भारत और हम

Here I am sitting in Geneva, writing about India and us. Ironic? Not the way I see it. I ask myself why I love my country because I'm not nationalist nor a patriot. In fact, the very concept of nationality is alien to me. That's what leads me to saying I simply love everything the world has to offer. I love India no more than I love many other countries in the world. I view humans as humans... individuals in control of their own circumstances. Nationalities are political boundaries drawn as territorial demarcations... mere instruments of governance emerging from the concentration of resources, cultural affinities etc. This makes us all humans... not Indians, Pakistanis, Germans, Mexicans, Russians, Albanians, Iranians, Israelis, Kenyans or Ethiopians. Going by this fairly lucid logic, we discover that people around the world are essentially the consequence of the same elements... Choices and circumstances. Hence, their personalities are a melange of situations resulting from the same fundamental drivers like pursuit of happiness, fear, courage and so on. Embarking on a detailed discussion of the redundancy of nationality and the innate irrationality of the concept of patriotism and nationalism is unnecessary since those who haven't already understood the essence of my point will not understand anything beyond it either.

So what do I imply by हम (us)? I speak about every single Indian from every single part of the nation and every single global citizen from every single corner of the world. However, owing to the political identity of being a sovereign nation, an identity to which the world's second largest population has agreed to, the responsibility for action is not the rest of the world's. Most of us already realize this ofcourse. However, for those who still think it is justified for a nation to live on the philanthropy of other nations... think again. Do these nations really deserve to exist? Shouldn't they be merged with another so as to justify their claim of sovereignty which is a claim emerging from the assumption that the nation has what it takes to keep its citizens happy and free.

What do I mean when I say free? That's a critical question. Amartya Sen made a critical observation when he drew a clear distinction between "freedom from" and "freedom to". Though portrayed as conflicting ideologies, I don't see where the conflict arises from. Freedom is essentially being free in every sense of the word, including being free to be free from! Actions resulting from exercise of this freedom are subject to, like all other actions, are subject to consequences. Understanding and embracing these consequences along with the actions and the root drivers leading to the action and every element of circumstance that provided the groundwork for this reality is total freedom.

Now consider those who claim, "I'm free to be free from starvation." If they say this as a statement of fact, it is completely valid, however if they state this as a demand from the rest of society, of which they are a part as well, they are infiltrating on another person's freedom. If the latter man were me, I would feel absolutely nothing for this person has chosen not to strive to beat his or her circumstances but chooses, instead, to place a demand on another's freedom. I'm free to refuse.

To put the concept of freedom further into perspective, I wrestled with the rationality of communism and came to one simple conclusion. It makes perfect sense subject to it being confined to those who want to be confined within it. I wouldn't call the ideology evil. It is built for a society of parasites and slaves giving them the upper hand over the "bourgeois" value creators.

I have yet to see a successful/pure communist nation or even a pure democratic nation. I choose to speak about India at the moment for no reason other than my intimate familiarity with its people, land, languages and culture. Patriotism as a sentiment is alien to me. That said, I'd like to enumerate certain fundamental flaws in our political, social, civil and religious/cultural fabric that will require to be amended if we are to be the land of the free. These, by no means, forms an exhaustive rendition. It is only some of the issues that are critical. I do not care about the burgeoning populations as much as I care about my own freedom in any society. It would be a fallacy to assume that all humans want to be free, so I do not indulge in that misconception. Instead, I am only interested that nobody steps on my toes...

Geo-political hypocrisy - Kashmir! Give them a referendum or quit calling India a democracy. For a detailed discussion on this, refer to my article on the "Kashmir Conundrum"

Socio-cultural fabric - It doesn't matter where you are from, the fundamentals of a human are the same. Caste-based discrimination within the country has taken a whole new dimension. Now it isn't the lower caste only that is suffering. All the ordinary citizens of the nation who don't come under the SC/ST/OBC category has to fight like dogs for everything from quality education to Government jobs while those who have the privilege of belonging to oppressed class grow by leaps and bounds with relative ease. This is an argument against affirmative action as a whole. Many would argue compassion. Forget compassion! Think about reason. What do these oppressed people need? Customized education and the tools to build competencies to compete in the modern world if they so wish to. In that case, it is rural development (Education and Entrpreneural development) that should be taking the upper pedestal in government policy. If any of you have traveled into a reasonable number of the villages of India you will witness the rubbish being taught at these schools and the inappropriate and ineffective development practices rampant across most of the sub-continent. Part of the reason of this problem is that these uneducated people don't realize the importance of a rational long-term approach. They can be easily made happy with affirmative action which fills the politician's vote banks and gives them greater control over larger parts of the country

Economic policy - "Protectionism," a term that most would associate with post-independence India where the Indian Industry suffered greatly under the shadow of the STC and Nehru's socialist approach to development. He was, not surprisingly, a great admirer of Stalin. Signs of this remained as a stick in the wheel if economic progress until P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh began opening up our economy in 1991. One of the sole bastions of regressive protectionism is the Retail Sector. Again, the fear for loss of voter support leads politicians to place huge barriers for entry of larger, more efficient retailers into India. Most cry out about claims for compassion in the face of dying local retail businesses. Do they deserve to die because they are not as efficient? Should they starve in the name of progress? I'll say only one thing to them. They deserve to live using their own creative and intellectual capabilities not by inhibiting those they consider superior in intelligence. That's a long story cut short ofcourse. The rabbit hole goes deeper than this and my conclusion at the end of it is right here.

Religion - My response to religious movements in India is mixed. I, by no means admire or respect religion in any form. However, I don't have any problems as long as the religious folk keep their religion to themselves. This has been the case in India for quite a while now. Unfortunately, the practice of religion has become quite a nuisance. What will you think of when I say fundamentalism? Terrorism? Al-Qaeda? I think of Evangelists, born-again Christians and the related lot. I see the growth of these little groups mainly as a response to contemporary Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism. The Christians must have been thinking... "Hey, it's been a while since the crusades, and now other religions seem to be getting ahead of us... Time to bring in the mind control and life control into Christianity!" The dangerous bit is that anything can be now justified using one of the hundreds of interpretations of the Bible or Quran or whatever ancient piece of vague, myopic, narrow-minded, regressive rubbish that most live by. Stay out of my way and I'll let you be. Cross my path and I declare war. It's simple. In India, this is a slowly growing phenomenon. Though the emphasis on blood-lines is still deeply entrenched, conversions are yet to take front seat in religious agenda. However, I do see this changing and it isn't for a brighter and more amiable future.

Existence of God

I strongly feel it is important here to dichotomize the words God and Religion in the world today and the concept of God using the mainstream philosophical argument.

The word itself means different things for different people. The common argument constructed by theists to convince their atheist counterpart revolves around some essentials:

• Initial motion

All things in the universe are in motion. However, for there to exist motion in actuality (Kinetic energy) there must exist Potential energy and this potential energy can only be converted to kinetic energy by a stimulus. So everything which is in motion must have an initial stimulus. This stimulus is god.

This is a completely valid argument. My dispute with this argument is that how does one explain the seeming chronological, spatial and conceptual infinity of god? The concept is created to put a stopper to a concept that escapes the intellectual block that we humans face when dealing with the question of infinity. "God is infinite," theists would then claim. Well, if God is infinite and so is the universe, I don't see any reason to believe that one form of infinity is different from the other... both are conceptually the same. So, God is the Universe and the Universe is God. Both interchangeable words... I prefer the former to avoid the ridiculous connotations of the word "God" propagated across society through religion.

• Original causation

Everything we see around us is connected in a chain of causation similar to that of motion. So what is the original cause?... God.

This argument is parallel to the infinity concept. What is the original cause? I don't know. Many call it God. I call it incomprehensible infinity or the Universe.

• The superlative

We have formed in our minds the conceptual framework for qualitative assessment for everything in existence. The man is strong. That woman is honest. The mountains are beautiful. Every qualitative assessment is in comparison to a superlative... an entity that possesses the best of all virtues. Such an entity must be god.

I'd like to deconstruct this idea. The ultimate of all virtues, this argument claims is this singular entity of God. I would simply ask... who sets the standards here?... the standards of virtue. Isn't it humans? Our perceptions of beauty and virtues are different depending on the personalities, value systems and circumstances each of us is subject to. This disintegrates the concept the singularity of God. If each of us were to name our perceptions of the superlative as God, we'd have many more Gods.

• Original existence

We are surrounded my thronging existence. Before existence is non-existence or nothing and for something to be born of nothing is absurd. Therefore, for something to exist in the beginning from nothing, there needs to be an antediluvian (etymological religious connotation unintended, I hope!) something that instigates the creation of everything else.

The Buddhists believe in part of this concept as well. Madhyamaka practitioners stress on the importance of the fact that before existence came non-existence; before something came nothing. However, they add that nothing has the potential to create everything else. The don't detach the divine from existence and non-existence. They believe is is possible for humans to reach that state of nothingness through meditation. That is their concept of nirvana. I prefer the Buddhist way of thought where this is concerned and would like to add that if one were to claim that god was hanging around in nothing to create something and that God is something, then the nothing did not exist in the first place.

On the other hand, when one says that nothing and everything is divine, that implies that every one of us is divine. Using theist terminology, that makes every one of us God. I'd rather call you by your name :-)

• Universal governance

Nature is crafted to perfection. Every leaf, every mountain, every animal is crafted in a way so as to co-exist in functional synchrony and perfection. The functionality is a product of circumstances or environment. All this takes intelligence to design. That intelligence is god.

I feel this is the strongest argument made so far. Intelligent design has been long debated. If God is mystery and infinity and if we as humans are incapable of understanding the true nature of God the only method of knowing whether this God exists is to go by his/her intentions. These seem pretty clear. Building the universe, of which Planet Earth, our home, seems to be of barely importance but means the world to us and us alone. This god went into the detail of creating these handcrafted odds and ends like plants, animals, humans, and so on... and then we have theists who believe that this god had an intention... how? and what is that intention? The planet we're on has an expiry date on it and so does every one of us and the intention of God is an inappropriate phrase given to what it really is... the purpose of life itself. I call it life force... a power potent and intelligent enough to direct the evolution of every being in existence... and as for the non-living things, I call it physics.

True, this raises more questions than answers and that's the point. There are unanswered questions and we could start with seeing things for what they truly are instead of settling in for misunderstood, inadequate and inappropriate nomenclature and conceptual fantasies.

Religion adds more frills to this concept of God further contorting it into a melange of mysticism, customs, rituals, intolerance and shrouded ignorance all sparked by elements of shame, low self-esteem and a lack of courage to face the truth or embark on this seemingly infinite voyage of finding the truth where it isn't apparent.

Why?

It's the one question that can topple the monolith of pretenses. Forget every axiom, every convention, everything "normal", look yourself in the eye and ask yourself this. Dig deep into the depths of your soul... Cleave through the undergrowth of conditioning... Hack those dead stumps... clear the field... because you are about to sow the seeds of your essence.

Every answer to the question "Why?" is a seed sown. Every confirmation of that answer from your interaction with the world around is fertilizer. Every action taken on the basis of that idea is water.

Some answers will not be very appealing... some will threaten to tear you apart with grief or anger... some might deflate that image you have of yourself... What matters is that you know it is the truth. What matters is that you aren't fueling your own facade by sowing dead seeds.

The only reason to do this is to run your fingers through that golden harvest even if it is just once before winter sets in.

I Believe

Why believe in that which has no evidence?

I find this a profound question. Why do people believe in the irrational?

I have dealt with this question in one of my articles on religion. People are eager to brand the darkness as divine. For example, one belief I commonly encounter is about the creation of the universe. Some believe in intelligent design... that is, some “intelligent” chap up there carving out the intricate structure of this wonderful universe. Others believe in the Big Bang. What do I believe in? … Neither. My reluctance to believe in this regard stems from the inadequacy of either theory in answering certain basic questions like what existed before the Universe? Nothing… my father once said. I remember being dumbstruck by the sudden omnipresence of NOTHING. “What is nothing?” I remember having asked him as a 12 year old. I am still fascinated by this concept! I do not understand it yet and don’t pretend that I do.

That brings me back to the question… Why do others want to believe so fervently and so urgently in something at the cost of rationality?

It could be a feeling of insecurity at being surrounded by mystery. A few might ask… “Aren’t we always surrounded by mystery?” Others will say… “That is the mystery of god”. I feel this feeling of insecurity grows from a deep feeling of inadequacy with one’s own existence. The fact that YOU exist doesn’t give you enough courage to embrace life with all its mysteries.

Another possible explanation for this could be the reluctance to shoulder the responsibility to face all these mysteries with a sense of curiosity… that I feel is natural to any life form. One must find an answer to every question! We don’t stop until we do find our answers. When they don’t… they make a grave error… They create an answer. People will enthusiastically believe this fabricated shred that I see as an excuse to mask their lack of courage.

I am a dot on this world. My existence may not make any difference to anyone. What is most important is that it makes a difference to me.

I believe in many things. Every one of these beliefs is founded on reason and open to challenges and change. Sometimes, I must admit, I crave to be challenged.