Desicritics Author: Sujai

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'.

On Our Independence Movement

Sujai — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:23:15 EDT

This is one version of how I want to tell this story. I concede that there are many versions. But I find this the most interesting. [Remember, There are no facts; only interpretations – Nietzsche]

First War of Independence?

We usually term 1857 revolt as First War of Independence. In the beginning it was called Sepoy Mutiny- that’s how British termed it. However, Indians wanted to show it in a different light and called it War of Independence. Was it really a war of Independence?

Not really. It was not even close to one actually. The way it started has nothing to do with India or Indian nationalism or patriotism. It was more to do religious sentiments and inferior treatment of soldiers by their masters. A Muslim not able to chew on a pig’s fat because of what was said in Koran and a caste Hindu not able to chew on cow’s fat due to fear of loss of his caste. Did these soldiers really think in terms of Indians vs. British? Not really.

However, once the mutiny picked up, there was a widespread participation from many other soldiers and also from local rajahs and landlords. These rajahs and landlords were keen on bringing back their rule by throwing off British. They were neither keen on bringing independence to its people or giving them the rights as a citizens. The people were to remain subjects of the kings and bonded laborers of landlords, not citizens. This movement was then taken up by Mughal-Empire-revivalists. These were those petty kings who wanted to bring back Mughal Empire so that they can have their share of the pie in ruling. This was more of a war where Indian feudals wanted to restore their power. It had no element of Independence that we finally obtained, where the people became citizens, where we had adult franchise, elected legislature, independent judiciary, people’s rights, etc.

The fact that India did not get Independence in 1857 was actually good for its people, in retrospect. If we had thrown off British right then, we would have gone back to having many kings and rajahs with independent kingdoms, and we wouldn’t have had opportunity to bring in a national movement that gave its people rights as citizens and modern institutions that safeguard their rights.

Indian National Congress

Few years later, Indian National Congress (INC) was formed with great support and help from some British people. During these initial days, Indian National Congress was completely an elite pastime. The members were intellectuals, coming from well-to-do families. INC was not a movement either; it was an organization that met once a year where intellectuals discussed issues from a podium. It was not a people’s movement nor did it involve the masses. If India got Independence during this time, it would have remained an extremely aristocratic rule, where certain intellectuals would have captured power while the actual freedom to its people and its participation would have been a distant dream.

Moreover, it did not include Muslims in those days. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had his own ideas about the role of Muslims. He wanted to be friendly with British, because he saw them as somewhat equals, being from ruler clan (first the Mughals, now the British). He expected special treatment for Muslims from British because of their earlier record of ruling India.

Entry of Gandhi

Only when Gandhi came onto the picture, did we see the actual people’s movement. What is so significant about Gandhi’s role is that he wanted to bring in revolution in India on many fronts, not just kicking out British, but bring in untouchables in the mainstream, to bring in women into the mainstream, to bring Muslims into the fight, to bring in self-respect in a common man, and teach him the duties of a citizen. [For example, he spent a great amount of time to teach Indians to clean up streets, to bring accountability and responsibility to its people and leaders, form a nation based on peace not based in hatred and violence, etc]

He wanted to see Indians capable of ruling ourselves fair and just when British were gone. He had strong suspicions on whether we were ready to rule ourselves.

The intervening years are quite important because he brought Muslims into the fold. Khilafat Movement which sounds so ridiculous now, was his way of bringing in Muslims into the people’s movement. If in the subsequent years, the talks with British failed, it was because Gandhi did not want to concede on the differences between Muslims and Hindus. He was against separate electorates, because he saw roots for division in it. He was bent on giving sops to Muslims so that they come together and fight. His fear, that Muslims having a separate agenda would dilute the cause and would also break up India, was clearly seen from many of his actions.

First Taste of Power

The fact that INC participated in one of the governing elections and had actually held power is significant because that allowed some of its leaders the taste of governance before India got Independence. Work on Indian Constitution started long before the Independence itself. Many of the notions of how we are going to rule ourselves were learnt between 1857 and 1947. And thanks to Gandhi, many of its rulers were ready to concede to the notion that this country belong to its people, not its elite, not its rajahs, not its upper caste, not its Hindus, not its men.

Nationalism and Non-violence

Another significant aspect of this movement is Gandhi’s insistence on non-violence. According to him, this country could not have been borne out of blood and iron. He saw too many cultures, too many languages, too many religions, too many castes, too many classes- too many differences in this country, and he couldn’t find a unique slogan for all them, except nationalism and non-violence, which could be applied to different kinds of people irrespective of their allegiance to a local identity. The first one (nationalism) gave a sense of reason to fight British; the second one (non-violence) gave a sense of self-restraint to become more mature and responsible to be able to serve and govern India better.

During 1920s, when some young nationalists, who got fed up with Gandhi’s delaying tactics, took to violent forms of protest, Gandhi felt the time was not ripe. Much to the dismay of so many ardent nationalists, he called of the movement designed to dislodge the British and secure the independence. Time and again Gandhi disappointed many leaders who wanted a quick route to India’s freedom. Gandhi believed that if it was freedom it had to come when Indians are more mature.

Rejection of other ideologies

Also, during this time, India got time to experiment with communist and militant ideologies only to reject them. It also got time to experiment with what happens when you tried to share power with those Muslims who saw themselves different and wanted to be treated differently because they came from ruling clan. India got time to dabble with organization capabilities, both in terms of moving masses across the nation, and also in terms of ruling the country through bureaucracy. India got a chance to look at how world was divided on various cultures, and thus imbibe those principles in drafting its constitution. India got a chance to uplift its masses, bring them into the mainstream. With the advent of Ambedkar fighting for Dalits, reservations were possible. If India got Independence too soon, such a thing would have been unimaginable.

India got time to experiment with ideologies of Subhas Chandra Bose and other militants to reject them in favor of more balanced and composed approaches towards dealing with its inner conflicts.

India realized that it cannot embrace military ideology of Japan or Germany, that it cannot embrace communist ideology of Soviet Union, and that it cannot be oblivious to differences between religions, cultures and languages. That it cannot use one language or one religion to rally its people. That it cannot impose one identity onto everyone. That it had to be all-embracing, which also means more restraint and more composure. More patience and more balance. No room for militant ideology, because it can easily spin out of hand.

Mature parting with British

Whether we like it or not, the decision to part with British on friendly terms was hallmark of that maturity, wherein we accepted what happened in the past as consequence of those times, and looked towards future without rejecting the legacy and the past. We did not have to resort to breaking up their statues, their building and their idols; we did not have to reinvent our identity through breaking up idols or hating our masters. We smoothly transitioned into a mature young adult having been a rebel in its teens, eventually accepting the independence without having to hate the parents or the fathers.

This is what Gandhi envisioned and that’s what happened. Gandhi had high expectations from British. He did not hate them or found them repugnant. Instead he brought out that gentleman in British and negotiated with him, as man to man. To him, history was not a snapshot of few years, but a continuum in which we had different masters at different times. British happened to be those masters now. What was important to him was not overthrowing of British, but that we learn to rule ourselves, to know how diverse India is, accept its diversity, and gear ourselves to act maturely.

If Gandhi failed, he failed when India got partitioned. He was so sad that day, when India got Independence, that instead of celebrating in New Delhi; he was elsewhere nursing the wounds Partition left on India.

Right set of leaders for new nation

Our Independence movement threw a slew of mature and well-trained leaders who could later become the governing body. It threw open many architects who framed our constitution, making sure it respected each language, culture, religion, and also to uplift women and lower castes. Though Gandhi and Nehru had many differences over the future course of India, Gandhi believed Nehru was the right person to take the helm.

Sardar Patel did not live long enough. Nehru, having gone through the troubled times that preceded Indian Independence had a vision for India. In it, democracy was important, creating the right institutions was important. Also, the results of Enlightenment were embraced by the rational Nehru. He ensured that we pursued the tools of rationality. For that he created the institutions that bore fruit long after he was gone. He had his own flaws. He believed that the state was somehow more humane than the individual. That belief led to License Raj and other ills that befell on India later on.

I see the period between 1857 and 1947 as a class struggle- a movement of its people, emancipation of the untouchables, lower caste and women, a struggle to deal with multiple identities in the modern world which put us in conflict with each other more often than in the past, a process of maturing where we didn’t have settle the scores by creating killing fields.

The Independence Movement is the story of our fight within- an inner struggle, maturing of a teen into an adult. India had to cope with its own problems. The enemies were its past, its caste system, its ruling class, its subjugation of woman and many of its superstitions and belief systems. And those problems were far bigger than the British.

Hindi is a North Indian Language

Sujai — Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:39:37 EST

India has many languages. Hindi is a North Indian language. While Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam are South Indian languages.

There is no such a thing called a National Language or Rashtra Basha in India.

Hindi is by far the most spoken language in India. Around 40% of Indians speak Hindi, but it is in no way the language that binds India. Most of the Hindi speakers are in North India. South India has its own languages, and Hindi does not feature as a prominent one.

While many South Indians (except hardliner Tamilians) learn and study Hindi, almost no North Indian learns any of the South Indian languages.

The Role of Sanskrit

Contrary to most school text book versions, Sanskrit is NOT mother of all languages in India. South Indian (or Dravidian) languages are not derived from Sanskrit. However, there is a heavy influence of Sanskrit on many of the languages in India, including Dravidian languages.

During the course of history, there have been many attempts at Sanskritization of Indian languages along the length and breadth of the country (and beyond – up to Indonesia). Sanskritization and Brahmanical Hinduism (with casteism at its core) went hand in hand thus making inroads into all corners of this subcontinent.

Brahmanical Hinduism descended upon on every kingdom and region to spread its tentacles, uprooting and extirpating Buddhism where it proliferated, and converting local deities and gods to bring them into the Brahmanical Hindu pantheon, using evolving mythology, hierarchical caste system and sanskritization as tools to spread its religion.

Even though kings and learned scholars of South India embraced Brahmanical Hinduism and allowed sankritization of regional languages, the local flavor remained the lingo of the masses, still owing its origins in Dravidian languages. In all South Indian regions, we have a colloquial version which still remains heavily Dravidian, while the literary version is heavily sanskritized.

This effect of sanksritization is seen differently in different Dravidian languages. You will see that the present-day literary Telugu (not the colloquial one) is one of the most heavily sanskritized languages in India. On the other hand, Tamil had gone on an accelerated path to remove all traces of sanskritization in the early 20th century as a part of their exercise to throw down Brahmanical Hinduism to replace it with local version (colloquial) of Hinduism. That resulted in a language that has no allegiance to Sanskrit. That also meant overthrowing of Brahmin supremacy, rejecting its caste system, challenging Sanskrit as mother of all languages in India, and defying gods suggested by Brahmanical Hinduism.

Tamilians to the rescue

With their obstinate opposition to imposition of Hindi as National Language, Tamilians rescued most of South Indians from a potential North Indian domination over South India. If Hindi was made the National Language, the Tamil scholars, who were adept in English but not in Hindi, felt they would lose out heavily in all kinds of jobs and opportunities the new country would open up.

While other South Indians did not have the same clout over Indian Administrative Services and other bureaucratic jobs, Tamils were ruling the roost. They had featured in constituent assembly and cabinet meetings to influence the thinking of the Indian Government, and they fought tooth-and-nail to oppose all moves by North Indians to impose Hindi as the national language. It was a hard won battle. And thanks to this bitter opposition, the roots of which lie in a selfish attempt to safeguard their interests, we have English as the official language for all states, making Hindi one of the many Indian languages, not a special one.

As a long term advantage, we can thank Tamils for how India took on the Information Technology Revolution and brought itself global acclaim. It allowed India to join the mainstream economies, bring employment to its people, and most important of all, emancipate its downtrodden.

The Tata Nano - Delivering on the Promise

Sujai — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:31:10 EST

Yesterday, Tata unveiled its much-awaited Rs. 1 lakh car. Nobody knew if Tata could do it. Doubting Thomases were everywhere – the media, the public and with analysts. All the details were kept secret till the last day. At last! The car as arrived – in all grandeur and splendor. And keeping all its promises!

Tata, an Indian company, has made the world’s cheapest car. This is no ordinary feat! Making the cheapest car is not about being cheap. When you have a car that does everything that others do but yet is very cheap, it is an engineering and business marvel. While making it, one has to go back to the drawing board and relook at every strategy that you knew about car making and then ask yourself, ‘Is there a cheaper way of doing it, and yet retaining its function?’ It’s an ideology that you have to embrace in your thinking – in business and engineering. That is what Ratan Tata and Tata has done. And it’s a great achievement.

Maruti Suzuki, the biggest car manufacturer in India, conceded that they cannot put together a car for Rs. 1 Lakh, and went on to add that it’s an impossible task. Congratulations to Tata, Ratan Tata, and all the engineers, managers, workmen who made this impossible feat possible!

Promises kept

Yes, it is an engineering feat. Yes, it is a good business execution. But what is more important is that Ratan Tata, who promised four years ago that he would give us 1 lakh car, has kept his promise.

“After all a promise is a promise,” Ratan Tata said, clarifying that it was not he but the media that mentioned the Rs.1 lakh price tag. “But I took it as a challenge,” the doyen of Indian industry disclosed.

In a country where most leaders promise and then go back on their promise, Ratan Tata stuck to his promise and delivered it on it.

Four years ago, when his promise was made, many people dismissed it. Even I did not think it would be possible. I thought this car may not transpire in the end – who knows, right? We have seen so many empty promises in our life – we don’t know which ones to take seriously and which ones to ignore.

But then, my wife really believed it. When I asked her to drive our car, she said, it was too big for her, and that she was waiting for Tata’s Rs. 1 lakh car. Hesitatingly, I said, ‘what if it doesn’t happen?’ She didn’t have any doubts. She was quite confident that it would happen. Innocently, she said, ‘Tata said it himself. He said he would release the car. If he said it, he would do it’. I smiled to myself. I let her believe it.

Yesterday, the minute I saw the news on TV, I called her from the airport. She was quite excited. She told me, ‘Look, I told you so. Ratan Tata said he would do it. He did it’.

Thank you, Mr. Ratan Tata, for holding onto your promise. You have a believer in my wife!

On Business Leadership

That’s what leadership is all about. It’s the ability to keep your promises. The business throws too many ‘realities’ at you, but yet you keep your promise. I am happy today that Ratan Tata kept his promise.

Ratan Tata, in another piece of news, has commissioned his team to create a low-cost water purifier. When asked what he would do next, he replied:

“Anything that we can do to reduce disparity.”

I am glad we have such people with us. I am glad we have such accomplishments to take pride in.

Benazir Bhutto: Victim of Home Grown Terror!

Sujai — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:21:46 EST

Yesterday, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in the city of Rawalpindi in Pakistan. This is very sad news. Very sad and unfortunate! Pakistan is seeing the effects of fomenting and fostering terror against its neighbors. It has come back to hit them in their own belly.

Pakistan is a good example of what goes wrong when a nation identifies itself on the theme of ‘hatred’.

From the beginning, Pakistan has identified itself with an ‘anti-India’ stand which incorporates ‘anti’ as its core element. For many years, the ‘anti-India’ policy was handled at the State level, involving the secret services, the army and the administration. It did not involve the general population. After 1971, when Pakistan lost the war decisively against India, and after Pokhran of 1974, Pakistan had to drop its carefully manufactured illusion that it could take on India in a conventional war. Using a previous half-successful experiment of 1965, the new warfare for the future was designed to use incursion tactics (which resulted in Kargil, once again a failure). Meanwhile, another experiment was underway. USA had used Pakistan as a platform to fund Mujahideen to kick out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. That also led to Pakistan creating an apparatus of Islamization in the background to have an influence in Afghanistan even after the Soviets left. That led to the Taliban coming to power.

This experiment of using religious fervor and extremism, which again had some precedents in the past, was also fueled to be used against India. Religious extremists were fawned upon as heroes who would win back Kashmir from India. Many experiments were created to ‘bleed India’. Pakistan saw an opportunity to do a ‘Bangladesh’ against when Indian Punjab flared up. That experiment failed too. Then came another opportunity in Kashmir when Indian government messed up its long standing equation of keeping peace in the valley. That unconventional war of attrition and bleeding worked well. For a long time, it looked like it was succeeding. The dual advantage was clear- Islamic radicals can torment and control both Afghanistan issue and Indian issue.

This led to a massive operationalization of madrasas which will create these radical elements. These are the soldiers who would be created on one theme only – hatred. Their hatred will be so much that they will not stop till they kill or die. Their hatred was focused on achieving two goals- the control in Afghanistan, and getting back Kashmir from India.

For a while, it looked like their strategy worked. There was an all round celebration and congratulations were abound. India was bleeding and the situation in Kashmir was getting ‘internationalized’. Afghanistan was duly ‘under control’ through a puppet regime.

Post 9/11, USA topped Taliban in Afghanistan and roped in Pakistan as a friend and mate to check the problem of ‘terror’. Now, Pakistan couldn’t do what it was doing anymore in Afghanistan with heavy US presence there. On the Indian side too, it was not working out anymore. Massive Indian Army in the valley kept a check on the infiltration. Also, after Kargil debacle, Pakistan could not think of another covert war with India. It had to ensure the trickling of infiltrators was kept to a minimum.

What do you do with all the pent up hatred?

It imploded.

Pakistan is now reeling itself under consequences of their failed experiments. There are thousands of religious extremists who are trained to kill or die. And they will do that no matter what, if not against India or in Afghanistan, then in Pakistan. Benazir seems to one of the victims.

Lessons for India:

The glee and the celebration amongst Indian Hindus that its Hindutva forces are winning is momentary. It’s ephemeral. Soon, the same guns will be targeted back at us, all of us, including the very Hindus who are celebrating now, and soon these pent up forces, built on hatred, will seek an outlet. That usually involves killing and dying. Unfortunately!

Narendra Modi and Adolf Hitler

Sujai — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:02:29 EST

Narendra Modi and his BJP party have many similarities with Adolf Hitler and the rise of Nazis in Germany. Modi's victory in the Gujarat elections bodes ill for this nation.

In a state where Mahatma Gandhi was born, we have a leader who confesses his targeting of Muslims, and yet, people vote him back into power. Hitler used to openly confess his contempt for Jews and yet people backed him. India is going through similar circumstances that Germany went through in the late 1800s and early 1900s- revival of nationalism based on historic achievements closely tied to certain cultural roots that are unique to certain people of certain identity (in this case Hinduism, back then it was the Germanic race); targeting of the enemies within the state (in this case it is Muslims, back then it was Jews), who are not patriotic, and who incessantly ‘stab the nation in the back’.

A long campaign of such hatred and instilling of superiority preceded the rise of Hitler and his Nazis. Theories abounded which glorified the Germanic race and its achievements while continuing to distance itself from the enemies (mostly Jews, but also Slavs, and other inferior races). Efforts were made to find achievements of the Germanic race in distant past, including their links with other great culture elsewhere (Hindus and Tibetans).

Hitler came on board only to channel those sentiments to do something only he could do - Mass murder of millions of inferior people.

Modi comes onto the stage in a similar setting. Demonizing of Muslims in India began long ago. It has now reached unprecedented levels, even backed with scientific and elitist arguments. Theories abound why Muslims are different and how they cannot be integrated into a nation-state, how they are unpatriotic, how they keep ‘stabbing us in the back’. As in pre-WWII Germany, pogroms that target and kill these enemies of the state keep occurring.

Modi, like Hitler, targets certain sections blaming them for all ills of the society. Hitler unleashed his goons to target and kill people of one community while the state apparatus stood by to support, abet and sometimes participate in those killings. Modi did similar stuff in 2002.

Germany saw economic prosperity like never before under Hitler. Industrial output was at its highest. Production of coal, steel, etc, was unprecedented. Today’s Gujarat boasts of very high economic growth under Modi.

There are a few other trivial similarities. They are both bachelors and were hailed for non-corruptive practices. Modi is vegetarian, like Hitler, and has contempt for meat-eaters. Like Hitler, Modi practices and spends lot of time on mastering his oratory.

Modi is in-your-face candid about his crimes (like Hitler) which people see as a sign of honesty in comparison to other weak and corrupt leaders who seem to push the same agenda but are not honest about it. Many in Germany were vexed with the coalition government led by incompetent leaders who were seen as weak, dishonest and corrupt. They choose someone who was strong, charismatic and honest to lead them. Hitler was considered to be above the party and its ideologies. His personality was overwhelming. Not very different from how pundits write about Modi now.

According to many people in India, the opposition parties, the Congress and the Left have no better track record when it comes to protecting the interests of minority religions in this country. The difference is that Narendra Modi just accepts what he does. A known, strong and honest criminal is better than a hypocrite, weak and dishonest criminal - that seems to be the attitude of Indian people.

It's unfortunate that we have come to this. It's unfortunate that our leaders could not set right examples. The examples of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Shastri, Patel, Radhakrishnan, etc, are long gone. We are bereft of good examples. When everyone is a criminal, an honest and strong one is a definitely preferred. Hence, Narendra Modi!

Adolf Hitler came to power riding similar sympathies like Modi enjoys right now. Whenever Hitler was accused of a wrongdoing, he used that campaign to expose the weakness of his opposition and he grew stronger. He did not lie. He did not falter. That brought him more public support. When the Tehelka expose was circulated, Modi’s supporters used it to further their support for Modi. When Hitler spoke, he did not hide his contempt for Jews, and neither did he hide his agenda on how he is going to take care of Jewish Problem. When Modi speaks, he spews forth venom and contempt and openly confesses he subverted law of the land to kill the enemy. The people of Germany who were surrounded by weak-hearted and corrupt leaders that colluded to make marriages of convenience just to be in power, voted this man to power because they thought he would at least tell them what he does and what he intends to do, honestly. Many people in India admire Modi for his blatant honesty.

While some observers of the early twentieth century spelt doom on the rise of Nazis in Germany, many other politicians (in Germany and outside), weak at heart, diffident, and completely involved in their petty politics underestimated the rise of Hitler. They thought he was a tiny figure who would be swept away very soon. That never happened. They kept giving into his demands. He fed on that support and mass hysteria, and became a megalomaniac who plunged the whole world into its greatest war which ended up killing more than 50 million people in less than ten years.

Modi is on the rise in India. It is not a good sign for India. It bolsters and gives support to other elements that harbor similar thoughts in India. Hindutva forces already talk about emulating and replicating Gujarat in other states of India. People explain his win as a mandate of people. That's a sorry state of affairs. What if a majority of Indians vote to kill all the minorities in one stroke, will we accept that mandate? Is the law of the land and our Constitution subservient to people's mandate? We have a skewed and distorted view of what it means to be a democracy.

Indians have not learned to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not. Here, in Gujarat, we have blurred those lines. We have legitimized crime that targets certain people based on their identity. The future is bleak. All this economic prosperity is not going to save us. Instead, this prosperity will only fuel such hatred to take it to the next level, where state participates in marginalizing, demonizing and then targeting of certain identities.

[Here is a Indian version of what is was published in Time Magazine on August 28, 1989]

First they came for the Sikhs, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Sikh.
Them they came for the Muslims, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Muslim.
Then they came for the Christians, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Christian.
Then they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Liberal Hindus, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a conservative Hindu.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me.

Here’s what one of the perpetrators of the Gujarat killings has to say. [Bhatt] [emphasis mine]

… pick up AK-56s because if you have to develop Hinduism, it is clear who the enemies are… There are two who are against Hinduism… Muslims, who are open… but the Christians… they are like a bacterial virus … and there’s a third, the Communists, who are developing now… red waale… If you have to fight them, you need power and that power will not come from the lathi… only the bullet will do…0674024826 we go to RSS shakhas … pick up the lathi and use it… All that is fine but now they should be replaced with AKs and a Hindu brigade should be formed…

Hypocrisy and the Morally Upright

Sujai — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:58:45 EST

We continue to see many people who are blatantly hypocritical. While most of us (observers) seem to notice this in them, these people are somehow oblivious to it. They continue to flaunt their hypocrisy without shame or embarrassment, showing no signs of remorse or guilt.

For example, the USA, while continuing to discard the Kyoto Protocol, coerces India and a few other countries to reduce their carbon emissions. Again, the USA, while continuing to stockpile huge number of nuclear weapons goes on to dictate other countries, and sometimes goes to war against other countries, who aspire to do build nuclear weapons. India, while continuing to support independent movements against colonial powers and supporting assertion of sovereignty and freedom in many international forums, goes on to suppress all freedom movements within its borders.

Many tax-evaders in India, while continuing to blatantly evade taxes, using corrupt and illegal means where necessary, flaunt their other virtues, which happen to be daily prayers, non-alcoholism and vegetarianism, thus holding a morally upright position in the society.

Hindutva groups of India do not believe they are being hypocritical when they extend protection to Taslima, who has allegedly "hurt Muslim sentiments" but then they go onto ransack and kick out MF Husain for allegedly "hurting Hindu sentiments."

Indian Left in Bengal does not think it is being hypocrital when they throw goons to rough up and beat up the opponents to promote their industrial and development projects, while they continue to fight similar projects in other parts of India.

These people who are blatantly hypocritical do not see themselves as such because they are usually supported by a very strong sense of moral uprightness coming from other virtues.

Narendra Modi has no qualms when he says he has killed the "terrorist" in his state using illegal methods of encounter. He is actually on the "morally right side" when he says that because there are many Hindus and Indians who believe it is OK to kill someone using illegal methods to save the nation!

This message is conveyed again and again in many Indian movies where the protagonist (called Hero) takes up illegal methods to kill the bad guy (called villain). A famous example is Rang De Basanti]. The message - to kill someone who is deemed harmful to the nation using illegal methods is heroic - is a virtue that Narendra Modi is holding onto here.

Tax-shirkers, there are many of them in India, are not ashamed of evading taxes. They have no compunctions in paying bribes to escape conviction. The message that our government is corrupt and that the politicians eat up our hard-earned money (paid as taxes) has been conveyed in so many ways that it is has now become a virtue to avoid paying taxes to this government. Hence you don’t see remorse or guilt in these tax-evaders.

If there is any trace of guilt of wrongdoing while conducting his business using illicit methods, a person erases that off by constantly praying to a goddess, donating paltry amounts to the temple nearby, and fasting on a day in week, and if he thinks he is sinning more by fleecing other people or cheating people too many times, he will turn into a teetotaler to appease the gods.

There is research here which suggests that, "ethical people become worst cheats."

People’s sense of moral superiority might lead them to rationalize bad behavior, turning them into cheats. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people.

When the line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.

“The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme,” said a researcher. “So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites.”

Why would a person who thinks of himself as honest, cheat? The researchers suggest an “ethical person” could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end.

As Reynolds put it: “If I cheat, then I’ll get into graduate school, and if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor and think about all the people I’m going to help when I’m a doctor.”

Can Indians Distinguish Between Religion and Science?

Sujai — Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:42:47 EST

When one follows discussions or debates with Indians, it appears that many educated Indians believe Religion and Science to be the same. According to them, Religion and Science are two sides of the same coin.

They think that Science is not much different from Religion; Science and Religion are equally dogmatic; adherents of Science and adherents of Religion both believe they are on the right path while continuing to believe the other party is on the wrong path. They believe that Science starts with the premise that it is right, not very different from basis of a Religion. These Indians find Science ‘dogmatic and unyielding’, resolute in promoting its belief systems, trying to convert people into its ‘faith’. Just like Religion.

Most Hindu Indians believe their religion (Hinduism) is on par with Modern Science in explaining the workings of the Universe and sometimes is even better than Modern Science. While Modern Science fails to answer some of the metaphysical questions, Hinduism comes right in to dispel away all the doubts.

Many learned and senior Hindus talk about Hinduism as if it is a Science or as if it is a ‘meta-Science’. They say, ‘Well, not only does Hinduism include all the topics covered by your Modern Science, it also explains many things which your Modern Science does not’.

They talk about spirituality, they talk about cosmic energies, they talk about some chakras in our bodies, they talk about harmony with nature, balance between mind and body, and so on. And to aid them all, Hinduism provides tools like Astrology, Numerology, Vaastu Shastra, and Ayurveda. Many Indians continue to believe that these tools are actually tools of Modern Science. In case the West does not use it in its conventional practices, it’s only because they are dumb. Our ancestors were always wise. [Deepak Chopra, et al, are now educating the West of the superior Indian tools].

According to these well educated people, Science continues to fail in many respects. It is completely vague, not sure of itself, always shifting its stand on explaining various issues.

For example, Science believed that the Universe was static, and then it believed it was expanding, and then for a while it didn’t know whether it was contracting. Science didn’t know if the age of Universe was 8 billion years or 20 billion years and each new discovery keeps changing that date. Also, Scientists are never sure when Man came into existence – was it 200,000 years ago, or a 1.25 million years ago?

According to them, the different dates that Science throws at them on creation of Universe, creation of life, creation of man, etc, are as ludicrous, ambiguous and inconsistent as the dates thrown at us by Religion. Why should one believe one over the other?

Also, Science does not explain so many miracles that happen to be integral part of this Universe. For example, a person got cured of Cancer when one Baba touched him with a stone. Can you explain that? A person fell from a three-storey building chanting name of Shree Ram and he was completely unhurt. Can you explain that? I read Hanuman Chalisa 80 times before I went to write my exam, and I got exactly 80 marks in that exam. Can you explain that?

Sai Baba brings objects into existence out of thin air, like an egg from his mouth, and fire in his hands, etc. Of course, magicians do all that, but that is magic. When Sai Baba does it, it is a miracle. How do I know that? Because, first, Sai Baba clearly says that it is not magic and that it is a miracle. And why would he lie? Second, everyone who saw the event clearly said it was not magic and that it was a miracle. Why would so many people lie?

The list goes on.

There is a fundamental reason why most Indians think Religion and Science are the same and that there is not much difference between the two. I think the answers lies in the way Science is taught in India.

Indians are taught their lessons not through discourse, not through investigation, not through empiricism, but as a dogma, where a set of beliefs are shoved down your throat, unquestioned, just like the way a religion is taught. Indians learn their subjects by rote, by heart, and then reproduce them verbatim in their exams - word to word. It is as important to reproduce their texts in Indian education as it is in Religion.

Just look at the way History is taught in India. It is always a collection of facts, dates, and names. Nobody knows why it is important to know that the Battle of Panipat happened in 1526. There is no background, no premise, no context, and no analysis. Nobody discusses the events or writes about significance of those events.

Science is taught the same way. Nobody knows why F=ma. It is so, because Newton said so. Why do we have volcanoes? It is so because the textbook said so. Why do planets revolve around the sun? The teacher says, ‘Because I said so’. Not very different from how religions treat such curious questions, saying ‘Because Bible says so’. No discussion, no debate, no explanation, no reasoning, no construction of argument, Period.

A kid has to mug up Science and its formulae the way he mugs up Sanskrit Poems. He doesn’t understand either of them. Such mugging up activities is done to pass the exam, go to the next level, and win the fist rank. A parent whose kid scores first rank is happy – he doesn’t care or bother to know if the kid really understands the subject. As far Indian education is concerned it is happy as long as the kid is a good Xerox copy machine with Terabytes of memory. They don’t need an intelligent and thinking machine.

Given such education for fifty years in this country, what you get is globetrotting, suit-wearing, English speaking, elite-educated Indians who have not imbibed the scientific or rational temperament but who can spew forth all the words and sentences useful to give one a successful job, career and lot of money.

Education in India is not to impart rational thinking or induce scientific temperament or to induce universal laws or inculcate a mature discussion capability. It is not to make law-abiding citizens or better humans. It is treated as a cumbersome but necessary exercise that one has to go through to earn more in life, get material goods, buy homes, get a good career, buy cars, travel world (nowadays), show off and feel happy about.

No wonder Indians completely lack scientific temperament, even those who attend top colleges in the world, even those who do their PhD in Physics, even those who launch rockets into space, even those who do research in medicine.

When they go back home, after finishing their ‘job’, which is done only to go the next level in social and economic hierarchy, they go back to their gods, their blind beliefs and their superstitions. They go back to the safe abode of secure irrationality where once again Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter become real. The Hanuman and the monkeys who build bridges become real. Where Shri Ram is not just real, but is hyper-real. Where Physics is not just enough, one needs meta-physics to explain things. That’s where Indians continue to find their Hinduism superior to Modern Science.

Dying Bangalore

Sujai — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:49:15 EST

Bangalore is choking itself to death and there's no help coming.

Though I live in Bangalore I don't get to go through its infamous traffic. Since my office is close to my home, I can afford to avoid getting onto the main roads. Recently, I got a chance to go through the 'Bangalore traffic' and it was a nightmare.

The experience was horrible. My head ached so much I just had to stop thinking about it and breathe deep. For the first time I felt there is no hope for this city. It upset me the whole day. I saw what was happening to this city. This city is dying and nothing can save it- nobody can save a city that wants to commit suicide so obstinately.

One would think that it is common sense to at least make sure the new buildings are built a little farther away from the roads to allow for expansion. And you don't see that. Instead, all new constructions of apartments, shopping complexes are coming right onto the roads making sure there is no better future for this city.

The major highways that connect the city to places like ITPL are very narrow. And when you see around you realize there is no way one could expand because major buildings have already come up right next to the road. There is one huge shopping complex coming up right on the intersection of two major roads. That intersection already clogs most of the traffic going to Koramangala from Indiranagar. Now, imagine what would happen when this complex opens up.

Even the new roads that are coming up in new layouts are narrow. It's as if we never learn our lessons. And when the government tries to crack its whip on those people who have encroached strips of lands allocated for roads, the residents protest and ensure no action takes place.

Right now, there is an effort to build flyovers and metros. Most of these constructions in Bangalore, for some reason, take unduly long time and are often ill-planned. The roads are all being ripped open now without making any provision to take care of the existing traffic! Since it is not planned for future traffic, by the time they get built, they would be already clogged with ever-increasing traffic.

More than 40,000 cars are being added into this city per year. There is nobody thinking about how fast the traffic is increasing in this city. The people of Bangalore keep on encroaching lands and keep expanding their homes onto the roads further choking them. Cars are parked on the roads during peak hours. People waiting for the bus stand right on the road. A sage told them that the bus arrives early if they wait on the road and keep bending to look for it.

Bangalore is a good example of two things that I can characterize whole of India with - myopia and avarice. The combination of these two elements make a deadly potion (more on that later). Myopia, shortsightedness, and Avarice, greed, are the most common trait of all Indians. After Cricket, these two things bind all Indians. You will see both in action in Bangalore resulting in gradual suffocation of this city.

Yesterday, when I was traveling through these terrible roads, I felt like a red blood corpuscle trying to make my way through an artery to the heart of the city. Bangalore is getting really fat and obese from gluttony, and is collecting lot of cholesterol. The cholesterol deposited around due to deposits of dirt, gravel, stones, and the encroachments by greedy people was constricting me from all sides. The heart beat of Bangalore is getting feebler. One of these days, it's just going to get a heart attack will choke itself to death.

There is nothing one can do to save a city that wants to willingly commit suicide. No amount of foreign investment or no presence of MNCs is going to save it. No amount of TOI (Times of India) articles are going to save it. Nor will my blogs. Far from being a Garden city, this city will become a Garbage city. Far from being a Silicon Valley, this city will be a Death valley.

'Politically Motivated' Arguments

Sujai — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:38:10 EDT

In India you can wriggle out of any entanglement, escape any conviction, overturn any evidence, and falsify any logical argument, stultify any rational theory, pooh-pooh any expose, win any argument, calling it 'politically motivated'.

A politician is caught red-handed taking bribes. The whole episode is caught on a video. Yet, the politician does not blink. His confidence remains atut (intact). He rubbishes all of it saying it was 'politically motivated'.

A sting operation clearly exposes the involvement of an administration in India behind a sponsored pogrom which targeted and killed hundreds of Muslims. And how do the supporters and perpetrators react to it? Very nonchalantly, without any remorse or guilt, they call it 'politically motivated'.

The supporters of this administration ask, 'Why did Tehelka release this expose now? Right before the elections?' So, the fact they released the expose right before election somehow nullifies its content, making it unqualified as evidence, and acquits everyone. Now, nobody discusses the contents. They all discuss the motives of the people who made this expose, completely deviating from the topic in question.

When the Sethusamudram Project was being discussed its detractors who were not waving a Hindu flag used a different argument to denounce it. They used the argument that Tamil Nadu Government keen on kickbacks is sponsoring this dredging and is therefore 'politically motivated' and hence it needs to be stopped.

When Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his BJP built long, big and wide roads in India, it was considered 'polticially motivated'. That means no credit should be taken by him or his government. It means he did not make the roads for the nation but only to win elections.

When reservations are sanctioned to uplift the lower sections in India, the elite dismiss them calling them 'politically motivated'. That means reservations not actually meant to uplift the backward, but that they only benefit the politicians.

One can evade almost any incriminating evidence using one sentence - 'politically motivated'. When confronted on TV with revealing facts accusing of a wrongdoing, the guilty party can wriggle out of any entanglement calling the whole charade 'politically motivated'.

And the people of India know exactly what it means. Nobody switches side after incriminating evidence is produced just because the guilty party has used the wild card called 'politically motivated'. People continue to extend their diehard support to people and parties as they did before the evidence.

When Tehelka sting operation brought forth copious amounts of video and recording where perpetrators of Gujarat Pogrom talked openly how the government and its allies actually supported and perpetrated the killings and massacres, the supporters of BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS stood steadfast in their loyalty to their parties. They pooh-poohed and rejected the whole expose as just another of those 'politically motivated'.