A little clarity
It is astonishing to observe the inverted coyness of Americans.
While being forthright in general, why are they so hesitant over matter of politics.
Take the issue of abortion, now it boggles my mind why the disputing sides have not chosen descriptive terms which is more relevant to the debate.
Consider supporter of abortion, one would think pro-abortion will be lucid and to the point. But the term is so terse and devoid of any soap box moment so these worthies call themselves
pro-choice, and yet are they really for choice. Liberals who are main constituency of this faction are, as a rule of thumb against the choice to bear arms.
The other side is no better, known as pro-life, they would like people to believe that the issue is only about life, yet these worthies (consisting of social conservatives) have no qualms supporting the capital punishment.
It is this sort of framing which muddles the ground for discourse. One would think if they are so convinced about their cause they would be more forthcoming, instead of acting like sneaking criminals.
A pointless speculation
Does Bobby Jindal as a devout Roman catholic believes that his Hindu parents are condemned to eternal damnation for being idol worshippers. And if that is the case, does he make attempt to rescue his parents from life of sin and evil and bring to the path of christian righteousness, if he indeed makes the attempt do his parents wish that they had never come to America.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A little clarity
"Only democracy can ensure protection of minorities", right ?
It is a misconception of modern civilization, perhaps even greatest, that democracy by itself is a potent prescription for rights of minorities and social harmony. And yet, the truth couldn't have been farther. Because you see, democracy was always meant for protection of majority.
Again it is a sign of emasculated times, when we can not think beyond safety in herds, that we find it inconceivable that majority can be anyone except violator and minority oppressed.
It was a minority all right but a different kind of minority, it was a minority of powerful, a rarefied circle of noble and aristocrat.
It was this clique who had the privileges, it was they who made the decisions of society, who decided the fate of mere plebeians. This power set up led frequently to situations where the masses were short changed and oppressed on whims of higher classes, the outcome was also predicable, rebellion and resulting mayhem by the outraged mobs and the resulting chaos.
To rescue Greek society from the vicious circle of oppression and destruction, and to avoid repeated plunging into abyss, Democracy as a mode of governance was proposed, which transferred power from the upper strata towards lower strata.
However as solution it was not without dangers, as Niccolò Machiavelli puts succinctly in his classical treatise Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Levi's ,
"There exist three modes of governance monarchy or principality, aristocracy and democracy. None of these is stable: monarchy degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy and democracy into anarchy"
(This is similar to Aristotle in Politics,
"The corresponding deviations are: from kingship, tyranny; form aristocracy, oligarchy; from polity, democracy. For tyranny is monarchy for the benefit of the monarch, oligarchy for the benefit of the men of means, democracy for the benefit of the men without means. None of the three aims to be of profit to the common interest. ")
The result was whatever be the mode of governance, Greek states remained in dynamic flux, with peace followed by excesses (of various group), violence and readjustment of forces.
One of the interesting aspects was successful epochs were marked by mixed mode of governance.
The above discussion is relevant to present state of India. When verbal terrorist claimed that India is not a true democracy, she was correct, albeit in a perverse and unintentional way (much like her literary style). In India functional democracy resides along with its degenerate forms
Anarchy* and tyranny of mob. The reason that situation is not much worse is due to the fact that in India there is not one "dominant" identity**. However as centre weakens, the democracy also is threatened by atrophy and irrelevance.
Is there a solution ? Yes !
Next : Is Michael Jackson alien ? Ok, nothing so exciting, just the next part.
* By anarchy I do not propose vacuum. Sometimes there is feudalism, at other times insanity.
** This is not to say there is no "Indian" identity, only that idea of India is much subtle as it should it be in this ancient and diverse land of ours.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Previous post, also read this article by Tunku VaradaRajan (via Quizfan)
The other rather curious assertion about which Dr Sen was rather bold (thankfully) is hazing over identity. He states rather curiously that identity of a person is not a singular entity, indeed it is a multiple facet. So far, things are all right. But in a rather curious leap of logic that what a person identifies is a matter of personal selection. The implication of course is identity is a matter without context and as such arbitrary construct, if this is not bizarre enough he leaps again, this time clutching the thin air, blaming the west for connecting the world wide terrorism with Islam, thus putting the old witticism on its head (if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a frigging duck).
The truth is simple enough, and bland enough. True a person may have multiple identities, but to believe that all identities are interchangeable in any context and further to argue the dominant identity is a matter of arbitrary selection is plain insanity. For in real world the single most important factor (and sometimes the only relevant factor) which determines a person's outlook is environmental forces working on them. And just so that there is no confusion environmental functions do not mean merely oppression and victimization.
So if west is concerned about Islam (or a particular strain of it), it has valid reasons for it.
Historically Muslims were not any more of victim than other people, (in fact if truth be told, more often than not adherents of this faith have persecuted non-believers and many times even believers to point of extinction, latest example being Pakistan).
It is one's prerogative to blame it on Satan, or even states, but as Tom Hanks said, There is a problem Houston. Unless Islam and adherents doesn't banish sword and dogma from realm of faith, this problem will remain, much as an Elephant in the drawing room.
I did not intend to further comment on Dr Sen's overrated polemics, however there were statements, some asserted boldly while some sneaked in, which deserve mention in posts.
One such, sneaked in the true way of progressive/secular clique (and referred in the title) is the oft repeated assertion that Buddhism was a rebellion against Hinduism (or Brahmanism) or even that Gautam's intention from the beginning was subversion of Sanatana Dharma.
The history of relationship between Buddhism and Sanatana Dharma is complicated.
There have been times when adherents of one faith have been hostile to other. And yet Buddhism and Hinduism shares majority of vocabulary and semantics. However it is utter ignorance (or malice) to assume that Buddhism was some sort of egalitarian movement or proletariat rebellion against Brahmans, for this meme reverses the sequence of history.
The reason that Sidhhartha attained state of Buddha was not because he intended to be a rebel, but because he was seeking wisdom and truth, not because he was a proto-marxist but because he sought the meaning and way of life. When he reached that state, it turned out to be at variance with Veda, he did not believe that Brahmins and Vedic sage have grasped the complete truth of the existence, that they had beholden the essence of the being. Also, he did not believe in Caturvarna, a rejection which followed from his basic premises. However Buddhism was never a radical egalitarian movement both in its outlook as well as composition. This is clear to all except to Neo-Buddhist, who are in fact really subverting the message of Buddhism by turning it into a medium of hatred and vitriol against Hinduism.
However he couldn't have considered Sanatana Dharma entirely devoid of merit, for what he taught resonated with Sanatan Dharma, this is the reason Buddhists and Hindus have gained from mutual exchange (which though not always cordial were constructive) over the age.
While propounding the tenets of Buddhism, Gautama was seeking to answer the mystery which has vexed mankind since its dawn. Therefore it is the greatest insult not only to spirit of Buddhism but also to human curiosity when Buddha is reduced to caricature of a noble hero avenging the suffering of masses.
Related Sandeep's post and Jaffna's comments on the post
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Owing to time constraints and hard keyboard this is just a short speculative post.
I am also biased against indiviualism, which shows.
Writings of Ayn Rand exert a tremenous influence on popular discourse. One of USP that is advertised by the adherents of objectivism is that it resolves the dilemma behind ethics and morality without invoking the God, yet is that the case ?
The main premise or assumption behind objectivism is phenomenan of existence as self-evident.
Yet existence is closely related with awareness. Therefore as far as objectivism, faculty of self awarness is given and any inquiry on it as unnecessary. This is in contradiction of reason deduction and hence it completely bypasses the first requirement for philosophy. At this point I am convinced that objectivism lacks the merit.
However as Ayn Rand wrote
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"
Considering reason to be a folly, is it possible that objectivism to be source of civilization.
There are two primary assertions of objectivism.
1. The noblest goal of a man is creation.
2. The advancement of civilization is marked by its commitment to indiviualism.
Problem with thiese assertions is that for Ayn Rand creation had any meaning in context of capitalism, that is material production. And yet it is far from obvious (infact it is in direct contradiction of history), that the pursuit of wealth is the sole underlying motive behind civilization. Similarly it is far from clear that self interest can alone account for transactions in a stable society.
Therefore objectivism as a system firmly belonging to atheism doesn't provide the sufficient answers.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Well this blogger is in Lucknow, city of netaji and behenji. While I take a much deserved break, greetings are in order
First have a prosperous Deepawali. This festival has different meaning for different people. For some it marks the time for harvest, for others it is the start of new financial year. There are others for whom this is license to be a glutton.
Then, wish you a very happy Eid-Ul-Fitr, which again for some marks the end of holy month of Ramadan, time for prayer and fasting, while for others it is an occasion for political networking.
But most important of all, this date marks the first anniversary of this blog.
In this year I have accomplished nothing (as in previous years), but the important point is that I have a blog to write about this nothingness.
After one year of blogging my digestion is better, my complexion has improved and I have no complaints of acne. On the other hand, I am a blogger without a toenail.
Anyway acknowledgements are in order.
First Frog, for his forbearance to stick through what is mostly a tepid affair.
I hope he spawns thousands of tadpoles who find a bigger well, in fact I expect them to find ponds and rives (but never airplanes, because there are ************ snakes in ************* plane)
Then Sandeep for acknowledging this blog. I hope that he is cured of his seriousness (induced by too much reading of verbal terrorist) and start laughing like maniac.
This is also a warning to blogosphere at large, to put me on blogroll. Understand this, as descendant of Chitragupta, I can seriously screw your afterlife.
Afterthought: People who debate to the death, whether bloggers can replace the main stream media miss the point. No bloggers can not replace the media, and yes on average bloggers can not be compared with journalist. But this is because bloggers are people. There is no restriction on blogging and it provides a tool for a common man to express his opinions in public domain.
The opinion expressed can be insightful or it can be trash, but it is up to the reader to decide. Unlike main stream journalism bloggers neither assume themselves to be keeper of other conscious or insult reader by making any presumption about ability of reader
Sunday, October 15, 2006
It is somewhat of a mystery to me the level of self abnegation in the clique which goes under the moniker of progressivism, this tendency, rather urge to loathe is so great that as Nietzsche famously said for christianity, this sect never had any contact with reality.
Considering above in mind, this post shouldn't be shocking or even surprising to those familiar with machination of this parasitic cult, but again the question remains why so much self abuse.
Is it a case of what Nietzsche cautioned against that is not to look into abyss for so long or else abyss will start looking back. I do not this is the case, the devotees of filth and squalor for all their lamentations, have never reflected on the state of poor. To most of them progressivism is intellectual equivalent of juvenile fascination and indulgence for mud slinging.
Neither is this self flagellation the secular equivalent of rituals of self flagellation to atone for sins of past atrocities allegedly committed by one's forefathers. Again it is impossible to be remorseful for all what has occurred in the past, without going insane for the truth is, history of mankind is a saga of sighs and groans, under oppression and cruelties.
At this point there is a temptation to invoke Toohey, sure one will think, if the above do not hold, the only reason these people do what they do, is shear villainy and malice against civilization and that which is brilliant and sharp edged in humanity. It is the face of evil, Tamas which seeks to undo the good, undermine the virtue and attempts to extinguish the fire.
Truth however is much more mundane. These people do what they do, because they do not care to think, because they are conditioned, much like dogs in Pavlovian experiment for a positive feedback through superficiality, a superficial whose purported reason is concern for others, but which can be achieved only by self mortification.
And this is the sad part, civilizations unravel, empires fall. Not because of barbarians, not because of God's wrath, but because those who are responsible have become too soft.
Because they have forgotten that nothing is free, including freedom
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Related post here, here, here and here
While atheism rejects the existence of God, it is not single system of philosophy.
Keeping this in mind, this post is a brief analysis of rationalism one of the important systems of philosophy in atheism.*
Rationalism, This system proposes reason as the basis of knowledge. It is a valid and proper system in its domain, which is limited, to be precise reason works best when it is accompanied with well defined data or concepts. This is generally not an issue when dealing with situations which are measurable ,because data is possible to obtain., however the cases which are merely observable , data is not always possible to be obtained. But there are more serious issues, reason is closely related to causality, and strictly speaking a method to investigate causes.
On itself (i.e. in absence of data and assumptions) it can neither handle the question of first cause, or define the value system.
Here the second point may be contentious, however viewing merely from reason neither the actions of lion or lamb have any value inherent, reason can operate only if man kind is either considered to be unique or some purpose assigned for the value.
In this way it fulfills neither the first nor the second criteria.
In this way, in my view rationalism is not a candidate for the the solution of dilemma.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Some really heavy action !
Who says waiting for pickups is boring, or philosophy is slap stick!
People announce death of God too often nowadays. What worries me is the question, how long will man survive without God?
Dear visitor to this blog,
Please go and tell rediff that you have met me, on the outside chance that if I become a hot shot tomorrow, you can claim that you were ahead of news cycle
See ! I specifically warned against do-gooders. Atanu makes the same point.
To repeat what Atanu already said, child labour is an economic problem (as is poverty), legislation can not solve it.
In fact I would like to go further and argue even social problems can not be solved with legislation. People who clamour for legislation against dowry, or sex-selection tend to assume that state which is going to enforce legislation is something distinct from society. This is erroneous to say the least. Bureaucracy is not isolated from society and the rot in society will find its way in any institution meant for administration, pious intentions notwithstanding.
The problem in fact becomes worse because any such legislation will vest the state and bureaucracy with more power with increasing prospect of corruption.
Here I concede there is a major weakness in my argument, because there are very few problems which are not social in nature. The state can not be done away with, and it is a problem when watchdogs are themselves stealing hens.
A tentative solution is, in addition to restricting the power of state, we must ensure that
1. No part of society is powerful enough to oppress other.
2. No part of society is powerless enough to resist oppression.
This demands multiplicity of strategies from economic prosperity and independence to social movements which unify the victims, giving them voice (and may be in some rare cases even legislation).
To summarise the previous posts on this subject,
1. There is a disconnect between instinct for survival and faculty of self awareness*
2. Humans do not have sufficient data for problem.
3. Hence different system evolve which seek to fill this gap, to do this they propose different framework or models.
And it is these considerations that "let's get the best of all religion" crowd miss by a huge margin, for the particular model or framework (of which all religions are a subset) comes much later, it is preceded by awareness of self and then inquiry of the phenomenon. Any discussion over religion without grasping the underlying causes is a self-defeating exercise. The discussion may satisfy our need for superficial, but will invariably fail to achieve anything substantial.
Discard/reject religion, or for that matter any established hierarchy with pleasure, but do recognize what lies beneath it, human inquisitiveness !
* It is this conflict which makes establishment of a value system of morals and ethics solely based on instincts impossible, in sharp contrast to other social species, which are able to reach some sort of equilibrium under influence of environmental constraints and animal instincts.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Free rider is a very interesting concept in Economics, which at some level connects with market failure. To cut a long story short, free rider is a person who is having a free lunch, this happens due to the nature of economic activity and frequently involved public good or its variants.
This is an area which has deserved much attention from economists who have studied and modelled the problem in detail.However free riders are not limited to economics.
I think free riding is more or less a technical term for cheating and selfishness, examples of which can be found anywhere a group is concerned. This problem is bad in itself, it is made even worse when it disguises itself as high morality with rhetoric and sophistry, it is a bad news when traitors pose as martyrs, and selfishness makes the excuse of idealism
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Continuing from where I left, since the data that mankind posses is not sufficient enough for analysis of problem of existence, the field is left wide open for speculation.
To put it simply, religion, philosophy or metaphysics are various attempt to arrive at an solution of the mystery of dilemma.However even though there is no data, it shouldn't mean that speculation can be arbitrary, for if that were so, it will be as meaningless for solution as evolution is.
I am not an expert in matters of religion, philosophy or logic, so what my suggestion are tentative, keeping this in mind following should be criteria or methodology for the speculation.
One, the system of thought that we evolve should provide a possible answer to dilemma of existence in a manner, which is logically consistent , relies on minimal number of assumptions and is complete. This is the concerned with theoretical soundness.
Second is the way the system relates to real world. Which means whether it can be a basis for continuity and progress of civilization. If it does not or it it leads to decline, stagnation and eventual extinction the system of thought is not desirable even though it may be fulfilling the first condition. Such systems while superficially appealing to sense of right, are in essence some variation of nihilism, any systems of ethics or morality based on such falsehoods liable to failure.
Note 1# This second proposition may seem troublesome to many, to whom religion and philosophy have meaning independent of reality, or who,in the manner of western tradition suppose there exist watertight boundaries between what is temporal and what is spiritual.
I do not think such dichotomy is feasible, at some level everything connects, for the convenience termed as Theory of everything.
I think that this was what Bhagwan Krishna meant when he defined Dharma (yat dharyati iti tat dharma)
Note 2# In the discussion above I have not argued for presence or absence of God. It was merely to reinforce the idea that strict observance of empiricism is not the answer for our dilemma. It is possible that some form of atheism may satisfy the above two conditions. In the same vein, it is not correct to think that all religions are equal, all approach the problem in their own ways, some which meet the criteria, some do not. Another thing that I want to add is although atheism may be able to meet the criteria, it will be theism which is more elegant.
Note 3# It is necessary to note that dilemma of existence doesn't act at individual level. This essentially means that an individual life is not affected by the fact that whether he is theist or atheist (or an ignoramus).
As a very rough measure the extent to which society or civilization is engaged with question of existence should be dependant on level of prosperity (which means excess of produce and availability of leisure time), it is reasonable to assume that society finds itself engaged with these questions.
In this respect this is somewhat akin to sex (in sexual species), which is critical for species but not for an individual.
One might say that empty mind is devil's workshop. Ironically this will also mean religion far from being opium of masses, was interest pursued by relatively well off.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Previous post, also an extension of related post
One of the results of the factors driving humans is incessant quest for meaning behind existence.
The latest idea which attempts to answer this question can be safely classified as scientific reductionism. In brief the explanation behind existence of life is that it is a result of evolution occurring over a span of billions of years. The evolution in turn is understood in terms of natural selection of fitter life forms. Hence the reason behind presence of any characteristic of homo sapiens, including but not limited to the the principle faculties referred to in earlier post, is a simple result of environmental pressure to drive toward bigger brains and dexterity.
Is idea of evolution perfect ? Not being an expert, I can not decide one way or other.
However, the problem that is presented with such a theory is while it does, in great detail, explain the mechanism behind the existence, it doesn't explain the existence. The only view one can form, if he were to take evolution and only that as the starting point is that life has not meaning, and existence is futile.
And once such conclusion is reached, there is no "rational" basis behind morality, ethics or civilization. Thereafter a rapacious murderer is on same footing as a saint.
This is nothing but nihilism in a modern cloak. As far as society goes this is harbinger of destruction.
Therefore if one aspires to find basis behind morality and ethics, it has to be beyond the narrow boundaries of rational dogmas. To put it another way, while rationality can explain phenomenon at experiences belonging to order of daily events, as we go far from it rationalism as a tool is less effective, at the extreme range (that is matters concerning self-existence) it fails completely.
Therefore life has to be understood not inside a petri dish* but outside the laboratory.
I suspect, in fact I am very much afraid that a moder atheist is arrogant of shallow rationalism, he doesn't even bother to examine the limits, and therefore modern atheism (and companion such as liberalism and individualism) as a foundation for society is dead end.
* Earlier invoked here
This is a return to one of my favourite source of amusement and vexation, atheism or to be more precise modern version of it.
It is easier to live with atheists who out rightly dismiss religion as hogwash*,(one of the example being this guy). However what does one make of atheists who prefer to weasel around the concept of religion, by spouting homilies, such as "let's get the best of all religions".
Now, it is not my claim that above is a transgression of some logical or ethical rule, or there is a single religion which represents the absolute truth. My grouse is that worthies who repeat such statements like a slogan do not define what they mean by "best".
This is not trivial nitpicking. Humans have two faculties unique among organisms, one is an acute perception of self, second is unmatched curiosity.
Only by considering these two drives (behind a human psyche), one can understand the relevance of most of the systems which are concerned with exploration of abstract.
* The reason one can live with such gentlemen (and ladies) is two fold,
First either the person who makes such claim has explored the basis behind reason, and come up with reasons convincing enough (for himself) about irrelevance of religion, in which case it is always gratifying to gain new insight.
Second (and more likely), he/she has no idea, but speaking just for the heck of it, in which case it is very entertaining.
To the saying, "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail", let me add this "when your toenail is removed, everyone looks like an insane psychopath". I am dreadfully afraid.
Welcome to Pune, city of hot babes, bad roads and painful back aches!
This time I am not exaggerating, even Kanpur at worst is easily better than Pune.
Since my time of arrival (which was four months ago) some of my vital body parts have emigrated as a protest against constant jarring, meanwhile others have exchanged their places.
This post is written with my small intestine firmly lodged in my upper cranium.
(Actually it was supposed to be a smaller and rounder organ, but for sake of decency it has to be intestine)
Friday, October 06, 2006
I do not think that all jobs are equal, nor worthy of equal admiration or envy.
I value the profession of nuclear or genetic engineering more than that that of programming which to me is more valuable than clerical post.
I will not certainly not want my progeny to wait at tables or worse peddle themselves.
However one thing that is essential, is to understand that everyone who works deserves respect. This sadly is missing in India. It is a matter of concern when someone who earns money honestly with his physical labour is shunned and many times treated with contempt, whereas jobs which are nothing more than paper pushing are coveted, the fact these jobs involve corruption is considered to be a plus factor.
If India has to progress then we must treat labour with respect and dignity.This we can learn from Americans.
In part this was a delayed response to Joe Biden's remark, which while being ignorant and stereotypical was not, in my opinion, derogatory.
Much of human actions are concerned with very primitive instinct, namely fear.
Fear is a critical faculty for survival of organism. This instinct combined with capacity for abstract thinking makes man imagine and sometimes invent danger, other animals are too preoccupied with real dangers to imagine any. I think when somehow this above combination becomes controlled it gives rise to all kinds of phobias and paranoia.
Arising from fear is the strong need for reassurance. Humans have pursued this since time immemorial.
Much of rituals in religion exist because of this. This is not limited to religion, wars are waged, massacres committed because of fear, whether of few well placed individuals or masses. I have come to believe that much of global warming cult is a manifestation of the primal instinct.
There is not much one can do against such primitive force, for which even the most developed civilizations have limited as well as ineffective antidotes.
The most effective countermeasures are, availability of information, and capability and willingness to act on intelligence well before the problem attains dangerous dimensions.
It is in this, that any action against terrorism has to be judged. US was responsible for 9-11, but not by repressing middle east or Muslims, but by failing to decisively nip the growing network of Islamic terrorism in bud during last decade.
Similarly UK should be blamed for 7-11 because it ignored to address the problem of radicalism.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
In previous posts (from distant past) I had speculated that the reason(s) socialism is so successful as a political strategy is that while superficially appearing to be concerned with exalted ideals (of humanism and altruism) in reality it appeals to the sloth and dishonest in us.
The mechanism through which it is achieved is by misrepresenting any progress as a zero sum game.
Essentially this means, in order that one may prosper another must suffer. This of course is used to pit one group against another, Farmer against industrialists, employer against employee and what not.
Each group is encouraged to grab as much as possible, irrespective whether it has done anything to earn that or not. Of course this grabbing exercise is sugar coated as social justice or such misnomers. (The rationale is that tyranny of strong is despicable, on the other hand tyranny of a mob is moral)
The real beneficiary of this set up are those who are in control. The pay off may be either wealth acquisition or as is typical increased dominance (as spokesperson for oppressed), but barring these exceptions the society is the loser.
In India, the effort to grab is not that visible, for the reason that there is less wealth to grab.
Somehow this sounds familiar, isn't it !
Read what Shenoy writes
PS. Is there a need to add anything at all ?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Indian history according to Mr Sen
.......... Asoka , a cool guy................... Akbar, again a dude,......................
Of course I am exaggerating, but not much.
I think the Argumentative Indian is easily one of the most over hyped work.
Mr Sen sets out from the beginning, not to discover or even elucidate about India of bygone era, but to reinterpret to suit progressive frame.
It is with profound grief that I am writing about untimely demise of my most intimate friend.
In his short life he was a great companion to this blogger (who is by nature reserved and a loner), many a evening we spent in each other's company, beholding the ancient mysteries of the existence, amazed at the subtle character of the being.
I bid adieu, with tears in my eyes, nail of my right leg's big toe, painfully aware of the chasm that surrounds the self.
For this post, I hope this will suffice.
The only thing that I have to add is, I am glad Hindus did not listen to Mahatma
I say this not because I support riots, but because I think those who support appeasement are guilty of most serious misjudgement, which is that such acts of grovelling can pacify the fanatic.