Countless, but hardly count

By Fahad Ahmed Mohammed

My mind was still reeling from what had just happened when, all of sudden, the whole world became so bright that my eyes began to hurt. It took me a few minutes to realize where I was: as the softness at my back and under my head began to feel, as the feeble sounds began to make sense and as it all started to come in to my consciousness. Aah! My mum had just shaken me to wake me up before she pulled the curtains, and now stood right near my bed. I had promised her that I would go and get the grocery she needed for the function we were to have that night. It was a Saturday, the much sought after, after the hectic week at work. The mind had taken the toll of the workload and had let me into the deep world of dreams, to recover itself, leaving me sleeping a bit too longer.

Somehow I got up, freshened up, grabbed the grocery list on my table that was placed by mum, and headed for the store. As I made my way towards the destination, I listened to the tracks on my iPod - my usual thing: plug in the music and plug out the world; lost in the tunes of the rock, pop, hip-hop and whatever was running on the shuffle. After a 15 minute ride, thanks to the amazing traffic on the route, I reached the grocery store. This was not the supermarket type store. This was the common ‘Kirana’ store, but quite big; normally had all the stuff we needed and that too at discounted prices! I reached one of the shopkeepers and handed him the list. While he was going through it, I removed my ear-plugs to ‘reconnect’ to the place outside my iPod. He gave the list inside and asked another guy working inside to get all the listed items.

Meanwhile, I stood near the counter when, suddenly, I heard a loud thud, then screaming. I turned around to see what had happened. I saw a big can of oil lying on the pavement and the oil flowing out from it, and a man shouting on a kid. Apparently, the kid was carrying the can to the customer sitting in his car next to the pavement and had lost balance. “The kid carrying that 15 litre can of oil!!” This thought struck me and shook me out from my slumber! That shopkeeper raised his hand to hit him when, out of the blue, I sprang forward and held it! He turned around to see who had stopped him: his face distorted with rage. I left it and reprimanded him for his act. “First of all, you employ a child and then you demand that he carry such heavy things and you try to hit him when he couldn’t do it,” I berated him. “You speak as if this is the first time you see a child working here. Don’t you buy all the grocery every month from here?” snapped that man. This was another jolt! I looked around to see two more children working there, no more than 12 years old, now looking in our direction. Worse was that I could recognize them but never previously did it hit me! Why? Was I so lost in my world?

I silently went back to the counter where the shopkeeper had placed all the items on my grocery list, gave him the money, picked up the stuff, walked towards my bike, placed the packets on the petrol tank, kick-started the ignition and left. All this while, I moved from one state of emotion to another: disbelief, guilt, anger, despair, and then realization! I didn’t plug in my ear-phones this time. I kept my eyes and ears open. I was looking around while riding, and started counting. 1, 2, 3… almost everywhere I could see kids, who should be studying or playing, toiling in the hot sun! Then, I lost the count. I didn’t know how but right at that time I remembered one of my office friend talking about a govt. report, according to which 95% of India’s workforce worked in the unorganized sector (which is not any branded or retail outlet or any software company or industry). I didn’t notice any child labor in any of the offices or the supermarkets; the child labor that was so ubiquitous elsewhere, yet so overlooked. There were countless number of children sweating at work, but did they count? Did they matter? Did they form a vote-bank? Was there anything I could do? With these thoughts in my mind I reached to the comfort of my home, where I had never had to work even for a pencil!

It is the 'Law', so they say....

After a long break, I'm back to write and share something I had to say. As I write this piece of article, there are things/events going on in this country of ours that are ominous to say the least, and threatening to the very freedom that was dreamt by us when politically ruled by British power. The incident that I am using a backdrop here is easier for me to relate to as it happened in the same city I was born and brought up, and is also easier to understand and relate it to the general problem of our nation.

The arrest of MIM MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi and later, MP Asaduddin Owaisi have actually shone some light (for me at least) that there is something terribly wrong with how our 'democracy' or 'democratic system' works. Let's start with the beginning. Democracy, presumed and accepted to be the "best" form of government theoretically, has, in practice, an inherent need to put in place checks and balances that assures it remains true to its definition. A democratic system, as many of us may know, has three basic divisions: 'Legislature', 'Judiciary' and 'Executive'. We all know, I assume, what each does in a democratic country. The most important nature of this division is that the power is divided among them and none has the right to overpower the other. It means that when the legislative body is making a law, the judiciary or the executive body (police, etc) cannot interfere with the process (the judiciary can give guidance or make suggestions). Once that law is made and passed in the legislature, the role of the executive body comes into play in the implementation part of it; here the legislative body or a member of it cannot, by the democratic principle, interfere and influence in the implementation process (although the legislative body can oversee and make sure that the law is being implemented uniformly and properly). Of course, when there is any issue with the way the law was made or being implemented, there is always the judiciary; this is where the real power of judiciary is, this is where its role is: listening to the petitioner's petition and judging properly. This is a very delicate balance yet very critical for the survival of a democratic system. After all, why was democracy made in the first place if the power was to end up in the hands of these few people who sit in the parliament, courts or police stations? That is the reason for this division of power into these categories. It is assumed, in good faith, that this would help in letting the power be decentralized and thereby, people be not subjected to injustice by a handful few.

By now you must have got the thought that this is so not true in our country barring a few examples because of a few good men and women in our democratic system. So here comes the case of the two arrests that I have mentioned above. More specifically, I want to look into the arrest of Asaduddin Owaisi. He reportedly was arrested for a crime he had committed in 2005. My question is: what was the police doing till now, till 2013? If the charge-sheet filed against him was correct and there was evidence to support the charge against him, why was no action taken in 2005? Why was it taken now? Why did it take so much time? If it is true that the action was not taken as MIM had the support of the ruling party at that time, and it was taken now as it no longer enjoyed the support, then it points to a very disturbing situation: the executive body is no longer free of the legislative, and that members of parliament or an assembly can overpower the executive body or a part of it and do whatever they like to. This incident is just one example out of the countless told and untold stories of one body overpowering the other and undermining the validity of our country's democratic system. The Hindi saying, "Jiski laathi uski bhains," has exceedingly become a deadly reality for India. It is not just the failure of a law, it is a near breakdown of the democracy we cherish. As I have always said, democracy is not simply elections, it is a burden on every citizen who has chosen to be a part of it.

An Argument for Reason

Those who deny the superiority of reason over emotions and intuition, do so using the reason again.

When the line between culture and religion got blurred.....

The seerah (biography) of the Prophet Muhammad (s) gives guidance on this distinction (between religion, here Islam, and culture) in the light of the Hijrah:

"In effect, exile (hijrah) was also to require that the first Muslims learn to remain faithful to the meaning of Islam's teachings in spite of the change of place, culture, and memory. Medina meant new customs, new types of social relationships, a wholly different role for women (who were socially far more present than in Mecca),.... Very early on, the community of faith, following the Prophet's example, had to distinguish between what belonged to Islamic principles and what was more particularly related to Meccan culture. They were to remain faithful to the first while learning to adopt a flexible and critical approach to their original culture. They even had to try to reform some of their attitudes, which were more cultural than Islamic. Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) was to learn this to his cost when, after he had reacted most sharply to his wife answering him back (which was unthinkable in Mecca), she retorted that he must bear with it and accept it just as the Prophet did. This was a difficult experience for him, as it was for others, who might have been tempted to think that their habits and customs were in themselves Islamic: hijrah, exile, was to reveal that this was not the case and that one must question every single cultural practice, both to be faithful to Islamic principles and to open up to other cultures and gain from their wealth. For instance, having learned that a wedding was to take place among the Medina Muslims (the Ansar), the Prophet had two singing maids sent to them, for, he said, the Ansar enjoyed singing (Hadith by Ibn Majah). Not only did he recognize a cultural feature or taste that was not in itself opposed to Islamic principles, but he integrated it as an enrichment of his own human experience. Hijrah was also, then, a trial of intelligence, spurring the need to distinguish between principles and their cultural manifestations..."

extract from 'The Messenger - The Meanings of Life of Muhammad' by Tariq Ramadan (Penguin books and Oxford University Press)

Pure Expressions

Leave it 

Let it go

Freedom is all that a person has!

Leave it 

let it go

Curbing freedom is the biggest sin!

Forcing physically isn't the only form

of curbing freedom

of curbing the precious gift of life

of snuffing the life out

Life can still be snuffed out

Freedom can still be curbed

All feelings and expressions of it suppressed...

Coz of fear

of ostracisation 

of boycott.

Those intimidating eyes 

those threatful looks

those hurtful words.

Fear is also

a form of suppression,

A disturbing benevolence

a self-gratifying feeling 

of control,

of power...

Seizing every opportunity

to destroy the very aspect

of human that makes me a human:

Freedom it is

Independence it is

Freedom of being 

what I am

Freedom of writing

what I think

Freedom of practising

what I believe in

Freedom of giving words

to those thoughts

that were left untouched

to those feeling

left unexpressed

So here I am

declaring my freedom

from all those out there

who think they

can reduce me to 

whatever they want

So here I am

with my pure expressions

So here I am

with an open heart

Unfazed,

Unperturbed,

and Unstoppable!

A passing thought

A passing thought

a flickering flame.....

Thought I capture it here before it extinguishes. 

Music.... this is what I am thinking about right now. How does it have so much power to move people to tears, at least it does that to me when I listen to certain songs... 

What is it that its in music that connects with your brain so beautifully? 

Listen to some lecture, I guarantee that you could hardly remember more than 50% of what you heard only if you liked it... well that's my case. That percentage may vary from person to person. But listen to same ideas in a song, I bet you will remember more than your usual percentage. 

Another thought that goes through my mind is more related to the apparent ban of music in Islam, or at least that is what I have been hearing since childhood. Then I have read about Muslim philosophers like Al-Farabi writing about music. Then now there is Sami Yusuf that is sometimes subject of criticism by some Muslim ulema, and then there are so many other singers singing what they call nasheed. So I think Music per se is not banned in Islam. And the discourse here is not of lawful or unlawful, it is rather of ethical or unethical, this is my view: where does the music starts become unethical? This is what should be looked at, not that the entire music be banned when it can and does contribute so much positively.

Just a flickering flame of thought in my mind.....  

The birth of Google Intellectuals and Reclaiming the Intellectualhood

By Musab Iqbal

(Translated by me)

Mr. Verma, sitting in front of his computer screen, is busy searching for a file. The gentleman’s condition bears witness to his intentness and the indispensability of the file he’s searching for. Suddenly, silence of the room breaks: bing, a chat box appears on the screen: “Mr. Verma, Good Afternoon.” This gave a break to the gentleman’s search. “Good Afternoon,” types Mr. Verma. “If you can give me a few minutes of your time, can I ask you a question?” The statement pops in the chat box. This makes Verma scratch his head. He answers, “Yes. Go ahead.” The question was on the screen: “Mr. Verma, who is this Rousseau?” This question clears away Verma’s hours of laziness. With the speed of light, he minimizes the chat window, and with the blink of an eye, two windows appear before Verma. “Yes my friend,” types Mr. Verma in the questioner’s chat box. “Rousseau was a great thinker and philosopher of the 18^th century.” This statement of Mr. Verma appears on the chat box with all the intellectual enlightenment. “Rousseau’s interest was in music and education too.” He further adds, “He was an important thinker of the French revolution.” After a short break, he provides the questioner with this information too. “Further discussion on this can be possible when we meet.” After this statement, the inquirer feels relaxed and thanks Mr. Verma. He takes permission to ask another question. Mr. Verma takes a breath of relief and answers in approval. The question was in front of him: “Who was Voltaire?” Mr. Verma shows the same skills on the screen and astonishes the inquirer. “Mr. Verma, thank you so much,” the inquirer once again praises Verma’s faculty and memorization in the form of thanks.

“Mr. Verma one last question”

“Yes. Please ask,” types Mr. Verma with the pride of a conqueror.

“What is the basic difference between the thoughts of Rousseau and Voltaire? Were both in favor of the Aristotelian views and whether there was any impact of their thought on Kant’s writings?”

Mr. Verma, with the might of the mouse, starts attacking the screen, but this time the required answer does not pop on the screen with the blink of an eye. “Mr. Verma, are you there?” the question of the inquirer was crawling like a snake on the screen. “Dear, this question requires explanation; we’ll discuss it when we meet. All queries cannot be answered on chatting, and it’s also time for my office work; Good Bye.” Mr. Verma types the whole statement after taking a deep breath, and resumes his search for the file.

Later Mr. Verma is found in a gathering where he is the center of attraction for the group. People, encircling Mr. Verma, are trying to take some benefit by his knowledge. The inquirer appears. A gentleman, pointing towards Mr. Verma, tells the inquirer, “Do you know him?” The inquirer replies, “Of course! I know him. Thank God! Who is not familiar with Mr. Verma? He is such a great intellectual.” Another man replies immediately. By saying words in praise of Mr. Verma, he draws attention of everyone in the gathering towards him: “There is no doubt that Mr. Verma is the greatest intellectual in this group.” The remaining agreed in unison.

The extraordinary capacity and reach of cyber space has given birth to concurrently many such Mr. Vermas. Such quantity of Mr. Vermas is both a reality and a tragedy. It can also be said that this is an ‘intellectual tragedy’ of the cyber space. Collecting information at the click of a button through Google and from Wikipedia, and arranging the collected information in a particular order are being thought of as an intellectual exercise. From the birth of these Google intellectuals a number of questions arise: what is the work of an intellectual? Who is an intellectual? And what is the role of an intellectual in a society? In the same way another vital question arises: are information, information hoarding and its decoration any intellectual work? Is the job of intellectual only to accumulate information which is an easy exercise for any citizen of this cybersphere?

In the decade of 1970s, Italy was engulfed in a national crisis. The then prime minister of Italy called a meeting of all intellectuals, presented the problem in front of them and asked them to find a solution to the problem. Umberto Eco stood up and said, “Sir! The role of an intellectual is not to solve a crisis but to create one.” There is truth to this statement of Umberto Eco and a clear pointer in it towards the intellectual responsibility. Antonio Gramsci was a well-known Marxist philosopher and a political thinker in Italy. Mussolini had him arrested, and kept him in prison for the period of 1926 – 1937. During this period, he started reading and wrote a book, which became famous by the name of ‘Prisons Notebook’. In it, Gramsci spoke about the meaning and role of an intellectual in great depth. He writes:

“All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say, but not all men have in the society the function of intellectuals” (Prisons Notebook).

According to Gramsci, there are two types of intellectuals: one is a Traditional Intellectual, for example, a teacher, a pope, a lecturer, etc; who does only one job and teaches only one thing to a specific group of people for years. Contrary to this, another type is of an Organic Intellectual who is active in a society, and is busy in changing people’s minds and increasing their market. However, Julien Benda does not agree with Gramsci’s definition and explanation; and according to him an intellectual, actually, is that ascension of a philosopher whose mental and moral level have reached its peak, and who are conscious of humanity. He writes “those whose activity is essentially not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice of an art or a science or metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages, and hence in a certain manner say: ‘My kingdom is not of this world’” (The Treason of Intellectuals).

According to Edward Said, the real value of an intellectual can be judged on the basis of their honesty and their resolution for justice and this value should be on such a level that intellectual should not look like citizen of this world. As he says:

“Since what they uphold are eternal standards of truth and justice that are precisely not of this world” (Representations of the intellectual).

Said himself is an example here. Through his intellectual works he tried to bring the Palestinian cause at the center stage in the west, and also tried to prove that imperialism is the real core of the western civilization. After having demonstrated and having established this truth Said strived for it, debated intensely to the extent that in one of his lectures some Israeli students started shouting, “Said, you are a liar.” In this way he kept himself completely engaged with power and power center. For instance, he has written two magnificent pieces of work: ‘Orientalism’ and ‘Culture and Imperialism’, and has linked his theory with western imperialism and how it demonstrates its power in respected colonies. At one place he writes:

“Israel was a device for holding Islam – and later the Soviet Union, or communism – at bay. Zionism and Israel were associated with liberalism, with freedom and democracy, with knowledge and light, with what ‘we’ understand and fight for. By contract Zionism’s enemies were simply a twentieth-century version of the alien spirit of Orientation despotism, sensuality, ignorance, and similar work of backwardness.”

Also, in Said’s view, there is a strong relationship between text and its worldliness. Free market and the kind of mentality the market gives birth to have created a specific type of professionalism in which people are not ready to take up any sort of pain or effort to get to the truth and to present it to others. One type of this is ‘Google Journalism’ and ‘Google Intellectualism’. Robert Fisk has severely criticized such form of journalism and considers it as the worst peculation/fraud. Even Said has condemned such intellectualism. He calls it ‘professional intellect’: people with such intellect reach on time (to office/college) and start their intellectual work, and for that they are even paid, and when the office hours end, they gather their intellectualism and return to their ‘heaven’. The office of the intellectual is closed for the day till the next morning. Such people are not ready to take the risk to work for truth. Said writes that the market and professionalism have produced such intellectuals. He marks:

“The result is that today’s intellectual is most likely to be a closed literature professor, with a secure income and no interest in dealing with the world outside the classroom.”

It is obvious that the size of their classroom is decided depending on the faculty of an ‘intellectual’. In one case it takes the form of a university classroom, in another the pulpit of the prayer room, in some other as a gathering of Qur’anic discourse and in others as various religious meetings; where such intellectuals try to increase information of the people assembled there at a particular time, and then return to their ‘heaven’.

In such an intellectual thought neither critical insight is found nor is found even an element of society building in action. According to Said, an amateur is much better than a professional intellectual. He argues that an amateur comes into the field with a passion for pursuing truth not because of selfishness and material profit. In his words:

“The intellectual today ought to be an amateur, someone who considers that to be a thinking and concerned member of a society one is entitled to raise moral issues.”

Obviously, an intellectual not only speaks the truth out but also considers it as their obligation. The truth might high the general public as well. Intellectual spirit is to feel the truth, to speak out the truth and to struggle for it. This intellectual spirit can be understood through a writing of Arundhati Roy. She writes:

“…Some uncomfortable thoughts about money, war, empire, racism, and democracy. Some worries that flit around my brain like a family of persistent moths that keep me awake at night.”

It is evident that even if some slogans are cried against the war and the imperialism the discussion on capitalism and democracy cannot be a child’s play or a drawing room chat. The democracy is now rotting, the stench of which people apathetically or indifferently tolerate; in this period it is the intellectual duty to draw people’s attention towards this indifference and to criticize those who are responsible for it. Arundhati Roy raised some piercing questions on the Indian democracy which cannot and will not, in any case, be comfortable truths. The question that whether there is any life post democracy is in itself worrisome. Arundhati says that in this representative democracy, there is too much of representation and too little democracy. Is this not true?

.... to be continued

The reasoning mind

"Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual, there is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot not be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice."

-- Howard Roark in the bestselling novel "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand

Get ready for a ride!

Is this real or am I still dreaming?

This could be one of your many reactions after watching the movie "Inception"!

Someone wrote as his Facebook status that the movie cannot be described ... it can only be experienced. Well that's true!

So folks, fasten your seat-belts, make sure you are properly seated, sit tight and concentrate: you are in for one helluva ride!! Dreams within dreams, layers within layers, mazes within labyrinths, a whole new world created by your subconscious - something which your conscious mind is usually incapable of. And when it's all over, you are so unsure of your own 'reality'.... you tend to ask: am I still dreaming?

Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) has this extra-ordinary skill of accessing people's minds through their dreams and extracting ideas that can then be sold to the bidder. His team is trained to create dreams and sharing it with the one whose mind is to be read. The technology to do so is futuristic. After an unsuccessful attempt to steal an idea from the owner, Saito (Ken Watanabe), of a corporation and failing to deliver it to the corporation (Cobol Electrical), Cobb and his teammate decide to run away and hide. Saito offers them to redeem themselves by working for him. But this time, they are not going for an extraction but for an inception! The stakes go sky high when Cobb is given the job to place an idea in the mind of Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy) of dissolving his father's (Fischer's) company, after his death, to stop it from becoming a monopolistic single corporation in energy. Cobb wisely chooses his team that includes an architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), a potion-maker Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and a forger, Eames (Tom Hardy). With the combined efforts of the team they are to deliver the idea in a mind which, to their horror, is trained to defend itself even in the subconscious!

Moreover, Cobb's insistent problems of his past haunt him, and threatens to ruin him and his whole team by playing havoc in the most dangerous mission, with the ominous possibility of getting trapped in the dream forever!

Thrills, nail biting suspense, edge-of-the seat action, a script that keeps on your toes, and amazing performances: these are some of the facets that make this film what it is.... a blockbuster! And of course above all and beneath everything, it's the idea that brought the Inception. As one user review in IMDB states, it definitely is "[Christopher] Nolan at his most intelligent best".

I give it 5 out of 5! Wish I could give more!

Don't miss it!! :)

Hyderabad: lopsidedness!!

What can be said about Hyderabad?

A city? A metropolitan in the making? An urban area?

Hmmm.

I doubt this idea, of calling Hyderabad a city! Why?

Any city requires the kind of citizens that know how to live and work in a city, how to go about traveling in it. Also it requires the kind of planning that is so lacking in this "city". If one wants to see what I mean, just have a look at the traffic movement in our "city". Be assured it is going to tell you a lot about the kind of people that live here! And the municipality of this place? I don't have to write it here for those who live in Hyderabad. Their work speaks for themselves!

Through ad-hoc and senseless growth in the infrastructure, the authorities are trying to "develop" this "city", and, duh, turn it into a "metropolitan"! Rest assured, this is impossible!! I repeat, impossible! The reason for this: the people! The citizens who live and work here! They apparently do not know what it means to be in a city, except for a very few.

We Indians, generally, have a tendency to live a carefree life. However, an urban life has some expectations from the ones who are living it. It demands us to be more responsible and conscious of our surroundings, and asks us to have some civic sense, some idea of how we can make our stay in it comfortable. We have lived our lives (our fathers and fore-fathers) in villages mostly. The kind of life that exists there is quite simple and straightforward, without the complexities of an urban area. We do not need to follow a code of conduct so much there. Population density is usually low due to being spread out to a vast area. It seems as though the urban life has been given to us, from outside, while we were still unprepared or under-prepared for it. The growth is not organic. We, the people, were never taught or we never learned what it means to be in a city, the kind of conduct that we need to practice to have that good city life. Even our education system (syllabus) ignores this aspect of teaching. Under these conditions, no matter how much "development" you bring, doesn't matter how many concrete structures, skyscrapers or flyovers you erect, Hyderabad will still lag behind of being called a city.

It can be argued that the population is a bit too much for managing the "city" properly. Agreed, population is a problem but not the real problem. The real problem lies in the over migration of people (from rural areas and far away towns), and in the lopsided government policies that encourages such an exodus. The post '91 India saw a heavy movement from villages and towns to big "cities". It was the mid 1990's, the IT "boom" and with it, the growth in real estate that led to the manifold increase in the population in Hyderabad, thereby increasing the pressure on the scarce resources of the "city", especially its water table. If only the authorities had properly handled the "boom", there wouldn't have been so much of chaos as we see it today here. For instance, instead of concentrating all the IT companies in Hyderabad, they could have been distributed in the upcoming towns like Vizag or Vijaywada or any other. People would naturally like to work in areas which are nearer to their native places. However, this did not happen and so the "urban" chaos.

After all the criticism, there is still some hope that people would realize. What about the authorities? Well, they won't do anything unless we do. They know how we are. After all, they come from among us!!

A Political Sense

Part of my hobby, or my passion is to understand the relation between the Law of a state or a nation and the people (of the state or the nation) for which the law is made. In this process of understanding I came across a wonderful passage by a leading European philosopher of the 17th Century. Comments are welcome.
The passage is as follows:

"The last end of the state is not to dominate men, nor to restrain them by fear; rather it is so to free each man from fear that he may live and act with full security and without injury to himself or to his neighbor. The end of the state, I repeat, is not to make rational beings into brute beasts and machines. It is to enable their bodies and their minds to function safely. It is to lead men to live by, and to exercise, a free reason; that they may not waste their strength in hatred, anger and guile, nor act unfairly toward one another. Thus the end of the state is really liberty."

- Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus Ch. 6

Again, comments are welcome!

Miss the maturity: Chronicles of Cardiff

Everything has its limit!

I say this to myself and to others usually. When I first came here to the Cardiff city to do my post graduation, I didn't have the slightest idea that I would find such good company here. The company of friends. It took me, for the first time I suppose, almost no time to get along with people here so easily. Almost all of my friends are from the same country, and being away from respective home played its part, and we quickly became comfortable with one another. Sharing our stories with each others, cracking jokes at almost every sentence we spoke became the norm. However the speed has its repercussions as well. And it happened here too, for me at least.

A big part of my life during and after graduation had been filled with serious reading and contemplation, and discussion of issues that hardly any one of my age would have done at that stage. The friend circle that I've always had, especially after my graduation is the one I know I would cherish till my time comes. The intellectual atmosphere that I was in, the spiritual uplifting that I got was refreshing. Every time I felt like I was losing myself, I would seek the company, meet with those friends and then feel the rejuvenation. It was this friend circle, the reading and the discussions within it that actually and eventually brought me to this city for doing my MBA.

Now, as I'm here, I was supposed to do my work sincerely as I had taken a risk of leaving a good-earning job for it. Alas, I'm not doing that. I blame myself for it. I've let myself too much into the jokes and senseless discussions here. It's reaching the brink of insanity. My reading has gone to the lowest, my studies disrupted. And the worst, I now feel like I've even started losing my religion. It is just at the beginning stage, but I can sense the decline in the spirituality - the very force that keeps me ticking. Maturity is one thing I feel lacks so much in our talks. This I miss the most. And from my past 2-3 days it's actually making me feel like I've had enough of all these. I want to go back home as soon as I can... Miss the maturity, miss the touch with the reality. I don't wanna get trapped in the matrix of delusions!

God help!

P.S. (This was by no mean a critique of my friends here. No. They are my treasure! I'm simply turning over the coin and looking at the other side of it. It is a critique on myself.)

Is democracy failing?

I've been thinking a great deal on this question: what has become of the word so dear to everyone, 'democracy'? It strikes me at moments when I don't understand how people can be so blind to the injustices perpetrated on other human beings by individuals or political parties. I think it is the frailty of human mind: "self-interest". This thing in itself can't be a problem. It's a law of nature that allows an individual to grow, learn, adapt, innovate and even to contribute. The problem where I think starts is when the boundaries of this self-interest starts narrowing down, up to the point that an individual thinks of nothing but his/her personal interests, even if it comes at the expense of the other's interests!


When this happens, it becomes easy for the political parties to play with the public: to pit people against people while they enjoy the benefits that the current "democratic" system offers to those who are in power. And what about the people who are away from it? Who do not fall into this violence? Hardly is there any voice from these apolitical ones. And when they speak, they limit themselves to petty regional politics or to local-level administration only. They almost never discuss issues that really matter, the policies that the govt after Govt. follow. This becomes a major plus point for the powerful. They tend to exploit this situation.

We have such examples where the parties and individuals get away with crimes, murders and genocides. Improve the administration, make it more business-friendly, and there you go. Almost no one is interested in finding out about the crimes they had committed earlier. Some of the influential would even try not to get the truth out as it might disturb the stable environment so needed for the business. And many are simply happy with the "freedom" they think they are getting. This departure from the reality is partly due to the skewed and manipulated reporting of the main-stream media. The misrepresentation and outright lies about the different communities living in the country by movies has also played its part.


There are also those, the tiny minority, who understand what democracy means, who refuse to give in to the powerful and who refuse to accept every piece of news they get from the corporate media. What happens to them? Silenced! Killed! Raped! or simply Ignored! Still some are fighting. Some fight in the literal sense. They pick up arms to make their voices so loud that they cannot be ignored. Do they still get their right? As far as it can be seen, no! There is a major war taking place in the heartland of the country. Villages are being burnt, forests are being cleared, and people are being left homeless, their livelihoods destroyed.

What happens to such a "democracy"? Can it be called a democracy in the first place? If yes, then what is left of it today? Is democracy just about maintaining vote banks? Is it failing?? What is missing that is so essential to the very functioning of a democracy?

A must read for everyone

Following are a few extracts from a book I recently read. The book is “Muhammad: Prophet for our Time” written by Karen Armstrong. Armstrong is among the world’s most foremost commentators on religion and an important advocate for interfaith understanding. Her other books include A History of God, Muhammad: A biography of the Prophet, Buddha: A biography, Islam: A short history, and many other bestsellers. After I read the book, I must say that she’s a genius and truly honest to the subject. She tries to provide a ray of hope in this world overshadowed by the dark, gloomy clouds of wars, distrust, injustice and disharmony by focusing on one of the most important aspect of the Prophet’s life: the pluralism that Islam supports. She also tries to make the tenets of Islam (especially the difference between hilm and jahiliyyah) clear, very clear, and accessible for readers of all faiths. These are the extracts from the introduction part of the book:

The history of a religious tradition is a continuous dialogue between a transcendent reality and current events in the mundane sphere. The faithful scrutinize the sacred past, looking for lessons that speak directly to the conditions of their lives. Most religions have a figurehead, an individual who expresses the ideals of the faith in human form…. These paradigmatic personalities shed light on the often dark conditions in which most of us seek salvation in our flawed world. They tell us what a human being can be.

Muslims have always understood this. Their scripture, the Qur'an, gave them a mission: to create a just and decent society in which all members were treated with equal respect [emphasis mine]….

The life of the Prophet Muhammad was as crucial to the unfolding of Islamic ideal as it is today. His career revealed the inscrutable God’s activity in the world, and illustrated the perfect surrender (in Arabic, the word for “surrender” is Islam) that every human being should make to the divine…

The Qur’an is the holy word of God, and its authority remains absolute. But Muslims know that it is not always easy to interpret. Its laws were designed for a small community, but a century after the Prophet’s death, Muslims ruled a vast empire, stretching from a Himalayas to the Pyrenees. Their circumstances were entirely different from those of the Prophet and the first Muslims, and Islam had to change and adapt…. By understanding what had prompted a particular Qur’anic teaching, they could relate it to their own situation by means of a disciplined process of analogy…

As a paradigmatic personality, Muhammad has important lessons, not only Muslims, but also for Western people. His life was a jihad: as we shall see, this word does not mean “holy war,” it means “struggle.” Muhammad literally sweated with the effort to bring peace to war-torn Arabia, and we need people who are prepared to do this today. His life was a tireless campaign against greed, injustice, and arrogance…

Strangely, events that took place in seventh-century Arabia have much to teach us about the events of our time and their underlying significance – far more, in fact, than the facile sound bites of politicians.

Hope the above extracts entice you to read the book. It’s simply a Seerah (biography) of the Prophet but focusing on some of its very important aspects. It’s a page-turner. The language is very lucid and again the price is not much: around Rs. 290/-, available at any book store.

Critique on Indian Middle and Elite Class

Hi,

I have been out and busy with many a work. However, I still take time out and do my bit of reading, without which there are hardly any chances of my survival... lol :-)

Jokes apart, I recently read a book by the name "The Great Indian Middle Class" written by Pavan K. Verma. It's a very compelling book I must say.

Pavan K. Verma has been a member of IFS (Indian Foreign Services) and has worked at Romania, Bulgaria and also at New York at the United Nations. He's done his graduation in history and then obtained a law degree in Delhi.

Talking about the book: the central idea or the underlying idea of this book is a critique (quite insightful and powerful) on the attitudes and behaviors of the Indian middle class. In this critique, the author has shown how and when the contemporary middle class of India emerged, and how it evolved over time, especially during the 50 years after India's independence. (this book was written in 1998). He has shown how the middle class, guided by self-interest alone, has subverted the goal of an egalitarian society or say, a more just society where the gap between the rich and the poor is minimum; how, over the years, its commitment to democracy and the electoral process has declined; and how economic liberalization (after 1991) has only heightened its tendency to withdraw from anything that does not relate directly to its material well-being.

He hasn't talked about the size and structure of this middle and what kind of income-earning people constitute it. A general idea is that it is a class of people who are neither so poor that they can't have 3 times of meal a day or send their children to school nor are they so rich (like capitalists or business tycoons) who own large multinational corporations like Ambanis, Birlas, Tatas, or CEO's of top notch companies. They are somewhere in between these two extremes, but their aspirations are always to be with those few elites on the top.

Pavan Verma has divided his book into 5 chapters: The Relevance of beginnings, The Age of Hope, The End of Innocence, The Inner Landscape, and The Writing on the Wall. Each chapter depicts a major shift or phase in the evolution of this class.

Let me give you a brief extract from the book which I feel, sets the tone of the book. It's the first part of the very first chapter:

It was the night of 14th August 1947, hot, muggy and full of the dense moistness that comes with the rains at this time in New Delhi. It was not an ordinary night. For, at the stroke of midnight, India was to become a free country, putting an end to two centuries of British rule. All over the country, through its vast and sprawling plains, its verdant coastlines, and in the towns and villages nestled amidst its mountain ranges, ordinary people, largely illiterate, ill-clad, and mostly malnourished, waited with a sense of heightened anticipation for the fruition of an even long fought for and awaited. In the bigger cities, specially the capital, Delhi, animated crowds milled around, hugely excited by the imminent event. Again, these were ordinary people, aware of the momentousness of the event, but still a little fuzzy about what it would mean for them in real terms in the years to come. They were there to celebrate, and to hear their beloved leader Jawaharlal Nehru speak to them. And, at the stroke of midnight hour, Nehru spoke. In English. [emphasis mine]

'Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny,' Nehru said. ' And now the time has come to redeem our pledge...' He spoke with passion and feeling and a transparent sense of destiny. He was heard in rapt silence by the representatives of the Indian people.... Unfortunately, the elegance of his prose and the content of his speech inspired only a minuscule number of Indians, mostly from the middle class, who had access to a radio and, more importantly, could understand English. For, to the overwhelming majority of Indians... English and the way of life of which it was both a symbol and an instrument were incomprehensible and alien.

The question that arises then, quite logically, is why Nehru, who had spent a lifetime struggling against British colonialism, and who had, indeed, acquired the stature of an icon in the Indian freedom movement even in the estimation of the masses, choose to speak to them on such a momentous occasion in language they did not comprehend?

The answer to this question provides the key to understanding the nature of the impact of British colonialism on India, the genesis and content of the Indian national movement, and the emergence, as a result of the interaction of these processes in decades leading up to 1947, of the Indian middle class.

Perhaps, now you can get an idea of the kind of critique and analysis you can find in this book, and also understand its relevance and importance.

Finally, the author argues that the project of 'secession of the successful' is as dangerous as it is unrealistic in a country like India. For, if the middle class remains insensitive to the needs of the vast number of Indians who live in extreme poverty and not to mention, with the least opportunities, it does so at the risk of considerable political instability which will militate against the very prosperity that it desires.

I don't want to write much in this post. I hope people reading this post would take some time out and try to read the book. It's just 200 pages long and would cost around 250/-, available almost at every book store in any mall.

I will mention some important points in every chapter that the author has written to give you an overview of the book, but that would be in my next post.

Au revoir!

A Real Student

Who is a student? Who qualifies to be a real student? What are the qualities or rather say properties of a student? These are the few real questions, I think, a student or in general, a person ought to think about; look for the answers. Is it only the person who studies in an educational institution and completes a curriculum?

Simply, a student can be defined as one who studies. Let’s see what etymology (the study of the origin of a word) has to say:

The word student is etymologically derived through Middle English from the Latin second-type conjugation verb "studēre", meaning "to direct one's zeal at"; hence a student could be described as 'one who directs zeal at a subject'. In its widest use, "student" is used for anyone who is learning. (Wikipedia)

Let’s see what the dictionary has to say:

• A person formally engaged in learning, esp. one enrolled in a school or college; pupil: a student at Yale.
• Any person who studies, investigates, or examines thoughtfully: a student of human nature.

(dictionary.com)

We can see that it is not only a person formally engaged in learning but also the one who studies, investigates, or rather explores knowledge that can be called a student.

These are only general definitions, but if we look at the history we get a complete picture of what a student really is or what is he really meant to do. Accordingly, there are three basic and fundamental aims of a student which were propounded by my friend, Musab Iqbal.

One is thirst for and exploration of knowledge. A student does not feel satisfied by any amount of knowledge he/she gets. This thirst leads him/her to further the exploration. The knowledge, apart from books, can also be gained through our surroundings, our neighborhood, our society, towns, villages, our elders, peers and friends. This habit of digging for it is what makes a “student” the student.

Second aim of a student is to contribute to the advancement or prosperity of human civilization. He/she shares what he/she has learnt. A student works for the betterment of the world he/she lives in and is a part & parcel of. Contribution can be in various fields/disciplines – art, science, music, technology, social sciences, ecosystems, etc.

Third, he/she has to understand that a student is the link between knowledge and society. If he fails to do so, or if he is not there as a link, there will be none who can teach moral values, ethics, or guide society in the right direction.