Desicritics Category: Culture: Philosophy

Moral Absolutes - A Concrete Illustration

K. M. — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:42:57 EST

My last post here on how the concept of justice requires the existence of moral absolutes was seen by some commenters as too abstract. So I was very happy to stumble upon a story (via NoodleFood) that serves as a perfect concrete follow up. Here is the story.

About four weeks ago, I was rushing around trying to get some last-minute shopping done. I was stressed out and not thinking very fondly of the Christmas season right then. It was dark, cold, and wet in the multi-story car park. I realised that I had lost the shop receipt, which I would need to get out of the car park without paying. So, mumbling under my breath, I retraced my steps to the shopping centre entrance.

As I was searching the wet pavement, I heard a quiet sobbing. The crying was coming from a poorly dressed boy of about ten years old. He was short and thin. He had no coat. He had only a ragged flannel shirt to protect him from the evening chill. He was holding two fifty pound notes in his hand.

Thinking that he had got separated from his parents, I asked him what was wrong, and he told me his sad story. He came from a large family. His father had died when he was seven years old. His mother worked two full time jobs to make ends meet. Nevertheless, she had managed to scrimp and save two hundred pounds to buy her children Christmas presents. She had dropped him off at the shopping centre on the way to her second job. He was to use the money to buy presents for all his brothers and sisters and save just enough to take the bus home. He had not even entered the shopping centre when an older boy grabbed two of his fifty pound notes and disappeared into the night.

"Why didn't you scream for help?" I asked. The boy said, "I did!"

"And nobody came to help you?" The boy stared at the ground and sadly shook his head.

"How loud did you scream?" I enquired. The soft-spoken boy looked up and meekly whispered, "Help me!"

I realised that absolutely no one could have heard that poor boy cry for help. So I grabbed his other two fifty pound notes and scarpered.

Here are some questions. What value does the main character in the story violate? (Hint: Is it justice?) Can the main character in the story be condemned without using moral absolutes? Are there some circumstances where his act could be considered good? Perhaps some coordinate on a time-space-situation axis, as suggested in comment #87 on my previous post?

19 Varieties of Gazelle: Poems of the Middle East by Naomi Shihab Nye

Vivek Sharma — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:03:31 EST

Naomi Shihab Nye's collection contains sixty poems about Palestinians and Middle East, about love and longing for lost and imaginary homelands. The poems are fragrant with spices of the Middle-East, flavors of figs and olives, and served with a tenderness of a grandmother talking to a grandchild, a five year old to his mother, an aged man to his beloved he unites with after a lifetime.

In the world torn by religious and political conflicts, these poems represent an oasis of hope. It is the humanity of these verses, that leaps from the page like the memory of nineteen varieties of gazelle described in the title poem.

The poems assume special significance in the context of post-September 11 world, for they contain a platter of understanding and taste served to assuage our need to be comforted. The solace is brought in by the mint green language of a poet born to a Palestinian father and an American mother. Perhaps the unique identity of Nye offers her perspectives about the Arab East and American West which her creativity has shaped into a narrative that offers respite from the reactionary rhetoric that dominates our daily thinking and actions.

As an Indian residing in America, I sense a brotherhood with Nye's characters, who chase the voices, flavors, visions, music and familiarity that maps their nostalgic world. As a poet with Indian heart and Americanized mind, I find Nye, like Agha Shahid Ali, present our cultural and emotional duality in a lyric that is both powerful and poignant. The tapestry of inheritance of the East is laced with tales quite unknown in the West, and this wealth can nourish many a chasms that exist between the material and spiritual. It is voices like Amichai's and Nye's that remind us that the transcendental humanity within us can help us to outlive the wounds inflicted by the fanatic forces everywhere.

Moral Absolutes

K. M. — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:58:27 EST

In a comment on my previous post “Terrorism and moral outrage“, wgreen asked

The inward sense of justice is evidence of the existence of moral “absolutes”. How do you justify the existence of such absolutes?

Is an inward sense of justice really evidence of the existence of moral absolutes? Consider the concept ‘justice’. Without any absolute (universal and objective) moral standards, it would be impossible to judge any action (particularly the actions of others). And without such judgement, there could be no such thing as justice. To the extent that a person has a sense of justice, he recognizes the existence of moral absolutes. An inward sense of justice is evidence of a (possibly implicit) belief in the existence of moral absolutes, but in itself, it is not evidence of the existence of moral absolutes. But where does a sense of justice come from? What is the basis for the moral absolutes on which a sense of justice depends?

A sense of justice comes from the constant necessity of judging actions (both one’s own and those of others) to achieve one’s goals. Those actions that further (or appear to further) one’s goals are judged as good. Those actions that hinder one’s goals are judged as bad. The requirements of one’s chosen goals become a personal standard by which actions are judged. This personal standard can be used objectively, since the requirements of any particular goal can be objectively determined. But by itself this standard is not universal. It is only when one projects one’ s own goals on other people (whether consciously or unconsciously) that the personal standard becomes a universal one and gives rise to a sense of justice. Is such a projection proper?

Since man has free choice, he may choose any goal. But the achievement of his goals is not merely a matter of choice. He cannot achieve any goal without meeting its requirements. No matter what his goal is, he cannot achieve it if he is not alive to pursue it. In this sense, his own life is his ultimate goal. Without it, no goals can be achieved. The requirements of his life are a part of the requirements of any goal he may choose. Since the requirements of life are essentially common to all men, the principles required to pursue these requirements successfully are moral absolutes - moral because the principles are guides to action and have to be voluntarily followed, absolute because they are objective and universal.

But what about goals that are not consistent with the requirements of life - goals that can only be achieved with damage to one’s life? It is certainly possible to choose such goals. Indeed, altruism - the dominant moral code today - considers such goals and the sacrifice necessary to achieve them as noble. What does the acceptance of altruism do the idea of moral absolutes? When man’s life was dominated by religion and a concern with the supernatural, it was possible to hold moral absolutes inconsistent with life. Today, when the influence of religion has weakened and men are concerned with their lives on earth, moral absolutes inconsistent with life cannot survive. Since it is impossible to practise altruism consistently - the ‘noblest’ men would become martyrs - an (implicit) acceptance of altruism inevitably leads to a rejection of moral absolutes and a gulf between the moral and the practical. It leads to a culture that believes that the manufacturing of cars requires adherence to absolute principles, but the life of a man (which is far more complex and sensitive) requires none.

As long as man is concerned with his life on earth, he must consider any goal that is inconsistent with the requirements of his life as destructive. He must discover the correct moral principles that are required to lead his life successfully. He must recognize that some of these principles are absolute and others are contextual but all of them are objective - based on his nature and the facts of reality. The resurgence of violent radical religious movements (like Islamic terrorism and Hindu vandalism - both of which bemoan decaying moral values) is evidence that man cannot live without absolute moral principles in perpetual doubt and uncertainty. The decay of moral values is a definite trend and it cannot be addressed by an uninspiring stew of tolerance, moderation, permissiveness and compassion that rejects all moral principles. Reversing that trend requires a discovery and assertion of the absolutism of correct moral principles.

TV Review: Apparitions

Aaman Lamba — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:46:05 EST

The ghost-hunting/horror genre in television has seen an uptick in recent years. From Sci-Fi Channel's plumbers turned Ghost Hunters to Showtime's True Blood. A new BBC series, Apparitions takes the adventure to its source, as it were, with the lead character a member of the Vatican's society of exorcists and the blasé attitude of the Roman church to wonders.

Martin Shaw, who played Judge John Deed on the BBC for six years, dons the role of Father Jacob, whose primary focus is validating candidates for the sainthood under the auspices of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. His current case is that of Mother Teresa, who, as the series never fails to remind us, was beset by doubts, fears and died possibly after battling demons. He is also an active exorcist, in the sense of the New Testament actions of Jesus driving out demons. Demons beset him, at least nominally to prevent his becoming Chief Exorcist.

The demons are the hardcore sort, not shy of peeling the skin from a sinner-turned-martyr, and capable of quoting scripture or working wonders that to the casual eye, might seem miraculous. The Christian demonology referenced in the series is well-defined and adheres to the standard canonical principles. These are very ancient demons, the leading one appears to be that who beset St. Bartholomew, first missionary to India.

The series does not shy from confronting thorny issues for the Church, whether it is Pope Pius' silence in the face of the Nazi horror or the contemporary implicit fear of parents to entrust their children to the care of priests. A disbeliever who later turns out to be possessed keeps Richard Dawkins in his library, and a key character, who took into himself Mother Teresa's demons is beset by homosexual thoughts, and Father Jacob performs a blessing on him before casting him to the demons, as it were. His piety is rewarded by being flayed alive, just as St. Bartholomew was, in canonical tradition.

The series has started promisingly, if quite disturbingly, and the concept of exorcist gunslingers defending the modern world against ancient monsters is an interesting one. The DSM-IV or the ICD-10 does not recognize demonic possession as a valid psychiatric or medical diagnosis, preferring instead to ascribe such symptoms to dissociative identity disorder or another related phenomenon demonomania or demonopathy. All the same, as Hamlet reminded Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth, ... Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Miller's Worldview

K. M. — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:44:21 EST

American Chronicle has an interview with Jason Miller. In answer to the question "What is that (sic) you consider your purpose on Earth to be?" he says:

It's multi-faceted and complex, but if I distill it to its essence and put it succinctly, my primary purpose on Earth is to strive for two causes: animal liberation and socialism.

Defending socialism, he says:

Socialism hasn't had the ghost of a chance to take root, let alone flourish. Pitted against the militaristic, economic, and propagandistic might of capitalism, each attempt to tear down and rebuild socioeconomic and political structures along more egalitarian, rational, just and democratic lines has been destined to severe malformation or failure.

Miller's worldview - responsible for all the experiments in socialism in the last century - might have been understandable at the beginning of the 20th century. Today when even communist regimes like China and Russia have accepted that it is false, it is nearly impossible to understand. Yet, there it is. And Miller is not alone.

I have been publishing Thomas Paine's Corner since 2004. In 2006 I merged TPC with Cyrano's Journal Online and became Cyrano�s associate editor, maintaining my site as a semi-autonomous section of CJO. I've devoted countless hours and worked strenuously to create and maintain a publishing platform for radical writers, ideas, and organizations. Since Patrice Greanville, our editor-in-chief, and I place a high premium on our independence, we accept no advertising or sponsorship. Hence, we derive zero income from our endeavor. It actually costs us to keep the site operational. At last count, Thomas Paine's Corner had had almost 2 million visitors in four years. So it's been worth it. (links dropped)
Aside from that, I lead a vegan lifestyle, petition, protest, shun consumerism, distribute pamphlets, work with homeless shelters, boycott, network with other radicals, make personal financial sacrifices that enable me to make meaningful donations to organizations that haven't been co-opted by the corporatocracy, like Paul Watson's Sea Shepherd and Michele Pickover's Animal Right's Africa, and engage in some direct action. (links dropped)

Why is it important that some people are so hopelessly deluded, especially when they form an extremely small and democratically insignificant minority? First, because ideas matter, especially in a world which has very little respect for them. Those who have strong and consistent ideas - whether right or wrong - along with a strong purpose to advance them will always succeed in doing so, especially when most people believe that principles are simplistic, ideology is outdated and each issue must be decided on a case by case basis. Only those who have consistent principles can provide the standards by which any particular issue is to be judged. Those who have consistent principles set the terms of the debate. The pragmatists do the shouting and think they have won. Ayn Rand wrote

The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power.
The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them--from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default.

Second, as an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism in politics and thus being in as small a minority as Miller is, it is important to realize that history needs to be interpreted to serve as evidence for or against a particular political theory. And in a very complex world, it is possible to interpret it in many different ways. Since laissez-faire capitalism (or anything close to it) has not existed for a good hundred years anywhere in the world, and since pure socialism is impossible to put into existence, merely pointing to history as evidence for the success of capitalism is not enough. Any defence of capitalism must include moral arguments along with economic theories and interpretations of history.

Finally, as a tactical matter, it is incorrect and therefore damaging to label the statist and welfarist policies of most politicians today as socialist. They are not. Miller's worldview is what socialism means. And fortunately, very few people subscribe to it. Many people share some of the moral ideals of socialism implicitly. But they also believe in personal responsibility, freedom and free enterprise (however incosistent these beliefs may be). Calling them socialist when they explicitly reject socialism (as Miller's frustration shows) is not the best way to reason with them.

When Is It The Right Time To Die?

Deepti Lamba — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:19 EST

An acquaintance of the family died at the age of 70 a few years back and my uncle said over the phone - So sad. He went young.

Young?!

I blinked and bit my tongue.

My uncle was three years shy of turning 70 himself. For him the death was early but for me the departed was closer to Santa Claus's age group.

On my recent post two commentators also talked about their grandparents leading active lives well into their eighties but I cannot comprehend vying with a Banyan tree. Good for them but I want to pop it when I am in my mid sixties.

Come to think of it my ma just turned sixty this year and she is a very active lady. And the only one in the family who still drives on her own to work while all others have drivers. I don't want my ma to go nor my uncle to leave us but if I was given a choice I'd like to depart at 70.

There, I increased my lifespan by another five years. After all, if I get to be a rich lady with my health and teeth intact a saggy butt and few wrinkles wouldn't hold me back.

Yet the idea of being a dotty old person doesn't particularly fill me with joy either. Frankly, those who turn that old also aren't quite happy about their bodies wearing out.

They are still young people trapped in old bodies. While reading Jane Juska's book - A Round Heeled Woman where she shared old aged dating scene (or in less polite terms- her sex escapades amongst other things ) I realized that even till one's dying breath one can remain young.

Jane Juska, in my mind, became an epitome of old age. She broke away from the norms set for old people by society. She decided she wasn't going to die a lonely old woman. Obviously, she went through heartbreak (when it comes to love who doesn't?) but she forged ahead through the senior years with optimism, she saw different parts of America, fell in love with New York and most of all found strength within herself to stand by her conviction.

Self-evolution for Juska didn't come with age but through the experiences she went through. She bumbled, lost her dignity and then found herself again.

Jane Juska despite her advanced age became young in my mind. Someone I could identify with.

Frankly putting old people on pedestal is an old Indian tradition that should be done away with. Many of my friends are way older than me and it isn't as if we have to search for subjects to talk about.

Conversation flows naturally. Its the meeting of the hearts that is important and that's exactly what Jane and her young lover realized.

But sadly in India we venerate the old and sometimes this veneration leads to isolation and loneliness. They become gods with clay feet, breathing in some corner of the house, absentmindedly revered and conveniently forgotten.

Some grow to be wise, generous old souls with gentle hearts and some merely sugar coat their meanness with great expertise.

We continue to be ourselves despite the advancing years. Its like the maturing of the wine. Only the good grapes make great wine centuries past. So why venerate the passing years that not all individuals use to become wise hermits the young could turn to?

I wouldn't mind living on well into my seventies if I get to have the iron will of Jane Juska; to have that inquisitive, courageous heart and continue to believe that love can still be found no matter how old or young.

Maybe this is why my uncle seemed shocked on hearing of the acquaintance's death. Maybe he felt that old gentleman could still have achieved much more in his life. Maybe my uncle still feels there are new experiences awaiting him.

I can only speculate like I did when I was ten and wondered what I would be like when I get to be in my thirties. Now I speculate what I will be in my twilight years.

But one thing is for sure if health betrays me during my advancing years I would happily want to kick the bucket.

Ending Coercive Land Acquisition - Creating Options

Somik Raha — Sun, 9 Nov 2008 05:37:45 EST

The reaction by India's industrial titans to the Singur crisis has been unanimous. Big guns like Mukesh Ambani, Narayana Murthy, Azim Premji and others have supported the Tatas and warned that the state would become a desert for investment if the Tatas had to leave, which is now a reality. Even the Prince of Calcutta, Sourav Ganguly, has supported the Tatas. Mamta Banerjee seemed to be the lone voice in support of the farmers whose land had been acquired forcefully without adequate compensation. People have called her stupid and an enemy of the state. Her own party supporters have voiced their disagreement with her opposition. In this backdrop, I am going to take on the perilous task of finding logic in her stubborn stance and also to suggest a long term solution for the future. I ask the reader to bear with me and let me explain my position.

Not our problem alone

Land acquisition issues are by no means limited to India. In the United States, there exists a law called "Eminent Domain," which in plain speak says that Uncle Sam can throw you out of your property if it sees a public good that requires the use of your land. Imagine this: a Civil Engineer (from a reputed university) contracted by the government to come up with the most optimal road plan figures out that such a road would need to pass through your grandmother’s house. The authorities send her a notice that she will be paid a certain amount, which would probably be a little lower than the market price. She refuses. Even after the compensation is hiked some more, she refuses. The authorities invoke Eminent Domain and send the cops to throw her out. As the cops arrive, the poor old lady holds on to whatever she can to prevent being dragged away, all the while crying out that this is where she has all her memories, this is where she lived with her husband until he passed away, and this is where she wants to die. She wants to be left alone. But that cannot be allowed, and the official tells her, "Ma'am, you don’t understand. The most optimal road goes through your house, and therefore, for public good, we must have it." And her cries go in vain (unless civil rights groups get into the game and sue the government for doing this). This story plays out in every society in the world (see box 1, box 2).

People all over the world are generally nice and compassionate, and most people feel bad about a story like this, but they ask desperately, "What alternative do we have for building YOUR-FAVORITE-PUBLIC-GOOD?" There is an alternative that ought to be taught in high schools for its utter simplicity. It has to be understood that the only legal power of a government is the power of coercion. And every single time coercion is used for public good, it has unintended consequences. Note all the controversies of land acquisition that have come to light, from the Narmada Dam project in the West, NanoCity in the North, Singur in the East and now Reliance might make the same mistake in Maharashtra. In India, the police knows no better than to use their guns on protesting people, often killing many. The legal costs rise and big businesses get discouraged by the reaction. In the United States, as business after business got stung by the backlash to eminent domain, a path-breaking and simple alternative emerged.

Create Options

This alternative has its roots in one of the most powerful insights that the wise have shared about decision making: you can always create OPTIONS. Taking this insight literally, let us try creating options for land acquisition (not the unrealistic't know a financial meltdown until the train hit them but the decision analytic variety whose math is simple enough to be understood by an English major with a minor effort). Let’s say Reliance plans an oil pipeline that needs contiguous areas of land. If any one of the landowners in the path of the pipeline hold out, the project will not take off, leaving Reliance with several non-contiguous pieces of land and a large hole in their pocket. In an alternative scenario, instead of buying any plot of land, Reliance could choose to buy an option from the landowner. The option will give Reliance the right to buy the land at the prevailing market (or agreed upon) price within a period of three years (for instance). This option can be valued easily using simple decision analysis tools and would be an order of magnitude cheaper than acquiring the land itself. Reliance could then plan multiple pipeline routes and try to acquire options on each of the routes. The moment they have all the options on a particular route, they can exercise the options on that route and acquire all the contiguous pieces of land.

There are several benefits to this approach. First, as Reliance is a private party, they are not required to reveal the purpose of the acquisition. They can send out agents who don't even need to reveal that Reliance is behind the acquisition. The government, on the other hand, is required to reveal the purpose of their acquisition, resulting in landowners realizing that they can make a lot of money if they hold out. The cost of acquisition will now be based on a good deal between the private party and the landowner. Second, as exercising the option is a legal right, there is no necessity for state coercion on the individual landowner. If someone holds out even after selling an option, that will be considered contractual fraud, and we have a legal framework in place to deal with that. The government no longer needs to deal with mass protests, the police no longer needs to open fire on hostile crowds, and entrepreneurs no longer need to sink large sums of money in legal costs. Third, if some people (tribals/farmers/middle class people) have a strong connection to their land and don’t want to leave it, all they have to do is not sell the option to their land. There should be no legal authority on the part of the government or the industry to force them to do so, and any forcible or fraudulent activity on the part of the entrepreneur would be subject to our existing legal framework that prohibits fraud and coercion. Human rights organizations can shift their focus from protesting to educating the tribals/farmers, while respecting the choice of these communities to accept or reject the education.

Creating options is not a new idea, and you have likely already used it in your life. We shall define an option as "the right to a future decision." A little consideration should reveal that insurance is a very good example of an option, where you buy the right to a lower medical expense should an emergency arise. The price of the option here would be the insurance premium you need to pay each year, which is a fraction of the coverage cost that the insurance company is legally obligated to pay should the situation arise. If you have played in the stock market, then you might be familiar with "call/put options" which is the right to buy/sell a stock at a predetermined price.

Who's Doing Non-coercive Acquisitions with/without options?

If this method is so simple, why hasn’t it been tried already for land acquisition? Strange as it may sound, this has been tried – it just hasn’t been spoken about as most private firms don’t want to talk about their land acquisition strategy. I’ve heard from a reputed professor at Stanford that Disney used options to acquire most of the land they needed for their theme park at Anaheim, California, after which people got wise to the purpose behind the acquisition and hiked up the selling price. Even then, Disney saved a fortune in legal fees by using this method. (For other companies in the US, see Box 2)

The intelligent reader may point out that what works in the United States may not necessarily work in India. To which I wonder what is so special about the Indian DNA that it would not like to save lives and lower costs when it could. In any case, options has been in use in India for a long time, without us explicitly recognizing it. If you've tried buying land in India, chances are you've been asked to pay a "roka" as North Indians would call it. The "roka" is an advance that a buyer would pay a seller after which the seller would stop showing the land to others. The "roka" is an option, a right to buy the land within a specified time. "Roka" options are quite common in the real-estate market and are probably referred to with different words in different parts of the country.

Finally, I have anecdotal evidence that after Larsen & Toubro (L&T) had completed acquiring land for the third Howrah Bridge in (hold your breath) West Bengal, neighboring land owners who had been skipped were upset at missing the pie, and begged L&T to consider buying their land too. It seems that landowners in West Bengal also like good deals, like landowners anywhere else.

Challenges

There are some legitimate challenges to applying this solution, especially in places like West Bengal. The business climate in the state is highly interventionist, with entrepreneurs unable to operate without the blessings of the prevailing local political party. In such a situation, talking about free markets is a travesty. The current government needs to realize that it cannot replace coercive prevention of industry by coercive adoption of it. It needs to start with the fundamentals and shrink to a minimal form of government. But then, what will happen to the party ranks? Instead of employing cadre into what amounts to an organized land mafia, they can be encouraged to become social entrepreneurs who combine the best of capitalism (freedom) and communism (caring for the community) while leaving the worst out (greed and coercion respectively). While this might take some time, a first step for India would be people from all walks of life coming together to demand the revoking of Article 300-A so that no government has the right to take away private property through any argument of public good. In today's society, we should realize that governments claim almost any economic activity as a public good, and eminent domain laws become a vehicle for individual abuse.

While economists would welcome the strengthening of property rights, they may raise several objections to entirely scrapping Eminent Domain laws in India. First, they will point out that there are "actual public goods" that a government must provide (e.g. roads, wildlife reserves, forested lands). How is the government to do so without laws that resemble eminent domain? Second, private parties cannot freely purchase agricultural land in India. We would need laws that allowed for land use changes, and we still need to consider if such a change is in public interest. Third, individuals sitting on vast natural resources ought not to have the right to refuse their commercialization - this is an argument for eminent domain laws. Fourth, there are thousands of land holders who have title to a small amount of land. This makes it infeasible for private parties to negotiate with so many, hence, the government is a good intermediary. Finally, you would need a sophisticated buyer and seller to be able to use options.

Lets take these arguments one by one. First, it is a 20th century idea that governments are responsible for public goods. There is ample evidence of societies that did fine in the past without government intervention in every sphere of life. As evidence in our present time, look at all the public goods in India and you will find those are the services that are most lacking in creativity and innovation. In the United States as well, the government builds roads as a public good. This is one sector which has seen so little innovation that you now have cars that are built to touch 200 miles per hour and roads that can only handle 65 miles per hour. Think about all the private toll roads you've been on in India and compare them to the government maintained roads, and the difference should immediately be apparent to you. India is full of examples of social entrepreneurs who have given up on the government's ability to provide public goods and provided solutions themselves, either as a for-profit or as a non-profit. Sulabh International builds public toilets(shauchalayas) that are financially sustainable and pay for their construction cost quickly, while generating employment. See Box 3 and Box 4 for further examples. Second, I agree that private parties should be allowed to freely purchase agricultural land and the land owner should have the right to decide how the land should be used. If the current land owner feels it is important that the land use should not be changed, this can be specified in a contract at the time of sale. The argument is often made that good agricultural land should not be used for non-agricultural purposes. If we truly believe that, then we should immediately proceed to demolish all the government (and other) buildings in Kolkata, which has some of the best agricultural soil you could find being on the banks of the Ganga. Third, it is possible to grant an individual the right to their property while one could also construct rights for what lies below the property and separate the two. Once this is done, there is an incentive for entrepreneurs to find ways to drill for oil or a similar natural resource without disturbing the landowner who is at the surface. Fourth, the argument of "too many land owners" is a terrible one, as the government does no better, and arguably worse, than a private negotiator. In fact, a private negotiator would not have the advantage of guns and would have to be polite and stay within legal boundaries. Perhaps, this is an area where an entrepreneur could provide negotiation consulting services. Finally, the argument of sophisticated buyer and seller is an argument for education, although the Indian market is already using "roka" options without doing sophisticated decision analysis. Companies that need help modeling options can hire decision consultants just like they hire tax consultants. I admit that companies will have an advantage in pricing methodology over individual landowners. However, this is a good reason for the creation of a friendly social venture that offers pricing services to individual land owners. On the topic of decision education in India, there is much that needs to be done. (See Box 5)

Philosophical, Economic and Traditional Reasons

Options should be used for both philosophical and economic reasons.

Philosophically, even if everyone around me says that murder and theft is the best way to get what I want, I refuse to do it, and I will argue that India, with its deep spiritual tradition of acceptance of all religions, systems and ideas, should stand firmly behind non-coercion. Just as the tool of coercive land acquisition is the use of a police force with guns, the tool of smart non-coercive land acquisition is options. Economically, let us be clear that while using options has lowered the cost of land acquisition for many, the method itself is not going to guarantee that industrialists will get the land they want, which is no different from the case of using coercion as we have just seen the Tatas getting thwarted even with government support. If both methods cannot guarantee success, and the coercive one consistently creates more headaches, takes lives and increases costs, then we ought to throw our weight behind the non-coercive methods.

Finally, traditionalists might point out that in the Indian tradition, the individual must sacrifice for the family, the family for the community, the community for the state and the state for the world (a maxim approved by Sri Krishna). While this is a noble spiritual idea, it is not what is followed today. On the other hand, a more accurate maxim for the practice of the modern day is, "the individual must be coerced to sacrifice for the family, the family for the community, the community for the state for the world." Every spiritual tradition in India recognizes a supreme internal freedom asks its followers to acknowledge and become aware of it. It is but natural that India lead the world in giving expression to this internal freedom in our external environment. We can start by recognizing that individual sacrifice is a decision to be made only by the individual, and coercion has no place in a society that wants to call itself free.

Almost every country in the world has a legal mechanism that resembles Eminent Domain laws. In the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland, these laws are referred to as "Compulsory Purchase," while Canada and South Africa call it "Expropriation." India used to consider right to property as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f). This meant that your land could not be taken away except under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, or a similar state law, which allows the use of forcibly acquired land by the Government "in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe". The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 empowered the Central and the State Governments to acquire lands that they felt was necessary for a "public purpose". Public purpose was defined so broadly that even land use by state-owned corporations was included, thus turning this law into an all-powerful mechanism for the British. While this British baggage continues to this day, in 1978, the right to property was shifted out of fundamental rights so as to make it harder to challenge land acquisitions by the government, and Article 300-A was introduced which said that "no person will be deprived of his property save by authority of law." In other words, the state/central government can take your land away if Parliament or State Legislatures make a legislation/order/rule to do so, in exchange for compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector. You can challenge the action of the government in a court if you think the government has acted unfairly, and in most countries (except authoritarian ones like China), this leads to protracted legal battles, civil rights headaches for the government and spiraling legal costs for the industry involved. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill (2007) is an effort to reform the 1894 law, but how much band-aid can one put on a gaping wound? Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya recently outlined in the Statesman (Oct 29, 2008) how even passing a law under Article 300-A has been successfully challenged in court. How many people have the resources to take on the government when their rights are violated?

At this time, the United States probably has the worst eminent domain laws on the planet. In 2005, a controversial Supreme Court ruling upheld (by a 5-4 vote) the government's use of eminent domain powers to take private property from one owner and transfer it to another owner under the pretext of economic development. This ruling was criticized publicly by many noted people, including Bill Clinton. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted against the law in the famed Kelo v. City of New London case, warned that this new addition would "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property." For the first time in US history, governments could use eminent domain powers to declare ordinary private use of property as a "public use." In a report by the Castle Coalition (a network of homeowners and activists in the US determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain), there have been more than 5,000 instances of abuse since the Kelo decision. This figure includes cases where private property owners have threatened the use of eminent domain on reluctant sellers to agree to their price or risk having their property taken away by force. This situation is quite comparable to India where the government acquires lands for private parties under the argument of "economic development."

The report also goes on to debunk the myth that eminent domain laws are needed for economic development by citing several projects that did not use eminent domain. Walt Disney's construction of Disney World, The Rouse Company's construction of a new city in Howard County, Maryland and Focus Property Group's creation of a 3000-acre community called Mountain's Edge are some of the examples. Disney World is particularly interesting to us as they used options quite heavily. Further Reading: http://www.castlecoalition.org

Box 3: Social Entrepreneurs in India, a powerful force for public good
Arvind Eye Hospitals in Madurai (and other cities in South India) treats patients who cannot pay; free of cost and make up their money from people who can. Exnora in Chennai (and now several other cities) has created a system of garbage cleaning where an erstwhile scavenger now collects garbage from each home and dumps it in the proper place, for a fee. LaserSoft Info Systems in Chennai employs "disabled" people and puts them to work in the field of banking software. The Sangini Mahila Seva Cooperative Society is for, of and by sex workers in Kamathipura, Mumbai's oldest red-light district, where sex workers gain access to banking services and rise out of destitution. A similar and older initiative has been quite successful in Kolkata's Sonargachi district. The popular Lijjat Papad is made by a social venture, Shri Mahila Griha Udyog, founded by Sarvodaya members. This is an organization focused on creating a dignified work environment for women in a decentralized manner, and its success should inform case studies in any serious business school. Most Indians are familiar with "utterly, butterly delicious" Amul butter. Amul stands for Anand Milk Union Limited, a social venture inspired by Sardar Vallabhai Patel, which is privately run as a cooperative to give milk farmers a good deal and provide high quality milk products to society. Anandwan is a social venture in Maharashtra founded by the late Baba Amte, and run as a self-sufficient rehabilitation center for people afflicted with leprosy. Anandwan has incorporated environment-friendly processes into the local lifestyle without your tax money.

Box 4: Environmental Social Entrepreneurship in the US
The Nature Conservancy (http://www.nature.org/) is a US charitable institution that acquires forested land using existing land acquisition laws as a private party in order to conserve it. Aimed at preserving bio-diversity, this organization has been voted as one of the most trusted national organizations in the US in online polls. Their work has led to the creation of several national parks. The Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund is a private initiative by an organization called Defenders of Wildlife that finds innovative solutions to prevent people from killing wildlife (such as compensating farmers for the livestock they lose to wolves in return for sparing the wolf's life). The Property and Environment Research Center has an instructive article by the founder of this project, Hank Fischer, at http://www.perc.org/articles/article319.php

Box 5: Decision Education
It is a pity that most business schools in India either skip Decision Analysis or teach it as "Decision Tree Analysis," which is like stripping all the philosophy from yoga and teaching it as a bunch of stretching exercises. There is only minimal benefit in doing so. This is not just a problem in India but also in the United States (as you can see from the massive financial crisis). What is even more pitiable is that people need to wait till they get to a university (there are only a few that teach this as a philosophy) to learn good decision making. To remedy this, the Decision Education Foundation (www.decisioneducation.org) teaches high school children the basics of good decision making. Perhaps it is time to start a chapter of the foundation in India.

Here is a very brief introduction to the philosophical foundation of decision analysis (DA). DA does NOT help you predict the future or maximize the chance of the best outcome. For that, you are better off going to an Indian astrologer or a financial engineer (though I wouldn't trust the financial engineer - I recommend the book "The Black Swan" for people who call themselves statisticians or financial engineers). DA is an amoral method that helps you stay consistent with your preferences, information and alternatives. DA disabuses you of the notion of "objective decision making," making it clear that you can only judge the quality of your decision, not someone else's. Even more fundamentally, the quality of your decision must be judged before the outcome, as you cannot judge a decision from the outcome. If you knew the outcome, you wouldn't have a decision to make. Another fundamental tenet is the principle of sunk cost - the past matters only for learning, not for accounting.

Islam and Hinduism: Experience of an Evangelist

SAN — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:45:51 EST

Let me begin with who I am and what I believe. I am a Christian evangelist who believes in winning others to Christ (you can call it conversion). I am not paid nor funded by any organization though I do not see anything wrong in both. I work to earn my living and do my ministry. I do not belong to any organized/institutional Church though I preach in every Church. It has been almost eight years that I am preaching the Gospel. I have conducted open forums, inter-religious public debates (one of the largest ever in the world), written pamphlets and booklets. I hope I can speak about religion now.

I believe that one man’s religion is another man’s blasphemy. So I do not believe that ‘all religions are true’ and ‘all religions are valid paths for salvation”. Moreover, I think the statement that ‘all religions are true’ is illogical and can never be substantiated with evidences. In fact, it is logically valid to say that “all religions are false” though I believe one religion is true because of evidences (and you know which I think as true). Therefore, if one man truly preaches his religion, then it would be a blasphemy to another man. You may ask: if I do not think other man’s religion as valid how am I going to live in a pluralistic society? My answer is- I believe in the dignity of every human being though not in the validity of every view. So along with the alleged statement of atheist Voltaire, I will say “I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

It has been almost two and half years ago that I started focusing on Islam with a greater interest. Islamic terrorism was a concern for me too. Initially, I attended some Islamic religious programs and asked a few of the most sensitive questions. I was expecting a bomb blast for that. The Islamic preacher attempted to answer the questions (though not satisfactorily), and blasphemed against my religion (which I thought was not relevant to the question though that is his right). But there was no threat of any kind - veiled or blatant.

Then I started writing against the doctrines of Islam. A few Christians and some Hindus warned me of Muslim repercussions. But I never got a threat - veiled or blatant.

I then debated with Dawwah preachers both closed-room (in front of hundreds) and open ground (in front of thousands). They sometimes ridiculed at me, sometimes mocked at me, sometimes blasphemed about my faith, and presented their own rebuttals but never did I receive a threat - veiled or blatant. To add to it all, I now live in Hyderabad.

It was the Hindu terrorism in Orissa that rudely woke me to the Hinduism angle. So it has been hardly two months that I have been focusing on Hinduism. I am yet to conduct an open forum or a public debate on this topic though I intend to start with an open forum and am willing to take a public debate (if any Hindu religious preacher is ready). But until now I have only written a few articles and an e-booklet. All of these are written in English and published on the Internet. The responses that I got from the ‘religion of tolerance’ are shocking.

Here I summarize a few:

• We will chop your head (Blatant threat, I say. I have saved this email and wrote back to this guy that this might be difficult for him to carry out and he should rather try to refute me.)
• You are defaming and maligning our religion
• We are tolerant people but if you write like this we will be forced to attack (I thought one should be considered as tolerant when they peacefully respond to criticisms and not when they live without criticisms. Maybe this fellow must have thought that he is ‘gracious’ in allowing me even to live as a Mleccha as long as I keep silent)
• You are forcing us to join RSS (veiled threat, I say)
• And a lot of abuses

I agree that both these experiences are very limited and cannot be generalized. Moreover, Hindus in USA may have responded differently and Muslims in Saudi Arabia will surely respond differently. But as of now, I am only bothered about India.

Are the Indian Muslims better in handling criticisms than Indian Hindus? With my limited experience, I should say yes.

Why it is so?

Maybe because Hindus are in the majority. As Bill Clinton once said in another context, "I did it because I could."

Maybe because Hindus are only tolerant when you do not disturb their caste structure (remember Jews and Parsis) and are intolerant when you disturb it (remember Buddhists).

Maybe because Hindus do not want to face criticisms for the fear of being exposed. My political leader Babasaheb Ambedkar once wrote:

“In raising the second objection (all religions are true, therefore it is futile to convert) the Hindu is merely trying to avoid an examination of Hinduism on its merits. It is an extraordinary thing that in the controversy over conversion not a single Hindu has had the courage to challenge the Untouchables to say what is wrong with Hinduism. The Hindu is merely taking shelter under the attitude generated by the science of comparative religion. The science of comparative religion has broken down the arrogant claims of all revealed religions that they alone are true and all others which are not the results of revelation are false. That revelation was too arbitrary, too capricious test to be accepted for distinguishing a true religion from a false was undoubtedly a great service which the science of comparative religion has rendered to the cause of religion. But it must be said to the discredit of that science that it has created the general impression that all religions are good and there is no use and purpose in discriminating them.”

Maybe a combination of all the reasons, although I am inclined to believe in the second and third reasons. Or maybe it is something else that I do not know yet.

Whatever the reasons I have some unsolicited advice for the Hindus:

• Defend your religion only by means of reason. It will show that you are truly tolerant.
• Never take physical weapons to oppose verbal and ideological criticisms
• Learn your own scriptures and reject what is wrong and accept only what is right (and if you would like to convert at any point, please do let me know).
• Study other’s religions also. Though you are a majority, it will help to build a better pluralistic society
• Do not repeat that ‘all religions are true”. You cannot live by a falsehood for long.

I have a few more things to say (including taking up debates), but that as you progressively become truly tolerant.

Jerry Thomas is a student of comparative religions with Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India. The views expressed here are personal and does not necessarily represent the organization or the Christian community that he belongs to.

Book Review: The Way We Will Be 50 Years From Today

BangaloreGuy — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:56:27 EDT

Firstly, congratulations to the editor and to the authors. Writing a book about the future, especially a compilation of essays on what the future might hold from 60 brilliant minds is usually something that comes up from a governmental organization - carrying out the same in a private space is commendable. One wishes more such endeavours are undertaken!

The preview for the book was interesting enough. There was mention of Nobel Peace Winners writing about wars - not just any wars, but nuclear wars. There were mentions about forced marriages amongst other things!
Whoa! I wanted to review it already!

There's always this lingering taste of a "slip betwixt cup and the lip", and in this case, it kind of seemed true, on starting with the book. But then, I discovered that this book's like a hamburger, almost. The starting and ending parts are (almost) plain, boring and somewhat poorly written (relatively). Its the essays in the middle that provide the taste, and some of the more compelling reading.

If you're going to read the book, I suggest that you dump the first 30 pages or so, and you might want to consider a similar number to dump at the last too - they're just a conundrum of blase writing, wishing for horses, and some stupid Utopian dreams mixed with some serious over the top thinking - "you're not allowed to marry X 'cos your gene pool's bad". Hello?? Someone miss the Stallone movie? (Demolition Man)

So, almost a quarter of the book's plain bad. There, I said it. Bad. Oh but, don't run off, the rest of the book makes up for it. There are a few essays that really should be the only ones they should have published - and boy, they're good.

Some pieces like that of Craig Newmark, founder of "Craig's list", are a joy to read - funny, witty, and a peekaboo at the future. Some like the Internet co-founders' piece on how humans will transcend their, what he calls "biological barriers" are marvellous - its been lucidly written, backed up by facts known currently - and it doesn't go Utopian, or look at the glass being half-full, but points perceptively to a future.

The prescriptions/predictions written by these authors - the "meat" in this hamburger of a book, are marvellous - because they deal with our present, and project from there to the future. They're all futurologists - to extend the term, slightly. Very clear cut cases made for embracing the new technologies that will help feed the world, feed the growing economies' appetite for energy with energy from sources that will not damage the world. There are cases made that describe how and why the environment can be saved - rainforests in the amazon etc., - quite a few with sound logic, facts and examples to buttress their future projections.

In fact, I would think any responsible government of a large country would want to do a similar thingy - but make it large enough to pull government policy out of it. In fact, for India - a country which has been rather slow to change - except in the greed with which natural resources are being plundered - this sort of a book, or a study would be a wonderful way to set-up for the future.

Pobody is Nerfect

Suresh Naig — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:37:03 EDT

Pobody is Nerfect

Yes. It should have been Nobody is Perfect. But if I say it perfectly, it would tantamount to me addressing others and I am excluded from the statement, which all of us including me, know cannot be true. All of us have our own quota of imperfection, knowing of which drives us constantly to evolve, towards perfection, so that at least we can be near perfect.

Perfection is not a destination, but a transition. As one evolves towards perfection and attains it, perfection would have travelled to a next level, perpetuating the race towards perfection. That is one of the reasons imperfection is all pervading, manmade or otherwise.

Zoologically we human beings come under the classification of symmetrical animals, where the left and right sides are in perfect symmetry. But any medical professional or a beautician would vouch for the slight imperfection, all of us possess between the two sides, biologically and structurally.

Perhaps recognising this fact, Hinduism never considered imperfection as a sin. To drive home the point powerfully, even an avatar of Vishnu - Ram expressed and possessed his quota of imperfection. Killing of Bali, by deceit is one glaring incident in Ramayan – a blot on otherwise a perfect character of Ram. In Mahabharat, a noble and virtuous character – Yudhishter, slipped from his perfect portrait, when he gambled everything including his wife.

Father of modern management Peter F Drucker highlighted the imperfection of persons by his famous quote, “where there is a peak, there is bound to be a valley”. I could identify lot of parallels in Mahabharat & Bhagawat Geeta and Drucker’s management theories, portraying different individuals at different times. A person’s perfection is dependent on circumstances and situation. A perfect father need not be a perfect husband, a perfect teacher need not be a perfect father, a perfect leader could be a disastrous head of a family and we can go on and on endlessly.

The same principle is employed, thereby gullible sinners are exploited by so many quacks, in promoting so many drugs, purported to increase virility, which is allegedly lost due to masturbation. These quacks know masturbation is not uncommon and by their declaration that masturbation is a sin, quacks make so many rural youngsters guilty and that guilt is their USP, in trapping these gullible for their rich harvest.

Wait. Do I see a parallel? Yes. All of us are repeatedly bombarded day in and day out by so many people that “wages of sin is death”, when we all know that death is the only certainty, whether one sins or not. If I believe their statement to be true, then I can surmise, that all of us die, for the sin of propagating a lie that, “wages of sin is death”.