Something like life

Frankly, Mr Dhume, I don't give a damn!

2011-11-27T03:06:00.001+05:30

(This post contains profane language)

Now, compared to your typically ethically challenged journalist/public intellectual, I have a rather favourable opinion of Sadanand Dhume, which is why I am sort of nonplussed with where exactly he is going when on eve of 26/11 he reminds us that many in Pakistan (presumably liberals) were appalled by the attacks.

Excuse me for breaking the rules of decorum, but why am I supposed to give a flying f**k about how appalled the bed-wetting class in LOP is about all this "unpleasant situation".

For the simple fact is you can take all the dread, consternation, horror, revulsion, indignation and whatever else Pakistani liberals feel about 26/11 and still fall ten rupees short of ten rupees vada pav.

To paraphrase Jennifer Lopez, for liberals, whether of LOP or of India, feelings don't cost a thing. For them all the hand wringing and tch-tching is about signalling kindness in their heart and virtue in their soul to the world in general and their peer in particular.

Pakistani liberals don't care about 26/11 or about terrorism against India.

You don't believe me, do you! Then please tell me, where are morchas by Pakistani liberals demanding an end to state sponsorship of terrorism against India, or demanding punishment against masterminds of the terror attacks. Forget morchas, where are the articles in their liberal respectable publications, newspapers or magazines, offline or online denouncing terrorism against India, unequivocally asking for an end in involvement by Pakistani state.

I will tell you, you wont find any such examples, because there aren't any! And that is not because Pakistani liberals are scared. Not so ! To accuse them of cowardice is to do disservice to them. Pakistani liberals have been vocal critics of Mullahs and Military (ofcourse it helps that they possess no threat to either of them).

The only reasons that I can surmise behind their reluctance is either they don't care, or they consider terrorism a justified response to Indian "occupation" of Kashmir, or an appeasement of Jihadi monster.

Either way, by their silent acquiescence, they have encouraged religious war against Kaffirs by a psychopathic Pakistani state.

If you want to remember 26/11 please remember for what it was just one instance in ongoing jihad against Hindus by a Pakistan which still resents the fact that for all their professions of Islamic piety and purity they are in essence rape child of Islamicized central asian hordes, and that even after thousand years of persecution Hindus refuse to submit to the true faith.

And also remember the true lesson of 26/11

PAKISTAN DELENDA EST.

The Political Animal

2011-04-06T08:19:00.001+05:30

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)

For those who came late, we at CRI are having Aniversarypalooza, so far the posts have been nothing less than outstanding. This post is a modest attempt to bring the average down.

To be honest, I was not sure about the direction to take in the post which will suit the occasion. Sure, I could try an intellectual overview of the conservatism, but to quote Oscar Wilde, I am not young enough to know everything, nor am I articulate enough to condense my views in a single coherent post.

That said, when I was told about the anniversary palooza one thing stuck with me, the article should be first person, that is it should bring out one’s perspective. This appealed to me as the reason one views the things the way one does clarifies the perspective.

*Before we proceed here is your obligatory jargon alert . You have been forewarned *

So, what drives our politics and informs our positions ? One usually answers the question intellectually, in form of abstract ideas and impersonal values.

Yet, to truly answer this we have to go beyond the certitude of abstract and grapple with whimsy of humanity.

I was introduced to the titular phrase, Political Animal, while reading politics (more on it later). At that time the phrase struck me as clever but nothing more. After that I kept encountering it on occasion, mostly from our resident Chicago boy.

However, it was not much later, that I grokked its true significance, and, if I may say so, true magnificence of this deceptively pithy phrase.

Much of our political discussions are based upon the implicit assumption that involvement in politics is a deliberate and reasoned act on our part. Our all political theorization work from that assumption.

Yet what if the assumption is not true. It is my contention that as the phrase suggests, politics is a very basic human instinct as opposed to an act of reason. Politics in various forms pervades human condition. Whether it is work place, or peers, or family or larger social gathering, consciously or otherwise, politics is always an influence.

This raises the question, why we humans have political instinct, surely if our elder cousins the adorable Chimpanzees can do without politics, who are we upstarts to say otherwise.

Many among us will answer that it is greed which causes the politics. That is true but still not helpful, for you see, greed is the first principle of nature. A short (but not very accurate) summary of the selfish gene could be, “we are all greedy”.

A better to our question is, “Politics confers evolutionary advantage”.

“Surely you must be joking!”, I hear you. Let me assure, I am not joking and further I am not Shirley either. To understand why it is so, let’s revisit the Chimpanzees. Now they may or may not be political, but they are certainly not adorable, in fact they are quite nasty. And they are not the exception. Nature as a matter of rule is less Lion King and (overwhelmingly) more Fight Club.

Why is this so? Well because scarcity exercises its tyranny over the living. To survive all the creatures must compete against each other. In this competition, violence decides the winner. And yet violence has its downsides for one, while violent struggles eliminate the rivals, it also leaves the winner weaker and therefore at disadvantage.

Politics is nature’s rudimentary solution to this (I am skipping few steps here). To paraphrase Freud, the first person to indulge in politics instead of violence was founder of civilization.
To summarize, ”All politics is about control”.

This is far from the nobility ascribed to politics by Amar. It may sound disheartening but politics far from being intellectual exercise is more accurately described as a reflection of our baser instincts.

Yet there is more to politics than power which elevates it from a reflex of id, a mere dismal science so as to say. Simply put politics is also a manifestation of our social personae.

Human behaviour like that of any other social animal is influenced by two mutually contradictory forces. One is self interest, and the other is group interest. If an animal always acts in self interest it ends up harming the group, however acting otherwise puts itself at disadvantage.

These two forces are resolved by modification of individual’s self identity. Simply put, affinity to the larger group and identification with it become a part of individual’s self image. In Freudian terms it manifests as superego.
Thus our political instinct is also an evolutionary means to contribute to group utility.

Thus our aphorism can be modified to, “All politics is control, except when it is utilitarian “

Waiting For Baba Ramdev

2011-03-25T08:15:00.000+05:30

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)

Note. This post is counterpoint to our guest post arguing for entry of Baba Ramdev. I am restricting myself to the specific question of Baba Ramdev, however the original post raises many interesting broader points, which I will defer for some at later date, as it is difficult to respond coherently to all the points in a single post.

Baba Ramdev, or to be more precise his foray into politics, is topic du jour among “the right wing ” netizens. He has managed to electrify lot of good and sensible people. To an extent that is understandable. Metaphorically speaking, he is taking fighting into the enemy camp which is any day a better strategy then trying to fire-bomb your own army (which is all what BJP seems to be capable nowadays).

Now I do concede that right wing could do a lot worse than Baba Ramdev. From what we know of the man, Baba Ramdev appears to be an honest and sincere man. More importantly he is a patriot, and this is what attracts many to him (but not me), apolitical.

Even conceding all that I don’t think his involvement in politics is such a good idea. Problem will Baba Ramdev, like most of the Indians, is that he believe in what can only be called as Underpant gnome theory of political science, going something like this

1. Elect a charismatic leader with personally admirable qualities.
2. ???
3. Mission accomplished!

You see, the problem with this. If you guessed step 2 with the question marks , hey you just won a million dollar from a Nigerian dictator’s bank account.

Step 2, which to reiterate, Baba Ramdev (like most Indian) misses is the ideas. What are his specific political ideas, what policies he is in for, what are his specific proposals. We don’t know, because there aren’t any (to best of my knowledge).

So what will happen, when Baba Ramdev does win elections? Well as Edmund Burke said a wise man learns from the past, and as it turns out we have seen this movie before.

And this is why I am not swayed by him being apolitical. Truth is, politics is not reformed by apolitical people (by which I mean people who are not familiar with the politics and disdainful of it) entering into politics, but only by politicians.

There is another point, if Baba Ramdev does enter into politics, the event, will without doubt, raise expectations of middle class (excluding the cosmopolitan flotsam, ofcourse), what will happen to them when this experiment fails, as it surely will, like it always has? The disappointed and bitter middle class will sink even more into morass of indifference, fatalism and cynicism, thus making the problem even more intractable.

However, in my opinion, the most important argument against Baba Ramdev’s political foray, is that he is much more valuable outside formal politics.

I will explain it. I am a cultural nationalist. I hold that the real strength of India is not its army or democracy but its culture. If, to quote Iqbal, winds of time have not been able to destroy us, even as once mighty empires laid waste before it, it is to our innate spirituality to which the credit should go.

As long as we follow Dharma, no one can vanquish us, and if we let go of it, no one can save us.

We require, and are eternally grateful to Sadhus like Baba Ramdev for nurturing Dharma and making sure we do not forget our real heritage.

The Black Swan

2011-03-20T08:11:00.002+05:30

(Note: Originally posted at CRI)

So this is a short one. Anyway it seems that I am one of the last guys to have read The Black Swan. I bought the book during a book shopping binge under the impression that it had something to do with sub-prime crisis. As it turns out, while the book does address financial shenanigans, its scope is much broader, more accurately described as epistemology, or study of knowledge, which, as a conservative, happens to interest me.
Now I will not claim that book exposed me to new information, however what it did was much more valuable. The Black Swam has helped me to begin seeing existing information in a new light, emphasizing what was previously underestimated.

I think that insight can be readily applied to politics. So here are some takeaways (in brief) from the book as applied to politics.

1. We can not predict
Properly speaking this applied more to punditry than to actual politics. The short term politics, which most of punditry is concerned with, is susceptible to too much uncertainty to enable any prediction.
In the near long term though, politics can be predicted. Here my definition of “near long” is rather tautological for I take it to be period between major realignment, such as Mandal or Ayodhya.

2. All ideologies are narratives (to some extent), and all politics is opportunistic (to considerable extent)
I find the conventional understanding of politics erroneous. It is assumed that there is a nice committee of philosopher/meta-physicians/policy wonks which come up with a nice set of dos and donts, which is called ideology and which is the starting point for politics.

In reality (or so I hold), politics is a *programming jargon alert* continuously iterative process with starting points, if there were any, lost in the mist of history. Which leaves us to rely on dynamics of politics, sure people have some ideas in the starting but what determines their actions is expediency, they have to compromise and align with others for power, which is ultimately what politics is about, if these alliances are stable over long period of time, their (initially) disparate ideas are merged to form an ideology. This happened both in case of American conservatism as well as American liberalism.

3. Narrative is important.
Why does the above happen? It’s because humans love narratives, thinking in terms of sequence of cause and effect is so natural to us that to actually do otherwise take real effort. This is hardly surprising, we instinctively turn to narrative as it makes world more predictable and hence more safe (to be more precise safety is an illusion), evolution-wise this is fantastic. An effect of this, to paraphrase Orwell, those ho control the narrative also control the levers of power. Which is why left still survives and thrives despite being a disaster.

4. Hindsight is 18/20.
Politics is actually messier than what appears in rear view mirror. The reason, as told in the previous points, we tend to narrate politics as a logical end result of intermediate step which were only determined by the clearly demarcated ideologies and (that mythical beast) voice of the public, whereas in reality where politics end up is significantly determined not by the ideologies but by political manoeuvring resulting in unexpected political events such as ascension of India Gandhi.

Turned out this wasn’t that short after all. Oh, well!

How should we learn from American conservatism (or anything else for that matter)

2011-03-13T08:06:00.000+05:30

(Note: Originally posted on CRI)

“What can we (meaning Indians) learn from American conservatism ?”, this is a question that is being frequently asked and discussed by many Indian bloggers, generally belonging to what who can be called, for lack of any better term, centre right.

Now I have a problem with this question. This may seem weird considering how much I obsess over American politics. To describe my unease will be difficult, however it is simple to illustrate it.
See this is Indian democracy,

jugaad

And this is American democracy

benz

Now most of the times when above question is discussed, the answers tantamount to borrowing steering or transmission from Benz, force it into our contraption and expect contraption to work like Benz. Unfortunately this is not how machine, or for that matter democracy, work.

Democracy, put it simply, is hard. It is a complex system consisting of interdependent sub-systems and components. To make things, well, more complicated, unlike machines humans are complicated with (allegedly) free will, they have feelings, which makes any system dependant on their actions, such as democracy, difficult to design or predict.

Learning about social institutions, which ultimately democracy is as is economics, from external examples without the broader context in which they function is fraught with danger. Yet that is the mistake we have repeatedly made, first romance with socialism, and now flirting with libertarianism.

So does this mean that it is impossible to learn from outside. Far from it! But to really learn instead of focusing on the specifics and the contemporary, we have to go one level higher and investigate the factors which influenced the evolution of American democracy to its present state. Only when we have knowledge of these factors we can actually judge what will work in our context, and how exactly should we go about re-designing our institutions.
But whatever we do, let’s not get carried away with it.

Sarah Palin’s New Conservatism*

2011-03-08T18:06:00.001+05:30

“Today’s conservatives resemble the exhumed figures of Pompeii, trapped in postures of frozen flight, clenched in the rigor mortis of a defunct ideology”, thus opined Sam Tanenhaus, editor of NYT Books Review, on contemporary conservatism in his book Death Of Conservatism, published in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama's victory in the 2008.

His literary swagger could be excused. After rending clothes and gnashing teeth through eight long years of George Walker Bush (who according to them had all the unpleasant characteristics of Hitler, Satan and company of dimwitted cousin), in 2008 the liberals were finally back in Washington and how!
With Obama’s audacious victory as well as the earlier drubbing of Republicans in 2006 Congressional elections, they had captured both executive and legislature after a long time, to top it all for a short time they had filibuster proof majority in senate, it seemed nothing could go wrong for liberals.

In fact so pleased was liberal intelligentsia with their good fortune that they believed that similar to climax of horror movies (when the protagonist manage to off grotesque monster), 2008 election marked beginning of end for conservatism , and beginning of beginning for long term ascendancy of liberalism.
Unfortunately for them, conservatism, just like monsters of horror movies, is back. Barely a year after its epitaph was being written, it was back, stronger than even in form of tea parties, giving ulcer to liberals and media (but I repeat myself).

But let’s not get ahead of this story of conservatism’s comeback. This story begins immediately after the Obama’s victory, even as Tanenhaus and his ilk were gloating, trouble was brewing.
But before that full disclosure at the time I had predicted that Republicans were headed for a well deserved exile in political wilderness. Subsequent events proved my prediction incorrect.

Liberals had taken charge just when US was entering most severe recession since World War – II, a result of subprime crisis. What is worse, US had narrowly (according to some) managed to avert financial Armageddon, though the way it was averted proved to be unpopular.

Before we continue, to some among you, who are less unsympathetic to liberalism than me, this might seem unfair to liberals, and to those among you who are just plain crazy or Oliver Stone, this might look like conspiracy of Rovian proportion. Now without going into details in this post, suffice it to say the crisis was a bipartisan folly and liberals were reaping what they had helped sown.

Anyway to continue, the work for liberals was cut out. Their first priority should have been to get economy on track; everything else took back seat including their hobby horses. If liberals had done that they would have increased their public acceptability and consolidated their political gains thus helping them secure real long term dominance.

It is here that liberals met the same problem they have frequently encountered spanning time and space, which is, to paraphrase what Nietzsche said , in liberalism ideology never comes into contact with reality at any point.

Same happened this time, liberals, and this includes current American president and full time dilettante Barack Obama, instead of taking verdict as what it was, which is a result of voter’s anger over Republican Party making a perfect mess of government, what with shoving democracy down the throat of unwilling tribes, and taking wide stances in inappropriate places, they took it as a indictment of free market and a mandate for tilting the American politics to left. This transformational reading of election lulled liberal into a false sense of security. Result? Instead of trying to address economy, they busied themselves with their pet projects.

The first manifestation of this was the spectacle of Obama acting as Santa Claus by completely outsourcing the task of writing legislation for economic recovery to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Result was an early Christmas present, otherwise known as stimulus.
This largesse to special interest groups, at expense of general public raised the first murmurs of discontent. These murmurs turned to outrage when Obama decided to go where no liberal had been able to go before that is healthcare.

Even this didn’t deter liberals, though discontent was palpable, they estimated it was perhaps too diffuse to harm them. But then a miracle happened, powered by the social networks and largely independent of any existing conservative organization at the time began a series of citizen up swell. Alarmed by the prospect of anonymous bureaucrats deciding their healthcare choices, the furious public started to besiege the house members in constituency town halls.

Normally to any ordinary politician this would have sounded huge warning gongs and he would have curbed his enthusiasm. But not the liberals (see liberals, reality), in a move which was to presage their subsequent disaster, they decided the only problem plaguing them was that they were just too damned nice and their opponents were just too mean.

Thus came out Alinsky’s rule no. 11 from the democrats armament, and began a long campaign of vilification which started with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Liberals hoped to gain a reprieve by redirecting people’s anger at them. But this had the opposite effect, as designated enemy of Obama both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News became even more popular.

More importantly, this propaganda further inflamed popular passions and the besieging of town hall transformed into protests across America, small at first which later became known as Tea Party movement. Instead of getting a clue the liberals decided to go for broke, and then started a second campaign of vilification again ordinary people participating in the protests. They were vilified, as liberals do, as bunch of know-nothing knuckle dragging racists.

The result of this was as before, after a long time Scott Brown, a Republican won what was popularly known as Kennedy’s seat.

And now starts the third act. After they lost the filibuster proof majority, it was believed that Obamacare is dead. However in a display of sharp political maneuvering, liberal managed to pass it, and it became the law.

After the passing of Obamacare, liberals believed that it will become more popular. Unfortunately for them and as before the reverse happened. The liberals were handed one of their worst political defeat and due to liberal immaturity, conservatism is more popular than ever.

*From Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

Not that anyone is going to care

2011-02-09T11:03:00.000+05:30

But I have moved to CRI, this blog will be used for archiving.

Aphorism: Greens

2010-10-12T11:19:00.001+05:30

If Liberalism is “immanentizing the eschaton”, then Environmentalism is “eschatonizing the immanent”

An absolutely awesome post on Koran burning

2010-09-27T17:32:00.000+05:30

if awesomeness is measured with X*

I am sure everyone must be fed up with Uncle Sam coverage, however frankly speaking blogging wise this is a low hanging fruit, so here is what I think about Koran burning gimmick. As you might have guessed I am against it.

a. It is offensive to a lot of good people.

b. Just like minaret ban and outcry over Love Jihad, it is a emotive, and as such distracts from serious threat of global political Islam.

Having said I am underwhelmed by many of the arguments against it. They are

a. It is fascism. No, it is not. It would have be fascist if US govt were burning piles of Korans. An individual burning Koran, while arguably boorish, doesn't fascism make.

b. It will offend Muslims and boost Jihad. It is true. Burning Koran will offend Muslims. You know what else offends Muslims? US in Iraq, US in Afghanistan, US not intervening in Palestine, US intervening in Palestine, Jews in Israel, Jews in Europe, Jews in Planes, Muslims among Christians, Muslim among Hindus, Muslims among Buddhists, Muslims among Secularists, Christian among Muslims, Hindus among Muslims, Buddhist among Muslims, Sikhs among Muslims, Baha'i among Muslims, Ahmadis among Muslims, Shias among Sunnis, Sunnis among Shias, African Muslims Among Arab Muslims. I could really go on, but I hope you must have gotten the picture.

It doesn't make much sense to fret over offending Muslim sensibilities, because few ruffled feathers are not root cause of jihad, just like lack of democracy is not the cause, or the poverty, or oil.

The cause behind jihad is the supremacism intrinsic to Islam, unless it is excised be ready for more terrorism.

* where X = number of links

Peril Of Checklist Politics

2010-09-27T11:44:00.002+05:30

All right let's continue as long as we are on roll, now previously we talked about Obama and Colbert, in this post we will see why O' Donnell may be a bad news. But first start with tea parties. For those not familiar with tea parties, they are localized popular movement against Obama's policies. Now while tea party in general has been Godsend to Republicans, miraculously rescuing it from the anticipated oblivion after the route of 2008, some of its choices, among them O' Donnell, have been rather questionable. Now at best I have a superficial understanding (mostly via Hot Air) of the specific races, therefore instead of nitpicking about the candidates, I will like to focus on the broader issue, viz. the rather troubling propensity of tea parties to circumscribe politics with a checklist of simplistic and absolutist positions.

It is troubling because

a.This approach is dismissive of a candidate's judgement, his temperament and his experience. A robust polity depends on all the three.

b. This approach is short sighted. A stable polity like US can not be transformed in a single go. It will take a protracted political battle to bring about the change, Therefore it is necessary to take a long term view which will involve legislative compromises, incremental advances, gradually substituting imprudent policies with prudent ones. Considering this, a unrealistic and puritan approach to politics will only set up for further disappointment and bitterness, ultimately resulting in reversal of fortunes.

There is much wisdom in Buckley's rule.

Colbertization of politics.

2010-09-26T12:48:00.001+05:30

Let's talk about Uncle Sam a little longer. Stephen Colbert appeared before US Congressional committee on immigration in his blow-hard O' Reillesque persona (via Hot Air again). In a way this just furthers bolsters the argument that American politics is becoming an extension of personal, in this particular instance a result of excessive self-regard and at the same an acute need for peer approval among the demographic group termed as hipsters. This main characteristic of this phenomenon, let's call it colbertization, is trivialization of serious matters, accompanied with self-assuredness and self-righteousness that only comfort and security of living in United States can bring. In it it is reminiscent of what Heinlein termed as "Bread and Circus democracy",

"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

The empathy argument

2010-09-26T11:47:00.000+05:30

The daily beast has an article arguing that President Obama lacks empathy (via Hot Air). I confess that I find this empathy argument weird.

Obama was never empathetic, he was always a narcissistic dilettante much like Nehru. The reason Obama, and before him W, was elected, is because American politics has become a collective form of personal relationship dynamics.

Bush was elected because not because of his policies, or wisdom, or record, but he was considered a drinking buddy, a decent down to earth guy you could drink with, as opposed to blow-hard Al Gore.

Obama, in contrast, was more lie a high school romance. Candidate Obama was like a cool dreamy boyfriend, and American electorate, a needy, clinging teenage girl with low self esteem.

Well as it often happens cool guy turned out to be a jerk. Better luck next time, please elect Chris Christie.

The Awakening

2010-09-21T18:24:00.000+05:30

The sound of clattering instruments broke the silence of the lab. The table, which, except for the chair, was the only piece of furniture in the sparse room, had toppled and fallen, spilling the instruments on the floor. The scientist tried unsuccessfully to steady his shaking body by gripping the chair. Even as he steadied himself, his chest for the second time exploded with searing pain.

He fumbled for the medicine in his pockets. The search seemed agonizingly long to him, even though it took barely few seconds to locate the medicine. He swallowed the medicine, desperate gesture of a dying man. For he knew that he was dying. He suffered from a rare congenital heart condition, in any other time he could not have expected to survive infancy, but the advances in medical sciences meant that he had made to late twenties.

However even science had its limits and now he lay on the cold floor gasping for the breath, losing his consciousness. All of a sudden, just as candle burns brightly before extinguishing, the fog of pain lifted over him lifted. He admitted that he had failed. For his whole life, he had pursued the mystery of universe, hoping to unlock it, but in the end death had defeated him. A sudden despondency gripped him, he could not bear the thought of dying without unraveling the unknown. It was then that he had a conversion. He, who had rejected God as ancient superstition his whole life, became a believer in the last throes of his life. In sheer desperation he begged for God.

Slowly darkness enveloped him.

Slowly he regained consciousness, of course strictly speaking this was not true, as he didn't possess any material body, his existed, for lack of better word, as an Idea. The new sensations were strange to him, he could sense the physical world, but in the same way we normally watch TV, he was not part of it any longer. He, again for lack of better word,felt detached. Finally he was free of emotions which bind and prod men.

Gradually he grew comfortable with his new surroundings. Although he didn't posses any sensory organs, his sensory perception was beyond what biology could device or mind can imagine. Tentatively he started to explore. He found that he could observe any phenomena irrespective of its location in the universe or the physical scale at which it took place. He could simultaneously investigate the nebulae and the subatomic particles. And yet even he had limitations, he was not detached from the material realm, he was bound both by time, logic and more importantly existence.

Many eons passed, after he had observed, investigated and deduced everything he could, he grew restless. He dimly remembered when he belonged to material world, he had prayed for an answer, yet the answer still eluded him. Space time undulated through what was his ethereal manifestation in a pattern which if he was still human would have been recognizable as brooding.

He was in this mood for some time before he became aware of another presence. That other being had been there for quite some time, but until them he had missed him. He sensed that the other was very similar to him. He kept observing the other for some time. The other remained still.

Finally he spoke to the other (he could do this by warping space time continuum), "Who are you", he added hopefully, "Are you God". The other replied, with amusement, "If that's what you wish to call me", "What do you mean", He was confused, ""Where am I", and after a pause, "What am I". The other explained, "Since you prayed for me, you begot me". He asked not convinced, "What if I hadn't prayed for God"."I don't know". "How can the God not know", He was incredulous. The other was patient, " Is it that incredible! I, The God, am the manifestation of your act of believing, I can not fathom what non-belief could have brought forth. Suddenly he understood. He asked plaintively, "Do you have the answer". The other ruefully replied, "No, I don't have, countless time I have appeared, only to dissolve without knowing what lies behind it all".

And for the second time, he begged in sheer desperation. He begged and begged for an answer.

Slowly darkness enveloped him for the second time.

And for the second time He regained consciousness. It seemed as if He had been dreaming for a long time. Though it didn't make sense, for now not only He transcended physical world, but also boundaries of time and logic. He knew what had happened since the beginning of universe, the big bang, but beyond that the truth was hidden from Him. He started thinking.

After many eons had passed, He came out of his reverie, now He had a way to find the answer. But for that, the universe as it existed didn't fit. He knew what He had to do. Almost instantaneously the space time continuum encompassing the universe folded. Universe ceased to exist. There was nothing but Him.

Now He had to begin again. He was not sure what He will do next. But that was OK. He was patient, for time had no meaning for Him. He will think of something.

Shamelessly plagiarized from Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein

Aphorism: Refuge

2010-09-20T10:43:00.001+05:30

Rationalism is the last refuge of unimaginative, but aphorism is the last refuge of superficial.

Why Barkha Dutt hates Hindus ?

2010-09-19T22:15:00.001+05:30

Of course here Barkha Dutt is just a stand in for the whole sec-lib establishment, so the question really is why sec-lib establishment hates Hindus. Essentially this question is answered by my previous post, but I would still like to expand on this. To understand the Hinduphobia of the sec-lib establishment, it is important to understand its psychology (hey I am all about the big ‘M’).

Regarding any political establishment four factors come to play. First, it is formed for some noble (as perceived by its members) purpose. Second, no matter how noble the purpose is in reality sooner or later preservation and expansion becomes its one of the main focus, if not the primary focus. This dismaying fact is just inevitable result of human psychology. Third, the assumption behind formation of any such organization, which is the members of organization are better (whether in matter of faith, chivalry, or intellect) than the common populace. Fourth, as the establishment favors the conformity, the unstated assumption to judge any member is zealousness with which he adheres to the specific dogma of the establishment. These four factors, assumption of nobility, assumption of superiority, will to power and pressure to conform profoundly affect the self identification of the individual members of the establishment, essentially engendering what I like to call "second foundation complex", sort of vanguard to shepherd the unwashed masses, the only force standing between barbarism and civilization, and the engine to carry out the great commission.

To add to these general characteristic, we have the circumstances peculiar to sec-lib establishment. Basically sec-lib establishment is an alien organism within the host body. The establishment predominantly constitutes of the deracinated Indians, intellectually and spiritually Macaulay's children. Historically they self identify not with their Indian brethren, but with the British colonizers. Brought up in an environment where the western and the modern is appreciated, and Indian and the traditional is sneered upon, they develop a western and irreligious outlook which outside the immediate circle of the peers is at odds with the a deeply spiritual and traditional country.

This contradiction presents an existential dilemma to the establishment, much like Islamic rulers of Delhi, they feel besieged by the surrounding Indic civilization. Subconsciously they realize that Hinduism is the core of Indic civilization. They also realize that it is our traditions with all their quirks and follies which are an obstacle to their vision of a irreligious and westernized future. This threat of being subsumed by something which they consider far inferior to themselves, and the frustration at being unable to convert unwashed heathen masses to their superior and enlightened outlook are what ultimately drives their hostility to the Hinduism.

It is important to realize their game plan. All their self righteous outrage about Gujarat riots, or Mumbai riots, or Shri Rama Sena, or Discrimination against Muslims is just smokescreen. Their aim ultimately is to annihilate the Indic civilization.

And they will not stop.

Unless we finish off them first.

What they mean by Azaadi.

2010-09-16T11:23:00.001+05:30

[Originally posted as comment on this excellent article by greatbong]

You know what riles me most is this Kashmir vs. “rest of India” dichotomy as if “rest of India” is a monochromatic, monotonous monolith. What idiots in media such as Barkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghose don’t get is that Marathis, Bengalis, Telugus, Oriyas all have history as rich as Kashmiris (if anything richer) and all are as proud of the fact as anyone. Idea of India is not something which belongs to Lutyen’s Delhi, or to air-conditioned newsrooms where pretty young things read breaking news in their precious accent. Idea of India is also the essence behind the Indic civilization, the essence which pervades its congested cities and dusty country sides, its desultory summers and its intoxicating monsoons; it is the idea which unites its various histories, its people, past, present and future. It is not some single hegemonic construct but a spirit unique to Indian experience best exemplified by Sarve bhavantu sukhinah

It really breaks my heart to see no one among our “intellectuals” has the cojones to call this Azaadi nonsense for what it is, a Islamist movement to obliterate the kaffir past and unambiguously belong to the community of faithful i.e. Ummah.

'fess up, that's what you have been thinking for some time

2010-09-15T21:43:00.000+05:30

Not to toot my own horn but ...

2010-09-09T12:01:00.001+05:30

Look guys just admit it already, I am a freaking genius. Here is what I wrote way back in 2007,

Islamic fundamentalism is a bigger menace than communist thuggery. It is a tiger which one should not be riding.

And in 2008

As I pointed out earlier, the rise of Islamic politics in Bengal portends ill for the future. The increasing population pressure in Bangladesh has altered demographics in the border districts of Bengal and Assam to a alarming degree. This is a security threat in its own right as pointed out numerous times by Arun Shourie, and when combined with the kind of politics Nandigram signals, a potent recipe for disaster.

Things are turning out exactly as I feared it would. It is a good read, even though it has the usual “I am a pox-on-both-the-houses independent thinker” greatbongish disclaimer.

The bad news is things are going to get worse, the good news is we don’t really care.

Wave Particle Theory Of Politics II

2010-09-06T23:01:00.000+05:30

(From where we left )

Now it is my contention that failure of Indian state is a result of our inability to resolve the tension between Individual and Citizen. Let's see why is that so.

Of the two roles Individual is naturally predominating. This is because, self interest is more deeply ingrained in human genes. In order to bring the balance between the two, cultural training to suppress selfish instinct and reinforce altruist one is required. I believe that we have simply failed to form a culture which imparts such training.

There are quite a few reasons for this. First around six decades under totalitarian rule of Gandhi-Nehru dynasty have spawned a culture of scarcity, thus ensuring that even any natural altruistic instinct is eradicated, result, at social level, it is everyman for himself.

Second factor is the mechanism whereby cooperation and by extension altruism is strengthened. This mechanism is the affinity that an individual has towards others. Now this affinity is strongest among members from the same gene pool, next to genes, it is dependent of shared culture, religion, language and decreases as the social interaction decreases. The other factor affecting affinity is the power differential among members. All things remaining constant greater the power difference, which is reflected in social status, lesser the affinity. Thus people with same social status have greater affinity among themselves than among unequal status.

This has unhappy implication for Indian democracy. As a consequence of caste system even at local level Indian society is highly stratified and hierarchical, this is why while there is affinity within the caste group, the affinity between two different caste group is much weaker. Add to this caste hierarchy and historical social inequality in form of caste discrimination due to it, and the result is a society is where there is a high level of distrust and more important resentment and anger among different castes groups situated in the same locality.

This combined with the first factor has two consequences first the more benign one unless the underlying conditions change politically Indians will continue free loading, the more alarming concern however is the struggle for resources between different caste groups is leading to a powder keg situation where all that is required for conflagration is a small provocation, which may make phrase a million mutinies literally true.

The Wave-Particle Theory Of Politics - I

2010-09-06T19:31:00.001+05:30

(Or why Youngistan is bad news)

Good evening (or a bad one, I don't care either way). Those of you who visit this blog to actually read it (instead of looking for Tanushree Datta's photos) might have noticed one theme, among many, of the political posts, viz. while Indian entrepreneurs have succeeded, Indian state has been a massive colossal failure. Now while this observation, call it contradiction or paradox or whatever you like, has its epigrammatic moment, it has kind of bothered me, but it's only been recently that I understood why. The way it is put, it gives the impression that Indian state and the Indian entrepreneur are distinct, an obviously misleading impression, as the Indian state represents (or is supposed to represent, at any rate) Indian people! Taking this to conclusion it's the failure of state is actually that of Indians.

This raises further question, viz. why have Indians failed to establish functional democracy (as opposed to what exists which can be best characterized as cargo cult democracy). There is no single factor to explain this. Yet one factor, significant enough, has been the inability (and as a consequence failure to frame specific institutions of state to address it) to understand the dual role of an individual in a democracy.

Before that a minor digression to explain the title. In classical physics matter and energy are considered to be distinct phenomena with particle a characteristic of matter and wave a characteristic of energy. Quantum physics shattered this picture, tuned out matter and energy are different aspects of the same phenomena, with wave actually representing probability distribtuion of locating particle in space.

In the same way a man has two roles in all forms of democratic society, one as an individual, the other as citizen.

It is expected that man as individual will work for himself, if we want to be retentive about it, the technical description for such behavior is optimization of self defined utility function. Now entrepreneur as an individual seeks to maximize his well being, the way he does this is by creating value, which ultimately benefits others, however the main objective remains self interest.

This can be contrasted with man's role as citizen. Citizen is better understood as a part of the social experiment, and therefore it is his responsibility to ensure that all the social institutions, ( including state) function to ensure the welfare and prosperity of the society as whole. Again if one wishes to be retentive about it, this roughly means the optimization of aggregated utility functions.

One more digression is required here. The use of "self defined" may suggest that the utility functions are arbitrary, and that is true if one goes by logic alone. However historical evidence and our experience suggest otherwise. Not being a credentialed expert I can only speculate that for a healthy society the utility function somewhat resemble the Maslow's hierarchy*. Here healthy society means any society which, in addition to the previous qualification, is fit enough to survive in present and also in future, the time scale being civilizational. This then suggests aggregation of individual utility function must be combined with an utility function which applies to the society as a whole. Again this is just my speculation, but this will mean addition of religion and philosophy to Maslow's hierarchy.

It is not difficult to see that there is inherent contradiction between these two roles, with Individual being a self centric role and Citizen an altruistic one. The resolution of the tension between these two roles is the key to a functioning democratic society.

(To Be Continued ...)

* Yes I am hooked on Maslow's hierarchy. Hey don't judge me at least I don't snort Data unlike Data Nazi.

The 'M' argument *

2010-09-04T20:38:00.000+05:30

Here is a confession. I find the level of political discourse in Indian blogospehre quite underwhelming. The problem is that the interlocutors tend to be tunnel visioned, missing out the big picture in their argument. Consequently the arguments tend to be limited to exercise in logical correct, an examination of X follows Y follows Z. And yet the chain of causation, no matter however long or however convoluted, must end up somewhere. This beginning is the first principle. Now people talk about first principles all the time, but what no one realizes is that first principles by very definition are not established by reasoning. In fact if we strictly adhere to logic, the very notion of first principles seem quite arbitrary, the chain of cause and effect being turtles all the way down. A prime example of such an argument being this post (though someday I intend to rebut it, that day is not today) As it happens though first principles are not arbitrary, anchored as they are in human psyche, his instincts and belief system. To give an example, my first principles, for lack of any better words, are traditionalism and cultural nationalism. Now I didn't happen to stumble upon these principles by accident, but because identification with tradition and culture is an aspect of human instinct. Same must go for liberals and libertarians. Identifying what motivates the politics is therefore as important as the actual politics. Any investment in such an endeavor will be worth its while for we will be better placed to appreciate why people think the way they do, and why it is futile sometimes to engage in debate.

* Argument from motivation

Friday Double Bill - II, Of Gay Marriage

2010-08-28T04:38:00.000+05:30

Welcome back ladies, gentlemen and indeterminate life-forms in the back. For sake of social appearances I hope you are comfortable around here, and let’s just move on. In the second part (first part here) of this edition of LaS (i.e. Life and Something), we will discuss gay marriage. As some of you might be aware, in what is considered a major victory to proponents of same sex marriage in US, District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned California proposition 8 an amendment which declared that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. According to the judge, proposition violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of United States constitution.

Not being an expert on American constitution, I will not dispute the legal reasoning behind the verdict. Also unlike most of the opponents of same sex marriage in US, I don’t think that legalization of same sex marriage is solely capable of destroying traditional marriage in US. Having said that, I think it is a bad idea, further it is latest in a series of bad ideas starting from no fault divorce, which have weakened marriage as a social institution. Even further this series of bad idea has its root in western notion of individualism.

To see why is that so, let’s begin by examining the two arguments in support of same-sex marriage, first is that traditional marriage is discriminatory in nature, that is ofcourse true but then so are almost all the relationships, state usually does not recognize a woman as father of her children, same way as much as a man may want he can not be mother of his children.

In short state doesn't define relationships, society does. State merely recognizes the societal definitions, for otherwise the legislation becomes needlessly convoluted. If tomorrow America society recognizes marriage between same sex couple, then state should follow the changed mores.

Here it is important to note that this issue is fraught with slippery slope, the argument presented above is usually countered by the supporters of same-sex marriage with the poser that whether same criteria of social acceptance should be applied to interracial marriage. To this the counter poser by opponents is if the criteria of non discrimination should also apply to incestuous or polygamous marriage. There is no satisfying argument to either of the posers, which is rooted in logic.

However where logic fails, observation comes to the rescue. The observation is this, any society, formed anywhere in world, since the beginning of civilization, has without exception defined marriage as a relationship involving one man and one woman.

The reason for this also answers the second argument in support of same sex marriage, which goes like this, "Just because same sex marriage is legal doesn't mean that normal couple with stop loving each other". The answer to this is, "What has marriage got to do with love ?". Marriage is about forming a committed, and hence stable familial unit. This is because almost all societies found out by hit and trial that a committed and stable familial unit, ceteris paribus, a. ensures the best upbringing of younger generation and b. is the most stable building block for larger society.

In other words, marriage is less about love of two individuals towards each other and more about claim of society towards individuals. When individuals reject any claim of society on them, which, in nutshell, is Individualism, the institution of marriage loses its raison d'etre, and from these its a long slide to irrelevance, aided by attempts to redefine it according to whatever the intellectual fashion of the day.

PS You know what just don't bother, read this post instead, from the archives of Jane Galt

Friday Double Bill - I, Of Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-27T14:34:00.001+05:30

A very good evening (or a very good whatever the hell your time zone is), to all the comatose readers of this blog (as evidenced by tepid response to previous post). In this edition of LaS (i.e. Life and Something ), we will discuss the controversy surrounding, depending on who you ask, Ground zero mosque or Park51 community center, proposed in the hymietown. On second thoughts discussion is a very ambitious term, mostly because I don’t have much to say as opposed to, say greatbong. So let me make a brief remark. I don’t have strong opinion about the mosque one way or other, this is because I have no emotional stake in this particular situation, I am not an American much less a New Yorker, neither any of my near or dear ones met their ends on Ground Zero. It is possible people opposing the Mosque are really emotionally aggrieved, it is also possible that they are not enamored of Islam, a possibility which is further supported by the fact this opposition is not limited to the particular case but to any mosque in general. Now I can understand if Americans are wary of Islam, however my view regarding this remains as stated in earlier posts. If Islam is a problem to USA, denying legal rights of citizens is not going to solve it. Having said that what I find really puzzling, no make that mind boggling, is the insistence by supporter of Mosque that it actually is a step for tolerance and understanding. Now this may sound uncharitable, but the matter of fact is 9/11 was perpetrated in name of Islam, considering this, how in God’s name, construction of a mosque near to Ground zero is going to promote understanding! At best this is a case of tone-deafness, at worst however this may seem like pissing on grave of victims to many people who otherwise may not be intolerant to Islam. I suppose constructing a mosque is permitted by the law of the land, however to insist that mosque is a symbol of respect and harmony and to demand that other defer to this viewpoint is nothing short of sanction of the victim.

The PostDiluvian Creed

2010-08-25T23:07:00.000+05:30

[This post is a result of email exchange with Don Virmani]

Don raised an important query, one which has intrigued me for a long time. The query is this, despite the apparent contradiction in their world-view, why is left so enamored of Islam? Now I don't have any definitive answer to that however to best of my understanding the alliance between left and Islam is similar to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact against a common enemy, the Kaffir.

That still doesn't make sense however, surely left realizes that as flawed as (according to them) capitalism (or in our case, Hinduism ) is, it is much more closer to left's vision than a life of abject terror under Islamic tyranny. Here we leave theory and enter the politics. These are just my speculations of course but they kind of make sense to me.

Conservative stalwart Buckley was dismissive of leftist projects, finding its goal of utopia on earth as absurc. He popularized a term for it immanentizing the eschaton. In my opinion he missed a much more pernicous instinct of left, I like to call it Post Diluvian instinct.

Much like Islam and Christianity, left is an inerrant ideology to its adherents, meaning it admits of no fault or incompleteness. This certitude combined with an excess of self regard makes the leftists highly intolerant towards any difference, especially when coming from (in their opinion) their intellectual inferior.

When this fanatic outlook collides with the reality of a social order based upon a differing ideology, the only conclusion open to leftist is that social order is immoral and corrupt, and only after the social order has been destroyed, a new man can rise free from the corrupting influence of earlier order. It is this new man who will be enlightened enough to recognize the historical inevitability, and thus initiate the social reconstruction as envisaged in the doctrine.

This is similar to what happened in legend of Noah. Left wants to bring paradise, but for that it first needs to bring a deluge.

A very HIMYM post

2010-08-23T23:44:00.000+05:30

[In persona of Ted Mosby]

Kids,

Yeah I know you are not interested in finding out how I met your mother. In fact if I can be brutally frank after two seasons best described as lameass nobody really is, except for the suits, but they also killed Arrested Development, so there is that. Anyhow, this is not about how I met your mother, but a very brief comment on political strategy.

To be specific it's about the unpleasant situation that we find ourselves in Afghanistan. Let's start at the beginning in 2001 our country was attacked by people commonly described as fringe adherents to what is otherwise a religion of peace (and also of 72 virgins, with their hymen in mint condition, and not reconstructed by hymenoplasty). Understandably we decided to kick the bad guy’s ass, the bad guy being Taliban, less understandably we decided to spread some sweet democracy in the region.

Now this has proved to be difficult than we thought mostly because even as we were busy killing Taliban (and doing some collateral damage on the side) we were enthusiastically blowing dollars on Taliban’s BFF (i.e. Land of Pure) for a little striptease also known in strategic terms as frontline ally in terrorism. Now kids, trust me when I say Pakistan is the best striptease in town, it has got all the tricks under its sleeves to make sure that dollars keep on coming from its patrons. The matter of fact is, I could tell you all about it, but a brief comment simply won’t do any justice to it, so suffice it to understand it has been able to hold our “attention” for more than eight years. Now however we are having ache in our unmentionables, and therefore we are in a tearing hurry to withdraw.

However the fact that we haven't been able to achieve anything we set out to in the first place is kind of embarrassing. We desperately need a face saving formula, luckily for Geo-politics provides us with exactly that.

In politics there are two ways to succeed. One to actually succeed (or as Whoopi Goldberg would describe it “succeed succeed”), the other is to redefine success to what was previously failure. This is what we are precisely going to do. Quite unexpectedly we have discovered that Taliban are not all bad, in fact there are quite a few gray areas lying between what we thought (and argued) were black and white. So there is good Taliban and when I say good I mean the faction which we expect will make totally insincere promises about negotiation and will observe a totally opportunistic ceasefire till the time we pack our bags and finish the job when public attention is towards a more pressing issue for example Miley Cyrus's thongs.

And thus Team America will have royally screwed Afghanistan yet again.