Introspecting Aloud

I really like the eloquence of B. R. Ambedkar.

61 years ago, on November 26, 1949, he gave his concluding speech as the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee on the floor of the Constituent Assembly. From all accounts of those days, I could feel that those were days of excitement, where there was a great deal of expectant enthusiasm about how the country was shaping out. But even as his team submitted the draft of the constitution, he tempered the enthusiasm with caution in his speech.

Pragati carries an excerpt of this speech this month, which as always, was a fascinating read. And if I dare say so, a must read for all Indians who are old enough to understand what he is talking about.

61 years since, i am afraid, I am not entirely enthusiastic about the direction the nation is headed. You might say that Ambedkar had foreseen this issues, but that would be an incorrect thing to say, because a lot of the issues of today, were prevalent even then. Religious, casteist, linguistic strife were all then as well. Sad that not much has changed in this time.

I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion.

How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal. The realisation of this goal is going to be very difficult…The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.

Of course, in my opinion, some things have changed in this while. While social (especially caste) inequality are still very much there in the rural side of India, in the urban side the tables have turned for a while in the last decade and half with the help of enforced reservations on one hand, and (at least in my opinion) the near absence of caste issues in the booming private sector.

We must observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions.”

There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.

This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

(all emphasis mine)

If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do?

The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.

When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

We all know the above, of course, but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions that we face today. e.g.

• What do you do, if the powers that be, is unaffected by the constitutional methods of protest that you go through? Has anyone ever gone beyond what Irom has done? Today, the only institution that we think can cure our problems is the Judicial system, but they are not always flawless either. And in many cases, they have to make do with moronic laws drafted by our incompetent politicians in the first place.
• What do you think will happen, when the demands of a section of our population goes against the wishes of the rest of the country. So this section can feel that all constitutional ways have failed and their only course is what Ambedkar has asked us to give up.

Of course, these are not questions specific to our country, but to any democracy in general. And they are definitely questions that experts have debated about. I think I need to read up more on these debates.

Would you have a good readable reference on such questions plaguing democracies? Let me know in your comments or by mail.

Anne Rice, author of vampire books (like the book Interview with the Vampire on which the Tom Cruise starred movie of the same name was based) and other religion inspired ones, publicly announced her decision to quit Christianity a few days back.

Of course, what she really meant was that she was leaving the organized religion named Christianity. She still believed in God, and decided to keep her faith an entirely personal affair without necessarily involving her entire religious community with it.

I personally find this admirable, as this is precisely the role i feel faith should have in our lives. Or even lack of faith.

Her reasoning was interesting though.

I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.
…
In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

You could take Christianity out and replace it with any other religion, and it won’t make a difference. Organized religion has the same impact on people of all faiths. Forever trying to homogenize the interpretation of faith over not just all it’s followers, but even on the rest of the society.

From GM crop escapes into the American wild : Nature News

A genetically modified GM crop has been found thriving in the wild for the first time in the United States.
…
GM crops have broken free from cultivated land in several countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan, but they have not previously been found in uncultivated land in the United States.
…
Sagers and her team found two varieties of transgenic canola in the wild — one modified to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (glyphosate), and one resistant to Bayer Crop Science’s Liberty herbicide (gluphosinate). They also found some plants that were resistant to both herbicides, showing that the different GM plants had bred to produce a plant with a new trait that did not exist anywhere else.
…
Sagers says the discovery of plants that are resistant to both herbicides shows that “these feral populations of canola have been part of the landscape for several generations”.
…
A major advantages of herbicide-resistant crops is that non-selective herbicides can be used, reducing the number of applications needed. But if transgenic crops escape and breed with related weed species, then that advantage could be eroded, and different and more herbicides might have to be used.

So you grow plants,
feel troubled by weed,
develop herbicide,
find good plants being killed by herbicide too,
sink in billions of dollars in research to create herbicide resistant GM crops,
they leak into nature,
develop new strains,
and are now weeds themselves, and all those billions of dollars helped make these weeds herbicide resistant too!
… (rinse,repeat) spend billions of dollars to fix the issue all over again.

(sigh)

Just to make myself clear, I am not against GM per se. Just worried that we have spent too less time to understand its implications before actually using them outside the labs.

Interesting analysis of Pakistan army chief’s recent “extension” at Filter Coffee:

Yet, of all the 14 chiefs of army staff to have served Pakistan, only one man holds the distinction of having commanded both Pakistan’s premiere intelligence agency, the ISI, and the Pakistani army.  That man is Gen. Kayani.  That Gen. Kayani played an integral part in ensuring that talks between S.M. Krishna and his counterpart in Pakistan failed should be no surprise.  What Gen. Kayani does or doesn’t do within the confines of Pakistan’s political environment is a matter entirely internal to Pakistan.However, “secure” Pakistani generals have displayed a knack for misunderstanding their relative power within the Pakistani establishment and misconstruing their ability to force India’s hand on “unresolved issues.”  And this is something that India needs to be wary of.

They call the past years as more primitive, and the present as modern, a more advanced time. But am curious, exactly which aspect of your life is getting better with time?

Is it about you getting to buy newer more advanced gadgets? But going through more and more powercuts which make it impossible to use any of these?

Is it about getting to buy a more powerful car? And then getting it stuck in worsening traffic?

Or the current generation getting more advanced education? And getting into a worsening job market and worsening competion in qualifying examinations?

Or getting more advanced medical procedures? And newer fatal lifestyle diseases creeping up to younger and younger people?

Or maybe it is about getting to buy better houses? With reality prices shooting up faster than your income, and regardless of the taxes that you pay an incompetent government unable to give you the basics like water, good roads, power?

So again. which aspect of your life is getting better with time, really, to call it advanced? Or am I at fault for being overtly pessimistic and refusing to board the train of optimism about our future?

Or … am I getting old? And grumpy?

Govt plans ordinance against honour killings

The law minister wants a new section in the IPC to define such crimes. The ordinance would also amend the Evidence Act to put the onus of proof on the accused. The Supreme Court had recommended amending the Evidence Act so that caste-provoked killings can be dealt with sternly. Among the suggested changes is holding caste panchayats guilty of any “honour” crime, and holding all members of such bodies as deemed guilty, whether or not they favoured the killing.

The number of un-democratic laws in this country continues to rise. Instead of fixing the main issue – an incompetent, ineffective and under-paid police force, the government instead finds it easy to bring out laws which are going to be invariably abused.

Now I am not supporting “honour killings”. It is a menace which ought to be nipped in the bud, by cracking down on any illegal institutions which undermine the justice system in this country.

But how can the answer be so hypocritical? The foundation of a democratic country is to provide fair justice. And to make any potential innocent having to defend itself in court on a mere complaint is anything but fair. Anything but democratic.

It is sheer hypocrisy to appear solving a threat to the democratic fibre of the country, by using an undemocratic law. It is just a case of fighting kangaroo courts with kangaroo laws.

Just read this awesome essay by Bruce Scheneier about the fundamentally broken way in which security policies and management is being done in the countries of today.

Most of the folks in charge of security are trying to base their measures and policy around the worst case scenario. This leads to ridiculous scenarios which makes the 99.9999% scenario of normalcy as bad as possible – not carrying liquids in plane, photography being banned from many public places, strip searching of travelers, etc.

Scheneier argues that this only makes things worse.

There’s a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.

For one, instead of working with facts, the emphasis in security policy is revolving around imagination.

Secondly, instead of allocating resources based on the probability of all the possible scenarios, our policy makers are allocating all the resources on the worst case scenario …. no matter how improbable it is.

Thirdly, by trying to convince administrators and the public that this doomsday scenario is what they need to protect themselves again, the public ends up being more scared and vulnerable all the time. Even events where security measures have been successful in fending off an attack, ends up making people feel more vulnerable instead of secure!

A quote referenced in the article:

Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range
of future threats.

Pragoti has an interesting analysis of what makes Khap Panchayats still tick in the 21st century.

…

Before we further delve upon this issue let’s see what is this whole concept of “honour”. Honour or for the Hindi speaking people, izzat is the
central reason for the functioning of these caste panchayats. In the popular perception of rural society and as well as in the Hindu scriptures,
women are the repositories of this izzat of a community. The greatest danger to this ideology of izzat comes from the woman. In the warped logic
of the caste system that dictates terms of life in villages, a female “dishonours” her family/clan/ caste and community by her “shameful
conduct”. Why is their conduct termed “shameful”? To understand this we should see what Manu, the Law Giver of the codified Hindu caste system
writes for women in Manusmriti: (translated)

• II. 213. It is the nature of women to seduce man in this (world). For that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.
• IX. 14. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), (It is enough that) he is a man, they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.
• IX. 16. Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at the creation to be such, (every) man, should most strenuously exert himself to guard them.
• IX. 17. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice and bad conduct

It is clearly and further stressed in Manusmriti that women should not be made free under any circumstances:

• IX. 2. Day and night women must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.
• IX. 3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never for independence.
• IX. 5. Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.

These above verses coupled with other Codes (which must not be seen in their textual isolation) to be observed for caste purity describes the way caste panchayats operates in rural society. It is these archaic laws ingrained in the minds and actions of rural folks which drive them to uphold their caste linkages and force them to have a closer surveillance on the happening marital alliances. Thus, it is the woman who holds the key to the honour of a caste group and it is by not letting the woman to marry beyond the fold of her own caste (in various instances in the same gotra) that these caste panchayats maintain strict endogamy and thus the honour of their caste group and the “purity” of caste itself.

…

From all the news bites on the Khap panchayats demand to change the Hindu Marriage act and Naveen Jindal’s quite shameless support for it, some folks would somehow have the impression that maybe the panchayat’s demand for ban on marriages would have even a hint of legitimacy. Even Chauthala kept harping about there being medical justifications behind such demands.

This Hindu news article exposes the lie behind such reasonings.

Most of the khap panchayat diktats are against couples who are not from the same gotra. In fact, not more than one case of honour killing has been of a couple within the same gotra. By creating the false impression that all marriages of choice between young couples are incestuous, what the khaps are actually opposing is the right to choose a marriage partner. Among the several instances of khaps issuing fatwas in Jaundhi, Asanda, Dharana, Singhwal, Hadaudi, Maham-kheri, Ludana and other villages, not a single one was an intra-gotra marriage, yet the married couples were declared siblings, and families made to suffer boycotts and excommunication from their villages.

When I initially started this blog, my intention was to separate my rants against the religious-political situation in the country, from my tech related blogs. It was the time before elections, and a time with a lot of rabble rousing going around the country. A new government is in place now. It has been almost an year since the pub attacks in Mangalore, the new government which, while not right-leaning has started showing its own seedy side. Most probably this comes from the lack of insecurity that has plagued coalition governments in the past decade or so.

Nevertheless, much has happened with me as well over time. While socio-political issues still interest me, I am lesser and lesser worked up by issues nowadays. One can call it being more cynic, or simply growing older, or even growing “wiser”. Or it could be because of the various other interests which let me let off some steam. Perhaps it has got a lot to do with family issues that I have been going through over the last few months, which while being very relevant to the topic of this blog, is something one would like to keep to themselves as much as one can.

So, if I keep this blog relevant to its original purpose, it would hardly see any activity from my side. Given that, I think it is best that I devote this blog to whatever topics which don’t fit my other two blogs – the tech oriented blog.sandipb.net and the food oriented foodie.sandipb.net. In other words, this would be a sort of catch-all for all non-tech and non-food posts that I have.

I have a lot of trash to dish out. So be aware!

Like many people, I also had the perception that increased security can in most cases only be achieved at the cost of privacy and liberty. I have since started reconsidering that line of thought after I recently came across this article by Bruce Schneier written way back on September 30 2001 just after 9/11, which argued that “this association is simplistic and largely fallacious“.

Security and privacy are not two sides of a teeter-totter. This association is simplistic and largely fallacious. It’s easy and fast, but less effective, to increase security by taking away liberty. However, the best ways to increase security are not at the expense of privacy and liberty.

It’s easy to refute the notion that all security comes at the expense of liberty. Arming pilots, reinforcing cockpit doors, and teaching flight attendants karate are all examples of security measures that have no effect on individual privacy or liberties. So are better authentication of airport maintenance workers, or dead-man switches that force planes to automatically land at the closest airport, or armed air marshals traveling on flights.

Liberty-depriving security measures are most often found when system designers failed to take security into account from the beginning. They’re Band-aids, and evidence of bad security planning. When security is designed into a system, it can work without forcing people to give up their freedoms.

Schneier goes on to give some very good examples in the article which demonstrates his point. I find this other section of this article very true, and especially relevant to India at this point.

People are willing to give up liberties for vague promises of security because they think they have no choice. What they’re not being told is that they can have both. It would require people to say no to the FBI’s power grab. It would require us to discard the easy answers in favor of thoughtful answers. It would require structuring incentives to improve overall security rather than simply decreasing its costs. Designing security into systems from the beginning, instead of tacking it on at the end, would give us the security we need, while preserving the civil liberties we hold dear.

For example, take a look at our National Unique Identification (NUID) project. The government and Mr. Nilekani is selling us the argument that it is the panacea to all our national and internal security problems. Illegal migration will be stopped, benefits of social programs will reach the intended recipient, etc. As Nilekani said recently in an interview with Karan Thapar,

On being asked on the investment of money in this project be invested in some other project as is better used for education, health for women and children and sanitation programmes, he replied “We certainly don’t want to take away money from important social programmes but remember that as we expand our social programmes, the efficiency of the social programme depends on the fact that they reach the right people and that there are no duplicates who are taking away the benefits which are meant for the poor. We need to make them more efficient. So you need the infrastructure at the bottom to make that happen. The investment of money in this project will actually make all those other money’s be spent more efficiently. Think of it as an infrastructure for enabling you to spend money more effectively.”

Of course, he conveniently doesn’t mention that there is another way to deal with the “efficiency” (an euphemism for corruption) of social programs. Tackle the systematic corruption in the PDS and other government doles to the poor.

Instead of targeting only the relatively few people involved in the system, Nilekani and GoI  would rather spend thousands of crores every year on this scheme asking each and every billions plus Indians to meekly surrender whatever anonymity that they have against government (and the inevitable corporate) surveillance of everything that they do. This is apart from causing additional sufferings for the misgoverned citizens when they try to be compliant with this authority for every change they do in their lives. If people felt irritated with the need for quoting PAN numbers and voters ID card in many places right now, I cannot but imagine how they would feel when they will have to quote the NUID in everything they do – while seeking employment,renting a house, using a cyber cafe, filing any government application, etc.

Of course, if instead they had just tried to confront the real problem, we don’t have to do that. But again, who cares about the real problems? This country is just about tokenisms like NUID.

How are we ever going to get out of this mess? The government is best equipped to understand all the threats we face. The government security agencies specialize on knowing all the possible solutions to our problems. These people who are best placed do not  disclose to us all the possibilities of tackling security problems that they have considered and how they have reached the best possible solution. So how will us ordinary citizens ever know that we could have had a better solution which is more effective but required more work from the government. The government has a vested interest in not letting us know that – they are part of the problem in most cases, they are the interested party in others and in most cases it is political expediency – the results of the right way would take longer than one election tterm to show.