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.

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.

Bible studies 1 - Sexual Relations

I was privileged to be given the holy bible a few months ago. Untouched books make me itch and as a result, i chose to begin my excursion through these crisp pages written thousands of years ago by a bunch of people who have, to a large extent, steered the social currents of the world.

The copy that I own has a very handy list of subjects at the end that gives the reader the exact location of the Bible's take on a whole array of issues. Oh yeah! God was extremely opinionated!

"Homosexuality" caught my eye. You can blame it on my proclivity for the provocative.

Anyway, as my eyes were hovering over the all the "Do not's" indoctrinated in Leviticus, Ch. 18 caught my eye. "Unlawful Sexual Relations", speaks about everything you must not do with regard to the cravings of your genitals.

I would rather title this passage as the "Beginners guide Incest and more". I definitely admire the guy's creativity at placing a "Do not" before every possible variation of a sexual relation. Son with mother, Father with daughter, nephew and aunt, daughter-in-law with father-in-law, man with man, neighbors wife, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, animals and humans, amongst others. He seems to have brainstormed this issue thoroughly! It makes me wonder about where the Porn industry might have got most of their brilliant ideas... Interesting!

Those who do experience attraction for someone from within the family or for the same sex is bound to look at these doctrines and say, "God says it is wrong. So, my desire at this point is wrong. That makes me a sinner!". A more pragmatic approach for this person would be, "Great! God says it is wrong. Firstly, why should I trust Leviticus with knowing God's will and secondly, God doesn't bother giving any explanations other than death threats and a very handy reassurance that he is my God".

The first person will land up prostrate in a church begging for forgiveness. The second guy will probably shut the bible and meet a psychologist who will probably tell him that sexual desires are human and natural. However, consider the social system and the biological and psychological impact of an action based on such an instinct before indulging in it.

Homosexuality, for instance, is one of those acts that draws the rage of God. In Leviticus 20:13, it is written "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

A gruesome end to any inappropriate romance for sure! This death threat has been given profusely through most of this chapter sometimes explicitly mentioning method of inflicting this death as well. Burning these folk and stoning them to death are apparently God's favorite techniques.

In the Romans 1:18-32, I find a logical fallacy culminating to the same damnation of those who give in to their "impure" thoughts. The passage says that in the beginning God made himself quite clearly known to mankind. He damns those who understand and have the opportunity to understand but try to cover it up with their "wickedness". It goes one by asserting that it is God who "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." "God gave them over to shameful lusts." "he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done".

This makes God sound like an extremely obsessive and substantially retarded bigot. Why?

Firstly, this entire theory is based on the assumption that God made himself adequately clear to mankind. So one has to be either stupid or wicked not to understand his magnificence. Either way, you end up being burnt or stoned for some "shameful" sexual act. If one thinks about it in a little more detail, this sexual act was not done of the victims free will... it was the divine will of God that "gave them over to shameful lusts".

So what have I learned today from the holy gospel?

If I do not recognize God's infinite powers, he will give me over to my base desires leading me to being sexually attracted to one of the many people and animals listed in the Bible after which I should be either burnt to death or pelted with stones until the life drains out of me. Going by this leather bound holy book, this guy (I've always wondered about why God can't be a woman!) called God is a perverted freak! Reminds me of those sadists in some of those porn videos that revolted me as a teenager.

There was more written about Sexual relations in the Bible, but, I've lost my appetite!

Next time, I'll try looking for something less gruesome.

The Atheist

We often succumb to usage of incomplete words to define a consummate thought or feeling. I made the same error while using this word... "Atheist". Literally, it means a person who does not believe in God. Though this is a sweeping statement, I would like to define each of these terms for myself.

God. People regard God as everything they are not, everything that is beyond their comprehension. It is in this context that I am an Atheist. I do not believe in what I do not understand. Blind faith is an emotion that I will not evoke, not as a conscious choice but a natural way of life. That makes me an Agnostic Atheist to be more specific.

Now If I were to assume that God were a supreme entity. Then that would be me. I am the center of my world, so that makes me God according to this analogy. I assume that every self respecting individual would say exactly the same thing and not subjugate his or her own existence to that of a higher being.

However, this entire exercise is futile. Firstly, I label myself and then try explaining it. What a thorough waste of time!

Glory to God!

What instigates such a passion for this guy called god that brings tears to peoples eyes as they sing with all the energy they've got worshipping and praising Jesus?! I had to ignore the meaning of every hymn to enjoy the rhythms in isolation.

They disembodied the concept of God for starters and labelled Jesus with it. The implications of this is self-evident. I can never be what I believe is god. So you are a servant down on earth simply to exercise God's will? You'll find most Christians nodding vigorously in approval to a statement such as this.

The implications of this could be disastrous. All I have to do is create an amorphous, benevolent entity that will always love and forgive you no matter how pathetic you think you are (which is usually the case), and I'll have a bunch of individuals flocking to this theory with every ounce of potential they have. These religious honchos don't need to be spectacularly intelligent to see this as an opportunity to further their personal purposes.

I'm an Atheist and it amuses me to have people asking you everything but, "what do you feel?" They don't want to hear anything that would lead them to questioning their faith. I am not capable, on the other hand, to have faith in something I do not understand. I refuse to bow down to some one's image of greatness detached from everything human. "Don't be afraid to shout Alleluia in this church!", the priest told me at the church today... He thought I was afraid! The thought of it had me smiling in mirth for the next 5 minutes. Afraid of what?! Their God?! The congregation?! Him?!

Every task that requires human potential to see it through they, "leave unto the hands of Jesus" as though humans are born impotent! They are born subverted to the power of some twisted amorphous conception either of an idiot or an exceedingly smart and evil man.

What disgusts me is that they can use this entity and concept to justify any action in the name of their damn God (paradox intended!).

Look inside yourself with an open spirit, free of fear and preconceived notions. See what you find and then tell me if it's anything less powerful than this concept of God. I've found myself and that's all I will require to take me through my life. The spiritual food of religion is nothing but bullshit for me useful for producing a lot of gas... That's all.