Cycle of re-incarnation would have you believe that you will reap, as early as within next life, what you sow. While this is certainly a fancy notion, this isn’t truth by any notion of reasonableness. Hence even if you wouldn’t have enjoyed what you do now – for example, luxuries of material progress, benefits of freedom struggle, developments of modern technologies – there is hardly an obligation, let alone nagging sense of guilt, for doing something for future generation.
May be I am selfish but I’ve got only one life. Barely 40 years of pleasurable existence (excluding pre-puberty and senility). There is nothing wrong in me to want to live only life the way I like. I didn’t ask to born, so there isn’t any purpose I am supposed to fulfill. If I am dead tomorrow, why should I even care what happens to rest of the world and rest of the people (and ants, mosquitoes, etc. for that matter). I wouldn’t even know and feel ever. Why should my narrow sense of kinship with fellow humans overshadow my sense of connectedness with the entire Universe? Should I feel depressed by falling of a star somewhere?
Admittedly, my progeny and kins will inhabit this planet after I’ve departed. Yet, what I do for future generation wouldn’t benefit them as much as what I do for my kids directly. If I think about it, I haven’t even met my descendants and I am not kind of person who gets worked up on what his bloodline is going to suffer in future. In that way, I am kind of a model citizen, beyond narrow interests of family and clan, equally indifferent to all.
Some will say that had this attitude been taken by our forefathers we wouldn’t have had what we do. But, who really knows? Could we have not been better? Did all those who worked on what they did do it for future generation i.e. us? What they did was their choice. My choice is to make optimal decision based on information in my hand at this juncture of my existence.
Assuredly, do what you like, and if it benefits next bunch of people in the world, well and good, but if it doesn’t, don’t worry. Want to buy plastic bags and drink water in paper cups? Be my guest (though you might want to check if it will start hurting you in this generation!) It’s a beauty of this big world that there will be some people who will disagree with even the best construed arguments. My role is to convince you that I (and you too) shouldn’t worry about future generation, with awareness that some of you wouldn’t get convinced, and end up doing (possibly) something good for future generation, which makes my not worrying not as troublesome as I could be. Ironically, success of my argument depends on the failure of my argument. But, either way, who gives a damn?
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Cost of improper signage
Small things, yet very important. I am talking of traffic signage in India. Traffic signs are obviously very important for road users. They serve primarily two functions: information and warning. Informative signs provide directions, street names, speed limits, one-way streets, distance, nearest convenience facility, turn permissibility, and so on. Warning signs warn of work in process, diversions, traffic lights, stop sign, lane constraints, road block, weight limit, height limit, and so on. For drivers and pedestrians alike, they serve purpose to facilitate traffic, reduce inconvenience, reduce traffic jam, manage blockage and congestion, provide mental peace, and all in all are very helpful. In fact, I find proper signage so helpful — and this is not just limited to roads, but also in public areas like parks, hospitals, bus and railway stations, airports — that I feel instant gratification for that designer who decided to put a sign where he did in case I find one exactly when I need one.
In USA I’ve found signs to be absolutely well placed. Almost as if someone is reading my thoughts and the moment I feel I need directions, a sign happens to be right there as soon as I look up. This, unfortunately, hasn’t been the case in India. Indeed, while they are absolutely important to avoid unnecessary U-turns and save fuel cost and traffic congestion, I doubt anyone in Indian municipalities — which are responsible bodies for this kinds of works — pays any iota of attention to them. There are many problems:
- Major issue is that there aren’t just signs where there obviously should be, like fork in the road or a flyover or traffic junction or closed road.
- Content of signs leaves enough to be desired
- First, there is a issue of font size. There is hardly any standard for any sensible font size which can be read by driver is who driving at or below permissible speed limit. More often than not, it’s too small that you need to be parked to be able to read.
- There appears to be is no standardization on sign language too. Often for temporary signs (for construction work, for example, which in Indian case, temporarily last for up to couple of years) signs are not phrases but full sentence. Combine that will small font size and you are predestined to be unable to read it.
- Biggest issue is of placement
- While vehicles are permitted on all lanes, sign is placed exclusively to cater to lane nearest to it, even when it is applicable to all lanes.
- Sign is too close to the point where decision based on that information can be made e.g. you are already on flyover when sign says where this flyover goes and where road below does, or sign on left lane is so close to junction that moving to left lane at that point is impossible, or speed-breaker sign is after speed-breaker.
- Sign is hidden behind an advertisement poster or an overgrown tree
- Sign has moved/shifted/turned by forces of nature and time or is misplaced in the first place where it points to direction which is wrong is vague (arrow marks the street where there isn’t any). This is specifically bad of places like Bangalore where concept of perpendicular road crossing is rare and you’ve multiple roads crossing at odd angles.
None of this, of course, matters to traffic police should they decide to cite you for violation. You may have driven on a road couple of kilometers before you see a speed-limit sign (if you do, despite above) yet you are expected to somehow know that and not exceed that. You may come across a traffic junction and keep looking if and where is the signal for you, for it’s either placed at strange angle or is behind a tree. Blind turns and road conditions ensures that one may drive at full speed only on roads where one has driven few times. Do not expect speed-breaker or turn sign will warn you. You will have to remember that. That and that pothole which is just there unannounced ready to engulf you with your car.
And improper signage is not just small annoyances. I personally have wasted quite a lot fuel and time on missing a turn or driving on a flyover when I am not supposed to. Subsequent course correction adds to unnecessary traffic congestion and caused road rage. Compared to investment of putting useful, readable, properly placed signs, returns on overall fuel, time, accident saving, and public convenience is expected to be high. I do not have numbers with me but I’d expect them to have one of highest return-on-investment for any public expenditure work. Yet, there is no future where I envision this will happen any time far.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thank-o-meter
Cultural differences between oriental and occidental societies are well known and expressing gratitude through explicit thanking is one such area of difference.
European and North American societies exhibit an all pervasive tendency to thank family, friends and strangers for the most trivial of the matters which grates Indians — or at least me — in two ways. One, it reduces act of thanking to mere perfunctory ritual rather than heartfelt recognition of gratitude received because it becomes difficult to recognize true thanking to courtesy thanking. Two, it embarrasses me to receive profuse thanking for task which I don’t consider worthy of gushing praise bestowed on me. One English colleague at my firm, for instance, once asked me for “a very very big favour” by asking me to explain her how many thousands were in a lakh. I am often at loss to even respond to such overwhelmed dose of expressed thanking.
Asian societies, on the contrary, are more cautious in thanking and when done, it is almost always to strangers. In fact, a good yardstick to measure how close one is in personal circle of thank-er is to notice for what and how often one is thanked. A close friend or family member never expects to be thanked and some even take offence at thanking. Even strangers are thanked for things more substantial than mere getting out of the way on footpath. This, naturally, comes out to West as rude and ungrateful behaviour.
Those of us educated and exposed to Western culture are pushing thanking in Indian social interaction to same extent. While thanking someone for efforts he put into helping you is desirable social mannerism, anything done in excess loses its meaning as happens on the other side of the Earth. What we need is moderate amount of thanking and thanking from heart for things for which thank-er is really thankful about. What we need is thank-o-meter™!
Thank-o-meter is each individual’s personal cumulative counter of thanks he received and thanks he gave throughout his life. Because thanking someone will decrement thank-o-meter reading, one would do so only when meant genuinely and when other’s effort are substantial enough and worthy of a thank. This will obviously increase value of thank to receiver as well. Because one will be able to thank only when he has positive balance of thanks, he will have to earn thanks through efforts before he can spend them.
Implementation of this scheme can only be undertaken by God for He only has such scalability and omniscience required for this project. Implementation details such as initial stock of thanks can be worked out. What may happen is that some miser may stop handing out thanks or some other start hoarding them. Thanking in return of cash gift would be equivalent to selling thank-o-meter readings. Humankind may end up deciding price of a efforts in units of thanks which will be function of demand (low during natural disaster) and supply (high during charity event) and may work much like today’s forex market (and can possibly be traded).
European and North American societies exhibit an all pervasive tendency to thank family, friends and strangers for the most trivial of the matters which grates Indians — or at least me — in two ways. One, it reduces act of thanking to mere perfunctory ritual rather than heartfelt recognition of gratitude received because it becomes difficult to recognize true thanking to courtesy thanking. Two, it embarrasses me to receive profuse thanking for task which I don’t consider worthy of gushing praise bestowed on me. One English colleague at my firm, for instance, once asked me for “a very very big favour” by asking me to explain her how many thousands were in a lakh. I am often at loss to even respond to such overwhelmed dose of expressed thanking.
Asian societies, on the contrary, are more cautious in thanking and when done, it is almost always to strangers. In fact, a good yardstick to measure how close one is in personal circle of thank-er is to notice for what and how often one is thanked. A close friend or family member never expects to be thanked and some even take offence at thanking. Even strangers are thanked for things more substantial than mere getting out of the way on footpath. This, naturally, comes out to West as rude and ungrateful behaviour.
Those of us educated and exposed to Western culture are pushing thanking in Indian social interaction to same extent. While thanking someone for efforts he put into helping you is desirable social mannerism, anything done in excess loses its meaning as happens on the other side of the Earth. What we need is moderate amount of thanking and thanking from heart for things for which thank-er is really thankful about. What we need is thank-o-meter™!
Thank-o-meter is each individual’s personal cumulative counter of thanks he received and thanks he gave throughout his life. Because thanking someone will decrement thank-o-meter reading, one would do so only when meant genuinely and when other’s effort are substantial enough and worthy of a thank. This will obviously increase value of thank to receiver as well. Because one will be able to thank only when he has positive balance of thanks, he will have to earn thanks through efforts before he can spend them.
Implementation of this scheme can only be undertaken by God for He only has such scalability and omniscience required for this project. Implementation details such as initial stock of thanks can be worked out. What may happen is that some miser may stop handing out thanks or some other start hoarding them. Thanking in return of cash gift would be equivalent to selling thank-o-meter readings. Humankind may end up deciding price of a efforts in units of thanks which will be function of demand (low during natural disaster) and supply (high during charity event) and may work much like today’s forex market (and can possibly be traded).
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Rupees ten thousand per life, only
There was a news couple of days ago about a couple committing suicide along with two children and a neighbour because they couldn’t pay 50,000/- fine imposed by caste panchayat. While such locally imposed caste laws are bane of the society, what had me thinking was the meagre sum involved. Naturally, half-a-lakh rupees was not meagre for people concerned who couldn’t think of anything else but to kill themselves, but this is not large amount for many people like us. Well, not trivial enough to throw away, but trivial enough to save five human lives. I wondered if somehow one would have known about it before they decided to die, he could have saved them — and he need not be doing any charity.
What if I pay off their loan and in return they work for me for free for one full year? I will be paying 60,000 (+lodging+boarding) for five members (and three working adults) for 12 months thereby effectively paying 1700/- per month per person which is less than market rate for full time servant. This, of course, is win-win for both since however substandard their life would have been with me at subsistence wages, it is still better than alternative of death. Two questions come to my mind: how would have I known about it, and whether they would have accepted this proposal?
Second question is a tricky one. From my point of view, proposal is bargain for them because I’d be willing to work for free and easily for more than one year if alternative is suicide. However, once I pay the sum, there is no incentive for them to stick to their commitment however great generosity I might have bestowed upon them, except moral obligation and gratitude to the benefactor. Unfortunately, humans have horrible track record in honouring their commitments. Ideally, I’d expect them to be forever thankful to me, but practically, I’d have fears that they will rob my house and run away very next day I kept them. Somehow, that is all possible. This possibility, real in my mind, could be reason enough for me not to make that proposal in the first place, unless I am willing to forego the money without expecting any return. Such situations are not uncommon in Indian society where people dying of cold or hunger or inability to repay loans is regular news. A donation of 50/- could have saved that life, if only, donor and sufferer had known in advance.
Am I being paranoid? Do you think proposal would have been accepted? What are the risks?
What if I pay off their loan and in return they work for me for free for one full year? I will be paying 60,000 (+lodging+boarding) for five members (and three working adults) for 12 months thereby effectively paying 1700/- per month per person which is less than market rate for full time servant. This, of course, is win-win for both since however substandard their life would have been with me at subsistence wages, it is still better than alternative of death. Two questions come to my mind: how would have I known about it, and whether they would have accepted this proposal?
Second question is a tricky one. From my point of view, proposal is bargain for them because I’d be willing to work for free and easily for more than one year if alternative is suicide. However, once I pay the sum, there is no incentive for them to stick to their commitment however great generosity I might have bestowed upon them, except moral obligation and gratitude to the benefactor. Unfortunately, humans have horrible track record in honouring their commitments. Ideally, I’d expect them to be forever thankful to me, but practically, I’d have fears that they will rob my house and run away very next day I kept them. Somehow, that is all possible. This possibility, real in my mind, could be reason enough for me not to make that proposal in the first place, unless I am willing to forego the money without expecting any return. Such situations are not uncommon in Indian society where people dying of cold or hunger or inability to repay loans is regular news. A donation of 50/- could have saved that life, if only, donor and sufferer had known in advance.
Am I being paranoid? Do you think proposal would have been accepted? What are the risks?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A classic love story
Like any love story, boy and girl are passionately in love with each other. Like any classic love story, their parents don’t approve of this.
I’ve seen it happen at least three times and I’ve heard about it about double the number of times and story is always the same. Parents do come around and accept the proposed nuptial after rounds of persuasion, cajoling and threatening — assuming that the couple didn’t choose to go ahead anyway, not at least right away. And Indian couple do attempt to bring families together for marriage because despite choosing to find their partner themselves, they still believe in marriage as relationship between two families. There is a catch, of course. One parent is the most difficult one to please: he is (almost) always father of the groom. Question is, why?
I don’t wonder why parents oppose love based or inter-caste unions. Answer is obvious, even if conservative and prejudiced. I do wonder, however, among four parents, why must it be father of the groom?
We can rule out two women quickly, because, as mothers they usually don't care for social rules over happiness of their wards. They might not like it — in fact, they might feel cheated of their right and dream to choose their daughter- or son-in-law — but they accept anyway. They might need to be persuaded but gentle stream of tears is enough to melt their hearts. They might be angry but that doesn’t stop them from blessing the couple.
Among the two gentlemen, though, debate becomes tougher. Girl’s father has many reasons to be angry. He is going to lose his reputation in the community if he gives away his daughter to another community. There is larger tag of shame on his name as his daughter rescinds his caste and joins another. There is a danger that his way of life may not prevail, that traditions will not be continued and that daughter might change her name and her habits to something despicable in his caste (viz. may cook, or worse, eat meat). Boy’s father, on the other hand, has less reasons to be antagonized. He is gaining a member to his community and symbolically winning over other caste by stealing its woman. His way of life and traditions are guaranteed to prevail. New member of the household may not be conversant with the traditions of his house but can be taught and moulded accordingly. So far, we’ve listed reasons to be affronted and found that girl’s father has more and hence must be more outraged. Why, then, the anomaly?
If we turn around and question who can afford to be angry we obtain different answer. This, clearly, must weigh more for we observe this. If couple elopes, then girl’s family suffers much more social dishonour than boy’s family. This risk defines who can afford to be offended and not who has reasons to be offended.
In all three cases, wedding was organized only by girl’s family and boy’s family boycotted it completely. Couple, after months and years of cajolery, had to give up trying to join two families. Some still hope: some day. Your take?
I’ve seen it happen at least three times and I’ve heard about it about double the number of times and story is always the same. Parents do come around and accept the proposed nuptial after rounds of persuasion, cajoling and threatening — assuming that the couple didn’t choose to go ahead anyway, not at least right away. And Indian couple do attempt to bring families together for marriage because despite choosing to find their partner themselves, they still believe in marriage as relationship between two families. There is a catch, of course. One parent is the most difficult one to please: he is (almost) always father of the groom. Question is, why?
I don’t wonder why parents oppose love based or inter-caste unions. Answer is obvious, even if conservative and prejudiced. I do wonder, however, among four parents, why must it be father of the groom?
We can rule out two women quickly, because, as mothers they usually don't care for social rules over happiness of their wards. They might not like it — in fact, they might feel cheated of their right and dream to choose their daughter- or son-in-law — but they accept anyway. They might need to be persuaded but gentle stream of tears is enough to melt their hearts. They might be angry but that doesn’t stop them from blessing the couple.
Among the two gentlemen, though, debate becomes tougher. Girl’s father has many reasons to be angry. He is going to lose his reputation in the community if he gives away his daughter to another community. There is larger tag of shame on his name as his daughter rescinds his caste and joins another. There is a danger that his way of life may not prevail, that traditions will not be continued and that daughter might change her name and her habits to something despicable in his caste (viz. may cook, or worse, eat meat). Boy’s father, on the other hand, has less reasons to be antagonized. He is gaining a member to his community and symbolically winning over other caste by stealing its woman. His way of life and traditions are guaranteed to prevail. New member of the household may not be conversant with the traditions of his house but can be taught and moulded accordingly. So far, we’ve listed reasons to be affronted and found that girl’s father has more and hence must be more outraged. Why, then, the anomaly?
If we turn around and question who can afford to be angry we obtain different answer. This, clearly, must weigh more for we observe this. If couple elopes, then girl’s family suffers much more social dishonour than boy’s family. This risk defines who can afford to be offended and not who has reasons to be offended.
In all three cases, wedding was organized only by girl’s family and boy’s family boycotted it completely. Couple, after months and years of cajolery, had to give up trying to join two families. Some still hope: some day. Your take?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Holding the door open
One thing that I imported from US stay was holding the door open for your following walker. This practice is so common in US that everyone will do it even for complete strangers when passing through a gated entrance in any public place. It obviates need for follower to pry open the door, specially if that warrants special effort or entry pass and saves few moments of his time. It encumbers leader to spend few moments waiting for follower to catch up to him and keep the door open lest it shuts on follower’s face. This is all part of acceptable social courtesy and admittedly a good one.
However, being a courtesy ritual, this also has danger of having more meaning in intention than in reality. In some cases, waiting for follower to catch up could be as long as 10 to 15 seconds (a not insignificant time standing holding the door) which could be inconvenient for the leader. Moreover, sometimes it is not required for leader to wait holding the door open for follower, even if leader has intention of eliminating efforts of opening on follower’s part. This is because of how some door works.
As you know very well, some doors have spring or damper in their hinges which makes them close very slowly even when not held open. As you also know that typical human frame can enter a door which is only half open because of difference in width of door opening and width of human body. Combining these two insights with the common sense estimate of follower’s speed can sometime make leader leave the door and walk away just at the moment so that door is still half open for follower to pass through without having to open again. This will not only serve the purpose of helping your follower but also reduce waiting time for the leader — a win-win situation which serves the courtesy as well as minimizes total inconvenience. But, of course. Follower’s potential inability to understand this dynamics and calculation in leader’s mind and read leader’s action in not keeping the door open as violation of social courtesy, thereby imparting more meaning to ritual rather than effect, and thereby casting doubt on intention of leader rather than evaluating impact of his action, forces leader to wait till follower catches up, thus achieving suboptimal solution for himself without improving convenience to other.
I've had this debate internally so many times whenever I was leader in this ritual.
Edit 14th July 2014.
I was much ahead of the times :) http://thedoghousediaries.com/5842
However, being a courtesy ritual, this also has danger of having more meaning in intention than in reality. In some cases, waiting for follower to catch up could be as long as 10 to 15 seconds (a not insignificant time standing holding the door) which could be inconvenient for the leader. Moreover, sometimes it is not required for leader to wait holding the door open for follower, even if leader has intention of eliminating efforts of opening on follower’s part. This is because of how some door works.
As you know very well, some doors have spring or damper in their hinges which makes them close very slowly even when not held open. As you also know that typical human frame can enter a door which is only half open because of difference in width of door opening and width of human body. Combining these two insights with the common sense estimate of follower’s speed can sometime make leader leave the door and walk away just at the moment so that door is still half open for follower to pass through without having to open again. This will not only serve the purpose of helping your follower but also reduce waiting time for the leader — a win-win situation which serves the courtesy as well as minimizes total inconvenience. But, of course. Follower’s potential inability to understand this dynamics and calculation in leader’s mind and read leader’s action in not keeping the door open as violation of social courtesy, thereby imparting more meaning to ritual rather than effect, and thereby casting doubt on intention of leader rather than evaluating impact of his action, forces leader to wait till follower catches up, thus achieving suboptimal solution for himself without improving convenience to other.
I've had this debate internally so many times whenever I was leader in this ritual.
Edit 14th July 2014.
I was much ahead of the times :) http://thedoghousediaries.com/5842
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
1411
That’s the number you’ve been told about remaining number of tigers in India. Campaign is ubiquitous: on prime time TV, on print media, on bill boards. Cause is just: after all, conservation of any animal specie is worthy effort, let alone unique, majestic and royal creature as Royal Bengal Tiger of India. So, of course, you are supposed to join the roar.
I do wonder though if such expense of money on campaign is going to serve any useful purpose at all. Your writing blogs, SMSing friends and writing articles in media will help whom? Are poachers, illegal traders or users of goods made from tiger will suddenly change their heart because Mahender Singh Dhoni says so? Will politicians and forest officials will see light at the end of tunnel and gear their actions towards stricter punishment and speedy justice? Will China stop consuming soup of tiger’s private parts for increasing their fertility? If not, what is your roar going to do?
Even their website is not sure if you can help. It says 'you can help', so I went there looking how. It says “roar” and previous paragraphs tells me that impact of that is non-existence and unclear at best. It says “donate” which, naturally, will help promote this very campaign but which is not going to have any effect anyway since this is precisely what we are discussing now. It says “be informed” which is good but again a useless activity. I am well informed about severity of this issue and how is this going to help me or tigers? It says “speak up” which is another word for “roar” in ‘saveourtigers’ lingo. You see where am I going here? Website suggests us to “lead the change”. Now if you are kind of person who will kill tiger for money or wear that necklace of tiger bones, I am not sure if reading this website will change your mind. Supposing if it does, what fraction of market of tiger goods is from these kind of people? And, of course, if you are not this kind of person then you are already part of change, even if unconsciously. Having access to most strata of India society, I don’t see any of intended audience of this campaign consuming tiger anyway. Further advice given in the campaign is to “write, SMS, donate, spread the word” which we have seen is rehash of earlier.
What can be remotely considered useful is advice about being “responsible tourist” and example given is not to throw chips packet in national parks. How much impact will it have in improving 1411 number doesn’t require a genius. Hint: it won’t. It continues to say that we should “preserve natural resources”. Preaching to the choir?
What happened, if I can imagine, is this. World Wildlife Fund knows that this is worthy cause and Aircel joined with big sponsorship and now we have an organization which has lot of money but nothing to do with it. So they blow all in advertisement saying what they do (save the tigers) but that they don’t actually do (they just campaign). I am not good at these sort of things but I’d reckon that throwing all the money to bribe forest officials to catch poachers, lobbying politicians to change regulations, incentivizing local communities near forests to alternate livelihood and exposing China’s consumption to world at large will be better use of money than that expensive billboard shouting “1411”.
Related read: Only other blog raising this question, Humorous take on this (NSFW)
I do wonder though if such expense of money on campaign is going to serve any useful purpose at all. Your writing blogs, SMSing friends and writing articles in media will help whom? Are poachers, illegal traders or users of goods made from tiger will suddenly change their heart because Mahender Singh Dhoni says so? Will politicians and forest officials will see light at the end of tunnel and gear their actions towards stricter punishment and speedy justice? Will China stop consuming soup of tiger’s private parts for increasing their fertility? If not, what is your roar going to do?
Even their website is not sure if you can help. It says 'you can help', so I went there looking how. It says “roar” and previous paragraphs tells me that impact of that is non-existence and unclear at best. It says “donate” which, naturally, will help promote this very campaign but which is not going to have any effect anyway since this is precisely what we are discussing now. It says “be informed” which is good but again a useless activity. I am well informed about severity of this issue and how is this going to help me or tigers? It says “speak up” which is another word for “roar” in ‘saveourtigers’ lingo. You see where am I going here? Website suggests us to “lead the change”. Now if you are kind of person who will kill tiger for money or wear that necklace of tiger bones, I am not sure if reading this website will change your mind. Supposing if it does, what fraction of market of tiger goods is from these kind of people? And, of course, if you are not this kind of person then you are already part of change, even if unconsciously. Having access to most strata of India society, I don’t see any of intended audience of this campaign consuming tiger anyway. Further advice given in the campaign is to “write, SMS, donate, spread the word” which we have seen is rehash of earlier.
What can be remotely considered useful is advice about being “responsible tourist” and example given is not to throw chips packet in national parks. How much impact will it have in improving 1411 number doesn’t require a genius. Hint: it won’t. It continues to say that we should “preserve natural resources”. Preaching to the choir?
What happened, if I can imagine, is this. World Wildlife Fund knows that this is worthy cause and Aircel joined with big sponsorship and now we have an organization which has lot of money but nothing to do with it. So they blow all in advertisement saying what they do (save the tigers) but that they don’t actually do (they just campaign). I am not good at these sort of things but I’d reckon that throwing all the money to bribe forest officials to catch poachers, lobbying politicians to change regulations, incentivizing local communities near forests to alternate livelihood and exposing China’s consumption to world at large will be better use of money than that expensive billboard shouting “1411”.
Related read: Only other blog raising this question, Humorous take on this (NSFW)
Monday, December 28, 2009
Right of abortion
At the very beginning of this blog, I had raised a question which I deferred dealing with so far. Question was about role of father in abortion of child. Surprisingly, this matter receives much less attention than feminine version of the same question.
I had agreed, and do now as well, that parents of child are best people on Earth to decide fate of unborn foetus. No one (calling themselves pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-life, …) has any business interfering in couple’s decision to whether to bring out the person they will be totally responsible for in the world and who will change their lives irrevocably. However, decision to abort or not remains exclusive maternal prerogative in most parts of the world, including India and United States. Unfair part in this process is whether someone can be punished for not doing what he cannot do. If father cannot bear a child, does he not have any say in whether he wants the child or not?
First case is when father wants a child but mother doesn’t: currently, he cannot stop mother from aborting the baby. If father is willing to bear responsibility of raising the child, what right mother has of depriving man of his child? Trauma for man in such cases cannot be understated in line of argument that only mothers love their children more than fathers ever could. Emotional investment and love of fathers towards their offspring is question which requires mere perfunctory glance at the world around us to answer. Can mother be required to go through whole pregnancy and pain of childbirth unwillingly? Unfortunately, she has too, for there is no alternative. Whose pain and loss is more: a father deprived of his baby or a mother bearing pain for nine months? I don’t have an answer but I feel it’s former. Of course, it goes without saying that this should not apply in pregnancy out of non-consensual sex and father must bear all the cost and financial loss to mother in giving him his child.
Second case is when father doesn’t want a child but mother does: currently, he cannot force mother to abort the baby. Which seems right until we note that he will still be legally responsible for providing child support and financial help. This, naturally, isn’t fair on father again. Excepting forced assault, consensual relationship is entered in by both partner knowing fully well consequences of the same. A mother cannot demand support from unwilling father if such unwillingness is expressed prior to birth and during the period when mother can undergo safe abortion. Then mother will be free to decide to continue with the pregnancy on her own or terminate it.
Law, as it stands, gives all the responsibilities to father without him having any say at all in reproductive rights over his unborn baby. Let alone giving father his due right, a small step such as spousal notification by mother about her decision to abort itself is hotly protested against even though there seems be slight majority support for it.
I had agreed, and do now as well, that parents of child are best people on Earth to decide fate of unborn foetus. No one (calling themselves pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-life, …) has any business interfering in couple’s decision to whether to bring out the person they will be totally responsible for in the world and who will change their lives irrevocably. However, decision to abort or not remains exclusive maternal prerogative in most parts of the world, including India and United States. Unfair part in this process is whether someone can be punished for not doing what he cannot do. If father cannot bear a child, does he not have any say in whether he wants the child or not?
First case is when father wants a child but mother doesn’t: currently, he cannot stop mother from aborting the baby. If father is willing to bear responsibility of raising the child, what right mother has of depriving man of his child? Trauma for man in such cases cannot be understated in line of argument that only mothers love their children more than fathers ever could. Emotional investment and love of fathers towards their offspring is question which requires mere perfunctory glance at the world around us to answer. Can mother be required to go through whole pregnancy and pain of childbirth unwillingly? Unfortunately, she has too, for there is no alternative. Whose pain and loss is more: a father deprived of his baby or a mother bearing pain for nine months? I don’t have an answer but I feel it’s former. Of course, it goes without saying that this should not apply in pregnancy out of non-consensual sex and father must bear all the cost and financial loss to mother in giving him his child.
Second case is when father doesn’t want a child but mother does: currently, he cannot force mother to abort the baby. Which seems right until we note that he will still be legally responsible for providing child support and financial help. This, naturally, isn’t fair on father again. Excepting forced assault, consensual relationship is entered in by both partner knowing fully well consequences of the same. A mother cannot demand support from unwilling father if such unwillingness is expressed prior to birth and during the period when mother can undergo safe abortion. Then mother will be free to decide to continue with the pregnancy on her own or terminate it.
Law, as it stands, gives all the responsibilities to father without him having any say at all in reproductive rights over his unborn baby. Let alone giving father his due right, a small step such as spousal notification by mother about her decision to abort itself is hotly protested against even though there seems be slight majority support for it.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Respecting the elders
In a hierarchy driven society such as India, elders are considered worthy of respect by virtue of being elders only. It is ingrained in our culture to respect and honour elders be it a sibling elder by a minute or a great grand father, or in fact elders not related by blood or marriage. And the honour is not merely perfunctory in the way you address them but deep rooted in that one doesn’t reply back to, talk loudly to or in front of, counter against, look down upon or raise a hand on elders. It is not uncommon to see people, young and old, bearing deep hurt and shame, sometimes even violence, for years on end through hands of elders of their family and yet keep quite. Of course, sometimes the limit is crossed, either because action of elder has become unbearable or younger is not versed in manners of respecting the elders. In regular, normal, decent families, though, elders are sacrosanct. Why no one responds back to Dadisa in Balika Vadhu is example enough. A person who respects elders is considered virtuous.
Expecting someone to respect the elders is expectation of good cultural upbringing and behaviour. However, what surprised me distinctly in my quest for life partner over last year, was consistency of this expectation from fairer sex, almost always stated explicitly. I found this in girls I met in person and in girls I met/read about online. Surely, the request itself was not unjustified, but near complete unanimity of the wish was marked. What is so special about this, I wonder?
There are hypothesises my brain can come up with. Perhaps it is a way for girl to ensure that her side of family gets respect they deserve from their son-in-law since it not inconceivable to imagine that boy may not respect girl’s side of family. Asking for general respect to elders is cover for respect to her parents. Perhaps all the girls somehow consider this a litmus test of boy’s character. Among hundreds of other things a girl can ask her would-be, why this thing tops across is a mystery difficult to resolve for me.
Some, those believing in traditional values, consider respect for elderly a default position. Others, those product of modern individualists thoughts, consider that respect has to be earned and age alone is not worthy of respect. I am somewhat in middle of these two extremes. I respect elders by default until they un-earn it. I start with respect due to age but it has to continuously earned and maintained with actions, words, gestures and thoughts for me to continue to hold it. Any act of un-earning will result in loss of respect despite the age superiority. Same things holds for me with respect to respect due to position. What is your take?
Expecting someone to respect the elders is expectation of good cultural upbringing and behaviour. However, what surprised me distinctly in my quest for life partner over last year, was consistency of this expectation from fairer sex, almost always stated explicitly. I found this in girls I met in person and in girls I met/read about online. Surely, the request itself was not unjustified, but near complete unanimity of the wish was marked. What is so special about this, I wonder?
There are hypothesises my brain can come up with. Perhaps it is a way for girl to ensure that her side of family gets respect they deserve from their son-in-law since it not inconceivable to imagine that boy may not respect girl’s side of family. Asking for general respect to elders is cover for respect to her parents. Perhaps all the girls somehow consider this a litmus test of boy’s character. Among hundreds of other things a girl can ask her would-be, why this thing tops across is a mystery difficult to resolve for me.
Some, those believing in traditional values, consider respect for elderly a default position. Others, those product of modern individualists thoughts, consider that respect has to be earned and age alone is not worthy of respect. I am somewhat in middle of these two extremes. I respect elders by default until they un-earn it. I start with respect due to age but it has to continuously earned and maintained with actions, words, gestures and thoughts for me to continue to hold it. Any act of un-earning will result in loss of respect despite the age superiority. Same things holds for me with respect to respect due to position. What is your take?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Should wife take husband's last name?
A question very pertinent yet so much debated that it may not be worth my while to write much here. Here is one and another. There are pros and cons. There is individualism and there is collectivism. Evolutionary biology suggests one way while sense of fairness suggests something else. For some it’s deal breaker, for others it’s mere practice to be followed at will. He might think that her question itself insults relationship. She might think that his expectation does the same. There is convenience of accepted norm or there is pride of carving out your own path. For some, it’s simply matter of showing love, while for others showing love itself like this is questionable.
Questions like this while getting debated in public forum don’t yield much result since they are for couple to decide between themselves. However, such debate can have effect of influencing social change. What do I think personally?
I will want my wife to want to change her last name to mine though I don't necessarily want her to change her last name to mine. Love is collection of such unstated wishes which are inherently contradictory.
Questions like this while getting debated in public forum don’t yield much result since they are for couple to decide between themselves. However, such debate can have effect of influencing social change. What do I think personally?
I will want my wife to want to change her last name to mine though I don't necessarily want her to change her last name to mine. Love is collection of such unstated wishes which are inherently contradictory.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The magic card
He said that he has a magic card. Well, not exactly in the same words but he said that he has a card that will help him not pay toll charges on various toll booths along the road. I didn’t find anything surprising here, thinking that perhaps he has some sort of annual pass. I didn’t think of it much except that perhaps it will save me some money on the way.
It was a pleasant night. A slightly cool, clear October night when I was being driven from Indore to Bhopal for my Diwali break. I would have flown directly to Bhopal were not for the fact that direct flights were all booked due to seasonal rush. Reclining on passenger chair with cool wind rustling in hair and looking at stars made the additional time worth its while.
At first toll booth he flashed his card and was let go for free. At second, same thing happened. I was alone with my driver so I started chatting. I asked if this is annual pass, where did he get his made and how much it cost him. Answer was what made it a magic card. It was, to my surprise, a Shiv Sena membership card.
He explained that it’s an expired membership card but he had hoped that toll operators will not read closely and that he turned out right. They didn’t and let him go for free because he was member of Shiv Sena. Now, if you know India, and particularly if you know Shiv Sena, you wouldn’t ask why. Shiv Sena being allied to dominant and ruling BJP government in Madhya Pradesh is a strong party. Strong more so in its muscle power than in its electoral power, I’d guess. On further probing, he proclaimed that toll operators don’t dare charge him because otherwise his co-members will come next day for vandalism, dharna, protests, road-blocks and what not. He declared that he himself has served party by providing his services such as renting out car for free, feeding party workers for days or joining their protest rallies. And then — it dawned on me.
I had always wondered why do low-rung party workers do all this for a party where their chance of career growth are very limited. They will waste their time, money and resources to join protest marches and rallies; break or burn public property; fight with public and police; and beat innocent bystanders. It’s not uncommon to read such news in media. Once a party workers’ car was towed for wrong parking in Ajmer. It’s a small enough and valid crime which could have been resolved by shelling out about 500 rupees. But of course. Next day whole army of party workers went on rampage in police station. This not only ensured that concerned person saved his 500 rupees but also that no more will police dare to tow off cars of any other party member. Why will people do that was the question I asked. And answer is clear.
More than political aspirations or benefits of party loyalty, such parties are cabal of goons who stick together for mutual benefit. Threat of vandalism and violence, which they exhibit and maintain with group efforts, helps all of them in their daily life. Like getting a telephone repaired faster, avoiding paying penalty on electricity bill, priority treatment at local hospital, getting out of clutches of law, or like in this case, not having to pay toll charges are but some benefits such cabal demands and enjoys.
In India, if you kill a person, you are a murderer and will be charged for the same. If a group kills a person, it’s a riot and everybody walks free. That, in my opinion, is logical reason for such hooliganism. See also: Bludgeoned to death
It was a pleasant night. A slightly cool, clear October night when I was being driven from Indore to Bhopal for my Diwali break. I would have flown directly to Bhopal were not for the fact that direct flights were all booked due to seasonal rush. Reclining on passenger chair with cool wind rustling in hair and looking at stars made the additional time worth its while.
At first toll booth he flashed his card and was let go for free. At second, same thing happened. I was alone with my driver so I started chatting. I asked if this is annual pass, where did he get his made and how much it cost him. Answer was what made it a magic card. It was, to my surprise, a Shiv Sena membership card.
He explained that it’s an expired membership card but he had hoped that toll operators will not read closely and that he turned out right. They didn’t and let him go for free because he was member of Shiv Sena. Now, if you know India, and particularly if you know Shiv Sena, you wouldn’t ask why. Shiv Sena being allied to dominant and ruling BJP government in Madhya Pradesh is a strong party. Strong more so in its muscle power than in its electoral power, I’d guess. On further probing, he proclaimed that toll operators don’t dare charge him because otherwise his co-members will come next day for vandalism, dharna, protests, road-blocks and what not. He declared that he himself has served party by providing his services such as renting out car for free, feeding party workers for days or joining their protest rallies. And then — it dawned on me.
I had always wondered why do low-rung party workers do all this for a party where their chance of career growth are very limited. They will waste their time, money and resources to join protest marches and rallies; break or burn public property; fight with public and police; and beat innocent bystanders. It’s not uncommon to read such news in media. Once a party workers’ car was towed for wrong parking in Ajmer. It’s a small enough and valid crime which could have been resolved by shelling out about 500 rupees. But of course. Next day whole army of party workers went on rampage in police station. This not only ensured that concerned person saved his 500 rupees but also that no more will police dare to tow off cars of any other party member. Why will people do that was the question I asked. And answer is clear.
More than political aspirations or benefits of party loyalty, such parties are cabal of goons who stick together for mutual benefit. Threat of vandalism and violence, which they exhibit and maintain with group efforts, helps all of them in their daily life. Like getting a telephone repaired faster, avoiding paying penalty on electricity bill, priority treatment at local hospital, getting out of clutches of law, or like in this case, not having to pay toll charges are but some benefits such cabal demands and enjoys.
In India, if you kill a person, you are a murderer and will be charged for the same. If a group kills a person, it’s a riot and everybody walks free. That, in my opinion, is logical reason for such hooliganism. See also: Bludgeoned to death
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Journey on the floor
For some it may be daily occurrence but for readers of this blog, it isn’t likely to be so. For me, I’ve travelled on the floor of bus or train only two times so far.
When I see people on the floors of train or bus, I usually think that these people either couldn’t afford reservation or didn’t plan in advance. They also appear mostly poor people. There is something humiliating (also unhygienic) about having to sit on floor while other passengers sit or stand. Even if I am not travelling and am tired of standing, I find it insulting to sit on footpath or corridor or platform. It’s natural reaction and not a big issue. Point I am trying to get into is that I found this more in India than in United States. It wasn’t uncommon to see students at MIT sprawling on the corridor of campus and doing their homework or chatting. It wasn’t frequent but it stood out more simply because that did never happen in India. Of course, there is no doubt where corridors were cleaner.
First time I travelled unreserved journey on floor of train was when my Grandmother died and we had to make an emergency journey to deposit her ashes to river Ganga. We didn’t try unreserved compartments because they were so cramped that even floor space was not available. I was young and with my uncle who tried to get us seat by bribing the ticket conductor. Perhaps there were more bribers than number of seats, or perhaps bribe was insufficient, I don’t remember, we didn’t get any. Tired of standing over hours and sleepy to core, I just collapsed on the floor and slept without effort. It was strange experience, being woken up when people walk by and feeling embarrassing at heart. We managed somehow and I don’t remember making much fuss, perhaps because I was younger and hadn’t developed ‘tastes’, but it was journey to be remembered over time.
Second journey was for short duration of two hours in the middle of night when only bus we could find back was a private overnight coach which had all seats occupied. Probably driver made few bucks underhanded without knowledge of his owner.
Have you ever travelled on the floor? Would that be experience you remember or want to try?
When I see people on the floors of train or bus, I usually think that these people either couldn’t afford reservation or didn’t plan in advance. They also appear mostly poor people. There is something humiliating (also unhygienic) about having to sit on floor while other passengers sit or stand. Even if I am not travelling and am tired of standing, I find it insulting to sit on footpath or corridor or platform. It’s natural reaction and not a big issue. Point I am trying to get into is that I found this more in India than in United States. It wasn’t uncommon to see students at MIT sprawling on the corridor of campus and doing their homework or chatting. It wasn’t frequent but it stood out more simply because that did never happen in India. Of course, there is no doubt where corridors were cleaner.
First time I travelled unreserved journey on floor of train was when my Grandmother died and we had to make an emergency journey to deposit her ashes to river Ganga. We didn’t try unreserved compartments because they were so cramped that even floor space was not available. I was young and with my uncle who tried to get us seat by bribing the ticket conductor. Perhaps there were more bribers than number of seats, or perhaps bribe was insufficient, I don’t remember, we didn’t get any. Tired of standing over hours and sleepy to core, I just collapsed on the floor and slept without effort. It was strange experience, being woken up when people walk by and feeling embarrassing at heart. We managed somehow and I don’t remember making much fuss, perhaps because I was younger and hadn’t developed ‘tastes’, but it was journey to be remembered over time.
Second journey was for short duration of two hours in the middle of night when only bus we could find back was a private overnight coach which had all seats occupied. Probably driver made few bucks underhanded without knowledge of his owner.
Have you ever travelled on the floor? Would that be experience you remember or want to try?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Concept of Nation State
Increasingly, we all are tolerant of differences within our country. A person from whichever corner of India finds welcome, at least in theory, in any other corner of India. Laws make it easy to move, to work and to settle wherever one wants. Such intra-country freedom is common in most other countries. What we are still fiercely protective about are our national borders. Somehow, barbed wire fences there attach so much meaning that killing and dying for them is considered laudatory whereas doing same for borders within the nation is considered ridiculous and dangerously divisive.
Will there come a time where concept of nation state will dissolve to permit real global citizenship? It seems impossible. Despite our acceptance of different cultures, nationalities and races, country still gets number one priority spot in our loyalties (after family and clan, for some). One would rather save one life in his own country than ten in other. Yet, this distinction stops within different states in a country. A geography under highest government is expected to be inclusive. Will it be possible to have one government for the world in future? This is mere hypothetical question but it will mean that policies will be designed for overall welfare of humankind rather than that of citizens of a particular nation at any cost to other people in the world. Will it ever be understood that all lives are really equal? What will it do to idea of patriotism which will be a defunct concept then.
These are thoughts I never harboured or had inkling about until that day about four years ago when I happened to meet this women at AID’s picnic. She strongly championed elimination of concept of nation state and questioned my views on patriotism. I am not really sure where I stand but idea has been fascinating enough to stick with me this long.
Will there come a time where concept of nation state will dissolve to permit real global citizenship? It seems impossible. Despite our acceptance of different cultures, nationalities and races, country still gets number one priority spot in our loyalties (after family and clan, for some). One would rather save one life in his own country than ten in other. Yet, this distinction stops within different states in a country. A geography under highest government is expected to be inclusive. Will it be possible to have one government for the world in future? This is mere hypothetical question but it will mean that policies will be designed for overall welfare of humankind rather than that of citizens of a particular nation at any cost to other people in the world. Will it ever be understood that all lives are really equal? What will it do to idea of patriotism which will be a defunct concept then.
These are thoughts I never harboured or had inkling about until that day about four years ago when I happened to meet this women at AID’s picnic. She strongly championed elimination of concept of nation state and questioned my views on patriotism. I am not really sure where I stand but idea has been fascinating enough to stick with me this long.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Guarding the nation
Private security industry in India has seen a remarkable rise in recent years. This is primarily led by rise in number of business and residential campuses and rise in terrorists incidents over the years. However what counts as security leaves much to be desired and guards standing with their uniforms on are suited to tasks no better than shoeing away an occasional dog or beggar.
It’s not their fault really. They are on a job for which they are not trained. Being able to notice suspect in crowd, being able to detect suspicious behaviour, and being able to respond and fight back if need arise are skills which require professional training and armaments. Instead of that what they are given is nothing. What they are asked to do is even ridiculous and mostly beyond their comprehension. How many times did you wonder if the guard at mall checking metal objects on your body knows about meaning of beeps on his instrument? I cannot recollect having seem them acting differently whether it beeps or not. They do it merely as ritual, a job they have been asked to do. Another strange things that they do in residential and business campuses is to use a mirror to check under the car. One is not sure what they are looking for if not for a bomb with clear red lights blinking. I have not seen or heard of such practice anywhere else in the world but it seems staple of Indian security organizations. Some go as far as to check trunk and bonnet of the car but don’t bother about looking inside car or under seats. So best place to carry a gun would indeed be in your hands were you to want to sneak one. My recent visit to Bombay after last tragic attack highlighted reactive nature of our fight against terrorism. Hotels are now required to screen you and your luggage ala airport security at their front gate.
In office complex I work, I will be let inside if I show them my ID card. Let me rephrase that. I will be let in if they see something hanging from my neck. I am certain that they don’t know which companies are in complex and what their ID looks like. They probably can’t read as well nor they ask me to turn around my card if it happened to be face down. In my previous college, security will not stop you at gate if you didn’t look like poor labourer. It’s all about appearance: good clothes and car, and you can’t be terrorist really.
On a related note, anyone who has lived in hostels in India can testify the futility of having to note down one’s name and contact details on security register when visiting ladies hostels. This is purely because self reported entry cannot really be depended upon to be truthful were one to have intention to appear otherwise, and also because mostly illiterate guards cannot decipher what, and if something, has been written in the first place. No wonder people would write whatever they had in mind including ‘Superman’ as name.
It’s not their fault really. They are on a job for which they are not trained. Being able to notice suspect in crowd, being able to detect suspicious behaviour, and being able to respond and fight back if need arise are skills which require professional training and armaments. Instead of that what they are given is nothing. What they are asked to do is even ridiculous and mostly beyond their comprehension. How many times did you wonder if the guard at mall checking metal objects on your body knows about meaning of beeps on his instrument? I cannot recollect having seem them acting differently whether it beeps or not. They do it merely as ritual, a job they have been asked to do. Another strange things that they do in residential and business campuses is to use a mirror to check under the car. One is not sure what they are looking for if not for a bomb with clear red lights blinking. I have not seen or heard of such practice anywhere else in the world but it seems staple of Indian security organizations. Some go as far as to check trunk and bonnet of the car but don’t bother about looking inside car or under seats. So best place to carry a gun would indeed be in your hands were you to want to sneak one. My recent visit to Bombay after last tragic attack highlighted reactive nature of our fight against terrorism. Hotels are now required to screen you and your luggage ala airport security at their front gate.
In office complex I work, I will be let inside if I show them my ID card. Let me rephrase that. I will be let in if they see something hanging from my neck. I am certain that they don’t know which companies are in complex and what their ID looks like. They probably can’t read as well nor they ask me to turn around my card if it happened to be face down. In my previous college, security will not stop you at gate if you didn’t look like poor labourer. It’s all about appearance: good clothes and car, and you can’t be terrorist really.
On a related note, anyone who has lived in hostels in India can testify the futility of having to note down one’s name and contact details on security register when visiting ladies hostels. This is purely because self reported entry cannot really be depended upon to be truthful were one to have intention to appear otherwise, and also because mostly illiterate guards cannot decipher what, and if something, has been written in the first place. No wonder people would write whatever they had in mind including ‘Superman’ as name.
Monday, August 24, 2009
So, what’s wrong with incest?
Somethings are beyond reason for some people. Faith, obviously, comes in that category. So does the incest, I believe. Howver, really, nothing should be beyond question (except when you are in Army, perhaps), albeit answer may be unknown. Hence I will try to understand and analyze — but not necessarily defend, to begin with — exactly what is wrong with incest in this post. Those that find this incredulous or repugnent may please stop right now.
It’s worth putting foremost that here I refer to consensual incest only. Incest is taboo and illegal in most societies of world except perhaps in some aborigine ones. Reasons for that that I gather from various readings, reflections and discussions are:
First is, perhaps, ironically, the strongest as well as the weakest reason against. The strongest because this feeling of incest-being-wrong is so deep rooted in almost everybody’s psyche that mountains of rational analysis proving otherwise will be discarded instantaneously based on gut feeling of wrongness. I too harbour that disgust towards incestuous relationship. Yet, it’s also the weakest because, despite my admission in previous sentence, I must admit that yuck-ness has never been force enough to stop change in social setup, primarily because it is too personal and without reason. It can be easily argued that those that harbour disgust are free to avoid this and those that don’t are free to do so, as long as in private, as sex has always been, and that former have no locus standi in interfering matters of later. There was a time when inter-caste, inter-religious and inter-racial relationships aroused the strong yuck-ness that we observe against incest today, and we are well aware of current situation in those respects. Even now, large segment of Indian population and significant segment of world population feels yuck-ness towards homosexuality. Despite that move towards normalization is getting stronger everyday. One may find many such examples across the world which weakens feeling of disgust as genuine reason to outlaw incest.
Second is theoretically correct but practically unimportant reason. For one, increase in chances are infinitesimal at the best, not unlike many other deceases that a fetus may be susceptible to. (See this excellent researched article on Slate.) For another and more importantly, birth control is so easy in modern world that pregnancy can be avoided with certainty by those that are determined to do so.
Third is a minor annoyance let alone solid counter-argument against incest. If an incestuous relationship fails then couple involved may face social awkwardness because their opportunities of mutual confrontation are frequent and unavoidable in many cases — them being family members. This, however, is very much familial problem and hardly large enough to concern society to prohibit incest. Furthermore, who hasn’t encountered awkwardness in various forms in familial setup arising out of myriads of other reasons?
Fourth is perhaps one reason that is worth investigation by anthropologists and sociologists though my initial hunch suggests that even this is not sufficient enough. Evidence for this comes from varying degree of incest (if it can be so called) that’s already being practiced in various communities. In North-Indian Hindus, if I know right, marrying your first cousins is prohibited while South-Indian Hindus follow this practice. In Muslims communities, again, marrying cousins is all too common. Clearly if these communities have flourished over centuries, nothing suggests, as yet, what may befall on social structure if practice touches all family members. Point to note here, and point under discussion, is the legal and social ban on incest. It doesn't suggest in anyway that revocation of such ban will lead to prolifiration resulting in fallout in social structure.
So, precisely what’s wrong with incest? Your thoughts and opinions are invited particularly if you think I’ve skipped a valid reason against it. If only morality, an all too fluid term these days, is reason against, I think, in due course, we will surely see revocation of ban on this too, as had been case for others.
It’s worth putting foremost that here I refer to consensual incest only. Incest is taboo and illegal in most societies of world except perhaps in some aborigine ones. Reasons for that that I gather from various readings, reflections and discussions are:
- ‘Yuck’ (disgust) factor
- Increased chances of genetically defective offsprings
- Social awkwardness following failed incestuous relationship
- Damaging effect on social & familial structure
First is, perhaps, ironically, the strongest as well as the weakest reason against. The strongest because this feeling of incest-being-wrong is so deep rooted in almost everybody’s psyche that mountains of rational analysis proving otherwise will be discarded instantaneously based on gut feeling of wrongness. I too harbour that disgust towards incestuous relationship. Yet, it’s also the weakest because, despite my admission in previous sentence, I must admit that yuck-ness has never been force enough to stop change in social setup, primarily because it is too personal and without reason. It can be easily argued that those that harbour disgust are free to avoid this and those that don’t are free to do so, as long as in private, as sex has always been, and that former have no locus standi in interfering matters of later. There was a time when inter-caste, inter-religious and inter-racial relationships aroused the strong yuck-ness that we observe against incest today, and we are well aware of current situation in those respects. Even now, large segment of Indian population and significant segment of world population feels yuck-ness towards homosexuality. Despite that move towards normalization is getting stronger everyday. One may find many such examples across the world which weakens feeling of disgust as genuine reason to outlaw incest.
Second is theoretically correct but practically unimportant reason. For one, increase in chances are infinitesimal at the best, not unlike many other deceases that a fetus may be susceptible to. (See this excellent researched article on Slate.) For another and more importantly, birth control is so easy in modern world that pregnancy can be avoided with certainty by those that are determined to do so.
Third is a minor annoyance let alone solid counter-argument against incest. If an incestuous relationship fails then couple involved may face social awkwardness because their opportunities of mutual confrontation are frequent and unavoidable in many cases — them being family members. This, however, is very much familial problem and hardly large enough to concern society to prohibit incest. Furthermore, who hasn’t encountered awkwardness in various forms in familial setup arising out of myriads of other reasons?
Fourth is perhaps one reason that is worth investigation by anthropologists and sociologists though my initial hunch suggests that even this is not sufficient enough. Evidence for this comes from varying degree of incest (if it can be so called) that’s already being practiced in various communities. In North-Indian Hindus, if I know right, marrying your first cousins is prohibited while South-Indian Hindus follow this practice. In Muslims communities, again, marrying cousins is all too common. Clearly if these communities have flourished over centuries, nothing suggests, as yet, what may befall on social structure if practice touches all family members. Point to note here, and point under discussion, is the legal and social ban on incest. It doesn't suggest in anyway that revocation of such ban will lead to prolifiration resulting in fallout in social structure.
So, precisely what’s wrong with incest? Your thoughts and opinions are invited particularly if you think I’ve skipped a valid reason against it. If only morality, an all too fluid term these days, is reason against, I think, in due course, we will surely see revocation of ban on this too, as had been case for others.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Population trading
Most of you will be familiar with ‘carbon trading’ and attempt of various countries and organizations to become ‘carbon neutral’ by certain time in future. By fixing quota of permitted pollution, attempt is made to reduce/prevent/stop Global Warming. Those that cannot control pollution to the permitted extent are allowed to buy additional quota from those that can control more than required. Idea of ‘population trading’ and ‘population neutral’ emanates from this and this post can be understood as an intellectual fantasy if this were followed…
Rapidly expanding population of Earth is increasing danger to rapidly vanishing Earth’s resources, and has direct impact on human welfare and lifestyle. It is also the most important contributor to Global Warming. Naturally, it helps if attempt is made to reduce world’s population. However, no such attempt is in offing and most efforts, if any, are at country level. At one hand poor countries of Asia and Africa, India included, are trying to reduce population growth, on the other hand, few highly developed countries (viz. Japan, Australia) are incentivizing their reluctant population to grow faster. Unfortunately, both are failing to some extent.
If future population quota is fixed based on country’s habitable area, then countries growing faster can buy ‘population credits’ from those growing slower. Unpalatable part of this scheme will be that mostly poor countries will be required to pay to mostly rich countries, and that is unlikely to happen. If such quotas were permitted at couple level then parents trying to produce more than allocated children will have to buy quota from those who are producing less or not marrying. Again, poor families will have to cough up money to pay to rich families, as usually educated (and mostly rich) couples desire fewer children than usually uneducated (and mostly poor) couples. Involvement of government authorities in licensing quotas can open floodgates of misallocation and corruption.
At personal level, a couple can try to be ‘population neutral’ by limiting their progeny to two. If neutrality is carried over generations than compensating actions is permitted where fewer or no children in one generation can allow additional in next or so generation. Such practice can be followed at community or social level and will require careful auditing and population enumeration.
In extreme case, wholesale population migration can be attempted, where select couples from populous countries can be moved to countries with negative population growth. This, of course, has to be tried by later country and will have significant effect on its social, cultural and political environment. Some indirect efforts are already underway in this realm where some countries are luring students to study, work and settle in it, though these are primarily aimed at economic growth at not at population decline.
Lot of it may not make any sense and may be poorly thought of but it was merely an idea, I thought novel, carried to a limited extent.
Rapidly expanding population of Earth is increasing danger to rapidly vanishing Earth’s resources, and has direct impact on human welfare and lifestyle. It is also the most important contributor to Global Warming. Naturally, it helps if attempt is made to reduce world’s population. However, no such attempt is in offing and most efforts, if any, are at country level. At one hand poor countries of Asia and Africa, India included, are trying to reduce population growth, on the other hand, few highly developed countries (viz. Japan, Australia) are incentivizing their reluctant population to grow faster. Unfortunately, both are failing to some extent.
If future population quota is fixed based on country’s habitable area, then countries growing faster can buy ‘population credits’ from those growing slower. Unpalatable part of this scheme will be that mostly poor countries will be required to pay to mostly rich countries, and that is unlikely to happen. If such quotas were permitted at couple level then parents trying to produce more than allocated children will have to buy quota from those who are producing less or not marrying. Again, poor families will have to cough up money to pay to rich families, as usually educated (and mostly rich) couples desire fewer children than usually uneducated (and mostly poor) couples. Involvement of government authorities in licensing quotas can open floodgates of misallocation and corruption.
At personal level, a couple can try to be ‘population neutral’ by limiting their progeny to two. If neutrality is carried over generations than compensating actions is permitted where fewer or no children in one generation can allow additional in next or so generation. Such practice can be followed at community or social level and will require careful auditing and population enumeration.
In extreme case, wholesale population migration can be attempted, where select couples from populous countries can be moved to countries with negative population growth. This, of course, has to be tried by later country and will have significant effect on its social, cultural and political environment. Some indirect efforts are already underway in this realm where some countries are luring students to study, work and settle in it, though these are primarily aimed at economic growth at not at population decline.
Lot of it may not make any sense and may be poorly thought of but it was merely an idea, I thought novel, carried to a limited extent.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Philosophy of Law
One day about six months ago while browsing the world wide web, I wandered into a website of a course at Brandeis University titled as Philosophy of Law. Intrigued by the outline which promises to raise profound questions such as
Under what conditions should a person be held responsible for his or her acts? Under what conditions may one be excused? Suppose I simply make a mistake? Or was merely careless? Or was mentally unstable? Is it fair to punish me for a harm I caused but did not intend? And if I fail to commit a crime, should I be punished less severely than if I had succeeded?I decided to go through the content. Course highlights how difficult it is to define crime clearly but settles at definition which requires simultaneity of (1) bad act, where act is ‘conscious muscular movement’, and (2) evil mind or intent. Giving example of how simple crime as burglary can have ramifications in this definition, website quotes:
So imagine that I leave my house late at night, intending to burglarize…It is unusually dark and foggy; I…become lost, and break into my house. Have I committed burglary? No; though I acted with the conscious purpose or intent to enter, I did not do so with respect to the dwelling house of another. …following evening…even darker and foggier than the night before. I…become lost, and decide to return home. I walk through the unlocked door of what I think is my own home. But it is not my house. Have I committed burglary? No; though I entered the dwelling house of another, I did not do so with the purpose to enter the dwelling house of another; I acted with the intent to go home, even though that is not where I ended up.The most interesting part of the course is set of 21 puzzles in law, which are not really puzzles of legality but puzzles of formation of law from common sense as and when exceptions were encountered. First puzzle introduces sine qua non (the without which not) test which says that without someone doing something consciously, something else wouldn’t have happened, and hence someone is responsible for crime if something else is defined crime. However, as we soon realize, such chain of causality can extend far back in time and one can say without Adam & Eve procreating nothing would’ve happened in the world and they are ultimate criminals! Further, test fails “in situations where an event is ‘over-determined,’ where two independent causes are sufficient to bring about the same result”. So if two people shot simultaneously, none is guilty as victim would have died without each doing his part by himself. At this point it is necessary to introduce concept of ceteris paribus (everything else being same) to define crime as
With the qualification of such phrases as "on the whole," by and large," and "all other thing's being equal," an act ("A") is the cause of some injury or harm ("B") if A was necessary to the occurrence of B and sufficient to produce B without the intervention of the free and deliberate acts of others or an abnormal conjunction of events.This leads to an interesting puzzle and dilemma about classifying a death a murder or manslaughter (see this, this and this). If attempt to crime is also punishable, which it should be because evil intention is what matters not success or failure of execution, then how much action is attempt? Further, can one be punished when crime couldn’t possibly have been committed, such as in attempt to murder a corpse? Law recognizes that yes
[A] person can be found guilty of an attempt so long as the crime that was attempted could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as [the defendant] believed them to be.But it’s not without another challenge! Sometimes crime is necessary to be committed, such as in self defence, but crime should be just enough and should be really necessary.
Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.So letting 5 people die is worse than killing 1, right? Perpetrator will be saving more lives. Yet, letting die is mere inaction while killing is deliberate action. Who is more guilty? Is letting die a valid response not requiring any punishment? In most cases yes, except in
[F]our sets of circumstances…persons have a duty to rescue: ‘First, where a statute imposes a duty of care to another; second where one stands in a certain [special] status relationship to another; third, where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another; and fourth, where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.’Some places have a “Good Samaritan” law under which onlookers have responsibility to attempt to prevent someone from harm if they are in position to do so. There are some more interesting historical cases dealing moral dilemmas inherent in defining crime which are sure to make us think if crime & punishment are so easy.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Right to worry
If you are a youngster living away from home in college and you slip and fracture your arm, would you inform your parents (or immediate family members) about the incident? They can’t really help you anyway except worry about you since treatment will happen at its own pace. Many in such circumstances don’t call out to their family members since they don’t want them to worry about them unnecessarily.
What is family for? To provide you emotional support primarily, I’d say. If you don’t want them to worry for you, then you suffer pain in silence without support. Because you love them, you don’t want them to be worried. But because they love you too, they want to know. How would you feel if you are not part of important event in your near and dear one’s life?
I don’t know what’s real answer, if any, and like pretty much everything else it depends on the person concerned. I however feel that when relationship is at its closest, be with family or friend, then one has right to make others worry to reduce one’s suffering. It’s a sacred right which we don’t grant to acquaintances. If you are frustrated and feeling down then you have right to shout at your closest people and they must take it without complain. You cannot do that with mere acquaintance to whom you will smile and pretend everything is alright. In similar vain when one is asked “how are you?” only people who are close deserve complete truthful answer, and that right is not available to others who ask this in mere formality and expect nothing more than “fine, you?”
In an parable, when Lord Krishn was suffering from serious headache, He was advised by sage Narad to put dust from the feet of person who loved Him most on His forehead for cure. He asked Rukmani if She would do it. She refused saying that She will go to hell for eternity if She dares let dust of Her feet touch the forehead of esteemed Lord Himself. It will be a sin, She declared. Krishn then asked Radha about the same. She immediately agreed. When people wondered how dare She sin against the God Himself, She opined that Her love of Lord is so great that She will willingly suffer hell fire just to reduce His small pain.
Our relationship with our nearest loved ones should be that of Radha and Krishn because right to worry is most coveted right of true love.
What is family for? To provide you emotional support primarily, I’d say. If you don’t want them to worry for you, then you suffer pain in silence without support. Because you love them, you don’t want them to be worried. But because they love you too, they want to know. How would you feel if you are not part of important event in your near and dear one’s life?
I don’t know what’s real answer, if any, and like pretty much everything else it depends on the person concerned. I however feel that when relationship is at its closest, be with family or friend, then one has right to make others worry to reduce one’s suffering. It’s a sacred right which we don’t grant to acquaintances. If you are frustrated and feeling down then you have right to shout at your closest people and they must take it without complain. You cannot do that with mere acquaintance to whom you will smile and pretend everything is alright. In similar vain when one is asked “how are you?” only people who are close deserve complete truthful answer, and that right is not available to others who ask this in mere formality and expect nothing more than “fine, you?”
In an parable, when Lord Krishn was suffering from serious headache, He was advised by sage Narad to put dust from the feet of person who loved Him most on His forehead for cure. He asked Rukmani if She would do it. She refused saying that She will go to hell for eternity if She dares let dust of Her feet touch the forehead of esteemed Lord Himself. It will be a sin, She declared. Krishn then asked Radha about the same. She immediately agreed. When people wondered how dare She sin against the God Himself, She opined that Her love of Lord is so great that She will willingly suffer hell fire just to reduce His small pain.
Our relationship with our nearest loved ones should be that of Radha and Krishn because right to worry is most coveted right of true love.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Mother’s dilemma
This is a hypothetical dilemma and thought experiment I made up. It's not simple and may be heart-wrenching for some, so proceed with caution. What were you do if you were mother in the question below?
Without exception mother will always scarifies herself for her child. So question is not really difficult since there is only one practical answer. Tricky part is whether that decision is best-for-all optimal decision? If you die, then your four children are raised motherless, and will suffer incomplete childhood, with potential fallout in adulthood development and mental trauma. If you survive, then you will have to live with the guilt of letting your child die, along with any blame that may arise from husband or other children. One side is a family of three children with both parents and lifetime of guilt for mother, other side is a family of four children with one parent and some sadness which will typically last until adulthood of children. Which loss is lesser?
As neutral third party, I’d find first option optimal, though that’s not likely to happen unless mother is under full use of her brain and faculty at time of tragedy. Second option is instantaneous emotional response. What is your take?
Consider following independent variations of this problem and see if your answer changes.
You are mother of four children and part of a happily family. One day a crazy man breaks into your house to steal while your husband and three children are away. You are alone along with one of the children. Somehow, circumstances lead to such that life of your child is endangered. You have two options. (1) If you don’t act, you survive and your child dies. (2) If you fight, you get killed but child is spared. Culprit escapes in either case. For purpose of this hypothetical question, ignore outside help such as police or neighbours and ignore third option of both surviving. These are not drastic assumptions and very plausible in most circumstances.
Without exception mother will always scarifies herself for her child. So question is not really difficult since there is only one practical answer. Tricky part is whether that decision is best-for-all optimal decision? If you die, then your four children are raised motherless, and will suffer incomplete childhood, with potential fallout in adulthood development and mental trauma. If you survive, then you will have to live with the guilt of letting your child die, along with any blame that may arise from husband or other children. One side is a family of three children with both parents and lifetime of guilt for mother, other side is a family of four children with one parent and some sadness which will typically last until adulthood of children. Which loss is lesser?
As neutral third party, I’d find first option optimal, though that’s not likely to happen unless mother is under full use of her brain and faculty at time of tragedy. Second option is instantaneous emotional response. What is your take?
Consider following independent variations of this problem and see if your answer changes.
- If there is no father?
- If father is drunkard and lousy dad?
- If child under threat of life is youngest of all? Oldest of all?
- If one of surviving children needs special attention?
- If all four children are in their late teens or older? Below age of twelve?
- If there are three children? Two children? Five children?
- If instead of mother there is father in the original scenario and in each of subsequent variations?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Hallmark’s Day
California Psychological Inventory classifies me as norm-favouring personality, which I think is correct to my self-assessment. I tend not to seek change for sake of change unless it offers distinct and significant advantage over status-quo. On the other hand, if there is sufficient advantage in change then I am restless with status-quo. That’s why I am less than impressed by corporatization of love today. It’s not because it’s against Indian tradition nor because it’s Western concept. What I don’t like about today, and there are handful who agree with me, that it’s an imposed idea of celebration of love which emphasizes expensiveness of gifts as measure of intensity of love. Greeting cards and gift corporations are well known to create market by introducing such celebration and associating them by traditional token of love such as cards, flowers, cake, gifts and so on. In cultures where such days are not norm, intensive branding and marketing propagates the notion as has been done in India and China with respect to Father’s day, Mother’s day, Valentine’s day, Friendship day, and whatnot.
What is more surprising in Indian case is that we already have existing well-established tradition of love, at least for Hindus: Karwa Chauth. As has been mentioned earlier, Indian idea of selfless love which emphasizes purity of heart and intention and focuses on giving and well-being of loved one (at least in theory) is being replaced by imposed idea of selfish love which is measured in monetary terms and focuses on receiving and self-fulfillment (even in theory, in practice I don't think there is much difference). Obviously, there are exceptions and it all depends on couple involved, but I am talking about more general scenario propagated by industry and increasingly accepted by youths.
Frankly, what doesn’t irk me is the idea of promotion of Valentine’s day but rapid promotion by companies in last few years at the cost of denigration of traditional Indian customs. There is undercurrent of campaign against this old festival where some think that fasting and praying for long life of loved ones is sexist (or perhaps too much hard work). Moreover, idea of gifting your loved ones is not new nor something to fret about, what is abrasive about today to me is that someone else telling me when to gift my beloved and corresponding pressure of expectation from significant other. This, of course, is not India-centric problem. Even in USA corporations are robbing festivals like Halloween and Christmas from their family orientation to become more consumeristic nature.
At the end of day though, since V-day has been so deeply penetrated by now that this whole post is futile attempt. I will not wish you Happy Valentine's Day, I will wish you Happy Love!
And now some fun..."real" Valentine's day cards here & here and history (video below)...
(This incidentally is 200th post on this blog.)
What is more surprising in Indian case is that we already have existing well-established tradition of love, at least for Hindus: Karwa Chauth. As has been mentioned earlier, Indian idea of selfless love which emphasizes purity of heart and intention and focuses on giving and well-being of loved one (at least in theory) is being replaced by imposed idea of selfish love which is measured in monetary terms and focuses on receiving and self-fulfillment (even in theory, in practice I don't think there is much difference). Obviously, there are exceptions and it all depends on couple involved, but I am talking about more general scenario propagated by industry and increasingly accepted by youths.
Frankly, what doesn’t irk me is the idea of promotion of Valentine’s day but rapid promotion by companies in last few years at the cost of denigration of traditional Indian customs. There is undercurrent of campaign against this old festival where some think that fasting and praying for long life of loved ones is sexist (or perhaps too much hard work). Moreover, idea of gifting your loved ones is not new nor something to fret about, what is abrasive about today to me is that someone else telling me when to gift my beloved and corresponding pressure of expectation from significant other. This, of course, is not India-centric problem. Even in USA corporations are robbing festivals like Halloween and Christmas from their family orientation to become more consumeristic nature.
At the end of day though, since V-day has been so deeply penetrated by now that this whole post is futile attempt. I will not wish you Happy Valentine's Day, I will wish you Happy Love!
And now some fun..."real" Valentine's day cards here & here and history (video below)...
(This incidentally is 200th post on this blog.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Indian Passport Renewal from USA - A Step by Step Guide [Feb-2026]
This post is intended as working guide for renewing Indian Passport while you are overseas. I had relied extensively on NRI sub-reddit , bes...
-
When I started reading Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K Jerome, a humourous book written in 1889, I had not imagined that what lay ahead of ... -
One of the option on Orkut for describing your looks is "mirror cracking material". I always wondered if it's extreme on posi...
-
Birthdays are special occasion for most people. Special day, celebrated, purely because it happens to be the day on which the self, which, o...