The last US Presidential election is way back in the past. But this article I was reading on the media coverage of the campaign leading to it brought some thoughts to mind. The author gives a snapshot of what various news channel websites were offering as information on the two candidates and their respective policies. It was, in short, a joke. Or it would have been a joke if it wasn’t so sad that the most powerful nation in the world was engaged in such trivia on the eve of deciding who was going to be the (let’s be frank about it) leader of the damn world. Sound bites, vague generalizations, trite sayings, these were all that, according to the media, the candidates had to offer in response to the most pressing questions of the day, in a time of the gravest crisis that country had seen in decades. Now I’m sure there must have been something of substance the candidates would have said somewhere in their prolific public appearances and speeches, but not much of it found its way into the highlights the media presented to the American public. Whether this is an indictment of the public or the media or, more likely, both, I a question I don’t think I am a fit person to answer. Maybe I got only one view of the picture. Maybe there were other sites, other channels offering something with greater substance and more pertinence to the problems at hand. But what it got me to do was to look at how elections are conducted in our country, unarguably the largest experiment in democracy the world has seen.
We go into General elections more or less every five years, not counting the late 80s-early 90s phase which was a shameful period for democracy indeed. But barring such unfortunate events, five years it is. On top of that, we have state elections every five years too. A lot of money, effort, manpower, man-hours, and planning go into the elections. Unlike the more orderly British or American system, our political setup is more open and way more chaotic. Innumerable parties, even more candidates, confusing and often ephemeral, opportunistic alliances; it is hard for an outsider to look at this mess and be able to make even partial sense of it all. But even that is not the problem, for the system holds despite all the cacophony. What I was thinking about was – on what grounds are elections fought? What is presented to our public by the parties to help them choose? What are the policies, the broad principles that the parties espouse? What do they say about the economics, the defence, the internal security, all the questions that worry, to different extents, the people of this vast, variegated nation? What do we read in our media concerning these issues? Not much, unfortunately. All parties release their manifestoes around the time the elections are announced. I remember a couple of decades back when the release was a big event, front page news in all the papers. The manifesto was outlined, spelled out, explained, discussed, debated, the parties defended it, it was a big deal. Now a manifesto release is a sideline news, reported in passing. It makes headlines only if it contains something grossly stupid or uncommonly controversial. No one bothers what it has to say at other times. I sometimes feel it doesn’t say much either. Even the parties releasing it don’t mention it again. At most, they might condense it to 20 odd popularist slogans that they bandy about in public meetings and in their speeches as their aims. After the elections, hardly anyone bothers to look up the document to see if the winners are even nominally trying to achieve what they claimed they would if they won.
No, we decide our vote based on irrelevancies- caste, religion, community, group and so on. What matters more to our electorate is not the candidate’s qualifications or his views on policies, but whether we can relate to him in any way. Does he belong to our ‘faction’ so to speak. Our political parties know this full well. That’s why they choose their candidates accordingly. Dalit candidate for a dalit dominated constituency, Rajput in a Rajput dominated area and so on. As the demographics of an electorate changes, so does the caste/religion/class of the candidate. So we have parties putting up candidates belonging to Bihar in certain areas of Ludhiana in Punjab, where the Bihari migrant labour now forms a majority of the voting public. Crass, shallow opportunism and we don’t see anyone even raising an eyebrow over it. I guess now that labour from Bihar is going down in numbers, we’ll find parties suddenly realising that non-Bihari candidates are fitter, more qualified choices. Our media not only doesn’t condemn it, it actually studies it as a fact of political life; it’s just one more statistic to analyse.
Is democracy really the best system of government man can come up with? Is Universal Franchise really such a good idea? Or should we hold back the vote from parts of the populace that lacks the ability to make sound judgment, sound not in the short term for their personal interest (caste/religion etc make a lot more sense in that background), but in the longer term, broader interest on the nation. I know it sounds immensely snobbish and elitist to say so, but just look at our record. Regional parties hold so much power these days, sending large numbers to the Parliament and forcing ‘national’ parties into forging alliances that serve their own purposes at whatever cost ot the nation. That is why people like A. Raja become cabinet ministers. That is why parties like the MNS can win seats. That is why our nation cannot forge ahead with the speed, purpose, and momentum it is capable of. Unless our electorate realizes what is actually at stake in the elections, India cannot become the power she dreams of morphing into.

Back after a break

Haven’t written in over a month. Earlier it was because of the paucity of time, with too many things on my ind, but later it was because I couldn’t type at all. Got viral conjunctivitis (I know, what a joke for an ophthalmologist to get conjunctivitis) and that led to corneal infiltrates that made life hell. I couldn’t type, couldn’t read, couldn’t even use the computer for long periods of time. I had to squint at everything. So very irritating and tiresome. It was hell trying to pass the time. Now with some two weeks of topical steroids therapy behind me I am at least able to read somewhat without looking like some ham actor playing a blind man. It still isn’t very clear but a damn sight better than it was. Still have a ghost image forming just below any object I focus on. It will probably take a couple of months before I am near normal again. Life sucks sometimes. And this year has been one of the worst of my mid length lifespan. Anyhow, now that I can type a bit I should be more regular with my blog.

The Argumentative Indian - Pt. 3

[Enter Post Title Here]


My third and last instalment in my review of “The Argumentative Indian”. Coming ages after I wrote the first two parts! The book has been laying on my shelf, fully read but not fit for storing away since i wanted to write this, my reaction to what Mr. Sen has to say about India and the Bomb.
He seems to think that it was an irredeemably bad idea for India to have tested in 1998. His strident anti BJP stand may in part be responsible for this. I am in no way a supporter of the BJP, far from it, but my antipathy does not go to such extremes that I will criticize any and all of their actions.
He first claims that a lower chance of an Indo-Pak war is not an advantage given the risk of a nuclear holocaust if a war does take place. However, I fail to see how it is a given that any war between the two countries will irrevocably result in a nuclear exchange. Surely, even Pakistani strategists realize that a nuclear exchange can only result in the utter destruction of their country.
He next goes on to give the example of Kargil and says that the threat of nuclear retaliation made India hold back from fully retaliating and placing forces behind the intruders, beyond the LOC. While that was certainly one of the strategies discussed during the conflict, Indian governments have traditionally been loath to take proactive measures, even the more hawkish ones like the NDA that was in power at the time. The Indian army did use its full conventional might to force the terrorists/armymen to withdraw, but in keeping with our more peaceful ideals they did not cross the LOC. If anything, the thought that India might be forced to take such a drastic step only forced the US to intervene earlier than they normally would have. Sharif was read the riot act in Washington and Musharraf was told in no uncertain terms that he would have to pull his men back.
That any madman could get his hands on the Pakistani nukes has been a possibility causing much loss of sleep all over the world. Nuclear power in the hands of terrorists is the stuff thriller novels are made of. But how has Indian testing made that any more possible? We must realise that there were Nukes in Pakistan long before India tested in 1998. It’s not as if they suddenly developed the A-bomb in two weeks of May! They’ve had them for some time now and I can’t believe the US didn’t know about this. This just brought it out in the open. Which raises the important though not pertinent question to this discussion of why no one even wonders how the Pakistani nukes were developed? Surely this must have been under development for decades, or they got them readymade from somewhere, and we all know where. But that’s a question for another time and place. Here it only needs to be pointed out that Indian testing in no way made the Pakistani nukes more accessible to terrorists. On the topic it may also be worthwhile to point out that the greatest risk of nuclear weapons finding their way to the terrorists comes from the erstwhile Soviet republics, but that’s beside the point.
Mr Sen’s point that nuclear detente is not a tenable theory holds little water. In his view the detente of the Cold War was more a matter of luck than anything else, and that we may not be so lucky in the subcontinent. I don’t have such little faith in human common sense. Mr. Sen seems to think of nuclear enabled governments as if they were kids with toys, and at the least provocation they would launch a full nuclear assault. In my view, once the first flush of nuclear power passes, countries become acutely aware of the risks involved in nuclear adventurism, and while there may a lot of sabre rattling both sides of the border, nuclear exchange remains a remote possibility.
The Kargil point is repeated when Mr. Sen thinks that we have frittered away our conventional advantage by forcing Pakistan to go nuclear. I have discussed this point before and I will detail it again. Pakistan did not develop the bomb within two weeks of the Indian explosions of Pokhran II. They already had them and this only gave them an excuse to go public with it, something I’m sure they were itching to do. Their nuclear weapons were developed with Chinese/Korean help, probably pre-assembled there. Their testing only served one purpose, that of feeding their own ego. And though he could not have foreseen it, the international reaction in the long run to India and Pakistani testing has been widely different.
Mr. Sen then goes on to state that our testing would only deleteriously impact our chances to get into the UNSC. I don’t know who said that one of the reasons for our testing in ’98 was to “blast its way into the Security Council”. I don’t think anyone could be so immature. Nor, for that matter, would our remaining non-nuclear have given us the seat. It’s in the interests of the permanent members to restrict membership to that exclusive club and maintain status quo and no idealism on our part would have induced them to change their view.
What he reads into the joint statement released by China and the US on these events as a policy decision allying the two nations, conveniently forgetting that the US’ stance on the situation in this corner of the world changes from day to day, witness their constantly shifting position on Pakistan for instance. If it is to their interest they’d be issuing joint statements in Delhi every other day.
Finally i feel Mr. Sen gives too much importance to our nuclear testing as if it’s the defining event in India’s history and not a jot of all the rest matters. As history has shown since, India’s growing importance as an economic power overshadowed any moral concerns the West had over our nuclearisation and they are falling all over themselves to do business with us in that very field.

Whenever I find myself best with problems, I always retreat into myself. I find myself quieter, less willing to mingle, to talk, to discuss my problems. Even with people closest to me, who at times, fail to understand the reason behind my silence and at others, berate me for my lack of communication. My wife, for instance, feels quite unloved when I don't unload my troubles on her; to her this is a sign of a widening gulf twixt us two. I have seen people share their problems with their spouses, siblings, friends and so on and I think it does help them to some extent to have someone empathise with them. I've seen it recently in my father's case while dealing with my mother's breast cancer, and that was a revelation for me, since I always saw him as the silent type. That's how I've always known him… but that's another matter.

My sister too, I guess, feels the same way to a certain extent. I imagine her to be more understanding though.

Growing up, I was just the same. And I thought most people were just like me. Of course, I thought the same about a number of character traits I have later found myself to possess! But I honestly imagined people internalized their problems and dilemmas and solved them on their own. Later I thought maybe it was a guy thing and females needed to vocalize their problems more. Then I saw that this stereotype at least, was not quite right. Most men too would cast about and form their own social safety net. Not I, though.

No, I still hold on to what I could call the fictional hero, the silent strong type, who broods and broods and leaves the heroine wondering what sadness lies behind those dark eyes. Not so romantic an image, though, do I strike in real life! But then I do not vent all at the end like those heroes too. I take it all in and think upon it and try to solve it and weigh it and set up my own defences and deal with it, all by my lonesome. Always have and always will, hopefully.

Does it make me appear strong? I don't know, though I hope it does. Does it mean I love someone less? No it doesn't, though I can't seem to ameliorate the feeling. Does it drain my resources? Of course it does, and these days with more than one (so many more!) problems, more than ever before. It strains me to the fullest these days, but I still am far from the limits of my strength. Exhausted, yes; spent, no. Hemmed in, yes; helpless, no. Taut, yes; broken, no.

I hope the day does not arise when I need the help of anyone in dealing with my own troubles. Not out a sense of misanthropy, which I do have in abundance, but out of a sense of pride and dignity. Now, if only I could make everyone understand that…..

Haven't written in ages. Not much has been occupying my mind of late. I don't think I even want to think about it. There is a vague sense of unrest, a disquiet in my mind that brooks no joy, no hope, no thought…. Everything seems hazy, unclear, shrouded in mists of my own making. And it's not even as if I was unhappy. I just am not happy. It's just this aimless drifting, this absence of desire, of want, of something new that's getting to me, I think. There are the odd days when a clinical challenge comes to me and I am enthused for a moment. The rest of my work is an endless series of patients I can diagnose before they even sit next to me. And at the back of it all is the feeling that I could, no, I should be working in a better place. Some place where my worth is recognized, where I don't have to refer patients for things I could so easily treat myself, if only I had the equipment. That is part of the worst I think. That feeling of being second grade as a doctor and not because I am incapable, but because I lack the facility to use my talents. Add to that the thought that my future worth might be predicated on my present performance and I finally see what weighs me down. And the final nail is that I can't see a way out of this quagmire……..

I keep reading the same things again and again, in different forms, in different books.. They all talk about the horror that religion has brought upon us, about the villainy associated with it, about the atrocities committed in its name. And with a morbid fascination I keep on reading, abhorring religion at every page turn and still perusing through its ever-growing list of carnage and barbaric deeds. What a bloody past it has given us, the idea that is supposed to bring us peace, and love and joy! What a human cost it has extracted from us to appease a god of its own creation, to strengthen its hold upon us! Subjugated men to their deaths and used those deaths to subjugate many more. What a fantastically cruel, inhuman idea. To write about religion's many infamies would take forever and better writers than I have chronicled them, but what a gory sight indeed to see a man die for his religion and to vault him over us as a martyr, beloved of god and a life worth emulating. To conjure up a god who demands sacrifice, who punishes, threatens, massacres his chosen people, can change his mind at a whim; a concept that's twisted around to fit every new discovery, every new idea, thought, social mores, till he becomes so convoluted that even his best supporters cannot try to explain him satisfactorily.

I have come to the somewhat saddening conclusion that there is probably no god, much as I would like to think he exists; but faced with the wrathful, vengeful, capricious, greedy, fickle, exacting, pitiless god that paraded about by religion I'd rather not have a god and live a life devoid of belief in a holy order of things than pander to such a human deity.

Introspection was a habit I had inculcated since, well, early teenage if not childhood. I would or at least try to analyse my feelings and their roots, what I felt, why I felt it, what was at the root of it all….during college as I grew older and more mature, I got more involved in delving into my subconscious, or at least that's how I remember those days. My diaries have entries of great psychological insight, into both what I was feeling, and how I was grappling with it.

Down the line, I lost the plot. I guess it was easier to introspect when life was rosier or, at least, the future held better prospects. Now when I see into the future I see a dark void, a deep, desolate despair that I see no way out of. Maybe that's why I have been thinking of the past every so often. And that's why I do not face up to my issues and look at them with a stern eye as I used to. Life just meanders on and I can't seem to steer it into any one direction.

There seems to be so much stagnation at times that I feel I am sinking in quicksand. Where is the fruition of the dreams I had come up with? When did they fall by the wayside? Where was I when the world was marching on? How did I come to be left so far behind?

I am against organized religion. Have been for ages, even before I knew what it was exactly I was against. The whole idea of certain specific rites to be performed and certain ideas to be held sacrosanct over and above us mere mortals even if it was proved time and time again that those views were false made me very uncomfortable. Having been brought up as a Hindu, I was always taught to respect all religions as they were all a way to god or nirvana or whatever. But then I'd read about some of the things believers in various organized religions had done in the name of their faith, and I'd struggle to comprehend it. How was it that beliefs that were supposed to bring you close to mental peace and god could turn man into violent barbarous animals? The Inquisition, the treatment of the Native tribes in the American continents, the persecution of the Jews, the Crusades with the innumerable atrocities committed by both sides, the terrorism in Punjab and now Islamic terror all over the world apparently; the list went on and on and I was always finding something more vile and evil done by someone or some group in the name of his/their faith. It's not as if Hinduism was free of blame, but most of its ills had a more societal than religious sanction, and that is why at least some of its evils were eradicated to a greater or lesser extent.

My purpose in examining this question back then and now was not to vilify any religion or group, that would serve no purpose. What I wanted to work out was why people were committing these heinous acts, such that they otherwise would find abhorrent to the highest degree. I looked at religion as the culprit. I saw how it could whip up sentiment to such a degree that normally mild-mannered persons turned into bloodthirsty savages. More than self, family, nation, class, more than anything else, religion could ask for the highest sacrifice in the name of danger to its existence. I remember it being remarked about how Indians took all sorts of abuse from the British East India Company but balked when their religious principles were being compromised. So what is it about religion?

Religion has a number of things going in its favour. Firstly, it panders to our deepest fear, the fear of death. The final unknown. The one great mystery. We all at some point or the other think of death and wonder what, if anything, lies beyond that last, ragged breath. And voila! Religion provides us with an answer. Heaven, paradise, jannat, swarg, call it what you will. It is the ultimate panacea, a place where all your desires will be met and all you want will come true. It is the culmination of all your dreams and desires. Eternal bliss is what religion offers after the pain of death. But, there is a catch! Depending on which religion you belong to, you have to obey certain rules, guidelines, laws, and commandments to qualify for that heaven. All you need to do is to follow these blindly and everlasting happiness will be yours. Nothing atheism could offer could even get near this! And of course, to avoid shifts to other religion, disbelief in your particular god is the greatest sin. The one unforgivable cardinal sin, which will damn you to the unimaginable tortures of hell forever. Quite a strong hold, I must say! On the one hand you have death with all its associated fears and on the other paradisiacal redemption. Quite an easy choice.

Then there is the hope religion offers even while you're alive, of an omnipotent god who watches over you and keeps you safe from all harm. Not a very well thought out plan if you think about it, but religion has amended this principle over the ages to keep in time with the changing mores of the age. Whenever you feel bereft and all alone and helpless, religion is there to offer you a shoulder. It comes with a price but at that moment, you grab at whatever you find. Quite a few born-again religious converts talk about this magical succour they got from religion when they were at their lowest ebb. Of course, if they thought about it, anything that remotely offered a prop to them at that time would have been grasped at with both hands. But through all your perils and pitfalls, your unconscious errors and conscious sins, there's a great hope in the idea that someone's got your back, and someone as powerful as god at that!

The more I thought of it, the clearer it became. Every religion started out as a means of making man happier in his surroundings, at peace with himself and his circumstances and actions. Then later, it started making man feel guilty for all the same things. Every pleasure became a sin, a crime man had to atone for, and since he was continuously doing the same things, he had to atone again and again. So keeping man guilty and promising him freedom from recompense for the actions that made him guilty became another reason for religion's hold on us.

Then there is the permanency religion offers man. In a world where everything changes, now at an ever increasing pace, we often find ourselves adrift, rootless, floating from one rock to another, trying to find something solid enough to lay roots in. There has to be something fixed and stable for man to stand on and look at the world from. This is another void religion fills quite efficiently. It provides its own version of the 'eternal truth' and asks us to take those words as the 'word of god', immutable and unchanging. Desolate and rootless, we hang on to this word, another last straw that religion gives a drowning man. But, the problem arises when the world changes and the rules laid down by the god of a particular religion don't make sense anymore. That would seem a dilemma, but religion rolls over it like a juggernaut. To admit a mistake or to make a change in any religious doctrine would mean an automatic acceptance of the mutability and hence impermanence of god's laws. So religion refuses to see the light and holds out against any and all scientific and most if not all social challenge. And there lies the root of religious fundamentalism. It has to define itself within hard rigid lines and thereby demarcate the insiders and outsiders clearly. The stronger the delineation, the greater is the divide, and the more the antagonism. So, the Abrahamic religions, with their strong sense of self and non-self make for more fundamentalist positions. Religion gives man a sense of exclusiveness and a feeling of being better than a fellow human being, and that contempt only leads to animosity and hostility. With a religion teaching that, can war, destruction and terror be far behind?

Haven't been reading much except for the one book I wish I hadn't started. I had no idea how facile his arguments could be or I'd never have bought the book. "The Science of God" is based on denying any scientific fact the author can safely refuse to accept and where he cannot do so, he twists either the facts or the bible or both to match. I mean, he actually expects me to believe that the people who wrote the bible in antiquity (actually by the latest estimates, not earlier than 600-800 BCE) knew about the Theory of Relativity and how time changes relative to velocity and how old the universe really is. He claims that the six days of creation described in Genesis are equable to the 15 billion odd years since the Big Bang! I mean, come on!!!!!

And he goes on and on, denying evolution one second and accepting it the next, taking parts of it that suit his fancy and discarding what he does not like. So dinosaurs existed, but humans and apes didn't have common ancestors, or maybe God was driving forward human evolution much faster than possible by natural means. Of course, all the miracles he performed in Exodus were so planned so that they didn't seem 'unnatural'. So why not make our genetic structure so that the 'required number of mutations for human evolution' (his words) could have occurred in the time frame available (for that is his biggest criticism of evolution, apparently there was not much time available)? Didn't his god know that sooner or later we'd be asking these questions and his 'work' as it were would be laid bare? Or was that too part of his divine plan? Needless to say, he doesn't even begin to make sense. Some questions he puts are valid ones, like the Cambrian explosion, but I don't agree to his hypothesis that since they are unexplained phenomena, they point to the existence of god. What if science does answer his question? Will that mean god no longer exists.

What he says about the alleged 'missing links' is pure nonsense. There are a number of species where gradual evolution is seen to occur and if you close your eyes and refuse to accept facts, I really can't help you. As for human evolution, we feel happy labelling some fossilized bones here and there as Homo habilis or Homo ergaster and so on, but if we really took our ancestry back from 'modern' humans back to them, there would be an unbroken line from them to us; with every generation related closely to the one before and the one after and no clear distinguishing boundaries between them.

His six days of Genesis = 15 billion years of the universe is a truly fantastic hypothesis. Apart from what he expects our ancient ancestors to know about advanced physics (and without the aid of any modern equipment etc.) he conveniently forgets that the 6 day work week with one day off was an invention of the Sumerians who predate the bible. They counted in sixes and as far as I'm aware no other major civilization did that. We get the 60 second/minute cycle from them, as also the 360 degrees in a circle and so forth. But that's a digression.

In the latest chapter I'm reading, he claims all 'humans' before Adam came on the scene were animals in the sense that they lacked the 'soul' that god breathed into Adam. Of course this happened only 6000 years ago, so before that Homo sapiens were brutes and then suddenly became 'human'. I haven't finished that chapter yet so I'm waiting on tenterhooks to see how he explains that Adam was afraid and lonely, and how god fashioned Eve from his rib…..

Windows 7

Been using Windows 7 for a couple of weeks now, and I must say this is MS' best effort yet. Very smooth and fast. Boot up and shut down times are down to less than a minute even with AV and sundry programs and all or almost all software that I am wont to use run perfectly on it, even some of Win XP vintage. Haven't used the libraries much yet but the search functionality is well implemented and it gives you more features than previous iterations. The Aeropeek and similar addons to the GUI are thoughtful and work really well. I find myself using them all the time since I have multiple windows open quite frequently. The floating gadgets are also a much better option than Vista's sidebar. But the one thing that I always marvel at is the speed of the system. Having gotten used to yawn inducing boot-up times from the XP days, I love the fact that I switch on my desktop as soon as I reach home and it's up and running by the time I take my boots off. In contrast my laptop running Vista takes almost 4 minutes to bootup. Of course it's an aging machine so there's no comparison but still it pleases me!

Compatibility issues are also handled more efficiently now and you have to option to go online to search for drivers/solutions. UAC is less obtrusive, thankfully! All in all, it's a nice bit of software and works quite well.

I've read that Win7 is what Vista was meant to be. Many features that you find in Win7 were originally planned for Vista but time constraints and an ever-increasing gap since WinXP came out caused its premature release. Maybe that's true and if so, it speaks volumes for MS' unconcern for its customers, saddling their customers with a half-baked product and forcing them to upgrade further within a couple of years. But I never really found Vista hamstrung in any way. People have complained to me day in and day out about how it's not smooth, that there are compatibility issues and it's not stable and what not. Mostly I hear that it's just not good enough. Of course when I have asked for what specific problems these people have faced with Vista I get non-committal grunts, and half explanations about how they've heard bad things about Vista. The one problem I did find was Vista's incompatibility with SQL server and many commercial apps (not too sure which, but those were the only concrete answers I got, from IT people in various sectors). But for the average homeuser, I don't know what the brouhaha is all about. It was a fine piece of software and worked well. Of course, Win7 works better but Vista was an improvement over XP too. So it is with every new version of any software. Vista was just a victim of bad publicity more than anything else in my view.

Not that I am a fan of MS in any sense of the word. I have read what they/ve donein the past with Netscape and what they tried to do with other SW manufacturers with XPs launch (I remember they weren't allowing any non MS service icon on the desktop) and how they've coerced PC makers to exclude various software programs from their OEM set. But with all the calumny poured upon them and rightly so, they still had come out with a good piece of programming with Vista and they still got pasted!

Justice indeed

18 months is all he got. For molesting a poor defenceless girl, for getting her expelled from school for complaining, for making her life so miserable that she committed suicide, for falsely accusing and imprisoning her brother and humiliating him, for threatening her father and friend and anyone who dared stand up to support her. For all these crimes he got 18 months in prison; which I'm sure he'll pass in relative luxury as befits one who has 'contacts' at the highest level in the police and politics.

If ever there was a case in recent memory that exposed the rotting mould of corruption eating away at our country's very foundations, it was this. Time after time it was shown how every politician and every policeman supported this man in his heinous crime and shielded him from any and all repercussions while commending him for his 'services'. No matter who was in power, this man was safe. It was bastardy of the vilest sort. This man could subvert the whole system and direct it at one helpless girl who had dared to stand up against him. And in the end he got away with it, with barely a rap on the knuckles.

As a teenager, when I felt I knew pretty much everything there was to know in the world, I thought I had grown quite cynical and jaded with the world. I wrote poems about it, talked about it with friends over drinks and generally behaved in the most blasé fashion possible. I had, of course no idea what an education in cynicism and callousness the world had prepared for me! Now, ten years removed from college and five years since I left the hostel, I find myself realising what cynicism truly means. How it feels to look at everything with mistrust and to question each and every action. To doubt every person you come in contact with, even people I am here to cure and heal, what to talk about colleagues! I used to think that it was the vagaries of life that had made me sad and had smothered the happy soul inside me. now I realise that I am not so much sad as devoid of happiness. The unadulterated joys of youth I now experience through a thick sheen of tiredness and bitterness. I look further, I look deeper; not for the hidden comforts in tragedies, but for the phantoms of sorrow in pleasures. And find them I do, for I am a skilled searcher. I see a pristine pond in front of me and I muddy the waters, I see the rainbow in the sky and I put on my sunglasses, I see arms spread wide in welcome and dream up hidden daggers in the sleeves……

Blank Diaries..

I wrote once ages ago, when I used to write a diary, a proper paper one, that there is no more empty feeling than sitting in front of a blank piece of paper. I don't lay claim to be the originator of this quote, I'm sure someone said it before me. But the meaning I meant to convey then still rings true even though the UHVPN diary has been replaced by this laptop and my trusty Reynolds 045 by this touch type keyboard.

You feel so desolate when the white page stares back at you unstained, as if rebuking and mocking you for not having a word to write. When I had begun writing that old diary way back in '93, it was a Herculean task. I'd start every entry with, "I don't know what to write". Then later I got into the habit and filled in pages after pages. Of course, most of what I penned down was what I recollected of my school days. Small incidents, fights, games, the fun we had, everything I could remember. I felt a great sadness at leaving school. On the one hand was the excitement of going to college and not having to wear uniforms and being able to bunk classes, but on the other hand there were the pangs of sorrow at separating from so many of my close friends. Having been in the same school from kindergarten to matriculation, I had put down roots, as it were, there. I had had the same teachers, the same friends, the same everything for over 10 years, and 10 of the formative years of my life. So I knew I was going to miss it all. So I wanted to remember all of it, and I set about penning down what I fancifully called my 'memoirs' every day. At the time I had thought it was just an excuse for me to have something to write everyday. Looking back at it though, I am so thankful I did! So many little instances and events, things I'd never have remembered if I hadn't put them down bring so much joy to me as I read through them again.

Of course as time passed and I grew both older and into the habit of writing a diary, my entries grew more personal and introspective. Rather than just mentioning what had happened, I would talk about what I felt and why I thought I felt it. Then when I was going through a very rough patch in '97, my writing was cathartic to me. All the self doubts that plagued me came out of my pen to taint the pages in front of me and I felt somewhat cleansed. My diary, as an extension of my own self, became the friend and counsellor I desperately needed at that time in my life.

Once I was out of the hostel though, things took a different shape and circumstances got way out of my hand. I tried to regain in the habit during MS, but couldn't. A few entries here and there were the most I could manage. Now it's been ages since I wrote my diary and I wonder if I have a lost a big part of me with it.

Had planned to write my third and final instalment on 'The Argumentative Indian", but reading has taken a back-seat to driving to work, as it were. I had thought of a lot to say about Sen's views on the Indian N-bomb, but I've forgotten most of it and will have to go through that chapter again.

Read a few blogs the other day. Neha politely informed me that the way to get people reading my blog was to read and follow other's posts. Saw that Jyoti had a blog and went through it. She hasn't been quite active on it lately, though I'm one to say! Went through Lisa Ray's entries too and read about her struggle with Multiple Myeloma. How her marrow transplant felt like and how she fought to maintain a positive outlook towards life. In one of her latest entries from Rishikesh, she talks about how she longs to live and enjoy life longer! Now that's a sentence I get to hear from so many people, but it's so poignant when I hear it from a person about to die, who's sure to die. I saw it in my brother-in-law as he was diagnosed with a particularly malignant tumour and tried to combat it briefly, before it took his life this March. Even though my wife and I never told him just how bad the situation was (and it was bad, with brain metastasis and multiple lesions in the lung), and for a brief period when he was responding to the chemotherapy and radiotherapy he believed us, he knew his end was near. It was pitiful to see him wishing for a few more years of life so he could better provide for his wife and son who he was leaving destitute, or almost so. I knew that he had scant months to live. That every day was a miracle, the way the tumour was pressing on the vital centres of the brain. It was sad to see him begging for life and knowing that there was nothing that could be done for him. We weren't very close so it wasn't a specific response but a more general one but I could see how very unfortunate it was.

I wonder how it would be to die young. When I look at the future, I think of all I have planned for it, a house, another car, a den for myself which would be my personal retreat, growing older and retiring, and finally enjoying the life I have worked hard to achieve. What if I were to die tomorrow? Or if I got to know that I had an incurable disease and would die soon? How would I react? A part of me, the tired, jaded part of me says I would take the news resignedly. What have I to live for anyway? I'm not doing anything so momentous that my dying would take away something from a great deal of people. Then I start wondering what that last moment would be like. Lying on my death bed, waiting for the last breath to leave my body, wondering how my consciousness would fade… would my hearing go first or my vision? Would I be blind and deaf, or would I hallucinate about events long past? Would I feel the pain of leaving behind my loved ones or would my brain be too out of order to do that? What would my last thought be and how would it fade? Slowly merging into oblivion or suddenly ceasing in mid-flow?

Second thoughts on The Argumentative Indian

I had thought that I would find much to dissect, discuss and disagree with in the remaining part of the book. No such luck. The rest of the book is a meandering look at whatever seems to catch Mr. Sen's fancy. His love for Tagore and Ray are obvious and explicitly stated. Nest he goes into an analysis of what's wrong with India, with particular regard to its inequalities, whether related to gender, caste or class. I do agree with most of what he says there, but then he doesn't say anything path-breaking either. Nothing I didn't already know or suspect. How class inequalities impact every other cause of social, economic, and political inequity is something, however, I had not considered before. It makes sense, of course, as he points out when discussing communal riots across India in the last half century and more. He makes the very valid and I'm sure, underappreciated point that while most victims belonged to quite different communities, they belonged to the same class, the underprivileged and deprived. His talk on gender inequalities did not reveal anything new to me. I've always held that female empowerment has to go way beyond the freedom to get gainful employment outside the home. Education and exposure to the world to open up her mind to the possibilities there are out there are vital to make the woman an effective agent of change in the family and society. One thing I didn't know was that South-east Asian countries and China follow the same demographic trends as India with regards to preference for male progeny and the resulting skewing of the sex ratio and other indices of female health and well-being. I had assumed that with increased industrialization and a higher standard of living, those societies would have followed the Western trends towards a higher proportion of females at all age points. It seems that social ideas and practices that plague India are the same that affect these countries too. Makes you wonder then, why this male preference arises in Asian countries in the first place. As my wife pointed out, dowry as a modern institution prevails mostly in India and as far as we know, not in SE Asia. But I think, the malaise goes deeper than simple financial outlay. Asian countries are still preponderantly patriarchal. Male domination leads to the desire for male offspring. In the West, for a number of reasons (not least the dire shortage of males in the workforce post the two World Wars), females have gained a better foothold in the workplace and the society at large. Of course, the stress on education in the west over the last couple of centuries has helped to no small extent. When the opportunity arose in the 1910s, there were a lot of educated, willing women joining the workforce in various capacities. The trend got strengthened in the Second World War, and women's lib has never looked back since. I feel that in India and other Asian countries, this necessity never arose and most Indians still look upon the idea of women working as a matter of economic necessity rather than an essential part of their life experience and personality. As a result maybe, the ideas of women empowerment that arose with education and employment have not yet taken root here. Of course, Sen does not go into the depth of this question, and rightly so, because this would be a book in itself.

I still have some 50 odd pages to go, but I don't think I shall be really impressed by anything in the pages to come. I had kept my expectations deliberately low while buying this book because I have only too often endured the disappointment of dashed hopes, and I am thankful to say that I have not been misplaced in my assumption this time. By no means unreadable, but by the same measure, not a masterpiece either.

The Argumentative Indian

Have started reading Amartya Sen's 'The Argumentative Indian'. Although I've only just begun the book and have only read 50 odd pages, I have come across passages where I felt the need to annotate the margins with my own thoughts about the point being raised by the author. I have done that, infrequently, in the past but always felt like I was in some way vandalizing the book. At other times there wasn't enough space in the margins and I wonder if they could print such books with ample space for you to jot down your own thoughts on the page. In this case since I am reading the book during my daily commute, penning on the margins isn't advisable. I remember as a young teenager when I took my diary along with me on my trip to Shimla with friends. I tried writing my thoughts on the bus and didn't get down more than a few lines. It was so shaky and uncomfortable that I gave up the idea immediately. So with this book I plan to put my thoughts about what Sen has written not on paper but on my laptop instead. Waiting till I finish the book would entail a very long wait and I would forget half of what I had thought of saying by then.

The first two chapters I found somewhat enlightening though not particularly noteworthy. He talks about how we have a long history of dialogue, discussion and toleration of dissent in India, even when it comes to religion. Most of it I knew already, but the story of the sage Javali and how he rebukes Rama for his actions was new.

I found myself disagreeing with parts of his third chapter, where he talks about the BJP and Hindutva. The book was written before the last general elections of course, at a time when the Congress had just regained power after defeating the BJP. In one sentence he seems to imply that the parties allied to the BJP, the 'secular' ones like the AIADMK, the Trinamool, and the TDP fared badly because of their association with the BJP. he doesn't follow it up but just mentions it and walks away. "The voters seem to have been particularly harsh on most of the secular collaborators of the BJP." to quote him. I think this is a misinterpretation of voting trends. Tamil Nadu typically votes overwhelmingly for one party in an election only to shift entirely to the opposite end the next time round. The DMK and the AIADMK have both been alternately swept into power and swept aside in an equally convincing manner. This happened before anyone allied with the BJP and will happen again. The TDP lost because, by popular consesus, Chandrababu Naidu was seen as having focussed all his energies on the Andhra capital and broadly ignoring the vast hinterland, especially the Telangana region (which includes Hyderabad). Agriculture was hit very badly and farmer suicides were in all the news. The Trinamool I won't hazard a guess about since I don't know that much about it but the party has come into prominence only lately following the Singur agitation and other such events. Only after gaining mileage from these has it built itself as a credible alternative capable of defeating the left parties who've held sway in Bengal for over three decades now. So what I want to say is that looking at all this I don't think it was association with the BJP that cot these 'secular' parties their vote share or their seats. In fact, the BJP in power was a much milder version of the virulent ultra-right party that we see now. They were on their 'best boy' behaviour in a manner of speaking. Of course, I might have simply misinterpreted what Sen wrote and maybe he didn't mean it this way; it does seem unlikely I did though, given his left leanings.

Roots of morality? Pt.2

This was one of the major questions I struggled with when I was reading “The God Delusion”. Dawkins, of course quoted extensively from the Bible to make the point that wherever we get or morals from, it’s most certainly not from that book. He might be right. I haven’t read the whole testament, but what I have read, i.e. the first few books up to Job, don’t disprove his claims in anyway. The Old testament god seems to be a rather jealous, vindictive, and violent deity. And he eggs on his followers to do the same. Time after time before they enter the promised land, the Israelites are reminded to show the original inhabitants there no mercy and massacre the lot. But there are exhortations to act morally too, even if only with one’s religious kin. There are, however, numerous examples that bear out Dawkins’ claim. But he doesn’t delve further into it and lets it go at that.
Be that as it may, I still think morality had its roots in religion. Not the bible per se but in various interpretations of it. God was merciful, at leas tin his later iterations. There was talk about goodwill towards all and helping your fellow man, and more importantly on good acts. We would all have to pay for our sins come judgement day! Of course Hindus believed in rebirth and that your past sins would come to haunt you in the next life. But in every case, it was the idea of balance in nature that a belief in god and a cosmic order brought about that made man moral. And I come back to the same question. In the absence of that cosmic order, why be moral?
Or to strike even deeper, why define morality like this? Who’s to say what action is moral or immoral? What’s right and what’s wrong? On what basis do you ground your basic ethic? How do you define that basis? How can you defend it? Morality become nothing more than a set of common rules that we agree upon to play fair, and the person who can break those rules without getting caught is the most successful. Which brings me back to square one. I’m tired of thinking in circles and yet I can’t seem to find a way to break free from it.
Of course, no matter how much I want to believe that the existence of god would make some sense out of this chaos, it doesn’t make it real. I forget who said, “If God did not exist, mankind would have found it necessary to create him.” True words, indeed.

Roots of morality?

Morality. It’s a question I can’t get out of my head. And I don’t mean morality as it’s interpreted today, in terms of sexuality. Who’s having sex with who and how and are they married and what not. That seems to be the only thing morality is concerned with today. Greed, corruption, theft, murder are all bad and condemnable, but show us a sexually ‘immoral’ person and we all get up in a lather. Not I, though. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about all the other immoral things. To cheat, to lie, to wrong, to kill, and so on. And the moral actions too. Altruism, philanthropy, kindness, helping the needy and so on. What is the root behind all this? What stops us from wronging someone? What makes us help others, especially those who can’t return the favour?
Tough questions. I struggle to find the answer. Why should it make us feel good to do the ‘moral thing’? After all, it’s not giving us any tangible benefit. Not cheating at cards, for instance, might lead to me losing the game, and that doesn’t make me happy. Spending my hard-earned money on someone else in charity only means I have less to spend on myself. I’m sure similar emotions would be felt by almost everyone. Then why do we do it?
Some researchers in such fields, socio-anthropologists perhaps, say that it’s a social imperative. Any group where individuals don’t help each other is doomed to fail when competing with a group where they do help each other out. On the face of it, it makes sense. ‘Higher’ animals like primates do show some rudiments of social responsibility more than ‘lower’ animals. Makes sense that a group would prosper if its members were aiding each other. But which individual would be most benefited in such a group? The one who was most ‘moral’ and helped everyone else, or the one who helped only those who were in a position to reciprocate and not others? The latter, of course. He’s conserving his resources and making use of them in the most efficient manner and evolution would reward him. Similarly with humans, the person who cheated just a little bit, enough to benefit himself but not to trouble others too much, or one who could cheat more but slyly enough so as not to get caught would be the most successful. The one who doesn’t give to charity or help those in need would have more for himself. So why do we do it?
I think it’s because of the belief in god. That there is balance in the world. The belief, ingrained in us from childhood, that if we do good it will come back to us. If we help others, we would get it when we needed the same. That there were consequences for our actions. And this belief gave us meaning. “tu bhala kar tera bhala hoga. Aur darvesh ki sada kya hai?”
But take god out of the equation and you have nothing that ensures this balance. Then why would you do right by anyone? Why wouldn’t I cheat at that game of cards, once I was sure I wouldn’t get caught? Why wouldn’t you murder someone if it helped you in anyway? Why would you or I give to charity to help unknown people who couldn’t repay you? Why would Bill Gates set up a charity worth millions instead of spending it all on himself, buying everything on this earth? Why would I teach any hypothetical kids of mine to be moral, do good, help others, be kind? Why would I not tell them to be supremely selfish and do whatever it took to succeed? Why wouldn’t I do it myself?
If the law of averages governs my life events and some good and bad things are going to happen to me irrespective of my actions, I might as well do all the bad I can safely do to maximize my chances of getting as much ‘good’ as I can in life. After all, all my wrongdoings aren’t going to come back and bite me in the ass! Why would you help a person dying on the street? He will almost certainly not be there if ever you are in such a situation! The same principle would apply to every human transaction, every interchange. Greed, selfishness, callousness would characterise our actions. Even the most intellectual people would find it hard to rationalize moral actions on an individual level (how I hope I’m wrong!). No, if there is no doctrine of ‘karma’ that holds true, we might as well do pretty much what we please.
This was one of the major questions I struggled with when I was reading “The God Delusion”. Dawkins, of course quoted extensively from the Bible to make the point that wherever we get or morals from, it’s most certainly not from that book. He might be right. I haven’t read the whole testament, but what I have read, i.e. the first few books up to Job, don’t disprove his claims in anyway.

Been thinking about God and morality off and on these past couple of months. I feel every thinking man, if he really examines the question, will find it hard to justify hie faith in God. Is there a God? If yes, then what is his contribution to this world? How does he play a part its day to day workings? The more I look at it, I find myself veering to the point of atheism. But years of religious background doesn’t wash off that easily. And I find myself retreating to the cosy, safer and much more comfortable embrace of Deism, the belief that the Creator set out some rules at the beginning of Creation and hasn’t since then taken an active role in the play of existence. I look at the formation of stars and planets and they seem to follow strict physical and chemical rules. I look at the emergence of life and there seems nothing divine about it. An amalgamation of self-replicating molecules in a constant struggle to multiply and pass themselves on, in an unending battle against others of its own kind. In a few hundred million years, the sun will die out and earth will be uninhabitable and there’s nothing God is going to do about that either. Meanwhile the struggle for the survival of the fittest continues in its own ferocious, pitiless way and I don’t see any intervention there either. So if creation, nurture and annihilation are preset in our universe according to known, immutable laws, whither God? Wherefore God? Did He just set some rules and then sat back to enjoy the show? Something like making a complex graphic program and executing it for His amusement? Where is the evidence of his direct intervention? “Ishwar Allah, terey jahan mein, nafrat kyon hai, jung hai kyon?” the Upanishads ask, “Why is it that Brahma made this world and leaves it so? If, being all-powerful he leaves it so, he is not good; if not all-powerful, he is not God”
These are valid questions and I find the answers religious men give to them almost farcical. The good that happens in your life is due to His benevolence, the bad is despite His efforts. I can’t find a more masochistic system of thought. If I win, it’s not because of all the effort at preparation I put in, but all due to God, who presumably likes me more than all the other competitors. If I lose then it wasn’t because God failed me, but because I deserved it. Such was my fate. Of course the weapon of last resort that religion has is to claim that we are too ignorant and small minded to really understand God’s master plan for us all. Maybe your kid who dies at the age of 2 due to some horrifying genetic disease was sent to you to teach you suffering. I might ask why that poor infant was made to suffer on my account. And if I were to ask how exactly God bring this whole thing about? Did he knowing that I needed to suffer pain, brought me to fall in love with and sire a child with the one woman with the exact genetic makeup to compliment mine and then make sure that on the sperm with the relevant genes to cause that specific abnormality ended up fertilizing the egg? Imagine God messing around the Fallopian tubes! Not to mention the 256 people who set about mating 8 generations ago to bring about me with this specific genetic makeup. Like I said, farcical. Look at anything you attribute to God and ask yourself what did God do to make this thing so? Anything. I have yet to find one thing I can truly say was made by God to be exactly like that. All that you see around you is like it is for a reason. A chemical, physical, biological rule explains it fully. If not, then you can rest assured there is a reason though we haven’t worked it out yet. And don’t go around ascribing these rare things to God, for once they are explained, God will be responsible for one less thing in your count. Like the formation of the earth, our heliocentric planetary system, the evolution of myriad forms of life with the same basic genetic code, our descent from ape-like ancestors and so on. Look at the things we attributed to God and can’t anymore.
So I return to my original question, is there a God? I honestly don’t think so though I just as honestly hope there is something akin to Him. Even coming from a family with the least little bit of religiosity in its veins, I still find it disconcerting to completely disbelieve in God. I hear voices saying, “There still is meaning in life” but I find a little measure of despair. The idea that there is no Great Plan makes sense to me in a logical sense, but it’s a hard thing to accept. I consider myself an intelligent, thinking individual and if I find it so difficult to accept, how much more so would it be for a person of lower intelligence (not being vain or anything here; I know there are people with greater intelligence than me and similarly those with lesser), especially one brought up with a religious background to accept atheism. His whole world would come crashing down around him. Religion is one of the strongest moorings for so many that I think it would be impossible for them to imagine a world without God.

Been reading a lot on the evolutionist-creationist debate recently. Of course from the evolutionists’ point of view, coz that’s where my belief lies. One chapter I recently read was on how there were so many imperfections in the human body and how that was clear proof that man was not ‘designed’ by a higher intelligence but rather evolved from non-human ancestors. A number of examples are mentioned, not the least of which in the spine, never designed to remain upright. In fact even walking which we take in our stride (bad pun) is not a very smooth process. If looked at in detail with a fast motion camera and by studying the actual muscle motions involved, the human walk appears to be a series of ungainly motions, in fact it’s said that we actually fall from one step to the other. The examples are endless, truly. Our body architecture is just not designed to work as efficiently as possible. It’s merely a working model of ill-fitting parts that compromises here and there to make things work. It has been shown that if the optics of the eye were better, human vision would be in the range of 6/3, not 6/6. I could keep on pointing out such instances. The more I think about it, the more come to mind. I can’t possibly imagine what creationists have to say about all this, but I’m sure they’ll think of something, or they’ll just refuse to accept these as true. Whatever. But the chapter I was reading also gave examples from the animal kingdom of various ‘inefficient’ designs. One particular example was the marsupial Koala bear, whose baby pouch is upside down! Apparently the Koalas developed from a burrowing ancestor in which the turned around pouch served the purpose of keeping dirt out of the infant’s eyes and mouth as the mother dug. While explaining why the pouch had not turned right side up once the Koalas started climbing trees, the author (Dawkins) hypothesizes that the genetic change necessary to bring that about might be creating a lot of embryological turmoil, ultimately leading to non-viability of the foetus. He puts forward this theory in a number of places, for example the extraordinary course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe and so on. He postulates that the evolutionary benefit of changing the design to a more efficient pattern must be outweighed by the other deleterious effects that the same mutation, necessary for the beneficial effect, had on the embryo. On the face of it, it sounds plausible. Makes sense and it does explain a lot of odd things we see in anatomy. Even when we look at the cellular level and try to imagine what it would entail to change some embryological development pattern in the foetus, we can see that, for example, changing the sites of development of the kidney-ureter system and the testes-vas deferens system so that the vas doesn’t end up looping over the ureter and goes straight to the penis could only result from a profound change in foetal development. And every medical student how even small changes in embryonic development can have such disastrous consequences.
But it occurred to me that surely not every change for the better ( i.e. towards a more efficient body part) would necessarily require such major upheavals. Some changes like maybe the disappearance of the appendix in humans might not require whole scale alterations and some other changes might even bring with them other beneficial changes. Quite possible. After all the narrowing of our larynx is thought to be responsible for humans developing vocal communication which lay the groundwork for our social and cultural evolution. Maybe the change that brings about, say, the inverting of our retinas also makes our peripheral vision better by improving the acuity of the peri-macular retina. My point is that just because certain beneficial changes are not seen in our or any animal’s bodies doesn’t mean that change is improbable, or carries with it a baggage in terms of negative, deleterious effects. That is a very narrow Darwinian perspective of looking at random imperfections. One thing that everyone seems to have forgotten is the element of chance.
Maybe, the beneficial mutation to bring about the specific change has never happened. Darwinian Theory is based upon random mutations which get selected because they have something better to provide to the body that carries it. Granted. 100% correct in my view. But that doesn’t mean that all possible combinations of genetic code have been tried out. Maybe a mutation turning the koala baby-sac downside up is just around the corner. And maybe it has no other effect on the koala embryo, or maybe it even makes it better at climbing trees. After all, the way I see it, all mutations are a question of odds. When the DNA is being duplicated, there is a specific odds ratio that a mistake will occur. The odds may be high or low, depending on how stable that particular segment is. And the higher the odds, the less the chance of that particular change occurring. Let’s say for example’s sake, that the odds are 1 in a 1000 that a generation of Koalas would have one baby with the inverted pouch. Let’s say that the change would have no other effect on the Koala. All hypothetical, of course. I haven’t the faintest idea how such odds could be calculated, or in fact if they could be calculated at all. But assuming those odds, people think that in a thousand generations, the change would be brought about. And that’s where the fallacy lies. 1 in a 1000 are odds, not certainties. It’s just a chance that this particular change would appear in a thousand generations. But it might not. 1 in a 1000 doesn’t mean literally 1 in 1000, 2 in 2000 and so on. It might not even mean 100 in 100,000. These are just odds and might hold true at very large numbers or maybe not true at all. So what I mean is that chances are chances, not certainties and maybe the right mutation is right around the corner!

In late ’93, I was in class 12th at DAV College. It was our first experience at staggered classes, having been in school with a fixed system of classes one after another. In college, we had free periods in between. In the second term, we had our practicals, I forget whether biology or physics, in the afternoon, around 2PM or so. So instead of going back home for lunch even though it was a ten minute bicycle ride away, we preferred to hang around college in a bunch, having lunch in the hostel mess (4.50/-, can you believe it?) and chatting away the idle hours. Maybe a trip to the neighbouring girl’s college. But most of those afternoons have slipped out of memory. I don’t recall what exactly we did all those years ago. One afternoon, however, remains fixed in mind. It was late autumn, and a balmy sun shone down on a few boys, full stomached and lazy enough to want to do nothing but lie in the college lawns and chat. I lay on my back feeling the warming tendrils of the weakening winter sun tickle my skin. The grass was fresh cut and scented. Pillowed on my arms I looked up at the sky, blue and clear. The more I looked, the bluer it seemed. As I lay there gazing, an eagle entered my field of view, wheeling around in the stratosphere, a black speck in the deep blue. I followed it in its course. It glided effortlessly, seldom flapping its wings. From that distance it was a like a beautiful dance unfolding before my eyes. It was truly a beautiful sight, but what I remember most of that moment is that as I lay there watching the eagle, I felt that never again would I have such leisurely carefree pleasure. That as I grew older I would yearn for such moments when I could just put my cares aside and immerse myself in one moment.
Today, over a decade and a half later, as I walked in a dewy garden, my laptop weighing my shoulder down, waiting for my conveyance to take me to work, thinking about the surgeries I had to do today, wondering if yesterday’s case had gone fine, about what I chores I had pending for the evening, I suddenly realized how prescient I had been all that time back.

An IG of police in Madhya Pradesh was transferred today. In a speech to cadets yesterday, he was heard exhorting them to learn from Ajmal Kasab, the 26/11 terrorist. That, apparently, was a good enough reason to transfer said officer to the boondocks (police HQ as it were, where he can do no mischief; the police equivalent of the detention room I guess). I for one, see no reason for this administrative punishment. I heard the relevant part of his speech and found nothing offensive in it. All he did was to make Kasab an example to his men. He said if an uneducated man, not even a matriculate, a drug addict like Kasab could learn so much through training in less than an year, why not our police constables. He talked about how Kasab learnt to use firearms, explosives, GPS, advanced technologies and even learnt to speak Hindi (Marathi?) in less than an year, then what was stopping our policemen? He said that he was sure his force had men much better than Kasab, both in intelligence and valour, but they needed to inculcate the passion Kasab showed.
Now what is wrong in saying, “learn from your enemy, and try to better him at his own game”? he wasn’t asking the men to become terrorists, just to see how far the enemy had gone and catch up fast. And he was ‘punished’ just for saying the words ‘Kasab’ and ‘example’ in the same sentence. I live in a crooked country!

Finished reading Sean Carroll’s “Remarkable Creatures” a couple of days back. I’d actually bought it thinking it would be about odd, impossible fossils and the extraordinary creatures that were to be seen in prehistoric ages. Always been a childhood fantasy of mine, you see. But it was nothing like that at all. Carroll documented the people who were behind the discovery of some of the most important fossils. From Darwin’s voyage aboard the Beagle to the discovery of tiktaalik, he describes the incredible adventures these people had and the hardships they endured and the effort they put in to unearth these historic finds. And it was an engrossing read. From Wallace to the Leakeys, I was fascinated. Here were the men (and one woman, Mary Leakey alone finds mention) who went out into the most barren, forbidding, wild, unreachable, unexplored, dangerous, inhospitable terrains and step by painstaking step, fleshed out Darwin’s Theory (ever since reading Dawkins elucidation on how this word in misinterpreted, I’m more and more attracted towards the idea of calling it ‘Fact’) of Evolution and gave us a more complete picture of how we came to be. I read how one by one, the arguments against evolution, both in a general sense and in the more personal sense of human evolution, were struck down. In fact, having grown up taking evolution as scientific fact, I was surprised at the level and amount of opposition it faced in the past. This, of course, stands true even today, but that’s another story.
One thing that showed through was our incredible human ego. Our desperate need to place ourselves at the top of the heap that is Nature. First we were the chosen specie, made in God’s own image. When that was struck down (down but not out, mind you), we found it hard to believe we had been on earth for only a miniscule portion of its history (I remember reading somewhere that if the entire history of earth were to be compressed into a week, life came into being on the last day, and we made it onto the stage about 5 seconds before midnight). So it was a hard task believing the earth was billions of years old. Then when that was proved incontrovertibly, we had to believe that ‘our’ line split from that of the apes at least 30 million years ago and we have been different (read superior) since. Of course, that’s another fallacy and has been disproved too. Then we had to believe that at a genetic level we were far superior to other animals so surely, our genome would have thousands upon thousands of genes thereby marking us as so much more complex than the ‘lower’ creatures (I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve learned to hyphenate that word from Dawkins). But when the whole genome was finally unraveled, lo and behold, the entire difference between us and the earthworm, was a few thousand genes! Our pretensions to being the only intelligent specie, or the only one capable of learning and even transmitting that learning are belied everyday in some corner of the world or the other. I wonder what form our ‘specie egotism’ will take next?

While the reviews of the latest Holmes movie didn’t make me go see it, quite the opposite in fact, even though I like Downey as an actor, I don’t care for his rendition of one of the world’s favourite character and one of my personal role models, it did get me thinking.
I looked at the way he portrayed Holmes, and then I looked back at this series that was aired on The History Channel and the old one I used to watch on DD back in the 80s. I feel that even this change in the depiction of a fictional character is a sign of our social zeitgeist. In the 80s series, Holmes was the way I pictured him, intelligent, aloof, with a supercilious air about him, a trifle egoistic perhaps, but eminently logical and methodical almost to the point of inhumanity. Watson was a little dense perhaps, but loyal, true and always in acceptance of Holmes’ intellectual superiority. The THC series showed Holmes as more petulant and vain, more emotional, more impatient and almost brash. Watson was shown as more intrusive, more irreverent, almost jealous and more eager to score a point against Holmes. I guess the director wanted to equalize the relationship between the two, and he even showed Holmes being proven wrong once or twice with Watson displaying a smug smile. The latest Holmes, of course, is a muscle bound hunk who uses his fists as often as his brains, quite the opposite of Doyles’ hero.
I guess that is the key word, hero. Our society has over time become more and more disbelieving of heroes. The Supermen, as it were. People who transcended their circumstances, even in fiction, are no longer looked upon with admiration and as examples worthy of emulation. No, they must be brought down to our level for us to relate to them. So all heroes have perforce to become less heroic as it were, to stay popular. So Spock today shows more emotion in Star Trek than Nimoy ever did, Spiderman has to be helped by the common public in the third edition, even Superman is rushed to the hospital. James Bond gets broken, hurt, and bleeds. We don’t want supermen anymore. We don’t want to believe that anything better than us can exist, that we can be better than we are today.

When I was younger, I always saw the world as this wide, open space, with so much to see and learn form at every turn, at every angle. Now as I grow older, I find my world constricting around me. There was so much I wanted to learn and see and experience, and now I only find myself able to taste a little bit of it. Whenever I turn to one of my hobbies I find another thing I’d like to do. And now things keep piling on things and I don’t think I’ll ever find enough time in my life to do it all. Tons of songs I’ve never had the time to really sit back and listen, movies I’ve yet to see, serials I’ve got but haven’t come round to yet, books I’ve bought but haven’t read, magazines and journals stacking up. Amid this huge jumble, I’ve realised I’ll never find the time to write poetry, or read about the arts, or even the classics I’ve always wanted to.
Instead of the broad range of topics I indulged myself in even a decade ago, I find myself limiting myself to only a few that I have a chance to enjoy fully. So no more sketching or listening to new singers or reading Plato or even new poets, new in the sense that I haven’t read them, that is.
Instead of being a tech guru on top of everything computer-linked, I now have a broad idea of the trends and innovations. Instead of being a cricket expert, I’m hard-pressed to put a name to some new Indian players. Byron’s longer works I’ve abandoned to old age, when I shall presumably, have more time. Ditto Donne, Plato, Russel, and so much more.
The downside is that when I do get the time to try something new, I enjoy it so much! The first time I listened to internet radio, I found two country artistes I liked a lot. And the few books I’ve bought the last couple of months are a revelation. But where do I find the time to do all that?

The Bible has always fascinated me. I enjoyed reading it, esp. the Old Testament (never got round to the New), which I went through as a kind of novel. I had no doubt in my mind that most, if not all of it was based on some kernel of truth, sort of like the Mahabharat might have been based on clan warfare sometime in the past. But recently, this opinion of mine has been called in question. The more I read about biblical history and archaeology, I find that each and every chapter of the OT has been called in question. From Genesis to Kings to the Temple of Solomon, there isn’t much proof of what the Bible talks about. No mention of the Jews in Egyptian history, apart from some obscure reference in one text, no sign of the massive migration of such a large population across Arabia, no sign of the works of David, nothing. Even some of the major landmarks mentioned in there, Ararat where Noah’s ark landed, Moriah where Moses received the Commandments etc. are not known. A lot is just inferred and a greater lot assumed. I actually thought there might have been someone called Abraham, but even that seems a fantasy. The flood and the garden of Eden I always assumed to be fairy tales, though it was a shock to know that 40% of adult Americans firmly believe in Creation as set out in Genesis. I mean, seriously! The link between Eden and the Banishment and the actual agricultural revolution in the Turkey-Iraq area I’ve already talked about before. I always thought of these stories as allegory and now I find that people actually believe that as actual truth! I thought even fundamentalist Muslims, some of the most Medieval of people in their mindsets would know better. But no, 4 out of every 10 Americans believes the earth is only 10000 years old.
Add to that the fact that the OT was put together in its present form only in the AD era. And it was written down by people who didn’t properly understand the old Aramaic script. Plus the latest extant version is even newer. Add all this together and I wonder if any part of the original has even survived, and what, if anything did the actual OT say?
Looking back, I wonder why I accepted stories like the Ten Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea as at least partly truth. What part could be true? Which of those events might actually have happened? And if such miracles did occur, where is the historical record? I guess I never took things to their logical conclusion, which was that even if Moses did exist and the Jews were freed by him from the clutches of the Egyptians, he must have done it in some other fashion than by invoking miracles such as three day eclipses and fire falling from the sky and killing the first born of Egypt etc. not a very good thing for God to do by the way! Now of course, I wonder if Moses actually lived. I guess Dawkins is right. We are taught from infancy to accept whatever religion teaches us without much questioning. Even for someone like me, brought up in a very liberal family, where I was free to believe or disbelieve pretty much anything I wanted to, I never looked at the Bible critically, even less than I did the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. Of course, the latter are not religious texts like the Bible is, and I’m thankful that there is no such Canon in Hinduism, leaving every Hindu free to believe whatever or whoever he likes.
Dawkins book, “The God Delusion” fights at two levels. He tries to disprove God, and does a commendable job at it. I am an agnostic and have been for ages. Even when I prayed, I found it odd to believe there was someone listening in, but it was a soothing experience and had its run. The other thing Dawkins fights against in organized religion and does a much better job of it. Of course that could be because he had a more sympathetic ear in me in the letter argument. I’ve seen and read about the great injustices and genocides and misery and barbarism and utter inhumanity that organized religion has brought about and even encouraged, and have always been against it. Dawkins has just strengthened my opinions on both counts. I have to talk about what I think of his book soon.