I give up, Shekhar Gupta has proven that he is biggest Chamcha of MMS & SG (formerly known as AM)
Proof, Soren exits, Govt moves in to push key coal reforms he kept sitting on .
I am afraid, silver lining doesn't even begin to describe this.
It is as if someone is searching for gold in feces
Walmart has managed to enter Indian retail market in a tie up with Bharati.
I count this as a good news, though I am not sure how successful WalMart will be in India beyond upper middle class market in big cities.
Sabnis makes a relevant point, which is unless Walmart changes its strategy drastically, it will not cause much of a upheaval and the real competition is with emerging Indian retail chains.
As expected there have been criticism by assorted communists and socialists, but to me the interesting (and somewhat amusing) aspect is the anecdotal evidence that quite a few Indians of my generation are also not entirely comfortable with the idea.
The ostensible reasons are various, but I think the problem is that of view point or if you prefer Weltanschauung. Indoctrinated since childhood by socialist mantra, egalitarianism through sorcery of Keynesian kind is, in the subconscious at least, starting point for judgement.
Since sorcery is exactly that, a neat solution is to categorize wealth acquisition and generation as something which is indecent to mention in polite society. That as a culture Indians love to display opulence conflicts with our socialist mores, and therein breeds hypocrisy, which is the real roadblock.
In a post, which can only be described as alarming, Ravikiran prescribes periodic destruction as a remedy for human happiness.
Why is this alarming?
It is a folly to assume that aim of human endeavor is happiness. Yet this elementary mistake is the assumption behind almost all schools of thought.
The truth is humanity is expendable; we have no more importance than a rather complicated machine for survival of genes, evolving over millions and millions year under the slow but inexorable pressure of natural selection.
But even this is moot because even genes are nothing besides being interesting pattern of molecules, with a rather remarkable ability to replicate.
It is clear that then strictly speaking life is a mere matter of accident and logically worthless. The necessary corollary to this is that there is no “aim of humanity”; the very phrase in fact is teleological delusion.
Of course when one realizes this, the only logical course left is nihilism.
However at this point logic is confronted by instinct for survival, which is much more primitive and hence much stronger. Survival wins, but not without conceding the ground to logic, the resolution is achieved by inventing an aim.
The question then arises is, what should be the aim.
But first, happiness as an aim is erroneous, because it is attainable; in general it has less to do with wealth, with cannabis more effective in inducing euphoria than money can ever be. Of course once attained there is same conflict between logic.
Then, there is no single answer for this, but a necessary requirement is that it should be unattainable, beyond reach of human enterprise and ingenuity.
Hence the concept of God in earlier times. Now I admit I have no problem with the concept, I am without hesitation or qualification religious.
Problem is that present education places exaggerated importance on logic. This enforcement makes logic a more potent force, and hence mere religion can not overcome it. It is futile to further the case of religion, because an average human, thoroughly spoiled by modern instruction, confounds logic with purpose, which is self evidently absurd, because logic in itself is worthless like life.
However not all is lost. It turns out that there is one weapon in arsenal of survival instinct. Because while people may have abandoned religion, they are, fortunately I may add, still greedy and jealous of their neighbors.
The aim of a human then should be to outhoard your social peers. This is an escalating pursuit, with no end and hence a perfect aim for humanity.
Another externality is that it also powers technological innovation, and is bedrock of capitalism.
Hence, in conclusion, the proper thing to do is to replace God by gizmo.
Now excuse me while I contemplate the profound implications of this post.
Eyes, like dagger, pierce the soul, witness the terror, cold hands gripping the heart.
Blues, foretelling the menace, seduction by serpent, inappropriate but irresistible.
The mouth thin, the smile cruel, visage of devil. Futile resistance to wrath of avenging Angel.
The body, rugged, strong; mocking humanity, smug in beastly form.
The name is Bond, James Bond.
PS Daniel Craig metrosexual! This guy is heretic I tell you.
I have a question,
When people state with complete self assurance, that individual freedom and liberty is a right which is or should be inviolable, what is the basis for self assurance ?
One, that it is a self evident preposition, in a way social equivalent of law of gravity, a natural law. If that is the case where is the data, where are the field studies to support it.
Two, that it is a moral statement. If that is the case, what is the basis for it.
For me why is the morality of individual freedom any more useful than morality of strength and power.
Supplementary question, What is the basis behind any morality, why have it at all ? Lions don't have one, or for that matter deer. Why is it required for humanity ?
Hint, Do not ask rhetorical questions. For example, "Would you like to be oppressed ?" is rhetoric. The fact that I like my freedom is no more an argument in favour of individual liberty than the fact that I abhor working to earn money an argument in favour of communism.
Praise be upon God, for ensuring a constant supply of idiots. Trust me on this, it is only idiocy of others which provides variety in the daily grind of life.
I was afraid that source of idiocy was drying, after the usual progressive and libertarian morons started being boring and their inanity tedious. But then God reaffirms my faith and delivers a top notch dullard. I kid not, it is after a very very long time that I got to read a post as DOA as this,
The author start originally with "lumpen bourgeoisie", now I do know about Lumpen proletariat, but what is this new phrase and what is the context, I can not fathom, unless this is author's idea of mental flossing.
But the fun has just begun, in middle of incoherent diatribe against police, the author asks "What about Afzal" ?, now if she wants to pimp (yes that is the correct word) for a terrorist I admit this is a rather disingenuous device , otherwise it must be free association, if that be the case I must ask, "What's the Frequency, Kenneth"?.
Wait, the author doesn't stop. Instead she keeps digging assiduously, She is outraged that police asks for verification of servants. Well here is the thing, police asks because too many people, living alone at house , especially old ones and females, are getting robbed, mudered and raped*.
I know this may astonish some idiots people, but many times these are insider jobs, which means with connivance of servants. Further at risk of causing even more astonishment, just because some one is poor doesnt mean he is innocent, in fact if I may be politically incorrect there is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. Now one is free to look for root causes, but if one is outraged at the fact that employers are cautious about the servants, then I must say that one should be in a mental asylum.
Also while there is no doubt that there are incidences of mistreatment of servants, if one draws a picture where middle class Indians are sadistic bastards with no aim in life except to inflict pain on their servants, then one should be in a straight jacket.
But the vitriol doesnt stop here, the author is fuming because of what she perceives humiliation of servants because they are not invited to eat along with the employes at restaurant.
Now taking your servant to a restaurant seems little ridiculous to me, but I fail to understand where is humiliation, the servant is getting paid for what he is doing.
One more nonsense is this breast beating over the conditions of servants. Yes the conditions are pretty wretched, their pay is meagre, it is because they are poor, and in jobs which justifies only that much price in the market. Poverty can be removed by increasing opporunities of employment and not by frothing at employers. But apparently author thinks that the salaries be increased to make the condition more dignified, I must this lunacy almost makes idea of minimum wage almost respectable by comparision.
But there is more, our usual crusader cum idiot savant chips in with bogeyman of racism.
Now I fail to understand how servants and employers are different races
What a way to start weekends.
Dear Indian atheists,
You are free not to believe in God, I really do not care.
But for God's sake (or in your case rational chaos) please do not fawn over Douglas Adam's interview.It is a critique of Judae-Christian perspective.
As born in India, and most probably of a Hindu family,I hope you realize that Hinduism is different from Abrahamic religions.I am sure, there must be other articles which are more comprehensive in their argument against existence of God even from other perspective.
Please link to them, unless you are totally idiot and can not make the above distinction, but whatever be the case, stop linking to the damn interview, I am getting pretty sick of it
(A cautionary post against pitfalls of BhaiChara)
Rejoice brothers and sisters, for the season of embarrassing headlines, and gratuitous punditry is just over.
The occasion was of course Chinese Premier Mr Jintao recent visit to India.
Let's start from beginning. One concedes the merit of friendship.One also recognizes Chinese emergence in economy as well as strategic reach and its potential to be a global superpower and possibly the only rival to American influence in not so distant future.Add to this the reality that at present India is in no position to match China in strength, it would be foolhardy to harbour delusions of confronting China directly. Further, it is a sensible policy to engage with China economically, as well as politically and hence it is perfectly understandable if Indian government works to improve trade and bilateral relations.
However what is not understandable is when our experts take a collective leap off the cliff of circumspection and dive into lake absurdity.
What else can explain notion of ChinIndia ? Of course the inherent idiocy of idea has not stopped it from gaining currency with certain clique of intellectuals, one of whom has already written a book on this.
To understand the inherent absurdity first consider the economic idea (link via rohit)
It is not difficult to see the problem with the idea of India as a "knowledge hub", and China as a "manufacturing hub". While the dream of one billion Indian earning frooglepoopillion rupees as service providers in air conditioned offices is a admirable one, it is simply unachievable not least for the paucity of resources and near impossibility of creating education infrastructure required to train every Indian. Instead if India has to accelerate growth, it must concentrate on manufacturing industries. Same applies to China, if it wants to sustain the high rate of growth, it has to move up the value chain from supplier of components to original equipment manufacturers to even further as designers and innovators.
Hence if economic progress is considered, India and China do not complement (that is besides the increased efficiency which free trade brings) each other as much as they are competitors by the virtue of their being most populous nations. [Ref]
But this is not all. To me atleast, there is a more serious flaw, at a deeper level.The flaw is misunderstanding of dynamics of international politics.
Essentially the driver behind follies like ChinIndia is the tendency to reduce the complex relationships between nations to simple formulae of business and trade. One can call it as "end of history" syndrome.
Like Fukuyama, who assumed that adaption of western democratic system was historical inevitability, proponents of ChinIndia tend to dismiss the other aspects of relationships between countries, whereas the simple matter of fact is that all states whatever be the specific nature of regime, tend to increase their influence. What is more this power play is, unlike free trade always a zero sum game. The equilibrium is reached when various factors which influence the decision making process of a state are balanced, economic criteria being one of many factors.
The corollary is if some state, under ideological delusion (example being India) neglects to further its influence, other players will gain at its expense.
In end it is a two way dependency between economic performance and overall strategic influence. While it is true that economic growth increases the influence of state, it is also equally true that the economic growth can be sustained only if the state is stable internally as well as externally.
In the specific case, as far as power balance goes, both China and India being immediate neighbours and aspiring heavyweights, will have conflict of interest more often than not.
This implies that strategic interest of one nation can only be furthered by other's expense and China can attain undisputed leadership of region only by relegating India to second rung.
This is not mere speculation, China is actively engaged in containing India by covertly supplying nuclear and missile technology to "land of pure", either directly or indirectly through North Korea.
Underneath the slogans of peaceful rise, Chinese leaders, aware and proud of their heritage realize this truth, India with its intelligentsia lacking any sense of history and seduced by the latest ideological trend does not, and hence jeopardizes her future.
Mandatory Reading : Will the Iron Fence Save a Tree Hollowed by Termites? by Arun Shourie
Also Read: Nitin, Rohit
Court seeks government view on banning Orkut (via rediff)
I say, instead of going one site by site,why the hell they don't go whole hog and ban the Internet itself.
There is an argument that Internet should be treated as different from other popular form of media.
I like to believe that Internet is as much broadcasting medium as newspaper or television, if anything this is an argument against any kind of censorship.
All this in theory only though. I realise the potential any inflammatory pamphlet possess of provoking riots in any of the old cities.
Which of course means there is much that needs to be done to discourage this tendency of mob justice, not limited to overhauling law enforcement.
Hypothetically if I were Satveer Chaudhary, then to Rae Hart Anderson sermon about him finding Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I would have replied, "so do you".
Link via Sabnis
Talking of "Great Satan", the latest excitement in a rather politically charged season (what with democrats gaining the control of both houses after a long time) is the proposal to reinstate draft by Charles Rangel. The reaction to this proposal are less than overwhelming.
The venerable congressman has stated as a justification that such a move will make government more circumspect against waging wars. Of course his commitment for his own proposal is rather doubtful concerning last time he voted against his own proposal.
However what I find interesting is, the contrast between the justification given by him and the philosophy (of a sort) as expounded in Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, one of his more controversial (where using both Heinlein and controversy in same sentence is sort of redundant) work.
The basic plot line of his book was that in future citizenship is restricted to those who had served in the military. The citizens had more rights than non-citizens including right to vote and contest elections. For that decade the work was sensational, and Heinlein was accused of militarism and even fascism.
However what Heinlein suggested was not a novelty. As far as the history goes, there always has been distinction between those bearing arms and those who did not.
In India as well as Japan, there was a separate class of warriors, in general having more rights than those who had not. However it did not reflected on status of citizenship, rather the distinction was captured as a part of social hierarchy and notion of duty associated with it.
In the same fashion medieval Europe had a code of chivalry for the knights.
City-states belonging to Greek civilization had a different concept altogether, while Greek society also had sort of social hierarchy, the military had altogether more fundamental relation in the Greek culture.
Broadly speaking it was obligation of citizen to defend his city from attacks, he was expected to sacrifice his life if situation demanded so. This notion found resonance in the cultures, with Sparta being an extreme case and even Athens encouraging virtue of militarism, though in moderation. The objective of this was to always at disposal of state sufficient number of well trained and able bodied citizens in case of aggression.
The military was largely voluntary, but sometimes there could be a conscription.
Machiavelli assigned greater value to an army of citizens, than to mercenaries. According to him, the reason Greek states were so resilient were because of the nature of defence forces, he also blamed increasing reliance on mercenaries for decline of city-states of Italy.
Heinlein's idea developed on this theme, however he reversed the Greek concept. In Greece all citizens were obligated to defend the nation, while in Starship Troopers only those who were willing to defend the nation were eligible to be citizen.
This reversal was crucial to Heinlein's belief system. He was against draft, but more than that he strongly believed that rights (of a citizen) can not be divorced from responsibilities, this was extension of his commitment for capitalism (TINSTAAFL). Coupled with his distaste and fury at prevailing pacifism in intellectual circles, in light of threat of communism, prompted him to take such a radical stand.
I have come to believe that the problem with India is that the one's demand for rights is not matched by the sense of duties to the nation and fellow Indians. To instill this sense of duty, to develop character and to forge a identity and solidarity based on common destiny, there is a case for introducing mandatory service in India.
I will prefer this only as last option though, sort of a desperate measure, because of economic cost involved.
(Because I missed the pick up..... again)
Even though people mistake me for a delusional and heartless bastard person of unknown parentage, you know what! I do have a heart (and kidneys and liver and ba... err never mind). I may be a crum but I am a compassionate crum, which makes all the difference.
Now in order to prove that milk of kindness flows in this muscular chest of mine, I have wrecked (only metaphorically) my brains to find solution to what is according to me the greatest challenges, the most shocking iniquities which world face. My conclusions follow
1. I have concluded that one of the problem with society is that it is too repressive.
By demanding adherence to a moral code which places premium on peace, we are collectively repressing the beast within us. This child of the wild, desperate because he has been caged and chained for too long, looks for escape. In the stifling presence of ethics, this virulent struggle manifest in rather pernicious forms.
One is popular fascination with reality TV and soap operas. Another is menace of global terrorism. Yes enlightened readers, make no mistake! It is not religion or boredom, but an isomorphic form of claustrophobia. The release is blood and gore, and not moderation or reform.
2. I am a passionate admirer of ancient Greek and roman civilizations. And if the human life is to be elevated it is these civilizations which must be recreated, in edifice and inside mind.
3. I am also, in addition to being a prolific blogger and self trained ornithologist (chic watcher for not so enlightened ones), passionately involved in conservation of hyena, which I believe have an uncanny resemblance to certain kinds of human being.
4. Last, but not the least, I am deeply sympathetic, in fact can almost feel the pain of worshippers of "induhvidual", for whom society is a necessary evil and nationalism unnecessary one. To whom any merit of patriotism is beyond even a cursory glance. I strongly believe that they must be emancipated from the clutches of society and nation. They want license, they do not want obligation and it is this which must be delivered to them.
Four problems which seem so different. But as intelligent I am, I realized that there a single and elegant solution to the vexing situation.
See, it goes like this. In order to rebuild roman culture, what is required ? Pretty simple, we need to organize gladiatorial combats. These combats will also quench the masses thirst for violence and death. These contests will also provide a release to jihadis, who want nothing more than to kill and main living things, and I do not think that it is such an unreasonable demand (to be frank, there are many persons for whom death will be an improvement).
Now comes the tortured "induhvidualist", I propose that if the tormented soul is feel so oppressed, if he has not need of nation, then society should let him go, in other words society should withdraw its protection. After he has been refunded what society owes to him, let it be declared that rule of man made law (which is a artificial construct) doesn't apply to that poltroon, rather it is the more appropriate law, that of natural selection, of survival of the fittest is what is applicable for him.
Then this fool of first order should be dragged by his ponytail and let into the arena, where the jihadi and the hyena are waiting. I admit it would be a rather short event, considering how the "induhvidualist" happen to abhor arms, but nevertheless interesting and what is more the ratings will be up the roof.
I always wanted to watch a "logician" meet reality.
Yes Sir! Just like it takes two to tango, it takes two to govern the country, government and opposition. It is opposition which has a responsibility for keeping a watch on government, and make sure that power doesn't go to the heads of those wielding it.
Now my question is, what the hell has been happening ? The "secular", "progressive" government led by ex-bureaucrat Manmohan Singh has bend over in order to please the visiting Chinese premier.
This is not the first time when present dispension or its allies has acted in way determinant to the nation, nor I am afraid it will be the last time.
Now I never had any expectations from it in the first place. To me electing this government was slipping back into the ditch our respected secularists have been digging assiduously since the independence.
Also it is a given that progressive media is bound to act as cheerleaders for the present farce, as they have done previously.
But what about BJP ! I have always identified myself with BJP and its ideology of cultural nationalism. Even if it was voted out of power, as elected representative, and for the ideology they professed they had this duty to protect the interest of nation by countering the weak addled and malicious machinations of this government. However even as ministers are running with their individual agendas for political benefits and/or petty vendetta, BJP has displayed abysmal failure to bring this government to book.What instead goes on is petty partisanship, to score political brownie point.
The reason is simple, since it lost power its leaders are too busy settling the scores among themselves, or indulging in one upmanship, to really bother about the challenges this nation faces. The loser in this is of course India.
BJP has lost the plot since it was ousted from power, since then while it has been able to perform electorally, it has not made any attempt to reinvent its ideology or update its program.
It would be ironical, not to mention bitter if BJP were to unravel due to changes brought about by themselves.
Related Post
The most abiding fashion attitude among intellectual types nowadays is "pulp activism".
Our post modernist hero wearing a look of sincerity and a tone dripping pathos and self-righteous indignation which is so admired by the "common man", he ventures forth to slay the ogres, destroy the evil, and bring justice to whom justice has been denied.
As far as drama goes, this is a guaranteed success, playing as it does on eternal themes of justice and retribution. Unfortunately, beyond that this doesn't achieve a lot.
Consider the cases of Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo, what happened to them was heinous, the way justice was denied more so, and one has nothing but admiration for the activism of media.
But the question to ask is ; Is this enough ? Can we go back now, watch our daily dose of soap with our conscience at rest. If the answer is yes, think again.
By any stretch of imagination the justice was not denied for the first time to the victims when lower courts acquitted the accused.
The justice was miscarried when police botched the investigation, when eye witnesses retracted their accounts. It was travesty of justice when these cases dragged for years, It was denied during the life of victims, when police turned a blind eye to Priyadarshini's complaints because the accused was son of Inspector General of Police. It was denied when Manu Sharma fired the fatal bullet, confident all the time that he could not be harmed by the law of land.
This is the honest truth, in the end Mattoo and Lall were also killed by apathy of the system,those decent folks who refused to intervene, those who watched in other words, us, as by the actual killers.
And this is, by no means exception, but the rule; not the malice, but merely its symptom.
Citizen of India live in a society dictated by power of muscle, and influence wielded by thugs of worst kind, yet we continue to ignore the bleak reality.
Part of this is simply lacuna and other part is that beneath the garb of middle class respectability, we are actually petrified and intimidated by the power displayed by people with "connections". We obey law, remain on the right side not because it is respectable, but because out of fear of what the high and the mighty can wreak on us.
Sure media activism will ensure justice to both the victims in these cases, but what about other Lalls and Mattos ? For the simple fact is, it is impossible to rally public opinion on each atrocity that happens, because there are too many cases of brutalities and time is limited. Then, after a period fatigue sets in and we become inured to outrages (it is not callousness, rather it is a defense mechanism of human psyche). Simply put the current quantum of injustice is too overwhelming to deal on case by case basis.
Our energy, our collective effort will be better utilized, if we make an attempt to address the "root causes" (yes, the worn out phrase). To identify the factors which result in such utter disregard and contempt for law, which encourage the abuse of muscle, the conditions which give license to those with influence.
Also, to suggest proposals which will rectify these conditions and maladjustment.
This is not to say that solution will be instant, the present sorry state that we find ourselves in,
is not an act of God, but a result of years of neglect and callousness on our part.
It is possible to have a just society, where people respect each other instead of being afraid, but it will take time and it will take collective effort, and even this is possible only if make an attempt to think.
Afterthought: I hated this post by Arnab, because it was so true.
Have you no conscience dear visitors !
I keep staring at site meter, I notice so many repeat ...... customers.
And yet, alas, none of you bother to write a comment telling me that you are, you know, repeat customers, or how great this blog is, or how your bowel movements have improved after you started reading this blog.
Why so must cruelty, I ask !
Please introduce yourself, for sake of my (non existent) self esteem.
PS: This applies to feed readers too !
A footnote (sort of) of previous post.
The biggest problem with Indian politics is that fed, for 50 years, with diet of socialist non sense, we have become hopelessly spellbound with "cult of losers".
Therefore it should be no surprise that every two penny soap box artist resorts to this terribly tedious enactment of egalitarian pathos. They do this because they are sure, that any claim to status of downtrodden trumps any appeal for reason.
This doesn't stop here, even our foreign policy is derived from a tepid concoction of verbose idealism and cringe inducing meekness.
Most morbid manifestation is in our media, with "serious" journalists going into raptures, every time some foreign celebrity or politician or businessman has something positive to say about India, or breast beating in the opposite case.
This trait, along with the propensity of overriding freedom through brute power of mob is what is wrong with this country.
With humility which is proper for someone who is not a journalist or a pundit, may I suggest that aggressive military gestures at wagah are least of the problems between India and Pakistan.
And if the innocent Indians proclaims that as a proof of duplicity of land of pure, sure there are much more stark examples of that than a mere matter of military ritual.
The moot point is of course, what the hell we are going to do with proofs ! I suppose pickle them for long and bitter winter nights !
Sigh! Why are we so delusionals, why do we want to live in denial. Is this the way we want to be superpowers. Forget superpower, we do not deserve to be fourth rate power if this is the importance we place on security.
It is really really frustrating !
Point is, it is simply impossible to reform society through legislation,but people being control freaks by instinct and lazy by newton's first law, put the cause before effect and happily mess up the precedence with antecedence.
If any improvement in status of women has happened in India post Independence, it is not because of laws against dowry, or against abortion of female foetus. It is because of increasing level of female education on one hand and greater participation in income generation by females.
Similarly even with laws specifically against persecution of Dalits, it is really hard to tell the difference due to these laws. Wherever the improvement has occurred , it is again because of increasing economic and political participation.
It is therefore astonishing, when people continue to stick to failed solution.
It is really simple. To reform society is an arduous task, it requires creating the conditions so that the powerless acquires powers, to bring about infrastructure to change those conditions.
Merely legislating will not eradicate child labour or poverty or domestic abuse.
What however it can do is make one feel good, considering how one is indoctrinated by virtue of superficial activism on one hand and guilt on other.
I would like to assure (unfortunate) readers of this blog, that I have not been sighted boarding local trains of mumbai.
However whenever I happen to travel in those train, a snap will be promptly posted on every serious newspaper.
In light of thinly veiled attempt to pander to Muslims by present "secular" disposition in form of Sachar committee and enabled by progressive stooges in media and intellectuals, this article by Swapan Das Gupta is well timed.
I have repeatedly stressed that today the most vexing issue that Muslims (and as a result India) face is the siege and persecution complex. Fuelled in no small measure by secular types, this all too alarming propensity of Muslim intellectuals to take cover under the label of perennial victims is not only historically inaccurate, but also in present context a most disheartening and dangerous trend, trend which is not without precedent. If anyone cared about history, one will encounter this phenomenon in the run up to partition. It was not Taliban or barelvis who were the most articulate constituency (although they acted as ), but "moderates" like Jinnah and Iqbal.
But of course this doesn't happen, because we prefer comfort of numbness. To us partition remain as an act of God, and not a particular tragic, but perfectly logical and somewhat predictable culmination stretching back to centuries. To say before English came with "divide and rule", there was perfect harmony between the religions is most foolish. For the truth is, except for particular regions, relationship between Hindu and Muslims were intermittently stable at best. Psyche of Muslim elite, shocked by the loss of power to phirangees withdrew itself in a cocoon, notwithstanding effort by Sir Syyed Ahmed Khan to modernize the masses.
It was this anguish, resentment at living as subject, on par with kuffirs which encouraged the isolation that caused the partition.To make the matters worse, the educated, middle class Muslims migrated to land of pure, since then the story has been pretty downhill.
To look for oppression as a cause for impoverishment, when the reality is contrary , while it may fetch votes will just bog down India.
Related posts by Nitin, here and here
Evolution has many interesting aspects, but none of them greater than Survival of fittest, at once astonishingly intuitive and frustratingly recondite, a defining test for organisms.
This marvelous phenomenon has given birth to many amazing spectacles in living world.
One such is camouflage, the capability of being to deceive its opponents, as a mechanism of defense and sometimes also as an aggressive strategy.
I think organisms manifests increasing complexity in the deception. At the simplest level is ability to merge itself in the background, this is also the most popular conception of camouflage.
But I would like to think that there are levels to this.
One of the significant adaption is to "play the dead", this is used to throw the predator off balance and it is successful to a limited extent.
The next level to this deception is witnessed in higher animals. Life under constant violence is difficult, with the winner at as much risk to lose in long term as the loser in short term.
Hence there is a trade-off between short term payoffs and long term consequences.
The resolution results in a wide range of final configuration.
The upshot of this is, it is a common ritual in animals to be spared the bleak future that violence beholds by surrendering to stronger. The weak, the defeated are spared the life, though with a decreased probability of long term survival. It is in this simple mechanism that victim hood has roots.
Going even higher and to consider society in mammals and birds, not only weak is spared, but also they happen to have a place howsoever low in society, entrusted with care of offspring of alpha couple. This holds as long as the hierarchy is maintained . In a subtle way this behaviour of submission to stronger is a survival strategy where probability of survival is directly proportional to utility to group in its survival and propagation.
The most complex is human society. There is a additional factor, for while other animals are totally defined by their instincts, humans posses the ability to reason, to delve into abstract.
It is primarily for this reason that only humans happen to have "culture".
As a rule of thumb evolved cultures are marked by compassion to unfortunate. There is variation on this, I doubt that Greeks and Romans were remarkably compassionate, again as a matter of speculation I believe that their culture was marked by heroism and immortality.
Indian culture had various strains which covered the whole range from high altruism to strict (and some will say dogmatic) adherence to duty. The extreme is of course Christianity with assertion that "meek shall inherit the earth".
The important point to note is that usually compassion in degree is balanced by other religious dictates. This is crucial because for society unbalanced altruism is an invitation for free riding and therefore disaster.
This has been the usual course throughout the history, yet 19th century marked a departure.
In Europe the battle between reason and Christian dogma was won by reason.
Principle of equality and justice were established. Freedom to pursue happiness was proclaimed a right. Having vanquished dogma of Christianity, the 19th century liberals went on to make God of weak.
By degrees, under the constant push from progressivism a role reversal occurred, now it is not a matter of shame to be weak, on the contrary in our emasculated age it is a badge of honour.
Today socialists do not beseech for charity, they demand it as a right.
Then also the cult of victim hood, how people are too eager to label themselves as victims, the wronged, the oppressed. Because not only because it is a sign of weakness which evokes compassion, but also it is a testimony that justice has been denied to them, which is of course an indictment of society and sword of guilt over us. The self-proclaimed victim is moral authority then, the raison-dieter of modern society and the strong, "da man", so to speak is the archetypal villain, he is branded evil due to his strength and it is he,who must be confronted
If progressives has to be stopped, we have to seek destruction of this morbid cult, to vehemently refuse its cynical priests. The civilization suffers from malaise of guilt, to reinvigorate it this guilt needed to be removed.
I had enough of all this claptrap of gender equality. Today, at great risk I denounce and completely dismiss any movement for emancipation of women which arose in 20th century as an exercise in absurdity and evil instincts.
Understand this, uninitiated one. The greatest danger to humanity, the precursor of forthcoming annihilation, the mark of beast so to say, is not Islamic terrorism, or global warming or Karl Rove. It is, hold your breath, women with beards.
These misshapen creatures are violence against the existence. Their presence goes against what God, evolution and razor companies have worked together to create, hairless nymphets.
Sure people will support their right to keep beards. I say this is ridiculous ! To me it is horrible that freedom can be used to subverts the most cherished goal of civilization, a satiny smooth feminine skin.
From now I will work unceasingly to remove this abomination.
If you happen to be a female who doesn't shave facial hairs, I must tell that I abhor you.
If you are a male who likes such females, I can not withstand the sight of you, stand in the corner.
I realize, I am taking a controversial stand, that I will be beset with angry comments, I can be lynched by bored libertarians and what is worse I can lose my readers who fall under "women with beards" and "males in love with women with beards" category. My blog, nay my life is in jeopardy. I am truly scared. This reminds of a comment I made in jest about doing anything for hits, but I believe it was frivolous thing to say, I can never stoop so low to attract men who dig "chicks with beards". The lines are drawn, gentlemen choose your side.
First the admission. I am, with the exception of that natural streak for backstabbing common to humanity, a honest man. Now I have come to a conclusion, that being honest man you can not but loathe journalist as a breed. They are the judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner and priest all rolled into one, a sort of marsupial ethics meets marc antony. They are also unaccountable,when was it that you last watched a journalist ripping the other to shreds. For they are incestous bunch, and it is this inbreeding which drags India.
Now to cut to the chase it is pleasing when a journalist is ripped apart. Watch the fun!
Good thing is hating journalists is not sin, because God is really annoyed with them (as he told me in a conversation)
In case just fun is not enough go here and here
Update: The backstabbing was paraphrase of this Mark Twain quote
When God exiled Adam & Eve, he was not punishing them.
The act of eviction was in fact an act by God to save himself.
For God arose out of nothingness, this void, the end of meaning, beyond causality, preceding the reason is what terrifies him, who is mightiest most.It terrifies because the admittance of nothing will annihilate God as surely as anti-matter does to matter.
To deny this vacuum, to falsify the absolute truth, he sought to cast out the primal truth (of the cipher) as serpent. Even this act, the exile before exile couldn't obliterate the knowledge of abyss from God's memory.
Bitter at failure, the omnipotent sought to bestow a reason, by act of creation, thereby banishing this knowledge from his realm and validating essence of his own existence. Thus Adam & Eve were born, the innocent one.
But one shortcoming remained, these children of his had curiosity. It was thus that God sought to protect the tender and fragile creations of his from knowledge which even he fears most.
But the serpent exacted revenge on almighty, he tempted Eve using her curiosity, thus introducing the first born to futility of existence.
God had failed ! But it was not a matter of failure, the humans had the power now to slay their father. It was thus fear for his own existence and not outrage over violation of arbitrary morality, which compelled the God to banish the couple.
Humans rue the event to this day, but God is remorseful for this too. to an extent that humans can not even fathom. For what could be more sorrowful to "God" than the "Truth".
I love my city, absolutely. What I like most about my city are the buses. You see, the buses are painted with green color, which one has to admit, unless one is a philistine, is a most fetching color.
However I am depressed nowadays, I strongly believe that green buses are a cultural high point of my city. It turns out that some people think otherwise, they happen to believe, that it is red which is the essence of aesthetic taste. Worse they happen to be in majority and now they are going to repaint the buses, in Red!
I do not feel right about this. Since I am a minority, and since I can not have my way, this must be a violation of my "rights". Infact come to think of it, I feel grossly violated.
It is incumbent upon society to redress this grievance, and this can only be done by repainting the buses to green, if “right” of minorities are only granted by “screwing” majority of their “rights”, I think it is only proper, “justice” demands this.
Oh Nitin, what have thou done ! I no longer believe in essential goodness of mankind, or that there is one gorgeous female, who has absolutely no taste and is filthy stinking rich, is waiting for me.
PS. I blame I.S.I
(Background:
This post has two motives. First to prepare a background for next part of this post.
Second I have reasons to believe that this bastard person of unknown parentage was intending to write a post on this subject. Since he made me eat crow, this is my humble attempt to exact revenge*.
Also for what is worth, here are the posts on related subjects [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9])
One of the dominant fashions in intellectual circles (where word intellectual is used very loosely) is to ascribe “self-interest” as ideal and self-sufficient condition to hold the society, the polity and everything in between. In short, GUT of social theories. This is an interesting premise; this is also a flawed one.
At the beginning, let me state that self-interest is one of most basic animal (thereby human) instincts, even the dominating one during major periods of evolutionary history.
This is where proponents of “self-interest” err. It is touted as logical because (I suppose) it is more in accordance with our instincts, however the controlling condition of self-interest is that a person while pursuing course of self-interest will not harm some one else or obstruct his pursuit of (his) self interest.
Where I differ is to refuse to embellish that instinct. For if truth be told, that instinct should be rightly called selfishness that is, tendency to act for self advantage without regards to position of others, indeed most of the times acting to determinant of others.
(From point of view of social studies) selfishness is hardwired with survival of individual*. Under the influence of this instinct, organism will try to adapt a course of action, which to his knowledge will maximize his chances of survival.
The problem with the self-interest then is
Its espousal of something (selfish behaviour) as it is ostensibly based on instinct (which is valid enough).
Describing a controlling condition (not interfering with other’s rights), which at best is a much weaker instinct.
There is ground to contest the assertion. For example, 2 can be contested with the assertion that concept of self interest is not dependant on good will of one towards another; instead the controlling condition can be achieved through effective implementation of law and order. However strictly from self-interest this is self-defeating, for every time a law is sought to be enforced, the biggest incentive for subversion of law is to the enforcer himself (as posed neatly in the old quandary).
From this point of view, a typical traffic policeman in India is the epitome of virtuosity!
Another ground (excuse for going Meta) may be the example of America (as was upheld by Ayn Rand) as example of practical application of self-interest; this however again is modern revisionism. The reason behind America is “American”. Consider everywhere; it is “American dream” or “American way” or “American life”. It is a country powered by another extinct, an innocent fascination, even enthrallment at human capability. America is a curious amalgam of Greek vitality with protestant ethics.
There is still a deeper issue; life operates at multiple and more often than not, conflicting levels. The way to resolve dilemma posed by polity or society (which is a subset of human civilization) is to resolve the conflict. Blind faith in reason, while appealing to pedants and sophists can at best lead to deadlock of society, at worst even unraveling. This is no idle boast.
* The story behind crow is that the he challenged me to post the picture, in response to this post. I could not and rest is, as they say, a story.
Recently Supreme Court disqualified election of P.C. Thomas for appealing on ground of religion.
Eminent libertarian (henceforth to be called E.L.) questioned the decision, arguing voters have freedom to cast their voters on any criteria, including religion.Rohit disagreed.
Now I admit, I find voting on religious lines an entirely avoidable exercise and importantly I find such tactics damaging to society.
However even though I am horrified by the prospect, I can not but agree with E.L.,
Three reasons:
First, ultimately the responsibility of merit of legislature in a democracy lies on the choices of electorate, so is the responsibility of the consequences of that choice. It is upto public to realize, the folly of such propoganda, and not the duty of state to protect it from its own mistakes.
Second, it is arbitrary to hold religion as a sole ground of dismissal. Why, one may ask, is caste not a ground for dismissal considering the havoc casteism has wreaked upon India in present and in past. Or for that matter even gender.
Third, how does one draw the line? It is not for sake of rhetoric, it is simply impossible to decide what is permissible and what is not, in case of something as fuzzy as appealing on grounds of religion. I am hardly a freedom fanatic but considering the circumstances I doubt it is advisable to micro manage the electoral choices.
PS. Rohit has commented that appealing on grounds of religion is equivalent to inciting violence. Unless you are specifically asking for Jihad, I am not sure I understand the reasoning.
PPS. One may argue, on the basis of principles above even criminals should be allowed to contest elections. I have no objection to this on the “above” grounds.
As some one remarked, democracy is the means to ensure that public gets what it wants and it gets it good and hard. I concur with this.
However my grounds to objection over criminals participation in elections are different, by barring them we are punishing the criminals, depriving them from exercising one of the rights of citizen.
This is as it should be; there should be a price for citizenship. We all know how people treat free things
(This post is taken from email Conversation with Atanu, apologies for not asking the permission, but I am in hurry and this stuff seems good to me)
Now I think expression "Elephant in the room" is really absurd.
I mean, it is little difficult, even a bit of skill if I may say so to "not" see an Elephant in the room.
I think this is a most muddled phrase ever invented. Why can't people see the damned thing, considering it is a bit of nuisance to have Elephants in your drawing room (or lobby or bedroom *).
Problem is people see Elephants all right, but they deny its existence, all five tonnes of it.
It is a trouble not with the perception, but at a deeper psychological level.
You see the intellect is in right place but psyche is atrophied and stultified.
The resolution to problem of seen but not heard pachyderms then is not to shout about Elephants, but reach the subconscious. Hence the popularity of mob psychology.
* On the other hand it is really easy to put the Elephant in refrigerator.
(Reason:
1. This is friday night. I am lonely, I am depressed, I am annoyed. It is 3:00 AM for God's sake.
2. One unkind blogger made me eat crowburger yesterday. I have to wreck retribution.
3. I realize that I have freedom of speech, but no responsibility. It is a free lunch
Warning:
Any accidental visitor and Frog, this is not humour,or satire, this is malice, petty and putrid. It is distasteful and offending, which is bad, and lame which is worse. Also this post has unhygienic levels of bad grammar and misspellings.
So if you have any doubts, please do not proceed
)
Since I started reading blogs from last year, there is one aspect which has been constant. It is periodic outbreak of hostility between two bloggers. Content free, and with as much entertainment value as a fight between two retards, which means while this event was amusing initially, now it has begun to grate upon cosmic harmony.
This issue was baffling, it also promised of triteness matched only by 'K' serials. In short, it was something which simply couldn't be refused, and it was thus that this amateur detective ventured forth.
As first approximation, I guessed that this malice was due to usual suspect i.e. frustration arising from lack of fornication. This is a serious issue, endemic in India. In fact I expect UN to declare emergency and dispatch Jenna Jameson.
But this didn't fit,being blogger with means they could have arranged instruments necessary for the gratification (man, woman, canine or dead, it is a free world after all). That they didn't meant I was looking at the wrong place.
On further reasoning, I revised my opinion. May be they were sadomasochists, and they actually loved each other. Then the logical conclusion for them would have been to cohabitate and live happily ever after (which in this would have meant painfully). Their lives and times could have been adapted into a motion picture, which would have been super hit because it would have appealed to audience of both Brokeback mountain and The Passion of the Christ.
Unfortunately I was deceived yet again. They, to my (and all that gave rise to Karan Johan), do not love each other.
Truth is much more complicated, and heart wrenching. Both of them are capable, articulate and intelligent.
One is from a prestigious institute (while I am not, because of merit, which is most unjust, because merit is meaningless as one fine journalist told this humble blogger), the second is great because he says so (and whoever doesn't concur is a Brahman son of bitch who should be given enema).
Problem is their ego is so bloated, so gigantic (or so Aym-Gramdish) that it far exceeds their capabilities. Result of this monstrous ego is that these two people have a strong urge to dominate, to be feted, to be recognized as heroes, problem is this desire is not matched by their capability. Unable to become hero, they do what all failed heroes do, they try to become martyr. But here too their attempt at glory is thwarted, for there is no one to oblige.
Imagine, what horror, what desolation for a person who is bent on self-mortification, but there is no one to stone him. People simply do not crucify nowadays! Instead they write posts making fun of them. This makes them mad, and angry. Because they are mad they hurt each other and bore me. This is getting majorly fucked up, I am pissed off, world is plunging into abyss....
Anyway to relieve them of their suffering, I propose a mob of bloggers meet and lynch both of them, or if lynching is devoid of rapture, crucify. In fact there is another blogger who will be more than willing to drown them in his puke or crush under his poop. But the thing is, this shit has gone for too long, it is intolerable to witness their acts of self pleasure.I can not stand this for another year. So please, noble dwellers of blogdom, fulfill their innermost desires, make this world a better place.
... where angels fear to tread. Even if that is the case, let me satisfy my urge.
Is Shivam desperate after hits, I do not posses the gift of clairvoyance, so let me rescue myself from the question*. What I know however that he has an agenda, nothing wrong with it. Problem is the agenda is rotten to the core. Good news however is that it is so rotten it has an unbearable stench so it is easy to detect and avoid, unless you happen to be a dung eater.
Motivations aside**, was it correct to publish the photos (which angered a lot of people). "But it was his right”! Sure, as is my right to claim that moon is made up of blue cheese***, but when we say correct in the context we mean was it decent thing to do, and so since no one from government is giving mid night knocks, please let us leave the rights out of discussion.
I think strictly from professional point of view, there was nothing wrong about it. Visuals, distasteful or otherwise are integral point of journalism, and to me it is dubious whether it is possible to effectively report such incidents without the medium. Also the argument that visual should not be shown "out of respect" for dead is fallacious, the import of reportage should be taken in context. Indeed when it has happened that media desisted from broadcasting visuals, it was less to do with dead, than out of respect for living.
But the point that I made above is moot, for the reason even if there was something which crossed our ordinary norm of propriety, it would still be justifiable.
It is incorrect to say that a picture is worth thousand words. Words, even language as we understand it, are deception at psychological level. This deception is not intentional, it is a subtle, human instinct. These symbols are sedatives of human mind, distractions from the suffering.
Arnab is a prolific writer, so is Rohit, but they can not even begin to describe the true emotions. "Now, now" I hear, "This is unfair, if you read carefully what the gentlemen wrote, you can not help but feel anger, outrage at what happened".
"But this is where you are wrong"! I interrupt, and this is where both of them have failed, indeed they were bound to fail. The reason the limitation of language needed nothing less than Stephen King.
This is the reason you were wrong if you felt anger. Outrage, disgust anything on secondary level of psyche is wrong. The only emotion which would be appropriate, feeling which would even begin to describe the truth is fear. Fear for self, your family, your friends, anyone you love. This could be their fate too. Brutally raped, killed like wild animal by animals, animals who robbed them of their dignity in their life and their humanity in their death.
Hopes, expectations, love, years of tender care, all extinguished on a single afternoon, which otherwise for what happened was no more distinguished than any other afternoon.
Yes, fear in its most naked form, stripped of any pretensions of social falsehood. The fear of primitive man, existing in innermost recesses of mind, under the locks of religion, theology, art, even reason, finally appearing before the eyes of a civilized man. Behold the spectacle of abyss, the chasm, nothingness of existence, which when man first became familiar with, traumatized him for eternity, and to forget whose presence he created the fiction of Gods and logic.
This is also a meeting, accidental but by no means pleasant, of man's oldest friend, the beast within.
This is the deadlights of civilization. You see, Pennywise lives.
And closer than you thought.
Afterthought: What about instruction against abyss, it was against staring not looking.
* To paraphrase Scott Adams, the most attractive aspect of political blogging is to watch two grown ups engaged in a juvenile fight over half-baked and asinine opinions. Ignoramus in earnest battle with insufferable.
** There was a bunch who argued against employing ad hominem attacks. It is fortunate; that consistency is not one of the virtues of humanity, for life would be oppressed with the weight of mere logic.It is inconsistency which elevate existence from daily grind of tedium, that and malice.
*** There is a bumper sticker here, how about "First amendment: It is our God given right to be moron and we intend to use it”
