A little clarity, a pointless speculation

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.

Democracy : The wrong medicine

"Only democracy can ensure protection of minorities", right ?

Wrong !

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.

Signs of trouble

When a nationally important issue of terrorism is reduced to nitpicking over semantics of credible vs. clinching

(link via Nitin)

Not a veritable buffet

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.

Siddhartha as subversive

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

A quick one on objectivism

Previous Post

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.

Happy happy happy

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