Telangana II

Here, I deal with some of the comments from my previous blog - Telangana - A New State.

I just don’t understand why so many people are opposed to a separate Telangana. We didn’t see the same kind of opposition when Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarkhand were created.

It is quite clear that there are many supporters for separate Telangana in Telangana. TRS, a political party, that came in to cash in on this sentiment with a single slogan of getting a separate Telangana has swept the polls in Telangana. This clearly indicates that people of Telangana overwhelmingly support a separate Telangana.

So, who are these voices who are opposed to it? And why are they opposed to formation of Telangana? Here I look at some of the excuses given by some of the detractors.

1. Andhra people will take away all their investments from Telangana.

Some time ago, the real estate prices crashed in Hyderabad when it became imminent that Telangana would be formed. Lot of people speculated that many Andhra people will move out of Hyderabad. Now, that the state has not formed yet and since so many new projects keep coming into Hyderabad, the prices have picked up again.

There are lots of people who believe that 'Andhra people moving out of Hyderabad' will be bad for Hyderabad. Therefore, they believe that Telangana should not be formed. This reasoning is quite ridiculous. First, no decision on formation of a new state should be based on fears that certain section of people will move out. Second, there are many examples from history which suggest that Andhra people could continue living in Hyderabad even after separation of Telangana. There are many Tamils still living in Mumbai even after Shiv Sainiks took on an agenda to get rid of them. When many riots broke out in Bangalore in a drive to kick out Tamils, the Tamils stood ground and continue living there. Many similar incidents took place in India. That has not changed the demographics much. Such incidents were sporadic and confined to small time frames only to further an agenda. It is unlikely that Andhra people will move out of Hyderabad just because the city goes to Telangana.

There is a ridiculous speculation that the new state would not be friendly to new investments. One guy writes:

…If we have a separate state, then projects like Fab city, Hyderabad Airport, Sky bus, Hyderabad Metro, ORR, and numerous projects will halt and eventually disappear from the state only for the reason that government will not support it after the new state.

The newly formed states in India are known for their aggressive policies to attract more investments and start new projects. Take Uttarkhand for example. They have already invited many MNCs to setup factories in their state giving them sops and tax benefits. Their economy is on an unprecedented growth.

2. Muslims will dominate if Telangana becomes a State.

This issue is never discussed in public forums but is given as an excuse by many detractors in private discussions. If you talk to these detractors, it’s hard to miss the Muslim angle in their story. There is a sense of fear amongst Hindus that in the new Telangana state Muslims will wield more power – and they don’t want that

Similar argument was used long ago when Bengal was partitioned by British. Many Hindus opposed it because they believed that new East Bengal would be completely dominated by Muslims. While that reason is quite abominable and has bigotry as its core ideal, it was still a valid reason in the sense that the new state had a Muslim-majority population.

For a minute let's consider and accept this abominable excuse as an acceptable reason and apply it in case of separate Telangana. The percentage of Muslims to Hindus in Telangana marginally improves even in a separate state of Telangana without any bearing whatsoever to affect the power equations. The Muslims will continue to be a minority as ever. Hindus will continue to dominate in the whole of Telangana as they have always done. They will continue to vote the same kind of people to power from each of their constituency as they have done all these years.

I could imagine a change in power equations if there was reconstitution of the constituencies to benefit certain communities. But if we were to stick to the same constituencies in the new state, they would continue to yield the same results whether they are part of Telangana or Andhra Pradesh or Madras Presidency.

[Of all these excuses, I hate this the most. First, this reason is quite revolting to be used as an excuse. Second, it is not even valid.]

The Muslim angle continues. For many people, the fact that Telangana was under Nizam is a disgrace. The fact that Telangana people did not revolt against Nizam only shows their good-for-nothing capability establishing their inferiority.

One guy writes [emphasis mine]:

I would have loved to see so called "Telangana Tigers" Freeing themselves from Nizam Rule without the intervention of Indian Army. What were these telangana people doing when Nizam was ruling them. Who was nizam? and where did nizam come from? Telangana people allowed nizam who was not even a part of this country to rule them and now they are fighting for seperate state. You should never be given a seperate state for you preferred the slavery of Nizams and you are talking about cultural aspects.

Look at the tone of above commenter in describing the people of Telangana. We do not deserve a separate state because we endured Nizam?

3. Hyderabad will become a Union Territory; away from both Andhra and Telangana.

There was a rumor floating around suggesting that Hyderabad will be made a Union Territory and hence both Telangana and Andhra people will lose the city, making the separation a zero-sum game for everyone. This was indeed a good rumor benefiting the detractors who started to tell everyone to oppose separation. The importance of Hyderabad cannot be missed in this opposition to Telangana formation. In fact, it could be the foremost reason why rest of Andhra Pradesh does not want to grant Telangana people a separate statehood. In the case of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand or Uttarkhand, important cities were not lost to these newly created states - and that's why we saw little resistance. However, in case of Telangana, Hyderabad plays a vital role. The newly formed state is about to bag the crown jewel, and hence we see a bitter opposition to stop that separation.

One guy writes:

Hyderabad is on developement road if you break the state its absolutely problem for both of us.

They are hell bent on not giving up Telangana. You start to wonder why there is such great opposition. Is there an ulterior motive? Even Winston Churchill never wanted to part with India. He wanted India to be there as a crown jewel feeding his nation with raw material. Here, Hyderabad is access to capital, opportunity and investment, and they don’t want to let go.

And some people come with sillier excuses such as:

4. Andhra people are hardworking, enterprising and well-educated.

One Telangana guy writes [emphasis mine]:

We are best at what we do if we put our mind to it and let's for god's sake not separate from our telugu brethern by hiding our laggard nature.

To oppose the separation citing such silly reasons is actually quite dangerous. Should we ally with the efficient German people and merge with them just because they are hard-working, enterprising and well-educated?

Many Telangana people believe that Andhra people are better than them because 'Andhra people are hardworking, enterprising and well-educated'. They think that people of Telangana are lazy, job-shirkers and usually less hardworking. This they believe was the main reason why Andhra people seem to do so well. And they see no reason why Telangana should be rewarded (or punished) with a new state just because one is lazy.

One guy writes:

Let us think telangana is formed and according to your dreams you now have huge req. in state for jobs.. Are you going to recruit educted guys of telangana or non-educated guys ??

If your answer is "educated" guys then that what happened when AP state was formed.Andhra guys who are educated got the job.

This is the exact mindset we are trying to counter here. In addition to mere qualifications endowed by educational degrees, we want local people to prosper by controlling the competition from people of well-to-do regions. That’s why we create different administrative regions and states in the first place.

For many reasons separation really helps. By restricting certain jobs in a State to its own people, thereby making people from other states ineligible, we pave the way for benefiting people of that state, providing them with more opportunities. If we did not have such constituents (as states) and if whole of India was one single state where anyone from any place could get any government post anywhere, we can easily imagine a situation wherein certain well-to-do region people getting all employment opportunities sidelining people from backward regions forever (like Orissa) thus perpetuating and widening that gap forever. The people of such backward regions will never get jobs in their own lands and therefore will not prosper. To avoid such disparities existing between two kinds of people, we have different constituent units. Therefore, separation comes as an important tool and it definitely helps to put certain homogenous groups- social, economic, cultural, linguistic, religious, whatever be the basis for an identity or common grief, into units called states so that they can provide opportunities indigenously.

Did not Telugu people fight for a separate state citing the same reasons to form Andhra Pradesh out of Madras Presidency?

If for certain reason we see two lopsided units in the same state, and for a prolonged period certain people are getting sidelined consistently, one has to wake up and take a second look to see if that state needs to be divided. And that time has come for people of Telangana.

5. Andhra Telugu is superior – everyone should become like them.

There are many Telangana people who are very ashamed to speak Telangana. They see it as lowly language something more suitable for a coolie, a worker or a sweeper. To be sophisticated and chic and to reach higher echelons of society, one has to speak Andhra Telugu.

This feeling goes around a lot, mostly in Telangana. And there is a reason for that. Take a government organization like BHEL, ECIL, or any university in Telangana. You will find most high positions occupied by people from Andhra, while people of Telangana comprise low positions. Therefore, there is a tendency to attach Andhra people’s accent and dialect with superiority since it goes with those high positions. Even the Telugu Movies perpetuate the same image- the goon, the villain and the comedian speak Telangana while invariably all protagonists (the 'Hero' and 'Heroine'), even if the setting is in Telangana region, speak Andhra Telugu. This notion is palpable in all those environments where Telangana people and Andhra people rub shoulders- there is a continuous image being beamed which suggest that Telangana is inferior. So some of these middle class Telangana people who want to get rid of this ignominy inculcate a sense of shame into their kids for being Telangana, and they do their best to get rid of Telangana tag by teaching their kids to speak Andhra Telugu. You will see some middle class Telangana people who aspire to grow ranks in society speaking Andhra Telugu.

In all social circles, to speak Telangana is considered lowly and to speak Andhra Telugu is considered sophisticated. This feeling is not only prevalent amongst Andhra people, but is also carried out by many Telangana people who look down upon their dialect as inferior.

One Telangana guy writes about Andhras:

but take inspiration from them in is it that is good about them(they speak telugu which is less arabic, turkish influenced) and at the same time preserve and nourish our own dialect. Jai Telugu!

On the issue of Andhras ridiculing Telangana dialect, one guy writes [emphasis mine]:

You will be ridiculed when you deserve to be ridiculed. Nobody will praise you when you are in a position to be ridiculed. Did'nt the Britishers and Mughals ridicule the entire nation and why did they ridicule because you yourselves put yourself in a situation to be ridiculed.

6. We will lose our identity as Telugu people

Another common refrain is that we will lose our identity as Telugu people. They see the State as one single family and breaking it is like breaking asunder a nice little family- which, according to them, is a bad thing to do – just watch any Telugu movie – they all portray a son moving out of the home as a very bad thing to do. One guy writes:

This is my land n I dont like leaders breaking my ANDHRA PRADESH for there own cause . Even now we r recognosied as MADRASI by others,by breaking the state we will not have recognition also.

What this guy doesn’t realize is that the reason why we formed Andhra Pradesh out of Madras Presidency is also why Telangana people want a separate state. The rationale that was applied back then is somehow not applied now. There is a gimmick to rally people to unify under one language to oppose this separation.

One guy writes [translation mine]:

Telugu mundhu [Telugu first]. Atharavathe edhaina [Everything else is secondary]. Person who started this blog should know that Telugus have come under one banner after thousands of years. Let's not waste this opportunity by separating ourselves into distinct identities by exaggerating them.

He believes that TELUGU as a language comes above everything else and that reason is enough to keep this a single state. Don’t we have many states speaking Hindi? Should they all be under one banner and therefore under one state? Don’t we have many states speaking Bengali, should we bring back Bangladesh into West Bengal to keep them under one banner? The number of people who speak Telugu is more than 70 million. There are many countries which are one-tenth of that size in Europe maintaining their identity. There are many countries which speak English as their main language – they continue to maintain their identities in spite of different national flags.

Conclusion:

I notice a sense of exasperation from these detractors. They tell us not to break the region as if it is a crime. They equate separation of state to creation of a new nation – and this analogy is quite ridiculous. We will continue to evolve as a nation and that would mean we will have new reorganizations of all kinds to suit the changing aspirations of its people. There are many detractors in this country who oppose all kinds of change. They are just opposed to any change of any kind. One reason is fear of change and fear of unknown. The other reason is arrogance that the present status is really the best. They just cannot comprehend why certain people would demand a separate identity or a state.

Then there are vested interests who do not want to part with Hyderabad to Telangana people and hence they posit all kinds of arguments which do not stand ground. They cite many frivolous and some ridiculous reasons to oppose this separation. They say- lets stay united, as if it is a family. They say- Telangana will suffer more, as if it got a chance to improve in the first place. They resort to ridiculing Telangana people while continuing to object a separate state.

Some Telangana people who reached higher social circles aping Andhra people harbor very low opinion of their own people and hence oppose the creation of a new state- just the way so many princes, rajahs and babus of India who were aping British opposed Independence of India because they just could not believe an Indian was qualified to rule himself.

A separate Telangana makes sense for one reason alone- that its people want it. One should not suppress the voice of so many people who want to have their own identity and a new state within the legal framework of this nation. Their wants are not illegal or illegitimate. Their wishes do not harm other people. Their aspirations are not taking away rights of others.

A separate Telangana is an eventuality. Prolonging this outcome will only increase the animosity of Telangana people towards those who oppose it. Already we have seen many such protests in Telangana which target Andhra people for their woes. Delaying this eventuality will only cause more pain to the region and will not be good for the future of the two states which share the same language. The people of Andhra Pradesh should welcome this aspiration of its people, respect it and make way for a new Telangana.

When you see the wave of change as an eventuality, you should just embrace it and ride the wave - that's what mature people do.

Update: The later parts of this blog are at Telangana III, Telangana IV.

Hindu Fascism

Science and Mythology: Ram Sethu

A lot of people asked this question: “Why do you question mythology? Is Science good enough to answer all the questions? Is Science infallible?”

Science is not infallible. In fact, the basic premise on which science is constructed is on questioning: “Really?”, “Are you sure?” “Where is the proof?”

The onus of explaining a theory and proving it has always been on the person proposing it. And everyone else sits around asking lot of questions. Science by its innate nature questions itself all the time. If a certain practical result is found to contradict a theory, then that theory has to be rejected or modified. And even when a theory seems to work fine for hundreds of years, such as Theory of Gravitation, we still cannot say with 100% confidence that this theory works forever and in all places. There is always a possibility that it may not work in certain places and in certain times. Then we go about enhancing it or confining it or rejecting it or modifying it.

The beauty of Science is that it accepts (at all times) that it does not have answers to all the questions. Since it asks itself lot of questions, it questions others with the same rigor when someone proposes a solution to a practical problem. If you say that a crystalline energy coming from an amulet will heal you of cancer, it will ask you questions, such as ‘How?’ ‘Where is the evidence?’ ‘Did you conduct enough experiments to suggest this?’ ‘Can you explain it to us?’

Science is not good enough to answer all the questions. Though it attempts to answer many questions to the natural phenomenon and is even able to predict the events in certain cases, it has no role to play in the works of art, fiction, mythology, fables, stories, etc. Can someone prove or disprove there is Middle Earth in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? Can someone prove or disprove whether Harry Potter can fly by sitting on his broom? Can someone prove or disprove the existence of Mickey Mouse? Can someone prove or disprove if Hanuman lifted a mountain and flew in the sky?

Science is not good enough to answer these questions because such stories exist in the minds of the people. People are entitled to believe anything if that belief gets them entertained. However, it will start questioning you when you go to court and obstruct construction of a building because you contested it will violate the airspace when Harry Potter flies through that space. Science will ask you a question- ‘Does Harry Potter really exist? Or is he in the minds of people?’

Ram Sethu Episode

During the current episode of Ram Sethu, some people claimed that Rama is real, because he exists in the ‘collective conscience’ of millions of Hindus. So, then Superman should be real because he exists in the minds of millions too. So should Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus.

Nobody wants to question mythology and verify its authenticity just for the sake of hurting your sentiments. However, when some people believe that their Harry Potter is so true that the book written by JK Rowling itself is considered the evidence to prove his existence, then all we ask is, ‘Are you sure?’

Imagine a court scene:

Petitioner: You cannot dredge this Ram Sethu.

ASI: Why not?

Petitioner: Because it is a monument of our ancient heritage.

ASI: Really?

Petitioner: Yes. It is man-made construction and hence we need to preserve it.

ASI: And can we ask who made it?

Petitioner: Lord Rama made it along with vanar-sena (army of monkeys).

ASI: Well, we don't believe it is man-made. How can you say it is made by Rama? Do you have a proof for that?

Petitioner: Yes. We do. Here is the Ramcharita Manas written by Tulsidas and here is Ramayana written by Valmiki. Right in there, it clearly says that Rama built Ram Sethu using vanar sena.

ASI: Yeah, thank you. But we believe Ramayana is a mythology. It is not historical evidence. This does not prove Rama existed and built a bridge.

Petitioner: No. Lord Rama exists. And we know that. And we know that from these books. In fact, Lord Rama existed 1.75 Million years ago and he built this bridge with vanar sena.

ASI: Sorry, thank you for producing this evidence. But this is not acceptable. As far as we are concerned, from what we know, there is no evidence to suggest Rama ever existed.

The next day newspapers flash the story [emphasis mine]:

The Ramayana may have moved millions since civilisation took root, but for the Centre, Valmiki’s immortal tale of Lord Ram lacks scientific and historical veracity.

"Valmiki Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas admittedly form an important part of ancient Indian literature, but these cannot be said to be historical records to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters and occurrences of events depicted therein," the government said in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, instantly setting the stage for a political showdown with the Sangh Parivar.

Why question mythology?

No one set out to challenge the mythology. When mythology was confined to movies, to bed-time stories, to go and celebrate festivals, and do fasting, it is all fine. But when those stories are produced as evidences to stop an activity that the government is undertaking, then questions are asked. That’s the only reason why mythology was questioned here.

Some people ask: “Why question belief systems of Hindus alone? Why not Muslims and Christians? Why don’t we ask the authenticity of existence of their religions? Ask if Jesus existed, if Abraham existed?”

The answer is very simple. Normally nobody goes around questioning mythology and belief systems. One questions them only when someone produces these mythologies as evidences to stop certain activity which the government is undertaking.

Suppose if some Christians cite Bible as evidence to stop sending PSLV into space, then ISRO would question the mythology and say, ‘There is no evidence to suggest the angels you are talking about actually exist’.

Indians and Awards

Indians have a weird way of dealing with Awards.

When I was working in the Indian services oriented industry, a director recommended his whole group for an achievement award which is usually given to a single person. When one of the top executives asked him why he chose the whole team, the director responded he didn’t want to upset anyone in the team but yet wanted to give them an award to motivate them. The top executive insisted that only one person be chosen for the award. I agree with that decision but in addition I am also of the opinion that an award should be given for an achievement and not as an incentive to motivate.

Indians dole out awards of all kinds reducing the whole exercise to a charade of ‘celebration of mediocrity’.

Take Indian Cinema, for example! The many-a-times-in-a-year ceremonies are held only to confer awards on each other and on all and sundry of the Indian Cinema. They have all kinds of awards – side hero, side heroine, best comedian, best villain, best new entrant, best old timer, best child hero, best child villain, and what not. Many new kinds of awards are invented every year to ensure that every actor is awarded. If a certain actor does not get an award this year, he is bound to get it next year. Everyone agrees, ‘Poor guy! He did not get an award though he has been acting for few years now’. The general agreement amongst all Indians- the judges, the actors who receive the award, and the people of India, is that awards are given to make everyone feel special and feel included and it is nothing to do with recognition of excellence.

Consolation Prizes

Consolation prizes are most overly used awards in India. They are given to everyone who participates so that everyone goes home happy. In the end the guy who got the first prize feels he is like everyone else, and nothing special. Consolation prizes are good to give to young kids to make everyone feel somewhat special. For some reason, Indians never seem to outgrow this. They extend this to every sphere of adult life.

Felicitations

Another phenomenon which is quite unique to Indians is ‘felicitations’. In every conference or a seminar, there is a beeline of people receiving ‘felicitations’. It starts with one guy inviting another onto the stage for felicitation in which a memento is presented and sometimes a shawl is draped over the guy. Everyone claps as if it is an achievement. I don’t get it. What is the whole idea of celebrating the fact the other person just showed up for the event? Nobody questions what the reason is for such a felicitation. This whole charade continues till every senior member who has attended that event is called onto the dais one after the other. Nobody knows why such felicitation is happening and what each contributed related to that seminar.

Lobbying Awards

Another phenomenon that happens in Indian Universities is the way the best teacher or best researcher is chosen. It is a set of negotiations involving all kinds of lobbies – If the best teacher award goes to an upper caste person, then the best research award should be given to a backward caste person, and if a certain lobby arm-twisted the judges to secure the award to its candidate the other lobby boycotts it. Receiving the Award is reduced to lobbying politics. And most of the time the candidate who is most pleasing and is sucking up to the most number of people is chosen because he is the least controversial. In a sense, it is the ‘celebration of mediocrity’.

Conclusion

I believe awards should be kept to a minimum number and should not be seen as an incentive or motivator. Awards should be given for really special achievements so that the people who receive it actually believe they are someone special. When hundred people get it, the whole exercise becomes a nonsensical charade of celebration of mediocrity. If in a quarter, no one performed well then no award should be given. I want to see a day when an organization confesses it does not have a candidate for its best performer award.

Types of Atheists

Contrary to popular opinion which seems to club all kinds of atheists into one type, there are different kinds of ‘atheists’. ‘Non-belief in an organized faith’ is usually considered a ticket to atheism. However there are different kinds of people who profess such non-belief. I could think of four types here:

Iconoclasts

These are idol-breakers. They would like to break the existing notion of belief in the God as preached by a certain religion or cult they are familiar with. They see a certain religion and its practices to be detrimental and hence they go about shattering those icons, those symbols, those houses of worship. Sometimes these iconoclasts tend to establish a different kind of ideology in the place of the idols they have fought. Certain Communists fall into this category. Karunanidhi and Periyar fall into this category to an extent. Adolf Hitler and Stalin could be grouped into this.

Their non-belief is not scientific in origin and it may not have a rational outlook either. The rejection of God could be out of anger, frustration with the way the world is working, or with a hidden agenda to replace existing faiths with a different ideology. Some iconoclasts who broke up paganism settled down to embrace Abrahamic religion. Some iconoclasts who broke up Christianity embraced Nazism or Communism.

Pragmatists

They are practical people who rationalize and see that most things in life can be explained away without involving God or his divine intervention. They see no need for God to run things. They see rituals as an encumbrance to leading a practical life. They see organized religion serving certain vested interests. For them miracles are just coincidences. These people may not have known the deeper topics of science or inner understandings of nature. But they have enough logical and reasoning power to conclude that running of things does not need intervention of a supernatural being and hence there is a good enough reason to conclude that God does not exist. ‘Show me the proof, only then will I believe’, is their stand.

Some pragmatists may turn into believers if they are touched by supposed miracle. They may take a U-turn to embrace religion and its all elements to become their champions. Some people in their young age may dabble with atheism, more as a rebellious streak, and they may eventually become strong proponents of religion and belief in God after certain incidents or revelations.

Deists

They are complete nonbelievers of a religious God. They are of scientific bent and have asked deeper questions about the forces of nature, and how nature is run. They don’t think a God is running this place. They don’t think God listens to one’s prayers. They do not see God as creator of life. They do not see God intervening into human life. However, they do feel that there could be some supernatural force that has brought this Universe into place. And that supernatural force need not be a conscious being, not someone who is concerned with affairs of men and their petty exams and wars. But they concede that certain supernatural force may be the one that set the universal laws and their properties in motion, only during the first few nanoseconds of the creation of Universe. And thereafter has NOT tampered with Universe ever again. (Example: Albert Einstein)

Absolute Atheists

They are nonbelievers of all kinds of God including a supernatural force. They are of scientific bent too and have asked deeper questions about forces of nature. They inherit all other traits of Deism, but they do not believe that a supernatural force is needed to set the Universe into motion. They believe we just happen to be a in a Universe that could spawn life and hence we happen to ask these questions. In Universe which could not spawn life there is no one to ask these questions.

Indians Too Argumentative?

Long ago, I wrote an article, titled ‘Are Indians creative and original?’

To a question, ‘How creative are Indians?’ Edward De Bono says:

From the limited interactions I’ve had, I find Indians very argumentative. Argument is a primitive way of discussion – not constructive one at all. Americans are creative and have a ‘go-getter’ attitude. The Chinese are not much creative. The Japanese, on the other hand, are moving from logic-based thinking to more creative one.

When I came back from USA to work in India, I started to observe many new things in this industry. All my opinions about Indian industry are from those eighteen months I spent in a ‘high-tech’ services company based in Bangalore. I was working in India for the first time. I was working in a services company for the first time.

Something that I observed was the way meetings were held. First, nobody spelt out the agenda. Second, there were too many opinions. Some opinions were taking the course of meeting completely astray and divergent! Some of them were completely nonsensical just taking up everyone’s time! Many meetings just got extended, and some of them didn’t produce any result. For the first time, I saw ‘democracy’ in action on a completely different definition from what I was used to. [I keep sticking to that famous line from Crimson Tide, where a military guy says, ‘We are here to preserve democracy, not practice it!’ My rule for an organization is simple- ‘Ideas flow bottom up, decisions come top down’].

On few occasions, when a manager said, we will do this, few subordinates just brushed it off emphatically saying, ‘No, we won’t do it’. And the way the manager reacted was something that I did not anticipate. He suddenly took a conciliatory stance and tried to cajole them.

I would have expected something completely different. I would have expected the manager to be stern and not tolerate such indiscipline. When I started to learn more about Indian industry, I realized that it is heavily services oriented where attrition is a big problem. The manager has to somehow ‘manage’ the show, maintain the headcount to get the revenues. And the fact that excellence is not rewarded nor recognized in this industry, it allows everyone to fall into a mood of complacency, saying, ‘sab chalta hain’ (anything goes), including being belligerent and rebellious towards your manager.

In another episode, an Indian company recruited an American as their VP. When he was holding a meeting here in Bangalore, one of the Indian managers gave a very curt and insulting reply. This VP suggested they discuss the matter later after the meeting. The manager insisted that they should discuss the issue though it was outside the agenda. He insistence was undermining the authority of this VP. The situation went out of control when the manager was not ready to stand down. He was only trying to show the rest of his team who is the boss. After few attempts to calm him down which failed, the VP fired him right then and there and asked him to leave.

I was sharing notes with few others from the West who have experienced Indian industry and I realize that definitely there is much more room for unnecessary arguments in Indian companies, sometimes to the point of being unproductive and sometimes destructive.

Are we ‘too argumentative’ to the point of making the discussion not constructive?

I have many examples from Indian TV. Each time I sit down to watch a debate on Indian TV I really get fed up within the first few minutes because every member starts shouting at the other. After some time, everyone is bickering, fighting, and they don’t stop talking even when the other person is talking. The mediator just cannot stop the fight and even he enters the fray, talking and shouting to make other people stop talking and shouting. That’s when I change the channel. That’s too much of argument for me. Nowadays, I flip the channel whenever I see such a debate.

What use is it when there is nothing to take home after such a long debate? What we all do is come, argue, and nothing gets done. Debate is something quite different from an argument. What we see on Indian TV is usually heated and nonsensical arguments, not a debate.

‘All talk, no action’, is what I call them all. [I have another one, ‘All fluff, no stuff’]

And as I said before, I like the slogan from Nike, ‘Just do it’.

More of action and less of arguments would be quite healthy for Indians.

Are you rational? (Part I)

Even though I have written copious amounts on this subject some readers stump me with their questions. They want me to concede there is room for irrationality, and when I don’t, they think I am trying to impose my ideas onto them. I am NOT imposing my ideas onto you. I am only asking us to question first, and then accept later, instead of accepting things just because someone told us long ago codified in a book. In short, I am asking you to grow up. Be mature. Use your brain. Be rational.

How do you know if you are rational? Is Rationality another ideology that can be imposed onto others? Which is better? A state run on the basis of blind belief, superstition and irrationality or a state run on the basis of rationality, logic and reason?

What is rationality?

It is the ability of a human to think, ask questions, get answers, debate, discuss, and reason to arrive at a standpoint using a set of generally agreed logical rules. It is the opposite of the ability of human not to think, not to reason, to suppress debate, and then come to an obstinate standpoint by citing a certain idea which is considered unassailable, unchallenged or unquestioned.

According to Wiki:

A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,
I am cold.
If I close the window I will not be cold.
Therefore, I closed the window.

The irrational way of looking at it is:

I am cold.
If I close the window I will not be cold.
But I will not close the window because my God Vayu will be offended according to this book written thousands of years before man was born.
Therefore, I will open all the windows including those of other people’s homes, even if it means others will get cold. And if someone stops me, I will bash him up because I am carrying the message of God which is the ultimate truth.

Is Rationality an ideology?

Many people consider rationality to be an ideology. They think it is another set of belief systems, just like religion. The way we say, 'You have Islam, I have Hinduism'. These people want to say, 'You have rationality and I have blind belief'. They think it is a choice we make between different ideologies, like choosing one between CPM and BJP, Republicans and Democrats, Communism and Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism, vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism, Abortionism and Anti-abortionism, etc.

Rationality is not an ideology, but is a method to deal with conflict between different ideologies. We will always have different opinions, different stance, and different positions on various issues of human affairs. And sometimes those positions come into conflict.

Earlier in history, one of the ways to resolve conflicts was to impose one ideology onto others suppressing other’s opinions, voice and freedoms. If one disagreed with the other, they killed the other. If you were different you were tortured, and then incarcerated. Sometimes, like in the times of Inquisition, various innovative ways were developed to torture people, just because these others had a different set of belief systems.

The ideology that reigned over a land was one which the autocrat embraced. If he quickly changed his ideology, the people who earlier enjoyed the privileges were now targeted like their erstwhile enemies. Those were the times when irrationality prevailed. They had different set of tools to end conflicts- by suppression of voice suppression of dissent, suppression of freedoms and that of choice, by curtailing all discussion, debate or questioning, and acting unilaterally based on assumptions coming from blind belief and superstition and on certain illogical set of rules.

(Not very long ago, in Communist Russia, one could be sent to Siberia to be tortured and killed just because you had a different set of beliefs. In the modern days, we still have some regimes which continue to have this practice in place. And now, Indians are doing their best to join the elite club of such irrational regimes.)

Rationality gives man a different set of tools- and those are- reason, debate, discussion, using certain agreed steps called logic. Using these simple tools which almost any thinking person can come up with on his own, a reasonable discussion can be brought about to resolve conflicts between ideologies. Some of the modern nations have been able to guarantee rights to its citizens, resolve issues through discussions and debates through participation of people's representatives accountable to the people, tolerate different kinds of cultures, ethnicities, religions, languages, give equal rights to women and minorities, give equal opportunity and access to fair justice, all because they had embraced tools of rationality.

Rationality is not the truth. It is not a doctrine. It is not an ideology.

It is not about choosing Abortionism as against Anti-Abortionism, but it is the method you employ to resolve that conflict. You have a choice between irrationality and rationality to use as a method to resolve that conflict. Either you can debate the pros and cons of each stance, bring in evidences, results of sociological and medical experiments, and then come to a decision on what suits the best for those who are victimized because of each stance, OR you can decree that a certain book written thousands of years ago is good enough to decide all conflicts for all time and therefore no questioning or debate is allowed since the decision is already made long ago.

Tools for resolving Ram Sethu Controversy

A rational way to deal with Ram Sethu is to debate about it, study what we have as evidences, question what we know as humans, and accept what is known as known and what is unknown as unknown. Discuss the pros and cons of such a project in terms of its effect on environment, the fishing population, the national security implications, etc.

An irrational way to deal with Ram Sethu is to come up with stories, fables, mythology, fantasy and mix it with history, science, archaeology, facts, positing one as the other, and then stopping all debate saying, ‘There’s God, that’s proof enough’.

Where are the Indian Scientists?

Where is the Indian Scientific Community when you need them the most?

The saddest part of the current episode of the controversial Ram Sethu project in which religious superstitions won over rationale is the absolute silence from scientific community of India. If they were doing their job of defending rationale from getting hijacked by blind belief, I don’t think I had to put in my harsh words.

Many people just brush this episode saying it is one of ‘those religious issues’. It is not. The present episode is a perfect example of the challenges we are facing as a nation on the questions of which direction this country is headed.

It is not that I like to trounce down religion for the sake of trouncing it. I am not ridiculing it as long as it is not affecting the mainstream of society. I do not like to discuss science and religion with religious people. I do not like to get into debates just to quench my intellectual curiosity. I am quite OK with religious people practicing their religion while the state is doing its job of running the state. However, when a conflict arises, such as this, where in a religious idea challenges the running of the state, what do we do? The outcome of such conflicts set a precedent for the future outcomes and will decide the direction this country is going to take.

What should one do if in near future some weird interpretation of Koran asks for stopping all rocket launches citing religious books and some mythological documents as evidences?

You set one precedent, and you have to succumb to other religious antics! After a spate of such events, you get Iran, right here in India. And the scientific community of India should take the blame for it because it chose to hide behind a curtain called ‘let’s NOT meddle with religion’!

This is to all those scientists hiding behind those curtains, ‘You are scientist ONLY because long ago certain scientific communities in faraway lands fought their battles against superstition, blind belief, witchcraft, religious orthodoxy, etc. If those scientists hid the way you are hiding now, then you wouldn’t be scientists in the first place.’ (And I wouldn’t be an engineer!)

Those faraway lands have created nations striking a balance between state and the church. They have reached a stage wherein they are ready to concede- ‘its your domain, and this is my domain’. That is why in spite of so much religiosity in US and Europe, you see so much funding of science related activities.

India just cannot lazily inherit the outcome of their struggles- the separation of church and state- without having its own frictions. There will be frictions. And the outcome of each friction will decide which path we will be taking.

Unfortunately, majority of scientists of India lack scientific temperament. Science, anyway, is on the decline in India. And the Indian scientists, towards whom most rationalists look, are silent on this issue citing some weird interpretations of secular concepts. Scientists of India are a disgrace and a shame.

Scientific community of the West waged a four hundred years battle to bring rationality into this world. With it came equal rights to woman, rights to different ethnicities, justice to all, etc. And in this fight some people had to give up their lives to defend a stance of letting rationality prevail over blind belief in matters of universal concepts. The West has come to a strike a balance between religion and science after prolonged struggles.

We in India blur those lines quite easily, mainly because our scientific community is absent.

My fight is not against individuals and not against religion. I am not trying to change opinions here. I am just looking for some rational minds out there hoping that we still continue to maintain a modicum of rational thought in this country. Hoping we will be able to strike a balance in this country. I am a bit disappointed! Whenever a conflict arises- such as this, I expect scientific community to speak up. When no such voice is found, people like us have to speak up!

An Indian lady scientist writes:

In order to have a progressive world we need to pick our battles carefully.

I am not sure what is holding the scientific community back? What are they waiting for? The day when India will close down ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) and instead use our mythologies as official research? The day when India stops all scientific activities and replace them with astrology, numerology, vedic mathematics, where no one has to do research, but sit under Banyan trees and meditate?

Some Indian scientists believe they should not step in till it is too late when they see actual detriment to society and only when that detriment is tangible.

We should realize that each of these nation-wide conflicts set a precedent on the highest level. All these mega events will encourage many radical elements to impose their blind belief onto the mainstream society. Yesterday, some vandals set fire to a library because it housed a book which had critical remarks on Ram. That’s how things start. Fascism started out of innocuous theories of aggrandizing one’s culture. Fascism was a culmination of many such small events.

The same Indian lady scientist writes:

You take chronology, history and documented facts and evidence and fight faith, you will always find people who will be genuinely hurt and upset.

So, shouldn’t we present facts and evidences in a court of law to counter the faith’s petition citing mythology as evidence? Aren’t scientists getting a bit pusillanimous here? Today it is about Ram Sethu, tomorrow it is about banning a book, and then it is about stopping all genetic engineering, and then it is about establishing superiority of races through such apocryphal evidences! Didn’t we already witness this trend in our history in a different part of the world?

This scientist asks:

Do we really need to offend religious sentiment by questioning mythology?

I agree that there is no need to question mythology. We continue to have Santa Claus, we continue to have Frankenstein, Superman, Spiderman and Harry Potter. We continue to have fables and stories. But imagine a petition in court asking everyone to make big chimneys so that Santa Claus can come into each home? That’s when this mythology comes back to you as blind belief and is knocking on your door!

What should we do when that mythology starts having an influence on the state and its functions?

What do we do if tomorrow some Muslims provide some weird interpretations to stop all scientific activities in India? Being secular, should we not bow down to their religious sentiments as well, as we did here right now to Hindu sentiments, to ban all scientific activities?

Where does one draw the line? How long will the scientific community of India wait? Or will they just pack up their bags and flee to the West?