Desicritics Author: Sujai

The Case for Telangana

Sujai — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:48:55 EST

The people of Telangana have fought for creation of a new state for themselves for nearly 60 years now. This legitimate fight for creation of a new state with Hyderabad as its capital, within the legal confines of Indian Constitution, has had a voice since the time of Indian Independence.

In 1948, right after Indian Independence, the Indian Army entered the region to liberate the people of Telangana as part of Hyderabad State from the Nizam Rule. The newly formed Hyderabad State was a distinct entity in Indian Union and had its elections in 1953 prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956.

Meanwhile, another region next to Telangana, called Andhra, was keen on fighting for a separate state for its people away from Tamil people. Fearing that most of the newly created jobs and opportunities would be taken up by Tamils since Tamils were more educated and had access to opportunities, and also citing the reasons that Andhras would not be well represented in Tamil dominated Madras Presidency, Andhra people started a protest. Potti Sriramulu of Andhra region went on a hunger strike in Madras for 58 days and died fighting for creation of a separate state out of Madras Presidency called Andhra State with Madras as its capital.

After his death, the Central Government in New Delhi conceded to his first demand, that of creation of Andhra State, but it rejected his other demand. Madras became capital of new Tamil State instead of Andhra State. Contrary to the widely spread misconception, Potti Sriramulu fought for political aspirations of Andhra people of Madras Presidency, not the Telangana people of Hyderabad State.

The Andhra People having lost Madras to Tamils looked for an alternative city for its capital and eyed the glorious city of Hyderabad. Using the slogan that Telugu is the binding factor for both the regions, they renewed their fight to include Telangana into their new dream of Vishalandhra. The People of Telangana had a different opinion - they didn't think it was a wise move. Telangana people were educated in Urdu under Nizam while the Andhra people were educated in Telugu and English under British. The new opportunities clearly gave preference to English and Telugu in the new India. During 1948-1952, though Hyderabad was a different state ruled by civil and administrators, there was heavy influx of Andhra people into Telangana to take up newly opening positions in the new India. Hyderabad city saw the first waves of protests against joining Andhra Pradesh in 1956.

But the prevailing mood in the country was already set for creation of states along linguistic lines. Potti Sri Ramulu's death and Andhra people's demand for creation of a state on linguistic basis led to creation of First State Reorganization Committee (SRC) in India. Though Nehru was averse to this idea, many new states got formed in India on the basis of language. Kerala and Karnataka got formed immediately. Telangana was clubbed with Andhra State to form new Andhra Pradesh though Fazal Ali of First SRC clearly expressed reservations against clubbing together the two regions that were unequal partners. In his recommendations he went on to say that Telangana could stay as separate state if the union of these regions did not work out.

To protect the interest of Telangana, that was recognized by everyone as one of the most backward and illiterate regions, where bonded labor and zamindari system was rampant, many 'Gentleman's Agreement' promises were made by leaders of Andhra to ensure that the new opportunities in Telangana go to Telangana people. Actually, there was already a system in place to take care of such representations - called Mulki - which was practiced by erstwhile Nizam who had three regions under him - Telangana, Kannada and Marathi. These rules allowed certain portions of jobs to be given people of that region only. The agreements between Andhra and Telangana leaders included following Mulki rules in the new state.

Unfortunately for Telangana people, all the clauses of these Gentleman's Agreements were immediately flouted. Illegally, thousands of Andhra people were given top jobs in Telangana region. This resulted in mass migration when these top honchos coming from Andhra started to fill other positions with their kith and kin flouting all the guidelines that were established and agreed upon. In fact, any observer will notice that millions of Andhra people have migrated to Telangana region, while negligible Telangana people have migrated to Andhra region.

The fact that Telangana voted a minority and opposition Communist parties during this time to the State Assembly against the majority and ruling Congress party of Andhra didn't help Telangana cause. With Indira Gandhi in power, the states became puppets and Congress became all-powerful. Dissident causes were suppressed ruthlessly.

When the SR Act of 1956 were clearly violated by Andhras, Telangana people launched an agitation in 1969 demanding a separate state. It was overwhelmingly crushed by Indira Gandhi who had no mood for creating new states. Thousands were arrested and put in jail while 350 people protestors were killed in police shootings. Indira Gandhi did not allow splitting of states during her entire regime.

When their agitation was ruthlessly suppressed, the Telangana people took the electoral route in 1971. They launched a new party called Telangana Praja Samiti (TPS) and voted 11 out of 12 Lok Sabha seats clearly indicating the mood of people to carve a separate state. Indira Gandhi, who was at the peak of her power then, called the leader of TPS Channa Reddy, and made him join his party into Congress and made him the Chief Minister of entire Andhra Pradesh. However, an All-Party Agreement of 1969 was agreed to protect the interests of Telangana as a concession.

Those agreed upon formulas were immediately flouted by Andhra people. Now, the Telangana people took the legal route. Their objections were upheld by Supreme Court which asked Andhras to vacate those positions that were illegally acquired.

That's when Andhra people, who knew that Indira Gandhi was dead against all new states, blackmailed Indira Gandhi by asking for a new state for themselves in 1973. Now, the same Andhra people deride Telangana Movement calling it divisive politics. Indira Gandhi's government, in a clear indication of partisan and discriminatory practices, overturned the Supreme Court ruling, thereby clearly establishing the practice of how a majority Andhra can always snub and suppress minority Telangana in the state Assembly. This continues till today as clearly seen from the recent episode where all Andhra and Rayalaseema MLAs resigned en masse from the Assembly on Telangana issue clearly indicating to all observers that no resolution on Telangana will pass through since they comprise the majority.

Such practices of snubbing all the promises continued. GO 36 of 1969 that promised to position Telangana people in 25,000 that were illegally occupied by Andhra people remains unfulfilled even today. During 1973 and 1985 nearly 60,000 illegal positions were awarded to Andhra people in Telangana region. To rectify this, a new GO 610 was introduced in 1985 with a promise to enforce it within a year, but continues to be unimplemented in spite of repeated demands. Telangana people are left with no option - they have tried the electoral, democratic and legal routes - all of them failed. The current democratic setup does not work for minority when the leaders are clearly aligned along partisan lines.

Nagarjuna Sagar dam lies in Telangana region. While the original plan included two canals, one to arid and dry Telangana, and the other to the fertile and inundated Andhra region, only one canal was constructed towards Andhra region, while Telangana continued to remain arid, dry and impoverished. All the recommendations that forced the government to construct the new canal were struck down by the majority and partisan Andhra leaders. The coal mines and power plant of Singareni lie in Telangana region, but the backward districts of Telangana get no power. There are thousands of villages and towns in Telangana where they get two hours of power during entire summer, while people of Andhra experience small inconveniences. Out of 10 government medical colleges in AP, only one exists in non-capital Telangana while 7 of them are based in Andhra-Rayalaseema. The examples are galore. The discrimination is seen in irrigation, in industry, in roads, in canals, in dams, in energy, in education and in employment.

There was consistent and methodical discrimination against people of Telangana for all these years. Newer generation of Andhra and Rayalaseema who had no role in this discrimination find it hard to understand why Telangana people protest for a new state. They have absolutely no idea what has happened in the past and see the present situation in isolation and conclude that Telangana people are brainwashed by their wily and cunning politicians.

Many people discredit Telangana movement by sullying its leaders. They believe that this movement is a product of petty politician's agenda to usurp power. They believe that this cause was invented by politicians to serve their purpose.

They don't realize that the Telangana Movement is a mass movement and a historical movement going back sixty years and is beyond political parties and their agendas. The sentiment is deep and most administrators, bureaucrats, government employees, school teachers, professors, miners, bankers, and intellectuals, scientists support Telangana cause and seek separation. The Telangana cause is not a result of politicians brainwashing its people, but instead a cause of Telangana people being betrayed by politicians again and again. Even now, people of Telangana rally and support only those leaders who have committed to the cause of Telangana. The day these leaders stop supporting this cause, they will abandon them, like they did when they voted out TRS in 2009 because they did not uphold their promise of delivering a new state. This fight for a separate state is a legitimate one and has an expression in Indian politics which is flawed.

Detractors of Telangana movement are worried about status of Hyderabad. No logical observer would conclude that Hyderabad can be separated from Telangana. It is linked to Telangana historically, culturally and geographically. Telangana with Hyderabad as it capital joined Andhra State with Kurnool as its capital to create Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Asking for Hyderabad out of Telangana is like Gujarat asking for Mumbai in 1960 just because Gujaratis have invested a lot into Mumbai. Being cosmopolitan does not warrant a Union Territory status either. Mumbai continues to be the financial capital of India, continues to be cosmopolitan, is home to many migrants and settlers but still belongs to people of that region. In the same way, Hyderabad will continue to belong to people of Telangana and will continue to strive as a cosmopolitan city as a home to many settlers from different parts of the country including those from Andhra and Rayalaseema regions.

Conclusion

The history of Telangana after India's Independence is riddled with false promises and betrayals. Telangana remains marginalized, reduced to minority in their own state, victim of partisan politics, inept democracy and flawed legal system. Telangana remains backward, in education, in agriculture, in industry, in infrastructure, in employment, and in prosperity. Even today, Telangana people are discriminated in their own region. They are seen as inferior, lazy and illiterate. Even the Telangana language is ridiculed and its speakers are butt of many demeaning jokes.

The people of Telangana have a distinct culture, a different history and different temperament in addition to different social and economic status. When one state has two economically and culturally different regions, one being prosperous and the other backward, if corrective measures are not taken to uplift that backward region, there is a great danger that only the prosperous region gets all the attention, funding, new industries, canals, and opportunities, while the people of backward region keep losing out, even in their own region. When such a condition prevails far too long, strong corrective measures are to be taken, and if that does not work, a new state is one of the best solutions.

A separate Telangana is an eventuality. Prolonging this outcome will only increase the animosity of Telangana people towards those who oppose it. Already we have seen many such protests in Telangana. Delaying this eventuality will only cause more pain to the region and will not be good for the future of the two states which share the same language. The people of Andhra and Rayalaseema should welcome this aspiration of Telangana people, respect it and make way for a new Telangana.

Homosexuality is Not a Crime Anymore

Sujai — Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:05:35 EDT

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has pronounced that homosexuality is not a crime. This is a historic verdict that sets the course towards modernizing our country living up to the promise India made to its citizens when it became independent. It is a long journey for India to unshackle itself from the hold and sway of bigotry and prejudice dominated by ignorance, which is the weakness on which religion thrives, to say that it is ready to overturn the opinion of majority to protect a minority. I never thought that India would address the issue of homosexuality in my lifetime. And yet, Delhi High Court has set a precedent that clearly upholds the constitutional rights granted to citizens of India whatever their sex or sexual orientation is.

Section 377 of Indian Penal Code created nearly 150 years ago was borrowed from the moral ethos of Victorian times where homosexuality was considered a crime and was a punishable offense. The ethos was based in orthodoxy of religion compounded by celebration of ignorance. Origins of that law come from long-standing bigotry perpetuated by religion against people who are considered deviants, either in practice or in thought. The modern science and research has thrown light on the subject and has found homosexuality natural, not an aberration, and yet, most religious people continue to consciously remain ignorant and repeat the clichés that are downright wrong and sometimes dangerous.

While the West in general and the liberals and rationalists of the East in particular detest the ideologies, ways and methods of Taliban, many religious and nationalist people of the East love Taliban. It is nothing but an exaggerated icon of their ideals. Taliban loves to ban books, so do the religious and patriotic people of the East when and where necessary. Taliban loves to cover up the women from head to toe all in the name of protecting the women, so do Indian colleges who mandate that women should not wear jeans and t-shirts all in the name of the protecting them from molesters and eve-teasers. Taliban loves to blur the lines between morality and criminality, and so do Indian religious people who believe that anything they don't like is criminal.

When it comes to homosexuality, all religions of India stand united. The same VHP which is vehemently antagonistic to Indian Muslims now sings the same song. Christian groups who get targeted by Hindu groups are now joining hands to protest in unison. Muslim groups, Christian groups and Hindu groups of India have all agreed to stand united on this issue to condemn the HC ruling.

Baba Ramdev, who is an icon to many religious Hindus, said:

Do these people consider homosexuality natural?... These (Gays) are sick people and should be sent to hospitals. Then they can marry or stay bachelors like me...

According to the High Court ruling, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder as of 1973 when it was removed from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders. The World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illness in 1992.

Muslim clerics in Delhi said:

India is secular, but most Indians are religious and no religion allows this.

Not many people recognize this but it was secular Nehru who emancipated Hindu woman from the clutches of Hindu tradition which treated her as property of man without rights of her own. When Nehru proposed to pass the Hindu Code Bill there was opposition from Hindu groups who insisted that there should be no provision for divorce since Indian culture does not allow it. They also objected to giving property rights to a woman reasoning that it will upset the normal Indian family. They were sure that Indian family as knew it would cease to exist. They were also not happy that Nehru was forcing Hindus to give up polygamy which according to them was sanctioned by Indian mythology. Yet, Nehru prevailed. Being secular doesn't mean bowing down to a religious sentiment. Being secular means protecting an individual from the religious traditions that seem to discriminate people on their sex or sexual orientation.

Times Now, a news channel, has said that majority in India has favored this verdict. I don't think so. Indian politicians knew their constituencies more than others, and many of them have come out to oppose this ruling. Also, the support for this ruling seems to be confined to a minority and that too in the urban areas. In most villages, towns and even the cities of India, homosexuality is still a taboo. Here are some of the snippets of readers to THE HINDU.

India is a pluralistic country with a rich ethos and culture. Homosexuality is opposed to the nature and culture. A small minority cannot demand that the country recognise its way of life. Any move to decriminalise homosexuality would be an attempt to destroy the family system for the sake of the sexual minorities. [Selvaraj, Chennai]

On one side we celebrate India's pluralistic nature, which inherently means that it accommodates people of many faiths, cultures, races, languages, etc, and yet we go on to deprive a group's identity and way of life demonizing them and criminalizing their private life practices. That shows how much we don't understand pluralism means.

Homosexuals are not the only marginalised group in India. Not that they should be discriminated against but I think a minority group should not get preference over other groups. [Malni Raghavendran, Chennai]

A modern nation is formed on the basis that an individual's rights should be protected from authority of a state or any powerful group, and that the interests of minority group should be protected against onslaught of the majority group. Decriminalizing homosexuality is not tantamount to giving them 'preference over other groups'. How is that deduction possible? Does allowing a person to live the way he wants to live in his privacy translate to preferring his rights over others? There is something grossly wrong with that kind of thinking.

Homosexuality will have a negative impact on society and the traditional family system being followed in India over thousands of years. [Vijay, Bangalore]

For many people, homosexuality is bad because it doesn't make a family, which comprises traditional mom, dad and kids. Since homosexuals do not procreate they are an aberration and an anomaly. Indulging in sex other than to procreate is a sin and the religious groups want it to be criminalized. So how about masturbation? It does not procreate. Should be it a criminal offense too? Do we always have sex onto procreate? Shouldn't we ban condoms first?

But legalising things over which we have no control, including abnormal sexual behaviour, may lead to an increase in the incidents of sexual abuse. [Gopala, Hyderabad]

The repeal of Section 377 will only lead to an increase in homosexuality. Children who work for daily bread -- not a negligible number despite the ban on child labour -- can be subjected to harassment because of the abuse of the freedom gained, in the absence of a law restricting it. It is better to think twice before setting the genie free. [K.C. Joseph, Thiruvananthapuram]

Sexual abuse and child abuse are already taken care of by other set of laws which are not repealed and still in existence. There is no correlation between abnormal sexual behavior and sexual abuse. Are we saying that 'abnormal' sexual behavior, such as homosexuality, leads to an increase in incidents of sexual abuse, while 'normal' sexual behavior, such as heterosexuality, doesn't?

Is the sexual abuse of a boy by another man somehow more harmful to society than sexual abuse of a girl by a man? But heterosexuality is legal! So how come we are not banning heterosexuality?

The freedom given to individuals is accompanied by responsibility and accountability. Freedom sans responsibility is dangerous. The repeal of Section 377, in the name of respecting the freedom of sexual minorities, will create social disharmony resulting in the disappearance of social values. [K.T. Krishnaswami,Singaperumal Koil]

The court observes:

"Moral indignation, however strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individuals' fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. Constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view".

India took 150 years to reverse a law that criminalized an activity which is now considered natural though different from the majority point of view. India has come out of its traditional past and colonials shadows to come to terms with creating a modern nation where every individual, however deviant or different, is given the same rights, thereby allowing us to express ourselves in speech, in practice of faith and even in sexual orientation.

We have a long way to go as a nation to educate our masses, our elite and our leaders in understanding basic principles of our Constitution and its interpretations to sway them away from the prevalent opinions that originate in ignorance and prejudice.

Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it.
B.R. Ambedkar.

Sri Lankan Tamils

Sujai — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:01:28 EDT

I strongly support Sri Lankan Tamils’ desire and aspiration to establish a separate Tamil state on that island. I believe that they have a right to ask for a political solution to address their political problems. I believe that Tamils constitute a distinct group with a different language and religion and also different historical roots compared to the majority which happens to be Sinhalese Buddhist speaking people.

India has a dubious record of participation in the ongoing political and military crisis in Sri Lanka. In reality, India has lost its credibility vis-à-vis Tamil issue in Sri Lanka. India doesn’t know where it stands because it has started to look at the world and issues through the prism of what’s going on in its backyard. Since India discourages all separatism within its borders without reason or debate, it would like to extend the same logic to every other issue on the planet.

India has changed its stance on Palestine issue because India started to identity itself closer to the nation (called Israel) that suppresses every voice and action that demands a new state (called Palestine). India has changed its stance on Sri Lankan Tamil Issue too. That’s because India has become obsessed with Kashmir. Its obsession is not very different from the obsession of Pakistan with Kashmir. However, these two enemies are only different in their extent of that obsession.

Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir runs much deeper than that of India’s. They do not apply reason or logic to any issue because they tend to look at the world only through that obsession. That obsession has made Pakistan resort to all kinds of tricks and carry out all kinds of shams, resulting in Talibanization of Afghanistan which is now about to engulf entire Pakistan. Obsession with Kashmir is turning out to be the toxic disease that will eat into Pakistan and consume it completely. The people on this subcontinent, both Indians and Pakistanis, fail to reason and see light only because of their obsession with Kashmir.

When it comes to Tamils of Sri Lanka, Indians are ready to denounce their fight for freedom as a terrorist movement. They are ready to dismiss their aspirations completely. They have gone ahead to support Sri Lankan government which has ruthlessly suppressed this movement using armed forces, blasting its way through Tamil stronghold thereby completely decimating all Tamil resistance. Sri Lankan Sinhalese glee over their success while Tamils have lost everything – their pride, their identity, and their political will to form a distinct entity on that island. Indians celebrate with their Sri Lankan Sinhalese counterparts because they fantasize such incursions into Kashmir, blasting their way to decimate and emasculate Kashmiri aspirations to form a separate nation.

LTTE is a terrorist organization to some while they are freedom fighters to others. Yes, LTTE has conducted innumerable crimes, resorted to killing innocents, used children as human shield, brainwashed kids to become suicide bombers, raped, pillaged, and murdered ordinary people thereby justifiably qualifying as a terrorist organization. I deplore the actions of LTTE. I condemn and reject their methods. It is a terrorist organization, no doubt.

However, what gets lost in the din is the voice of ordinary Tamils in Sri Lanka. What about him? What about his aspirations? What about his idea of freedom? Should he give up now because LTTE is a terrorist organization?

Can we ignore the history of how Tamils were targeted, discriminated, and marginalized in Sri Lanka? Does Sri Lanka have a prior record which suggests they are going welcome Tamils participation in that country? Can a Tamil become President of Sri Lanka the way a Sikh can become Prime Minister of India? In Sri Lanka only a Sinhalese Buddhist can become the President ensuring that a Tamil is never an equal in his own country though he is born there.

Lessons for and from India

Indians don’t know why they don’t have a Rashtra Basha. Some continue to delude themselves into thinking that India has a national language. They want to impose one identity or one religion.

India was born out of a compromise. It was realism that dictated how India would shape itself, not idealism. Every demand for utopia where only one religion, one language, one culture prevailed over all Indians was eventually struck down.

As I argued earlier, the only way India can stay united is by allowing people to maintain their distinct identities. With respect to languages, any imposition of one Indian language over the other will be met with utmost resistance and will lead to break up of this country. This was not ignored by our Indian politicians.

India had a long history of struggle with British spanning nearly ninety years. Indians learnt a lot during that time because they had a working Congress and a working Muslim League. They knew the vagaries of a pluralistic society much before India got its Independence. All those who thought one single identity would unite them all have eventually failed to realize their utopias. Pakistan which got formed on single identity called religion eventually broke up into two nations. Now, it is in tatters. There is a clear message – don’t try to unite a pluralistic country under one identity. Don’t impose one identity while blurring others.

Sri Lanka did not face an ongoing struggle for independence. It had no lessons to learn from. When they got independence, they used the ‘majority’ as a weapon to subdue the minorities. Unlike India, Sri Lanka did not learn that majority is not always right. Even Indians are slowly unlearning their lessons. Nowadays some Indians are conveniently using democracy to promote the will of majority to be imposed onto minorities.

Without any precedents to help them, Sri Lankans did not formulate a system that could safeguard the interests of minorities within their country. Sinhalese Buddhists formed political parties that came to power riding the wave of majority support and passed Sinhala Only Act thereby discriminating Tamils who could either speak Tamil or English. Within fifteen years, Tamils were all kicked out of administrative services to be replaced by Sinhalese. Starting from selecting a flag that was not acceptable to Tamils, then disenfranchising a huge Tamil population because they were of Indian origin, and then kicking out Tamils from capital city, then colonizing Tamil lands with Sinhalese, then suspending Tamil speaking officials from the administration, eventually changing the constitution by repealing an act that guaranteed protection to minorities and promoting Buddhism as state religion, Sri Lanka has ensured Tamils were emasculated, enervated, and completely extirpated from that island. Sri Lankans wanted to impose the might of majority onto minorities believing majority is right.

Some Indians are now using ‘majority’ slogan to wish for Hindi language as national language, wishing for Hinduism as the main ethos of Indian cultural and legal system, all in the name of unifying everyone under one banner. Sri Lanka is a good example of how such imposition of ‘majority’ identity can go really wrong.

Sinhalese rejected all demands for using Tamil as administrative language, not even in those areas where Tamils were in majority. They were bent on imposing their will onto everyone at the cost of everything, though there were many Tamils and Left Parties who suggested that both Sinhalese and Tamil should be given official status throughout the island. Colvin R de Silva, a Leftist who is credited with the famous response to ‘The Sun never sets on the British Empire’ slogan with ‘That’s because God does not trust the British in the dark’ has foreseen the future of this island nation when Sri Lanka passed Sinhala Only Act:

Do we want a single nation or do we want two nations? Do we want a single state or do we want two? Do we want one Ceylon or do we want two? And above all, do we want an independent Ceylon which must necessarily be united and single and single Ceylon, or two bleeding halves of Ceylon which can be gobbled up by every ravaging imperialist monster that may happen to range the Indian Ocean? These are issues that in fact we have been discussing under the form and appearance of language issue.

His foreboding came out to be true. Sri Lanka is ravaged by a civil war which has killed thousands, displaced hundreds of thousands, injured and mutilated many others.

Sinhalese in their blind obsession to wrest control from privileged Tamils who were adept at English, instead of making corrections like ‘reservations’ in India, resorted to completely banning Tamil and English from all institutions of Sri Lanka in order to deprive Tamils of employment and opportunity. Sri Lanka has conducted pogroms to target, maim and kill Tamils, vandalizing and destroying their properties, eliciting mass migrations. They were bent on completely decimating Tamils from that island.

The discrimination against Tamils started right from 1948 when they got independence. Sinhalese went around in gangs to target and kill Tamils, kicking them out of their homes, all with support from the government. Like in Gujarat of 2002, the administration of Sri Lanka decided not to intervene when the riots broke up and took its sweet time to stop them. When Tamils got concentrated in camps around the capital city they were eventually shipped to Jaffna. And in 1980s, Sri Lanka carried out programs similar to Israel where Sinhalese were given land and facilities to settle down in Tamil dominated regions.

Like in India where some Hindus target Muslims calling them traitors that have allegiance to an enemy nation, Sinhalese targeted Tamils for being closer to India. One of the Members of the Parliament said:

If there is discrimination in this land which is not their (Tamil) homeland, then why try to stay here. Why not go back home (India) where there would be no discrimination. There are your kovils and Gods. There you have your culture, education, universities etc. There you are masters of your own fate.

What came as a freedom movement was a reaction to what Sinhalese did to Tamils. LTTE is a sad outcome of such reaction, equally bloody, equally suicidal.

This large scale civil war of the present day could have been averted had the Sinhalese majority party been rational enough to conclude that they could have two languages instead of one, if they had concluded that they could correct the under-representation of Sinhalese through affirmative action instead of barring Tamils from official positions, if they had concluded that their island nation can accommodate two cultures instead of one by pushing the other culture into wretched submission.

Tamils are marginalized as entire community from the mainstream of Sri Lankan society, vilified as traitors, only to be targeted in future for further discrimination and ostracism. Tamils in Sri Lanka has lost their pride, their voice, their self-respect and now have to live in ignominy.

Now that LTTE is defeated, its leader killed, its forces decimated, Sri Lanka has an immense responsibility. Hopefully, it has learnt its lessons. It should create an environment where Tamils regain their identity, their pride, and their culture. It should allow Tamil as an official language and ensure they are not discriminated against. They should create a federal structure whereby Tamils have their own state. They should set good examples by selecting and electing leaders to the top echelons of the government. Going forward, India should strive to work with Sri Lankan government to create a political platform for Tamils living in Sri Lanka.

Regional Parties and Coalition Politics

Sujai — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:44:55 EDT

There are too many regional parties in the fray for the current Lok Sabha elections in India. For some Indians, that is a not a good thing. Even the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thinks it is not a good thing. Some parties like Congress and BJP call themselves 'national' parties. They like to believe they stand for nationalism.

For many Indians, nationalism comes as a virtue while regionalism comes as a nuisance. To them nationalism represents unity, oneness, single identity, grand goals and unselfish interests, where the whole country is under one banner while regionalism represents divisiveness, fragmentation, breakup of the nation, dissent, and parochial interests where regions come under many flags and banners. The slogan is 'united we stand, divided we fall'.

Many nationalist Indians look at regionalism with derision. The images of Shiv Sena baiting Tamils in Mumbai or MNS chasing away Biharis out of Maharashtra come to one's mind. The regional parties are known for promoting selfish interest of a region or community while ignoring the common interests of a nation.

Of late, coalition politics has been the norm where one 'national' party joined forces with 'regional' parties to form the government at the center. However, coalition politics is seen as a negative thing because it lacks decisive punch. There is no single party in power making things really complicated, unstable and slow.

Many a times the national party had to bow down to the whimsical and parochial demands of regional parties. They were hijacked and held at gun point constantly. Governments fell before they could complete their full term. Policies could not be implemented and decisions could not be taken- all because of coalition politics that included many ragtag elements with conflicting interests. Many Indians wish it was simpler, like having just 2 or 3 parties. That way we would have a clear winner and then things would get smoother.

Nationalism is a virtue, regionalism a nuisance

This differential treatment was inculcated in us even before India became independent. It was done to unite and create a new nation where none existed. Our country was build from many fragments, many kingdoms, regions, and territories. It was important to promote a common identity to unite India by making nationalism a virtue. For a while, it was a romantic notion worth pursuing. Coming out of colonial rule it was necessary to prove to ourselves and to the world that we can stand as a nation, united and strong.

As a corollary regional ideology was suppressed to ensure there was no dissension. After Independence, Nehru created a strong central authority fearing that regional groups may try to secede from India. The trend continued where each of the successive governments at New Delhi tried to make the center stronger while doing everything to make the states weaker.

Nationalism is an ideology

Most of us inherit certain ideas as kids and many of us do not outgrow them. That's why religion catches them young. You convert them as kids, and most often they are the followers for the rest of their life. An ideology like nationalism works similarly. A country catches people young, instills the ideas of a nation - how great it is and so on, asking them their devotion, their allegiance, making them take a pledge or an oath, and you have a convert who will be loyal for the rest of his life.

Our leaders introduced nationalism to create one identity, one theme that runs through all Indians so that they can stay united. Central authority was strengthened while the regional authorities were weakened. They tried to blur the local and regional identities imposing a national identity. They tried to impose a national song and a national language. These Indians fascinated by nations that had single identity - like in Germany or in Japan.

India is like a group of nations

In this jingoism and fervor of nationalism what gets lost is an essential attribute of India - that it is not a single nation, group, language, or religion. It doesn't have a single culture, history, or empire. To understand India, one has to look at present-day Europe which has come together to form European Union. The only way that Union can survive is making sure all participants are represented fairly where no single nation imposes its identity onto others. Though we fail to admit it, India works similarly - like a group of nations. Since we do not recognize this essential attribute we never take measures to protect the interest of each region or group - either in the government or in our political system. Indian cannot equate itself with Germany or Japan.

India has never embraced a single identity - it has rejected all such attempts. The signs were there all along. We just failed to accept them. Tamils rejected imposition of Hindi as national language. States got aligned along languages. Lower castes got reservations in education and employment. It was clear right from the time of Independence that India had to deal with multiple identities.

India failed to accept group identities

This reality did not get translated into working mechanism to address regional and groups' aspirations. When India conceded to these group demands it did so reluctantly, without a comprehensive and proactive strategy. India still tries to solve most of its problems assuming India is a monolithic entity.

India, like most constructed nations, works as a homogeneous entity only in certain special situations, like when it faces a common enemy. Thankfully, India found such enemies (in Pakistan and China) right from the beginning. Later, in 1970s the sanctions following Pokhran-I became the rallying point for a wave of nationalism. 1980s saw Pakistan meddling in Punjab and 1990s saw Pakistan intervening in Kashmir thereby keeping the enemy of the nation alive. Nowadays it constructs such enemies where necessary. The last decade, we went about creating enemies internally, out of those who looked different, thought different or those who practiced a different religion.

While India kept its momentum on constructing a single identity, some regional and other group identities lost out, some of them were neglected, some felt they got unfair share, some were snubbed, some had to take an inferior position. There was no forum or platform where such regional aspirations could be addressed. If a state got unfair share there was no way it could express it because our political and administrative system did not recognize such group identities. Eventually, such groups came together to form regional political parties to represent their vested interests.

India, Indian people, Indian political parties do not openly accept the legitimacy of group politics and group identities. They do not take provisions to cater to the demands of group identities. They don't know how to take care of proper representations. They still carry Utopian dream of creating a meritocracy. And democracy is not a meritocracy. Regional and other group identities will eventually voice their opinion, and join the power struggle to get a fair share by creating a political party.

Its inability of Indian political system, its democratic setup, its government structure to recognize group identities that has led to so many regional parties in India.

Emergence of regional parties

These regional parties have come about because the so-called national parties failed to recognize regional aspirations. Like in Europe, each region in India has its cultural identity that it likes to preserve. They expect their requests to be heard, their demands to be met, and their share to be fair.

DMK and AIADMK represent Tamil's Dravidian sentiment. TDP represented Telugu people's identity, while TRS represents Telangana sentiment. Shiv Sena and MNS represent Marathas. BSP represents Dalits. SP represents lower castes and Muslims. So on.

Future

Indian democracy will mature only when national parties start recognizing the aspirations of groups and regions in India. National parties have to balance nationalism with regionalism and create structures that allow for proper regional and group representation.

Only when these so-called national parties allow for recognizing regional and group identities would we see a reduction in regional parties. That may eventually lead to 2 or 3 parties in India. Till then, national parties have to work closely with regional parties if they have to form government. Regional parties and coalition politics are here to stay.

The Pursuit of Utopias

Sujai — Sun, 3 May 2009 11:51:48 EDT

Many fanatic ideologies give us a grand picture of a perfect state, a utopia, based on a theory, religion or a book. According to them, if one were to implement all the stipulated rules and laws laid out in that book, that religion or that theory, we would achieve a utopian state where everything would be perfect and everyone would be happy living in beautiful harmony.

According to many religious Muslims across the planet, there is a perfect state that was achieved during the time of Prophet (and for a brief time after him), where people were the happiest, because the rules and laws as laid out in the Koran and associated religious books were implemented literally, without any deviations. And therefore, these religious Muslims continuously strive to create a perfect Islamic State, always trying to go back in time, trying to bring back those idyllic times where the world was devoid of modernity and all its associated evils. In that perfect Islamist State, everyone had honey and milk, all women were happy under perfect Koranic laws, and every non-Muslim was protected (as long as they remained subjugated and didn’t assert themselves).

These Muslims came very close to achieving one in the modern times – it’s called Afghanistan, under Taliban. Where women were draped in burqas covering entire body except eyes, where robbers were amputated and adulterers were stoned to death in public hearings. Music and television were banned, and women were barred from all official institutions.

The proponents give lot of credit to Taliban for achieving peace in a land that was strife with war for many years. They believe this could be achieved only through creation of an Islamic State. If ever it didn’t work out or didn’t last long, it was only because some corrupt and jealous elements had ensured that this perfect Islamic State did not survive, or that some people within Taliban did not interpret the religious books properly. Had they interpreted the religious documents properly, had they implemented the rules more strictly, then definitely a utopia would have been achieved.

The fact that thousands were killed, many were deprived of minimum human dignity and rights, and that most women were treated like animals usually gets ignored by these religious Muslims. It is seen as a collateral damage on the path to recreate a perfect state.

Many religious Muslims around the world condone various excesses in the name of religion. The minute religion enters through the door reason is kicked out. Immigrant Muslim women living in the West, instead of fighting the evils and repressive laws meted out to fellow women living in Muslim world, actually support such laws by proudly wearing the burqa.

Many religious Muslims when cornered into explaining irrationality of their faith, or forced into embracing modernity in secular nations, or asked to live by modern laws, actually come out to support all repressive tenets of their interpreted religion, and this is all done to defend their identity and preserve the Muslim way of life. Instead of reforming their own religion to come to terms with changing times, they try to restore the times of Prophet. They rely on resurrection instead of reformation.

Even Indian Muslims gladly embrace the repressive laws in the name of defending their religion against onslaught of (earlier) Western and (now) Hindu religions. During the ill-fated decisions of Shah Bano case, the government of India colluded with oppressive and male-dominated Muslim clergy men to deny an Indian woman her justice promised secular laws. Indian Muslims continue to believe that their identity is protected only through their personal laws interpreted from their religion.

Many Muslims around the world avow that a perfect state can be achieved if all the laws and principles enunciated in their religious books are strictly followed. They crave for such a state and believe that Shariat and other archaic laws will help them build one. Turkey, which tried to remain secular and modern for most part of the last century, is also succumbing now slowly conservative tenets of their Islam.

Pursuit of utopia is not unique to Muslims. Many other ideologies give a promise of such utopia. That perfect state was either far in the past or is far in the fictitious future, so that no living person can vouch for how it really was or check how it really would be. Most of these utopias include some sacred symbols – books, icons, idols, flags, etc, which remain unassailable, unchallenged and unquestioned. They make up grand stories, figures and statistics to show that the world was indeed perfect. They suppress debate and questioning when it comes to these symbols. People are asked to believe in them relying purely on faith – because it is written so, or said so. Complete obedience is must in these matters. People are measured by their adherence or allegiance to these sacred symbols. Atrocities are committed, rights are revoked, and people who are considered deviants, liberals or rationalists, are targeted by vigilantes or state police. In some extreme cases, state intervenes directly or indirectly to incarcerate or kill all the voices that doubt its authority.

There are many such promises of utopias.

Some fanatic Hindus, especially those who fight for a Hindu Rashtra, believe that a perfect state existed during the time of Ram, called Ram Rajya, where the world was perfect and everyone was happy. They strive to make the nation go back in time to those idyllic ancient times, where the state is guided by Hinduism, where bride burning and ostracism of untouchables was a norm, where castes remained true to their profession, where Brahmins carried out learning and teaching, Kshatriyas ruled and protected, Vaishyas did the trade, Shudras did the manual labor while Untouchables carried human shit on their heads. In the perfect state, women wore saris, children respected their elders, and nobody drank alcohol. According to such Hindus, their religion contains all the ideas, rules and principles to lead a harmonious and perfect life, not only for Hindus but for people of all religions. Their Sanatan Dharma accepts all religions within its fold as long as everyone is Hindu or as long as nobody interfered with Hindu way of life. That picture perfect state will bring harmony and an exact balance of nature where everyone is slotted into their positions without conflict. If a conflict arose, the laws of Manu can be used to resolve issues– a lower caste person who insulted a high caste person can be punished by thrusting a red-hot iron nail ten-fingers long into his mouth, that’s all.

Fascism also looked into the past to borrow stories of a perfect state to promise utopia in future. Nazi Germans called their state Third Reich, because there were First Reich and Second Reich in the past, considered great and glorious empires of Germany. Italian Fascists sought to recreate the Great Roman Empire.

Communists looked into the future based on certain books written by Marx and Engels. Out of those books came an autocratic and extremely repressive government suppressing all human rights and killing millions in the process. The followers of those theories believed they had to impose totalitarianism to achieve the grand promise of a utopia where every man was equal in wealth and opportunity. For a while, it appeared as though such a utopia was achieved after incarcerating millions and killing millions. But soon it became clear that it was an unstable equilibrium, a flimsy harmony that can dive to anarchy with small disturbance. When it became clear that it didn’t work out, the proponents of Communism claimed that the original theories were not implemented properly. Had they been implemented properly it would have really achieved utopia.

Most of these claimants to utopia, coming from various ideologies, look at past examples of which we have no memories. We are told that in order create that utopia we have to make immense sacrifices, like giving up basic human rights, our dignity and freedoms. Minority and underprivileged groups should make way for the majority and privileged groups. We will have to follow certain strict code, not question it or debate about it. We will have to take some extreme actions, such as incarcerating and killing the detractors and opponents, targeting and suppressing certain people of a certain identity. Only then can we achieve a perfect state.

If history taught us something, it is that there is no room for perfectness because such a thing is impossible. If ever it appears for a moment for some groups, it comes with such a high price making it even far more imperfect for other groups. All our attempts in our history to create that utopia have resulted in great miseries and sufferings to some or all people. However, the claimants to utopia refuse to concede that world cannot be perfect.

The realists, the rationalists and pragmatists accept that there is no such a thing called utopia. That it can never be achieved. That this world is an imperfect world to start with, and that the struggle of man is to make this imperfect world less imperfect. That it is more important to make this world a livable place for all, giving people their freedoms, their rights, their privileges, regardless of their identity, physical handicap, or any affiliation, than try to make a perfect state.

The modern nation which has come out of after struggling with various forms of governments is definitely not a utopia. Far from it, it does not even give you a promise of utopia. The modern nation does assert that it is the perfect form of government. It does not guarantee panacea to all problems of humanity.

In fact, the modern nation is a compromise. Constitutional democracy aided by parliamentary government based in universal adult franchise, that separates state from every dogma including religion, which allows for identities to have its representation as groups, but at the same time guided by laws that are common to all humans without any regard their identity, allowing for an individual to aspire while achieving social justice, is actually a system of compromise that we have arrived at after eons of experimentation.

The strength of this systems likes in its readiness to admit that it can make mistakes, willing to reform and correct itself, constantly evolving and changing. It is an attempt to create a system that strives to guarantee freedoms and rights to all people, allowing them to practice their faith whatever it is as long as it is personal.

There is no utopia. There is no perfect state. At best there is a compromise state where every individual is now considered equal and the government is formed of people, for the people, and by the people.

The Fate of Pakistan

Sujai — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:37:02 EDT

Pakistan is at a crossroads. The Taliban controls a huge portion of Pakistan and have already introduced Shariat in those regions. They are armed to the teeth and ready to fight. I do not see Pakistan being the same again. There is a chance that this country will be talibanized, broken up, or end up in a civil war.

Option 1

Pakistan will get talibanized if the moderates of Pakistan want to buy peace in the short term. If they don’t want any confrontation and want to put with another tyrannical authority, which they are quite used to in the last sixty years of their existence, the Pakistan middle class will have to swallow their pride and give up their freedoms to buy short term peace. For many Pakistanis the idea of united and single Pakistan is more important than their ephemeral and elusive freedoms. They may walk into an agreement that will impose Shariat law to form a perfect Islamic state. Many young middle class Pakistanis have an idealistic picture of such a state in their heads, especially those who have never lived through such a promise before.

Option 2

Pakistan will be broken up into few countries (at the most two) if the rest of Pakistan outside of Swat Valley and Taliban controlled areas refuse to cooperate with Taliban because they value their freedom more than the idea of a single Pakistan. It could happen if the bulk of middle class Pakistanis define themselves closer to a secular Pakistan without too much emphasis on the interpretation of Shariat and its imposition. They could take the route of Turkey or even the detestable foe and arch enemy India with whom they have a lot in common.

For that Pakistanis have to believe that this could be the only way to salvage the situation that has gone really bad. This also means admitting the mistakes of the past where Pakistan state fostered talibanization within Pakistan and created a monster next door in Afghanistan. The whole sub-continent could learn lessons here. When you try to meddle with a proud culture to take control, wield them and manipulate them, it usually backfires. Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi paid the price with their lives for toying with such hegemonic thoughts when they tried to control Sikhs and Tamils, respectively.

Option 3

If the moderates of Pakistan, supported and aided by Pakistan Army, refuse to accept the rule of Taliban but at the same time try to wrest control away from them to bring Pakistan to its former state – united and free from rule of Taliban, then there will be a civil war. Guns are everywhere. Zealots are everywhere. Pakistan has all the fuel and ammunition to create and sustain a civil war. It just needs a spark. That can come from refusal of rest of Pakistan to concede to Taliban.

Fighting Fundamentalism With Fundamentalism

Sujai — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:18:31 EDT

One of the reasons cited by the proponents of aggressive brand of Hindutva is that their aggression is a reaction to the Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism, forced conversion of Hindus into alien religions, unpatriotic actions by non-Hindus, followed by a big list of issues they have against other religions.

These proponents will tell you again and again that Hinduism is a peaceful religion and that Hindus are peace-loving people. The only reason why they condone certain excesses perpetrated by certain Hindutva brigades against Muslims, Christians or Communists is because they think that a mild antidote to the poison that is vitiated by the latter groups is sometimes necessary though unpleasant.

Pseudo-secularists

Some of us who oppose the growing menace of Hindutva are branded ‘pseudo-secularists’. What they mean is that while we denounce every action of Hindutva groups, we tend to condone and support many fundamentalist actions of Muslim and Christian groups however ridiculous they are.

In reality, secularists like us do not support fundamentalism of Muslim or Christian groups. We do not believe in Sharia Law or its interpretations. We do not believe in Christian prerogative to proselytize everyone to save us all from eternal damnation. We do not believe in protecting the places of worship constructed on public property that cause inconvenience to everyone. We do not believe that school going children should be taught religion, and definitely not with an aim to promote one’s religion while denouncing the others.

And yet, secularists like us seem to support the cause of Muslims and Christians many a times, as clearly indicated by many articles and comments here. Also, we seem to be targeting only Hindutva group consistently and vociferously. Doesn’t that make us pseudo-secularists?

Blindness does not fight Blindness

We do not believe that growth of one religious fundamentalism is an answer to the menace of the other. We do not believe that chanting ‘Ram’ is an antidote to chants of ‘Allah-O-Akbar’. We do not believe bigotry of one kind can counter bigotry of another. Hatred cannot be fought with hatred.

If ever, we believe that reason, debate, rational discussion, where logic prevails over blind belief, transparency, a fair judicial system that guarantees protection to all individuals and safeguards their rights, are the only tools that can be employed to fight fundamentalism either it is coming from Hindus or Muslims. Blindness of one religion cannot be fought by blindness of another religion. Only light is the cure for blindness and that light does not come from any religion, not even the most liberal ones – because at the heart every religion is a blind belief – in the form of ‘because it is so’, ‘because God said so’, or ‘because our ancestors said so’. That light comes in the form of rationality, where blind belief, superstition or orthodoxy has no place.

No support for fundamentalism

It’s not like secularists like us are in love with Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. We do not believe in imposition of Shariat either on Hindus or on Muslims. It is an antiquated system of law, and a complete anathema to the modern society. Instead we would like to embrace the modern system of law that suits us in our current context which relies on principles of fair judgment, equal treatment, the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that a punishment is not to deter future criminals from committing crimes but as a equitable justice appropriate to the severity of his actions.

We also believe in separation of state from the church. We believe in a jury consisting of ordinary humans where evidence is paramount to incriminate someone. We do not believe in hearsay, blasphemy, sin, heresy, dreams, or miracles when it comes to meting out justice.

We do not believe in a system where a child carries the burden of father’s sin or where a certain authority sitting in heavens dictates morals through a chosen interpreter. We do not believe in a system that criminalizes immorality – we leave that out of legality as a matter of taste.

And yet, many of us are called pseudo-secularists. Here’s a snapshot of my stand as a secularist on some of the controversial issues.

I denounced the Supreme Court verdict against Afzal Guru because it sentenced a man to death to satisfy ‘collective conscience’. That is irrational. Each crime and criminal has to be judged by his actions and punishment should be measured against that crime alone. It cannot be retributive to include the factor of satisfying the grievance of the suffering people.

I supported certain Muslims right not to sing Vande Mataram. That’s because I believe no Indian should be forced into a singing a song to prove his patriotism. And moreover I believe patriotism is not a prerequisite to live in a country.

At the same time, I denounced madrassa education where children are taught Koran, and also blamed Muslim parents for indoctrinating a vicious form of religion into their kids. Also, I ridiculed Indian government for paying Haj pilgrimage subsidies to Muslims.

It is true that more of my articles and comments target Hindutva group than the fundamentalist positions of Muslims or Christians. That’s because I believe, right now, the biggest threat to modern India is Hindu fundamentalism. It is the biggest threat not only because Hindus are in majority and hence pose a bigger problem, not only because the number of incidents coming out of Hindutva brigades are more than that of rival religions, not only because I am a Hindu and hence more concerned that my way of life would change if they ever win, but mostly because Hindu fundamentalism is equated with patriotism taking higher moral ground while Islamic fundamentalism is equated with terrorism falling into a contemptible position.

To almost everyone, patriotism is considered good. Most Hindutva brigands take the superior stance of being patriotic. Ram Senas of the South, Bajrang Dals of the east or VHP of the North believe they are more patriotic than those who they vilify and target. Even when apprehended while doing criminal acts, they walk proudly, head high, knowing very well that they are the heroes to a million other patriotic Indians.

However, to almost everyone in India, terrorism is considered bad. Only bad people become terrorists. Members of SIMI and other related outfits fomenting Islamic terrorism are not hailed as heroes but paraded as villains and traitors. There is no heroism in it.

This dichotomy is what bothers secularists like us the most. We fear Hindu fundamentalism because of their association with patriotic symbols puts them in seats of power, making them the political leaders of this country, giving them the legitimacy they need. On the other hand, Muslim groups along with the rest of Muslim population are be demonized to the outer fringes of the mainstream society.

Hindu fundamentalists are poised to affect my life more than any other because they come with this position of strength – riding on top the high horse called patriotism. The day Shariat is on its way to become the law of the land, I would be opposing Muslim fundamentalism more ferociously than Hindu fundamentalism, but I don’t see that happening, though Hindutva brigades would like me to believe that it is the case. Hindutva cause makes a case for its existence by instilling fear amongst ordinary Indian Hindus against many illusory problems- exorbitant population growth of Muslims, their propensity for terrorism, and the explosive problem of conversion.

Hindutva is not an antidote but it is the poison itself. It does not fight Islamic fundamentalism and the conversions alone but it actually reverses the arrow of our civilization promising to take us back to the so-called Vedic times. That path demands that we surrender our rationality, our logic, our science to take up the Hindu elements of ignorance, blind belief and superstition. It would then go ahead and rationalize casteism, untouchability and sati. After mankind has struggled for thousands of years to emancipate woman, the goons in Karnataka want to roll it back – they want women indoors, cooking and covering their faces with purdah.

We have seen Dark Ages when Christianity spread around Europe extirpating every rational thought of Hellenistic Ages from the continent. We have seen Inquisition, persecution of people based on religion, hunting of witches, and heretics burning at stake. For nearly thousand years, there was no investigation into Nature, Earth stood still while heavens moved around us, priests held sway, and whole of humanity was held under servitude, bonded labor, and slavery.

Rise of Hindutva demands that allegiance and that irrationality to prevail once again. We don’t want that. We are NOT enamored by the promises of Hindutva. We reject it completely.

We are told that Hindutva has a certain good side to it – with a different interpretation. We are not interested in taking pains to look at your good interpretations while ignoring bad interpretations because we don’t want any belief system that holds anything sacred. The way we reject Shariat and all its good and bad interpretations, we reject Hindutva along with its good and bad interpretations. We don’t want any systems where only certain selected groups get to interpret just because they happen to be more irrational than others.

We have struggled hard as humans to wrest this civilization away from such religious zealots, autocrats, and monarchies to win our freedoms. We are not going to surrender them, not even for a lofty cause called Hindutva which promises Sanatan Dharma and a pan-Indian empire under Ram Rajya.

I will define Hinduism the way I want. No thanks, we don’t your interpretations. Sorry. And we will fight tooth and nail before we surrender freedoms to you.

Sophistry in Indian Media

Sujai — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:48:23 EDT

Nietzsche said, ‘There are no facts; only interpretations’.

This is so true with the newspaper Times of India (TOI). For over three months they ran extensive Lead India Campaign urging and exhorting urban voters of Bangalore to come out and yet. Few days before elections, they even predicted a dramatic increase in the voter turnout because of their campaign. Voting took place yesterday in Bangalore and the voting turnout was not impressive

Bangalore recorded a ‘feeble 50%’ turnout. According to the Times of India,

The 50% average for the four Bangalore constituencies is lower than the 54% recorded in the last Lok Sabha polls before delimitation.

So, in reality, after the intensive campaigning we saw the turnout decrease by 4% from the last Lok Sabha elections. As again, the rural Bangalore compensated for urban Bangalore. Bangalore Rural posted 60% turnout while Bangalore North and Bangalore Central posted only 45% turnout.

However, that did not stop TOI from making the following claim. Their patted themselves on their back, with the first-page lead-news story, claiming:

Call it the impact of the aggressive ‘go-vote’ campaign by various citizen groups or the sheer need to take charge of their destiny, Bangalore saw a 6% higher voter turnout…

‘What?’ you may think. ‘What sheer nonsense!’ you may say. How could TOI twist the facts around to suit their agenda you may ask! For that you have to read what Nietzsche said once again – no facts, only interpretations, and of late TOI has become very good at it. The next sentence tells you how they use the facts to promote their agenda.

…as compared to 2008 assembly polls.

You see – though the Lok Sabha turnout has actually decreased from 54% to 50%, TOI conveniently compared Lok Sabha turnout with Assembly poll turnout to prove that their campaign achieved success. Most often, the dynamics for Lok Sabha polls and Assembly polls are quite different, and that’s why the pundits keep the comparison separate.

Indian Media, and the Times of India, have mastered the art of sophistry, and their incessant campaigns on every issue are only becoming annoying – but my fear is that it will soon become the biggest propaganda machine, worse than Indian politicians, capable of brainwashing its readers to promote its vested interests and ideology.

Prosperity Without Happiness

Sujai — Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:53:06 EDT

Gurcharan Das, in one of his editorials at TOI said: India is giving prosperity but not happiness.

I cannot put it in a better way. Right now, we are bringing in wealth into our nation, but that is not translating into happiness. Just look at the recent Bangalore Airport issue- HAL which was convenient to many people. It was never developed to handle many passengers. It was always a tough time to get in and get out, with many taxis standing on the road completely blocking the exit and the entry making the whole episode quite painful. They could have easily upgraded it, made it two-tier or three-tier, one for departure, one for arrival. They could have made parking lots of three storied building to accommodate the taxis.

Instead, they came up with an idea to build the airport really far from the city. Actually that was a welcoming thought. Keeping the airport far away from the city makes sense, provided there is excellent connectivity from different parts of the city to the airport. Now, that’s where we completely suck. We have never provided our citizens with basic connectivity- forget excellent connectivity. Now, the travel to the new airport is a bigger nightmare taking many hours. There is no metro, and there are not many alternate roads to that airport. The only big road that is proposed is still under construction and lies along industrial parks further congesting it.

We just don’t know how to make our lives easier and happier.

I have a baby now and I feel like taking her out for a walk but that is not possible. The roads are always clogged, and one always has to watch for the next vehicle that will bump into you. The roads don’t have pavements and they are always dusty. Walking on the road is not a simple straight thing – one always has to dodge many things making the walk a painful exercise.

Yes, everybody has a car, but there are no decent walkways. That’s how we build our nation- bring in prosperity, but no happiness. The list is endless.

We build apartment complexes, but there is no room for parking for visitors. We build ramps but we put a bus stop right at the entrance. We use allow gaps in the dividers, but no separate road to make U-turn. We build 3-road lanes, but no place for a bus to stop. We build software parks, but no big roads to reach them. We build hardware parks, but there is no road. We build theme parks, but no safety precautions. We give out popcorn, but no place to put the trash. We build parks, but build a small access way that causes stampedes. The list is endless.

We give prosperity to our people but no happiness. A little sacrifice, a little precaution, a little consideration, a little forethought, is all we need, and yet that is starkly missing.

I hear three kinds of responses to such observations.

One: I don’t know which part of India you live in. But definitely, it’s not as bad as you project it. Where I live, there are nice promenades, paved footpaths, rolling hills, green grass, and lovely mornings. I think you should know that India is very different and has all kinds of things- good things and bad things. Did you ever try to take a walk in Brooklyn?

Two: Why do you always complain? Do you know why we don’t have excellent pavements? Did you ever try to analyze the situation? It’s because of [corruption], [overpopulation], [greedy politicians], [etc]. I wish you try to solve some of these issues instead of just complaining on your blog.

Three: You just don’t know how to seek happiness, that’s all. I don’t think what you describe are problems at all. It all depends on how you deal with it. I get up at 3 AM, pack nice breakfast, and then take my baby in my Mercedes Benz, with one chauffeur and two body guards, and drive just 20 km away to a nice park, and then take a nice unhindered walk. You should do the same, instead of trying to get those amenities closer to your home. That’s how one should live in India.

And of course, there is this fourth kind who understands what I am talking about.

Albert Einstein on God

Sujai — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:51:45 EDT

For many years, many theists and religious people have used some of the statements from Albert Einstein to demonstrate that he was a religious man, or that he believed in a personal God, or that he was ambivalent about belief in God, or that he was agnostic, and so on.

The religious people fought a long battle, citing many of his remarks, sometimes giving quite childish interpretations and conclusions to prove that Einstein believed in a religious God.

“God does not play dice with the universe”

For example, his famous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe” is wrongly interpreted as confession of his belief in God. One just cannot make such a direct conclusion. Many atheists refer to 'God' in their day-to-day speech. That does NOT necessarily mean they believe in a personal or religious God. The figure of speech using ‘God’ could mean differently in different contexts for different people, including atheists. But to conclude that Einstein was a believer from the above quotation is quite far fetched.

To understand why he said what he said, one has to know the context.

For eons, many cultures believed that God worked the laws of nature. (Biblical God has even created the nature with his hands, not necessarily abiding with laws of nature.) When Newton proposed Universal Theory of Gravitation thus setting the stage for Classical Physics, it was understood that the entire Universe was based on few well-understood laws of Physics making the universe and its workings deterministic.

That means, if you knew the position of a planet at this moment, and know its interactions with the environment, we can predict its position at any time in future. If there is an error in calculation, it’s only because all the factors in the environment that influence its behavior are not clearly stated. So, the problem is with the guy calculating the position of this planet, not with the universal laws of nature.

So, if we are not able to predict future, it’s only because we don’t have the complete knowledge of all the factors affecting that future. But theoretically, if we knew all the factors, we can predict the future absolutely without any error. That was the understanding under Classical Physics.

Then came Quantum Physics!

It told us that nature was NOT deterministic. That it was not possible to predict the future. That unpredictability and probability are inherent part of this Universe. That even if you knew all the factors in the environment absolutely, you would still NOT be able to predict the future. That the outcome of events is probabilistic! That the God played dice with universe!

Even Einstein, the greatest thinker of our time, could not reconcile himself to this reality. When he got to know how Quantum Physics worked, he could not believe it and uttered the now famous quote – ‘God does not play dice with Universe’.

Later on, with more understanding of this new and revolutionary physics, he has accepted Quantum Physics, and became a champion of it. He went onto accept that God does indeed play dice with the universe.

For him and everyone who knows the context, using God was a figure of speech. It does not speak of religion or belief in supernatural being who watches over us.

”Science without religion is lame”

Another famous quote which is often cited to say that Einstein approved of religion is – “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Many people used this quotation to say that religion was equally important to Einstein as much as Science. This philosophical and sociological statement only promotes harmony between the factions, but does not tell much about Einstein’s religious attitudes.

However, many religious people have used this quotation to prove that Einstein believed in God and that he approved of mainstream religion.

Then came the final quote to put an end to all this debate.

“God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness”

In a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.”

And about Bible, he said: “[it is] a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

About Judaism, he said: “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

About Jews, he said: “I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.”

Conclusion

Einstein grew up in an environment where religion was extremely important. Though Einstein confessed that he ‘lost his religion’ at the age of 12, calling religion ‘a lie’, he remained slightly ambivalent when it came to the role of religion in society. His ideas on his personal god were closer to atheists, though he maintained respect for the necessity of religion.

His religion, if one can use that terminology, is captured more by his awe of the universe than the anthropomorphic God of the West or the human interventionist God of the East. To this effect, he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.”

But in no way he was a religious man as people describe their religions, and no way he was a believer in personal god as people define their gods.

At the same time, Einstein did not think he was an atheist. Some people categorize him as a deist - someone who does not believe in a personal god, or a religious god, but who believes that there is something more to this universe which is beyond human comprehension - but there is no room for miracles, prophecies or 'chosen people'.