Where do I stand?

I have written more than 150 elaborate blogs and each of them is quite lengthy explaining what my stand is on most issues. I have chosen to take a stand on serious issues. Therefore you will not see me writing two sides of a story here. If I believe there are two stories to an issue, I do not write about it. By now, some regular readers have understood me very well and sometimes I guess I even sound quite predictable. That shows they know what to expect from me.

But many times I stump some readers. They have never understood the underlying logic and reason that I present here. They seem to be happy when I praise Hinduism for its tolerance, but they just cannot tolerate my criticism which highlights Hinduism’s intolerance. That speaks more about them than about me.

Many other readers have already slotted me into a category. Some brand me a Marxist, a Communist, and I tend to detest such categorization, and do not have any affiliation to those theories. Some brand me a leftist, and I tend to agree that some of my thoughts lean left- more towards democratic socialism than to communism, but having said that, I do not hold any affiliation to those groups and am equally ready and capable to denounce them when necessary. Also, in practice I have a strong affinity towards capitalism though I support it with some restraint because I tend to see the negatives of it as well. I am an avowed believer in universal laws which I have laid out in many of my previous articles. And I believe morality is completely subjective and I do my best to stay away from that topic.

Some brand me a rabid Muslim under the disguise of a Hindu name. No comments there. If people call me Santa Claus, I don’t have to prove otherwise. If I try to understand Islamic fundamentalism, that doesn’t make me a Muslim, the same way if I try to understand Russian revolutions that doesn’t make me a Russian.

Some people brand me a Hindu-hater. A lady writes:

You hate Hinduism - don't you??

I do not see myself hating Hinduism. In fact, I find Hinduism relatively better than most other religions. This is the only religion where I find my place- as an atheist. Having said that, I cannot stand people who are limited in their intelligence and wisdom but believe they are entitled to define my religion for me. Their prescription of a certain style and standard imposed onto me is what I abhor and I reject their definitions for me. And yes, I do not stand radical and rabid fanatic Hindus who keep defending Hinduism just for the sake of defending it without citing merits or demerits.

I would like to see reason and logic to prevail because when shit hits the fan, the faint hope is that some people are still thinking logically.

This lady summarizes what some people have expressed their opinion about me. She writes:

You certainly have double standards. You repeatedly defend Islamic fundamentalism… demanding that we make strenuous effort to understand the causes and contextual reasons for its emergence.

I do not see myself having double standards. If ever, I strive for consistency. But what is consistent for me may not be for others. Let me clarify my stand on some of those issues. I believe I have not wavered from that stand. You are entitled to your opinion.

1. I have NEVER defended Islamic fundamentalism anywhere.
2. I have only tried to understand Islamic fundamentalism if ever.

Instead, I have defended other things, such as:

1. A man's right to fight for his homeland and to fulfill his aspirations to form an independent nation or state.
2. A man's right to keep his faith and not be imposed upon to conform to the majority to prove his patriotism.

Coming to Islam and other religions, a stance that I have consistently taken is:
Not to judge a religion by its books or its founders.

On a more general note, I have always believed that it is the duty of the majority and the privileged to accommodate minorities and underprivileged to create a harmonious society which in turn would benefit the majority and privileged on the longer run.

And one of the most universal stance has been the promotion of logic, reason, and rationale while sidelining blind belief, irrationality and superstition in the matters of state governance, laws, and mainstream society.

Some people have suggested that while I continuously attack Hinduism, I do not extend the same attack to other religions. I have made it clear many a times that being born a Hindu and Indian I seem to concentrate more on criticism of oneself. I also tend to criticize world powers that seem to suppress small societies (but have not concentrated much on that so far since India keeps me quite busy).

I do not believe that a religion like Hinduism can be belittled or ridiculed just because someone says Rama doesn't exist. However, when people start using such stories to stop constructing dams, or stop dredging sea, or stop people from fishing into the seas, then it becomes a ridiculous state. And I consistently fight that.

If Muslims were to protest against launching of PSLV citing some weird interpretations of Koran, I would completely call it rubbish and call them idiotic and ask them to just keep the religion to themselves. If Muslims were to impose Shariat onto me I would protest vehemently.

Right now, I am more bothered by the fanaticism of Hindus than fanaticism of Muslims. Therefore, I tend to criticize Hindus more. If you want to see criticism of Muslims, there are thousands of blogs already available, you could visit them. I would be very glad to see you off.

Note to readers and commenters

I do not expect to change your opinions (see the main title on this page). I do not expect to teach you anything. I have started this blog to vent my thoughts out – I guess it was the only way I could remain sane in this insane country. I do not pander to the sentiments of my readers. I am not bothered if they go away from this site never to return. It is not my attempt to boost my readership like TOI. If that was the case, I would be sticking to pornography- that would instantly boost the readership.

Also, I am not here to engage in a lively debate. I am here only to express my opinions. If you make sense I would be glad to read yours. If you write nonsense, I am going to call it nonsense. I am NOT going to be politically right about that.

Idiocy is no excuse for writing anything you like on this site. It’s like my way of saying, 'only intelligent responses will be dealt with'. Some commenters expect to see me concede I am wrong based on what they write. Look, its no disrespect to you when I write off your attempts. I am not saying that I am not ready to concede. But you have to understand that I have not written this topic without having thought about it. If you believe you have a different opinion please go ahead and write about it on your blog. To expect that I should change my opinion instantaneously just because you have written against it is a little far too much. I do tend to learn a lot from some of your comments. It helps me learn more - sometimes to refine my opinions and sometimes to alter my opinions.

There are some rational people out there looking for the right argument to make their case. Sometimes, my writings help them consolidate their thoughts. It makes them feel that there is someone out there who feels the same. They are happy to know that I have articulated my thoughts on their behalf. And that is a good enough reason for this blog to exist.

ABC of Ram Sethu

This is in continuation of the earlier articles on Sethusamudram Project (Part I, Part II)

Did Rama exist?

There is no historical evidence to suggest Rama existed. That does not mean he did not exist. He may have. He may not have. For example, it is much easier to believe that Narasimha avatar of Lord Vishnu may not have existed in real life, mainly because it is hard to believe that a man actually took the shape of a lion. Also, it is much easier to dismiss that Vamana avatar existed because it is hard to believe a story where a man could step on a planet to cover it entirely with a foot. In the same vein, nobody actually asserts that Asuras and Devas really churned the sea using a mountain and a snake with a tortoise as the base. Such stories sound fantastical to be assumed real. However, many people do believe that Lord Krishna and Lord Rama existed and that they actually lived. Also, most people believe that Buddha existed and that he actually lived. Most people in the world believe that Mohammed Prophet, Alexander, Asoka existed and lived on this planet, in flesh and blood and not as mere fantasy of a book writer.

While some of the above characters have actually lived and existed, some may not have. How do we know who existed and who did not?

For example, coming to Alexander, there is lot of evidence to suggest he existed. The books describing him written during his life time have discussed events and places that have been recorded by others elsewhere. His conquests that describe his exploits in Persia and India have been recorded by different cultures and societies other than Greeks. So, a corroboration of the same person coming from various sources helps build the case that this person actually existed and that it is not a mere work of fiction. Also important are historical monuments described in the books actually existing dating to those exact times. Time of his existence is calculated from various sources. Some include timings such as lunar or solar eclipse, a recorded event such a flooding or earthquake, or hard evidences such as coins, artifacts, bones, etc.

There is no such evidence to suggest Rama existed. There is no historical evidence of Ayodhya- there are no ruins, or city walls dating to that period of time. There is no general agreement on the exact time of his existence either. The books that we find are not the original texts of those times, and hence we cannot even date them. They might as well be written much later. And there is no other visitor or another author from another society who has described Rama’s rule in any other book.

That does not mean he did not exist. He may very well have existed. But we cannot say for sure whether he existed or not. Hence, the conclusion, there is no evidence to suggest Rama existed.

Is Ram Sethu/Adam’s Bridge a natural formation?

It is a much easier explanation to suggest that it is indeed a natural formation. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) estimates its formation to be approximately 125,000 years old.

But if it were indeed man-made, what are the signs one should look for?

Usually most of the construction sites of such large scale, such as Pyramids or Great Wall of China, leave behind traces of human presence- traces of coins, traces of bones, traces of human artifacts, like man-made shovels, etc. None of such evidence is found in Adam’s Bridge. It’s like asking whether Mount Everest is a natural formation. How can we be sure? Well, there is no evidence to suggest that it is man-made and it is highly probable that it is natural.

Also, constructions of such grand scale leave behind many other traces coming from similar times. Such constructions could be made only by large societies and hence such large societies tend to leave traces of cities, dwellings, utensils, bones, skeletons, jewelry, etc. But no such traces have been found.

Therefore, one has to conclude that Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu is indeed a natural formation.

Did Humans live 1.75 Millions ago in India as suggested by the petition?

The petitioners protesting the dredging of Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu have suggested that Rama has built this bridge 1.75 Million (1,750,000) years ago. That is a long time ago. The Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Humans) did not appear on this planet then.

At that time, there were proto-humans whose brain size was much smaller than ours, and if you had a chance to look at them you would pass them as apes. Our lineage got separated from other apes around 6 million years ago. But for most part of the journey we were not very human as we find ourselves now. Back then, we did not speak, we did not write, we did not have societies, we did not build cities- we were not even human then. But around 250,000 years ago (this date hovers between 130,000 and 300,000 years), proto-humans became humans, originated in Africa and spread to most parts of the world. The frequent ice ages decreased the sea level and hence the land bridges allowed people to go as far as tip of South America using the land bridge between Asia and America. However, after the last age, Humans became the dominant species, and around 12,000 years ago, started agriculture, and after that formed cities, kingdoms, empires, etc. Indus Valley Civilization which predates Sanskrit and other Vedic Culture started around 5,000 years ago. Vedic Civilization around Ganges started around 3,500 years ago. Rama, if he existed in this civilization, should have been less than 5500 years old. There’s a big difference between 1,750,000 and 5,500.

And why do these idiots come up with the number 1.75 Million years? What is so magical about it?

Let me explain. Some Hindus believe that their scriptures are actual science. And according to some of these scriptures our time is divided into 4 Yugas. The first one is Satya Yuga which lasted 1.728 Million years. The second one is Treta Yuga which lasted 1.296 Million Years. The third one is Dvapara Yuga, which lasted 864,000 years. And the last is Kali Yuga which spans 432,000 years.

Lord Rama was born in Treta Yuga. He supposedly lived around early part of Treta Yuga.

And we are in Kali Yuga which started at 3102 BC.

So, if you add backwards, 2007 + 3102 + 864,000 + (2/3) of 1,296,000, you get 1.733 Million years. Voila! There it is- your magic figure! One has to understand that this number is not scientific and has no practical basis whatsoever. No other historical event was calculated using these numbers and hence could be discarded as another mythological byproduct (except for a pat on the back for coming up with such an astronomical figure for calculating age of Universe while some Abrahamic religions believed we are only 6,000 years old).

However, there are other interpretations to this date. Some smart ones have used a different calculation to arrive at 7323 BC or 5114 BC for Rama's existence making it more palatable to people who actually paid attention to their Science class instead of learning it by rote.

Isn’t literary evidence good enough?

Is Ramayan written by Valmiki good enough evidence to prove that Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu is a man-made construction? One should quickly ask oneself, Is Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings a good enough evidence to prove that Middle Earth exists?

Not really.

Just because Ramayana is a religious book, it does not make historical evidence.

What do we make of the same literary evidence (Ramayana) which suggests that monkeys actually built this bridge? If monkeys’ construction is to be considered a site of heritage, shouldn’t all ant-hills (which we seem to destroy so easily) be considered sites of heritage?

Conclusion

To suggest that Rama existed is a matter of belief. Whether he existed or not is irrelevant to dredging of Ram Sethu. What is important is to know if Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu is a man-made construction or not. All evidences suggest that it is not, expect certain quotations from mythology and some blind beliefs.

It’s like an aunt waking up in the morning and suggesting she saw Lord Krishna in her dream telling us to stop sending PSLV rockets into space because that rocket would shoot right through his heavenly abode. It’s a matter of belief. It’s a good story to tell the kids, cousins and other family members. However, a State or Government of India should not go ahead and stop sending rockets into space because it hurts an aunt’s sentiments.

Update [15 September 2007]:

Please read this article from a Geologist.

India low on Vitamin S

India is now running extremely low on Vitamin S – where S stands for Science. The lack of this vitamin has led to a disease called ‘our sentiments are hurt’. The first sign of this disease is that human emotions and sentiments become more important in the matters of running the state whereas logic and reason are booted out of the door.

Science in India on the decline. The number of PhDs has gone down drastically. The existing scientists are leaving their jobs to join private firms, or talking gibberish, or playing politics. The academicians and professors are teaching Vedas and Puranas as Science. And the young kids are memorizing the formulae without knowing what they mean.

Indians are getting educated on a massive scale but they are learning it rote, memorizing stuff, reprinting the texts verbatim in their exams and therefore they are completely losing out on learning the essence. They are gaining knowledge, but are getting foolish at the same time.

In the latest controversy engulfing the political parties of India, certain people defending the story that Adam’s Bridge was built by monkeys of Rama have moved Supreme Court of India citing quotations from Valmiki Ramayana and Ramcharitamanas to back up their stand. It is like quoting Harry Potter to prove existence of Hogwart Castle.

These petitioners have claimed that Ram Sethu/Adam’s Bridge is 1.75 Millions years old.

What happens to a billion people when they do not get their dose of Vitamin S on an adequate level? You get a cocktail country where mythology is mixed with history, blind belief mixed logic, irrationality mixed with rationality. In short, you get a billion idiots.

Humans have been human for much less than 1 millions years. So, how come Rama existed before humans became humans? And how did he achieve this grand feat of building a bridge using monkeys?

Was Rama an ape then or was he a human then? Is it blasphemy to ask this question?

Hinduism welcomes Blasphemy

In my article, ‘Why do we criticize our nations?’, I said:

Most overzealous people in an obsessive effort to combat their enemy become just like their enemy, but on the other side of the coin.

Hinduism has now upgraded itself to include blasphemy. The BJP, which appoints itself as the official spokesman for all Hindus, has accused UPA government of ‘blasphemy’ for ‘telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.’

Now, can someone list all the things that are blasphemous in Hinduism? Can I ridicule LK Advani? Is it blasphemy? Can I dismiss existence of Narasimha avatar where a man takes the form of a Lion? Can I dismiss construction of a bridge by monkeys? Or is it a blasphemy too?

What about the incident where Devas (gods) and Asuras (demons) churned the sea using a mountain and a snake on the back of a giant turtle (or is it tortoise)? Is it blasphemy if I consider that incident to be mythology? May be we should NOT venture into Bay of Bengal if some idiot says that sea is the purported sacred place where this churning took place.

Blasphemy, we welcome you! Our national IQ average is falling rapidly, are we are becoming complete idiots, please embrace us!

Qualities of Leader III

When I listed the qualities that I would like to see in a leader, I got some critical remarks from a lady who teaches ‘Leadership’ to some of the top companies in the world. She decided that a leader by its innate definition has to be good, and therefore people like Hitler, etc, should not be considered leaders. Hmm… may be, one should call him Fuhrer then! [More about such instructors later]

Anyway, I am beginning to realize that some people are a bit confused by my definitions. My list of qualities did not come out of the blue, trying to satisfy 4Es, 9Cs, or 7Ps, or something like that. It was not a deliberate attempt to come up with exact seven either. It was not like I had to think too much to put the list together. I have been dealing with such leadership issues on a day-to-day basis in my organization. I had been fascinated by the topic of leadership for quite long and hence I guess it was an understanding that I had taken for granted.

To illustrate my understandings, I have created these scenarios.

First Quality

Imagine two people X and Y. Imagine both are honest and highly educated. Both are genuinely nice people and quite efficient. They have consistently delivered on what was expected of them. But X can take strong and bold decisions and execute them while Y is always unsure of which path to follow and is usually indecisive at every crossroad. Who will make a better leader?

That’s the first quality. “Ability to take strong, bold and quick decisions and follow them up with concrete action.”

Second Quality

Now, imagine there are two people Z and W (who are similar to X from the previous case). Both are able to take strong, bold and quick decisions and are able to follow them up with concrete action. But Z will not own up responsibility when things go wrong as an outcome of his earlier decisions. He is adept at finding the scapegoats for things that go wrong. He blames others for wrong results. Whereas W would step forward to say, ‘I take the responsibility for this mess. It was my decision that landed us up in this trouble’. Who will make a better leader?

That’s the second quality. “Ability to take responsibility for one’s actions- both successes and failures (especially the failures).”

Third Quality

Now, imagine there are two people U and V (who are similar to W from the previous case). Both own up responsibility, especially the failures. U expects his subordinates to behave in certain way but does not actually practice what he preaches. He expects everyone to work late, but he consistently leaves early. He thinks that the rules that apply to others do not apply to him. While he preaches diversity, he does not practice it himself. While he preaches promotion of excellence, he ensures certain excellent people are not promoted to eliminate threat to him. On the other hand, V practices what he preaches. He believes that whatever he does, even when no one is watching, is setting an example. He ensures that he makes a constant habit to set right examples in all his actions, behaviors and decisions. Who will make a better leader?

That’s how I come up with the third quality. “Lead by setting examples.”

Fourth Quality

Now, imagine there are two people S and T (who are similar to V from the previous case). Both lead by example. They practice what they preach. But S is someone who has difficulty in convincing people to follow his direction. He is not able to inspire people to roll up the sleeves and act. He is not able to influence his superior officers to make his case. Whereas T can inspire his team, can bring in the right talent to do the right kind of work, hold the team together, and influence people to follow his direction. Who will make a better leader?

That’s how I come up with the fourth quality. “Ability to pull up resources, inspire people, gather momentum, and change opinions, to get things done. (This is not efficiency).”

Fifth Quality

Now, imagine there are two people Q and R (who are similar to T from the previous case). Q does not delegate responsibility. He wants to make all the decisions. He wants the information to flow only through him. He believes that any delegation might result in loss of power for him. He works hard, overworks in fact, and wants to participate in all decision-making activities. On the other hand, R usually empowers the right people allowing them to make decisions. He encourages them to take decisions, and in turn encourages them to own up responsibility for such decisions. He congratulates them on their successes and questions them on failures. Who makes a better leader?

That’s how I come up with the fifth quality. “Ability to delegate responsibilities to the right people and empower them to take decisions.”

Sixth Attribute

The next attribute, integrity, is one of the most confusing qualities that I have known so far. In my experiences many top leaders of big organizations have not been able to articulate the definition of integrity. When a CEO of a top Indian company was asked ‘what’s integrity?’ in an open forum, he completely fumbled on the answer, and kept repeating the word ‘integrity’ while trying to define it. He completely lost the audience making it confusing for everyone.

According to me, it is the strength of the character; it’s the ability to stay the course; it’s the ability to be consistent in your frame of definition. That character could be good or bad, moral or immoral, virtuous or not. One of the best examples I could think of is from the movie, Scent of a woman. Please read through the ‘Dialogue’ section.

While two people could have the above listed qualities to make leaders, a person who displays integrity is bound to go long way in leading his people. This is not a necessary quality, but a desired attribute. There could be leaders satisfying the first five qualities while failing on this.

That’s the sixth attribute. “Integrity – strength of character in face of all upheavals, downfalls and crises. Especially, the ability to stay the course when everyone else is ready to run and hide!”

[As I began to google it up, I found a good explanation here on Integrity (the kind of definition I agree with).]

Seventh Attribute

The next attribute, vision, is what makes a good leader a great leader. Bigger the vision bigger the influence!

Hence the seventh attribute. “Ability to think big (Vision).”

Postscript

I do not profess to be an expert on this subject. These are my learning, my own way. I could be grossly wrong but these definitions are good enough for me.

The qualities I listed here are not to be seen in a sequence. They are not in decreasing or increasing order. I call the first 5 as desired qualities and the last 2 as desired attributes. A person could have only some of the qualities and be a great man. There are philosophers, teachers, catalysts, and kingmakers, who have some of these qualities but are not necessarily leaders.

We could talk about other attributes, such as honesty, efficiency, goodness, education, morality, humility, etc. Aren’t these qualities desirable in a leader? These are good to have, may be, but these attributes by themselves do not make a leader. Many a times, we want a leader to be moral, which is quite subjective. Osama Bin Laden and George Bush (Junior) would satisfy all the 5 qualities that I listed here and even the other two attributes, but they might be immoral according to certain societies while they are moral according to few others. In the same way, humility is expected of certain leaders but is it a quality by which a leader is made? Not really. Some leaders are humble while few are downright arrogant.

Rejection of Rationality II: Terms explained

This explains some of the terms used in the first part of the article, Rejection of Rationality I.

What is peripatetic investigation?

For many centuries, the pursuit of knowledge and the investigation on how nature works, what we now call Philosophy, has been confined to peripatetic investigation (except for few minor examples which suggest otherwise). Peripatetic investigation, as Greeks practiced it, involves one guy walking in the garden followed by his students who start asking him questions, while this guy keeps answering them, and over a period of time, after lot of questions and answers, they came to a 'sound argument' which seems to have stood ground in the debate that has answered most of the questions. This argument was then accepted as a valid theory of nature. Extend this example to a teacher or guru discussing in a class room or a person meditating under a Banyan tree, and you get Indian philosophies. They are all the same. Peripatetic investigation leads to an argument which sounds logical to humans, but need not be necessarily true.

Aristotle came up with ‘Earth as Center of Universe’ theory which is a result of such peripatetic investigation carried out by his predecessors. It sounded logical, but was not true. In the classical western world, empiricism was minimal and peripatetic investigation was given more credence. Except for Archimedes, Eratosthenes and few others who used experiments to make their theories, Greeks had come to embrace peripatetic investigation as the method to pursue knowledge. The results of such investigation held sway most of the West for a thousand years under Dark Ages and Middle Ages.

What is empiricism?

Pursuit of knowledge accompanied by lot of experimentation forms the basis for empiricism. One of the ways to understand nature is by conducting experiments to identify a pattern and then formulize a theory around it. Most of the modern scientific theories (not all) have come into existence through this route. Does it mean such theory is always a representation of the reality? Not really. To be true, this theory should now predict the future results in all experiments, forever, without failing in any scenario within the scope of that theory. One could also start with an idea or a hypothesis, and this becomes a valid theory only after it has been investigated using many kinds of experiments, especially those which try to disprove the theory.

The beauty of empiricism is that even if one experiment gives different results other than those predicted by that theory then that theory is abandoned. It has to be either replaced by a new one or the original one has to be modified to explain these new results (including all old results).

Sometimes a theory can come out of lot of observed phenomenon. Tyco Brahe made lot of observations on the positions of planets, their movements, etc, and these results were used by Copernicus, Kepler, et al, to construct a theory on the movement of planets around the sun (now known as Kepler Laws), which in turn were explained by Newton’s Law of Gravitation, making it a Universal Theory of Gravitation, applicable not only to movement of planets, movement of Galaxies, but also to the falling of an apple on a planet and movement of every object that we see.

Sometimes an idea could come ahead of the experimentation to become a theory later. When Einstein suggested that light is bent by a massive body, it sounded bizarre, but the experiment to prove this came only after many years when it was observed during a solar eclipse that indeed, light gets bent by massive object such as Sun.

Modern Science, Age of Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and hence the Scientific Revolution, and therefore, advent of modern societies proposing universal laws based on rights to citizens giving us liberty are, to a great extent, the results of this empiricism.

What do Indians follow?

Most of Indian philosophies of yesteryears are based on peripatetic investigation just like Aristotle’s theories on Universe, most of which are now proved to be wrong. These are mere conjectures, based on argument that satisfies the logic of man, but NOT necessarily true in nature. Empiricism was not taken up by Indian Philosophers and there is no record to suggest they did. The present day Science of India lags behind rest of the world (except for brief spurts of inventions that happened in pre-Independent British India), because of our overindulgence and obsession with our ancient scriptures and their purported messages which seem to glorify such ‘holistic’ conjectures. Many Indian scientists are still reluctant to embrace empiricism and instead wallow in pure conjectural peripatetic investigations touting their age old mysticism and mythology as nothing else but pure science. Many cock-and-bull stories have erupted in the recent past to suggest that Indian Vedic messages are nothing but Quantum Physics in disguise- where bears are bosons, foxes are fermions, etc.

Related Topics: Rejection of Rationality I: Indian Hindus and the New Age, Rejection of Rationality III: Western constructs, Rejection of Rationality IV: Snippets

Sethusamudram Project II

The Government of India denied existence of Rama or Ramayana!

Do you think it landed itself in a soup? Well, VHP and BJP have already started making protests against the government. I am of the opinion that the present government will have hard time going ahead with this project. The saffron groups were just waiting for real good issue so that they can get out onto the streets and protest, and here they get one. I believe the protests are going to increase. And I think that the Government of India will have to scrap the project and accept traveling extra miles in the sea. But if they stick to it, I think the present UPA government will kiss goodbye to their seat of power. Even a tribal of India will be stirred up to agitate and protest. In India you just cannot win over God. In India God always wins!

Previous: Sethusamudram Project I

Say Goodbye to Secularism

Indians are getting vexed by Secularism! They see it as an encumbrance; something they know is guaranteed in the Indian constitution but which they do not like to follow if possible. It is more akin to traffic rules of India, which most Indians would rather not follow though they exist as laws.

Now, a HC court judge has said that Indians should ‘follow dharma propounded by Bhagvad Gita’. He opined that Gita is a ‘dharma shastra’ of India. The court added that as India recognized National Flag and National Anthem, it should consider Bhagvad Gita as rashtriya dharma shastra.

This ruling is not just a freak episode and should not be seen as one. There are millions of Hindu Indians who would like to see such trends paving the way for a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. One commenter at CNN-IBN said that at least someone is speaking for the majority of this nation while politicians and the government is appeasing the minorities of India.

Secularism is becoming an extremely repugnant element of Indian Constitution. Many Indians abhor it. Hindus would like to completely abandon this charade of pretending to be secular which according to them is nothing more than ‘appeasement of minorities’ while ‘punishing the majority’. Muslims have never reconciled themselves to this. Always riding ‘special privileges’ where they continue to practice Islamic Law, depriving women of their rights, they would rather kick secularism out to just implement Shariat in its purest form.

BJP objects to a Directive

The BJP has objected to a government directive which urged posting of some Muslim policemen in areas with large minority populations. BJP also objected to another directive which urged more Muslim teachers and health personnel in such areas.

BJP said:

“Is it just and fair … to presume that even after 60 years of Independence, a non-Muslim police officer cannot protect Muslims? What message are we giving.”

Only a bigoted right-wing Hindu could say that. This is the common refrain in India against all moves which encourage minorities and lower caste to take on newer opportunities. It is first called ‘political’, thereby insinuating that it does not benefit anyone except the politicians themselves, then it is called ‘reverse discrimination’ saying that the upper caste Hindus are not able to avail certain opportunities which were destined to them in varnas and which they enjoyed for more than two thousand years, then they call it ‘appeasement’ as if these classes are pets and vermin which the humans appease giving them equal status which they don’t deserve.

‘What will the world think of us?’ is the common refrain when confronted with stark realities, either it be the explosion of AIDS patients, which seem to destroy the myth that India is an extremely ‘moral and chaste’ country, or it be Mandal Commision, which seem to undermine the hegemony of upper caste Hindus which they perpetrated for thousands of years.

Reservations-based-on-caste is unjust and unfair, but having 80% of upper caste Hindus in IT sector is just the ‘survival of the fittest’. Having more Muslim policemen in Muslim areas is unjust and unfair, while having predominantly Hindu force that targets Muslims in Gujarat is just the ‘selection of meritorious’.

Indians want US in Iraq

The recent poll conducted in different countries finds out that India along with two other nations, Kenya and Philippines are the only three countries (out of 22) who would want to see US presence in Iraq for a longer duration.

Is this surprising?

Well, most urban Indians want Indian Army in Kashmir to stay longer. They believe India should emulate Israel and US in keeping the Muslim separatists out. Some would admire George Bush for what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq. They think he has the guts to do something which Indian leaders seem to lack. While Bush ran after the culprits (or the alleged culprits) after 9/11, Indians sat idle even when their cities are continuously bombed. They admire Israel for keeping the Muslims at bay which India doesn’t seem to do when it comes to Kashmir (BTW, ironically some of them also admire Hitler).

Rejection of Rationality I: Indian Hindus and the New Age

Have you seen how astrology is becoming popular in certain sections of the western world? How Feng Shui is getting popular. How alternative medicine is being embraced. How creationism is now touted as alternative theory to Darwin’s theories on Evolution. How the feminists of the West discard the tools of Modern Science as tools of the man (and not the Humankind). How holism is lapped up while empiricism is sidelined.

The West is going through a 'post-modern' phenomenon for quite sometime now where certain perceived 'excesses' brought on by the Age of Enlightenment (and Scientific Revolution) are now rejected. However, this phenomenon is not a mainstream one and is still a very fringe movement.

Indian Hindus love this West’s 'post-modern disapproval of science and rationality. This disapproval is lapped up by many Indian Hindus because it seems to rhyme with their own theories of ‘scientific Hinduism’, which posits logic and mysticism as two sides of the same coin. According to these enthusiasts, Hindus didn’t need to go through Age of Enlightenment because Hindus never needed it in the first place. While Abrahamic religions, seeped in orthodoxy, suppression of debate, and coercion, needed that revolutions of reasoning, Hinduism, which has Vedas as its foundations, which has always allowed debate and different interpretations, never needed this age of reasoning. Even the arguments put forth by the likes of Amartya Sen do not help but bolster such theories that we were always open.

West’s rejection of perceived excessiveness of rationality is misconstrued by Indians as rejection of rationality itself.

Indians do not realize where this rejection comes from. West is NOT rejecting the rationality in its entirety. It is only rejecting certain 'excesses' brought about by that rationality – that was brought on by Age of Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, Modern Science, etc. Also, this rejection is not a mainstream activity- it is very much confined to certain small minority populations.

The key message of Age of Enlightenment is establishing superiority of reason over superstition. Indians have not even embraced that rationality and therefore its rejection does not have anything in common with West’s post-modern rejection of 'excessiveness' of rationality.

Hinduism never got rid of superstition in the first place. Superstition is heavily entrenched along with orthodoxy of Hindu religion. Hinduism is a heavy interplay of orthodoxy, superstition, spirituality, philosophy and dialog with heavy doses of mysticism and myth. While dialog and philosophy can be easily touted as liberal and rational arms of Hinduism, it’s NOT the only arm and also it is an arm mostly downplayed and subdued by ritualistic Hinduism.

The ritualistic Hinduism consists of orthodoxy, mysticism, superstition and to some extent spirituality, while the philosophical Hinduism consists of hypothesis on duality of mind and body, debate, agnosticism, atheism, etc. Ritualistic Hinduism is heavily seeped in blind belief and faith. Whereas, the philosophical Hinduism is based in dialog and reason, but still confined to peripatetic investigation and NOT empiricism, much akin to what Greek philosophers were doing two thousand years ago. The advent of Age of Enlightenment is characterized by empiricism deviating from and almost abandoning peripatetic investigation which held Western World in its sway for more than thousands years during the Middle Ages.

In India ritualistic Hinduism is a more prevailing form of Hinduism than the philosophical arm. For most people who are born as Hindus or practice Hinduism, the ritualistic arm completely overwhelms them and dominates them- deciding their lifestyle, their habits, customs, food habits, clothing, traditions, etc. Philosophical arm takes a backseat, relegated to few idiosyncratic philosophers whose interpretations are confined to elite and a selected few, never entering the mainstream. There is another side, the spiritualistic side, which is pushed more towards ritualistic side than the philosophical side, where it is dominated by the interpretations of new age gurus (like Deepak Chopra and Ravi Shankar) and opportunistic sadhus and babas, and is again seeped in blind belief and faith, with some interplay of scientific terminology. For all practical purposes, one can easily say that ritualistic Hinduism has far greater influence and presence than the philosophical Hinduism.

While empiricism stands as the seed for the burgeoning of Modern Science- as organized methodology- Hinduism has never embraced empiricism, either in its philosophical side nor its ritualistic side. Therefore, the Indian version of rejection of rationality has nothing in common with West’s rejection of excesses of rationality.

Update [12 September 2007]:

Taking cue from Krish, I would like to qualify the excesses of rationality as ‘perceived excesses of rationality’. I agree with Krish that rationality is never excessive.

Related Topics: Rejection of Rationality II: Terms explained, Rejection of Rationality III: Western constructs, Rejection of Rationality IV: Snippets

To Better India II: Primary Education

This follows from the previous article, To Better India I, where I listed top three actions items for India to concentrate on. Here, I talk about the priority one- Primary Education.

The future of India lies in the hands of its newer generations. While the present will continue to be beset with problems of myriad nature, the future could be made better by investing the right kind of skills, values and attitudes in our young generations. And India should go on a massive overdrive to achieve this. I want us to take this up seriously on all fronts, go on a full-fledged campaign to get every kid in India educated. Our goal should be to see no kid on the street, begging or hawking stuff. No kid should be in a restaurant working as helper. No kid should be working as laborer on a construction site.

Every kid should be in the school

It’s the duty of this state and its people to ensure that every kid in India is in the school, no matter what. If it means that the kid has to get the food, clothes and shelter, then it is our duty to provide the kid with those. If his parents believe the kid is better off working in a cafeteria or in a farm, then it is our duty to compensate the parent for that loss of labor. Do whatever it takes to keep that kid in the school. And don’t give excuses (there are too many already). Dream of an India where there is no hawking or begging kid and work towards that.

Do not give alms to a begging child. You are not helping the kid; you are only perpetuating his misery. The kids on the streets are usually employed by one adult who collects the daily income from them.

Education as tool of empowerment

Education and education alone can bring emancipation to multitudes of India who are caught in the vicious circle of economic and social backwardness for centuries. A promise of free and easy education with an incentive of guaranteed employment is the only way we can make these people embrace education.

Schools need to be funded, need to be equipped with teachers, filled with necessary infrastructure to carry out meaningful education; they need to have necessary amenities to make this education a wholesome and healthy experience.

Scholarships, incentives, reservations, are necessary in addition to the basic facilities to ensure that the lower classes and underrepresented get incentives to study, learn, and acquire necessary education to pursue something worthwhile in their lives.

Instill right values

When developing this nation, we have to ask ourselves, ‘how are we creating the future generations?’ The need is to instill our young generations with the right values. I am not talking about the much touted Indian traditional values. I am talking about the universal values- such as responsible citizenry, importance of adult franchise, access to justice, equal opportunity, separation of state and religion, social responsibility, gender equality, importance of liberty, our freedoms, and most important of all, our duties. While Math, Sciences, Languages, Art, and History are equally important, we need to stress on creating a responsible citizenry, who are not bigoted, who welcome different opinions, encourage debate, do not stifle creativity, and respect freedom of expression.

We need to teach our kids to respect and tolerate people of various cultures, classes and religions. We need to teach the importance of paying taxes, keeping environment clean, preserving the nature, and building better civic amenities.

The most important aspect is to allow debate, give room for reason, to reject the notions that curb original thought- such as objects of sanctity and objects of blasphemy. We need to inculcate in them the tools of reason and logic so that they can wage their own fights against superstition, blind belief and fanaticism, which seem to hold our nation’s psyche in its clutches.

Encourage originality and creativity

We should encourage the kids to be creative, to be original, and to value their individualism while recognizing the importance of the social fabric of the family and society.

Right now, creativity is not given priority. Instead conformance is. Disciplining the kids is of course important. But till what age shall we discipline them? I see parents imposing a strict code of conduct on their kids past their adolescence. Even college going kids fear their parents and teachers, and are expected to conform, not deviate. College principals and teachers completely curb all individual expressions during that crucial age which is deemed important in the growth of an individual transitioning from a kid to an adult. I know of institutions where a boy talking to a girl in a college campus is deemed highly inappropriate invoking the wrath of conservative and ultra-orthodox faculty who treat such a chat as outright sexual indulgence. Treating our kids like kids forever, never allowing them to grow up, or experiment, or create, or to find their own paths, is not going to make them responsible and accountable citizenry. Responsibility comes from knowing that one has the ability to influence and impact, and that ability to influence has its roots in freedom of expression.

Our versions of creativity are also pretty standardized, like painting a flower by filling in colors within the already defined borders, or going to a sitar or musical instrument lessons where rules are followed in strict regimen. ‘Originality? What’s originality?’ Nobody knows that in India. When every movie is a remake of another, where music is copied blatantly and flagrantly from another, and when parents and teachers turn a blind eye to all acts that involve copying, originality becomes a worthless commodity and least desirable asset.

We are not encouraged to create and then enjoy that creation. We don’t experience the sheer joy one gets when he builds a car, a plane, a phone, or a small gadget. We don’t know what it means to see our ideas translate into reality.

Unless the newer generations are raised appreciating originality and creativity, we will continue to see the systemic deficiencies, celebration of mediocrity, apotheosis of avarice, and tolerance of plagiarism.

Promote rational thinking

Rational thinking to combat prejudices is an essential element in this education. The younger generations should be able to embrace newer ideas without having to feel guilty of deviating from the sacred values. There is a greater need to teach our kids to conduct debate rationally and logically.

Promotion of Science is the key. Instead of wallowing and basking in the glory of our ancient past which is riddled in conundrums and wise sayings, we should allow our kids to experiment, analyze, deduce, apply logic, and thus appreciate the world around him. The kids should ask questions, lots of them. And the answers have to be rational ones even if they are incomplete.

Science, its promotion and its celebration is extremely important to promote rational thinking. It will empower the Indian masses to dispel the cloud of superstition and blind belief, and to combat centuries of discrimination rooted in religious and sacred practices.

Teaching caste issues

Most urban upper caste kids of India grow up in protected environs rubbing shoulders with kids of their own kind- both social and economic. They have very few friends of lower caste and even if they did, those kids seem to be well-off. These kids are completely oblivious to the problems of India’s poor or lower castes. The only time they get a chance to encounter the existence of these people is when they graduate from high school on the verge of entering premier institutions of India for their professional education. And this encounter is not quite pleasant one either because the urban upper caste kids get to know for the first time that about half of the seats are ‘reserved’ for certain lower caste people.

To avoid such unpleasant encounters, all school going kids in India should be taught casteism, negatives of its perpetuation, the long history of discrimination in this country, and the need for reservations in institutions and employment as method to address the socio-economic issues. Indians have this habit of avoiding all sensitive topics- thinking that not addressing it will somehow make them disappear. We need to educate our kids to deal with real issues, and one of the ways to do it is to prepare them for realities of India.

Teaching religion issues

Talking or discussing religion is another anathema to most Indians. The mere reference to such a discussion is seen as inculcating separatist and communalist views. The kids will eventually learn their own religion and existence of other religions sooner or later. We should be careful on how that learning is going to be. If it is going to come from bigoted sources, then these kids will turn bigoted. Instead if it is handled well while they are still young, by the parents and the teachers, the kids will be equipped to handle the aspects of religion much more maturely.

That education should involve origin of religions, the diversity of religions, the conflicts of the past and the disastrous consequences of bigotry and prejudices, the importance of tolerance, etc.

Most probably, we will see an India in future which is more respectful of other religions unlike the kind of educated Indians we seem to produce now that are completely contemptuous of the people of other religions.

Make them think big

We are one of the most myopic cultures on the planet. Our vision is short-sighted. We don’t know what is long-term planning. All our decisions and actions are based in achieving short-term and greedy goals. Our roads are built that way, our homes are built that way, our policies are made that way, and even our parenting is also myopic, and so is our teaching in schools.

We are always looking for immediate and short-term quick fixes. We never sit around to solve a problem completely. Our kids are never taught to look at the world with a long-term attitude. Where scores in each exam are more important than following a career of your own choice, the kids are trained to make small gains in small steps instead of taking a longer, harder and riskier route to something grander. I see this phenomenon in Indian industry too. (More about this later).

In a society where each single failure, however insignificant, is seen as a direct ticket to eternal shame and damnation, the kids learn to become extremely averse to taking up activities where a failure might occur. They become less curious and less adventurous. They stick to conventional ways of scoring over others to become Xerox copier-machines working for foreign creators.

Kids should be taught to concentrate on long-term and grander aims instead of hoping for quicker and smaller gains. They should be allowed to make mistakes, take risks, and learn from the failures. That way we will make inventors, creators, artists, visionaries and better leaders.

Conclusion

I believe investing in a better future is the wisest thing we can do right now, and that involves investing in creating better younger generations. For that, we have to ensure we do not inherit our kids with our prejudices and bigotry but instead equip them with skills, values and attitudes of the right kind, so that they make their own future, hopefully, a better one.

I do not limit this responsibility of Primary Education to state alone, or to teachers alone. I include everyone into this, the people of India, the parents of India and everyone connected to the young in every possible way. The onus is on all of us.