The Khagesh Gautam Blog

The curse of being rational

2011-12-22T16:40:00.001+05:30

I used to believe in god. I do not anymore.I realized that my belief was a result of indoctrination that started early inmy life, in my upbringing. I was told that there is a god and I am supposed topray to him and worship him and if I do not do then bad things would happen tome but good things will happen if I do. What is a child supposed to do whensuch choice is presented to him?

So it carried on. And it carried on for along time! I found later in life that it is all a bunch of bullshit and I lostmy faith. Am I to be blamed for this; to actually use my brain and think? Somepeople would like to blame me. Others would like to blame other things. Someeven go to the extent of implying that I am not a true patriot if I do notbelieve in their god. I used to argue with these people.

The arguments had different shapes andcolors. Earlier I used to employ reason and logic and argue my casepassionately. Later the arguments took a different shape. I was bent onconvincing the faithful to see the error of their ways. Now I don’t argue.Because I have found out; not realized incidentally but found out, that it istotally pointless to argue with the faithful. Some people, with whom I haveargued have seen the point in my case, have found themselves utterly out oflogic and reason and arguments to counter my points, yet they still retaintheir faith. Sometimes they return to their faith with an even strong will thanthey had had before they argued with me. Some have tried to convince me that Iam wrong and have used all sorts of tactics and ploys. Have I failed or havethey failed? The question remains and will ever remain. Different people willhave different opinions on what happened and what did not.

What does it matter in the end? It does notmatter whether I am a faithless person or another is a faithful one. Life goeson and people life it the way they decide or deem it fit. Do I have the rightto question how people life their lives? Yes. Does it matter what I think ofthem? Yes and No.

I could be wrong here, but I think thepeople who live by a certain faith – faith in any damn thing – find it easierto live their lives. I think this because these people have the luxury then todevote their lives to the cause or ideal or whatever it is that they believe in.They devote themselves to their beliefs. And in that they find a purpose thatgives, or at least they think that it gives, their life a purpose.

I, on the other hand, am condemned tocontemplate this question of purpose of life. And I have been utterly unsuccessfulin finding out what exactly is the answer to this question. I have found thatin history many a brainy men have grappled with this question and not one hasbeen able to satisfactorily answer this question. The ones that have claimed tofind the answer have inevitably used the word ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ in one or theother variant while they exposed their theories.

Some have found the answer in god. Othershave found the answer in an ideal, howsoever misguided the same might havebeen. I have found myself utterly unable to subscribe to any of those views.This is because every single one of those theories asks me to put my faith insomething or the other and I have repeatedly found myself questioning the verybasis of those beliefs.

And as I question the beliefs, I enquire –what is the basis of those beliefs in the first place. This is the most selfdestructive question a man can ask and set himself to enquire upon because Ihave found, to my astonishment and disappointment, that a belief is not basedon anything at all. What is not based on anything at all, cannot be. What am Ito make out anything that cannot be?

I see the faithful now as hopeless victimsof a cruel tragedy of life. I think we all need to believe that our life has afinal purpose – a final end that we must strive to achieve. Smart men have usedthis weakness to achieve their ambitions, political and otherwise. Philosophersand commentators have analyzed the faith that people have in whatever god theybelieve in and have found striking similarities between religious people and thecommunists. I am not surprised. They both believe in an idea without anyevidence; they both have taken an idea to be a fact. Try to make them see themistake of logic that they have made and you shall be faced with a resistancethat can literally turn violent in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

Isn’t it smart then to just stay quiet?That is the curse of being rational.

A life about death is no life at all (Movie Review - Hereafter)

2011-10-28T15:51:00.000+05:30

Is there any life after death?What a grand question!! Plato saidthat all philosophy is preparation for death. It is a profound thought. If manwas not aware of the fact that one day he is going to die there would be nophilosophy in this world. This movie seems to be inspired by this question butdoes not philosophically examine this question. Instead the story is built around how this one question impacts the lives of three people on three continents and how coincidences bring them together and how they end up helping each other.

If you are interested in aphilosophical discussion about this question, I would suggest ‘Flight from Death’. This is a documentarymovie that examines the question of death and man’s quest for immortality indetail. There is a long philosophical discussion about the subject as well ashistorical and anthropological roots of the question and the several answersthat present themselves have been traced out.

'Hereafter' is anintersection of three stories. We have a French woman Marie Lelay (played by Cécile De France who hasa near death experience. She is convinced that there is a place where we all gowhen we die. She experiences weightlessness and absence of linear time.She experiences that she can float around endlessly. But her boyfriend says sheneeds time to put the accident behind her (a polite way of saying that she ishallucinating). She is not convinced and digs deeper and ends up writing a bookabout it.

Then we have a little kid Marcus inEngland whose elder brother Jason (elder only by a few minutes) dies in a roadaccident. Little Marcus is now having a difficult time putting the accident behindhim. This was the part of the movie that I really loved. Marcus shows howpeople simply refuse to believe that a loved one has died. Marcus is simply notable to accept the fact that Jason is not coming back (from wherever he hasgone). He wants to talk to his brother one last time. He even sleeps with twobeds made – one form himself and one for his elder brother. Marcus has not beenable to get over the death of his elder brother. A part of this kid tells himclearly that his brother is gone; another part refuses to accept this fact. Andthis conflict manifests itself by making Marcus steal money from his fosterparents so that he can pay psychics in order to help him talk to his brother. Tohis disappointment Marcus finds that all psychics are selling nothing but mumbojumbo in order to exploit the feelings of the people. And he finds this outvery quickly.

And then we have George Lonegan (playedby Matt Damon) who is apsychic. He developed a fever in childhood and, to cut a long story short, he developedthis ability to do what he calls ‘readings’. He can connect to the ‘other world’and transmit messages from that world to this world; messages from the dead tothe living. But George is actually working in a factory. In past George wasmaking good money doing these readings and even had a book written about himbut he quit this ‘reading’ job because his job as a ‘reader’ made it impossiblefor him to have a normal life. George often says that to his brother (who wantsGeorge to do the ‘readings’ full time, like a business) that what his brotherthinks is a gift is actually a curse. One day George is fired from the factoryhe works in. Now he has the option of getting into the ‘reading’ business thathis brother has set up (with an office and a website). This is the grandconflict of George’s life that he has constantly been dealing with – and everytime his curse wins over his attempts to live a normal life. But this time thecurse loses and right on the eve of starting his new business, George leavesand comes to England. He said he needs to take a break.

The movie never really addressesthe question of whether there is any life after death or not. That question isanswered definitively by George’s curse – if there was no life after deathGeorge would not be able to do those ‘readings’. I personally do not believethat there is any life after death. What happens when we die? Nothing happens.Lights fade and we cease to exist.

Scientists and philosophers havesaid that human beings have some sort of subconscious need to know that we willsurvive death. (See for example 'Atheism – A RoughHistory of Disbelief'). This need to be able to know that our dead ones arenot really dead but they are with us is very clearly depicted in young Marcus’salmost pathological need to contact his brother. Even though he knows he is notcoming back he still hopes that somehow somewhere somebody will be able totransmit this message to Jason.

Though Marcus comes to his sensesand regains his life only when Jason (through George) tells him categoricallythat he is not coming back and it is time he got his life together. Now thisparticular scene is very interesting because every time George does a readingand tells people that the dead spirit is saying such and such there is a scenethat shows George closing his eyes, getting a mild shock and his mindconnecting with the dead spirit. But when George tells Marcus that Jason issaying that he is not coming back – no such scene is shown. I find thisomission to be extremely important.

Whether George made it up orwhether Jason really said that to George is a question that cannot really beanswered. Is it because George knew that this little kid needed some closure overhis brother’s death and would not be able to get it unless he realized that hisbrother is dead and is not coming back? Or is it because Jason from some otherspirit world really said to George to tell his brother that is not coming back?It is a matter of interpretation for the viewer.

The movie, briefly, also commentson the quacks sitting in the market pretending to be psychics while all they dois engage in cold reading. Richard Dawkins in his documentary 'The Enemies of Reason' comesdown heavily on cold readers who pretend they are communicating with some otherspiritual world while all they in fact are doing is making fool ofimpressionable public by exploiting their sentiments and feelings.

Subsequently, George also findspeace in the end when he meets Maria (the French woman) and they clickimmediately. George is able to see that Maria actually died recently and cameback from dead. Similar thing happened to George when he was young – he wasclinically dead for a few moments before he came back to life. And when both ofthem meet they click immediately. Though it is not clear what became of them,it is quite clear that they got romantically involved. I don’t really know howto interpret this particular event.

In the end, it was a good movie.There are several incidents in the movie that require interpretation. If youare a religious minded person your interpretation will be very different from aperson not so religiously minded. But one thing you have to say – the screenplay,the story and the acting from everyone in the movie is simply superb. It isworth every second of the one hour and forty seven minutes of the movie.

Aarakshan - Movie Review Part 3 - Why this movie totally SUCKS?

2011-08-15T08:52:00.002+05:30

Why this movie sucks?

1. Confusion in the story

This movie is totally confused. There are two issues that the director has tried to tackle simultaneously – of reservations and of commercialization of education. And he fails to handle either of them properly.

The first half of the movie simple captures all those truisms that I have captured above. So that’s a big deal?!! You only feel kind of vindicated that you were right all along that these are indeed the problems related with reservation. Well let me tell you that right now and save you some time and money – you are right if you think my list of truisms are is problems related to reservations and you don’t need this movie to vindicate your views.

The second half of the movie simply drops the debate about reservations and turns to commercialization of education. Well, private coaching/tuition institutions have been around for a long time and will continue to remain here. But how are they relevant to the debate on reservations? They are actually not. So why examine this? I am not sure but it makes for a pretty boring second half.

So what happened to the debate on the reservations? Nothing actually. The debate just disappears and never reappears except for a one little scene between the protagonist and his wife. The debate is never taken to whatever logical end it could have been taken. The debate is never concluded.

2. Confusion in the plot

The director fails to make it clear what finally happens to the rift created by the debate. Of course the upper caste rich fellow reunites with his lower caste friend and together they go on to beat the private coaching industry by opening up their own coaching school except they don’t charge any fee but they were united in a single cause be a bigger adversary – the private coaching institute. Their reunion was not a result of both of the putting aside their differences on reservation policy which actually was the one that created the rift between them.

3. Failure to live up to expectations

The propaganda machinery that was smartly mobilized by Prakash Jha presented a picture as if this movie examines the issue of reservations and presents some sort of conclusion. The problem with conclusion is that you can either be against reservation or for it. If you are against it, the lower castes will make your life miserable. If you are for it, the upper castes (who do have a lot of clout, just no political mouthpiece on this issue) will shun you.

So the director very safely turns the second of the story into a crusade of an ex-principal of a former college who was forced to resign because he voiced his views on issue of reservations publicly. The crusade is to destroy the private coaching institutions that are so completely destroying our education sector and rapidly commercializing it. All well and good. But whatever happened to reservation debate which the movie is all about to being with. It just suddenly disappears from the scene.

4. Un-necessary Songs

Okay, this is the part I really hate. There are four songs in this movie. Not one of them is worth listening to. They have bad music, bad lyrics and make absolutely no sense. They are not even entertaining to listen or watch to. There was no need to put these songs in and these songs irritate you when they come. Everything about them sucks and they simply should have been removed during the editing stage.

5. Long Boring Second Half

Keeping aside the irrelevance of the second half of the movie, which I have adequately examine above (I hope!), the second half is long and boring.The screenplay is badly written, the story deviates into several areas. Even the story is illogical.

The second half is about Dr. Prabhakar Anand, the disgraced ex-principle of STM College (a very prestigious private technical institution) who is forced to resign after saying in a public interview (that is later published in a news paper) that he supports reservations in private colleges. Dr. Anand is literally brought to streets by Dr. Singh who plays a very shrewd political game to first capture the principalship and then bring Anand to streets because of their ideological differences on reservations and how to run the college. Dr. Singh also runs a very successful private coaching institution on the side. Dr. Anand wows that he will destroy Singh’s and Singh-like private coaching institutions and then takes on a who crusade for that.

His crusade is acceptable and understandable but they way this has been handled is extremely unconvincing. So much so that it almost looks like a fairy tale.

Now, I will accept and even expect a lion who can speak english if I am watching The Chronicles of Narnia because that is what happens in fantasy movies but Aarakshan is not a fantasy movie. What then is the point of this fairy tale underdog success? And not to say, it is not even relevant to the issue of reservations.

6. Failure to capture the recent area of debate

Besides the percentage of reservation of seats that is now approximately 50%, the recent area of debate is whether private educational institutions and private sector jobs should be brought into the ambit of this policy. This has been raising tempers of the anti-reservation and pro-merit lobby and this effort has been strongly resisted by this lobby so far successfully.

7. Failure to capture the debate on the Supreme Court judgment

A Constitution Bench (i.e. 5 judges) of the Supreme Court gave a judgment few years back that was celebrated by the pro-reservation lobby and was bitterly condemned by anti-reservation lobby. This is the one that gave approximately 27% reservation to OBCs (Other Backward Castes) making the total reservation approximately 50%. This was a split decision with 4 judges consenting and 1 dissenting.

A very controversial issue that is debated in hushed tones is that the Chief Justice of India who was heading the bench was a Dalit (i.e. a lower caste person – actually the first dalit to rise to the Chief Justiceship of India) himself. And the one judge dissenting was a Brahmin (the most upper of all upper castes). I am sure you capture the debate that is going on. It was a very important area that could have been captured in this movie but is never even touched.

I am now getting tired of giving reasons as to why this movie sucks. The point is it really sucks and it is worth neither your money nor your time.

You don’t get any debate, much less an intelligent debate on the issue of reservation. All you get is 15-20 minutes of reinforcement and a dramatic presentation of things that you already know very much exist. So it does not even add to your knowledge base. Of course, there is no entertainment in the movie. The four songs are totally senseless and should not have been there to begin with.

This movie deserves hardly 2 stars out of 5 and that is only because of Amitabh Bachhan’s acting and some nice dialogue delivery in a few scenes given by Deepak Kumar (the lower caste fellow played by Saif Ali Khan). Incidentally I believe that Saif Ali Khan is underutilized and Deepika Padukone’s character was totally un-necessary.

Please don’t watch this movie and waste your time. You won’t be entertained. If you are looking to get some knowledge about the issue I suggest you instead read Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhawan’s book titled “Reserved! How Parliament debated reservation” published by Rupa and Company. Dr. Dhawan has been counsel in several leading reservation cases before the Supreme Court and his book makes for an insightful reading.

Aarakshan - Movie Review Part 2 - Why anyone would want to watch this movie?

2011-08-15T08:46:00.000+05:30

The answer is simple enough.

Why would anyone want to watch a movie?

Most people want to watch a movie because they want to be entertained.

Others want to watch a movie because they want to make themselves aware of a given issue. These kind of people are big on documentary movies.

Some are artistically inclined and like to admire the artistic elements of cinema.

There could be many other reasons.

Okay, so why would anyone want to watch a movie that is titled Aarakshan and has been pedalled in media for two months as being on the issue of reservations?

Certainly not for entertainment! The publicity that has been given to this movie and the way this movie has been projected to the audience (potential and otherwise) and the image that has been created for this movie is very clear – this movie examines the issue of reservation and the problems it has created in society. So the image projected was quite clear – come and watch this movie as it is the first one of its kind that examines this explosive issue.

So some fellow might like to watch this movie in order to see a lively debate on this extremely sensitive issue.

Some other fellow, probably the more philosophically inclined, might be interested to watch a dramatized debate whether or not policy of reservation should exist to begin with or not. Or perhaps could there be an alternative version of the policy that could be considered.

Some odd bloke might be interested in this issue because of Prakash Jha’s reputation thinking he might get a treat like Apharan or Gangajal again.

In any event, one thing is for sure, nobody wants to see this movie for its entertainment value. People who regularly watch movie know that movies like this are NOT meant for entertainment. This is because all of us intuitively know that movies with social messages usually do not have much entertainment masala.

Of course, sometimes they do come up with movies like Rang De Basanti or Apharan that entertain us and deliver a social message as well but it does not happen often.

As I have conceded before as well, there might be other reasons. But I guess I have captured most of the general reasons.

Let me now give you my assessment of this movie in one simple sentence – THIS MOVIE TOTLALY SUCKS.

Aarakshan - Movie Review Part 1 - Stating Some Truisms about the policy of reservation

2011-08-15T08:42:00.000+05:30

Okay, let’s get a few truisms straight before we talk about the movie.

The following are some truisms regarding the policy of reservation (Aarakshan is the Hindi language word, written in roman script, for reservation) –

1. Extremely Sensitive Issue

Reservation is an extremely sensitive issue in

India

and any public debate or discussion on this issue is generally prohibited except if the same is going to be in favour of the same.

This is notwithstanding the fact that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of speech and expression. However, there is a little thing called Article 19(2) that allows the freedom of speech and expression to be restricted on 8 grounds public order being one of them.

2. Everybody has a position on this issue

Reservation is a policy that is supported by many and opposed by some. There would be hardly any person in India, educated or not, who would not have a position on this issue. Of course, their position on this issue would be directly related to what ‘caste’ they belong to. If they belong to one of the alleged ‘lower castes’ they would be in support and if they belong to one of the self-proclaimed ‘upper castes’ they would be against it.

3. Extremely Political Issue

i) Reservation is an issue that is extremely political. The people who support the policy have several people to present their point of view in the highest political forums including the Parliament because all politicians publicly support this issue even if they might privately be against it.

ii) However, since virtually no politician publicly opposes this policy the people who are against it have a hard time making their voice heard at the political forums. Therefore, there is no political representation given to this lobby in the Parliament where all reservation laws are made.

iii) If this anti-reservation lobby tries to voice their views in public forums by alternative ways they are immediately branded as anti-lower castes. This is a big boo word because if you are anti-lower caste you are a blood sucking upper caste person who is trying his level best to make sure that the lower castes remain in their place so that they can continued to be exploited. When these things happen the merit of the arguments of this lobby never actually gets examined and their voices are dismissed as being those of a class of rich people who just want to perpetually exploit weaker sections of the society. This of course if totally false and perverted but we are not talking intellectual circles here, we are talking politics.

4. Lack of Intelligent Literature

There is not much intelligent literature on this issue that one can find in order to understand what exactly is happening. Whatever little you can find is either in the legal field examining only the legal issues and that literature is suited for the technical/legal professionals (read lawyers). Other than that you can either find stuff going all guns blazing in favour or all guns blazing against without anyone actually taking the time out to do an adult, critical analysis of this issue. This is one of the reasons that much of the opinion on this issue is uneducated. Even if you want to educate yourself on the issue you just don’t have anything intelligent to read.

5. Extreme Range of Views

i) Some believe that reservation policy is nothing but a vote gathering instrument for politicians and the policy itself has no intrinsic merit.

ii) Some believe that reservation is the only way to empower the lower castes and the policy as implemented in its current form is right.

iii) Some believe that reservation is the only way to empower the lower castes but the policy as implemented in wrong. These people have their own versions of what reservation policy ought to be.

iv) Some believe that the policy made sense when it was adopted in 1950 (when the Constitution of India came into force) but has now lost its relevance.

v) Some believe that the policy is total nonsense and should never have been implemented anyway. What about lower caste empowerment then? These people have no answer to this question.

I am willing to concede that there still might be several other positions that I have failed to capture here. You, my dear reader, are welcome to comment and add to this list.

6. Lives have been lost in protests over this issue

This is one issue that always raises tempers and excites passions among all parts of society notwithstanding what their position on the policy is. There have been massive protests in the distant past and recent past (over Mandal Commission Report and the recent Supreme Court judgments). These protests have resulted in violent clashes between the two grounds – anti-reservation and pro-reservation. The anti-reservation groups also call themselves pro-merit. Several youth have either killed themselves or have been killed in riots protesting for and against these policies.

These were some of the truisms regarding reservation. Now, I doubt if you (my dear reader) were not aware of several of these things already. If fact I am willing to bet good money that several of you might be aware of several other truisms that I have failed to capture here (you are welcome to comment and add to this list).

Not only are we already aware of all these (and perhaps more) things; some of us have probably taken part in those protests. Many of us have lived through the moments where policy of reservation has impacted us in one way or the other.

My question before I being to review the movie is this – why would anyone, who is already aware of all these issues and probably more than just aware, would want to go and watch a movie on the issue of reservations?

Redundant and Irrelevant Morality?

2011-08-02T21:22:00.000+05:30

What is the first thing to be sacrificed when it comes to money?

Morality

And what is the first thing that every criminal asks for when he has to face judgment?

Mercy

And what is the first argument that he will invoke to justify that he deserves mercy?

Morality

What exactly is going on here?

Nobody quite knows.

But yet most of the times the criminal is shown mercy. Now, several people might come out with data and statistics and charts and what not to show that this is not the case; that criminals are indeed punished and they have to face consequences of the crimes.

I do not plan to question those claims for a minute but what I do wish to question is this – have a look at the demographics of all those people that have been punished and then tell me which part of the society gets the raw deal. I am sure I don’t have to answer this question.

Let us for example consider the recent financial meltdown in USA (in 2008) that wiped off the life savings of several people. If you take some time out to review what exactly happened during the recent financial crisis the world has seen, a really global crisis that impacted every part of the world, you would find out that this whole crisis was a direct result of several things that were done by financial services and investment banking corporations.

If you would take some time out to review the things these corporations did, you will further find out that those things were nothing less than a big financial fraud, a ponzi scheme that resulted in a mass transfer of wealth – from poor to the rich.

All these things were in knowledge of the international financial bodies (the IMF and the likes). In fact, it was the lead economist of the IMF that had predicted the crisis way before it could happen. The Government of the USA was aware of not just what these corporations were doing but also that this would result in a massive financial crisis.

For a moment let us assume (even though there is no valid reason to make such an assumption) that these corporations, when they started their massive ponzi scheme, were probably not aware of the impact their irresponsible actions would take. What strikes me as curious is this – the moment these corporations became aware that they can’t keep their massive fraud secret anymore they decided to defraud their own clients so that they can save their own investments from sinking. They deliberately mislead their own clients into investing in financial instruments that they knew were bogus.

These corporations, the corrupt Government officials who should have acted but didn’t, these investment banks, these mortgage companies, all these assorted frauds, they never faced any trial, no charges were ever brought against them. Instead, they were given the biggest Government bailout in the history of man.

When an elected representative of public, in a public hearing, questioned them about their fraudulent activities, this is what they had to say – WE ARE SORRY, IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN.

The elected representative said that back in his state there are people who are locked up in prisons who are serving prison sentences for robbing banks where people deposited their money. They also say the same thing – we are sorry, it won’t happen again. These people are called bank robbers. What is their fate? They never leave prison, or if at all, after a very long time.

What is the fate of a bank robber who wears expensive suits and has a master’s degree in business administration? They get a Government bailout.

Now I ask these questions.

What is the morality of this action?

What possible philosophical argument can justify what I have described?

I hate using the words ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ because they are so overused. But I can’t help but say – why is the underdog not even granted a meaningful fair hearing, let alone the decision go in his favour.

I was told that one must follow a moral course in one’s life. Why is it then that wicked people prosper and moral and virtuous people don’t?

Is morality redundant and irrelevant?

Was morality ever relevant?

Can anybody please answer these questions?

"Cash-for-votes" - The Scandal, The Denial and The Sensibility of the denial

2011-08-02T09:09:00.004+05:30

“Cash-for-Votes” is a phrase that has been doing the rounds for quite a while now. There is a web-page on Wikipedia titled “Cash-for-votes scandal” that says –

The cash-for-votes scandal is a scandal is which the United Progressive Alliance, the majority-holding parliamentary-party alliance of India led by Manmohan Singh, allegedly bribed Indian MPs in order to survive a confidence vote on 22 July 2008.

On 17 March 2011, The Hindu (text of the news report can be accessed at this link), published this secret US Embassy Cable (dated 17 July 2008) that was leaked by WikiLeaks in which the following was communicated -

Sharma's political aide Nachiketa Kapur mentioned to an Embassy staff member in an aside on July 16 that Ajit Singh's RLD had been paid Rupees 10 crore (about $2.5 million) for each of their four MPs to support the government. Kapur mentioned that money was not an issue at all, but the crucial thing was to ensure that those who took the money would vote for the government. Kapur showed the Embassy employee two chests containing cash and said that around Rupees 50-60 crore (about $25 million) was lying around the house for use as pay-offs.

On the same day (i.e. 17 March, 2011) The Hindu reported that the Congress party said that ‘the whole world has rejected the WikiLeaks reports’ primarily on the ground that ‘diplomatic communication’ between officials of foreign governments cannot be the responsibility of Indian Government.

However, on 18 March, 2011, David Mulford, the former US Ambassador to India, in an interview on CNN-IBN (see this news report of the Hindustan Times) said that the US Embassy Cables are ‘generally accurate’ though refused to comment on the on going ‘Cash-for-votes’ controversy.

Subsequently, on 23 March, 2011, as reported by The Hindu, the Prime Minister also denied the ‘Cash-for-votes’ accusations on exactly the same grounds as above i.e. the leaked cable(s) is a diplomatic communication sent by US Government officials to one another and they cannot confirm anything said in the cables.

Note that the Prime Minister nowhere denied that the contents were false. If one reads the passage from the secret cable reproduced above, it is quite clear that it is statement of facts made by the person writing the cable and it is very hard to deny a statement of fact or to dismiss the same as an ‘opinion’ of a foreign government official.

On 6 April, 2011 The Hindu published this article in their editorial section that observed –

In 2008, the aide to an old courtier of the Nehru-Gandhi family showed a U.S. diplomat two chests containing $25 million in cash — money to bribe members of Parliament into voting for an India-US nuclear deal, itself a prelude to massive U.S. arms sales to India.

Just how sensible were the Congress Party’s denials and the Prime Minister’s rebuttal to these accusations, in the all important Court of Public Opinion were, can be demonstrated by the fact that a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha of the Supreme Court later entertained a writ petition that prayed for a directive to set up a special investigation team to probe the scam as revealed in the article published in The Hindu, based on U.S. Embassy cables accessed through WikiLeaks.

On Indian Democracy - Dynastic Politics and (recent) Candid Disclosures

2011-05-23T12:00:00.001+05:30

The contempt that our ruling classes have for a democratic and republican form of government has manifested itself time and again in past. It has confirmed its ugly presence once again recently. Let me quote from a news story published in The Hindu (May 23, 2011) -

“Rahul, Mr. Maran added, would benefit from the legacy of his father Rajiv Gandhi’s popularity in South India. The dynastic element of Rahul’s elevation would play well down south, he remarked. “If you haven’t noticed, we don’t have much of a problem with dynastic politics down here. If fact, we seem to like it”.”

The news story was a result of a ‘candid’ conversation that the hon’ble M.P. had with then American Consul General, which was then put in a secret cable. The text of the cable can be accessed at this link.

It should me a matter of national shame that a hon’ble M.P. has made such a ‘candid’ statement. That these observations of extreme political insight were made to the then American Consul General could only compound the national shame. One on hand we have national ‘youth’ leaders calling upon the youth to enter into active politics. That’s just a façade engineered with the assistance of several experts who are masters in the art and science of gathering public opinion.

These ‘youth’ leaders – they don’t want the youth to actually ‘join’ politics. They only want the youth to join ‘them’, who by virtue of their surnames have been preordained to stake their claims at the highest seats of powers. That they will make such a claim is just a matter of time. These self appointed spokespersons of the youth are intellectually and morally incapable of asking anyone to ‘join’ anything, for they do not understand the idea of ‘joining’ and working for an objective. All they are capable of is asking for obedience and subservience.

Our hon’ble M.P. is right – in India, we like dynastic politics. We like it so much, we can’t do without it. Dynastic politics is one thing that has been so clearly drilled into our minds that the possibility of other options does not even occur to us. We are content with letting the ‘ruling classes’ rule. We seem to have forgotten, en masse, that in this country we have a written constitution which in the preamble proclaims India to be a Democratic Republic country. That our ‘ruling class’ was either never aware of it or conveniently forgot it long back is a moot question – whatever little history can tell us with certainty is this – they never bothered to uphold the constitution.

John Stuart Mill observed that –

“When nobody, or only some small fraction, feels the degree of interest in the general affairs of the State necessary to the formation of a public opinion, the electors will seldom make any use of the right of suffrage but to serve their private interest, or the interest of their locality, or of some one with whom they are connected as adherents or dependents.”

A strikingly similar observation was made in this op-ed published in The Hindu (28 September, 2010) –

“The evidence suggests that people who believe that they deserve their power and position are morally pliable and more prone to abuse their privileges. Studies have documented that power and hypocrisy go hand in hand as the powerful feel a sense of entitlement; their sense of privilege become private law. The culture of entitlement results in double standards, one for themselves, their family and friends, and the other for the general population”.

“Whenever the sphere of action of human beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and dwarfed in the same proportion… Let a person have nothing to do for his country, and he will not care for it”. How correct the observations of Mill were, made more than a century ago!

We, in

India

, seem to be thoroughly incapable of thinking beyond our private and selfish interests. When it comes to matters of public importance, our minds seem to go empty. Not because we are not educated on such issues. Rather because we have not taken the pains to educate ourselves on such issues. It is because we lack the motivation for such self-education. Unfortunately, if the people who have given unto themselves these representative institutions do not have the inclination to act in order to save these institutions, whenever they are put in jeopardy, there is absolutely no hope for such institutions to survive for a long period of time. Mill was correct when he said that, “…the rights and interests of every or any person are only secure from being disregarded, when the person interested is himself able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them”.

Fairly Legal vs. Boston Legal

2011-05-23T06:41:00.000+05:30

I recently came across this new legal series Fairly Legal. Only one season has so far been produced. And I am a very big fan of Boston Legal. One of my most prized possessions is my collection of all seasons of Boston Legal and The Practice. And I am game for a decent legal story any day. Thus when I came across Fairly Legal I just had to watch it.

It was a great relief to finally see a lady as the lead character in a legal series. It is almost always men – Denny Crane and Alan Shore and their whole clan. But in this series we have Kate Reed as lead character and she’s not a lawyer!

WHY I LOVED FAIRLY LEGAL?

Well she was a lawyer but quit her father’s law firm Reed & Reed and became a mediator. This was the first reason I loved Fairly Legal right from the first episode. When we were in law school we had a whole paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in which we had to study arbitration and mediation but I never saw a lot of mediation. I remember when were in 3L, we were taken to District Courts where the District Judge addressed a lecture on mediation (the judge was also the head of the mediation cell). Mediation was mostly used to settle matrimonial disputes. This series might just raise the awareness about mediation as a full time career option in young lawyers.

The second reason I liked Fairly Legal, right from episode one, was the striking similarity between Kate Reed and Alan Shore. When I was watching Boston Legal, apart from being thoroughly amused, I was constantly thinking very hard on the methods deployed by Alan Shore. They were far from ethical; some were clearly un-ethical, and I was struck by the lack of remorse shown by Shore after using some blatantly un-ethical methods in order to achieve the best results for his clients. Most of these clients were the ones that could not take the burden to go through the legal system, for want of money mostly. One tactic most commonly employed by Shore was to blackmail his opponents, the means of blackmail I leave to your imagination.

A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION!!

I know this is fiction but it nevertheless raises a very important question – do ends justify means in the legal profession. For some people it is just a profession, like any other. Some say it is a calling. It is, in either case, a very important profession. People come to courts of law thinking they will be heard and will get justice. Lawyers are their first point of contract with the legal system. If a lawyer openly uses un-ethical practices what impression does that leave the people with. And if the people at large, who are always greater in number than lawyers, think that it is okay to go beyond the law in order to achieve the desired result, what is the hope for survival of the ‘rule of law’ as such. I’ve been grappling with this philosophical conundrum for quite a while now. Boston Legal never tries to answer this question. There is some discussion on whether this is okay but 90% of that is in lighter vein.

On the contrary, The Practice is quite clear on not crossing the sacred line of ethics. Some of the most memorable scenes in The Practice are when the un-ethical result oriented means of Alan Shore cross the path with super ethical Eugene Young. The best scene is where Eugene Young defends Alan Shore before the Board of Bar Overseers for alleged violations of the Code of Ethics.

However, the very first episode of Fairly Legal puts this debate to an end by making the position of Kate Reed quite clear on this issue. Her position is that laws are made my men and men are often wrong[1]. Thus what matters is not the law but trying to achieve the best possible results for all parties involved in any legal dispute. Kate Reed is clearly in conflict with the view of her deceased father for whom the letter of law was sacred and not to be broken, he’d rather make his way through the legal system with ‘cases and briefs and motions’. Kate however is quite clear that if a given law is not providing optimal results, it is okay to manipulate the law because ‘people never do the right thing, you have to force them to’.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

If you see Kate Reed and Alan Shore twisting, manipulating and breaking the law and the you look at it from the client’s perspective – you would not give a hoot for the result has been in your favour. You’d rather swear on a Bible never to break the law in future and be on your way. For how long your oath will survive is a debatable question.

If you look at their conduct from the perspective of a judge, I am not sure how you might feel. Perhaps a judge, if there is one, in my readers, would be kind enough to share his/her thoughts with us.

From the perspective of a common man, they have done exactly the right thing, for a common man does not understand the complexities of law and its processes. And what matters most to the common man is getting justice. And this word ‘justice’ is such a deceptive word!

From the perspective of a philosopher, you are left confused. Because now you have two moral positions and you must decide which one is better and that is a very tough task. Which road must be taken when push comes to shove? The only answer I find is in philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche – there are no truths, there are only interpretations.

I haven’t seen the whole series yet but will keep on reporting more.

[1] I am sure the word ‘men’ here is gender neutral. That’s my impression anyway.

On Indian Democracy - Absence of informed public opinion

2011-05-22T12:36:00.000+05:30

Mill observes that, “Representative institutions necessarily depend for performance upon the readiness of the people to fight for them in case of their being endangered.” (On Liberty and Other Essays (OLOA), p. 258 - full citation can be found on this link, FN 1).

It requires a certain initiative and a personal zeal on the part of the people to save the institutions when they are put in jeopardy by undertaking various activist measures as their circumstances might allow. When such a thing is missing the representative institutions will not obtain a footing as, “…as soon as the head of the government, or any party leader who can muster force for a coup de main, is willing to run some small risk for absolute power” these institutions are overthrown. The best example of this is again the emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. More damage to democracy in India has been done by Indira Gandhi, than all other prime ministers combined, but others are equally guilty of failing to educating and institutionalizing the value of standing up and fighting for their representative institutions. This they have done on purpose because it serves their vested interests.

The ill informed the public the better it is for power structures for it keeps the masses confused about what it actually is that goes on in power structures. In order to be able to mount an effective offence, the person must know where the offensive has to be mounted first. If a target is missing, no offence could ever be mounted.

A look at modern-day newspapers and news channels presents an even disturbing picture. There is no serious attempt, except a few newspapers (most prominent being The Hindu) to create an informed public opinion. There is a depressing lack of serious discussion on issues of general affairs of the State on most news channels. The only serious discussion one can find is to be found on financial news channels. These discussions are serious, logical and scholarly and critical of the government policies where required. Unfortunately, these are not the channels and mediums subscribed to by the general masses. This lack of public opinion than manifests itself in a feeling of apathy towards ‘general affairs of the State’ by the most important segment of the public, which is the youth.

Mill observed that, “When nobody, or only some small fraction, feel the degree of interest in the general affairs of the State necessary to the information of a public opinion, the electors will seldom make any use of the right of suffrage but to serve their private interest, or the interest of their locality, or of some one with whom they are connected as adherents or dependents” (OLOA p. 259).

On Indian Democracy - Inclination to Despotic Rulers

2011-05-22T12:16:00.001+05:30

British political philosopher John Stuart Mill (hereinafter ‘Mill’) observed that, “Among the tendencies which, without absolutely rendering a people unfit of representative government, seriously incapacitate them from reaping the full benefit of it, on deserves particular notice. These are two states… one is, the desire to exercise power over others; the other is disinclination to have power exercised over themselves[1].”

Explaining the first state, Mill observes that, “They are very jealous of any attempt to exercise power over them, not sanctioned by long usage and by their own opinions of right; but they in general care very little for the exercise of power over others. Not having the smallest sympathy with the passion for governing, while they are but too well acquainted with the motives of private interest from which that office is sought, they prefer that it should be performed by those to whom it comes without seeking, as a consequence of social position[2].”

I submit that that this passage above very correctly demonstrates the position of Indian (read Hindu) classes and masses. In

India

, in theory we have a democratic republican form of government that draws authority from the Constitution of India; in practice though we hardly have any democratic government or representative governance of any sort. We, as a people, are much more inclined to accept the rules of a despot or a monarch. What else could possibly explain the failure of the entire intellectual class, including the Supreme Court of India, to speak up against the imposition of emergency by Indira Gandhi, an emergency that was nothing but a fraud upon the Constitution!

The peculiar situation of Indian (read Hindu) people to willingly subject themselves to despotic rulers is so interesting and important that I whole volume could be and ought to be dedicated to its study. However, Mill’s following observation[3] makes the point quite self evident –

“A people are no less unfitted for representative government by the contrary fault to that last specified; by extreme passiveness, and ready submission to tyranny. If a people thus prostrated by character and circumstances could obtain representative institutions, they would inevitably choose their tyrants as their representatives, and the yoke would be made heavier on them by the contrivance which prima facie might be expected to lighten it.”

Emphasis Added

[1] John Gray (ed), John Stuart Mill On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford University Press 2008) p. 266; hereinafter ‘OLOA’

[2] Ibid p. 267

[3] Ibid p. 261

Who was Arthur Schopenhauer?

2011-05-20T12:10:00.002+05:30

I must apologize to you for I've been remiss. I have referred to the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in a few of my previous posts. I've have quoted from his works but I have failed to tell you who this fellow was.

(More could be found about Schopenhauer by clicking on the link provided above).

Schopenhauer was a pessimistic philosopher. He was a professor in Berlin University and influenced writings of several thinkers, most notably of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

Who was Arthur Schopenhauer?

To the uninitiated, instead of going into a biographical account, let me reproduce here some of things from Schopenhauer’s philosophy that, I hope, will provide you a fair idea, about how pessimistic philosophers sound, and what this fellow Schopenhauer used to think.

Schopenhauer believed that the purpose of human life is suffering (he was very impressed with Buddhist and Hindu philosophies, though he was himself an atheist). In his essay On the Suffering of the World, he remarked that, “When two men who were friends in their youth meet again after the separation of a lifetime, the feeling uppermost in their minds when they see each other, in that it recalls old times, is one of complete disappointment with the whole life”.

In his essay On the Vanity and Suffering of Life, he observes that, “… life bears so clearly the stamp of something which ought to disgust us that it is difficult to conceive how anyone could fail to recognize this, and be persuaded that life is here to be thankfully enjoyed, and that man exists in order to be happy”.

I suppose the following little passage from his essay On the Vanity and Suffering of Life might give you a very fair idea of what sort of a philosopher Schopenhauer was –

“… Optimism is not only a false but also a pernicious doctrine, for it presents life as a desirable state and man’s happiness as its aim and object. Starting from this, everyone then believes he has the most legitimate claim to happiness and enjoyment. If, as usually happens, these do not fall to his lot, he believes that he suffers injustice, in fact that he misses the whole point of his existence; whereas it is far more correct to regard work, privation, misery, and suffering, crowned by death, as the aim and object of our life… since it is these that lead to the denial of the will-to-live”.

Schopenhauer’s central idea

Schopenhauer’s philosophy, if it can be captured in a few sentences, was that all human activity is a result of the Will. While all the things that we do are subject to reason, the Will itself is not subject to reason or motivation. In his essay On the Vanity and Suffering of Life he observed that, “… the principle of the world’s existence is expressly a groundless one, namely a blind will-to-live, which, as thing-in-itself, cannot be subject to the principle of sufficient reason or ground”.

As long as we are the subject of the Will, we can never obtain lasting happiness or peace as “all willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied”. And thus the vicious cycle of desire-satisfaction-denial-desire-satisfaction keeps on going and keep happiness away from us.

Note

I've read several works of Schopenhauer and about Schopenhauer. This post was only to provide you with an instant idea of how pessimistic philosophy sounds like and what kind of a philosopher Schopenhauer was. This post is not intended to either summarize or discuss the philosophy of Schopenhauer, only to provide you a fair idea of what sort of stuff he wrote, that only if you are so inclined to find out more.

Why I fell in love with photography?

2011-05-20T11:55:00.001+05:30

I think photography gives me the satisfaction of being able to create something out of nothing and creating just for the sake of creation.

I take up a camera, I put my eyes to the view finder and I compose a picture. I adjust the shutter speed, the aperture and take a picture.

May be I like it, may be I don’t.

I adjust the shutter speed again, may be increase or decrease the ISO, adjust the aperture a little more, check out the while balance. I compose the picture again. I click again. I review the result.

May by I like it, may be I don’t.

I re-compose. I decide to over or under expose my picture. I re-adjust the aperture. I click again. I re-adjust the shutter speed. I click again. I try the same shot from various angle, in various compositions and various exposures. I take several pictures.

I review them. I like some. I don’t like some others. I load the pictures on my computer. I look at the pictures and I just love them.

I am not a father but now I sort of understand the feeling that a parent might get when he or she sees their new born baby. You look at it and you just love it. There is no condition attached. You didn’t do this for a reward. You did this for the sake of it. You created something out of nothing.

I guess that’s why I love photography.

It is the pure feeling of contentment, of satisfaction, of happiness that I derive when I see the pictures that I have taken. May be they are the worse pictures ever taken in the history of photography - but that does not matter. It is the feeling of being able to create something out of nothing. Being able to capture that one moment that contains within itself several feelings and moods and is not just subject to but is capable of several interpretations depending on the eye that sees them.

I guess that's why I love photography.

Philosphising about Photography

2011-05-20T11:47:00.003+05:30

It is an intriguing subject. It does not occur to most of the people to question what they are doing. They might question whether what they are doing is desirable or not. But to question why you are doing something is a really tough question to answer. I tried to answer this. Whether my answer is a satisfactory one or not is for you to decide.

I found the answer to this question in writings of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He observed in his essay Metaphysics of the Beautiful and Aesthetics that, “… art reveals more to us than any science can, let us contemplate, either in nature or through the medium of art, a beautiful and mobile human countenance full of expression”. Human beings are subject to reason and emotion. While science appeals to our ‘reason’ side, art appeals to our ‘emotional’ side.

In context of poetry, Schopenhauer observed that, “… the poet takes from the endless maze of confusion of human life, incessantly hurrying everywhere, a single scene and often only a mood or feeling, in order then to show us what are the life and true nature of man”. How true this is of photography as well!

About the origin of an artistic idea Schopenhauer observed that, “The origin of the fundamental idea for a work of art has been very appropriately called its conception; for it is the most essential thing just as is procreation to the origin of man; and like this it requires not exactly time, but rather mood and opportunity”. I find it amazing how appropriately the words said before 1860 are applicable to things being done in 2011. A photographer, depending on his mood, can make his pictures say whatever he wants.

Amateur Photography

Why do some people who are not professional photographers spend so much money on such expensive equipment and spend so much time and energy in understanding an activity that they probably will never put to commercial use? In other words, why do we have the class that we call ‘amateur photographers’?

As per Wikipedia, an ‘amateur photographer’, “is one who practices photography as a hobby and not for profit. The quality of some amateur work is comparable to that of many professionals and may be highly specialized or eclectic in its choice of subjects. Amateur photography is often pre-eminent in photographic subjects which have little prospect of commercial use or reward.”

Schopenhauer observes that, “We have the classics of antiquity, that is to say, minds whose writings pass through thousands of years in the undiminished luster and brilliance of youth; and this is due for the most part to the fact that with the ancients the writing of books was not a trade or profession”. The ‘amateur photographer’ takes pictures not with the intent of a financial reward but for its own sake, for his own inner satisfaction. He may or may not share those pictures with others. The ‘classics of antiquity’ that survive beyond ages without losing any ‘luster and brilliance of youth’ are usually the ones that were created for the sake of creation not for as a result of trade or profession.

What happens to works are art that are a ‘result of trade or profession’? Schopenhauer says, “Such pieces soon lie as dead as old calendars, often in the following year. Yet this does not worry those writers, for the appeal to their Muse contains only one prayer: “Give us this day our daily bread”.”

In conclusion I would like to quote the following passage written by Schopenhauer in his essay The Artist and the Sublime, that in my opinion, captures the spirit of an artist –

“In all these remarks, I have sought to make clear the nature and extent of the share which the subjective condition has in aesthetic pleasure, namely the deliverance of knowledge from the service of the will, the forgetting of oneself as individual, and the enhancement of consciousness to the pure, will-less, timeless subject of knowing that is independent of all relations”.

Schopenhauer says that when an external or internal reason “raises us out of the endless stream of willing, and snatches knowledge from the thraldom of the will, the attention is not no longer directed to the motives of the willing, but comprehends things free from their relation to the will”.

Why photography is such a difficult hobby to cultivate?

2011-05-20T10:48:00.002+05:30

This is a tough question. I’ve never given it a lot of though it past but now that I have, I felt like sharing it with you. Look, photography is not exactly a hobby that anyone can pick up. It is more than a hobby really, it is a passion and requires a certain amount of emotional involvemement that, in my opinion, is missing in today's soceity.

The Hurdles

First, it is an expensive hobby. Even an entry level digital single lens reflex (DSLR) costs something in the range of INR 26,000/- and the high ends can cost as much as INR 250,000/- plus. Then you need lenses, filters, tripods, carry bags, flash guns – all sort of equipments. Even if you stick with an entry level DSLR and an 18-200 mm lens you are still looking at a total damage of close to INR 60-70,000/-.

Second, it is complicated. You have to spend time and develop this hobby. Purchasing a DSLR is just the first step. You have to spend time to first understand how your DSLR works. Understanding basic things like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, composition. This also requires money (books, tutorial videos, classes – all sorts of things are available in the market) but more than money, this requires time (which is the most precious commodity of all).

Third, it requires time, a lot of time. You have to spend time doing research before you can buy a DSLR. You can’t just go and buy a camera; you have to find out what kind of camera you want. For this, you have to find out what kind of photography you’d like to do. And all this needs time. Once you know what kind of photography you’d like to do – you have to spend time finding out the right kind of DSLR for you. That needs more time. After you get your DSLR, you have to spend time understanding your machine, which takes more that just a reading of the camera manual! And then you have to work at your hobby and practice – and all this needs more time. And to be honest – people just don’t have enough time these days.

Fourth, it requires persistent effort. After spending a load of money on the equipment (the camera, lenses, filers, tripods etc.) and then taking the time out to understand how these equipments work (which means more money plus time) and then going and practicing (which means more time and energy), you think – what the hell, I spent so much time and money but still I can’t get it right. Several people give up at this stage. While some get back the drawing board and hammers out the details and re-read their books, and re-watch their videos, and look at works of professional photographers and talk to their friends and other photographers and try again.

What makes it difficult?

Photography is a difficult hobby to cultivate. But most artistic hobbies are. You can’t just take an easel and a bunch of oil colours and claim to be a painter. You have to work at it. You have to read about how to draw a good picture – and that too depends, just like photography, on what kind of picture you want to draw. Bertrand Russell has observed that, “No great achievement is possible without persistent work, so absorbing and so difficult that little energy is left over for the more strenuous kinds of amusements, except such as serve to recuperate physical energy during holidays” (The Conquest of Happiness, Unwin Paperbacks 1984, London, p. 49).

Similar is the case with photography. First, you have the financial hurdle which is not very difficult to cross if you plan your finances sensibly. But the second hurdle, of time, is what takes considerable effort to cross and a very many photographing enthusiasts who take up the hobby with a lot of vigour lose their way at this stage. And the third hurdle of persistence (as Russell calls it) is the toughest of all. The ones who cross the second, very many of those lose their way in maze of persistence. We live in a world where everything is fast – from cell phones and internet to food. And we want results fast too. Not in the case of arts. A photographing prodigy is possible – the kind of person who just picks up a camera and can shoot but what are the chances that you and I are prodigies too? Not very good. We, thus, have to be persistent.

This is why photography is a difficult hobby to cultivate. Not because you need a good amount of money to get started, not because you need time, but mostly because you need a certain continued, untiring, persistent effort combined with an emotional attachment that is beyond any reward. You have to do it because you want to and because you get a certain kind of satisfaction out of doing it - you have to do it for its own sake. This pure selfless creative attachment is so rare to see these days.

Why Marriage serves no valuable purpose in life? Part IV

2011-02-15T20:00:00.002+05:30

‘Settling Down’ Argument

Criticism of the Argument – The First Leg

The argument given in favour of ‘settling down’ in life is also as nonsensical as rest of the arguments are. Upon a closer examination I found it to be totally devoid of any logic at all. Do note, that this argument is traditionally, at least in Indian context, offered as applicable to men only.

It is the traditional position in

India

that a man is supposed to settle down after attaining a certain age. The traditional classification of ‘ashrams’ of 25 years is one such instance. First 25 years for education (Brahmacharya Ashram), next 25 years for household life (Grihastha Ashram), next 25 years for retirement (Vanprastha Ashram) and last 25 years for find out god or some such nonsense (Sanyas Ashram).

At the cost of a brief digression, this ashram business is also illogical. I fail to understand any reason why the age is 25 years and not 20 or 30. Second, why exactly one is supposed to ‘enjoy’ the ‘household’ life for 25 years and not beyond that? There are several gaps on this theory.

However, traditional indoctrination that has gone unquestioned and unchallenged in Indian (read Hindu) society for ages and ages rears its ugly head the moment a boy turns 25 or a girl is approaching 25. There are even some schools of thoughts, usually entertained by old women who had not had the benefit of an education, that it is difficult to get a good bridegroom if the girl is 25 years plus of age and it is next to impossible to get a good bridegroom if the girl is close to 28. Note that there are only two criteria for a ‘good’ bridegroom – that the person must be young and that person must be earning well. Both these are vague. The idea of a ‘good’ bridegroom is itself vague.

If you dare ask them the reasons behind this theory – they care not to answer. The only rationality offered is that – my point must be accepted unquestioned because I am old and you are not. Strange would be a lesser word to describe this reasoning, I find it disgusting.

But sometimes they do care to answer that boils down to this – men prefer to take young girls as wives. ‘Young’ means youthful and attractive. Thus girls must be married off when they are young so that the couple (read husband) may ‘enjoy’ the ‘vigour’ of their youth while they are young. Also, younger age is more suitable for child birth. There are several such twisted forms of reasoning that are offered.

Criticism of the Argument – The Second Leg

The second leg of this argument is even more absurd. This says that a person must get married for one to settle down in life. The rationality being that men are by default such creatures that they are incapable of settling down in one place unless they have some anchor in their life. Such an anchor is to be provided by getting them married and forcing them to start a family. When they will have the responsibility to provide for a family they will automatically settle down in life.

Nonsensical to the extreme.

If a person is, by his nature, such a person, that he finds it difficult to stay at one place for a long period of time, to do a particular thing for a considerably long period of time, I am extremely doubtful if marriage is going to change anything.

What would instead happen is this – either he will be pissed that he is being forced to do something(s) that he finds disagreeable (because of his nature) or he will be careless and inattentive to his family because his nature doesn’t allow him to place his family at a priority.

In the first case, he will be angry at his family and will appropriate as the cause of his unhappiness (which is a result of not being able to pursue activities that his nature commands him to) his family and might turn abusive to them.

In the second case, because he decides to pursue activities that his nature commands him to, he might not be abusive to his family but inattentive and careless towards them.

In both cases, the family suffers.

What is the actual position?

These twisted reasons and logics that have been parading unquestioned are created deliberately to mask of the real reason that exists, in my opinion, behind this argument. The reasons are purely economic. Marriage is costly business, at least in Indian society. Girls are regarded as liabilities (that also explains the skewed sex ration – more boys and less girls). The argument is actually this – it is better to marry them off soon. Soon somehow got replaced by young as time elapsed and our intellectually dishonest senior members of society developed nonsensical arguments to justify this. In a society where people who raise questions are looked upon with extreme hatred and anger, nobody dared question these reasons. Constant indoctrination that carried itself over for centuries made these arguments fit into the psyche of the youth in such a way that it never occurs to them to examine critically the rationale behind the poison that they are being fed.

I find this argument outrageous for women as this is nothing but objectifying women and insulting for men. Women don’t love men (and vice versa) because they are young and attractive and have a bunch of money. They might want to sleep with them for that reason. But these are two very different things.

And what about women? Do they prefer the men young or old? There might be some sense is saying that younger women are better placed, physically, to bear children but that is one isolated plausibly sensible thing I’ve come across in this argument.

Generally, the argument is so devoid of reasoning, that if you have failed to see the disconnect till this point, I doubt any amount of articulation further will be of any assistance.

Conclusion

The first leg of the argument is the weakest sort of argument because of the following reason –

1. There is no definition of what ‘settling down’ means at all. There are several components of this argument that are extremely vague (as pointed above).

2. Should one wish to subscribe to this argument, there is no way for one to figure out whether one is ‘settled down’ at any given stage.

3. Even if one assumes, that one is ‘settled down’ by devising one’s own formulation, there is no plausible reason to conclude to ‘settling down’ as an event necessary leads to getting married as a consequent event. This is my primary objection amongst these three.

The second leg of the argument is weak because, as pointed above, the inevitable conclusion is that the family would suffer. Therefore, one would be well advised to carefully study and understand the nature of the person one has decided to get married to. Unfortunately, one of the preliminary objections to the very idea of arranged marriage is that it gives one so little time to study and understand the nature of one partner to the other partner, and in horribly many cases, no time at all.

Why Marriage serves no valuable purpose in life? Part III

2011-02-12T17:38:00.004+05:30

Procreation/Reproduction and therefore the continuation of Species Argument

Criticism of the Argument

It is easy to deal with this argument because this is one that is completely devoid of any logic or reason. Furthermore, this is paraded as one of the most convincing or ‘case closed’ arguments that is usually advanced.

A moment’s reflection will demonstrate this is total nonsense.

Marriage is not required for reproducing children. For that a sexual union of a man and a woman is required. Marriage is required for legitimization of those children which is a totally different thing.

The only purpose marriage serves is that it legitimizes the children by clearly identifying the father and mother of such child. This identification is necessary as a bastard child, in Indian society especially, is subject of great humiliation. The identification is also necessary for assigning the legal and moral responsibility of bringing up such child which falls upon the father and mother and in their absence a guardian. I’ll not go into the details of guardianship here as it is not relevant to this discussion.

Such identification is also necessary to determine who is/are the legal heir(s) of a particular person. This results in clarifying legal doubts and reducing legal problems in the event of death of such a person and succession of property to the legal heir(s). If there is no such formal system of identification that cannot be easily questioned in law, there would be great inconvenience and increase in litigation in maintenance, succession and inheritance matters.

For people who are not initiated in the area of law of evidence and/or evidentiary presumptions – marriage raises two types of legal presumptions. First, are of the sorts that are totally non-rebuttable. Second, are of the sorts that can be rebutted under certain circumstances. Both of these presumptions lead to different legal consequences. For example, the law presumes regarding paternity of a child born in wedlock that such a child was born of such wedlock. However, evidence can be lead to prove otherwise.

No need to discuss several such examples here, because the point is, minus the legal responsibilities that marriage and consequently born children from such marriage, there is no logical purpose for marriage to exist.

What is the actual position?

I submit that the origin of the institution of formal marriage, complete with detailed (and meaningless) rituals coupled with a legal recognition is the direct result of one things only that is a clear assignment of rights and duties regarding paternity that arises as a result of child birth.

If, for one moment, we remove the legal recognition that is visited upon a Hindu Marriage, by the Hindu Marriage Act and remove the legal assumption (some absolutely non-rebuttable and others rebuttable after discharging a very heavy burden of proof), we shall find out that two Hindus might not be married at all, as all assumptions, even in Hindu laws of inheritance and succession (especially intestate succession) necessarily follow from a legally recognized Hindu marriage. If we remove this legal umbrella there is absolutely no reason for two Hindus to be married. (Please note that this hypothetical includes the legal umbrella of not just the current day legal system but also the ancient Shastric/Vedia Hindu law).

Such an exercise can be carried out in all existing legal systems and as we would survey the legal systems of the world we shall find that minus the legal recognition and especially the evidentiary legal presumptions that are a result of marriage, marriage itself serves no logical purpose and devoid of such legal consequences, marriage itself becomes totally irrelevant.

It would thus becomes clear that marriage is required not for reproduction but for legitimizing of children. If there exists a hypothetical society where all these legal rules amount to naught, we shall find that in that society too, men and women shall be living together in family but they would not be calling it ‘marriage’. Therefrom, we would realise that ‘marriage’ in its institutionalized form is an inflated myth that has gone unquestioned for a long time and has resulted in terrible atrocities both physical and mental and on both partners.

Conclusion

If two people genuinely love each other and want to live with each other, they can, and should just go ahead and do it and start living with each other. If they want to celebrate their union by engaging in mindless ritualistic ceremonies, it is their call, but I feel that if two people feel the desire to genuinely be in each other’s company, there is absolutely no requirement for them do a big show-and-dance to declare to the entire world by engaging in an obscene and unnecessary display of wealth. Again, it is their call and none of my business and I don’t say that they don’t a right to do that. I am only saying that in my opinion and for the reasons given above, I think that not just it is illogical and unreasonable, it is also unnecessary.

(To be continued)

Why Marriage serves no valuable purpose in life? Part II

2011-02-10T17:08:00.000+05:30

The problem with the Companionship Argument

Criticism of the Argument

Marriage is nothing but forced companionship; especially so in case of arranged marriage.

In case a marriage is being arranged between two people (of course of opposite sex), you will be well advised to do a brief survey in your family alone and find out how much time was given to the couple to get to know each other. After all, you are supposed to live with each other for the rest of your lives, have sex, get intimate, share every single thing, and bear children – it would only make sense for two people to ‘know’ whether they are compatible.

Inadequate, I am sure, is certainly not the right word to describe such time given but for the want of a better adjective I’ll use it. Elders say that they will have plenty of time to ‘know’ each other and ‘fall in love’ after marriage. But how can that be acceptable if the same elders accept that ‘some’ time must be given to the couple to ‘know’ each other before marriage. The argument is self contradictory by the conduct of the elders.

However, there are several elders who say that ‘knowing’ each other happens after marriage and is not necessary for it. When asked about ‘love’ they are too ashamed or embarrassed to answer and say that these are things young people are not supposed to and/or expected to discuss with elders. In case they are certainly discourage to ask this question. And yet these are the same elders who sing songs in praise of Lord Krishna and his girlfriend Radha as idols – two idols who were never married. Again, self contradictory by conduct and reason both.

In practice, the couple is supposed to ‘know’ and ‘fall in love’ after marriage, however a certain ‘knowing about’ is acceptable (even necessary in some cases) which includes mostly financial details.

What is the actual position?

I submit that companionship/love and marriage are two very different things and one does not and should not necessarily lead to the other. All those who think that marriage is a consequence of two people falling in love are as hopelessly indoctrinated as the ones who think marriage is just something that must do – like going to the temple and praying – you must do it without asking any question because you are not allowed to question it.

Even if it is assumed that companionship/love is a strong reason for one to get married, the reasoning is flawed. One of the necessary requirements for companionship/love is voluntary participation of both partners. You cannot be forced to love anyone. You can, however, be forced to be in company of anyone by several methods. Further you can yourself decide to be in company of someone for several reasons though you really don’t want to. The difference is between consent and will.

Absence of one’s consent obviously includes absence of will on one’s part, though that is not the case the other way around. When there is an element of visible force of some sort involved it is said to be against consent, which is by default against will. But when you are forced to give your consent, the thing is still against your will.

Now a marriage which is a result of companionship that is obtained either without consent or against the will is not a marriage because if one of the partners or both are not willing to be in company of each other, for whatever reason, their matrimonial union is a fraud, not just on them and their families, but on the entire society as it sets an unacceptably wrong precedent.

And even if you are in the company of someone, you cannot get comfortable with and enjoy the company of a person who is forced to be in your company. The reverse is also true.

It would apposite to clarify that ‘forced’ does not mean only physical force, though that might be an element very much in play. ‘Force’ i.e. absence of free will, in such cases is the result of ‘pressure’ that applies itself to its subject is several ways – pressure from family (immediate and extended) is the strongest one, peer pressure could be a valid factor. But most of all it is the pressure exerted by the subject him or herself on him or herself – the years of indoctrination have a way of corrupting the mental system.

Boys and girls, especially in India, are brought up with a constant dose of indoctrination that marriage is a necessary consequence of certain factors – when such factors are present, marriage must necessarily follow and there is no reason to think otherwise. This indoctrination works in ways and means so insidious that it isn’t even seen as such, while it should be seen as such. This, I submit, is a very important factor in ‘pressure’ that a person in Indian set up might feel to get married and start a family, even though he or she him or herself might be acutely aware that they are physically/intellectually/financially or otherwise not ready or prepared to start a family.

It is this ‘force’ that works in conjunction with other ‘forces’ that saps the ability of a person to exercise free will. I would submit that if a survey is conducted, in an overwhelming large number of cases it would be discovered that, first, the couple did not exercise free will (in its voluntary sense – total absence of outside force in any sense) while deciding whether or not they should be in company of each other, and second, that it was not the couple who made the decision to be in companionship in the first place.

Finally, I submit, that marriage as a guarantor of companionship is a myth that has been perpetuated for centuries and has gone unquestioned. There is no need for a couple to be in a status of matrimony to be in companionship of each other. They can just live with each other and discharge towards each other the responsibilities that married partners are supposed or expected to discharge and such a couple might be equally or more happy as compared to a matrimonial couple. Such couples have now been legally recognized by the Parliament and the Supreme Court and are called ‘Live In Relationships’ or ‘Relationship in the nature of marriage’.

Conclusion

Therefore, I would conclude, that –

For two people (opposite or same sex) to be in company of each other and for them to enjoy such company, there is no logical requirement for such two people to be married. Companionship is a concept that is separate from and exists independent of marriage and one has got nothing to do with each other.

The sort and type of companionship that is guaranteed by marriage is a forced companionship. Some times such force and be real and actual and in nature of physical force and other times such force is indirect and oblique – a result of years of indoctrination. In either case, any companionship that is procured by force and which is lacking free will is not worth enjoying. Worst is the sort of companionship that is financially procured.

(To be continued)

Why Marriage serves no valuable purpose in life? Part I

2011-02-09T22:26:00.001+05:30

The Traditional Arguments in favour of marriage

This article published in The Hindu (February 06, 2011) forced me to organize and record my thoughts on marriage, upon which I have been reflecting for a long period of time now.

I am, now, personally convinced that marriage serves no valuable purpose in the life of a human being. To a greater extent, I believe, marriage is like religion. It serves no valuable and useful purpose, it increases problems and unnecessary complexities, it ties down and destroys human potential and it perpetuates unnecessary suffering.

I further believe that it is absolutely unnecessary for a person to get married and the only reasons why he or she decides to and indeed does get married are social, religious, financial or otherwise but in an over whelming majority of cases this decision is not voluntary. Sometimes even the person making this decision is not aware that he is at an unconscious or a subconscious level being subjected to force.

In the course of this and next several posts I propose to examine all arguments that I have found in favour of marriage and show that all these arguments are flawed and marriage serves no valuable purpose in a human life and as such there exists no reason for a person to get married.

Consider for a moment, the following observation of the author in the article I have cited above –

What I would expect from a marriage is that I be comfortable with the person I would be betrothed to for life. Being with a stranger in a country totally unknown to me is possible only in the wildest of my dreams. Therefore, I would rather get to know the guy well before I commit myself to living with him than get to know his parents. And by knowing the guy, I do not mean knowing about his degrees and salary and lineage. To me, that is only secondary. What is of prime importance is, as I said earlier, my comfort level with the person. It was too hard for me to accept the fact that I was going to be evaluated by them whether or not was I worthy of their son. And my parents agreed with me.

Emphasis Added

Sounds familiar? I bet it does.

Traditionally, I have come to realize, the following are the broad heads under which the arguments given in favour of marriage can be categorized –

1. Need or requirement of Companionship

Every human being requires companionship in life. Marriage guarantees companionship and love without which a human being cannot live a satisfying life. Therefore it is important that all human beings get married for marriage is the only way companionship is guaranteed.

2. Procreating/Reproduction and therefore the continuation of species

For continuation of species reproduction is necessary. Reproduction is a result of sexual union of a male and a female. Marriage is that institution that is required for such a sexual union. Therefore, one must get married because species must be continued.

3. Need or requirement to ‘settle down’ in life

One must, after a ‘certain age’, ‘settle down’ in life. Settling down comprise, primarily of, having a steady source of income, a house to live in and a matrimonial partner. Thus once a person attains a ‘certain age’, such person has to settle down. (Now the argument gets strange).

One argument is that one must settle down because settling down in important or necessary or both. A logical consequence of such settling down is necessarily matrimony.

The other argument is that one must get married and once one is married one shall be forced to settle down in life and one would be required to provide for the family that one has started (or perhaps has been forced to start!). Basically this argument is used for men who won't settle down in life and it is said that marrying such men off is a good way to ensure that they settle down.

4. One has attained a ‘marriageable age’ thus one must get married

By far one of the most stupid argument is this one. This goes something like this –

There is a ‘marriageable age’ (which has no precise definition but is between 24-28 years for an average Indian male or 22-26 years for an average Indian female). Once such ‘marriageable age’ has been attained, marriage is a necessary consequence. Parents actually plan their finances and retirement etc. keeping in mind when their children might attain such marriageable age.

5. One has attained a ‘marriageable status’ thus one must get married

This one is quite similar to the above argument, only this is vaguer. This says that there is a certain ‘marriageable status’ (which is even more loosely defined) and once such status or level has been achieved marriage is a necessary consequence.

I must confess that there are the only arguments that I have come across. If any one has any other arguments that fit any other category totally or if I have missed an argument that can be fit in one of these categories, please do feel free to email me or leave a comment so that I may examine that one too. You never know, there might be something rational to justify marriage somewhere.

Why these arguments are totally bullshit?

(To be continued)

Dr. Sen is not guilty. Just like Manu Sharma was guilty.

2011-01-01T13:00:00.000+05:30

A few years back in Manu Sharma case, the trial court acquitted him and we all cried he is guilty. The candle light vigils and the protests marches rocked New Delhi. The judge was condemned and the prosecution was condemned. Ram Jethmalani came back from self imposed retirement to defend Manu Sharma. All sorts of theories were made and advanced.

A few days back in Dr. Sen's case, the trial court convicted him and we are now crying he is not guilty. The candle light vigils are on again, the protest marches are on full swing. The judge has been condemend and the prosecution is being condemned. Somehow, nobody seems to be saying anything about possible incompetence of defense lawyers, but that is a topic for another day. All sorts of theories are being devised and advanced.

Difference is that this time we say it is travesty of justice becaue an 'innocent' and respected member of the community has been 'wrongly' convicted and last time around it was because an obviously 'guilty' and not so respected member of the community was wrongly acquitted.

Similarity is that in both these case, we don't know the first thing about what happened in the trial court. In both these cases, we have made up our mind that so-and-so was guilty and so-and-so is not for such-and-such reasons. In both these case, we, as a society, have shown a great disrespect and disregard for the higher judiciary. We have publically shouted out lout till our lungs won't have it, that we don't have any confidence in the judiciary - higher or lower.

We are the judge.

We are the jury.

We will decide.

And we will punish.

Fuck the Courts - to hell and back - and over again.

Public Relations and one's ability to swing public opinion in one's favour seems to be more important. Supreme Court and the Law Commission of India have regularly and severely condemned such trial by media. And yet we seem have made up our mind that without this sort of media trial, the courts might just decide the other way.

The popular idea seems to be that without a strong current of public opinion in favour of one theory the higher courts might just confirm the decision of the trial court that we 'think' is wrong for whatever reasons.

Sad it is indeed that this is the amount of confidence we have in judiciary - higher or lower.

Alexis de Tocqueville said that, "It is a strange thing what authority the opinion of mankind generally accords to the intervention of courts. It clings even to the mere appearance of justice long after the substance has evaporated; it lends bodily form to the shadow of law".

What great words! And how completely meaningless they seem to be becoming!! And how quickly!!!

Legislature used to be a body made of men of highest character and knowledge. Those days are gone and are not going to return.

Executive used to be composed of men of great integrity and ability. Those days are almost gone and soon will run out.

Legislature used to be made of the best of the best men - the one's that used to do the previous two categories proud. Those days are running out fast.

When did this happen? It doesn't matter I guess when it happened, because it has happened. Soon the days of democracy are going to run out. I guess we must prepare ourselves to punish our Manu Sharma's and ensure safety of our Dr. Sen's ourselves because the 'State' certainly seems to have failed us.

The Immortals of Meluha - Book Review Part III (Last Part)

2010-12-07T20:23:00.003+05:30

In continuation of the previous post...

This is the final part of the three part book review! I figured - the book I am reviewing, is going to be written in three parts - so it sounded sort of fun to break my review in three parts per book.

Book Review (III Part)

The Immortals of Meluha

Swadeep – the land of the condemned?

And then we have Swadeep – nothing less than the land of the condemned. However, a confederacy where a sovereign is free to run his part of the federal State the way he thinks fit. Where people have basic freedoms that we call human rights/fundamental rights today. Or at least seem to be. The residents of Swadeep argue persuasively , although not much is devoted to those arguments - that theirs is a better State then the authoritarian Meluha. What happens to this society – some get rich, some stay poor. There is chaos in the society.

Of course there will be chaos, when people are allowed freedoms of speech, profession, assembly etc. The point seems to be there is chaos – chaos is evil – therefore Swadeep is evil – therefore destroy it.

The protagonist, Shiva, at the end, questions the sensibility of this reasoning himself when he says that the Swadeepans are not evil, they are just different. And he is exposed, then, to something I personally found very confusing. The reasoning goes something like this – of course they are not evil. Just like Demons are not evil and Gods not necessarily holy. The learned Brahmin, with whom Shiva is conversing tells Shiva – if you read a book about Demons by Gods what can you expect to find in it? Well, where does this reasoning leads us?

And raises a very interesting question – forces us to question the traditional wisdom, for not many of us have examined the other side of the argument. Demons might be just different, not necessarily evil. However, not much discussion/dialogue is devoted to this theme. Perhaps in the next part of the novel on which the author is said to be working!

And then in the end something happens, that happens with Neo is the middle of The Matrix Reloaded – The One finally figures out the real path he is supposed to treat. Shiva, the destroyer, is told that he is not the destroyer of evil. Well what exactly is he then? And if he is not supposed to destroy evil, what was the point of the whole story?

Perhaps we will find the answer in second part of this book, on which the book jacket says, the author is currently working. Makes commercial sense too.

The Immortals of Meluha - Book Review Part II

2010-12-07T20:16:00.002+05:30

In Continuation of the Previous Post...

Book Review (Part II)

The Immortals of Meluha

Meluha – the best society ever created – or is it?

But what I was not able to accept was the way the good life of Meluhans has been projected. If I were to describe the Meluhan State in current day terms of a common man, it would be totally undemocratic, authoritarian, with centrally controlled planning, execution and enforcement machinery. The citizens have no freedoms, only rights and duties – and even those are rationed/allotted by the State after a rigorous examination process that nobody is allowed to either examine or question. Practically no body knows what goes on in the 'examination process'.

All members of the society are very clearly aware of their rights, responsibilities and duties and follow them to the letter. There is rule of law everywhere. The society has reached the top of civilization where no body is hungry and everybody contributes all they can according to their skills and take all that they need.

Sounds like Soviet Russia, Communisms and Socialism and all those scare words? Exactly. Well there was a time when this central planning business worked. It lasted for about 30 years. Hitler’s central planning, that he prophesized would last for a 1,000 years, lasted for about 10.

And the most repulsive of the ideas is members of the society bearing children out of a sense of duty! Meluha is a society where even the right to bear children is controlled by the State and people reproduce only because of a sense of duty and give away their children to a State run facility that will first identify their skills and then allot them castes befitting their skills – from Brahmin to Shudra. Lord Ram was the genius who created this system and it has been working find for many years. And because Lord Ram was created, it has to be the best and cannot be questioned. And remember Lord Ram is not a God as per the story, he was just a great good King.

And this is the author’s idea of a perfect society. Even in the worst of the times humanity has faced, Hitler’s Third Reich seems to be only time that comes close to this morality.

But remember, this is only a novel.

To be concluded in the next part...

The Immortals of Meluha - Book Review Part I

2010-12-07T20:11:00.001+05:30

Book Review (Part I)

The Immortals of Meluha

This was the first book of its kind that I have ever read. This book takes historical facts, Hindu mythological stories and the ancient Hindu geography and creates a story around it, that is pleasing to read. But I would submit that the story has more to it than just the pleasure that comes from reading a thriller. At the least, I would say, that there were certain strange similarities that I found with current world fact and fiction, that may or may not have occurred to the author, but in all probability they did.

I would put this novel in what I have termed ‘Historical Fiction’ category. The most prominent one in this category would of course by ‘The Da Vinci Code’, though many would challenge my presumption of The Da Vinci Code being ‘fiction’. Another one in that category might be ‘The Rule of Four’. However, just because I’ve put them in a category, does not mean ‘The Immortals’ and ‘The Code’ can be compared. There is absolutely no comparison. By some standards ‘The Immortals’ seemed to be in the category of ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ or ‘Harry Potter’ but, in my opinion, there are two fundamental differences. First, Narnia and Harry Potter are both total fiction and they are both children fantasies. ‘The Immortals’ doesn’t qualify on both of these criteria, however, if someone one day decided to make a movie based on ‘The Immortals’, the scope for fantasy would be a director’s delight.

The Story

(No Spoilers - at least not according to me!!)

‘The Immortals’ has a simple story line. Shiva is the leader of Guna tribe of Tibet and his tribe is under constant threat, but he is sick and tired of constant fighting and starts questioning the point of these constant battles and concludes that the fighting is pointless and decides to move to the kingdom/state of Meluha – the near perfect state created thousands of years before by Lord Ram. The very antithesis of this perfect state Meluha (land of Suryavanshis) is Swadeep - land of Chandravanshis - full of misery and loot and corruption and all the bad things that you can dream of. And now with the help of the super-duper evil Nagas (imagine 'The Immortals' of the movie 300 - dirty looking, ugly-evil, strange warriors who have many physical deformities but somehow are excellent at battle!), the Swadeepans are hell bent to destroy Meluhan and everything it represents.

Shiva then reaches Meluha where it is discovered that he is the appointed saviour of the mankind for whom the Meluhans have been searching for many-many years. And now that they have found their saviour, the Meluhans are eager to attack, their rivals, Swadeepans, and destroy the threat to Meluhan civilization (posed by Swadeepans) for ever.

The battle lines are drawn and it is quite clear that the Meluhans are the good guys and the Swadeepans are the bad guys. The good guys have now the divine power by their side. The war takes place. No prizes for guessing who wins. But something happens at the end, something terrible happens to Lord Shiva, and that is to be continued in the next part of the book.

Some Inconsistencies

(The ones who have read the book will instantly understand, the one's who have not, please read slowly and the points will sink in)

The first one of course is, why does a leader who had concluded that war is not serving any purpose decides to lead one of the fiercest and decisive battles between the Meluhan-Suryavanshis and the Swadeepan- Chandravanshis is a question that seems to be left unanswered.

The middle of the story, where Meluhans find Shiva, sounds a bit like Morpheus finding Neo in the Matrix, for whom they have been searching for many-many years who will lead them to victory against the Machine World? Yeah, it does, but it takes a bit to realize the striking similarities between ‘The Matrix’ and ‘The Immortals’.

However, we must keep in mind that in every story where a messiah is promised to come for to assist/lead the good men when good men themselves are not sufficient to find the evil men, one is bound to find such similarities. The similarity itself is meaningless; it can be found in very many novels that are written on the same theme. The message however is clear – the good men are not sufficient to fight the evil men unless they get some divine/superhuman assistance. As the author observes in the starting of the story, ‘Good behaviour does not necessarily begets good behaviour’.

And what might sound like unfair criticism, why in the name of all things holy and sacred, are the evil looking, physically deformed, human-flesh-eating, dangerous-poisonous-teeth bearing, near-human creatures are always excellent in battle?

To be continued...

The Scourge of Adjournments – Part I

2010-06-23T12:04:00.000+05:30

Interim Orders and Adjournment Specialist Lawyers

It is obvious how deeply the system of ‘adjournments’ has plagued our judiciary. Not just lawyers (young and old) but also the common public also knows this. This is one of those truisms that needs no support of any authority – statistical or otherwise.

Right from trial court level all the way up to the Supreme Court, adjournments are the major cause for delays. But how often do we hear the Law Minister (or for that matter any minister), the Attorneys General, the Solicitor General or any other law officer of the Government of India discussing a solution to this problem?

We hear all the time about making new courts, making new laws, amending old laws and all such assorted criminal waste of pubic time and money. But not one policy measure, or a policy decision being aggressively undertaken to rid the judiciary of the problem of adjournments! I hardly ever hear any opposition party in the Parliament raising this question and asking the Government what they have done to solve this one very obvious problem.

Why? Let’s see.

The title of this post is borrowed from an interview bearing the same title, of Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee. Upon being asked about the problem of adjournments in Indian judiciary, Mr. Sorabji expressed his, dare I say, indignation on this problem that is plaguing our judiciary. In words of Mr. Sorabjee –

“I know if I say something I’ll be very unpopular; people may even try to assault me. We must be brought under the Consumer Protection Act. Why should lawyers be exempt? I know what happens…

“He’s in Paris, he’s in Geneva, he’s in London!! Case is called on 15^th of February and they say My Lord can we have it in June? Utter Nonsense! These adjournments are a curse. I’ve been to judges too – don’t give adjournments at the drop of a hat. I’m not saying be unreasonable. In real cases only where some accident has happened or there’s been a death in the family.

“There are certain counsels in Delhi High Court who are known as adjournment counsel. See once you get a stay order and then you get it adjourned the stay order continues and the client is very happy.”

Emphasis Added

This last sentence has hidden within itself the motivation and reasons behind causing adjournments and subscribing to dilatory practices by lawyers, and if it is any consolation, their clients as well. And the same observation has been expressed by many other ‘elders’ in the legal profession.

Consider, for example, what Justice S.S. Sodhi says about this in his book The Other Side of Justice[1] (in which he provides an autobiographical account of his service as a judge and later the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court).

Commenting on a problem that has gripped the second tier of appellate courts in

India

(i.e. various State High Courts), Justice Sodhi observes[2] –

“…the emphasis was more on dealing with the interim relief claimed than on deciding the main case itself. This logjam, in turn, led to one of the main safeguards of our judicial system being disregarded, namely, the order passed being supported by valid reasons.

“Incidentally, such a system of functioning seemed to suit lawyers, particularly those for the petitioners. With grant of interim relief being virtually the invariable rule, lawyers were happy as it built up their credibility with their clients… while for some judges it provided an easy mode of work in that all they had to do was to just pass a short cryptic order without the necessity of providing valid reasons to support it.”

Emphasis Added

I submit here that these remarks were made in context of the Allahabad High Court but if one compares what Mr. Sorabjee says in his interview (quoted above), the problem seems to be the same, the reasons and even the motivation seems to be the same.

Justice Sodhi then makes the same remarks with respect to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court where the lawyers also try to make sure that the Interim Orders are held up for as long as possible[3] –

“Apparently the trend was as follows: as a measure of interim relief to the petitioner before notice had been served upon the opposite party, the judge would grant a stay or an injunction for a limited period, of say, four to six weeks. The idea was that, in the meantime, the opposite party would come to know of such an order and further orders would be passed only after hearing both parties. This was no doubt a laudable objective, but by no means realistic.

“As is well known, once a party has obtained a stay order or an injunction in its favour, notice of it being served upon the opposite party is often deliberately delayed… Inevitably, an extension of the stay order or injunction, as the case may be, would have to be sought. Deliberately, at the fag end of the day and not earlier, counsel would approach the judge and ask for an extension of the interim relief granted to them. In a situation where the daily workload of judges was obviously beyond their capacity to cope with, on any one working day, not surprisingly, they were constrained to extend the interim relief granted. In due course, a stage was reached when judges began to ask counsel to write down the particulars of their cases and hand them over to the court reader. The court reader would then write on the file a formal order extending the period for which the interim relief had been granted. The judges would sight this order after retiring to their chambers.”

Emphasis Added

Same practice, same reasons, same motivations!!

In his book[4] Justice, Courts and Delays (that I have cited in one of my previous posts as well), Senior Advocate Arun Mohan observes that, “In our courts, obtaining adjournments has become an important feature. There are a few lawyers who earn for themselves the title of ‘adjournment specialists’ or even ‘experts’ at obstruction and delay[5]”.

But why do lawyers engage in such despicable practices?

According to Mr. Mohan, 60% of the suits are such that have absolutely no defence; about 10% claims are false; about 10% speculative; and rest 20% are the ones in which the decision rests on evidence that reaches (or does not reaches) the court and the view the court takes of the law[6]. Relying on this estimate, Mr. Mohan concludes that lawyers and clients alike engage in such practices because they know that the defence that they have advanced in a case would not succeed and therefore the adjudication should be obstructed and delayed[7].

Also, the delaying tactics are used to make the prosecution/defence of a case for the opposite party extremely expensive, therefore forcing the opposite party to settle the case. In words of Mr. Mohan, “The profitability from delays as also the building up of ‘pressure’ on the other by reasons of delays are the motivating factors behind most of the adjournments[8].”

And what about the public at large and the system?

Mr. Mohan estimates that the value of the court’s productive time lost on adjournments is about Rs. 1800 Crore per year. The cost of adjournments to the litigants involved (i.e. the public) is about Rs. 5000 Crore every year[9]. Mr. Mohan also estimates that out of every 100 adjournments that are sought, 60 are deliberately caused, 30 are due to negligence and only 10 are such that have been accepted as inevitable or permissible[10].

And before anyone starts criticising these estimates please note what the Law Commission of India has observed in the 230^th Report of Law Commission - “…we just don’t have enough scientific data about the cases that clog the dockets” (para 1.60).

This is a criminal waste of time and public resources. Judiciary exists for serving the public, and not for serving lawyers or judges. The judiciary is accountable to public, and it is the duty of the Courts to decide cases expeditiously – and it is the duty of each one of us to facilitate and not obstruct the judicial process[11]. When judiciary fails in this duty the public confidence in the justice system wanes. For how long are we prepared to accept this?

And what do we conclude from this?

I leave it to you to make your conclusion, but what I conclude is what is ‘apparent on the face of it’ – that lawyers and judges alike have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Are there solutions to this problem? Yes there are. I will be touching upon some of them in coming posts. But then why are they not being implemented. I don’t know. Only the government can answer this question.

[1] Justice S.S. Sodhi, The Other Side of Justice (New Delhi: Hay House India, 2007)

[2] Ibid pp. 127, 128

[3] Ibid p. 144

[4] Arun Mohan, Justice, Courts and Delays Volume 2 (New Delhi: Arun Mohan, Universal, 2009), p. 1763

[5] Ibid p. 1763

[6] Ibid p. 1761

[7] Ibid p. 1762

[8] Ibid p. 1764

[9] Ibid p. 1772

[10] Ibid p. 1739

[11] Ibid p. 1769

The Certain Death of Indian Judiciary - A Rejoinder

2010-06-22T18:31:00.000+05:30

Fali Nariman's recently released autobiography 'Before Memory Fades' has been in news recently. In this interview given to The Times of India (published June 20, 2010) Mr. Nariman talks about his autobiography, his role in the controversial Union Carbide (Bhopal) case, amongst other things.

Last thursday I made my customary weekly visit to the library-cum-bookshop I frequent. Right there sat Mr. Nariman's autobiography on the 'recently-released' shelf. I make it a point to go through the table of contents and read the front and back flap and introduction (if possible) before I buy a book or get it issued. I did none of this when I saw 'Before Memory Fades'. When Mr. Nariman tells his story, one listens. And listened I did. Very carefully.

In one of my previous posts, I had written that in India, the Judiciary is "...the only institution that still has a semblance of working". I still maintain that out of the three Constitutional institutions - the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary - it is only the Judiciary in which the common public still has faith. In a conversation that I recently had with a small time shop owner[1], a person whose shop I have now been visiting for a few years now, clearly told me that the only institution he still has faith upon is the Courts.

He said, causing much pain to my heart, that judges in Courts are also corrupt, but at least the ones in the High Courts and the Supreme Court are not corrupt. He said, the police (by which he meant the authority figures of the Executive) might harass people but once the matter goes to the Courts, they have to answer. I found this to be remarkably consistent Transparency International's 2007 Global Corruption Report I had quoted in a previous post. This man made exactly the same observations as did the said report - this man cannot read english, he has no access to a computer and internet and even if he did he would not know how to use them. I found this to be scary!

In Chapter 15 titled ‘Judicial Governance and Judicial Activism’, of his autobiography, Mr. Nariman makes some rather astute observations in which, dare I say, I found vindication, when I found that I was thinking on the same lines as one of the great Constitutional lawyers who ever walked the corridors of the Supreme Court of India.

That the Judiciary is the most important of all three Constitutional Institution and in fact the only institution out of the three that still is respected by the common public and which the common man can still repose his trust – I find support for this idea in Mr. Nariman’s following observations –

“If rule of law is the rule by judges… and the rule by law is the rule of elected representatives in Parliament without any possibility of that rule being questioned by the judicial arm of the state, I for one can confidently say that I would prefer to live under a rule-of-law dispensation rather than under a rule-by-law.”

“… in the post-Emergency period when both courts and Parliament said that Article 21 – life and liberty clause – can never be suspended and it is, I believe, by this single act of Parliament (when it amended our Constitution to provide that the right to life and liberty could never be suspended even during an Emergency) that has given supremacy to the judicial branch of government over all other branches.”

Emphasis Added

“In effect, a large number of Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Part IV of our Constitution, which have not been declared by the Constitution to be enforceable in any court (but nonetheless fundamental to the governance of the country), have now been made enforceable by courts through the wide and liberal interpretation of Article 21 – a feat of judicial engineering un-matched in any other part of the world.”

“I do not subscribe to the view that there has to be a necessarily a ‘balance of power’ maintained between the three organs of the state. But I am definitely of the view that judicial power, howsoever defined, cannot be trenched on either by Parliament or state legislatures or by the executive at the Centre or in the states.”

Mr. Nariman observes that, “There is hardly any provision where the court’s scrutiny or jurisdiction is excluded. Yes, there are articles in our Constitution (they are few) where courts are not permitted to question what goes on in Parliament, and in turn Parliament is not permitted to discuss or debate the conduct of sitting judges. But that’s about all.” By specifically mentioning Articles 32, 226 and 227 he very clearly answers a question almost all law students ask – Is Parliament supreme or the Supreme Court? – Mr. Nariman settles the controversy by stating that, “Whether politicians like it or not, these Articles do give primacy to the judges”.

Answering a logical question that must follow, Mr. Nariman says, “As to when judicial power should trump legislative and executive action, and when if at all parliamentary power can or should trump judicial power, the only truthful answer is : it all depends. It all depends on public acceptability of court decisions in high profile cases… But in a Westminster type Constitution like ours it is never so defined.”

Mr. Nariman then goes to address another related question – when there are no judicially manageable standards instead of interfering, shouldn’t the judges leave it to elected representatives of the people to take decision?

To ask the question in another way – what happens to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers? To what extent the Judiciary is allowed to interfere in Parliament’s and Executive’s working? This is also an important question.

The answer to this question is to be found in the following passages –

“Since 1950, 14 general elections to the Lok Sabha have been held and with all the publicity that is given to proceedings in Parliament, ordinary people – people who have voted their elected representatives into Parliament, remain today generally unsatisfied as to how members of our Parliament and also members of legislative assemblies function, if and when they function at all… There is something wrong somewhere.”

“I suggest that the ‘judicial over-reach’… is the direct consequence of legislative and executive ‘under-reach’ i.e. poor performance in the making of laws and particularly in their execution… politicians need doubly to introspect and ask themselves whether they have fulfilled the aspirations of the people who elected them to make laws for the people and help alleviate their problems.”

“If judges are to get off the backs of the parliamentarians, politicians and bureaucrats – who claim the direct right to govern on the basis of the adult franchise – they must come up with a much better record of performance.”

On the inability of politicians to do the ‘right’ thing because of political pressure and lack of political will (to which I dare add, most of the times, the inability to ascertain what the ‘right’ thing to is in the first place), Mr. Nariman has following to say –

“I vividly recall what Swaran Singh – India’s foreign minister in Indira Gandhi’s government – said during the dark days of the Internal Emergency of June 1975. He was appointed chairman of the Constitution Committee which included three prominent practising lawyers, and their specific mandate was to clip the wings of the high courts by proposing amendments to Article 226 – the great searchlight provision in our Constitution… Swaran Singh told his colleagues that when he was himself a minister in the Punjab Government, he found that as a minister it was just not possible to render justice in individual cases because of the pressures and pulls of party politics, and that it was far better that courts were left to do the job.”

Emphasis Added

After reading this, and now reproducing this for all the read and comment, I doubt there is any doubt left, why the Judiciary is an extremely important part of Indian Democracy. It is the Judiciary that is the only working institution that still inspires public confidence. However, for reasons that I have written about in previous posts and would continue to write in future, this confidence is breaking.

If Indian Democracy is to be preserved then the Judiciary has to be saved and it has to be saved fast. Otherwise, what we will see in our times and what we will leave for the coming generation would be anarchy where there would be no law, nobody to make the laws, nobody to enforce and nobody to enforce and guard it.

[1] I have a habit of going and conversing with the people who form the masses - the small time shop owners, the panwadis, the rickshaw pullers, the tea-stall owners, the local insurance-agent - people like these who constitute the majority of Indian masses. For I have found out that intellectual conversations held in the company of learned elites does not actually provide one with a clear picture of what the common man really thinks. Besides this poor common man keeps things simple – it is much easier to understand what is really happening when one cuts out the fancy terms and nonsensical theories.

The Curse of Interlocutory Applications

2010-06-15T10:52:00.001+05:30

The 230^th Report of Law Commission on Reforms in Judiciary, the Law Commission on page 16 (para 1.23) observes that, "Judiciary today is more deserving of public confidence than ever before. The judiciary has a special role to play in the task of achieving socio-economic goals enshrined in the Constitution while maintaining their aloofness and independence. Judges have to be aware of the social changes in the task of achieving socio-economic justice for the people".

In his recently published book Justice, Courts and Delays, Senior Advocate Arun Mohan has written lucidly about what I have previously termed ‘Inefficient Judicial Practices’ (or IJPs).

One of the major problems identified as causing huge backlog and delays is Interlocutory Applications (or IAs), sometimes also called Civil Miscellaneous Applications (CMAs) or just CMs.

IAs have been the subject of gross misuse serving as a convenient mode for causing delays. It has been observed that more than 50% of the IAs that are moved are either wholly unnecessary or could have been moved much earlier – moved in either case with the sole object of scuttling the hearing.

IAs are a convenient modus of causing obstructions. These are so many in number and consume so much time and energy that sometimes it is only the IAs that receive attention and not the main suit or other substantive proceedings.

Moving an IA shortly before the hearing or even on the day of the hearing without serving an advance copy on the opposing counsel is a common cause of adjournments[1]. Time is sought to file reply to the IA and then time is sought to file a rejoinder to the reply. The IAs and the replies are generally poorly drafted and badly structured – often lengthy and repetitive of pleadings. The rejoinders are repetitive and unnecessary. A times, the IAs do not even state who has filed them.

It has also been observed that about 45% of the IAs do not even need a reply; in 50% of the cases the replies may be filed and may not be; and only in 5% cases a reply must be filed. Out of these 5 in 100 cases where reply is to be filed, only 3 would require a rejoinder[2].

As a remedial measure, it has been suggested that the court fee for filing IAs must be increased. In addition costs must be awarded for filing frivolous applications; delayed but justified applications; opposing a justified application; and then opposing a delayed application on grounds other than delay[3].

[1] Arun Mohan, Justice, Courts and Delays Volume 2 (New Delhi: Arun Mohan, Universal, 2009), p. 1751

[2] p. 1753

[3] p. 1755

The Problem of Corruption and Delays in Indian Judiciary

2010-06-14T12:30:00.007+05:30

Ex-Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrisnan recently observed an interview that in his opinion corruption is not a major threat to the judiciary. Answering a question about his tenure as a judge he remarked that –

“By and large, at least in the Supreme Court there is no corruption. At the High Court level, we receive some complaints without any details; but if we want to probe, they will not come forward. Regarding lower judiciary, in some of the states it is a problem. We can't say corruption is not there at all; some may be susceptible. But these are only minor aberrations… But I don't think corruption is a major threat to the judiciary.”

Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’. A corrupt judiciary, says TI, “… diminishes trade, economic growth and human development and most importantly, it denies citizens impartial settlement of disputes… judicial corruption not only maintains social segregation but also fundamentally violates human rights by jeopardizing due process of law”.

TI also recognizes that corruption in judiciary is to be found right from small time bribes asked by Court Clerks to bribing the judicial offices or judges level to political interference in judicial process by government.

In 2007 Global Corruption Report (the Report), TI brought together scholars, legal professional and civil society activists from around the world to examine how, why and where corruption mars the judicial process. The report observes that the upper judiciary in

India

is relatively clean.

The Report notes that there is a high level of discretion in the processing of paperwork when court clerks, prosecutors and police investigators can misuse their power without discovery. The report estimates that a total of Rs. 2,630 Crores (US $ 580 million) are paid in bribes to the Indian Judiciary every year. The report cites a TI-India conference on ‘Delays and Corruption in Indian Judicial System and Matters Relating to Judicial Reforms’ conducted in New Delhi, 18-19 December 1999 that says that at current disposal rate it would take another 350 years for disposal of all pending cases if no other cases were added. The obvious results of all this, as noted by the report are, erosion of confidence in the judicial system and neutralization of deterrent impact of law.

The Monthly Statement of Pending Cases of the Supreme Court for the month of April, 2010 showed that the Supreme Court disposed off a total of 7,255 in month of April, 2010. Impressive? Wait until you notice that a total of 7,612 cases were registered in April, 2010 alone. The total backlog in beginning of April, 2010 was 54,864 while at the end of April, 2010 the same rose to 55,018. Now, the Monthly Statement of Pending Cases of the Supreme Court for the month of May, 2010 shows that the Supreme Court disposed off a total of 5,093 in month of May, 2010. However, total of 5949 cases were registered in May, 2010 alone. The total backlog rose from 55,018 to 55,797 at the end of May, 2010.

Well, what do we conclude from this? What does this tell us about the state of affairs in Indian Judiciary? The inescapable conclusion is what a lot of sensible people have been saying for a long time - that Indian Judiciary is suffering from the disease of backlogs and appointing more judges and creating more courts is not the solution to that problem.

The Certain Death of Indian Judiciary

2010-06-14T11:39:00.000+05:30

The Indian democratic State is looking at a certain death. The Constitutional Institutions have failed the masses and they have failed hugely.

The Legislature

That collective buffoonery that we call the Parliament and State Legislatures is already dead. The people who stroll the halls of these Constitutional institutions are not the true representatives of the Indian masses. There is much to be said on this one issue alone. But to any person who calls himself an educated and well informed person, it would take about 30 second to realize that the Legislature as a Constitutional institution has ceased represent the masses.

The Executive

That stellar collection of the exceedingly unprofessional and inefficient servants is also dead. Indian Executive exists to serve the opulent, the huge masses of people be dammed – the very same mass that pays the taxes so that these Government Servants can be paid. One experience with the Indian bureaucracy shall shake your eyes wide open and expose you to the extent of moral and professional decay that the Executive branch of the Indian state has been able to accomplish. The Executive has failed to serve the Indian masses and it has failed deplorably. The Executive is dead and the cadaver is rotten.

The Judiciary

The only institution that still has a semblance of working. But the Indian Judiciary is dying and it is dying fast. But the Indian Judiciary is suffering from some terrible diseases. These diseases are terminal, cancerous in their nature they are slowly nibbling away that last remains of our system.

Adjournments, delays, heavy backlogs, lack of judges in lower judiciary, interference of politicians and the wealthy classes to influence judicial decisions and corruption are some of these diseases. A huge part of the system has been eaten away by these cancerous diseases and is already dead.

Whatever little remains, we have to start acting now – lawyers, judges and public spirited citizens all together – to save the Indian Judiciary. I apprehend very strongly that the time is running out and if we do not act soon, Indian Judiciary – the only pillar of democracy from which the ordinary citizen can still at least expect justice shall fall.

In a series of blog posts that would follow, I would try to present to you the problems that Indian Judiciary is facing and how it is nibbling away the only pillar of democracy still standing. I would also present and report to you various solutions the Government of India is proposing and I would tell you how they would not work. I would leave it upon you to make your own conclusions but I suspect the only inevitable conclusion that you would come up with is this – The last standing pillar of Indian democratic state – the Indian Judiciary – is falling and it is falling fast. The time when it will be totally destroyed is not far away.

The question that we need to ask ourselves is this – Is this what we want to leave for the next generation that is coming? Our previous generation failed to ask this question to themselves and so we inherited this collective filth which we now have to clean up. Do we have the courage to stop the certain death that we know is coming?

Suggestions and Advise to all LST students who did not make it this year

2010-06-03T10:57:00.002+05:30

I have been in law entrance (viz. CLAT et al) coaching industry for more than 3 years now. My students have made it to almost every decent law school India has to offer. They made it there entirely because of their effort and hard work and may be a little good luck thrown in between. I just pushed them a little. This year again, some made it while some did not.

Those who made are on their ways to the best law schools India has to offer. Their hardwork and determination paid good results.

But what about those who did not make it? Well, some get in touch and they are usually feeling dejected. And they seek advise as to how to go about their career paths. I give them advise to the best of my ability and I hope it helps them. For past few days I have been trying to figure out a plan for all those who did not make it - a plan that would help them take the CLAT and other tests again but at the same time would also secure their position just in case they did not make it. A plan A - plan B - plan C - sort of a strategy.

The following is Strategy for all those who did not make it. I hope it will be of good use for you.

THE STEPS

STEP 1 -

1A. If one has been able to secure a position in X Law School then one should take admission.

1B. Or in the alternate to 1, if one is not too comfortable joining X Law School, one should take admission in an Under Graduate college enrolling oneself in Arts, Commerce or Science courses as applicable to one's background.

STEP 2 -

2. After joining the X Law School or the Under Graduate College, one can enroll with LST (or whatever) again (and chose whatever programme one wants to) and start preparing again for CLAT and other tests (LSAT, IP et al).

STEP 3 -

3. If one is able to make it in the second attempt so much better but even if one is not able to, depending on age constraints and opportnity cost and other factors as applicable, one can either decide to take a third shot or one can decide to finish one's graduation and take a shot at 3 year law schools (viz. Delhi University, GLC Mumbai, ILS Pune etc. and other 3 year law schools).

3A. If one is enrolled in a 5 year law school - one can ask the college for a graduation degree after 3 years have been completed in the law school. If any student wishes to leave the integrated B.A. LL.B. course after 3 years a graduation degree has to be awarded, which would enable one to write the 3 year law school entrance paper.

3B. If one is enrolled in an Under Graduate college, then of course, after 3 years a grad degree shall be awarded.

THE BENEFITS -

Students would get the following benefits by following this strategy -

1. They would get ample time to re-prepare and re-appear in CLAT paper. They would also have time to think long and hard whether a career in Law is the right option for them.

2. They would have ample time to focus on their weaknesses and strengths and develop them once again without the pressure of Class 12th board exams on their heads.

3. Having once written the paper and having taken in excess of 30 mock CLAT they would have ampe time to fine tune their strategies for test taking.

4. It is better than dropping an entire year. A student if follows this strategy has a plan B (the second shot), a possible plan B2 (a third shot if one likes) and a plan C (a three year law school option).

5. In case on is enrolled in an Under Graduate College one has an exit strategy. After graduation one can chose to sit for any of them many competitive exams.

The basic idea of this strategy is to enable the students to engage CLAT as many times as legally possible (note - there is an upper age limit of 20 years on CLAT) while securing for the student a fall back option every time he writes CLAT. Of couse, after graduation (either taking degree from Law School after three years or from the Under Graduation College) - writing the 3 year law school exam is a good option please remember at all times that this is only one of the many options that a student would have after finishing his graduation.

If the reader of this post has any doubts or wants more advise please feel free to contact me by email.

The Color of Law (Book Review)

2010-05-23T07:24:00.001+05:30

Now, how many times have we seen the every popular contest between a lawyer’s conscience and a lawyer’s desire to earn more money?

There is something peculiar about the terms ‘rich’ and ‘lawyer’ – almost always both of these are used together. They go together even. If X is a lawyer – X has got to be rich. So if X ain’t rich – X ain’t a lawyer. But if X is a lawyer but X ain’t rich – X must be dumb lawyer. This is the sort of logical progression that registers on our minds without even making an effort.

This story is about the same conflict. Should Scott Fenny (the protagonist in the story) throw away his perfect career in a perfect law firm? That would result in his perfect life being destroyed – his perfect wife would leave him; his perfect house would be repossessed because he would not have the money to pay the mortgage as his perfect client would abandon him and then his perfect job in this perfect law firm would be over. He would lose his perfect car; his perfect status as the perfect junior partner on his way to become a perfect senior partner. Every thing Scott has worked so hard to achieve would vaporize in one moment as if it never existed.

And why is Scott facing such a dilemma? Because Scott was asked to defend a heroine addict black prostitute by a Federal Court judge.

Would Scott throw away his perfect life because lawyers are supposed to have a higher duty, a higher calling over and above the material pursuits of life? The higher duty to uphold the law and defend the society against the possible excesses and atrocities of the State.

When a young graduate walks into a law school, these lofty ideals and this intellectual discussion about the higher virtues of law and the life of a lawyer – they are just so much fun. Defending the disenfranchised, standing up against the State atrocities and excesses, human rights and civil liberties, sophisticated jurisprudential arguments discussing the differences between freedoms and rights – these things sound so cool and you feel a sense of purpose to what you are doing. After 12 years of school and 3 years of college – you finally get something that ignites your passion and you feel that you will now dedicate you living life to pursuit of these splendid ideals and there is nothing more satisfactory in life than these things.

These things don’t last for 2 weeks after you pass out. For those who are lucky to get placed in big fancy law firms suddenly private equity, joint ventures, IPOs, capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, syndicate financing, infrastructure projects, indirect and direct taxation, corporate litigation and those fancy business news paper and business news channel terms suddenly take over. Along with them they bring fat retainers and smart business suits and comfortable air conditioned offices and expensive BlackBerrys. People just kind of forget about human rights and civil liberties and defending the undefended. After a while it all boils down to that bonus and after that hopping to another firm and after that landing in that big shark client so that you can stake your claim at partnership.

So what happens in between? John Grisham tried to examine a question of this type in ‘The Street Lawyer’. But in that story the protagonist did not face this question as Scott faces – in that story the protagonist just leaves.

Using the prostitute that Scott has to defend now and perhaps to his own exhaustive peril – the author makes a comparison between a lawyer and a prostitute. There is an episode where Scott is trying to explain what he does to his daughter Boo and the prostitute’s daughter Pajame. He explains that he charges his clients by the hour – $350. Pajame says that her mother charges her clients by the hour as well - $200. Scott tries to explain that he offers a special and highly specialized service to his clients, Pajame says so does her mother. Next day Boo, Scott’s daughter, says that she wants to be a prostitute since in her opinion, being a prostitute and being a lawyer are not very different. While Scott is horrified, Pajame just shrugs – like this was a matte of fact.

Then there is another interesting episode where Scott is really troubled whether to continue with the case of to drop it off and discusses that with a senior partner in his firm. And after Scott has vented out all his anger and frustration about what kind of animal he had become who would guzzle any kind of shit as long he was paid the fee that he commanded, the senior partner explains to him that – the colour of law is not white and black, it is green. The rule of law is money – money rules. Money makes the law and law protects the money. And the lawyer protects the people with money.

There are many such episodes in this story.

They are good fun to read while at the same point they are touching in their own sense. If you are reading only for entertainment I doubt you’ll be able to connect the dots. But if you take you level of consciousness just a tad bit higher than only entertainment you will realize that there are a lot of dots in this story that are connected.

This is not a thriller in the traditional sense. But the story is very interesting and very nicely plotted. It keeps your interest going as it is written in a very lucid manner. And the flow is really nice. A decent reader can finish the book of in 3-4 hours flat. But if you pause to consider and think what the writer is actually trying to say and comment then it might take you a bit longer!! Those few moments, I guess, are what would make this a good read.

Book Review - Hakuna Matata, Life is Calling

2010-03-29T14:16:00.002+05:30

The body of collective literature on terrorism has been on the rise for a long time now. Enter into a book store and you can see a load of books written by experts from various fields on terrorism and related topics. You can see non fiction books documenting and detailing various aspects of terrorism and terrorist activities. You can see novelists writing thrillers and drama novels with terrorism and terror activities as central theme. You can see Indian authors and foreign authors. You can see pure thriller novels. You can see novels that comment on why one becomes a terrorist. You can see all sorts of things. If there is one thing on which there is no dearth of books to read and no shortage of angles that one topic is terrorism. Some time back, I am not sure exactly when but it was certainly sometime close to the 9/11 Commission report (that was later published as a book and was subject of other commentaries by way of more books and articles in all sorts of journals and scores of documentary movies and series) the discussion took an angle that to my knowledge was not widely discussed in public before 9/11. That one topic was the presence and movement of terrorist money in mainstream money channels – banks, stock markets, real estate, car rentals, you name it.

This novel touches upon how terrorists use innocent and unsuspecting common middle class people by use of internet in order move their blood money around. They use common people in ways and means that are so simple a common man does not even thinks that he is being manipulated as a part of a very big, complex and bloody game. They use the common man and then throw him away as a used straw is thrown away after a bottle of a soft drink is consumed. And after the dust settles and blood dries up, it is again, the common man who pays for the games terrorists play. After facing the death and loss of his loved ones and destruction of his property and State property procured by his tax paid money, he then becomes the subject of extensive police investigations and more harassment.

To be fair to the police agencies, they have no other option but to investigate every possible lead that presents itself. But after all is said and done, even after proving his innocence, which in today’s world is not an easy task itself, what emerges is the same common man, bruised and shaken – physically, emotionally and financially.

This novel is the story of such a common middle class couple. Kaushik Akella is a C.A., works in a very reputed multinational bank, has a good job (and he loves his job!) and the prospects of future look very bright. He meets the perfect woman Anuskha and from the very first meeting he knows she is the one. They start dating. Kaushik’s parents give nod for their marriage despite Anuskha being an orphan. What could be more better! And then 26/11 happens.

Y. Srinivas’s first novel is about the story of a young couple caught right in the middle of a gruesome terror attack and consequent police investigation. Unfortunate coincidences point the fingers straight at Anuskha – that she is involved deeply in not just the planning but also the commission of these terror attacks. The investigations take into its arc Kaushik as well who is detained and interrogated by the police authorities – an experience not exactly to be cherished.

What makes this novel worth reading is not just the routine thrill quotient but author’s expertise in the area of money laundering. Y. Srinivas is a Certified Anti Money Laundering Specialist from USA and currently works with a leading private sector bank. I especially recommend you go through page 47-49 where a special technique to distinguish a fake ATM card from a genuine one is discussed. I couldn’t help but take out my ATM card and give it a shot!

As the police investigation goes on and peel after peel of facts are discovered by Kaushik in a frantic bid to save his girlfriend and would be wife, Y. Srinivas brings into play his expert knowledge and you get to know about how the blood money of terrorist flows through the system and how the common man gets manipulated. As you read all this you can be rest assured this is not just imagination run wild but the cold reality with which the author is very conversant. You also get to know how to save yourself from such attempts that adds to the knowledge value.

As the author is a Chartered Accountant (C.A.) himself it is understandable why the protagonist himself is a C.A. All of you who are currently doing C.A. or aspire to be one – it is tough not to feel a direct connect; the author’s take on this one particular excruciating course is fun to read. I must mention that the author certainly has a way with the words – the one liner SMSes that Kaushik and his friends forward to each other are not just funny, they have notorious double meanings! Or perhaps the author just decided to make good use of the messages all of us receive everyday and sewed them into every day dialogues that a common man makes. The story is nicely structured and moves at a fast pace – there is hardly any lose end and this adds to interest of the reader. With 161 pages for INR 95/- only this makes the book a compelling buy and a quick read. A unique feature I noticed is that every chapter is titled with a proverb or a saying, one for every chapter from a different language.

The author refrains from making any passionate comments and arguments for or against what happened or why it happened. Sensibly so, in my opinion. There is, again, not a dearth of literature that examines this element in minute details. Recently there have been quite a few books and articles published on 26/11 itself.

But the absence of such arguments tells us another important thing – the common man does not have much time about all the scholarly debate on terrorism and its finer aspects. The common man just wants to make it trough the day without being blown up. He wants his kids to return safe to their home, he wants to eat his dinner with his family in peace without the threat of venturing out at 10 pm for ice cream if he wants, he wants to reach his work place on time without the fear getting shot.

This young couple gets in the middle of a mess they didn’t create. A mess they don’t understand and a mess for which they certainly are not responsible. Yet they were right in the middle of it trying to clean it up and trying to get out of it. What was the fault of Anuskha? When you will read it through, you will realize her only fault was that she had a bank account and that she went out on a date. And Kaushik’s only fault was that she wanted to marry her. Is that such a bid deal? Hardly. And yet they were in the middle of some body else’s war. And they emerge clean at the end.

Why? Because the common man always does. The resilient spirit of the common man doesn’t evaporate with a bomb blast and doesn’t die when it is shot. It is always there, trying to survive, trying to help his fellow man, woman or child. And in the end they all come out clean and gear up for the next day.

Because life goes on. Life goes on because life is always calling.

Hakuna Matata. That’s the spirit of a common man.

Seeds of Terror - Book Review Part I

2010-03-22T12:00:00.003+05:30

(This is the first post of a two-post review of a recent book by Gretchen Peters titled 'Seeds of Terror'. The book discusses and makes a strong case about the needs to destroy the nacotics trade in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is being used to finance the terrorist activities. An Introduction to the author and the book is provided, and after that Seeds of Terror as a book is discussed. The next head discusses The Problems that the author's research uncovers and evidences. The next post discusses Other Problems raised by the book, Conclusion of the author and a conncted event that happened around 210 B.C. that I though is very relevant in current context.)

Introduction

Gretchen Peters is an award winning journalist. She won the SAJA Journalism Award for a Nightline segment on Pervez Musharraf. She was also nominated for an Emmy for her coverage of the 2007 assassination of Benazin Bhutto.

Her book Seeds of Terror[1] is about the opium and narcotics trade rampant in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Taliban and Al Qaeda’s involvement in the opium and narcotics trade.

This book presents strong evidence to support the case that in order to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all assorted terrorists of the same class the best way is to cut their funding. The primary source of their funding is the opium and drug trade and hence the needs to wipe out the opium fields and narcotics trade, trade routes and trade functionaries – the people who make it all happen. The evidence to support the case is strong and is result of painstaking field research.

After one goes through the seven chapters that narrate the whole story and list down the evidence, one would find it exceedingly difficult to escape from the conclusions that are made in chapter eight. Though one may or may not agree with the solutions suggested by the author on how to best cope with this problem but it is tough not to agree with her conclusion – in this war against terror, war against narcotics trade is a must and unless this war is won, war against terror can never be won.

Seeds of Terror

Author begins with a historical account[2] of the poppy farming in what is today known as the ‘Golden Crescent’ i.e. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Author discusses the notorious ‘U-Turn’ scheme that gave birth to an elaborate network smuggling commodities in and drugs out of Afghanistan[3]. Overwhelming evidence is provided to establish involvement of Pakistan’s Military Government and National Logistics Cell (NLC – a trucking company wholly owned and staffed by the military). The book discusses specific efforts made by the British, namely developing the elite top-secret strike team to search and destroy labs processing opium in to crystal heroin, known as Task Force 333[4]. It is argued that the command and control centre of this narcotics trade is in Pakistan therefore off limits to NATO troops and law enforcement advisors working with Kabul government[5].

How deep the involvement of the Taliban in this trade is can be gauged by the following observation made by the author on page 116 –

“This transformation in battlefield tactics – from trying to make tactical gains to protecting drug shipments – mirrored similar patterns set by the FARC and other insurgent groups. The Taliban were no longer fighting for Allah but for the almighty dollar."

Emphasis added.

Everyone who is in this business is in it to make money. And the entire system that is supposed to work against the opium trade and to contain the same is actually working to support and further it. Evidence to support that the entire Afghani law enforcement system is heavily corrupted is overwhelming. In this regard the following observation made by the author on page 133 is notable –

“Across Afghanistan, traditional enemies are working together wherever there’s a chance to make money. And instability is vital for the drug business, creating a powerful disincentive for Afghan government officials to build a more peaceful country. The Taliban and their allies may be earning hundreds of millions from the drug trade, but one thing almost everyone interviewed for this project agreed on was that crooked members of Hamid Karzai’s administration are earning even more”.

Another part of the problem is that the Taliban are not actually involved in farming of poppy and opium. As per the Islamic law consumption of opium is forbidden. But a self serving interpretation has been advanced that farming and trading in opium is not forbidden; only consumption is[6]. There is a difference between the drug smugglers and the terrorist groups. There are not the same. But the difference is slowly evaporating. The Taliban are not masterminds of the drug trade but they are deepening their role in it[7].

The Problems

Farmers grow poppy and opium, the Taliban provide security from government authorities and safety on trade routes from attacks that may come from NATO troops or local or western law enforcement agencies. For providing such protection a tax in charged. Government officials are bribed in order to let the contraband pass through various check posts. Sometimes brute force is used to scare the officials into submission that are anyway outgunned, outmanned and under-trained. Hawala and other methods are used to remit and transfer money with Dubai being at the centre of all such transaction[8]. Osama bin Laden is quoted[9] as saying that his people were as aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. The corruption has spread like a cancer throughout Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran[10].

The kingpin of this trade Haji Juma Khan (HJK) is compared to Burmese drug lord Khun Sa and Colombian kingpin Pablo Escobar[11]. Said to be relatively nondescript looking and a master at blending in[12], the book suggests that HJK maintains a strong network of corrupt government officials across South Asia and the Persian Gulf and that his strength comes from his uncanny ability to build networks[13]. Also important is the role of ‘the undisputed crime lord of South Asia’ Dawood Ibrahim[14]. An unnamed CIA official is quoted[15] as saying – “If you want to understand what Osama bin Laden is up to, you have to understand what Dawood Ibrahim is up to.”

[1] Gretchen Peters, Seeds of Terror (Hachette India, 2009)

[2] Ibid p. 29

[3] Ibid p. 31

[4] Ibid p. 115

[5] Ibid p. 126

[6] Ibid p. 32

[7] Ibid p. 144

[8] Ibid pp. 169 (Hawala), 172 (Commodity Barter, Trade-Based Money Laundering), 173 (Shell Companies and Real Estate), 174 (Stock Market Investments),

[9] Ibid at p. 177

[10] Ibid p. 138

[11] Ibid pp. 145, 146

[12] Ibid p. 161

[13] Ibid p. 154

[14] Ibid p. 165

[15] Ibid at p. 166

Seeds of Terror - Book Review Part II

2010-03-22T11:53:00.003+05:30

(In continuation of previous post - this post discusses the Other Issues that this book discusses and provides evidence to support. These Other Issues are all essentially interconnected to the main problem of narcotics trade being used to finance the terrorist activities. In Conclusion, the solutions as suggested by the author are listed brieftly. And from my own previous readings, I was able to find a connection between the phenomenon discussd in this book and something that happened around 210 B.C.)

Other Issues

There are a lot of other issues upon which the book touches and provides evidence to support, for example, the problems of the poor and debt ridden farmers selling of their daughters to pay off their loans; the problems faced by DEA and other law enforcement authorities in Afghanistan and that no support is generally provided by NATO and US forces stationed there; the trial of Haji Bashir Noorzai (another narcotics kingpin) in Southern District of New York and the appeal process, the loss of which would be very embarrassing for the US government; a lot of aid money going to expensive foreign advisors and not the people who actually need it; reluctance of Pakistan to take the problem head on; internal politics inside the various departments; no intelligence sharing and so on.

Conclusion

In the end, the book suggests that a well though out blend of ‘supporting regional peace’[1], ‘supporting regional trade’ and launching a ‘proper counter-insurgency effort’[2] along with ‘blending counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts’[3], providing ‘a farm support plan based on market needs and in consultation with Afghan tribal councils’[4], ‘isolating and obstructing drug money’[5] and providing ‘alternative livelihoods before eradication’[6] could be successful in solving this problem. However, warning is provided that this would require a lot of patience and sustained concentrated effort.

A connected Story

In 216 B.C., at the Battle of Cannae, the great Carthaginin commander Hannibal manoeuvred his small army brilliantly, made maximum use of his superior cavalry and managed to surprise the Romans. He inflicted on them a series of humiliating defeats, culminating in the virtual annihilation of the Roman legions. A young Roman general Scipio Africanus noticed that Carthaginians stored their vast wealth and army’s supplies etc. in city of New Carthage (present day Cartagena), the Carthaginians’ capital in Spain. Scipio saw that Hannibal’s centre of gravity was New Carthage and went on to take that city. This way he deprived Hannibal of his main military base and source of supply. Instead of chasing Hannibal he made Hannibal come after him, to Zama – an area in the middle of the country where he would be deprived of reinforcements and support, a place without water. Hannibal was forced to surrender. Carthage sued for peace and was reduced to a client state of Rome[7].

Perhaps someone will see the relevance of this little story!

[1] Gretchen Peters, Seeds of Terror (Hachette India, 2009), p. 218

[2] Ibid p. 220

[3] Ibid p. 223

[4] Ibid p. 228

[5] Ibid p. 230

[6] Ibid p. 232

[7] Robert Greene, The 33 Strategies of War (Viva Books, 2006), pp. 204-207