Fuel Price Hike

Few days ago, the UPA government, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, announced a steep hike in the fuel prices across the country.

Last night, I was discussing with two individuals who thought this increase was atrocious. I explained that this fuel hike was long overdue, that the prices of oil in the world are shooting up like crazy, and that almost every other country has already increased the prices, and that India had withheld this hike for quite long time. I told them it was inevitable – it had to be done some day. Those individuals expressed surprise and asked how come they don’t get to hear this from the TV and media. (I guess they were just watching the wrong channels).

TOI is Irresponsible

Next day, in the morning, I got to read THE HINDU and TIMES OF INDIA. While THE HINDU did mention that the prices of oil have been skyrocketing in the world market and hence has influenced the current hike, TOI has failed to mention even once that this price hike was due to those reasons.

It is the role of the media to educate its masses and present the facts. They could interpret the story in their own way if they want to, but to deliberately omit and hide some extremely important facts is almost like fabrication of a lie when done by a media agency which has such a wide circulation. In a democracy, media plays a great role and forms a pillar along with legislature, executive and judiciary. While TOI wants to enjoy all the fundamental rights, including posting one semi-nude picture everyday in its SPORTS section where most impressionable young ones usually turn to, it seems to shirk all its duties to present the facts. TOI is an extremely irresponsible media agency.

The TV channels are no less irresponsible. All you see is a bunch of young chest beating journalists trying desperately to thump themselves harder just to climb the corporate ladder. They always seem to pant as if they just ran a marathon.

Indian Racism

Are we racists?

I have always maintained that Indians are one of the most racist people on this planet. It is just that many of us don’t know that we are racist, and those who do know never acknowledge it. We have been practicing racism for ages and have institutionalized it into our daily lingo and even the religion.

When the word ‘racism’ was introduced into Indian media, most Indians thought it was an ‘artificial Western construct’, that is applicable only to the White people of the West when treating the people of other color, but definitely not applicable to Indians. It is something people in the West do to people like us and not the other way around. Their ideas on lofty ideas on Sanatana Dharma have deluded them into believing that we are not racist and definitely not discriminatory.

Third world to developing world

For many years, we were an inferior nation, a third world country, of brown people, a non-aligned state, impoverished and underdeveloped nation, etc. Therefore, we did not know what it means to be in a position of dominance.

In the recent times, our country is rubbing shoulders with bigwigs of the world, and trying to take the role of dominance and leadership. This is reflected more so in sports (read Cricket).

When India won World Cup in 1983 (Cricket), we were still reeling from the colonial inferiority, and beating the whole world was a moment of pride, not just for sports, but for the morale of entire nation.

However, in the recent times, we are no longer a nation of poor people, not when it comes to Cricket. We are no longer seen as a third world and impoverished country. Our boys travel first class, have sports gear from best brands, and have lot of cash to throw around on fancy parties, expensive gifts and lavish houses. When they go abroad, they are no longer sportsmen from a poor nation. They are in fact richer than those firangis.

Earlier, we were seen as meek. No longer is it the case. We have our own share of bullies.

Harbhajan – Symonds spate

In one of the recent incidents, involving Harbhajan Singh (Bhajji) of India and Symonds of Australia, where the latter accused the former of invoking a racial slur, the whole country stood in unanimity to support Bhajji. Many team members came onto TV and media to tell us how it was uncharacteristic of Bhajji to say something like that, how he is a nice kid, and so on.

And our champion of ‘everything that India is worse at’, Navjot Singh Sidhu, who talks in a singsong banter, who failed at everything else in life other than laughing at every silly joke, comes onto TV and talks for 10 minutes non-stop, on why he thinks Bhajji is innocent. In that monologue, he does not present facts and he does not reason. In fact, there is no iota of intelligence. It was empty rhetoric to which only the Indian masses can fall for, just the way they fall prey to empty politicians promises every election.

The next day, I woke up to see the headlines in TOI read: Indian wins Sydney Test. Well, I don’t follow cricket, but you cannot escape cricket in India. I knew that we lost the game. So, I was curious. I began to read.

The TOI thought it was a funny idea to say that India won the Test Match just because Bhajji was given a clean chit. That’s how we celebrate our victories. Not on the playground, not in the real sports, but by muscle power, using our overpopulation as our strength to send SMS, use TV channels, and use constant bickering, shouting, wailing till the world changes its opinion – not because we are right, only because we are too many.

I didn’t know anything about that game. I didn’t know if Bhajji really said anything. I didn’t know if he is that kind of person. I didn’t watch that game and didn’t watch many games before that. I do not profess to be an expert and hence I stayed out of the whole discussion.

But I had a hunch. A hunch that something was not right! That the entire hullabaloo was just show of strength to acquit the accused, not because he is innocent, but only because is he OUR guy. And remember the axiom – Indians are not racist.

Bhajji slaps Sreesanth

Few months later, the same Bhajji was seen slapping a fellow Indian cricketer on national TV. That’s it! He was banned for few weeks. And many people came onto TV to say that, ‘Yes! That was very characteristic of Bhajji’. They said he was a violent player. And what he did was very disgraceful.

The same Bhajji, to whom it was uncharacteristic be violent and verbal, was exact opposite a few months later.

Indians are not racist

The golden rule is – We Indians are not racist. If we said something racial, it’s just the cultural and linguistic differences. However, when somebody does it to us, we feel really bad, get onto the TV and protest and cry till you apologize. [Refer to Shilpa Shetty’s case on Big Brother].

Cheerleaders at IPL

Now, in a new incident, few black cheerleaders were pulled out of a IPL cricket game at Mohali. The organizers pulled them out saying ‘the people here don’t want to see the dark people’. According to the cheerleaders, they used ‘n’ word and wanted see only ‘beautiful white girls’.

One of the cheerleaders said, "We were offended. This shouldn't be happening - especially after they made such a fuss over Big Brother."

To start with, the whole idea of hiring black cheerleaders for our IPL games is a gross mistake. It is too much of politically-correctness to handle for Indians. I mean, ‘Come on! Can we cut the crap, stop all this politically-correct bullshit and get back to enjoying the beautiful white girls? Why do we have to put up with these black girls?’

Look at our heroines in the South India. We all know we have many dark women here, but do we allow them to get onto the screen? NO! Why? Because we don’t want to pay money to see dark women on screen! The same holds for IPL cheerleaders. We just want to see fair women. And if that means we have to import them from the North India, so be it. We have been doing this in our Cinema for many years now. And if we have to import them from other countries, it’s even better. That way we can ogle at them without having to worry about blemishing our sacred Bharat Nari.

And look at us in the North India. Why do you think we treat these dark girls this way? Do you see us vying for them ever? There are some dark girls in the North and we are usually ashamed of it. And yes, gori pari from firang is any day welcome in our midst.

Too much of politically-correctness

I think this whole globalization is taking a toll on us. It is putting too many demands on being politically-correct. I don’t think we can keep straight face for too long.

Hiring these black cheerleaders and asking them to dance on national TV is like making the village Brahmin sit next a Dalit. It’s just too uncomfortable. The village Brahmin can tolerate it for few minutes, to be politically correct, but you can’t push it too far. Eventually, he will just burst out and use the language that he is really used to, kick that Dalit out and show him his place.

I don’t think we should try to break or change the natural order of things. Didn’t you know that our caste system and our preference for color schemes actually bring order to the nature? Do you want to upset the natural harmony our villages? Do you want us to go against all our teachings for all these centuries to see the distasteful black women dancing around on TV?

You must be kidding.

Thank you, but no thanks. Please take this political correctness to your West. It’s not for us Indians. We are like this only. And don’t try to change us!

Telangana VIII: You need to make a case

Seekers of Hyderabad State, you need to make a case

Saying that you are well-off and hence you want to be separated from a region that is backward because you do not wish to share your riches with them does not make a case. That way every metropolitan city in India has a case to become a separate state.

In fact, your case is duplicitous to start with.

First, you were not willing to give us a separate state. You bludgeoned each of our requests, agitations and protests. You rubbished each of our efforts to create a state for ourselves. You became the very masters that you opposed. You created your new state away from Madras Presidency citing you will not be well-represented under Tamils. But you imposed the very ill-representation onto us.

Now, when we are on the verge of attaining our statehood, you want to weaken us taking away our main city on which the entire economy depends. Now, you ask for a separate Hyderabad state.

Your case is quite flimsy and is fraught with greed, selfishness and extreme self-centeredness. These are the very attributes you are accused of, and which you feared from Madras Presidency back in 1950s.

Case for Pakistan

When Indian sub-continent got its Independence, the Muslims of India made a case, and though many of us disagreed with it, they bargained their position to create a new country for some Muslims. Their case was simple. Muslims will not be given the same privileges and will not have the same status as Hindus in a country where Hindus are in majority. So, when this subcontinent was given independence by British, certain portions of the land were designated for them, and many Muslims living in India moved out to those lands.

When Nizam of Hyderabad and some Muslims of Hyderabad state wanted to belong to Pakistan, they had an option. They could migrate to Pakistan. But India was not going to have a Pakistan right in the middle of its country. Geographical proximity was an essential criterion.

Case for Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh was formed because people of Andhra did not feel they would be well-represented in Madras Presidency. Though there was no precedent to verify whether they would be marginalized or not, there was enough support for creation of a new Andhra Pradesh for its people. Andhra Pradesh was created out by breaking Madras Presidency.

Telangana was broken out of Hyderabad State and was added to Andhra Pradesh against its wishes. While Andhra was under British, and hence had access to better education and opportunities to start with, Telangana under Nizam was quite backward with very high illiteracy and poverty. The new state required Telugu and English, and people of Telangana were educated in neither.

People of Telangana, which includes people of Hyderabad, protested against such inclusion. In fact, the city of Hyderabad saw protests against joining the new state of Andhra Pradesh where few protestors were killed. It is ironical that the very city which saw protests against joining Andhra Pradesh is now being hijacked by the very people that these Telangana people feared.

Telangana people felt exactly the same way people of Andhra felt about Tamils. Telangana people reasoned they would not be well-represented in the new state. They felt that people of Andhra would dominate and take up most of the jobs, because they were richer, had better access to opportunity, well-educated and more prosperous.

Case for Telangana

The case for Telangana, which includes Hyderabad as its center, was always valid from the time of inception of the state. The first SRC clearly indicated that it was a marriage of unequal regions. Though many promises were made to alleviate the needs of Telangana people, none were met. Later in 1969, a massive agitation took place in Telangana asking for a separate state. Though there were many promises made for welfare of Telangana, almost all of those proposals were struck down. No promises were kept. To add to the incompetency and betrayal of its own leaders, the greed, the selfishness and self-centeredness of the rest of Andhra came out baring its ugly teeth. Time and again people of Telangana were denied their statehood.

Now, when the time has come to redeem our pledge and ensure we create a new state for our people, they talk about taking away its crown jewel.

What is the case for new state called Hyderabad carved out of the city lying in the middle of Telangana? Does it make sense?

When I started writing about Telangana, my premise was this:

When one state has two economically and culturally different regions, one being prosperous and the other backward, if corrective measures are not taken to uplift that backward region, there is a great danger that only the prosperous region gets all the attention, funding, new industries, canals, and opportunities, while the people of backward region keep losing out, even in their own region. When such a condition prevails far too long, strong corrective measures are to be taken, and if that does not work, a new state is one of the best solutions.

In what way does Hyderabad qualify for a separate statehood?

Were the people of Hyderabad oppressed, marginalized by Telangana? Is the representation of Hyderabad city people less compared to rest of Telangana, or is it more? Are the people of Hyderabad less educated compared to rest of Telangana, or more? What historical precedence shows that people of Hyderabad were marginalized, less represented, are economically backward or different or distinct in culture or heritage from Telangana? Is being too prosperous a good enough reason for exclusion, or inclusion?

There is no case of creating Hyderabad into a new state cutting it away from Telangana. If being prosperous, well-off, and being highly developed, and having many immigrants are good enough reasons to create every city into a state then each metropolitan city of India qualifies for it. Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, etc, can all be made new states cutting them away from their original states.

The greed of people is showing off. And we have institutionalized the greed so much, that they are not even squeamish to flaunt it.

If you think you will not be well-represented in the new state, you always have an option. If I am an immigrant and I don’t think I am well-represented in that land, I always have a choice to go back to the lands where I came from.

And in case, you believe you belong to Telangana, I suggest you wait for few years, and see how new Telangana treats you. We waited for more than 50 years to see how new Andhra Pradesh would treat us.

And if it turns out that people of Hyderabad are marginalized in the new state of Telangana just because they belong to a city called Hyderabad, I suggest you should fight for a new state called Hyderabad.

Frankly, deriding Telangana people will not help your case at all. Look at what one of detractors to a separate Telangana has to say (I take an extreme example here). I see this all the time. The detractors like to reduce Telangana Movement to a joke, deriding its leaders, its people, its culture, and of course, its language.

U r such a shameless fellow u can accept a muslims as ur brothers. U fought against razakkars, the Nizam king made ur women to
dance nude for batukamma, the hyderabdi nizam want to join in "Pakistan" and u people without any shame say brothers to those guys
because u know if u don't say brothers they won't support Hyderabad to be in Telangana. Shame on you.

Telangana VII: Political Drama

In the recently held by-elections in Telangana region, TRS (Telangana Rashtra Samithi), a political outfit that came into existence on the sole slogan of bringing statehood to the region of Telangana, lost many seats in both Assembly and Parliament thus causing a ‘setback’ to the Telangana Movement.

To being with, these elections were unnecessary. In India, it has become a fashion to resign from the MP or MLA posts citing some seemingly-pertinent-but-actually-irrelevant ‘cause’ thereby forcing a by-election onto the voters. And you would assume that the leader who has resigned would not contest these elections especially when the ‘cause’ is still unaddressed. But that’s not what happens in Indian politics. In fact, the leader who has resigned would actually compete in the elections though nothing has changed in the interim period. Nobody bothers to ask why he had resigned in the first place.

This particular practice is not limited to petty leaders. Even the high-ranking and most powerful people, like Sonia Gandhi, resort to such unnecessary practices.

Reason for by-elections

In the last Assembly and Parliament elections, TRS contested on a single point agenda - bringing statehood to the region. Most other political party leaders of the region had rejected such an idea (except Congress) mostly due to pressure from higher up leaders who were not convinced it was a viable idea. Congress tied up with TRS promising the people a new state called Telangana.

In those elections, TRS won a clear mandate winning 26 seats in the State Assembly and 5 seats in the Parliament. Many of its leaders, comprising some ragtag group of rejects, won with margins as high as 2 lakh votes. Congress won its share of seats too.

But once Congress got into power at Center and State, it did a volte face, and completely ignored the promise they made to the people of Telangana prior to the elections. They stalled all discussions on creation of a new state.

TRS, which had no other agenda other than seeking statehood to the region, attempted all kinds of political tricks while bargaining with Congress’ high command. All those attempts failed. In the end, TRS leader K Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) took a brash decision to resign en masse. He believed that the support for his party was so much that he would win the seats that he has already won, with a majority that he has already enjoyed. An observer would find no reason for such elections, but KCR, who was forced into a corner since he could not achieve the only point his party vouched for, was overconfident and had different expectations.

In the by-elections held recently in those areas where TRS leaders resigned, TRS won only 7 out of 18 seats in the Assembly and only 2 out of 4 in the Parliament. So, in effect, it lost its ground by a huge margin by going to the polls. In effect, it is a rejection of KCR and his politics.

Many pundits and naysayers have concluded that these results are a clear indication of dissolution or dilution of Telangana ‘sentiment’. The very same sentiment that gave TRS and Congress combine an overwhelming mandate in the last elections seems to have waned and lost wind. These experts opine, now that TRS has lost many seats, there is no need to discuss Telangana issue anymore; there is no need to create a Telangana. The Telangana cause is dead, they pronounced.

Before I start giving my opinion on the outcome of these elections, let me assert one thing.

Telangana is not TRS

I have always maintained that Telangana is not TRS; and TRS is not Telangana. Just the way pre-Independent India was not Indian National Congress, Telangana is not TRS. To write off the aspirations of pre-Independent Indians to self-rule calling it a ‘political issue’ would not do justice to its people. In the same way, to write off the demand of millions of Telangana people to create a state for themselves as political gimmick would be a direct repudiation of their aspirations.

TRS is just a political outfit that came into existence to cash in on what is described as ‘Telangana sentiment’. For some time TRS has started to behave as if it had the monopoly on this ‘Telangana sentiment’.

So what is Telangana sentiment?

It is an opinion of the majority of the people living in Telangana region to have a separate Telangana state breaking away from Andhra Pradesh. This ‘sentiment’ exists since the time of creation of Andhra Pradesh itself right after Indian Independence. This sentiment has resulted in three major movements so far and has affected the psyche of this region, including its politics. Sometimes it became so prominent that it has become a violent protest or a backbone of political agenda, but most of the time, it was a passive one – something that is discussed during post-dinner conversations.

No matter how the political outcomes are interpreted by pundits and detractors, Telangana sentiment continues to thrive and only become stronger with each generation. The outcome of such a sentiment is an eventuality – which cannot be escaped but only delayed. And that outcome is creation of a new state called Telangana.

Why did TRS lose?

I am not ready to concede that the rejection of TRS is same as rejection of Telangana sentiment.

TRS is just any other political party with vested interests. And since they won the last elections, many TRS leaders have behaved in such arrogant manner that they have distanced themselves from the very people who voted them to power. In the recent past, many TRS leaders rebelled against its high command and left the party while some were kicked out. Out of 26 MLAs, 10 have aligned themselves with Congress Party rejecting KCR. Out of 5 MPs, 1 started a new outfit.

Some of the leaders got involved in passport scandals- they were caught trafficking humans to other nations using their diplomatic immunities. Some of them were embroiled in corruption scandals. Most of them were more interested in political maneuvers completely neglecting their duties. In fact, many things were grossly wrong with TRS other than its single point focus on Telangana cause.

While TRS was distancing itself from its people, most other political parties started to support Telangana cause and started to chant the same slogans. Many of the local leaders of other political parties deviated from the position of their high command, more in tune with realities on the ground, and started to promise a new state. TRS leaders, instead of embracing such political party leaders, started attacking them virulently, fearing that these parties would take away their stance. They didn’t want to share the mantle of Telangana cause with any other party. It’s like saying – It is our monopoly and we will not partner with anyone.

In these by-elections, many leaders from other political parties have chanted ‘Jai Telangana’, promised to bring statehood to Telangana and thus won the elections. Many leaders from TDP and Congress have supported the cause of Telangana and have gone on record saying they would fight for a separate state.

By doing so, they ensured that the cause of Telangana does not belong to just TRS but all political parties of the region. It’s a reality that has become a cause for all the leaders, not just TRS. It’s clear that no leader from Telangana can come to power by rejecting the cause. The only choice they have is to embrace it. The sentiment is so palpable you cannot escape it.

In these by-elections the people of Telangana had more than one choice to get their statehood. And those choices were TDP and Congress.

Should we be disappointed?

Though many detractors would like to see these results as rejection of Telangana cause, one cannot escape the reality- that the sentiment has only widened to embrace more political parties. The mantle of Telangana is not with TRS alone but with all political leaders of this region.

Though it is a minor setback, since many detractors would like to interpret this as drubbing of the cause, it is healthier for Telangana in the long run. An overwhelming majority with TRS would not have been good for future of Telangana. It is a party fraught with many ills.

India and referendums

India does not have a provision for holding referendum to decide the fates of its people. In absence of such referendums, people have to choose political parties and their agendas. Sometimes those political parties betray its people thereby completely disappointing its voters.

In 1971, following Telangana agitation of 1969, a political outfit came into existence to cash in on that sentiment. That political party, called Telangana Praja Samithi (TPS) won 10 out of 11 Parliament seats riding the popular mood for a separate state. The leader of that party, Chenna Reddy, instead of fighting for statehood, joined Congress Party and became the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

So, it’s not the first time that people of Telangana are betrayed by their own leaders. Yet, they do not give up hope. Telangana people have been waiting for over 50 years now for someone to deliver on their promises.

When do we get Telangana?

There is a very good chance that the leaders of other political parties who have championed the cause of Telangana in these elections would do another volte face citing pressure from high command. There is a good chance that the people of Telangana would once again be betrayed by its own leaders.

TRS, whom they had put all their bets on, did not deliver on the promise last time. Now, the divided mandate would do no good either.

The way the reasons for Indian Independence of 1947 came from unfolding of events elsewhere on the planet, the reasons for granting Telangana would come from New Delhi for reasons that would have no bearing on the aspirations of its people. It would be a political decision based in a larger game.

The way we all woke up to see new states like Chattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand that came into existence without a bang, we would one day wake up to see Telangana created – without a bang. Till then, we will have to put with the detractors and naysayers.

BJP in Karnataka

For the first time in the history of Independent India, BJP is about to take power in a Southern State. It was always understood by all and sundry that BJP could never come to power in the South. Even BJP leaders of the South got themselves convinced over a period of time that they would never come to power on their own. In the past, BJP has dabbled with all kinds of alliances to make a footprint in the South – but was unsuccessful. It was given that BJP cannot win a majority in the South.

The myth is exploded now

In the recent elections held in Karnataka, BJP has won the majority and is about to form the government – completely on their own without any alliance. This is a historic event and would completely change the way BJP has looked at the South, the way political equations were formed at Center, and the way South has looked at BJP and other Hindu political outfits.

It has many implications.

BJP at Center

The BJP headquarters should celebrate this as a grand victory. Getting its footprint into South is one of BJP’s biggest achievements. It gives them a legitimacy that it suffered for a very long time. It was always regarded as unrepresentative of a great section of India – the South. Though it was targeting Hindu majority as its vote base, it had never received the mandate of the people in the South. That is all changed now.

BJP can once again anticipate coming to power at Center in the next elections. Not only that, they can now be aggressive on their Hindutva agenda- because it is clear that they don’t need to succumb to their allies in their NDA. They can be less dependent on their partners – unlike in the past during Vajpayee Government.

Congress at Center

Sonia Gandhi could not work any magic in Karnataka. Rahul Gandhi could not work magic either. Even in those places where they canvassed, Congress lost. All those ‘secular’ parties who saw the South to be impenetrable by BJP will now abandon their complacency.

Congress already lost few states in the recent past to BJP in the North. Now, they lost to BJP even in the South. Congress Party’s chances of winning at the Center in the next elections are becoming slim.

This also means much more idolization of Sonia Gandhi and her family. The more the Congress loses the more the loyalty towards the family increases – that’s how sycophancy works – because all the other independent minded leaders would then be reduced to a naught.

Telangana

With the recent unfolding in the political scene in the country, Congress cannot hope to win in Andhra Pradesh. There is a great deal of negative sentiment against Congress party in Telangana because of the betrayal of Telangana cause. In the last elections, Congress formed an alliance with TRS promising people of Telangana their statehood if they come to power. And they came to power and formed the government in the state under Rajashekar Reddy, a strong opponent to creation of Telangana. Sonia Gandhi and her party went against their promise to create a new state upsetting people of Telangana. Unless Sonia grants statehood this time, Congress has no chances of winning in Telangana.

Meanwhile, in the Rest of Andhra Pradesh, there is a new threat. Chiranjeevi, the famous actor, is forming a new party and many existing political parties already know that he is going to make a big impact. Congress, unless it joins hands with Chiranjeevi, which seems to be quite a remote possibility, cannot win in Rest of Andhra.

Sonia Gandhi has to reevaluate her strategy vis-à-vis Andhra Pradesh. There is a good chance that Congress will announce creation of Telangana in a bid to win at least this region. And if so, that decision will come at a time close to the election to reap the maximum benefit out of that announcement.

Pan India Hindutva ideology

BJP and its Hindutva ideology is getting legitimacy in almost all regions of India, including the South. BJP and other Hindutva outfits can pat themselves on the back for creating the necessary atmosphere, and for benefiting from some of the recent events in the state and outside, in transforming themselves into a well-accepted political party in the South. Aiding them were other factors, such as extreme incompetence and petty politics of JDS and Congress in Karnataka, recent terrorist attacks in the state and outside, and the desperate need for development-focus.

In the recent past, Karnataka has seen a spurt in growth of regional chauvinism; and the fervor it has vitiated in the state is something which any fascist, nationalistic or communalistic party can ride on. There is a growing antipathy and animosity towards non-Kannadigas. Riots took place in different parts of Karnataka in which Hindus and Muslims were at loggerheads. This atmosphere is conducive for party like BJP to make its mark.

The prevailing mood has allowed these people of South to accept BJP as a legitimate party. The mood of Kannadigas is to have a change from the both JDS and Congress, and to have an increased sense of security of their regional and communal interests, which a party like BJP can easily promise to promote. Though Hindutva ideology is not really the critical factor for Kannadigas to vote BJP into power, that’s how BJP would like to position it in the Center – an approval of its Pan India Hindutva ideology.

On God-fearing people

I see two kinds of religious people, god-loving and god-fearing. I can understand the first kind but I fail to understand the second kind. Some of them proudly proclaim that they are god-fearing, and even write it in their matrimonial ads as if it is a positive attribute. According to these people, if someone is god-fearing then he is morally upright. ‘Since he fears god, he will not do wrong thing’, their reasoning goes. I find that reasoning quite amusing.

What about doing the right things? If God is solely interested in maintaining an account book on wrong things, what about the right things?

I think atheists are somewhat better ;-). As an atheist I like to do the right thing because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because I fear an invisible force called God who is out there to punish me whenever I do a wrong thing.

What would a god-fearing person do when God asks him to do the wrong thing?

[Such a thing is not far-fetched. Just read any of religious scriptures. You will see God asking humans all kinds of insane, cruel, and downright immoral things].

When God asks him to do a patently wrong thing, this god-fearing person will instantly obey. He will just do what he is told to do. The driving factor for action is the FEAR. He would not think for himself when he sets out to do the wrong thing. Such people make good robots, not original or creative thinkers.

So my question is simple- why proudly display in a matrimonial ad one’s lack of originality, lack of creativity and one’s ability to follow someone’s orders blindly without even thinking about it, as if it is a positive attribute?

Confounds me!

Atheists got this better. If God himself came around to tell me to do the wrong thing I wouldn’t do it. I would do the right thing in spite of his remonstrations. That’s because I do not fear him. And I think I would not even believe that he is the God in the first place. I would think that he is some godman dressed up as God trying to make a quick buck.

And if he tried to do some magic, I would show him a video clip of PC Sorcar ;-)

Einstein on God

For many years, many theists and religious people have used some of the statements from Albert Einstein to demonstrate that he was a religious man, or that he believed in a personal God, or that he was ambivalent about belief in God, and so on.

The religious people fought a long battle, citing many of his remarks, sometimes giving quite childish interpretations and conclusions to prove that Einstein believed in a religious God.

“God does not play dice with the universe”

For example, his famous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe” is wrongly interpreted as confession of his belief in God. One just cannot make such a direct conclusion. Many atheists refer to 'God' in their day-to-day speech. That does NOT necessarily mean they believe in a personal or religious God. The figure of speech using ‘God’ could mean differently in different contexts for different people, including atheists. But to conclude that Einstein was a believer from the above quotation is quite far fetched.

To understand why he said what he said, one has to know the context.

For eons, many cultures believed that God worked the laws of nature. (Biblical God has even created the nature with his hands, not necessarily abiding with laws of nature.) When Newton proposed Universal Theory of Gravitation thus setting the stage for Classical Physics, it was understood that the entire Universe was based on few well-understood laws of Physics making the universe and its workings deterministic. That means, if you knew the position of a planet at this moment, and know its interactions with the environment, we can predict its position at any time in future. If there is an error in calculation, it’s only because all the factors in the environment that influence its behavior are not clearly stated. So, the problem is with the guy calculating the position of this planet, not with the universal laws of nature.

So, if we are not able to predict future, it’s only because we don’t have the complete knowledge of all the factors affecting that future. But theoretically, if we knew all the factors, we can predict the future absolutely without any error. That was the understanding under Classical Physics.

Then came Quantum Physics!

It told us that nature was NOT deterministic. That it was not possible to predict the future. That unpredictability and probability are inherent part of this Universe. That even if you knew all the factors in the environment absolutely, you would still NOT be able to predict the future. That the outcome of events is probabilistic! That the God played dice with universe!

Even Einstein, the greatest thinker of our time, could not reconcile himself to this reality. When he got to know how Quantum Physics worked, he could not believe it and uttered the now famous quote – ‘God does not play dice with Universe’.

Later on, with more understanding of this new and revolutionary physics, he has accepted Quantum Physics, and became a champion of it. He went onto accept that God does indeed play dice with the universe.

For him and everyone who knows the context, using God was a figure of speech. It does not speak of religion or belief in supernatural being who watches over us.

Science without religion is lame

Another famous quote which is often cited to say that Einstein approved of religion is – “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Many people used this quotation to say that religion was equally important to Einstein as much as Science. This philosophical and sociological statement only promotes harmony between the factions, but does not tell much about Einstein’s religious attitudes.

However, many religious people have used this quotation to prove that Einstein believed in God and that he approved of mainstream religion.

Then came the final quote to put an end to all this debate.

“God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness”

In a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.”

And about Bible, he said: “[it is] a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

About Judaism, he said: “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

About Jews, he said: “I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.”

Conclusion

Einstein grew up in an environment where religion was extremely important. Though Einstein confessed that he ‘lost his religion’ at the age of 12, calling religion ‘a lie’, he remained slightly ambivalent when it came to the role of religion in society. His ideas on his personal god were closer to atheists, though he maintained respect for the necessity of religion.

His religion, if one can use that terminology, is captured more by his awe of the universe than the anthropomorphic God of the West or the human interventionist God of the East. To this effect, he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.”

But in no way he was a religious man as people describe their religions, and no way he was a believer in personal god as people define their gods.

At the same time, Einstein did not think he was an atheist. Some people categorize him as a deist - someone who does not believe in a personal god, or a religious god, but who believes that there is something more to this universe which is beyond human comprehension - but there is no room for miracles, prophecies or 'chosen people'.

On Group Politics

Most Indians have grown to detest all kinds of group politics. Any group which gets formed representing people of certain identity is considered divisive and hence bad.

Is group politics bad or good?

Instead of answering that question directly, I shall ask few more questions. Since we have so much exaggeration and sensationalism on the TV these days, shall we go back to those days when there was only one channel and that too controlled by the state? Since we have so much excessive consumption and waste today, shall we go back to those days of poverty where there was little food to eat and little water to drink?

Just because we have excess of certain things (and deemed bad) does not mean we eliminate them completely. We have to agree that we all want free media; it’s just that we want it less sensational and less exaggerated. We all want easier access to food and water; it’s just that we want it less wasted. However, there are lots of people who think very differently, they go onto discredit the entire system itself as bad.

Before I dig deep, let me put some more examples on how we look at groups and lobbies.

When blacks of US come together to form a group to represent blacks, it’s not seen in the bad light. But when well-to-do whites of US come together to form a group to represent whites, it’s usually derided.

When dalits of India come together under a group to represent untouchables, it’s not seen in the bad light (by some of us, including mainstream media). But when well-to-do upper castes of India come together under a group to represent upper castes of India, it’s usually derided (by some of us, including mainstream media).

Is there hypocrisy involved?

I will get back to this question but before I do that, I urge you to read an article on this blog: Duties of the Majority and the Privileged.

Role of Group Politics

Group Politics when done well can create a healthy democratic environment to work towards betterment of minorities and underprivileged, to bring in sense of equality. But when done on an excess can result in divisive and destructive politics.

In many countries, civil wars, frictions, breakaways, etc, can all be avoided by allowing group politics to play a healthy role.

In India, for some reason, there has been a notion to decry every case of group politics without seeing the merit in it. For example, Congress of pre-Independent India always looked at group politics with contempt. When Muslims wanted to be seen as a different group, it failed to recognize it, and in the process allowed Muslim League to represent the Muslim groups which eventually led to the division of the sub-continent. By not allowing Muslims’ representation as a group, Congress has inadvertently led the country to the very same situation it feared the most- division of the country on the name of religion.

For many years, grouping under one's identity within Indian context was always considered bad - a force that would break up India. All discussion into legitimizing group politics was shunned.

Some of us understand now that the underprivileged and minorities need to have their groups represented in politics under their identities. It’s a necessity that a democracy has to bear the burden of.

However, the problem appears when the privileged and majorities also form their groups under their identities. That only causes the gaps to widen and further alienation of minorities and underprivileged.

It’s usually OK (for some of us, including mainstream media) to see a group of underprivileged or minority to form a party under the banner of its identity, but somehow NOT OK (for some of us, including mainstream media) to see a group of privileged or majority to come and form a party under the banner of its identity.

That's why some of us deride BJP which forms a party to represent the majority and (in many cases) the privileged. And that’s also why some media people criticize white people’s parties and lobbies in US.

Why is one grouping OK and the other NOT OK?

These are the common set of notions. It is believed that,

When underprivileged and minorities form their groups, they do so, to bargain for better rights, better privileges which are denied to them, better access to education and opportunity because they are underrepresented, and to secure better access to political power.

When privileged and majorities form their groups, they do so, to perpetuate their hegemony, to appropriate more resources for themselves in excess of their share, to continue their dominance and superiority over others, and ensure they get an excess and uneven share in education, opportunity and political power.

These are the general perceptions on why some group politics are considered OK and why others are NOT.

[However, reality is never so stark and contrasting, and hence we will see legitimacy for even the supposed privileged and majorities, and derision for supposed underprivileged and minorities.]

Related Posts: On Caste Politics in India, Duties of the Majority and the Privileged.