The Genetics of Caste

(This is not a casteist rant, though the first few paragraphs may sound like it is, the fact is that it isn’t.)
It’s kind of obvious isn’t it, there is a discernable difference between people of different castes. You wouldn’t expect an upper caste individual to look like someone born into a lower caste family would you. It is a simple observation, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Despite this, when in 2001, Bamshad et al. described genetic differences in Indian caste populations, many took up arms against the paper, describing it as the work of a western imperialist trying to fracture the foundations of Indian society. What Bamshad et al. described was that Indian caste populations differ with respect to the genetic distance they show from other contemporary world populations. Upper castes they found, show a closer affinity to European (particularly East-European) populations than to Asian ones, while for lower castes, this observations was reversed. What they proposed was nothing new or radical, history documents that the caste system was imposed by the Aryans (of European descent) on the Dravidian populations of India, with the Aryans putting themselves in higher positions and relegating the Dravidians to lower positions. The paper merely corroborated this view from a genetic standpoint. Dravidic tribal populations, which have limited interaction with other population groups, correspondingly showed the closest affinity to Asian populations.
Many denounced the paper as one promoting division in Indian society though I can’t really understand why. It was an honest attempt to understand the genetic structure of the Indian population, the significance of which I will discuss later. For all doubts raised as to the veracity of the paper; many Indian researchers also have independently achieved similar results (Majumder 2001; Basu et al. 2003 and Roychoudhury et al. 2000).
Bear with me now, while I digress for a moment; I was travelling by train a few years ago. Sitting in the compartment, I overheard a gentleman describing at length the ‘fact’ that lower castes were genetically inferior to upper castes. He was of the opinion that ‘superior’ genes ensured that upper caste individuals were more intelligent than their lower caste counterparts. Such thought is commonplace, we have numerous similar stereotypes, like the intelligent Tamilian or Jew and hardworking Japanese to name a few. People tend to ascribe such characteristics particularly those related with intelligence to genes. Unfortunately this view is a deterministic one and not really accurate. We may loosely describe traits such as height in terms of genes (or nature), such as a tall-gene. Complex traits such as intelligence on the other hand are much more difficult to explain genetically. First as these traits are typically controlled by a multitude of genes acting in concord and secondly as upbringing and environment (nurture) also contribute to these traits in no small part. Nature vs. nurture, the genetic chicken and egg conundrum has been debated for ages, the currently accepted view as described by Matt Ridley is Nature via Nurture. This implies that both genes and environment interact to develop particular characteristics in an individual. This is what I have to say for the point raised by my companion on the train and all others who think the same; Intelligence is too complex a trait to be attributed purely to the work of genes. As a consequence intelligence doesn’t exhibit simple inheritance patterns as for instance height, a not–so-complex trait. Intelligence depends heavily on environmental factors ranging from nutrition to social interaction. We don’t even know of a gene (or genes) for intelligence yet, we only have a number of prospective candidates. So to describe particular population groups as being genetically unintelligent is downright wrong since we don’t even know what constitutes genetic intelligence.
The question of genetic superiority though is an old one, some of its earliest proponents include Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) who preached eugenics. Eugenics basically proposed selective breeding of superior traits in humans like breeding cows that provide higher milk yields. Hitler practiced a sinister form of eugenics in attempting to breed his Aryan master race. Though eugenics has been scientifically denounced, its ideas live on in stereotypes such as those of our train-prophet.
I think it is these stereotypes that scare the people who criticized Bamshad et al. Caste is a major problem in India, particularly now when the reservation bill has polarized the country. People are worried that showing castes differ genetically, somehow will promote stereotyping of caste groups. Like I said earlier, this is a deterministic view i.e. it assumes genes are absolute determinants of the presence of traits in individuals. Additionally, it assumes that differences imply the superiority of one caste group over the other. It is a simple case of people projecting their worst fears on to the paper, they are merely assuming that the paper supports our commonly held stereotypes; while in reality it never approaches the subject.
Now, why would you ever need to study the genetics of Indian caste populations? It seems to hold more potential to raise trouble than do good. The reason is that genetics has a lot to offer to a number of other fields of study including pharmacology and history. Everyone knows that humans originated in Africa, that a small population of humans, about 200,000 years ago began their journey out of Africa and eventually populated the entire globe. Few know that this was proved genetically by Cann et al. (1987). India, has a diverse population, with four different linguistic groups spread across the country, all of which entered at different times, bringing with them their culture and most importantly their genes. Genetics has the potential to unravel the complex, intertwined histories of these groups. It may also prove invaluable in the relatively new field of pharmacogenomics, which involves individualised drug administration based on an individuals genes. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to revolutionise conventional drug development and administration, in the process reducing drug costs and increasing drug efficacy. Additionally it will allow us to identify and protect endangered tribal groups such as those indigenous to the Andaman Islands. Most importantly it will allow us to understand ourselves much better. We pride ourselves in our diversity, then why do we oppose studying it?

---
References

Bamshad M J, Wooding S, Watkins W S, Ostler C T, Batzer M A & Jorde L B. Human population structure and inference of group membership. Am. J. Hum. Gen. 72: 578-589, 2003
Basu A, Mukherjee N, Roy S, Sengupta S, Banerjee S, Chakraborty M, Roy M, Roy B, Bhattacharyya N P, Roychoudhry S & Majumder P P. Ethnic India: A genomic view, with special reference to peopling and structure. Genome Res. 13:2277-2290, 2003
Majumder P P. Ethnic populations of India seen from an evolutionary perspective. J. Biosc. 26:533-545, 2001
Roychoudhury S, Roy S, Dey B, Chakraborty M, Roy M, Roy B, Ramesh A, Prabhakaran N, Usha Rani M V, Vishwanathan H, Mitra M, Sil S K & Majumder P P. Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Current Science 79:1182-1192, 2000

No Sex Please, We’re Indian

This is an extension of a previous entry, Entertaining Morality, at the time I hadn’t take the CBFC’s threat to ban ‘A’ rated movies on TV seriously, now unfortunately, it seems I underestimated their resolve. Over the last few days after the police began shutting down cable TV operators, TV channels have responded by slashing movies and Indianising their content, in short; toeing the CBFC’s line. A stunning victory for Indian morality and a defeat for Indian art and society. In their defence the CBFC stated that the laws that were being enforced had been around for a long time and were being blatantly ignored by the various movie channels. Yes, the rules have been around for a long time, since the time of British rule actually. Censorship was introduced to aid the British in their colonial policy, among their cited reasons was the essential need to preserve the ‘prestige of the white woman’ 1. Sixty years on, the censor board continues in its pursuit of morality, imposing restrictions on the depiction of adult sexuality in the cinema.

"Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word… Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instil or cultivate violent or good behaviour. “
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

“A film is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact and is examined in the light of the period depicted in the film and the contemporary standards of the country and the people to whom the film relates, provided that the film does not deprave the morality of the audience. Guidelines are applied to the titles of the films also. “
5B(2) Central Government detailed guidelines

Both these quotes are from the Censor Board’s website. The Supreme Court has judged correctly the significance of the cinema in influencing the general public and also I agree that such influence can be both positive and negative. What they have omitted to mention is what exactly constitutes a positive or negative influence. The guidelines too do not go into specific detail; they refer to contemporary standards as the basis for judging a movie and mention that the film should not ‘deprave the morality of the audience’. My point being that all of this is extremely vague in nature and allows much interpretation on the part of those actually involved in reviewing a film.
The CBFC does have a detailed list of rules, however again I find that most of these rules are vague, unnecessary or inadequate.

Rule III
Scenes
a. Showing involvement of children in violence as victims or perpetrators or as forced witnesses to violence, or showing children as being subjected to any form of child abuse;
b. Showing abuse or ridicule of physically and mentally handicapped persons; and
c. Showing cruelty to, or abuse of animals, are not presented needlessly

Here part B is clearly not enforced, there have been innumerable movies that blatantly utilize, physically and mentally handicapped characters as comic relief additionally eunuchs (though not technically handicapped) are very often openly ridiculed.
There are a number of other rules pertaining to violence and portrayal of foreign countries that are clearly being ignored but I concerning myself only with those dealing with the portrayal of sex.

(vii) Human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;

(viii) Such dual meaning words as obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed;

(ix) Scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;
(x) Scenes involving sexual violence against women like attempt to rape, rape or any form of molestation or scenes of a similar nature are avoided, and if any such incidence is germane to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown

(xi) Scenes showing sexual perversions shall be avoided and if such matters are germane to the theme they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown

Vulgarity, obscenity and depravity (as referred to as in vii) are again highly subjective terms, which leave much room for personal interpretation. In the case of ‘dual meaning words’, they have been exploited (or sexploited if you will) in many risqué so called comedies, the plot lines of which consist only of successive sexually suggestive situations and innuendos. In rule ix I find the biggest flaw or loophole. It mentions only scenes that denigrate women and does not mention movies in which the female cast is used only to sex up the movie. Take the movie Dhoom, the only reason Rimi Sen and Esha Deol were cast and their characters written into the script was to attract men to the movie. The characters barely had lines and for a majority of their time on screen, they were in various stages of undress. So apparently individual scenes that degrade women are not allowed but a movie whose female cast exists solely for the purpose of commodifying their sexuality is okay. This is where the fundamental flaw with the CBFC lies, their arbitrary censorship and failure to differentiate between the portrayal of sex to serve a purpose and gratuitous sexual imagery.
Since expressing sexuality openly on film is frowned upon, the film industry uses sexually suggestive imagery instead. Often this is a far worse alternative as is evident from the vast number of rain-drenched-saree, heaving-bosom sequences and other obscene alternatives adopted by filmmakers. The rules insure that the mindset of most filmmakers when dealing with sex is positively adolescent. I can imagine them leaning over their cameras giggling, like schoolboys reading an issue of Debonair. As a consequence of a prudish certification board, sex in Indian films remains a taboo issue, subject to misconceptions, myth and prone to being depicted as an obscenity.
The Honourable Supreme Court notes that films heavily influence society and currently all they achieve is reinforcing our ignorance of all things sexual. Sex is portrayed as a commodity and sexuality as some mysterious force. What you see is what you get and literally millions of us young Indians are being taught that sex is either taboo or a commodity. The lack of understanding of sex, its implications and responsibilities that come with it, manifests itself in the many sex related crimes that occur everyday. As our country opens up to premarital and casual sex, there is a crying need for sex-education. Schools and parents don’t seem to keen to impart this basic knowledge and movies too aren’t allowed to deal sensitively with sex, this can only lead to future generations of dysfunctional adolescents who don’t understand and are incapable of dealing with their sexuality.
Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire’ was condemned for trying to deal sensitively with the lesbianism, while ‘Girlfriend’ a crass, misguided film, dealing with the same issue was allowed. While Fire tried to understand the topic, Girlfriend used it to sell tickets. On the subject of male homosexuality, we have Bobby Darling, used exclusively for comic relief, otherwise gays are alternately portrayed as rapists or paedophiles.
What the CBFC hopes to achieve with its ban on adult movies on TV is to protect audiences from the evil corrupt ways of the western world. They however seem to be the only ones who know how to deal with sexuality and till we learn we need their movies.
Many protest that sex and violence shown on TV influence children and hence such a ban is fully justified. I agree that children need protection from exposure to gratuitous sex and violence but an outright ban is not an efficient solution. Children who can watch adult themed films on TV also tend to have unrestricted access to similar content on the Internet. Banning ‘A’ rated movies from being aired on TV is not going to achieve anything. The responsibility for regulating what children have access to lies not with the Censor Board but rather with parents. Don’t blame your dysfunctional children on TV, the fault lies with you for not playing an active role in their upbringing.
Another commonly used argument is that all this sex being imported from the west is corrupting our magnificent Indian culture and degrading our fine sense of morality. The government issued guidelines which include; “...deprave the morality of the audience...” adheres to this view. I believe that anyone who is influenced to depravity was probably leaning towards it in the first place. You can’t be influenced unless you actually want to be influenced, therein lies my point, my belief in the freedom of choice. If you want to watch something, you should be free to watch it, if you feel some particular film offends your sensibilities, don’t go to watch it. If you don’t like the idea of sex or violence, you can choose not to watch it, don’t protest because others want to watch it. Don’t blame the ills of society on films, crimes like those against women are a result of our social structure and the apathy of out legal system for the victims. Films can only influence people, it is society in the end that sanctions their actions.

Six Million Jews? Who Cares.

‘Hitler’s Cross’, is one of the newest eating joints in Mumbai and for obvious reasons has raised its’ fair share of controversy. Hitler, considered one of the biggest villains of history by most of the western world actually has quite a fan following in India. Travel by train through our country and you will find copies of Mein Kampf in platform booksellers at most major stations. The reason is that Hitler never actually did anything to a Hindus, additionally, he preached of an Aryan master race. Most Indians like to consider themselves of Aryan descent (though geneticists differ) and are flattered that such an important figure preached from the Bhagvad–Gita. Hitler is seen by many as a military genius who took on the western imperial powers, which eventually led to the fall of British rule in India, not as a demented madman who endorsed ethnic cleansing. We conveniently forget that he killed more than 6 million Jews in his reign of hate. Now compare him with General Dyer who was responsible for the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of Indians at Jallianwala Bagh. Dyer’s accomplishments are paltry in comparison to what Hitler achieved, yet to us Dyer was the bigger villain, why? Because he killed Indians and not Jews. Nobody in their right minds would name a restaurant Dyers Rifle but Hitler’s cross is apparently okay.
Hitler’s Cross is symptomatic of our insensitivity, we look at the world as Indian and non-Indian. Instead of thinking of the victims of the Nazi holocaust as Jews, it would do us good to think of them as humans. Six million dead humans is not a figure to be scorned, you can’t justify that sort of a massacre. Hitler was responsible for what happened but it is a stain on our collective human history, we are responsible for ensuring it never happens again. Hero worshipping Hitler is not the way to achieve that.
Back to Hitler’s Cross, the owner reportedly stated to the media that the reasoning behind the name was that like Hitler they wanted to take over the world. What? Hitler never took over the world. Alexander’s Horse (Bucephalus), Genghis’ Yurt or maybe Magellan’s Ship (he did after all circumnavigate the world) would have been more appropriate names following that particular line of reasoning.
Since most menu items are named following a particular theme and the theme in this case being Hitler, I wonder what they serve at this particular restaurant. Cream of Gestapo soup anyone? How about some Waffen SS waffles, maybe a Goering steak or their speciality, Luftwaffe Leftovers, served with a tossed Guernica Salad.
The biggest controversy in the recent past was probably the Danish comic strip portraying the Prophet; I think this is far worse because though it is offensive only to a particular community, it should ideally affect all of us. Hitler along with Pol Pot, Milosevic and all other genocidal despots committed crimes against humanity. To venerate them is to approve of what they did, something that no amount of justification can excuse.

The establishment was finally forced to change its name today in the evening as per media reports.

Brown is the New Black

A long time ago, a good friend of mine told me that orange was the new pink. I didn’t really understand what he meant, till a few days ago when the meaning of what he said dawned on me. At the same time I also realised that brown is the new black.
For millennia, white and black have been pitted in a death struggle, the struggle of good against evil with each colour playing its defined role. Today a number of colours have been introduced into the equation, namely brown, red and yellow. Out of the three, none has grabbed the popular consciousness more than brown, it is the only one that rivals black in its’ association with evil and terror. Particularly terror; bearded and brown now almost define terror, to the extent that even Lucifer with his red skin, horns and tail pales in comparison.
The various shades of brown from a dirty-white-arab-brown to tropical-sun-kissed-south-east-asian-brown are all associated with terror by varying degrees. All none the less imply terror.
Brown as we are seeing nowadays is not the best colour to be while airborne. Over the last week, flights have been cancelled, delayed or diverted whilst mid-flight because brown men were behaving suspiciously. In the good old days, constant fidgeting, shifty-eyes and profuse sweating were among the indicators of suspicious behaviour. Now just brown skin and a beard are considered sufficient. Now I’m not suggesting some conspiracy to keep Arabs and swarthy hued Asians out of the air but I do believe conscious or unconscious racial profiling has gotten out of control.
The British police seem to believe in taking extreme measures, anyone not pearly white is considered a terrorist, as in the case of the Brazilian dude on the subway a few years ago. Being Asian I find offence in the confusion of a South American with an Arab/Asian. I mean come on we do not look even remotely look like South Americans, the only thing we have in common is that none of us are white or black, we are brown.
TV commentator Dean Jones perfectly illustrated my point by referring to South African cricketer Hashem Amla (who happens to be of Indian origin) as ‘The Terrorist’. In the media frenzy that followed his comments, many jumped to his defence, pointing out that he was good friends with members of the Pakistani cricket team, that he thought he was off-air and just happened to make an off-hand comment that he really didn’t mean. The fact that he considered it okay to call someone a terrorist because he is brown, bearded and Muslim is the main issue. Mukul Kesavan in the Hindustan Times points out that no one would refer to Tiger Woods as ‘The Nigger’ whether on or off the air, since that particular word is no longer socially acceptable, however calling an Asian a terrorist is apparently still considered acceptable.
It all comes down to fear, first Asians started to take their jobs then another group of Asians tried to bring down their planes, it all adds up. The mistrust, resentment and fear all add up, the media who feed off the fear multiplies them by constantly taking about suspicious brown men. A lot of people are scared of aliens, the extra terrestrial ones not the illegal immigrant variety. Aliens were typified as little green men, with a penchant for anal probing. Today our fears have changed but only slightly. From little green men to suspicious brown men and from anal probes to suicide bombs.

No Pepsi Please, We Prefer Raw Sewage

Mumbaiites have thronged in the thousands to Mahim Beach since Friday night after it was reported that the seawater had miraculously turned sweet. They came, they saw and they drank the seawater, many even filled the water up into bottles and took it home. The alleged miracle was attributed to the Durgah of Makdoom Shah on the beach. The miracle water supposedly cures any ailments from headaches to arthritic limbs. People have been drinking litres of the stuff as many proudly recounted to news reporters. The Bombay Municipal Corporation on the other hand has been going crazy, trying to dissuade people from drinking the water, citing the presence of industrial effluent and domestic sewage in it. Indians however prefer superstition to science and they are adamant in their belief that this is a miracle and not due to any of the numerous possible reasons forwarded by the scientific community.
Storm water was released into the Mithi River on Friday and the BMC attributes the excess freshwater for this phenomenon. They may as well be preaching to the deaf, for people continued to flock to the beach undeterred through Saturday.
Many News reporters were tempted to draw parallels between this miracle and the Milk-Drinking Ganesh idols. Even then though many went hoarse crying surface tension, people continued to feed Milk to the idols, unimpressed with any scientific explanation. I would like to compare this situation with a much more recent incident, the pesticide-in-cola controversy, though I have already written about it, this illustrates another side of the issue. The CSE fiercely took on the Cola giants levelling against them the charge of not caring for the health of millions of Indians. After the Mahim- Beach incident though it has become clear exactly how much we really worry about what we are consuming. The Mithi River is notorious in Mumbai for being highly polluted, yet people fearlessly chugged down bottles of that filth. I saw the bottles filled with the seawater that the faithful were proudly carrying back to ‘purify’ their homes. The water was dirty brown, something only a drought victim would be tempted to drink yet here were thousands gleefully throwing it down their throats.
Indians like faith, it has the advantage of not forcing people to think about what they do, common sense and logic on the other hand require a little mental effort. We love our little miracles, they brighten our otherwise boring lives so I can understand feeding milk to idols but to drink sewage, it is beyond my comprehension. Historically we can be considered a scientific people, ancient India was quite advanced and even today we are not totally scientifically backward. The problem is that unlike in the west, Indian science never came into conflict with our religious beliefs, as a consequence science and religion were never separated into mutually exclusive fields. We still revel in the apparent science allegedly present in Hindu religious texts. Interpreting ancient texts many find evidence for cloning, nuclear power and other weird science. One of my professors was fond of asserting that Krishna the blue god was actually green, as a result of chlorophyll in his skin, which allowed him to utilise sunlight to generate food. In a number of lectures that I attended, speakers showed an uncomfortable tendency to confuse our mythology with science. When a friend of mine at one seminar asked Dr. Karad, founder of Maeer’s Institute of Technology, Pune how he could draw such extreme parallels between science and religion, the well rehearsed reply came; “they are both different sides of the same coin my son”. Now an ambiguous reply such as that may satisfy someone who has faith but it left us sorely dissatisfied. The problem is that our education system stresses on memorising facts and accepting them as a matter of faith, independent thought and logic are not particularly encouraged. So for us science and religion are the same, both depend on faith and require no understanding whatsoever.
Religion is more interesting than science; you have temples and mosques to worship in but nothing to forward the cause of science. Additionally, religious indoctrination starts early and continues through life, most Indians study science for a few years only in school and what they are taught is not how to think scientifically but merely a few reactions and processes.
In this case though, you can forget scientific thought, maybe the water was indeed miracle water but even common sense should provide enough deterrence from drinking it. I doubt the sanity of those who drank the sewage but many even went so far as to claim it had cured them of various ailments, I doubt their honesty. If you put a camera in front of someone already excited by an alleged miracle there is nothing they won’t admit to. I blame the media to an extent too, irresponsible reporters were interviewing anyone and everyone, airing their absurd testimonials as to the waters healing properties. They did periodically mention that the BMC was warning people against drinking the water, but didn’t actually dwell on the point. Everyone who watches National Geographic, has at one time or the other wondered why nobody ever tries to save the poor zebra from being eaten by the lions, or alternately why they don’t try feed starving lion cubs. The answer is that they are merely documenting their behaviour and do not intervene with natural order. What happened on Mahim Beach was definitely not natural order and neither were the reporters doing a National Geographic special, they have a responsibility to their often not-so-bright viewers and shouldn’t have hyped the whole event to the extent that they did. Keeping everything in mind, is it any wonder then that people drank the miracle water? If they are fortunate, they won’t die from it and even if they do fall ill, modern medicine will probably save them. Sad, we could have done without a lot of them.

On living in a Political Wilderness

Politics has been around in India for a long time but for me, my earliest recollections of anything even vaguely political was singing “galli-galli mein shor hai, VP singh chor hai” when I was in school, some friend of mine must have taught me because I had no clue who VP Singh was at the time. Then, fast forward a few years I remember the fall of the Deva Gowda government, and the IK Gujral government. When the NDA finally came into power and gave us a full term government, I remember seething along-with all the other Congress supporters in the country. At this time though I made appropriate noises during the Gujrat riots and cried foul every time the VHP or RSS said or did something; I really didn’t care. I was busy first with school then with learning of a whole new independent life away from home at college. Then as college came to an end and I began scouring the country for further educational opportunities, the Congress (now in power and who I had earlier supported) suddenly decided they didn’t need the votes of me and others like me. All of us middle-class students not socially challenged (read; of backward castes) were cast aside in one fell swoop as the quotas in government institutes were doubled. I was stunned, they couldn’t possibly be doing this to me, ME, such an ardent supporter, a fellow secularist and a firm believer in their party. Shock led to dejection led to anger, I realised, I wasn’t a vote bank, I held no clout in their eyes and was to be dealt with as such.
Being a typically cynical Indian, I knew our governments were not capable of implementing any decisions that would yield benefits to India somewhere in the future, I knew they only looked at what would ensure electoral success for them, but this was ridiculous.
All of a sudden, after being touted as part of a new and improved India, I was not wanted in my own country. Yeah like they are ever going to get my vote again. This however leads me to my main problem, if not the Congress, who do I vote for? For the sake of voting in a stable government, the only choice lies between the BJP and the Congress. Every ballot cast in favour of another party promises an unstable or impotent government.
I cannot and will not vote for the BJP for ideological reasons; to me they are a mess waiting to happen and we know where fanatical nationalism got Germany and Italy. Though the BJP promised a shining India, what we got were rivers of blood, particularly Muslim blood. Who gives a fuck if they were good for the economy (I’m not even sure about that), the shit that the VHP and RSS got away with was inexcusable. Their evil minions exercised their fundamentalist designs and literally got away with murder. Everyone who protested was labelled a ‘pseudo-secularist’. What the fuck is that anyway? They seem to love that particular phrase and swing it around in a sort of feeble defence, I’m not exactly sure what it is that they imply. Am I a pseudo-secularist because I value human life despite seemingly insurmountable religious divides?

pseudo- pref false, spurious.

Secularism [sekewleRizm] n tendency to exclude religious standards from public life; ethical system divorced from religious traditions

[Excerpts from the Penguin Concise English Dictionary, 1995, now for just 9.99! Buy buy buy!!!]

So how does that make me a pseudo-secularist, have they somehow psychoanalysed me and determined that my alleged secularism is actually a façade? Is there a fundamentalist inside me just waiting to get out? I hope not, I sincerely hope not.
Now we come to the Congress, a party whose history stretches back to the hallowed times of our Indian struggle for independence, now synonymous with bureaucratic inefficiency and steeped in corruption. So much for them, there are not many choices left.
My comrade brothers will be quick to point out that I haven’t mentioned the Left yet. So here; ‘the Left’. There I mentioned them. Seriously though, the Left has done a pretty good job in the states where they rule. Kerala and Bengal, traditional bastions of the Left are doing pretty well for themselves. Kerala has the highest literacy rate in the country and Bengal is not doing badly in either. Let me point out though that these states would probably do well as long as no one particularly inept was in charge. Kerala has a matriarchal society, and as we all know, if you educate a woman, you educate the whole family. Bengal is home to some of the first universities in the country and most Bengalis are typically intelligent people (based on those I know) so that’s that. Even if my arguments can be refuted and someone proves that the Reds can actually do some good in state governments, we all know what they are like at a national level.
Since the inception of the Congress led UPA, the Left has not for a minute, shut its ugly, hungry mouth. They are responsible for most of the failings of the UPA, constantly making unrealistic demands, trying to maintain their street cred as being ‘for the people’. Their attempts to scuttle the Indo-US nuclear deal were positively funny, they said it would compromise national security and was a threat to Indian sovereignty. If it weren’t for the Congress and the BJP, India would never have been established as a nuclear power in the first place. Particularly when the BJP took on the world and bravely conducted our second round of nuclear tests, the Reds were at the forefront of protesters denouncing the tests, claiming them a sin when so many were starving. Now when the Congress tries to do something that would ultimately benefit our starving millions, the Reds again feel the need to protest. They have ruined what could have been a good government.
The Congress has grown old and arthritic, though Dr. Manmohan Singh could have been a good Prime Minister, the Congress however is too fixed in the past. They insist on courting Indian political royalty, the Gandhi family, it may be argued that Sonia Gandhi has done well to unite a divided congress and bring them back to power, but she is merely a political seat-warmer, holding the ship together till son Rahul comes of political age (about 50 plus going by current standards). The Congress does need a shot of young blood but c’mon not another Gandhi/Nehru, give someone else a chance.
Where the BJP scores above the Congress to me is that they have a fixed political view and a truckload of conviction to back it up, to me the Congress is floundering in a sea of indecisiveness, for which they lose points.Reading this it may seem I slightly favour the Congress as I have come down a bit harder on the other two parties, but as it happens I don’t want to vote for the lesser of the two evils. When I go into a booth and cast that sacred ballot I want to fully believe that I am voting for a better India. While the current situation continues, there’s not much chance of me being able to do this; so remain in my political wilderness I must.

Pride, Terror and a Machine Gun

Tomorrow is the 15th of August, our independence day. For the average Delhiite, it’s not our independence that we remember on this day but the threat of terror. That is the legacy of 50 years of living under the cloud of terror, you know it’s an important day in India when hordes of heavily armed policeman descend on to the streets of Delhi. For me it’s the police are more unnerving than the actual terror threat. They are constant reminders that no area is actually safe, while you may be tempted to ignore the terrorist or think that will never happen to me, the presence of police on every street corner forces you to acknowledge the threat. This year after the Bombay blasts and now after the whole airline thing, security has been stepped up to unheard of levels. I was driving down one of the roads leading out of Delhi to Gurgaon, this particular road has been widened to 8 lanes to accommodate the ever-increasing volume of traffic between Delhi and Gurgaon but yesterday, traffic was dead slow. There were three police barricades along the road over the stretch of a single kilometre, the last had either CRPF or Commandos, armed with automatics. They stopped every single car that was headed out of Delhi, it was like airport security and this road is not even particularly significant. I can’t blame the Delhi police though, they seldom get appreciation for this aspect of their work, protecting the city against the invisible threat of terror is far from easy, every day that passes without incident is another victory for them. In Delhi, achieving this is far from easy, the city is huge, with a population of over a crore, out of which not everyone’s loyalties lie with India.
The other day a British MP, commenting about Monty Panesar and Sajid Mahmood playing cricket for the English team made an interesting point, that the extent of integration of immigrant communities in the UK could be determined by which team they supported in cricket. Take a walk through the area surrounding Hazrat Nizamuddin’s tomb in Delhi and you will immediately see the implications of this for Indian society. Many of the shops in the narrow gallis are adorned with posters of Inzamam-ul-Haq, Afridi, Shoaib Akhtar and others. I’m neither a Hindu fundamentalist nor a nationalistic fanatic; I firmly believe that the minority communities need to be integrated into Indian society. I don’t assume that every Muslim is a terrorist, but it hurts my national pride to see Indians whose loyalties lie elsewhere.
Hindus are to a great extent also to blame for the situation. Most view any Muslim with suspicion and what we get as a result is large Muslim ghettos in areas like Nizamuddin, and around Jama Masjid, here, disgruntled by poverty, unemployment and rising anti-Islamic sentiment a few eventually turn against India. Fuelled by atrocities as in Gujrat, they turn to terror.
On the other hand, just as Hindu fundamentalism breeds terror, terror further feeds the furnaces of religious intolerance. I am ashamed to admit it but I have on numerous occasions contemplated kicking the fuckers out of our country. I’m an atheist so I try and detach myself from all religious prejudices but I still get nervous walking through Muslim dominated areas, I don’t really know what to expect.
Terrorist attacks will only achieve further mistrust of Muslims, they can’t possibly hope to break India. We are too proud and strong to weaken against the fear they attempt to propagate. Try this; walk into Red Fort through Lahore gate, you will be greeted by a sand-bagged machine gun. First you will feel fear as you realise that this is a prime terrorist target, then comfort in the realisation that we are prepared and then you realise that terrorists would never attack this place. Where they will strike is a crowded bazaar, in a bus or on a train and you will then feel pride, knowing that no matter what they do, they can only strengthen our resolve.

Initially I had intended to preach tolerance and brotherhood, but as I wrote this piece, I could feel my nationalist pride rising. Though I try to remain objective at most times, recollecting everything we have had to face over the recent years makes me forget all my tolerance. For residents of Delhi and Mumbai in particular, the threat of terror is very real, we have to face our fear at every street corner in the cold steel gun barrel that is pointed at us by the cops, at every road barricade, behind every of sand-bag pile. Like I mentioned earlier the act of facing my fears doesn’t make me more fearful, it heightens my sense of national pride and strengthens my resolve against terror. That’s why I may sound confused in the last few paragraphs, for though I want unified and fully integrated India where no one has to live in fear because of their religious beliefs, the fact that many who live off our country, have other ideas, makes it difficult for me at times to muster too much conviction behind my beliefs.

Political art

The various student political parties in JNU campaign by posting these massive posters all over campus. Most jut bear simple slogans, however there are the more artistic ones, done in a style that is possibly unique to the campus. Here are some that went up on the School of Language Studies building during admission time this year.

The Mother and the Motherland

Apart for other things, one of the first points noticed about Indian men is our excessive usage of profanity, profanity that often employs references to women. Women see this as being indicative of our opinion as to their social standing. Think about it, the logic seems pretty sound, women are though of as being so lowly that most commonly used profanity centres around women.
Quite some time ago, when the whole ‘item number’ scene was rearing its ugly head and Mallika Sherawat had just emerged from the pool of Bollywood wannabes, I just happened to watch ‘The Big Fight” on NDTV. The issue being debated (or shouted about, as is often the case on that particular show) was something like the portrayal of women in media. The main portion of the show was devoted to the topic, however it did predictably spill over on to the status of women in society. Although there is much to be said on the issue, being a man and an Indian one in particular, I feel I wouldn’t be able to do justice to the issue, if you want to read more on it, read this post by Erasmus-in-India in her Blog . Now back to the topic; one of the speakers, a woman, raised the point that even Indian profanity is directed at women. Erasmus-in-India agrees and writes;
“…I am not too astonished to find such an insult in the Hindi vocabulary. India is a male-dominated country where women are not always perceived at their fair value.”
I agree that Indian profanity is indicative of our perception of women, but I disagree with the conclusions they draw. The commonly held view is that women are seen as inferior and so are included in profanity and by associating a man with female genitals for instance, gives a particular word or phrase its negative connotation. Most people believe that the female genitals themselves have a negative connotation.
The way I see it is completely the opposite way, though my interpretation doesn’t do much to vindicate our perception of women either. Consider the most commonly used and most offensive insults used, they revolve around the Ma-Behen (mother and sister) system, they mainly involve referring to their genitals or sexual intercourse with a mother or sister. English has a corresponding insult for the latter but has nothing similar to the former. So why is calling an Indian man ‘Ma(or Behen) ki chut’ (mothers vagina) an insult? I don’t think it’s because of the negative connotation associated with the genitals alone, but rather holds a deeper meaning based on our role as an Indian man. Traditionally Indian men are expected to act as protectors and providers, women are seen as helpless dependants to be looked after. A man is expected to protect physically and safe-guard the dignity of the women he is responsible for, particularly his mother and sister. Thus referring to the genitals of a mans mother or sister gains additional significance as it crosses the line between insulting a man and insulting his masculinity by referring to those under his ‘protection’ in a negative light. A number of movies made in the 80’s and early 90’s highlighted this point, the worst a movie villian could do was to either kill the hero’s mother or rape his sister. As consequence inneumerable inconsolable heros hunted down and killed villians who had committed either (or in some cases both) of the crimes.
Women are seen as lesser humans, however there is no fundamental negative connotation associated with them as many allege. They are seen as property, something to protect against the world.
This is also why many men have no qualms against ‘eve-teasing’, women other than those you are responsible for are seen as some-elses property, something for which you bear no responibility and are thus free to treat as you see fit. Women are respected but not universally, we only extend our respect toward those under our control, all others are seen as fair game.
Our country, our motherland also receives such contradictory respect. Never talk badly about India in front of an Indian, there is a good chance you won’t live to describe it. This confuses a lot of foreigners who visit our country, they assume that people who litter the streets, have no respect for law and openly talk depreciatingly their own country wont really mind if they add their two cents worth. Most quickly realise how mistaken they are, the motherland like the mother is not to be discussed lightly. We draw a firm distinction between us and them, indians and non-indians and expect others to remember their place. To us India is never in the wrong, Indians are the greatest people and our mothers and sisters are temples of virtue.I’m not saying that we are right, but this is just the way we are.

A Tit, a Clit and an Elephant Dick Do Not Necessarily Equal Wholesome Family Fun

Apparently though that is what one Pushpa Vitula had assumed when she attended a now infamous exhibit.
The moral police ensured that an art exhibition, explicitly titled ‘Tits, Clits n Elephant Dicks’, did not go on uninterrupted in Mumbai on Saturday.
Following an obscenity complaint by a woman named Pushpa Vitula at the Colaba police station, 12 policemen stormed the exhibition showcasing the works of Sanjeev Khandekar and Vaishali Narkar at the Jehangir Art Gallery and took pictures of the exhibits for evaluation.
Read the full report at DNA Mumbai
This whole issue is stupid at so many levels that I don’t know where to begin. Lets start right at the beginning. Ms. Pushpa Vitula decides to attend an art exhibit titled ‘Tits, Clits n Elephant Dicks’, the organizers have done a good job here. The title explicitly describes what you can/cannot expect inside, for instance, looking at the title one would not expect paintings of the Virgin Mary or any renditions of other ‘virtuous’ and chaste subjects. Undeterred by this warning, Ms. Pushpa Vitula our bold adventurer pressed on and thus in my opinion gave her consent to view any content displayed.
Lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani says: “…The lady, who found the exhibition obscene, went to view it out of free will. If she was offended, she had the choice to walk out. There is no question of conflicting rights or enforcing the law here.”

Source:DNA Mumbai
Now we jump forward in time to later that ill-fated day. Offended by the exhibit, she decides to go on record with her protest and runs to the friendly neighbourhood police station and registers a complaint. I can’t begin to fathom her motive(s) for doing so, maybe she thought she needed protection from the evil ways of the morally corrupt artists, I think she would have done better to go to a temple. I personally feel those who see obscenity in everything around them are fundamentally perverts themselves. Especially in the case of art where there are a number of perspectives to choose from, people tend to go with the one most reflective of their own views. Perverts can only see obscenity because that is all they are looking for. Now I’m not saying that our intrepid explorer, Ms. Pushpa Vitula is a pervert, but she doesn’t leave much room to allow for other possibilities.
Then we come to the police the self-appointed defenders of Indian morality, they made two inexcusable errors, first, actually entertaining such a complaint and finding sufficient cause to turn up at the exhibit and then by actually confiscating some pieces for ‘evaluation’. Evaluation? Am I supposed to conclude that along-with the forensic department, the police now have an art appreciation wing? What were they attempting to evaluate? From their confiscation the pieces and recording of the entire exhibit on video as evidence, it becomes clear the police have whole-heartedly embraced their role as guardians of morality.
What we have here is not just a case of a daft woman making a dumb complaint; there is a more disturbing aspect, the fact that the police seem willing to abandon their duties to the maintenance of law and order in favour of moral policing. The question is whose morals do they want us to live by? I suspect that they would lean toward the principles held by those like our protagonist Ms. Pushpa Vitula, a prospect that I fear as much as they would if they had to live by my morals and principles.
Again I have to fall back on the essential freedoms guaranteed to us in the constitution, it’s amazing how many times we have to remind ourselves of them. For an ‘allegedly’ democratic country we are unusually obsessed with censorship and show an uncomfortable tendency toward totalitarianism.

“Anyone who considers this obscene must have had their first orgasm here.”
Art dealer and collector Ashish Balram Nagpal Source:DNA Mumbai

For The Conscientious Watch-dog

Every society has them, they are the unavoidable consequence of living in a group, they take unto themselves all the ills of society and protect us form ourselves. The watchdogs, from the sleaze on our streets to the corrupting influence of media, they vociferously oppose everything. In a democratic society, I suppose they are necessary, especially in India, where someone has to keep an eye on our government, which acts more for its own benefit than for that of the people. Today however, the watch-dogs have spawned into a veritable industry, protesting and opposing almost everything done in the country. Everyone with control issues seems to be on-board lending their voice. Some consider themselves the protectors of Indian morality and culture while others are busy saving us from the designs of the evil capitalist industrialists. It is with the latter whom we will concern ourselves today.
These particular watch-dogs are intent on protecting us from any big industry, particularly multinational companies or as we refer to lovingly as; MNCs. Some of the MNCs’ on the most wanted list are Coke, Pepsi and not surprisingly Monsanto. One group that has taken upon itself to attack all three is the Centre for Science and Environment. The CSEs’ latest attack has been on the cola giants, alleging (again) that there are traces of pesticides in their products. The CSE and other Indian NGOs hold a deep-seated grudge against the two and have raised a number of serious issues against them including the pesticide issue as well as exploitation of groundwater resources in the vicinity of their bottling plants. So far so good but I just cant help be suspicious of their actual motives, sometimes I just get the feeling that all organizations involved enjoy kicking up a storm just for the sake of a little additional publicity rather than for actually doing any good. Pepsi and Coke (particularly Coke) have been at the centre of much public debate concerning their adverse health effect, on how they are very effective at cleaning out toilets or can dissolve teeth in a few hours. Banning their sale from schools and other public places has become an accepted method of gaining a little attention or political mileage. I do not question the obvious health benefits of limiting the sale of colas but I have begun to doubt the motives of those pushing for the same.
In a recent public debate hosted by a prominent Indian news channel, the representatives for the CSE and the Cola manufacturers argued it out in fine Indian style. What struck me was the incoherence of the lady representing the CSE. She kept coming back to one point that Pepsi and Coke were just luxury items with no obvious health benefits and should hence be banned, she quoted how toxic the pesticides that were allegedly found in them are and waxed eloquent on how they were exploiting the resources of the country for their own profit. I had a problem with most of what she said. First (as the host also pointed out), there are many so-called luxury products with no obvious benefits (often with associated health hazards) that are openly sold in the country. Alcohol being at the foremost of such a list were one ever compiled. Alcohol poses a definite health risk in addition to all the allied social problems it causes. Prohibition is the only true solution to alcohol abuse, but we all know how well that works. A number of state governments have tried it at one point or the other but neither the government nor the law survived for long. Second, if pesticides are in the ground water being used for the manufacture of colas, then I think it would be safe to assume that those very pesticides would be present in the water being consumed by millions of Indians, along with a number of other undesirable contaminants possibly in higher quantities than in the drinks. If everyone is really so concerned about consuming pesticides then they should be a little proactive in reducing their use. A simple alternative would be to use GM crops that require less pesticide use, oh but I forgot, Monsanto is also on their most-wanted list, so we can’t really have that right? So what do we do, just ban Pepsi and Coke, sit back and pat ourselves on the back for having thwarted their evil plans? That would seem to be the Indian way to do it, win a battle at the cost of the war. We tend to be shortsighted in most of our endeavours and that’s why more often than not they fall flat on their face. If Coke contains pesticides then I’m pretty damn sure every restaurant in the country is also serving water that is full of DDT, BHC and a plethora of other bug-killers. Try shut them all down, I dare you, I double-dare you. I have a feeling Coke and Pepsi are just being targeted because they are soft targets, public opinion is against them (a contradiction if you consider their enormous sales) and any attack against them is sure to gain a lot of media attention, in a sense they are being victimised.
One common thread running through most watch-dogs is their tendency to use the ‘B’ word. They seem to want to ban everything, it was scary at first but now it’s just grown irritating. I do not like their holier-than-thou attitude and I resent being told what I can and cannot do. A fundamental feature of democracy is the freedom to do what the fuck you want to do to yourself. You may advise me to do or not do something and it is my prerogative to listen to or ignore you, but I resent and oppose anyone telling me what I may or may not do. All these NGOs and other watch-dogs seem to believe that we Indians are essentially a stupid people and do not know what is good for us. What they all try to do is to make enough noise to enforce their will over the entire population. They seem to think that they are our elected representatives. The reason that there is little opposition to what they are doing is because in India there isn’t any concept of freedom of choice, we are so used to being ordered around by our families and by everyone else elder than us, we don’t really resent it when just about anyone else does it to us. Another important factor is that watch-dogs only pursue issues which allow them to hold the moral high ground, as in this case, to oppose them would be to side with the evil Cola giants. Faced with such a situation, how many people would really raise their voices against the power hungry NGOs?
Lastly I would like to say something about the NGOs themselves. NGO stands for Non Governmental Organisation, they are technically not intended to earn profit but that hasn’t stopped anyone associated with them from earning a damn good living off them. They are no longer seen as crusaders for a better India but as an opportunity to earn a fine living. They are fundamentally corrupt and I wouldn’t trust them to weed my garden much less influence national policy. I have no problem with those actually doing good quietly like working with street children, educating women and suchlike. So while I sip my rum and coke and smoke my cigarette I have but one message for the rest, “go find yourselves a real, honest job.”

The Various Guises of Musical Snobbery

It was amazing, after two years in a new school, meeting my old friends freaked me out. People who’d been teeny-bopping to Britney, BSB et al. were now sophisticated–hippies.
Yes sophisticated-hippies, there is such a thing, here’s how you make one; throw a few CDs of Jeffersen Airplane, The Doors, Janis Joplin, CCR, Led Zep and Hendrix together, throw on a Khadi-Kurta, a pair of strategically ripped jeans, roll some weed in a Rizla and light up. Yeah they were sophisticated as hell, they were fucking high-society, prim and propah motherfuckers I half expected them to pronounce their ‘aitches’. They hit all the popular clubs spoke depreciatingly about GnR, Metellica and Maiden and debated spirituality. They were only hippies as far as their sweet –smokes and free-love, but they intimidated the shit out of me at the time. I was then in the throes of full-blown adolescent-non-conformism, listening to Papa Roach and Linkin Park and just anyone else crying about adolescent angst. I’d been too busy piercing various projections on my face to take notice of their retro-metamorphosis and now I couldn’t get over the transformation, I’d left them Friends-watchers and they were now the Khadi-Brigade
What ticked me off was that they were now preaching to me about the music I’d grown up on. Suddenly Sgt. Peppers’, A Hard Days Night and Help were no longer adequate, I needed to know a whole list of Lennons’ individual ventures in order to be considered a true fan and not the freak-bastard that I was. What pissed me off the most was that the Stones were not on their list of music considered cool enough. I think the Stones suffered in popularity with the KBs because they just weren’t intense enough, the acid didn’t show in their music, they were having too much fun doing what they did and there wasn’t enough depth to their songs. One alleged Mick Jagger imitator; Steven Tyler faced similar treatment from the Metal-Heads, Aerosmith fell short in the critical ‘hardness quotient,’ Slayer, Pantera and Metallica being the accepted standards. Aerosmith, the poor buggers were not hard enough for the Metal-Heads, not polished enough for the Teeny-Boppers, not gangsta enough for the Home-Boys and not nearly dead enough for the Khadi-Brigade and they suffered in popularity for their indecisiveness.
I have been cursed with (and for) an eclectic taste in music, I love Travis but am equally enamoured with Cradle of Filth, I like Metallica but think Pantera is a pain in the ass, hell, I loved Vivaldis’ Four Seasons. I snigger at people who call into request shows on radio and TV and say they like rock and then request Bryan Adams or Bon Jovi; I am very protective of my definitions of musical genres. In people like me this gives rise to another form of musical snobbery, for us the only good music is what we listen to, we lack unity because we seldom agree on what good music is, we are the discordant biblical inhabitants of a musical Babel.