Introspecting Aloud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deputy Israeli Health minister wants to rename swine flu to Mexican flu as swine is too filthy for them to even mention in daily conversation. Ophelia’s response made me burst out laughing:

Oh right, so they do! Therefore it’s a hell of a good idea to name a scary lethal disease after a set of people instead of after an animal that one isn’t allowed to eat by one’s whimsical deity. Yes indeedy. Sure you don’t want to name it Perez flu? Juan and Maria flu? Spic flu? Funny little brown people on the far side of the world flu? They don’t wash their hands in Mexico flu? In deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork and everything?

I just read Sujai’s post on the possibile turn that Pakistan might take due to the onslaught of the Talibans. None of the possibilities sound very encouraging for Pakistan.

An amusing thought crossed my mind. It is kind of dark humour, really.

Don’t you find it amusing and ironical that a country like Pakistan (which means “The purest land” literally) which was formed on the premise of building the perfect Islamic state (it has that dream even today), is today facing the biggest threat to its survival (bigger than any of the wars since it’s inception) not from a non-Muslim country like India, but from a muslim group which believes that the country is not pure enough?

In fact, the message that Pakistanis are having to convince themselves is that they don’t exactly want the state envisioned by the leader of the religion of the state. The arguments that are going on, are less of patriotism (as is the case of a threat to survival of a nation) and more theological. They are actually discussing how Islam should be interpreted into a modern country.

Just found out from this post about the report on Cultural Policing in Dakshin Kannada(PDF) just released by The People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Karnataka (PUCL-K). An interesting excerpt mentioned in the blog post:

As one observer, who has been covering the events in Dakshina Kannada, put it, “Today saffron is the colour of power. You just walk around with a big red tilak and see how people treat you. Right from the shop keeper to the bus conductor to the policeman, everybody gives you respect. Without the tilak you are nothing, with the tilak you become a power structure.” Munir Kattipalya of the DYFI echoes this sentiment when he says, “This district is not only communalized but also progressively criminalized.”

What is indicated by such statements is that there is a strong link between communalization and criminalization. It is precisely because the state has chosen not to act when criminal activities are perpetrated under the garb of religion that criminal elements now feel that they have the sanction to perpetrate violence and Cultural Policing in Dakshina Kannada other forms of intimidation by using the garb of religion. This possibly explains the proliferation of vigilante groups in Dakshina Kannada.

Sanjukta’s post alerted me to an event that slipped my notice. Apparently, the supreme court had quashed an appeal by a Muslim student against his convent school disallowing him to sport a beard. While disagreeing with the student’s counsel, one of the judges was allegedly heard making a remark “We don’t want to have Talibans in the country“. This has understandably caused quite a furor among part of the Muslim community who have been pointing this remark as a display of injustice or an insult against Muslims. Amusingly, the Muslim counsel appearing on behalf of the student and asserting that the beard was an essential part of the Muslim identity was pointed out by the judge to be not sporting a beard himself!

Now while I agree that the Talibanisation sentence was unnecessary in such a case, I essentially agree with the court’s assessment, especially the rest of that comment that is attributed to that judge: “…Tomorrow a girl student may come and say that she wants to wear a burqa, can we allow it“. This is an issue which Britain faced not too long ago, and I consider Britain handled it not as well as they should have. Every society has a few fundamental principles that they should live by and others attempting to join the society can ask for understanding and accommodation as long as they don’t compromise with these principles of the society. I expected the Britishers to say more forcefully that their society is based on respect and dignity for women and wearing the veil does anything but that. Instead they cloaked their objection in euphemism of security etc. which was regrettable.

India is a different case. While we too claim that our society should ideally be based on similar principles, the truth is that the majority religion Hinduism is still battling perceptions of Sati and child marriage. Punjab has one of the highest incidents of female infanticide and one of the most skewed sex ratios. Girls are still considered a burden in less than progressive families, dowry is a common malpractice. In such a situation, where none of the communities can claim to be morally at a high ground with caring for women, Indian courts would probably face a tougher case when something like what happened in Britain, happens here.

Coming back to the “beard means Talibanisation” case, an Outlook blog post by Sundeep Duggal cuts through some of the misinformation about the case – read his “FAQ: The Supreme Court’s Beard Judgement“. One relevant part is:

4.1 What are the legal ramifications of Justice Katju’s remarks?

None whatsover. It should be borne in mind that there is routinely a lot of give and take between judges and counsel in the supreme court, especially given that counsel in this case was an ex-colleague on the (HC) bench. Most significantly, the order of the Supreme Court does not consist of “the reported remark about Taliban”. Therefore it cannot even be considered as obiter dicta.

In other words, these remarks mostly came about in conversation on the case, and is not part of the judgement.

To those claiming that the right of Freedom to practice your religion has been violated, Telegraph has an interesting precedent to offer:

Experts point out that although our Constitution guarantees one’s freedom to practise one’s religion, there are reasonable restrictions to Article 25 imposed by the state on such grounds as public order, morality, health and other provisions. We can perhaps refer to the Commissioner of Police & Others vs Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & Another case where Ananda Margis argued that their tandava dance with tridents and other objects was part of their religion and it should be allowed in public.

Deciding on the case, the apex court ruled, “Though the freedom of conscience and religious belief are absolute, the right to act in exercise of a man’s freedom of religion cannot override public interest and morals of the society and in that view it is competent for the State to suppress such religious activities which are prejudicial to public interest.” The court also found that the tandava dance was not an absolute requirement of their faith.

Another great point has been made by Sherwani Mustafa on Khabrein.info:

…

As such, ‘The Muslim Women ( Protection of Rights on Divorce ) Act was in fact the destruction of ‘ Muslim women’, and a glaring fraud on ‘shariat’ played by the ‘mullaiyat’. Similarly, instead of tracing the essence of ‘ Islam’ in  a foolish student’s attempt to sport beard and making all this humbug, if a vehement movement is launched in India for the enforcement of  ‘Islamic Criminal Law’ for Muslims, I will be the first person to support it whole-heartedly. Let the community and its intellectuals come forward with a strong demand that if a Muslim commits theft, his hands must be chopped off, if he is guilty of murder, he must be beheaded in full public view, if he is found guilty of fornication, adultery or rape, he must be stoned to death, and so on. I am sure the entire country will support such a demand.

Sounds fair to me. Instead of picking and choosing which aspect of their religion should be applied to their lives, why not go the whole hog and add the rest of the barbarian punishments also into the mix? You can’t on one hand use religion to justify special treatment for part of your social life, and then whenever inconvenient, use the other laws of the country to govern aspects of life where the rules of the religion are too tough to swallow.

There is a very interesting debate going on at talkislam.info after an Islamic Cleric in Harvard, no less, claimed how capital punishment is the right punishment for people deserting the Islamic faith.

The common premise of those defending the cleric in the comments of that post, is that for a theocratic state apostasy is like treason. While I can’t completely agree with that notion – it has to be an extremely insecure and intolerant theocracy to have such a position, I can’t but help see the convenience of such a rule. Convenient for the masters of such a theocracy, that is. These masters are likely to be de-facto leaders of the state religion, and like any autocracy (I look at all theocracies as a form of autocracy) they would rather use any means necessary to hang on to their positions rather than be secure in a faith which survives by conviction alone. For faith and thought can seldom be peaceful co-dwellers.

In fact, I couldn’t help putting such a situation in India’s scenario today. We now have a major political party, really close to gaining power in the country, which is philosophically almost completely in disagreement with the premise on this country was formed. One easy way to finding it out, is to go through their manifesto and see the number of times they talk about modifying the constitution (you know, repeal this, overturn that, enact this, etc.). The party is backed by a sinister pan-india organisation which has been at work to overturn the premise of this country from the day that we became independent.

So what happens if this prominent political party eventually manages to convert this country to a theocratic state as has been their quite public fundamental aim all this while? Will we see people being executed for leaving their religion? Well, we already see a bit of their vision in what they are doing in Orissa. Will we stop debating religion as other Islamic theocracies have done? And by the way, unlike the Muslims, we Hindus do not have an equivalent of Qu’ran or Hadith or Sharia to run this country. Oh yes, I forgot, maybe the 2000+ years oldManusmriti – the document being quoted by this party to provide justification for all their social policies? Or maybe, the Gita, which regrettably far being a reference of wisdom is now quoted by people of this party as a justification for chopping off hands of people from other religions.

In an article in Guardian, Julian Baggini wrote:

Intelligent atheism rejects what is false in religion, but should retain an interest in what is true about it. I don’t think many of my fellow atheists would disagree.

In response, I found Ophelia’s reply to be so well articulated and to the point.

I would – depending on what is meant by ‘what is true about it.’ I don’t think anything is true about it, if we mean factually true. If we mean something much looser by ‘true’ such as ‘having some good things to say about compassion or peace’ then I don’t think religion has anything to offer that is inherent to religion as opposed to simply widely-shared moral intuitions, so again, I don’t really think there is anything true about it (about it alone, to the exclusion of other ways of thinking). If I want wisdom about morality or justice I don’t turn to clerics. There are other sources, who are less encumbered by beliefs that need to be protected.

The Hindu has this brilliant article by Harsh Mander on the importance of continuing the struggle for getting justice for the atrocities committed in the Gujarat riots, even if it has been seven long years since it happened.

Here is the question that he tries to answer:

It is often suggested that there is a self-evident conflict or disconnect, some would suggest even a contradiction, between the goals of justice (particularly legal justice or justice delivered through the formal and impersonal instruments of the modern State), and reconciliation. In the aftermath of Gujarat 2002, there are many who argue that the efforts of human rights groups (including those that I am engaged with) which strive to secure justice for the survivors, are actually blocking efforts at reconciliation, or the spaces for forgiveness. Such enterprises are seen to be akin to scraping the scab off old wounds and not letting these heal naturally: they are seen as not letting the survivors forget their suffering. Those opposed to such efforts dispute: “What is achieved by reviving memories of what is done and over with? We should let the people affected by the admittedly unfortunate mass violence move on, without being constantly pulled into the quicksand of a painful past”.

He goes on to argue that reconciliation cannot be forced on people who have actually suffered in the pogrom.

Of course as a nation and as a people, we need to move on, pushing decisively behind us chapters of collective shame and tribulation, such as what unfolded in the killing fields of Gujarat in 2002. But the decision to impatiently surge ahead without looking back cannot justly be imposed on women and men, boys and girls who live with not only with the memories of the trauma of unspeakable loss and violence, but the daily lived realities of continued persecution, boycott, expulsion, fear and hate. They should not feel coerced into a spurious amnesia, imposed on them by those who did not suffer and by their absence of remorse and compassion. It is only when the survivors are able to deal voluntarily with this painful past, and when they are assisted to rebuild their homes, livelihoods and social relations, that they will be able to look to the future with optimism and confidence.

He makes a great analogy of this problem to the violence suffered by women.

Those who oppose post-violence human rights struggles also often suggest that efforts for legal justice undertaken long after visible violence has ceased on the streets, only revive enmities and cause further unrest and tensions rather than encourage peace. These threaten the fragile peace that is constructed with so much difficulty in post-conflict societies. This argument reminds me again and again of beliefs that a family in which a woman accepts repeated violence in the hands of her spouse without complaint or resistance is a peaceful one, and a household in which she is encouraged or supported (or instigated?) to be emboldened enough to speak out is one in which the peace and sanctity of family life is being imperilled and destroyed.

…

In the painful stoic or muffled silences of the survivors, the questions still shout to be heard about whether there is an impossibility of reconciliation for survivors of rape, especially when the rapists and those who instigated them walk free? Who can speak to them of finding spaces in their hearts for forgiveness, and who indeed should? Do such paths exist at all for the women who carry burdens of the pain and humiliation such as of 2002? If such paths exist, they must I believe traverse also the daunting treacherous journey of justice.

Towards the end he also mentions a fact about Gujarat that not many young people might know.

In my interviews with hundreds of survivors of the Gujarat carnage of 2002, I learnt that the families of most had not suffered for the first time in the carnage of 2002. Each had many agonising tales of losing loved ones, and the looting and torching of their homes in several successive riots. In fact, the saga of their lives seemed like the spaces between various communal riots, often starting with the cataclysmic upheavals of 1947.

…

This, to my understanding is crucial, that all notions of authentic reconciliation relate to a situation when the moment of atrocity can be relegated to a past. But for the Gujarat survivors, the persecution is repetitive: what can then be reconciliation in these situations of sustained boycott, segregation and hate?

I have heavily quoted from the article, but there is still a lot more to read from this amazing article. Read it to get the full picture.

( Via South Asia Citizens Web(SACW) )

Hindutva groups backed CAPEEM loses the California Textbook Court Case.

Here is the Text of Summary Judgment.

The list of edits being debated about here are listed here.

Notice how unlike the seemingly valid misrepresentations listed by CAPEEM on their website, the actual edits being disputed by them in court is totally different. Similar to BJP’s attempt in textbook distortion in India, CAPEEM is also advocating edits which among others, dispute: Aryan invasion on India, casteism in hindu society, any mention of criticism of Hinduism being the reason behind the birth of Buddhism and Jainism, lower rights for women in hindu society, presence on untouchability in hindu society, etc.