believe that these Keralites will fight India defending their Malayalam country?

India is like Europe. We all have religions, castes, languages, ethnicities, and many other identities, but we live like a nation. The fact that India exists as a country is a miracle in itself, with so many identities and cultural allegiances. The only way India will remain India is when we allow each of those groups to maintain their identities, allow them to profess their religious, allow each group to have its rights within the grand scheme called India. Any provision that tries to obliterate those identities in an effort to homogenize India will result in a backlash and upset that miracle. The only way India can be cohesive unit is by allowing each distinct unit to maintain their identity. The only way India can be integrated is by allowing each of us to be proud of our local identities, be proud of our rich heritages and culture, our local language and history, etc. Only by accepting pluralism, India can integrate itself. Only by celebrating its diversity, India can unite itself (hence, the phrase- Unity in Diversity). Those, who have myopic vision of India, try to impose certain identities over others to bring in conformity and universality. They believe that we all should be similar in some ways, that there should be a national language, that there should be one version of patriotism, that there should be unified view of our history, that there should be one common theme to be Indian. They do not realize that the universal values should be equality, justice, opportunity, freedoms, etc, not languages, religions, castes, or ethnicities.

Intelligence

Rajdeep Sardesai posed another question on the perceived intelligence of South Indians. I do not wish to express my opinion on the results since I do not believe that one race, community, caste, sect, etc, has more intelligence than the other. The question is flawed. However, certain group can position itself in an advantageous position owing to certain factors, such as history, etc. The seemingly difference in intelligence is this positioning, not actual intelligence.

Other factors

The general perception is that South India is more tolerant, more welcome towards women’s rights, more conducive for minority rights, has implemented affirmative action to bring oppressed and backward into the mainstream, have been influential in embracing English as the medium, etc.

Since I have started discussing this topic, I would like to outline few of my opinions here which are related but not necessarily dealt by CNN-IBN.

Division of States based on linguistic lines

In retrospect, it is clear that division of states of Indian on linguistic lines has been the best that has happened in this country. No other division would have allowed smoother functioning of the states. No other division would have brought about harmony between the states. Only by allocating each language its identity through its statehood, we have given the assurance that their heritage and history will not be obliterated. Out of this security comes the tolerance. When states are secure of their linguistic identities, they are more welcome to embrace other languages. Though there has been anti-Hindi backlash in South that has been marginalized now and there is growing acceptance for Hindi in the Southern States. CNN-IBN results show that only 5% were anti-Hindi.

One from the audience suggested that Hindi, being the national language, should be made compulsory to unify India. That is the national chauvinism that has to be combated in this country. We all should realize and understand that India does not have a national language. Neither Indian Constitution nor any legal document of India confers this status upon Hindi. Rashtra Bhasha sounds good in speeches and not on official documents. Only 36% respondents of South India believe that Hindi should be made compulsory. Most of them agree that Hindi will be embraced only when it is not imposed. There is a greater affinity to embrace Hindi only when it is voluntary.

This brings out the true nature of India. Identities cannot be imposed. We are tolerant and accepting only when it is voluntary. Any idea to bring in harmony, unity and integrity into India by imposing it onto its people turns out to be counterproductive. The same argument holds for Muslims not singing Vande Mataram, Tamilians not speaking Hindi, etc. Each of us wants to hold on to our local identities while remaining loyal to the nation on a broader level. Missing that strength of India will result in confusion on definitions of patriotism.

Unity in Diversity

I am a Telangana, I am a Telugu, I am a Hindu, I am an atheist, I am a liberal and democratic, I am a secular and socialist, I am a capitalist, I am a Indian, I am a male, I am a human, I am living, and I think. These are many of my identities. Each of them is important to me. To ask me, if a liberal or democratic country invades us, would I support that invading country or my homeland is a stupid question. To ask if I would want my Telangana to secede from India is also hypothetical question that does not deserve an answer. It depends on many situations and scenarios, and each of us would behave differently when pushed into those situations. The idea is not to be pushed into such situations. How will we unite when Mars invades? Would US be still invading Iraq if planet Mars attacked Earth? Some of our identities come forth in opposition to a conflicting identity. I am from Warangal when talking to someone from Hyderabad, I am Telugu, when talking to a Tamilian, I am Indian, when talking to an American, I am brown when talking to a white man, I am a male when talking to female, so on so forth.

If the Indian central government discriminates Telangana for prolonged periods, and meticulously deprives it of all economic benefits, discriminates its people, jails its people, and kills them mercilessly by putting their forces, I would be forced into changing my definition of what’s my homeland. Now, my homeland is India, but the in the above scenario, where my homes are burnt, lands are taken away, my people are dragged into streets, shot at, mutilated, our women raped, etc, I may start identifying myself with Telangana more than India. If we are forced into such situations, each of us would choose one identity above others- that choice depends on situations and scenarios. As Indians, we need to be clear on what identities we are going to support and promote and what we will not.

There has to be constant effort to unite India while allowing for local identities to thrive. There has to be a constant fight to tone down regional chauvinism while limiting national chauvinism. Increase in any of those above tolerable levels will bring about secession of the country.

Times of India: A tabloid

Times of India should call itself a tabloid, not a newspaper. I have switched to The Hindu long ago. But today, the paperboy dropped of Times of India (TOI) edition instead of my regular newspaper. So, for a change I had to go through TOI once again.

One look at the newspaper, and you realize how worthless it is. As an example, I will just discuss today’s International section in TOI.

1. Courtney Love says she will pose nude for Britain’s pop magazine.

She promised that she would be “naked as the day I was born”.

2. Post-Divorce, Britney’s sex video with ex-hubby is costing her dear.

She did a range of explicit sex sessions with her soon-to-be ex-hubby Kevin Federline and made a video tape of the stormy, unabated sex sessions…Sources say that the naked couple are seen in a series of raunchy love-making acts and sexual games…They did nothing all day but have sex.

3. Stripper almost split Moss, Doherty

Kate Moss and Pete Doherty had a tiff after he accused her of paying too much attention to a male stripper…

4. Slippery Catfight [with picture]

Women wrestle during a girls-only Amateur Jello Wrestling event in New York on Sunday. Every month, women from all walks of life, including lawyers, school teachers and students, wrestle in 50 gallons of clear jelly.

This is supposedly International News according to TOI. The Bangalore Times edition is nothing but pictures and lurid details of sex, actress, and models.

My sincerest advice:

If you have kids growing up in your household, do not subscribe to TOI. Whether you are conscious of it or not, your kids are absorbing all these lurid and lewd details while growing up.

Understanding Islam

I am an atheist. Now, why do I want to understand religion? 

I started out as radical atheist, engaging people in discussions and debates, talking about God, showing people the flaws and inconsistencies in their belief systems, and I did all this just to get kicks. I was young. Now, I see religion from a different perspective. I don’t think religion can be done away with. looks like it serves a purpose for humans. From what religious people tell me, it gives hope, it gives them order, a sense of meaning to their life, answers some of the arcane and metaphysical questions. According to some others, it binds people together, brings them closer, gives them faith and confidence in times of crisis. The more I understood history, human psychology, our need for social order and structure, the more I began to become tolerant of religion and its existence. Looks like humans will create an institution similar to religion even if one were eliminate it in the present form. Hence, I attempt to understand religion.

However, religion has its own demerits. The way science and technology can be used to blow up people, make war and even destroy countries; religion can blow up people, make war and destroy countries. It all depends on humans on how they want to use it.

Islam is under question from all quarters. Many of us from non-Islamic religions are in the process of demonizing Islam, citing texts from Koran and incidents from the life of Muhammad, its history and the present events to prove how it is inherently violent and intolerant. I have read many articles that talk about texts from Koran to explain why Islam is a violent religion and how it is incompatible with other religions.

Here’s a site that gives a different perspective- The American Muslim. I have taken some articles from that site and linked it here.

# Does Islam Call for the Murder of 'Infidels'? and Part III and IV
 

Dr. Hesham Hassaballa has posted five-part series explaining how Islam does not sanction the murder of ‘infidels’; that the verses in the Koran, which tell the believers to ‘fight the infidels’, are speaking of those who were directly attacking the Muslims at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. He adds, “There is nothing, nothing, nothing in Islam that says ‘all infidels must be killed. Nothing.” He clearly mentions, “Fighting in Islam is permitted only in self-defense.” And he agrees, “Unfortunately, the definition of ‘self-defense’ has been grossly distorted to justify inhuman acts of terror and violence.”

Writing about September 11, he says, “This sort of logic was used to justify the attacks of September 11. It is evil; it is diabolical; it is twisted; it is inhuman; it is morally reprehensible. Call it what you wish, but one thing you can’t call it is Islamic. Islam does not sanction or condone the murder of any innocent human being, be he or she Muslim or non-Muslim. Islam teaches that it is wrong, and if it’s wrong, it’s wrong.”

# Does Islam Encourage Suicide Bombings?

The Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, who is acknowledged as the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims, said Islam condemned terrorism in all its forms. He added, “Islam considers anyone who kills an innocent person as killing the whole of humanity.” He says that in the name of Islamic law he rejected and condemned the aggression against innocent civilian people, regardless of whatever side, sect or country the aggression came from.

# There are internal contradictions in the Qur'an!

For example, this article says, “There is no part of the Qur’an that says that Martyrs go immediately to Paradise.”

# Does Islam Promote Violence?

Dr. Javeed Akhter, Executive Director, The International Strategy and Policy Institute, writes that reader of Koran should keep the context in mind. The reader ‘should study, at the least, the preceding and following verses for a sense of the immediate context.’ For example, he gives his interpretation on this verse:

"put down the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them at every ambush” (Koran 9:5).

He explains, “the immediate context is that of a ‘war in progress’ and not a general directive. It was an attempt to motivate Muslims in self-defense.” He writes:

Muslims were given permission to defend themselves just before Prophet Muhammad’s migration from Makkah (where he grew up) to the city of Madinah, which occurred in the 13th year of his 23-year mission. The danger to Muslims in Makkah at this time was extreme and there was a real possibility of their total eradication. They were permitted to fight back in self-defense against those who violently oppressed them. “Permission is given (to fight) those who have taken up arms against you wrongfully. And, verily, God (Allah) is well able to give you succor. To those who have been driven forth from their homes for no reason than this that, say ‘Our Lord is God.”

He concludes, “It is clear from even a cursory study of the Koran that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. Just the opposite, it abhors violence and allows it only in self-defense. A claim to the contrary is no more than bad fiction.” Writing about Bible, he says, “The critics of the Koran should remember that if the Bible were similarly quoted out of context it would appear to be an extra ordinarily violent scripture.”

# Why Don't Muslims Speak Out Against Terrorism?

Many non-Muslims ask why Muslims do not speak up against terrorism. This site lists many articles where many Muslims have raised voice against Terrorism.

# Was Islam Spread By the Sword?

Here the author contends that Islam did not spread by sword. That must be hard to prove. He cites the following reason to make his case (a bit flimsy, I would say).

• War was an exception than a rule in Islam
• Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years without using sword to convert.
• 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians though Muslims ruled for 1400 years.
• More than 80% non-Muslims in India under Muslim rule.
• No invasion into Indonesia and Malaysia.
• No invasion into East Coast of Africa.
• Koran quotes “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error".
• Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe without sword.

# Is There Anti-Semitism in The Qur'an?

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, Ph.D., writes, “Jews were among the earliest converts to Islam (in Medina) and, throughout the Middle Ages, Jews found sanctuary to practice their own religion under Islamic rule.” Writing about Jews, he says, “The Qur’an speaks extensively about the Children of Israel and recognizes that the Jews are, according to lineage, descendants of Prophet Abraham through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. They were chosen by God for a mission and God raised among them many Prophets and bestowed upon them what He had not bestowed upon many others. He exalted them over other nations of the earth and granted them many favors.”

# Is the Taleban Treatment of Women Islamic?

Aisha Harris, an English Muslim lawyer, writes, “In the Prophet's time and indeed in moderate forward thinking Muslim countries today, women are respected and honored.” She adds, “The Prophet Muhammad said it was the duty of every Muslim, male and female, to be educated. He did not say females could only learn to read the Qur’an, and then stop at the age of eight years.” And writing about use of veil, she gives an example, “Indeed, in the Hajj, no woman is permitted to wear any sort of veil.”

She considers Taliban ”unbelievers, the un-Islamic, the oppressors, and the blasphemers.” According to her the Shariah law is a compassionate law. She exhorts the regimes to read the Shariah ‘and act upon it correctly, not superimpose their own interpretation.’

Honking in ‘No Honking Zone’

There is a school in my neighborhood. A road goes next to it. The school has put more than 28 signs in a span of 100 meters that say “Please don’t sound horn”. These signs are big, in red and white, and are quite visible. You can’t miss them even if you want to.

I took this road in an auto this morning. Much to my dismay and bewilderment of school kids who were getting into the school, there were honks all around coming from every auto and car that was on that road. Once they dropped off their kids, these ‘responsible’ parents who behaved for a while became ‘common’ Indian citizens to participate in this honking revelry. Soon, everyone is honking at their loudest, sharpest and longest. It was deafening. This honking was not even normal. It was more than what one would observe on a regular road. Where one would expect some decency and expect to adhere to these multiple signs (I counted 28 of them this morning, there could be few more), everyone seems to take a perverted satisfaction by flouting the advice ‘not to horn’.

I was wondering- can’t we even follow one single rule in this country? At least those that are so easy and simple to implement?

Condoning, Accepting, Legitimizing and Institutionalizing

I was talking to someone recently about these terms and I thought I need to put it in writing for myself (and few others out there). I believe these are different stages in our behaviors when it comes to rationalizing certain ills of our society:

Condoning it: When we condone certain ills and wrongs in isolated incidents, we face the danger of eventually accepting it and then legitimizing it on broader context. I will explain this using one such evil in contemporary India- corruption. Most times we start by condoning the acts of corruption. We hear that it happened between party X and party Y, completely unrelated to us. We are apathetic to such incidents and do not take necessary action because it does not concern us. By being nonchalant about it or apathetic about it, we start condoning it. When the culprit is not punished or warned, he goes about doing it again and soon it starts spreading, and before we realize, that evil is at your doorstep knocking on your door. Recently, I was standing in a line at a cinema hall, and one burly guy just skipped the line and went to the ticket booth to buy tickets. No one protested. I was the only one who asked the guy to stand in line. He did not heed my words. After he bought the tickets, he started calling me names- very strong abuses. Later, it dawned upon me why no one else seem to be bothered with this. Why did they just accept it? And also, why didn't anyone come forward to defend me or support me when that guy was calling out names? I am quite sure each of them was not comfortable with the whole proceedings, but I guess, they didn't want to intervene or get involved in other's affairs. Though we feel guilty, we prefer not to act. The same applies to all of us when we see petty crimes, traffic law infringements, bad treatment of other people by bullies, small acts of bribery, etc. We think it does not involve us and hence we do not have to intervene. By not protesting such incidents and by not supporting the victims of such small violations, we condone such actions.

Accepting it: When many acts of such condoning add up, we start accepting the ills and evils without qualms or remorse. First, we hear about it- that party X paid bribe to party Y. We give a small rationale as to why party X might have paid that bribe. We reason that it is OK in some cases. Now, we start accepting it is as the 'way of life'. If I need to put my kid to a school, and I had to bribe my way through, I reason it was quite OK, since it was for the greater and grander cause of 'doing it for my kid's future'. If I bribed my way through a traffic law infringement, I reason, that it was quite OK since I saved lot of time, or explain away that the cops don't get paid much. When many such acts of condoning happen, that same evil which was out there eventually knocks your door, and you open the door to invite it into your home. By now, you have toyed with the idea too long, and have seen it in action too long to no longer find it unfamiliar. You have now started to accept it as a way of life. Though there is a sense of little guilt once in a while, you still think this is the only way to go about it- you reason have learnt the pragmatic and a practical way to solve things.

Legitimizing it: This the next stage. We not only accept it in our lives, we actually legitimize it by showering words of praise to those who actually committ those acts. A father of a daughter chooses a son-in-law though he is corrupt because he earns more. The father goes onto tell people proudly that his son-in-law is 'accomplished and successful'. When a rich and corrupt officer gets his home raided by IT department, the people around him envy him for his riches. That person becomes popular and gets invited into the elite circles. When a corrupt officer get promoted by bribing the politicians, we think he is 'highly successful' officer. When a rich industrialist does arm-twisting and bribing tactics to change policy of the country in his favor, we say that he is very 'aggressive, ambitious and very successful' industrialist. For those who could not resort to such tactics, 'too bad' for them. We legitimize these actions as 'survival of the fittest'. The ones who bribe, bully, violate, criminalize, etc, are survivors. Those who didn't learn these tools and skills will therefore be weeded out as a consequence of 'natural selection'. By using such words of acceptance, such sentences of praise, such rational and reason, we legitimize these acts. Now, there is no sense of guilt. If there is any feeling it is the feeling of inferiority in those who could not equip themselves with these 'survival skills' and the feeling of superiority in those who could weild these skills at the appropriate time and manner overcoming many legitimate obstacles. A rich father who could bribe his son into a job or academic institution is proud to know that he 'contributed' towards his kid's bright future by lending a helping hand using his accomplishments, which include money and influence. Those who couldn't, 'too bad' for them that they didn't become rich to bribe or could not influence.

Institutionalizing it: This the grand and final stage. When we legitimize such acts locally, over a period of time, it becomes all-pervading; it seeps into all our institutions, our psyche, to dominate our lives, our day-to-day living, our politics, our academic and professional lives, our society and its basic amenities. That's when we start producing kids who becomes corrupt judges and lawyers, corrupt officers and bureaucrats, corrupt politicians and leaders, corrupt businessmen and industrialists, corrupt teachers and professors, corrupt workers and labor, etc. That's when the whole society completely acknowledges that world is corrupt, and that it is stupid, unnatural, and completely unrealistic for one to be non-corrupt. Though we hear of politicans taking bribes, we don't go out on streets to protest. This is when law-breakers, such as those shop keepers in New Delhi now, go on to protest to fight for 'what they consider as their right', when in fact they are defending an illegal act. Wwe bribe the terrorists to secure our daughters and bribe our way to Indian cricket team. This is when we openly discuss the price for the positions of Vice-Chancellor of a university, MRO in a district, a gazetted officer in a town, and even a berth in Indian Olympic team. Everyone and everything has a price. Anything, including integrity can be bought. The society decides the allowable bribe amount as 'market price'. When someone pays the 'market price', nobody feels quesy or guilty about it. But if someone asks for more than this agreed 'market price', then you feel that other person has cheated you or extorted you of more money. This is when getting a driver's license has a 'fee', getting passport has a 'fee', and every 'file-moving' has a 'fee'. These figures are not published anywhere, but everyone knows about it. It has now become institutionalized.

The examples I gave are for corruption, but these stages of condoning, accepting, legitimizing and institutionalizing are applicable to any other force or system. It can be applied to acts of violence against certain sections of people, acts of terrorism used for fighting for freedoms, degeneration in an organization and its behavior, degrading primary and school education, etc.

I guess we are all contributing towards this by first condoning certain illegal and unethical actions that we see in our daily life, and then by accepting them and practising them to get out of personal tough situations, and then by legitimizing it as a success-stories, and then institutionalizing it to make it a part of our culture, tradition, government and our way of life. I recently met an elderly man heading a company in Bangalore who said that is the duty of the miniscule young generation to uphold the ethical and legal values. If this minority doesn't stand up and fight every action, then our future is at peril.

Is Homosexuality natural?

I was reading some of the news items on this topic. Most of the authors seem to address this issue using the words like ‘unnatural’, ‘abnormal’, as if it is an ailment or handicap that can be remedied or corrected. Here’s an article that appeared in THE HINDU recently:

Mohana Krishnaswamy, who says that he is a ‘paramedical person by qualification’, writes,

“ …arrested on charges of homosexual practice. The remedy to that should be to educate the police and make them more human, to sympathise with the conditions of abnormality in human behaviour…”

“While we can sympathise with people practising homosexuality, it is an altogether socially, ethically and medically unacceptable idea to treat them as normal. There are no homosexuals among any species of animals. Such practice is fundamentally against nature. With all our sympathy, we have to treat them as abnormal.”

Before I start giving out my position on this, I would like define certain terms, like what is ‘natural’, ‘normal’ and ‘human’? Natural is something that is found in the nature without the intervention of man. Trees, rocks, mountains are natural, while plastic is artificial. Sex, suckling, reproduction, baby care, etc are natural, since it is found in certain higher order animals. These are natural and biological. Feelings, conscience, sense of justice, ability to produce music and art, etc, are human, and not necessarily found even in higher order mammals. These are natural and in addition, they are human.

Now, do we accept everything that is biological and natural as acceptable? Not really! Killing another human (not for food) can easily be shown to be natural, but we do not accept it. There are certain traits which are found in humans, like war, kill for sport (not for food), rape, etc, which are natural to humans but not necessarily desirable. Therefore a certain sense of law and order and its affiliated institutions are introduced, which are entirely human, to suppress, control or curb certain human traits. Therefore, though certain things are natural, we consider some of them to be inhuman. Now what is normal? When something deviates from what is expected, it is 'not normal'. For example, deafness or blindness is considered 'not normal'. It is deficiency or a handicap by which a person will not function the same way as any normal person would (of course, this is highly debatable). A person who is born with a deformity of hand will not be able to perform certain actions the way a normal person would and hence it is considered abnormality.

Coming to homosexuality, Is it ‘unnatural’, ‘abnormal’, or ‘inhuman’?

Homosexuality is natural

Homosexuality is found in many other animal and bird species. Wikipedia lists nearly 500 species of mammals, birds, fish and other animals which display homosexuality. Recently a museum opened up in Oslo, Norway, exhibiting homosexuality among animals. There is documentary evidence of homosexual behavior in giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures. One of the exhibit statement says- "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature". Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature", says: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them." According to this news report, Greek philosopher Aristotle observed apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule. Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, very close to humans according genetic studies, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. According to Soeli, "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them.”

The Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural".

Homosexuality is normal

Homosexuality is found in every culture, every religion, every nation, in both female and male, and at all ages. It has been found since time immemorial and is in fact as old as human itself. It is not something very different from a left-handedness, which is seen in minority population but is still normal. It is not a handicap by which a homosexual is not able to perform certain physical or mental activities which a heterosexual can. Except for sexual orientation, a homosexual is similar to a heterosexual. It is neither a genetic defect nor a biological abnormality. Homosexuals are normal people with a different sexual orientation.

Is homosexuality legal, moral, inhuman or common?

One has to understand that law is made by man to control man. There were many things that were illegal once, like pre-marital sex, which are now completely legal. While some legal things in past, like slavery, are made illegal now. Homosexuality is legal in very few parts of the world, and in most parts of the world it remains illegal. Coming to whether it is ethical or moral, I don’t want to debate. It is up to individual’s opinion; I leave it to my readers. I do not think it is inhuman either since it does not involve in encroaching on other people’s rights or freedom. It does not bring harm to other people or cause inconvenience to them. There is no reason to treat it as a crime.

But yes, I agree that is not common, and if it is, it is hidden, and hence most of us do not know about it. Just because we do not know about it doesn’t make it go away, make it unnatural or abnormal.

Conclusion

Homosexuality is completely natural, completely normal, but yes, it is uncommon. We may have grown up not knowing about it, but there is a way to teach the young generations about it. As a kid, I haven’t known many things- I didn’t know about sex or pornography. There is a way one can know about these things. If the teaching is shunned or if it is done in the negative light as seen from the above article written in THE HINDU, we will not be able to understand it and may grow negative or wrong prejudices and start targeting homosexuals.

To consider homosexuality to be unnatural or abnormal is completely wrong. It’s not an ailment that can be cured; it’s not a disease that can be eradicated. It is not a mental condition that can be corrected through therapy. If your kid is homosexual, accept him/her. If you are a believer in God, consider the kid to be a creation of that God. If that God has created homosexuals in animals, so he did in humans. And if you are an atheist, like me, I don’t think you need to be told anything, you already know it.

Related links:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

Notes from Kashmiri Muslims

I wanted my readers to know how Kashmiri Muslim feel about Indian rule. I took some of the notes from different blogs to get a picture of how they feel.

Ali, based in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, writes:

“Another incident of unprovoked killing by the CRPF yesterday underscores the fact that no matter how sincere the intentions of the politicians in Delhi may be, the decision to harass or not harass, or in yesterdays instance, to kill or not to kill, lies in the hands of the trigger-happy Indian security forces patrolling the streets of Kashmir.” [03 July 2006]

“…we should look at Iraq and what is happening there, and then draw parallels. Do you think that the US president or any body in the top administration ordered the disgusting and abhorrent acts committed in Haditha? where almost two dozen innocent civilians were shot in the head; the victims included infants. The answer to this question is a definite NO and I am certain they were genuinely saddened by this ghastly act…”

“Now there are too many paralles to be drawn when we consider the Haditha incident and what is happening in Kashmir. If we ask the same questions whether the general public in India condones the daily violations of human rights by their security forces in Kashmir. The answer to the best of my knowledge is that an overwhelimg majority of Indians would be surprised and shocked to know how the daily life of innocent Kashmiris is unbearable because of the constant interference in their lives by the Indian forces.” [05 June 2006]

Zarafshan, India, writes:

“As I entered my classroom that day, I heard someone whisper, “Militant”. I am a Kashmiri who believes that the Indian occupation of Kashmir is illegal. My nationality is Kashmiri, and I openly declare it while constantly denying to be labeled as an Indian. I believe that I cannot be Indian by just having an Indian passport; I have to be Indian by heart, which is not true in my case.”

“…nationality is not something you pretend. It is a feeling within you, something which cannot be forced upon you. I have no patriotic feelings for India. I used to sing “jana gana mana” at school as a kid and truly felt patriotic while singing it. But the next few years changed my perception completely. I witnessed things which pulled me away from the patriotic feeling which “jana gana mana” gave me. I saw humiliation, torture and killings around me. Kashmiris were being thrashed and executed. It was no less than genocide which continues unchecked and unabated even today…”

“As a result, the only nationality that I associate myself with is Kashmiri and this infuriates many people. So were my class mates infuriated. They were looking at things from their own point of view, totally and completely ignorant of how it feels to be a Kashmiri.”

“India is their motherland, and they will never hear anything against it.”

“The only conclusion they could derive from my way of thinking was that I wanted Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. Some even thought I was a Pakistani.”

“Probably I should not blame them, because either they are totally ignorant about Kashmir history or they are aware but deprived of the real news from Kashmir.”

“…children in Kashmir grew up amidst guns and bullets, with death hovering at every corner. Even going to school was dangerous with students having to run for their lives time and again.”

Talking about Indians, he says, “Did they ever do that as school children? Did they ever have a gun pointed at them? Did they ever have their home ransacked? Did they have their brothers and fathers beaten up? Did any of their relatives ever go to jail for no reason? Did anyone in their family get killed at the hands of the army?”

“All they did was go to school and return to finish their homework and play. They would go for picnics and parties. And while they were doing that… we were living under the constant shadow of death. Guns were pointed at us from bunkers at every nook and corner of the valley.”

“Do they know how many people their army has killed in fake encounters? The same army they are proud of, the ones who ‘won’ them the Kargil war. They are the ones who make lives of common Kashmiris miserable.”

“And the truth gets dusted under the carpet yet again, thanks to the Indian media. Probably they have no clue about the human rights violations in Kashmir. And if by chance they do, they do nothing about it.”

“And as years pass by, many from the Kashmiri youth drift further apart from India. Many completely disassociate themselves from the country.”

“And if today I do not consider myself Indian, all these things have a role to play. In addition to this, history of Kashmir tells me that we were always destined to be free, destined to be the paradise on earth free of communal bias and hatred. And if expressing such feelings in a ‘democratic’India makes me a militant, I am certainly proud to be one!”

Kashmir, Kashmir, India, writes:

“The movie, Fanaa, starts with Kajol saluting the Indian flag and this act sets the tone for the entire movie: of Kashmiris being patriotic Indians, of an Islamic movement being thrust upon them.”

“If all Kashmiris were patriotic Indians, there wouldn’t be the need of 0.7 million troops to ‘control them’ and a movement cannot be thrust upon a people until and unless they are ‘fed up’ of the present regime.”

“The reality is that Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir will never vote for India, they have never shown any inclination for India. They may want independence from Pakistan but they can't even imagine in their wildest dreams to be a part of India.” [10 June 2006]

“There are two Kashmirs within a Kashmir. No, not the Pakistan and Indian Administered parts. These two Kashmirs exists within the Valley of Kashmir. There is a Kashmir all of you know about, which when searched for on Google gives thousands of results and there is a Kashmir, which doesn’t ever show up on google search. And it is this Kashmir which matters!”

“Then there is another Kashmir. The Kashmir of the people. It’s people to whom it has and always will belong. It is the Kashmir that scoffs at Integral Part and Jugular Vein claims. It is the Kashmir that has not yet been captured by the lens, nor can it be. It is the Kashmir that comes out in the dark of the night or the breeze of the morning for identification parades. It is the Kashmir that wakes up in the morning to the headlines of death and destruction... It is the Kashmir whose life is dependent on an identity card. It is the Kashmir that falls prey to a bullet of the military or the militant as it walks through the crowded bazaars or tries to find a place in the over crowded buses. It is the Kashmir that makes a Que at the only telephone fee collection center and falls prey to a bomb many a times. It is the Kashmir that weeps within as it has no one to talk for it. It is a Kashmir that sees silently but is waking up within: slowly but surely. This is the Kashmir you do not know of.” [05 May 2006]