Crimes due to Illness and Our attittude

This is what Elliot Rodger said before he went on the killing spree, resulting in 6 deaths.

" Hi, Elliot Rodger here. Well, this is my last video. It all has to come to this. Tomorrow is the day of retribution, the day I will have my revenge against humanity, against all of you.

For the last eight years of my life, since I hit puberty, I've been forced to endure an existence of loneliness, rejection and unfulfilled desires, all because girls have never been attracted to me. Girls gave their affection and sex and love to other men, never to me.

I'm 22 years old and still a virgin, never even kissed a girl. And through college, 2 1/2 years, more than that actually, I'm still a virgin. It has been very torturous.

College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. In those years I've had to rot in loneliness, it's not fair.

You forced me to suffer all my life, now I will make you all suffer. I waited a long time for this. - Elliot Rodger.

The curious case of Infant Congress

The protagonist of the movie "The curious case of Benjamin Button" ages in reverse and dies as an infant. While I do not claim that Congress is no more, or that Congress has been aging in reverse all these years, a careful reader would not fail to see the parallel.

A Political party, if you compare with a tree, would root itself in a core set of tenets (you can't bracket even AAP as an exception. The primary force of their formation, "Chaos", became their initial core idea, and manifests itself through a number of actions of the party as well as its members, but that's not the focus here) and gradually develop the branches of action plans that depend on its life the nourishment that the root supplies. The more nourishing the root is (to itself, need not be to the society as a whole) and the healthier the actions plans, then mightier the tree will be.

A quick review of Political Analysis

What prompted me to do this piece was this article.

What are we analyzing about the elections? Analysis can be of different types.

1. Party A got x percent of votes from y section of society in z constituency. That's the reason this candidate failed or that candidate won. Or, using such and such data, we can assume that this particular section of people went with that party and these these could be the reasons for that to happen since so and so things happened in the past. Etc. That's factual analysis. There are no judgements about either the verdict of the people or the candidates itself here. You are just looking at the data as what it is, and inferring certain trends, patterns and conclusions based out of it. You are not judging the character of the people who made the verdict.

2. You can make an assumption that the people would have make appropriate judgements on the character of the candidates (their values, their beliefs, their preferences, their intelligence) and then you can form an informed opinion on how the candidates are actually perceived among the people. That's objective opinion analysis. You are trying to make an objective opinion about certain individuals by analyzing subjective opinion of a large number of other individuals. For example, if I realize that a large pecentage of people considered Modi as a person who will bring a new growth story to the country and if I consider that realization as a correct judgement I can attribute to Modi by looking at the data, I have formed an objective opinion about him.

3. But then, this objective opinion could go against my own subjective opinion about that candidate. Then, we are in a conflict resolution analysis. If my own subjective opinion coincides with the objective opinion, then I don't feel any need for doing this. But if they don't, as a rational individual, I end up doing the conflict resolution. But, this process itself is subjective where I could pick facts to suit my preferences. There are two possibilities at the end of this rather murky phase. Either I refine my subjective opinion to suit the objective opinion, or I revamp the objective opinion to suit my subjective opinion.

I don't think anybody would object to the premise that political analysis unto this is justified in a democracy. This is because of the two principles implied in democracy: freedom of thought and superior power for people's judgement.

But then, you can take this to another level.

When 10 divided by 10 Equals 0

One of my very first thoughts after seeing today's election results were about what kind of votes consolidated to give this thumping victory to Narendra Modi (to Sushma Swaraj: it is indeed Modi's victory, howmuchever you try to convince yourself otherwise) and does it mean something fundamentally different to our politics.

1977 was something fundamentally different because it provided a first viable non-Congress option across the nation. Politics fundamentally changed since then.

1989-91 was something fundamentally different because the politics in the country where everybody else pitted against Congress ended. Congress was no longer the center-piece in the showcase.

1999 was something fundamentally different because there were two center pieces to which all other parties gravitated.

In that light, I again see something fundamentally different. There is only one center piece remaining and that is BJP.

Who was Modi trying to fool?

How many of you have asked for a Promotion, Salary Hike or Change of work (project, department, role) in your career and were denied? How many of you asked for a toy that your father cannot afford, for a bike that your father didn’t want to buy for you at that time or for joining a course or program that your parents considered unnecessary? Do you still remember the ingenious way your parents or manager or HR evaded the question? People resort to tricky words and clever replies when they can’t give an honest answer.

I was made to remember of such instances of my life by none other than our Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi yesterday. I came late from office and my wife was watching his interview with Mr. Goswami in Times Now. I just joined her, and then happened to hear this cute little statement – that when BJP said in their manifesto that they welcome all Hindu refugees (and not Sikh or Jain or Muslim or Christian refugees), they meant Hinduism as a “way of life” and they were just following the definition of the Supreme Court of India.

Chooo Chweeet of him!!! Vasudaiva Kudumbakam. Vasudha Eva Kudumbakam. Earth indeed is a family.

He made me to do some research. Which is this Supreme Court judgement that he is talking about? What exactly is the statement from BJP’s manifesto?

Mr. Modi is referring to a Supreme Court judgement involving a case against Bal Thackeray. (http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=10197). Mr. Theckeray had made the below statement – “"We are fighting this election for the protection of Hinduism. Therefore, we do not care for the votes of the Muslims. This country belongs to Hindus and will remain so."

Following are some relevant passages from the Supreme Court judgement:

“Words `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.”

“Misuse of these expressions to promote communalism cannot alter the true meaning of these terms. the mischief resulting from the misuse of the terms by anyone in his speech has to be checked and not its permissible use. It is indeed very unfortunate, if in spite of the liberal and tolerant features of `Hinduism' recognised in judicial decisions, these terms are misused by anyone during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage.”

“Our conclusion is that all the three speeches of Bal Thackeray amount to corrupt practice under sub-section (3), while the first speech is a corrupt practice also under sub- section (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act. “

So, after all, Bal Thackeray was punished by Supreme Court for using that word for “misusing during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage”.

So, what Mr. Modi claims is that BJP was using the word Hinduism in the sense of “way of life of the Indian people”, not in the sense “persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith”.

Ok. Granted. I am deliberately forgetting the entire history or RSS, BJP and Mr. Modi. Now, let’s see what does the BJP manifesto says. The statement in question comes under the heading Foreign Relations. “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.” So, Modi’s claim is that the sentence is to be read as: India shall remain a natural home for persecuted people who follow way of life of Indian people.

Now, I suddenly see another statement in the same manifesto. The very immediately prior statement: “The NRIs, PIOs and professionals settled abroad are a vast reservoir to articulate the national

interests and affairs globally.”

Who is an NRI? Who is a PIO? Are they not “Hindus” in the abstract sense of the word? If yes, why are they not named called as “Hindus”? If not, what is the difference between NRI, PIO and Hindu?

Intrigued by this, I do a search for the term “Indians”. There are 41 places in which the word “Indian” is used in that manifesto. There is only one place where Hindu is used. Why only one reference to the word “Hindu”?  If the intellectually-challenged explanation that the word processor failed to do a Grammar check is set aside, you would have to say that the two terms "Indian" and "Hindu" are not synonymous in the context of this manifesto. Then, Mr. Modi is saying that there are Indians who are not "Hindus (abstract sense)". Who are those people? And how different are those people who are different from "persons who practicing Hindu religion"? (Arnab didn't ask any of these questions, unlike the aggro he showed against Rahul Gandhi. I guess that isn't a surprise for anybody).

In a document where a set of people are referred to as “Indians” 41 times, what if there was a 42^nd reference that says: “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Indians and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.”

OH, NO. THIS IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY VOTES. THIS IS NOT GOING TO PLEASE THE RSS CADRE.

Mr. Modi, who are you trying to fool here? In a general sense, everybody, of course. He can't say that he means what he really means and get away from possible constitutional repercussions. So, he just took the only way out. But that's not really fooling anybody. It is just an open trick. When a magician explains you a magic trick, you may appreciate the cleverness of the trick, but you are neither fooled by nor amazed at the trick itself anymore.

But, I am more intrigued by the question- are there anyone who will get really fooled by this?

Your party cadre? They already know that when you said Hindu, you meant exactly that “persons practicing the Hindu religion” (as opposed to the 41-time-reference to Indians), and they are happy to hear that. No need to fool them. Your detractors? Well, they are also already aware that you meant exactly the same. So, who else?

Ok. Now, I get it. There are a set of facebook-educated political activists that support you. They don’t want to see the obvious. Yet, they worship you. And you can’t let them down. They are like a 9-year old boy who saw a nice red-colored toy car in a shop (that his neighbor uncle owned) which his father cannot afford. He asked his father, and he said no. He cried. He cursed. He didn’t eat. Then the father said he will buy the toy for the boy the next day. Next day, they both went to the shop and the car wasn’t there. The uncle told that it was damaged and the entire pack was returned. Boy believed him. And was happy because he didn’t buy the car the day before. He didn’t know then that the car was still there, undamaged. He didn’t know then that his father asked the neighbor to hide it. He didn’t know then that he was fooled.

Mr. Modi knows that India is full of such people who can’t see the obvious, or don’t want to admit the obvious. He also knows that they are 9-year olds intellectually and can be fooled. He is playing a magic in which both the right and the left can see what the magician is doing. There are some kids at the center whom he is hoping to amaze. And, so far, he is doing a good job in the magic show.

Quality of Political Discourse in 2014

There are three things nauseating about the ongoing election campaign:

1. Extreme partisanship filled with hatred. While partisanship is something you would expect in an election season, the amount of hatred spewed out would surprise even a King Cobra. If you happen to be a not-infrequent visitor to Facebook and if you have some 100 friends there, this would be self-evident for you. If you watch TimesNow channel at 9 PM everyday, you will get visual & auditory proof.

2. Focus on petty personal matters and absolute silence on policies, ideologies and action plans. Of course, relevant topics do appear once in a while, but you get to hear about them in bits and pieces, just like the side performance of Jokers in Circus when the main artists are getting prepared for the main items. When Narendra Modi spends time arguing with Priyanka Gandhi (who is neither a contestant nor any party leader, at least officially) over I-don't-know-what, I think the point is self-evident again. Of course, when the party that is projected to be in power, publishes their election manifesto on the exact day the voters went to polling booths, what else can we expect to happen? While dense debates have never been a norm in Indian politics, my memory (going back to 1991) tells me that the discussions were never this petty in the recent times.


3. Emergence of the voice of a large section of de-politicized, de-historied and frustrated youth and middle-aged men as the default voice of Indian politics. I am not differentiating between urban and rural youth here. In terms of the general characteristics of this population, I don't think that such a differentiation holds sufficient ground.

I find the third phenomenon very peculiar as compared to the other two and, in some sense, as the driving force for the other two. There is a case for arguing that it was this factor that introduced venom into partisanship and frivolity into the debate. This is the case that I argue, and my case rests on the characteristics of this section of society.

This is a strange category of people.

They are very educated and intelligent, yet not informed and wise. They have conquered the abstract heights of mathematics, mastered various fields of applied science, or are proficient practitioners of social sciences. They hold many certificates, diplomas and degrees and have studied in many institutions during their learner-ship. Prestigious or otherwise. Domestic or Foreign. Yet, they find it difficult to understand what holds a society together. The abstract words of constitution does not appear meaningful to them. Not for them the inductive reasoning from history (of this nation or anywhere). They think that civilization only moves forward. They are not able to see the large black patches in the human timeline.

They are very communicative, yet not introspective. They are proficient in many languages and can talk about anything for hours. Neither the occasion nor the stage choke their throats. They like to have endless discussions and they don't fall short of topics ever. Yet, they can't seem to sit quietly for an hour and contemplate. Not for them the silence of the sages. Not for them the dark hours of confusion. Not for them hard research and painful readings from references.

They are very ambitious, yet not patient. They want to achieve growth, progress & harmony now. They want to see Autobahns across the country yesterday. Now or Never is their slogan. They prefer to sit on the road and scream for change. Sprint is what they prefer, not Marathon. Yet, laying a foundation and patiently arranging the building blocks is not for them. Acknowledging heavy cultural baggage hanging on their shoulders is even unthinkable. They can't stop during the run to acknowledge that the baggage is dragging them down. They don't have time to put the baggage down and separate the shoes from the stones. They don't want to throw out the stones and put on the shoes and then begin to run.

They are very patriotic and brazen, yet not civil and fearless. They love their families, their surroundings and their nation. They vociferously defend their positions in media and sing loud songs. They demand respect for the country, family and self and go any stretch to ensure it. Yet, they do not respect the other. For them, the other is a filthy pig, to be scorned, beaten to death and be fried and eaten. They are brazen enough to call colleagues abusive words in Facebook for a political position, but afraid of even raising the topic when they go for coffee together. They are audacious to debate and reach conclusions in 140 characters, but avoid reading a 1000 word article lest it could change their 140-character perception. They regard civility very highly, yet they don't think it is applicable to self. They assume that a nation can be built by applying your agenda on the other.

And they are frustrated. By scams. By looters. Frustration has fired up their intelligence, but the calming guidance of wisdom is not available. Disappointment has hurt their ambitions and that makes them even more impatient. Lost dreams have pushed them to the brink of audacity, but the courage to face the truth is not present. Sadness makes them wail, yet they can't contemplate.

In a nation building exercise like election, hatred is a paradoxical presence. In an evaluative and corrective exercise like election, frivolity is a paradoxical presence. Long before the campaign kick started, this section of people occupied the center of Indian politics with thoughts resulting from the their own inner paradoxes. Paradox raises from paradox. When your major voter-base is paradoxical, what else the discourse be expected to be?

Update 1: Just saw that NYT editorial also has expressed similar thoughts. "The intolerant, anti-intellectual mood sweeping the nation is frightening." Hatred and Frivolity, that is. Read NYT.