Deconstructing deconstructing

Deconstructing Modi (Via rediff).

Mind boggles at such stupidity. The article is so pathetic that the writes makes no pretense of embellishing this tripe with political buzzwords so as to obscure its purpose. The purpose is clear, to do a particularly absurd Marc Antony on Narendra Modi. Unfortunately it is not even amusing.

"To Modi's critics -- and there are lots and lots -- Israel's endorsement of Modi cannot come as a surprise. Israel is a military industrial state, pogroms, anti-Muslim;[What is she smoking - ed] Modi is… (geddit? geddit?!). But for those of us who are uncomfortable with labels like pseudo-secular, communal, secularist, and so on, it is galling to admit that Modi represents a challenge. He needs to be deconstructed to be understood fully in context."

I do not object to that. Media and journalists are free to criticize and flog Narendra Modi, what infuriates me is that these guardians of public conscience do not have honesty to admit their convictions, instead of that they take shelter behind smokescreen of truth and higher calling.

Indian public more than anything should be wary of these pimps foot soldiers of journalism.

State & Society - I (Different Filters)

Previous post

Related posts here,here,here, and here

Immediate reasons for the post ,this post by Nitin (Also read this post by confused)

In most of the discussions on social institutions (to be specific on the restrictions on right), I have noticed scope of social intervention gets little mention.

In my view this is a serious error and one which might arise from a misunderstanding of nature of state. To be specific the usual analysis have two variable (or opposing influences), one the individual and the other state. The inherent assumption is that state is a true representative of social ethos in a democratic republic and therefore by considering state, effects of society are taken into account of. However a distinction must be made between state and society.

Since the state has monopoly on use of power by virtue of enacted laws, its extent of power should be limited, so as to minimize the infraction to individual members. Broadly this should mean that laws should be enacted to punish only the most serious offences.This means that at best as a representative of society, scope of state is very limited.

However most of the traits that are essential for growth and peace of society can not be ensured through enforcement, as this will cause a serious infringement of rights of individual, what is more serious concentration of power in hands of few is an invitation to tyranny. For example, while state can punish for destruction of property and breach of contract, it can not (and should not) ensure politeness or day to day honesty. These and other traits may seem trivial at a cursory glance; however a functional society is dependant on these traits.

And it is here that social intervention comes into the picture. Peer pressure ensures that individual has considerable disincentive for breaching accepted social protocols. By exerting its influence society can ensure compliance.

There is a caveat though, the social pressure promotes behavior in accordance with established ethos and discourages acting against it. This doesn’t mean that social ethos is always right (ofcourse the meaning of right is debatable).

To use an analogy from communications engineering, state or society is just filter to separate noise from information, where noise is content free rhetoric and information is insightful commentary. State filters out most of the noise, but in doing so there is a significant loss of information.Society on the other hand doesn’t filter all the noise, but on plus side retains most of the information.

Middle Versus Common

This relates to a recent discussion on a particular site (not linked intentionally)

A very basic mistake people make in discussions is conflating “middle class” with “common” people. This is (for most part) incorrect assumption esp. in context of India.

By googling (needs further citation), I came with following data for “per capita income” and its distribution in India, the data presents an interesting picture,

Per Capita Income of India in 2004 was Rs 23,000. However top 20 % of Indian population was earning Rs 48,000. If we narrow the range further top 10% of Indian population was earning Rs 63,000. This is in contrast to conventional wisdom, as the data clearly implies the “middle class” , assuming that it consists of urban professionals employed predominantly in service sector* and the range of income for that category (assuming it to be more than Rs 1,00,000), actually occupy less than top 10% in terms of income.

The reason there is incomprehension about “middle class” and “common people” is twofold,

First is the simple one, “middle” in “middle class” is understood in context of income; however “middle class” is a historical term. [Wiki]. This was used for the new class of professionals such as lawyers, doctors, bankers which emerged at the end of feudal age in Europe, as this class gathered strength it caused a drastic shift in power balance which resulted in end of reign of monarchy and church, at the same time it was a precursor to industrial revolution and radical shift in social, political and philosophical theories.

However, in my view there is another reason which is much more subtle than simple confusion over context.Being common implies being part of majority. Therefore by aligning with majority there are greater chances of further the agenda specific to the particular class.Another aspect is that by being part of the common people, the middle class can become a part of the oppressed, victimized masses and hence a cause celebre, this is just one of the regrettable consequences of the applying egalitarianism without thought.

Post- Enlightenment Delusions

Musharraf's wish: Treat Pakistan at par with India ,

Yeah, we are right on it!

However assuming that the Indo-American nuclear deal goes throught (a possibility if latest media reports are to be believed) then one can assume that China will strike a bargain with Pakistan on the similar lines. This will just make official what has been so far covert carried out by China in order to encircle India. One of the possible scenarios is unravelling of non-proliferation regimes. This is a serious concern, because without doubt China (and also Pakistan) will spread the "love". This consideration is already generating much opposition to the Indial deal, and the fear is not ill-founded.

Category : International, India, Foreign_Affairs, Politics

Losing face (But saving the rest)

I support Indian government's decision to promote Shashi Tharoor as a candidate for UN secretary general(Via Nitin). This is how GoI should act.GoI should pro-actively push through his candidature. Our honourable ministers and babus should leave no stone unturned in working for the cause and Indian state should push all might it has in support of Mr Tharoor.

Indian media can also help by covering this in its usual objective manner. Our journalists can analyze this till it has been discussed threadbare and there is no aspect which remains from being dissected. GoI and Indian media by acting in tandem can generate the right amount of hoopla and induce mass hysteria thus raising expectations of general masses.

Next I hope (infact wish) that Shashi Tharoor is defeated, preferably by Pakistani candidate.
If the Gen Secy is Pakistani (or supported by land of "enlightened moderation"), he should raise issue(s) such as Kashmir/Atrocities of Indian Army/Narendra Modi on every available opportunity. He should also try to get a resolution passed against India (with the help of usual bunch of India baiters) for any real or imagined infraction by Indian state.

In short, I want India, her government and her citizens to be humiliated, thoroughly and unambigously, in short rubbing of face in the manure. I want an act so clear in its import that none of Manmohan lovers Indian media diversions or spins could distract from the fact.

Because unless shaming of such magnitude occurs there is no way in heaven that Indians will wake up from their delusions and start taking international affairs seriously.

Japanese have a phrase called "loss of face", it refers to public indignity and is considered worst kind of injury to a person which must be avenged. This is a very superficial concept ofcourse,
sadly most of the times civilization is obsessed with public image.

India is a worst case of this malaise, I sincerily hope that the drubbing will wake up Indians to

1) Pakistanis are "not" our brothers.
2) Distinguish between accomplishment and media manufactured hype.
3) Realise the irrelvance and futility of symbolic gestures like pat by US or victory in UN.


Now, seriously speaking I can just concur with Nitin. This (jockeying for UN post) is devoid of any intelligence. The benefits from successful outcome are hardly substantial. Even if assuming that Mr. Tharoor has the kajuns enough for hardball politics (doubtful if this comment by Sandeep is to be believed), there is not much a Secy General can do to change the opinion in favour of one country. Recent experience shows that UN is not much effective against determined powers and international craft.

However the investment by India is bound to be significant, even if India secures support from US, getting support from other members will be nothing sort of herculean (esp. considering ASEAN is also gunning for the post). When I talk about investment it is not in terms of pegs of scotch or even dollars, but diplomatic concessions (or quid pro quos) to different groups. Also the fact if stakes are raised (which most probably will be), India may have to concede more "pound of flesh" to save its face.


PS. Sandeep writes here.


Category : India, Foreign_Affairs, International, Politics
 

State & Society (Prelude )

This was supposed to be written earlier. Immediate reason is this post (by Nitin), also read this post (by Confused)

Assuming that you are a staunch supporter of right of individual freedom and think that it should be an inalienable right. Now consider following cases. One condition Don't cite Indian penal code


Case 1. A girl is standing at a bus stand, a man physically assaults her.

Verdict: The man is culprit.

Reason: He has violated the girl's freedom.

Case 2. Same girl is standing at the bus stand, the same biy comes. Instead of physically assualting, this time he passes vulgar and crass remarks at the girl.

Verdict: The man is culprit.

Reason: He has indulged in slandering and defamation.

Case 3. Same scenario. However, this time boy passes lewd and suggestive remarks but they are not personal in nature.

Verdict..... ????*

Reason .......??

Case 4. Girl standing at the bus stand, boy looking at her from his room on the seconds.
Fantasizes about ravishing her.

Verdict.... 50% reservation for girls in IIT)

Reason.... Because nerds with dysfunctional social skills also deserve a chance


* Personally I support kicking the boy's posterior, however I am not a supporter of inalienable right, for anything (I am not particularly brave either), also I do not consider sex as a commodity or some "stuff."

(अ)धर्मयुद्ध

नास्तिकों को सूचित करना चाहूँगा की आपकी लाख आपत्ती एव क्रोध के बावजूद धर्म और धार्मिक कुशल मंगल से हैं एवं भगवान की कृपा से आगे भी ऐसे ही रहेंगे अतः रक्तचाप न बढ़ाएँ. धन्यवाद !

(संदर्भ)