Desicritics Category: Culture: Society

America's Healthcare Crisis, Part II - Physician, Heal Thy Profession

Ashoka Chakra — Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:04:35 EST

Physician, heal thyself.

One bright sunny day two decades ago, I stood rather nervously in an examination room, taking an oral examination in order to graduate from medical school. The examiner stood a few feet from me and with a curtly nod summoned a patient. The patient shuffled in and the examiner observed his watch. After thirty seconds, he nodded again, and the patient shuffled out. The examiner turned towards me. “Your diagnosis, doctor?”

That was a different era, an era where physicians were scientists, trained observers and good listeners. It was an era when physicians spent time with patients. How times have changed.

In thirty seconds, I observed that the patient’s right shoulder drooped, he took shallow quick breaths, and that he was rather emaciated. Pulmonary insufficiency afflicting the right lung, secondary to either tuberculosis or cancer was my diagnosis and I passed. I was able to make that diagnosis because I had been taught the importance of taking a good history and performing a thorough physical examination. By the time of graduation, those skills had been mastered. Though the two can be time consuming, they are a lot more cost effective than modern tests. But more importantly, they establish a rapport between physician and patient that is priceless.

These days, physicians spend less than 5 minutes with a patient and move on after ordering myriad laboratory or radiology tests. The art of a differential diagnosis that required options to be carefully vetted has been lost to batteries of expensive tests. How many patients can attest to their physicians having spent time with them, and lent a sympathetic ear? Sadly, centuries old sacrosanct trust that existed between patients and physicians has been relegated to history books. A physician is not looked upon as a knowledgeable family friend but as a glorified laboratory technician out to make a bundle.

The mentality of conducting tests rather than dealing with patients directly contributes to the health care crisis. In my last op-ed, I had mentioned that it took a CAT scan to identify my neighbor’s neck mass, something that any physician worth his/her salt should have identified from across the room. If such tests are to replace the eye, is it any wonder that medical expenses have sky rocketed? A gastroenterologist I know brags that he does not even touch a patient any more. He sends them straight for radiological imaging or endoscopy. Since he spends less time per patient, he can see many more patients a day, enhancing his income considerably. Unfortunately patients fall for this, assuming that more tests are better. While directed tests to prove a diagnosis are very understandable, testing simply to replace the process of diagnosis process is very wasteful.

Physicians argue that the legal atmosphere or patient pressure forces them to perform myriad tests. While both arguments are true to some degree, physicians must ask themselves who ultimately dictates standard of care.

The standard of care is not limited to diagnosis. Therapy is perhaps a more important component – after all, the increase in life expectancy over the past five decades is due largely to life saving drugs developed by the pharmaceutical industry. However, despite our appreciation for the pharmaceutical / biotechnology companies and their products, we should also keep in mind that they are responsible for the largest increase in health care costs. In this area, physicians can do a lot to curtail runaway prices. An example would be prescribing generic drugs instead of brand name ones. It is wrongly assumed that generic drugs are somehow inferior to brand name drugs. Generics have to prove their safety and equivalence to branded drugs before the FDA approves them and there is no reason to prescribe expensive brand names while cheaper alternatives are available.

My last comment is to exhort physicians to take back the practice of medicine. To take it back to an era where physicians were respected and the profession was an honored one. To take it back from bureaucrats, lawyers, and insurance company executives whose short term vision is dangerous to patients and the field of medicine. In short, physician, heal thy profession.

Outrageous Claim in The Lancet: 1,63,000 Indians die in Fire Accidents Yearly

Sumanth — Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:26:52 EST

It hurts to see publication of false statistics and outrageous claims by ill-educated Indians and in Western media.

The recent story on 2nd March, is related to a claim in the BBC, sensationalizing a study published in the Lancet by three feminists that they estimate 1,63,000 fire accident deaths in India every single year. (PDF) They also claim that the statistics from Indian police have grossly under reported regarding these incidents.

Soon, they jump into sweeping generalizations, interpretations and call for policy change to prevent these fire accidents. Within 24 hours, this story is carried out by BBC, Time and followed up by some bloggers doing irreparable damage even before someone has a copy of that research paper.

We have been protesting with the BBC and other Western media channels since the news reports and are contemplating legal action.

The Time magazine article says,

If the study's estimates are correct, more than twelve women die in fires every hour in India.

I, myself, am an author of papers published in IEEE, and know very well how research is carried out and how estimates can be churned out. I will dissect the research by feminists later. However, I can give a hard punch to the so called estimates on fire accidents in India right now.

The National Crime Records Bureau(NCRB) publishes that there are about 20,000 fire accident deaths in 2007. The study published in the Lancet, reported in the BBC, claims (or ESTIMATES) that there are 1,63,000 fire accident deaths in one single year.

So, the F**king ESTIMATES published are 8 times more than the Police (NCRB) records.

If police records have 8 times under reported these fire accidents, then they would have also under reported accidents like drownings, rural road accidents, falling from buildings, poisoning etc. There is no reason why police will selectively under report.

In 2007, there were in total 3,40,000 accident deaths in India (PDF).

So, if we follow this logic of under-reporting by the police and make the corrections accordingly, then there were 2.7 million (27 lacs) accident deaths in India in 2007 for a population of 1100 million (110 crores).

That's Bullshit!!

Can an Indian believe that there is one accidental death for 400 people (men, women and children) every single year?

If this is the way the Western agencies fund and sensationalize biased research for political purposes, then how is it going to improve the difficult situations in the world?

There have been many false stories published in Western media in last couple of years including false stories of 70% Indian women facing domestic violence, 25,000 dowry deaths per year and Bangalore being bride burning capital.

It is worrying that feminists in Indian media and bloggers can start spitting fire and start another round of anti-male rhetoric calling for castration of males accused of dowry harassment.

Now, I wonder why I should not join any nationalistic outfits, when there is complete betrayal of the nation by feminists and the media is hell bent in distorting people's perceptions.

I will link to one example from the feminist rumour mill and its potential impact towards clash of civilizations of a differ kind. The rumour mills will only add to the existing clashes with even moderates getting less sympathetic to the west and the western.

Those who do not wish to see India become yet another terrorist state need to focus immediately on stopping what feminists are doing in the United Nations. Indians I am in communication with see their new domestic violence law as a "cultural invasion by western feminists."

They know it is phony, and intended to destroy marriage and Indian society by empowering foreign radicals to take over the country and dictate from a pink pedestal of feminist dictatorship. Indians are both terrified and furious. They know this invasion is predominantly coming from America."

Then, I remembered the "Talibanisation of Mangalore" and now I can understand why people can support Taliban in Swat.

Relationship Lawlessness & Social Criminals

IdeaSmith — Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:01:42 EST

I recently saw a movie about relationships and love. In one scene, a man and a woman meet in a department store and strike up a conversation over the cash register which continues till they walk out. Standing on the sidewalk, they talk, like any two strangers who've just met, of things that interest the other and ooh and aah over what they have in common. Then, just on the verge of that crucial 'ask for her number' moment, the guy shrugs and says,

I can't do this. I'm married.

It struck me right between my eyes just then. They were following a socially accepted ritual. Then they reached a point where an expression of interest had to be made or not. And it could not be made since he was clearly unavailable. The social mores dictated that he not go any further unless he was intending to take it forward seriously.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~

Last year I went to Europe on holiday. After enduring much ribbing about Turkish delights and Greek gods, I returned to report that no man had flirted with me. My mother, on the other hand, told me of one of our co-passengers who had struck up a conversation and told her she was beautiful, adding with a snide look at my dad that he couldn't say the same about her husband.

She was highly surprised (even though I spend all my time telling her that she looks at least a decade younger than she is - and she does!) till I added that in some western communities, it was considered polite, practically a social requirement to mock-flirt with a lady and compliment her on her fine form. This especially for a married woman, since it was quite clear that it was in light vein and was not intended to be taken seriously. Quite unlike India where it would be considered highly inappropriate to flirt or compliment a married woman.

On the other hand, my father pointed out, that it would be equally inappropriate for the same men to have flirted with me since I was clearly available. Flirting would have been an indication of serious intent, a formal expression of interest.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~We are still in a nascent society as far as dating goes. Our parents generation invented love marriages in this society; we are the generation that brings in friendship between the sexes as well as socially sanctioned romantic/sexual relationships before marriage. We haven't quite learned where to draw the line between friendship-comfort and attraction-commitment. We are still experimenting with how far we go with being funny/cool/charming and where it trespasses into flirtation.

Think about some of the relationship scenarios that are very real to us today. The 'best friend' of the opposite sex that makes the girlfriend/boyfriend so uncomfortable. The good friends (sister-brother...this is really the most convoluted one of all) who vehemently decree that other people have dirty minds. The older colleague/father of a friend/friend of father/husband of a friend who are really friendly, but perhaps a little too much sometimes?

Don't we all know a guy who promises the moon and earth to every second girl, believing correctly, that she'll keep it to herself because in the larger sense, it still isn't done for a girl to admit that she's been with a guy? There is nothing to check him from repeating the same over and over again, no one to brand him for the cad he is. Even after the crime is complete and guy is far away, possibly chasing a whole new set of girls or actually married, how many of the women he has wronged are actually going to speak up? And if you say you don't know such a guy, give me a call. I have a private 'Hall of Shame' of these social criminals.

How about the committed ones who pass off their behaviour as harmless friendliness? There's a general 'kehne mein kya harz hai?' syndrome working here. The problem is that people do fall in love, hearts get broken, trust is rended and lives are shattered. You can deny those are very real crimes, nasty things that people do to people.

As modern women, we are expected to be 'okay' with a certain degree of liberal expression. The question how far does that stretch? It's okay to know a lot of guys, it's fine to go out with them, even flirt with them, get into relationships with them. But all of that provided it ends in the institution of marriage or at least a 'stable, steady relationship'. But from meeting a guy to ending up in that last socially sanctioned comfortable relationship, it's a long way. Most men fall short far before that. Or I suspect a lot of them aren't even intending to go that far but try and drag out as much as they can get before they need to rat-tail it 'before it gets too serious'.

We stuff our best-looking side into our public persona and bury our insecurities. We put up with a guy who is 'commitment-phobic' for months and months because we don't want to be nags. We're okay with the 'just good friends' tag. We even tolerate cheating and tell ourselves patience is a virtue. What happens when he dumps you to go chase another girl and propose marriage to her in a week? You can be sure a crime of sorts has been committed but who's going to haul in the offender?

And if you're thinking this is equally true of women as well, I agree. With one small exception. Men who have been wronged in this manner can speak up about it and they do. Where else do we get such nasty phrases like slag and tease from? On the other hand, a woman who has been wronged cannot speak up. Liberated-ness be damned, one of those aforementioned crimes was perpetrated on me. I didn't dare speak up since I knew even our common friends would just think I was stupid for having believed such a guy in the first place. Well, you live, you learn.

Last month, I was flirted with by a committed man. I was unsure on when exactly I could draw the line and just relieved to get away without too much embarrassment. As I'm writing this post, I'm being propositioned by a married friend. This relationship is sometimes questioned by my friends who believe (quite correctly) that he is a social criminal. I agree and yet I continue to be friends (only in every sense of the word) with him. But few relationships are this manageable and heavenaloneknows that this one wasn't easy either.

Let me end this by just saying that delightful as this state may be with its glorious rule-lessness, the very lawlessness of it leaves each of us vulnerable to social crimes.

Cecilia Makiwane Hospital, Symbol of Hope and Courage in South Africa

Amitabh Mitra — Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:36:34 EST

I saw a documentary film recently on Al Jazeera about Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, affectionately called Bara in Soweto, South Africa. Soweto remains the biggest black township and is synonymous with the struggle against the apartheid. It made me write this photoessay on Cecilia Makiwane Hospital in Madantsane. Mdantsane remains the second biggest township in South Africa, situated in the province of Eastern Cape, it provides the leadership to the new South Africa.

Cecilia Makiwane was born in the Mac Farlane Mission in Victoria within the district of Alice in Eastern Cape in 1880. Her father was Elijah Makiwane and mother was Maggie Majiza. She studied in the Lovedale Girls School in Victoria, Alice. Cecilia Makiwane studied nursing and she holds the title of being the first black woman to be licensed as a professional nurse in 1908. Several honours have been bestowed upon Cecilia and show the regard with which the medical fraternity holds Cecelia. Amongst them are: a statue of Makiwane being erected in 1977, a hospital in Mdantsane near East London being named after her and the nursing tradition of observing a day of prayer on January 7 (the date Makiwane was admitted ). She passed away in 1919.

Having worked in a number of African countries, I came to Ciskei during the apartheid era. Ciskei was an independent homeland country and Mdantsane remained within its confines. The Ciskeian Government built the hospital and named it after her. It is a tertiary university affiliated referral hospital which once boasted of a thousand beds. A number of doctors from overseas sacrificed their lives while serving in this hospital during the apartheid era. Cecilia Makiwane Hospital remains a symbol of hope as it is the symbol of anti apartheid struggle, courage and catering to thousands of patients till this day

Sunrise at Mdantsane

The sculpture of Cecilia Makiwane

With nurses in traditional dress

Patients being air transported from remote areas

Flying Medics of Mdantsane

Indigenous plants and flowers within the hospital campus

An indigenous flowery plant

Material Girl

IdeaSmith — Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:20:27 EST

I went diamond-shopping this weekend. Last year I received a corporate pat-on-the-back with a financial award. Someone suggested that I spend it on jewelery instead of frittering it away on clothes, books and shoes. It took me months but I finally agreed.

It's not even the first major purchase I made, even for jewellery. I saved up on my first job and bought my father a new cellphone and my mother, a diamond ring. That was a funny feeling. A memorable feeling, a funny one and one I'll treasure all my life - the exhilarating thrill that comes from being able to buy something for the people you love, who have provided for you all your life.

A few years later, I'm going big-purchase-shopping again. But it just is different. A different kind of different.

I think in my head, despite all the wondrous freedom of financial independence and mental release, my liberated-ness has a few gaps in it. Like little stitches still binding me to old ways of being, long after I've snipped away the life I want to wear.

Diamonds are usually received as gifts, not bought for oneself. Gifted by a man - a father, a brother, a lover, a husband. If diamonds are a girl's best friend, it's because those sparkly stones carry the monetary value that they were bought for, but also the power of being cherished and indulged by men.

Diamonds have been symbolic for years and they continue to be so. Only my diamonds don't list out the men who will lavish their affections on me. They remind me of everything that I've worked for and achieved. The power to buy a diamond as well as the right to wear one that is truly my own. It's just odd how long it took me to accept the feeling. Not feel guilty about lavishing it on myself, not feel obligated to spending it on someone else or something more important/intelligent, not wonder if brandishing my economic power made me seem like even more of a man-hating feminist than people usually accuse me of being. It took me a long time to accept that it was okay to buy a diamond for myself and feel good about it.

Newfound power doesn't come easy; it's scary.

America's Healthcare Crisis, Part I

Ashoka Chakra — Sun, 1 Mar 2009 05:02:22 EST

A few months ago, one of my neighbors (lets call him Q) was driving from Pennsylvania to New Jersey on I-78 when he began to feel unwell. He felt weak and nauseas, and had a headache. Q managed to work half the day, but then his condition deteriorated. After calling his wife, he drove home, without informing his physician about his condition. The wife waited at home, wondering whom she would hear from first – her husband, the emergency medical services, or the highway patrol. He did end up reaching home safely, without causing a wreck or injuring other drivers on the highway, but they ended up going to the emergency room that night.

The story gets more fascinating at this point. After many tests in the ER, Q was hospitalized. He had a history or high blood pressure and was about 100 pounds overweight. Disregarding his doctor’s advice to loose weight and exercise, he had carried on, concluding that he was too young to worry about strokes or heart attacks. After all, he was only in mid-thirties. But Q wasn’t too young, and he ended up with a stroke. Fortunately for him, there was no permanent neurological damage. Unfortunately for him, the tests revealed another problem – he had a mass in his neck that was detected by computerized axial tomography (commonly known as the CAT scan). That it required a CAT scan to identify a mass that should have been detected by a physical exam is a point that will be addressed in a subsequent column, but to cut a long story short, he was suspected of suffering from a lymphoma. Many tests followed, most of them unnecessary, with attendant expenses and anxiety, till he was proven to be cancer free. And then, Q lost his job. While the company laid-off others as well, undoubtedly his case was complicated by medical bills. A few months after this, I asked Q what medications he was on, and he looked at me with a vacant expression and said, “I don’t know.” He now has trouble finding a new job that is commensurate with his experience and training. Part of the reason is the health care premium his new employer would have to pay.

This story reveals several aspects of what is wrong with the health care system, such as the attitude of patients, doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies. This column addresses the behavior of patients.

We in America have gotten used to being taken care of by someone else and over a period of time, have lost the sense of responsibility. Health has become the responsibility of everyone but the patient. However, shouldn’t health the patient’s own responsibility? Why should the government or a doctor be responsible? A doctor IS responsible for providing guidance and counsel. However, the ultimate responsibility is that of the individual. And if that individual chooses to live on a diet of hamburgers, fries, and considers watching sports on TV the best way to exercise, is it a surprise that obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease ensue? While suing physicians may enrich John Edwards and his ilk, it won’t solve the problem.

Avoiding disease should be the first health care priority and responsibility of an individual. That includes proper diet, exercise, vaccinations, and common sense actions such as wearing helmets, seatbelts, avoiding unprotected sex, etc. It is acknowledged that genetics, age, and environmental influences affect even those who are careful, and that is where the second priority comes in.

The second health care responsibility is to understand and educate oneself to disease(s) that afflict a person and also to familiarize oneself to the therapeutic modalities. If an individual has hypertension, s/he needs to know about the disease and the therapies available (which includes drugs and non-drug related activities such as diet, etc). Unlike Q, who did not his medications, a responsible individual should not only know the names and doses of the medications but also the side effects and interactions with other medications. In the Internet era, knowledge is not hard to come by and is no longer an excuse.

The third health care responsibility is to follow instructions meticulously. If exercise is advised, it should be followed. If an antibiotic is prescribed, it should be taken as prescribed, and not stopped half way through.

By taking responsibility for our own health, we can help save the health care system from a catastrophic breakdown.

If You Have It, Show It!

Shantanu Dutta — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:06:06 EST

I ran down the stairs like every morning to find that the gate outside my home wouldn’t open fully and I would have to some how squeeze myself out through the partially blocked gate and get out. A Toyota Qualis stood parked outside the gate.

In the evening when I returned home, it was still parked there. When the next day, and then the day following, the Qualis stayed parked there, it was clear that the vehicle wasn’t one that belonged to some one who had come visiting. It had been purchased by one or the other of my many neighbors. Not having any parking space, he bought his out sized vehicle and not having any parking space, decided that it was quite all right to dump it on the road; not in front of his house necessarily, but wherever he found the space; which happened to be in front of my house. A gaudily painted sign at the back of the car said that it was a “gift of god”.

On the eve of independence India's newly elected Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made an impassioned and oft-quoted speech saying India had made a tryst with destiny. It was an austere, simple time when idealism was at its height and the distribution of wealth was a priority. Even decades later, in my own childhood, it was implicitly taught and understood, that today, it would seem that India has taken a slightly different route towards its destiny.

Flaunting your wealth? Is it a good or noble thing? In general, it has always been considered bad form to flaunt your money if you’ve got it. And it’s considered really bad form to flaunt your money these days when so many are losing their jobs or living with massive salary cuts. whereas traditionally “old money” has always been discreet and not ostentatious, the merchant princes of Mumbai and Kolkata for instance, it is the nouveau riche, who have made the money but never had the education to use it well, who are the real problem – the ones who will buy a Qualis and then not having the space to park it or the wherewithal to figure out a solution, dump it on the public space.

“The have it shows it “attitude is even more insensitive these days when scores of jobs have already been lost. For a while at least turning their backs towards globalization, countries turn back towards a protectionist economy and look after their own. As a result of policy changes under way currently, Over 50,000 IT professionals in the country may lose their jobs over the next six months as the situation in the sector is expected to worsen due to the impact of global economic meltdown on the export-driven industry, a forecast by a union of IT Enabled Services warned.

Addressing corporate honchos, the Prime Minister had remarked once that “Rising income and wealth inequalities, if not matched by a corresponding rise of incomes across the nation, can lead to social unrest. The electronic media carries the lifestyles of the rich and famous into every village and slum. Media often highlights the vulgar display of their wealth. An area of great concern is the level of ostentatious expenditure on weddings and other family events. Such vulgarity insults the poverty of the less privileged, it is socially wasteful and it plants seeds of resentment in the minds of the have-nots”. If I recall correctly, that address of Manmohan Singh was greeted by a stony silence by the functionaries of CII. Perhaps they weren’t yet too ready to abandon their conspicuous consumption patterns. Flaunting it if you have it is here to stay, be it private jets, ostentatious weddings or the Qualis at my door.

Godhra-Gujarat Seven Years Later

Vivek Bharat — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:12:08 EST

The English language media in India has never attempted to sincerely fulfill its duty as the standard bearer of free speech in a democracy. Its reluctance to provide a platform for a differing view at odds with its own preset agenda which reeks of bigotry at times is obvious when it pertains to Hindutva. A perusal of English newspapers in India leaves one with the impression that what happened in Gujarat in 2002 was a one-sided massacre of Muslims by Hindus; a hyperbole promoted by selective reporting and bolstered by biased opinion rants. With the 2009 Lok Sabha elections around the corner, there appears to be a subtle attempt to resurrect this disinformation campaign through a rash of articles that recall the horror of Gujarat 2002 through a skewed lens.

Whenever the phrase ‘the victims of Gujarat 2002’ is mentioned in English language newspapers, it invariably refers to the 790 Muslim victims of the Hindu-Muslim riots that ravaged Gujarat in 2002. Forgotten are the 254 Hindu casualties that occurred during the same fracas. Forgotten are the 59 Hindu men, women and children who were roasted alive at the Godhra station on February 27, 2002 in an act of heinous sectarianism that sets a diabolical standard.

Before I proceed further let me make one thing clear. I condemn unequivocally both the Godhra incident as well as the riots that followed. No modern society can tolerate such a display of barbarism and still call itself civilized. My gripe is not with highlighting the plight of the Muslim victims; every act of injustice regardless of the religion or creed of the victim needs reparation. I am concerned with the double standards that our Indian society espouses .The Muslim victims of the Gujarat riots have endless number of proponents each weaving story after story vastly exaggerated for sensational effect that fill volumes of newsprint and occupy endless hours of television time. In contrast the Hindu victims have few advocates and even these scarce voices continue to be stifled by the English language media in India which denies them a just platform for their grievances. I feel compelled to raise my voice to inject a sense of balance in this uneven playing field.

There are some points that I wish to reiterate about the Gujarat riots:

1) Godhra was a deliberate act of evil that was meant to provoke. It did. Without Godhra there would never have been a Gujarat 2002.Whether the Hindus should have exhibited a greater degree of restraint or not is certainly debatable. I would have preferred a massive non-violent protest. However it does not alter the irrevocable fact that Godhra was categorically the epicenter of the communal earthquake that rocked Gujarat.

2) This was not a pogrom by any stretch of imagination. Focus on the death ratio of 790 Muslims to 254 Hindus: it sounds like a riot with sizable casualties on both sides. To comprehend the meaning of a pogrom one needs to scrutinize the death toll in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984: greater than 3000 Sikh deaths to zero Hindus. This fellow countrymen is a pogrom orchestrated by the so-called secular Congress party.

3) Anti-Hindu violence during the Gujarat riots was not only widespread but ugly as well. Hindus too were also the victims of police inaction. I quote not from any parochial source but from a report by the Human Rights Watch.

a) “Hindus have also suffered greatly from the violence in Gujarat. In addition to the fifty-eight people killed during the torching of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002, over ten thousand Hindus have also been made homeless as a result of post-Godhra violence……”
….Sanjay Pandey, "Riots hit all classes, people of all faith," Times of India, March 18, 2002

b) “In Ahmedabad, violence broke out on March 17 when Dalits in the Danilimda area were attacked by Muslims. On March 19, it was Modasa, a town in Sabarkantha district. A police officer's son was stabbed and two communities went berserk.... The stories only got more macabre. In Himmatnagar, a young man who went to a Muslim-dominated area to do business was found dead, with his eyes gouged out. In Bharuch, the murder of a Muslim youth led to mass violence. Next the Sindhi Market and Bhanderi Pole areas of Ahmedabad, hitherto calm, were attacked by mobs. This phase, really, was one of Muslim mobs attacking Hindus.”
Udhay Mahurkar, "Gujarat: End of Hope," India Today, April 15, 2002

c) “A resident named Harki Bhen added: Kerosene bottles were thrown in through the roof. They threw it through the windows and the openings in the walls. We called the police thousands of times but they told us, "Sir is out". In the morning the mosques began announcing that Islam was in danger, that there was poison in the milk. This is their code word. We are the only Hindus here, poison here means us. The rioting lasted between 2:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.”
Human Rights Watch interview, Harki Bhen, Ahmedabad, March 23, 2002

d) “Human Rights Watch visited Mahajan No Vando, a fortified Hindu residential area situated within the Muslim dominated area of Jamalpur, on March 23. Mahajan No Vando was the site of a retaliatory attack by Muslims on March 1.
According to residents, approximately twenty-five people were injured in the attacks and at least five homes were completely destroyed. Residents closer to the periphery of the fortified compound and its entrance also suffered extensive property damage. Muslim residents attacked the compound from the higher Muslim-owned buildings that surrounded it using light bulbs filled with acid, petrol and crude bombs, and bottles filled with kerosene and set some Hindu-owned houses on fire. According to the residents, who had collected and saved the remnants of what was thrown in and showed them to Human Rights Watch, "There was acid in the glass bottles and in the light bulbs that were thrown in. They used solvent petrol, kerosene, and acid. They filled some Pepsi bottles with them."
Human Rights Watch interviews, Mahajan No Vando residents, Ahmedabad, March 23, 2002

With accusations and counter accusations swirling in the air in the aftermath of the riots, it was essential to have an enquiry commission that would clear the air and ascertain the truth. The Nanavati Commission was constituted on March 6, 2002 by a decree in accordance with the Constitution and submitted its report in September 2008 after painstakingly interviewing 1106 witnesses and examining 46000 affidavits. The commission was chaired by GT Nanavati, a retired Supreme Court Judge with stellar credentials and unquestionable integrity. Moreover Nanavati’s track record as an investigator par excellence was supported by his successful one-man enquiry commission into the anti-Sikh riots that brought many a guilty to book

The Nanavati Commission made two important observations:

1) That the fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002, was a “pre-planned conspiracy” of the local Muslims.

2) The report stated: “There is absolutely no evidence to show that the chief minister, his council of ministers or the police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots.”

Certain sections of our media have tried to underplay the conclusions of the Nanavati Commission by invoking the assertions of the Banerjee committee. However, the Banerjee Commission sanctioned by Lallu Prasad Yadav in 2004 stands disqualified as a legitimate vehicle, being debarred by the Gujarat High Court which deemed it as ‘unconstitutional, illegal and null and void’. Additionally, the haste with which this commission submitted its interim report, within 4 months of its inception, raises serious questions about its depth and accuracy

There have been other self styled impromptu ‘tribunals’ orchestrated by private organizations with a preset agenda. These carry no legal brief, only murky the situation further and have no place in a functioning democracy. They cannot be taken seriously.

Effectively, to date, the Nanavati Commission remains the only valid commission of enquiry into this matter. A judicial enquiry commission headed by a Supreme Court Judge represents a powerful and impartial instrument of a democratic process. To negate the findings of one is to question the very basic tenets of our democracy.

When we accept the culpability of Jagdish Tytler emanating from the previous Nanavati commission and indemnify the criminality of Madhukar Sarpotdar on the basis of the Srikrishna Commission, why is it that certain sections of our society balk at the exoneration of Modi by the present Nanavati report?

This smacks of double standards. Findings must be respected even if we do not agree with them: for that is the basis of a mature democracy.

Ref:
Human Rights Watch Report, April 2002.

Self and Society

Ruchi — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:02:02 EST

Is it just me or have things taken a decided turn towards alice in wonderland-esque surrealism. Like a kaleidoscope, the events of one's life are seemingly determined by external movements, people like bits of colored glass significant only in the patterns formed by their repeating mirror reflections. The force of events that upturn people's lives is breathtaking, and completely beyond the scope of most to foresee, let alone control/alter. There is both absolutism and arbitrariness, and the individual is left with a galling sense of powerlessness. How do the apparent odds of absolutism and arbitrariness coexist? The answer can be traced to an ever tighter black hole of power: the capriciousness of the egocentric, yet an all encompassing influence. We see both at work in the global meltdown, and the mass hysteria that is Slumdog.

The complete disregard for reasonable risk and ethics concentrated in a few square mile area in Manhattan has wreaked havoc around the world, leading to collapse in the economies of entire countries (Iceland, Latvia) and an anticipated 50M lost jobs. No one will be spared from the aftershocks, even those who've never heard of CDOs. Blips on the computer screen representing ridiculous financial engineering and 30-1 leverage ratios by a bunch of men in dark suits has led to a global recession, and the leading threat to stability around the world. Slumdog vaulted its cast and crew unknowns into premier league, after narrowly escaping its own Direct to DVD demise. Everyone looks suitably overcome, esp the three slumkids on the improbable journey from tinroof to Oscar red carpet, courtesy "Danny uncle". But what about the other thousands still under the tinroofs, yet now with hungry hearts? Quite possibly the only way for them to escape the hopelessness of their life was/is this fairytale. And fairytales by definition are for the chosen few. Off with their heads!

Given the complete lack of control that one has over one's life, what then is the meaning of life? I could delude myself with notion of control: of the apparent freedoms that I exercise in my academic/professional pursuits, the discernment I fancy in my consumption, the passion with which I guard my recreation, the number of people whose life I control. But all of these are afforded to me by birth, a function of family, citizenship and local zeitgeist. The trajectory is defined by birth; individual effort merely determines which end of the range is reached. Even if one overlooks the "default by birth" theory, a fatal blow to the delusion is dealt when one attempts to change the system/framework.

Maybe then life's meaning is not defined by individual control, but by living itself. Every single act that defines humanity has been done before, the attendant feelings felt, the thoughts thought. Joy, sorrow, anger, pain, fear, love, running, eating, thinking, working, dancing, etc. So the value of the experience must reside not in its novelty for humankind, but for each person. In fact it is in the commonality of the experiences that we feel connected. And sometimes it feels great just to be alive - steeped in the experience, liquid in the moment. However, most experiences fall prey to diminishing returns with repetition and there is need to broaden/deepen the experience base either through novelty or complexity. Moreover, innate in human race is the need/ability to assert individuality, and seek long-ranging pursuits which connect our past, present and future. Longer the pursuit, more limited the range of options at any point of time. Coupled with the highly centralized society that we live in, the past becomes an even greater determinant of present and future possibilities.

Given the longitudinal nature of pursuits, and the increasingly constrained choices along the continuum, is it acceptable for each person to maximize only one's own experiences and pleasure? Maybe. The underlying tenet of all societies, its social contract, is the expectation that each individual gives up small personal liberties to maximize freedom/opportunity for everyone in the society. Hence within the periphery of minimal socially acceptable behavior, self-interest is justification enough for any action since in a functional (tending to equilibrium) society, my pursuits wouldn't impinge on someone else's pursuits, and to the extent they do, it would lead to competition, innovation, and "creative destruction".

But this answer doesn't satisfy. Implicit in the "self-interest" theory is the determination of equal benefit, that the gain of one is comparable in importance to the loss of another. We need only to look around to *know* that this is not true. The marginal gain of each added luxury is laughable against the minimal bar of a human being able to exercise the faculties of her humanness. In a country like India, one is assaulted daily, hourly with people reduced to bestiality. Having once seen and understood this inequity, how can one overlook it? Is it okay to ignore hardship because it's not mine? While instinctively inaction seems wrong, often good intentions have little meaning beyond personal gratification. Each act terminates in itself, maybe even causing harm. On my way back from work one day, a street kid was at my window peddling some cheap "made in china" toy. Loathe to turn him away or give him money, I gave him my pack of gum. Another kid was at window the same instant. I didn't have any more gum to give him, and as we drove away, I turned around to see the second child trailing the first. My act was cruel in its randomness, and had the unintended effect of depriving the second child. Considered judiciousness too does not permeate the system, remaining instead like a little oasis amid a desert, necessitating either detachment or frustration in engagement outside.

What is the balance between self and surroundings? Should one optimize for the former or attempt to change the latter?

poetry: Coward, Coward, Burning Bright

temporal — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:17:17 EST

sorry dee, (and sorry W B)

Coward, coward, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame taliban symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of your idiocies?
On what wings dare you aspire?
What delusions dare seize the fire?

And what twisted and crazy thought
Could screw the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy loins began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the sickle? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the saints make thee?

Chuddi, chuddi, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame taliban symmetry?