Commonwealth Games will Not be a Dud - a Prediction

Please do not think the above title is written sarcastically, or that what follows is some kind of satire. No, rather quite to the contrary, I write the following in earnest.

I have for quite some time been skeptical of motives and methods of those who work for the Indian media, especially the national media, which includes English dailies, magazines and English and Hindi news channels, and the web sites managed by them (to whose works I get exposed; my exposure of the regional media is very little). I have highlighted the reason for this utter lack of trust in many posts of mine (click on the individual links to view them; they will open in a new window/tab):

1. Why the Indian National Media appears Anti-Hindu

2. Fine balance between lack of creativity and its excess.

3. So many inconsistencies in news reporting of "two lady doctors killing a rape victim's baby in Raigad"!

4. These are not Diwali Firecrackers, please!

5. S.I.T. Back and Enjoy Pop-Corny NewsXXX

6. Spinning Yarns to Make Undies on TV

In last 3 to 4 months, the national media has come down heavily in its criticism of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 (click) to be held in Delhi. The media has been able to convince vast majority of people that the games are going to be a dud, that many things are going to fall at the games venue, people will get injured and that large-scale mismanagement would become manifest. In fact, many have enthusiastically declared the event as "national shame" quite in advance. I have gathered that the impression among most Indians I get to interact with is that after the games get over, India would become a laughing stock in the world owing to its inability to organize events at such large scale. Of course, all that is apart from the many allegations and a some circumstantial evidence of corruption. But I am contending that except for the allegations of corruption, rest all will be proved untrue, meaning, in all likelihood, after the games are over, lot of Indians would be left with a feeling of wonder as they would be awe-struck by the grandeur and meticulousness of planning.

So, this begs the question, why the media had chosen to pursue the Games the way they did? Allegations had been flowing thick and fast, especially that of corruption with random figures thrown around as the "estimate" of the scale of corruption - from Rs. 20,000 crore to Rs. 70,000 crore. Of course, just like all other figures that media throws up, these must be attributed to some "sources", who would be well, "noted" or "eminent" or "well-placed" or "inside", etc.

Now, assuming my contention that games would not be a grand failure as anticipated by, and projected by the media, then what was the motive behind media's projecting things thus? What all purposes did it serve?

Of course, one might contend that the media acting in good faith, was only bringing to light all the corruption involved ("waterproof" umbrella, exotic tissue, etc). But good faith would have involved merely highlighting the issues related to corruption, not the other things which would convince people that the games' execution is going to be pathetic. Moreover, good faith would have also entailed providing some reasonable support for their estimate of the scale of corruption involved.

My following analysis largely draws from a comment I had posted on Atanu Dey's blog post - The Games Built on a Cesspool (click). My premise (outlined in the blog post - 'Why the Indian National Media appears Anti-Hindu' liked above) is that the national media works in a fashion that largely benefits the Nehru-Gandhi family (and not necessarily the Congress Party as some might believe; the difference is subtle, but not something very difficult to appreciate). Though we all are reacting violently in public fora at this sort of alleged corruption, Indians are actually subconsciously quite alright with corruption. We have come to terms with corruption in every walk of our life, and we also know that the larger the scale of an event, greater would be the corruption. What hardly matters to common people is the scale of corruption as very few can actually appreciate the impact a certain amount of money siphoned off could have on the nation's economy or infrastructure. To give an example very few people actually work out in their minds, that with certain amount of money alleged to be involved in corruption, how many hospitals, schools, bridges, etc. could have been built. But what matters more is the area in which corruption is alleged – so corruption in ‘games’ is quite alright, but not in defense deals [Bangaru Laxman and Jaya Jaitley had received much flak, despite virtually zero-evidence and for a much paltry sum, perhaps because it was associated with 'defense' - on which lives of so many people depend], education schemes, medical care, religious organizations, etc. But what amuses me is that figures of corruption in organization of CWG of various kinds are being floated around, with almost no evidence, and that nobody is asking for any evidence! It has become a fair game to make a guess of scale of corruption and throw around numbers, just like the number of dead Muslims in Gujarat riots of 2002. Any random figure supported with right kind of rhetoric to support it would be bought as 'true'!

a. So how does this help the Nehru-Gandhi family?

1. It appears that Kalmadi might have not been the first choice of the family for CWG organization but they could not prevent his heading the body, or perhaps he must have not been paying his haftaa – protection money, on which I had done a song parody (click). The mounting media pressure is a way to make him pay up. They (Nehru-Gandhi family) are using similar tactic against A. Raja [someone had pointed out that despite some of the most important ministries that Congress has, the most profiting ones like the Railways and Telecommunications are not with them, so they desperately want them, and this media pressure is again an attempt towards that].

2. The apparently incidental, but perhaps, the true target of this attack is Sheila Dikshit (click). I had the opportunity to live in Delhi for around 10 months, and I thought her governance is good [in that how much Delhi had improved over last decade - both in terms of infrastructure and one vital area, viz., crime control]. Of course I am not taking into consideration the amount of inflow of funds. But whatever be the case, she is one of the very few leaders in the Congress stable who does not live in the shadows of the family. Meaning, whether it be her criticism or praise, she has been seen as independent by many. I had heard of some instance of ‘rebellion’ by few Congress politicians against her a few years back, and someone had pointed out that it was engineered by the Gandhi family to weaken her position within the party. Of course that was also a conjecture, but I could see that pattern in many of the family’s and media’s actions [I am also aware of the flaw of this manner of thinking - I can go on citing incidents that seem to support my speculation, with disregard for other incidents that contradict it, but let me proceed with that technique]. And of course, the Gandhi family’s larger challenge, if one sees carefully, is not so much to keep the BJP and other parties out of power, but to keep others in the Congress itself from usurping their position! It would be naive to believe that all other Congress politicians are taken in by the fair skin of the Gandhis, and that they are bereft of any political ambition. But the fact that the supremacy of the family in the party is still unchallenged to this unimaginable degree only points to the possibility that something in working of the Congress party must make it excessively unyielding to show any ambition, or perhaps in some way, even perilous [three young and (electorally) 'promising' Congress leaders had died in the last decade in freak accidents]. Sheila Dikshit’s son is also a member of Parliament – another reason to be sure to keep her position weak.

b. Apart from the above factors, the ways in which this coverage is helping the media and the family is:

1. Distracting people from other events of greater gravity – hoisting of Pakistani flag in Kashmir, riots in Deganga in West Bengal (in which the ‘Pioneer’ reports that one or more persons had died), an unconfirmed burning of Shiva Temple in Kashmir (and the usual – rising food prices, farmer suicides, etc.). The treachery of Man Mohan Singh in the Nuclear Liability Bill is again something the CWG coverage had helped push largely under the carpet. Has anyone wondered, what degree of cheapness it was to have inserted “and” and “intent” as caveats in the bill? I am not going into the practical aspects of the deal (e.g., if having stringent criteria would make the deal so scary for the suppliers that they will decline to do business). Here was an incident, where despite the high amount of scrutiny, and possibly very grave eventual consequences, the Congress Party tried to hoodwink the entire nation! And what is interesting is that in response to the accusation of our prime minister being a puppet of the family, one of the shining examples of his independence that is advanced is his personal involvement in the Indian nuclear deal program!!! Compared to him, Shashi Tharoor surely got a very raw deal, whereas Dr. Singh escaped unscathed as a ‘clean’ politician despite much larger stakes. Neat, no? Why? Simply because, all along the prime example of corruption and deception that people will think of for quite some time to come will be Kalmaidi of the CWG infamy!

2. Using this as an instance, the media can always claim – “See, we critique the Congress also”! But what works here is the apparent lack of proximity of Kalmadi with the Gandhis, and also the fact that majority are going to think in terms of “games toh aakhir games hi hote hain” [Games are after all just that - games!]. So despite its extremely vicious coverage, the impression formed about the CWG does not make the family at all look bad as compared to say Babri demolition and the death of Muslims in Gujarat riots [Look carefully, on TV news, besides every allegation of corruption or broken tile or fallen bridge, the portrait would be of Kalmadi, and not someone from the family].

c. But, what will the media say after the games are over and (if) they are proved wrong with regard to grand failure of the games that they had been predicting for quite some time?

Nothing much! They will still continue to point out minor flaws of the games for a few days to come, or even start praising the game as if nothing had happened! Moreover, very few people will wonder why the CWG’s success would have proved them and the media wrong! Of course, few people might go into denial as to how come their confidence that the CWG would fail miserably could have been misplaced. But in the entire occurrence, almost no one would pause to wonder as to how come they were misled so convincingly by the media about the CWG's imminent failure, simply because, “games toh aakhir games hi hote hain” and the media would anyway start distracting their patrons with other such trivialities!

Of course, my entire analysis depends on CWG’s moderate to spectacular success, so unlike, Mani Shankar Ayyer, I am praying desperately for their success! ;) To hell with nation’s welfare and atheism! :P

The reason I decided to put up a prediction instead of doing a post-games analysis is to serve my narcissism. If my prediction proves correct, I could gloat - "see, I understand the media so well, all my conspiracy theories with regard to how media works are correct, etc, etc", but of course my theories also stand a chance of being proved wrong, in which I would have to eat a humble pie and throw a shoe at...

Difference?

"Burning a Book will invite terrorist attacks on Americans" | "Dressing provocatively encourages rape"

Song Parody: 1 - Duniya mein logon ko

This is after real long that I am parodizing an entire Hindi song. Hope, you enjoy!

-----

To be sung to the tune of 'Duniya mein logon ko'. Original lyrics are in green, and parodied ones are in orange. Also, lyrics have been phonetically rendered in Roman script for those browsers that might not render the Devanagari script.

Watch on YouTube (click)

RD: | K'Ma D:

बीरा... | छीना...
टरा टरा टरा, परा परा परा | बड़ा बड़ा बड़ा, मारा मारा मारा
टराटराटराटरा तरारू | देश का pocket मारामारामारा मारुरुरु


दुनिया में, logon को | Commonwealth में, ऐसे तो
धोखा कभी हो जाता है | एक-आध खोखा^* यूँही खो जाता है

आँखों ही, आँखों में | लाखों ही, लाखों में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | प्यारों का bill pay हो जाता है


Asha: | Money-aa:

दुनिया में... | Commonwealth में...


RD: | K'Ma D:

दुनिया में... | Commonwealth में...


Asha: | Money-aa:

(नागिन सी मेरी चाल, रखना दिल का ख़याल | (Maoमाता का अड्डा बंगाल, रखती Maoists का ख़याल
मेरे दीवानों का, हो जाता है यह हाल) -2 | Media से कह के मैंने, उठवा दिया games का सवाल) -2

बीड़ा, बीड़ा, बड़ा बड़ा | चीरा, चीरा, फाड़ा, फाड़ा
टरा टरा टरा, तुरु तुरु तुरु, तुरु, तुरु तुरु तुरु तुरु रु | मारा मारा मारा, देश का pocket मारा मारा मारा, मारा मारा मारुरुरु


जागी मैं, सारी रैन | Games में, मैं हैरान
सारा जहां सो जाता है | पैसा कहाँ खो जाता है
आँखों ही, आँखों में | लाखों ही, लाखों में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | मेरा कुछ नहीं हो पाता है


R D: | K'Ma D:

(कहती है यह नज़र, कब क्या हो क्या खबर | (Official तो है figure, पर अन्दर की उन्हें क्या खबर
दुनिया में चंद लोग, होते हैं जादूगर) -2 | Money-aa ma'am को ठगकर, हूँ तो मैं बेफिक़र) -2

बीड़ा, बीड़ा, बड़ा बड़ा | चीरा, चीरा, फाड़ा, फाड़ा
टरा टरा टरा, तुरु तुरु तुरु, तुरु, तुरु तुरु तुरु तुरु रु | मारा मारा मारा, देश का pocket मारा मारा मारा, मारा मारा मारुरुरु


Asha: | Money-aa:

सुनिए जी, उन पे भी | भ्रष्ट-एष जी, मुझ को तो
जादू कभी हो जाता है | आप पे भी शक हो जाता है
आँखों ही, आँखों में | लाखों ही, लाखों में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | मेरा कुछ नहीं हो पाता है


R D: | K'Ma D:

(पिंजरे में चलके आप, आ जाता है शिकार | (ऐसा न कहिये आप, करूंगा आप को भी मालामाल

Asha: | Money-aa:

कातिल पे भी कभी, आ जाता है प्यार) -2 | चमचे भी करते कभी, हैं चालाकी की मजाल) -2

बीड़ा, बीड़ा, बड़ा बड़ा | चीरा, चीरा, फाड़ा, फाड़ा
टरा टरा टरा, तुरु तुरु तुरु, तुरु, तुरु तुरु तुरु तुरु रु | मारा मारा मारा, देश का pocket मारा मारा मारा, मारा मारा मारुरुरु

बातों ही, बातों में | अकेले में, खाने से
होना है जो हो हाता है | चमचा Tharoored हो जाता है
आँखों ही, आँखों में | देखते ही, देखते में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | CBI पीछे पड जाता है *wink* *wink*


Asha: | Money-aa:

दुनिया में... | Commonwealth में...

---

RD: | K'Ma D:


beeraa... | Chheena...
tara tara taraa, para para para | badaa badaa badaa, maara maara maara
taraataraataraatara taraaru | desh ka pocket maaramaaramaara maarururu


duniya mein, logon ko | Commonwealth mein, aise toh
dhokha kabhi ho jaata hai | Ek-aadh khokha yunhi kho jaata hai

aankhon hi, aankhon mein | laakhon hi, laakhon mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai | Pyaaron ka bill pay ho jaata hai


Ashaa: | Money-aa:

duniya mein ... | Commonwealth mein...


RD: | K'Ma D:

duniya mein ... | Commonwealth mein...


Asha: | Money-aa:

(naagin si meri chaal, rakhana dil ka khayaal | (MaoMaata ka adda Bangal, rakhati Maoists ka khayaal
mere deevaanon kaa, ho jaata hai ye haal) -2 | Media se kah ke maine, uthawa diya games ka sawaal) -2

beedaa, beedaa, baayaraa, baayara | cheera, cheera, phaada, phaada
taraatara taraa, turu turu turu, turu turu turu turu turu ru | maara maara maara, desh ka pocket maara maara maara, maara maara maarururu


jaagi main, saari rain | Games mein, main hairaan
saara jahaan so jata hai | paisa kahaan kho jaata hai
aankhon hee, aankhon mein | laakhon hi, laakhon mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai | mera kucch nahin ho paata hai


R D: | K'Ma D:

(kahati hai ye nazar, kab kya ho kya khabar] | (Official toh hai figure, par andar ki unhein kya khabar

duniya mein chand log, hote hain jaadugar) -2 | Money-aa ma'am ko thugkar, hoon toh main befiqar) -2
beedaa, beedaa, baayaraa, baayara | cheera, cheera, phaada, phaada
taraatara taraa, turu turu turu, turu turu turu turu turu ru | maara maara maara, desh ka pocket maara maara maara, maara maara maarururu


Asha: | Money-aa:

suniye jee, un pe bhi | Bhrasthesh ji, mujh ko toh
jaadu kabhi ho jaata hai | aap pe bhi shaq ho jaata hai
aankhon hee, aankhon mein | laakhon hi, laakhon mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai | mera kuchh nahin ho paat hai


R D: | K'Ma D:

(pinjare mein chalake aap, a jaata hai shikaar] | (aisa na kahiye aap, karoonga aap ko bhi maalamaal

Asha: | Money-aa:

qaatil pe bhi kabhee, a jaata hai yoon pyaar) -2 | chamche bhi karate kabhi, hain chaalaki ki majaal) -2

beedaa, beedaa, baayaraa, baayara] | cheera, cheera, phaada, phaada
taraatara taraa, turu turu turu, turu turu turu turu turu ru | maara maara maara, desh ka pocket maara maara maara, maara maara maarururu

baaton hi, baaton mein] | akele mein, khaane se
hona hai jo ho jaata hai] | chamchaa Tharoored ho jaata hai
aankhon hee, aankhon mein] | Dekhte hi, dekhte mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai] | CBI peeche pad jaata hai *wink* *wink*


Asha: | Money-aa:

duniya mein ... | Commonwealth mein...

^*खोखा = Rs. 1 crore in colloquial Hindi.

-----

Lyrics courtesy: Bollywood hungama (click)

Islamophobia is a Misnomer - a few Rebuttals

In my last post (click), I had quoted translations of a few verses from the Quran. A tweeter - Mr. Kashif Shahzada (click) who apparently is quite knowledgeable of the scripture had pointed out a few inconsistencies in its precepts across different chapters and a few within them and that individual verses must not be cherry-picked, but should be interpreted in context of what is conveyed in verses elsewhere. The significance of this is that, two of the (untoward) conclusions one might draw on reading the verses I had quoted were contradicted by other verses elsewhere in the Quran. In what follows, I quote the said verses, and also the contradictory verses from the Quran and Mr. Kashif's explanation/rebuttal, which I will try to paraphrase as faithfully as possible.

1. (From Chapter 3)
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. [Verify: Sura 3:28]

This might make one think that Muslims are forbidden from helping or showing kindness to "Unbelievers". Mr. Kashif had pointed out this instruction applies only to those who are hostile towards and first attack the believers of Allah. In support he had referred me to the following two verses:

1.a (From Chapter 60)
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path. [Verify: Sura 60:1]

1.b (From Chapter 60)
YUSUFALI: Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust. [Verify: Sura 60:9]

2. (From Chapter 9)
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Verify: Sura 9:5]

This might make one believe that Muslims are supposed to kill idolators as soon as the time-period of the pact (the Pagans/idolators are supposed to make with Muslims at/near a Mosque to live in peace) ends. Mr. Kashif here, buttressing with the following sura, pointed out that again this instruction applied only to those Unbelievers who had taken the initiative to assault believers of Allah:

2.a (From Chapter 9)
YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
SHAKIR: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [Verify: Sura 9:13]

My points that I had made in the previous post, I believe, prevail. While, I can get more into technicalities, that is uncalled for. To make a simple point, what is the logic behind mentioning the precondition of hostility and aggression as subclause for not befriending "Unbelievers" in chapter 60, which is far removed from chapter 3? Also, if verse 9:5 calls for something as serious as killing off of idolators despite having had a pact with them as soon as its time period ends, would it not be pragmatic to forcefully mention then and there the caveat that those unbelievers have to be hostile and aggressive?

I rest my case here.

Disclaimer: Mr. Kashif had been patient and civil in his debate - something that I appreciate, nor did he insist or mention that I issue the clarifications/rebuttals that I did above.

Islamophobia is a Misnomer

An important note: A tweeter had presented rebuttals to few of the arguments in what follows. I consider it important to inform the reader that I have included them in one of my subsequent posts - Islamophobia is a Misnomer - a few Rebuttals (click), which I request the reader to go through to form, what I consider a slightly more nuanced opinion on the whole issue.

I do not believe that an entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, sentient and intention-driven, and which also created the Universe and oversees the various occurrences in it, exists. Allah (click), incidentally possesses many of the attributes, which the entity I do not believe to be existent is supposed to possess. Now that makes me a kafir (=infidel) through multiple criteria (click).

The Quran (click) is purported to be the final word of the God (Allah):

"Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the verbal book of divine guidance and direction for mankind. Muslims also consider the original Arabic verbal text to be the final revelation of God." - Wikipedia

Now, the Quran says many things (click), lot of which are prescriptions and proscriptions on how to lead one's life, i.e., what to do or what not to do. Some of those prescriptions/proscriptions (click) are of umm... err... disturbing nature (of course for infidels like me). I quote a few that leave little to imagination:

[Please note:
I. All the English translations of the Quran written in Arabic language in this post are taken from University of Southern California's 'Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement', which comes with the following disclaimer:

"Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections [click])."

II. The web site uses translations by three different authors, who respectively are: Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall and M. H. Shakir. Thus, each sura I quote will have three translations. This I believe, should largely lay to rest the skepticism expressed regarding the accuracy of translations of the Quran (click):

"Translation of the Quran has always been a problematic and difficult issue in Islamic theology. Since Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text can not be reproduced in another language or form. Furthermore, an Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on the context, making an accurate translation even more difficult." - Wikipedia

"The original meaning of a Qur'anic passage will also be dependent on the historical circumstances of the prophet Muhammad's life and early community in which it originated. Investigating that context usually requires a detailed knowledge of Hadith and Sirah, which are themselves vast and complex texts. This introduces an additional element of uncertainty which can not be eliminated by any linguistic rules of translation." - Wikipedia

III. You can verify from the University of Southern California's web site, each quoted sura's translation by clicking on "Verify" after the translation ends. The translation will automatically open in a new window or tab, but do wait for some time for the linked page to load completely and for it to point to the intended Sura.

IV. Some of the suras are to be read in continuation to best understand their complete meaning.]

-----

1.
YUSUFALI: Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.
SHAKIR: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. [Verify: Sura 2:98]

YUSUFALI: We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse.
PICKTHAL: Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them.
SHAKIR: And certainly We have revealed to you clear communications and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors. [Verify: Sura 2:99]

2.
YUSUFALI: Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
SHAKIR: Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers. [Verify: Sura 3:32]

3.
YUSUFALI: When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
PICKTHAL: And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
SHAKIR: And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. [Verify: Sura 4:101]

4.
YUSUFALI: In a Believer they (infidels/idolators) respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
PICKTHAL: And they (infidels/idolators) observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors.
SHAKIR: They (infidels/idolators) do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits. [Verify: Sura 9:10]

YUSUFALI: But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
PICKTHAL: But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.
SHAKIR: But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. [Verify: Sura 9:11]

YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
PICKTHAL: And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.
SHAKIR: And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist. [Verify: Sura 9:12]

YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
SHAKIR: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [Verify: Sura 9:13]

YUSUFALI: Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,
PICKTHAL: Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.
SHAKIR: Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people. [Verify: Sura 9:14]

5.
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. [Verify: Sura 3:28]

6.
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Verify: Sura 9:5] Now here I would like to point out that though I am not an idolator, many people I hold dear, like my mother, father, relatives and closest friends are!

7.
USUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). [Verify: Sura 9:123]

8.
YUSUFALI: And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as a Mercy from thy Lord: Therefore lend not thou support in any way to those who reject (Allah's Message).
PICKTHAL: Thou hadst no hope that the Scripture would be inspired in thee; but it is a mercy from thy Lord, so never be a helper to the disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And you did not expect that the Book would be inspired to you, but it is a mercy from your Lord, therefore be not a backer-up of the unbelievers. [verify: Sura 28:86]

-----

While, I could have quoted the translations of many such suras here, I guess, these many would suffice to make my point. I have tried my best to not quote selectively, and have provided the context of each sura. Also, some might point out that there must be many Muslims who overlook the above kind of umm... err... disturbing prescriptions and proscriptions. Let us see what the Quran has to say about such selective following of the God's word:

YUSUFALI: After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
PICKTHAL: Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
SHAKIR: Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do. [Verify: Sura 2:85]

So basically, if a Muslim does not follow the Quran in entirety, he/she is disgraced for life, and more important, Allah would punish severely after the said Muslim dies. Which implies, a true Muslim is not supposed to use his/her discretion in selecting what suras to follow and which ones not to.

Let me come more specifically to the title of this blog post: what is Islamophobia?

While, there are more nuanced definitions to be found of the term on Wikipedia's article on Islamophobia (click), I am taking the least devious one, the one which is arrived at from its etymology: Islam-o-phobia, i.e., phobia of Islam. Phobia is defined (click) as:

"A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus." - Wikipedia

So, after reading what Allah has commanded the true Muslims on how to treat infidels like me, if I fear for my life and safety, is that fear irrational, excessive and unreasonable?

Let me clarify here a few things. I am perfectly aware that no one gets to choose their parents, and hence the religion they are born into. I will never hold against the circumstances of their birth against anyone. One of the impassioned 'arguments' offered by religious apologists (of all colors) is that one's religious beliefs are a matter of choice, and we must not judge people for that. Now honestly, that is such a silly thing to say! Do we not judge people precisely by the choices they make? If no volition would be involved, e.g., in matters of skin color or height or voice or some physical handicap, it would not be wise to judge people adversely for that. So what choice do those people have if they do not approve of the tenets of religions they were born into?

Let me recount a small incident here. Over the social networking web site, twitter, a user who had said in a tweet mentioning me, "you might disagree, but all Muslims must be killed". I told him that I did not agree with him, and that whatever he was saying amounted to hate-speech and he could be punished for that, and most important, I 'unfollowed' him. I must add that it was not a case that all his tweets had been insane, he had a few 'good' (sensible) things also to say. But important point is, the moment he espoused violence against a certain group of people only for the family they were born into or for their chosen religious beliefs, I expressed my strong disapproval and denounced his views. Can a religious scripture be 'unfollowed', provided one actually disapproves of things written in it? Can a religious scripture be similarly disapproved of and denounced for espousing violence against a certain group of people only for the family they were born into or for their chosen religious beliefs? Why or why not? I leave that question to be answered by religious apologists and religious theists. Remember, the said tweeter had also said a few things that were sensible.

Okay, coming to another aspect of Islamophobia - contempt towards and discrimination against Muslims. Why should I be expected to respect someone who systematically hates me by virtue of following the Quran in entirety, and who would not help me, nor befriend me, and would take it upon him/herself to kill idolators who I hold dear? Perhaps, I could be accused of being sensationalist. Let us try again! What shall I think of a person who considers the precepts in the above quoted suras as unassailable truth and divine revelation to be revered? Especially so, when the said person has the option of rejecting those ideas as utter rubbish?

Then, there is one more argument put forth by religious apologists:

"But why do you selectively target the evils of religion? There are so many good things in religion, no? Why not just follow the good things and forget the bad things?"

There are two things I would like to say in response. First, consider a person who goes to an orphanage. He makes generous donations, and also asks others to do the same. But he picks up every child wearing a blue colored dress and stabs and kills him/her. And moreover, he does this in cold blood, without remorse. What would be your assessment of such a person? Would you persist with your plea of "just look at the positives and overlook the negatives"? Why should such cherry-picking be done? Why not assess the person in entirety? Likewise, why not assess religions in entirety without trying to be too lenient in judging them? Second thing I want to point out is, the moment one takes a call as to what is "good" in a religion and what is "bad", they are using their own discretion on what is good v/s bad. Which means their reasoning and discretion had superseded the precepts of the scripture. In other words, they do not need the said scripture to know what is good and what is bad!

So, what am I to think of religious apologists who want to themselves make unwarranted concessions to religion and also expect me to make the very same concessions? What am I to think of those who would hail the orphan-killer as a great saint and revere him because of few 'good' things he does by overlooking his murderous streak?

In summary, I have put forth what the Quran says of infidels like me, which obviously a true Muslim is supposed to subscribe to. In light of these facts, it is difficult to not fear and to respect true Muslims and the religious ideology they willingly follow (despite having a choice to reject that ideology, provided the said Muslim actually disagrees with it). And hence, the term 'Islamophobia' in its purest sense is a misnomer.

PS: With this I complete 100 posts on my blog. :)

Counterintuitive Ideas on Career-Choice

Do not make that you are most passionate about, your source of livelihood

That is what I have told many people who I interact with online. A few disclaimers are in order, though. I have not yet practically begun my career, so great portion of my analysis is purely conjectural. Also, the above idea if taken as an advise would apply particularly to those who are faced with the prospect of making a career-related choice (in India). Of course, others who are already into their careers, and armed with the benefit of a hind-sight can provide their feedback.

I will begin with an anecdote.

---

During my MBBS-days, I had come in close contact with my psychiatry teacher. I would rate him as one of the best teachers I ever had. In a seminar a group of students was to present, it became apparent that even two years after the completion of his postgraduation course, he was remembering the respective functions of alpha-subunits (click) of various G-proteins (click). Those readers to who this statement won't make sense, suffice to say that his study was very detailed and he must have really loved his books and the field of psychiatry to have remembered all that. In short time he had become my idol. I had really started loving psychiatry, yet something was holding me back from thinking of it as a serious career-choice. Of course, he never nudged me into trying to take up psychiatry as a career, but on taking a stock of my own feelings, I concluded that my reservation was owing to the fact that despite knowing in great details the causes of many conditions at even molecular level, we as clinicians cannot do much to correct the 'root' causes!

This because, we cannot make the right molecule reach the right part of the brain to act on it. Molecules of any drug will reach even those parts of brain where nothing is wrong, and cause undesired effects. This in turn is because, brain actually uses a very limited number of molecules (called neurotransmitters [click]) to carry out the countless functions it performs. What brings specificity are not as much the particular type of neurtotransmitter released or the specific receptor for it, but more so the way the neurons are 'wired' to each other. E.g. a nerotransmitter 'M' when released by neroun '1' when acting on receptor 'R1' present on neuron '2' can activate it. In turn the neuron '2' activates neuron '3' by releasing molecule 'N' acting on receptor 'R2' present on the latter. Thus, final effect of release of M by neuron 1 would be the activation of neruon 3. But what if, instead of 'R1' present on neuron 2, we have receptor 'R3', which inhibits its function instead of activating it? Obviously, release of M by neuron 1 would cause inhibition of release of N, and neuron 3 would tend to remain inactivated. So now, think of a disorder wherein neurons in one region of the brain produce less of M. To counter this deficiency, if we deliver an oral dose of a drug that would enhance availability of M to neuron 2 it can compensate for the deficiency, right? The drug molecules upon crossing the blood brain barrier (click) will reach the fluid bathing the glial cells (click) that surround the individual neurons. The glial cells in turn would modulate the amount of drug reaching neuron 2. Now, the problem is that not all regions of brain are deficient in M! So the regions with normally functioning type 1 neurons will also receive additional amounts of M (because the administered drug would be supposed to do that). So, obviously depending upon whether neuron 2 in other regions inhibits or activates the 'downstream' neuron 3, this situation would result in derangement of many functions. Plus, not to mention the difficulty in making most drugs cross the blood brain barrier.

Of course, I did not have to explain what I wrote in the preceding paragraph to my teacher. It was only for the benefit of the reader. So our means to target specific disorders of brain (prominently, psychiatric disorders) are very limited. And that would remain so for the foreseeable future. This limitation would lead to imminent feeling of helplessness and frustration. The bottomline is: I had decided against being a psychiatrist. Some days before that, to look up something he had shown me one of his texts on psychiatry. It was a two (or three, I don't remember for sure)-volume set (easily over 3,000 pages in all), and it must be said that he had read each and every page more than once. I was surprised and impressed with his dedication. I mentioned that to him, so he smiled and showed me yet another textbook a with one volume more than the previous one, and which he had similarly 'ill-treated'! ;) Also, as a clinician, he was gentle and empathetic with patients. I realized, it takes a lot for a psychiatrist to not get emotionally involved with the patients. They cannot afford to do so. So, they take refuge in humor. But despite that he had never been contemptuous of patients and used to take great care in maintaining confidentiality despite the fact that most patients coming to that hospital were poor and quite uneducated, so there would be little chance of litigation; I was left with little doubt that this person just loved psychiatry. A lot. And that he was also a very suitable to be a psychiatrist.

He was to quit the college job to start his own practice in one of the bigger towns in Maharashtra. He had this fascination to have his own practice. He made his intentions clear that he would like to lead a comfortable life and earn sufficiently for that. His wife is a dermatologist. So, I could not make out how much would he have liked to earn! Anyway, for many people, private medical practice is enticing not merely because it would offer them chance to earn more (which by the way, does not happen in many cases), but also because it satisfies their entrepreneurial urges. At that time (in 2004-05) his and his wife's monthly salary had been Rs. 18,000 each. And he was 30. Obviously, it was a very low pay. But he explained that the situation was much the same in any college (now pay scales are better owing to implementation of the sixth pay commission).

So off he went to the town he had chosen. A few weeks later, he had returned to the college for some work. And as we were having a chat, he mentioned in passing that he had joined the local laughter club in his town. I was amused. I asked him if he indeed believed in the purported health benefits of such laughing. He told me, he had joined the club not for any health benefits, but for networking - to come into contact with more people, which in turn would bring him more patients (and more money)!

I was shattered.

---

Here was a man, perfect in my eyes to practice as a psychiatrist, also quite ethical, who loved psychiatry, and yet he had to resort to such dishonorable means to get patients to earn money? To me it was like his cheating on his love - the field of psychiatry. I cannot yet describe how I had felt listening to him say that. Did he care any longer for psychiatry? Would he still try to remember the G-protein subtypes? Would he still be curious to understand what was wrong with the patient or would he be more interested in getting the patient to come back to him only to dry the patient's pockets, or earn money from 'cuts' (anecdotally, the 30% commission) received by referring the patient for other (needless) investigations and consultations? I want to clarify here, that what had shocked me was not his eagerness to earn money, or even some of the unethical means that he might have come to use in the process, but what had happened between him and psychiatry! He had loved it. And, now?

I concluded that what we are most passionate about is like a romantic relationship. We hold highly idealistic views of our objects of love. We hold them in high regard. We reserve the best we could be for them, otherwise we would be afraid of defiling them. Imagine, having to lie on some very vital matter to someone you love and respect, how difficult is it? A lot, at least for me. But making that passion a means of sustenance is like marrying it! The attraction gradually dies. The small things we dislike about it amplify and start grating on our nerves. The compulsion to earn using what we are passionate about makes us hate what we had loved to begin with. This compulsion also compels us into making 'adjustments' in how we do what we do with our passion. It starts seeming like we are prostituting our skills and abilities and the passion that would have gone in acquiring them only to earn damn money!

To say the same thing in somewhat different words, when you earn, you are the supply, your client is the demand. More often than not owing to market forces, it is the demand that shapes the nature of supply. The supply cannot be arrogant to say, "hey dude, here's what I got. You want it? No? Sorry, look elsewhere", because our dude would indeed look elsewhere! As an obvious corollary, the supply has to mold according to what the demand is.

Of course, 'reasonable' compromises can be made with our passion. Really? Remember, wasn't your passion your Divine? If it was not, it was never passion in the first place. Wasn't it something that you had held dearest to you, always maintaining its sanctity, never defiling it? Wasn't that passion, the manner in which you let it unfold, an embodiment of what you were, what your deepest values and aspirations were? Now you have come to this, that you want to make reasonable compromises with it, eh? So, now your Divine is no longer Divine, but an agreeable neighbor who you could approach in times of need, or much worse, your 'host' who you parasite upon like a leech?

To give my example, I love to: observe; make sense of what I get to observe; think; organize my thoughts and articulate them in the most precise fashion possible through words. It is one of the greatest passions of mine. What would happen if I make a career out of it? E.g., if I have a mechanism for receiving donations on my blog, and each time I write something humorous I get Rs. 200, but each time I write on religion and god - criticizing the two, I get nothing. What would happen if my survival were to depend on how much money I make through blogging? Each time I feel like blogging on atheism, would I be able to do it with same passion and honesty as without any concern for how my write up is received?

Think of a school science teacher. What if she enjoys teaching concepts by giving analogies, and also likes to enlist the applications of such concepts? What if she enjoys making students think, and see their eyes fill with wonder on understanding something novel about something ubiquitous? But as you know, that is not what our education and exams are about! They are about mundane facts, or how to underline the most important "points" while answering; how to best convince the evaluator that you know the answers (irrespective of whether you actually know)! What if students do not want to learn what she teaches? Then our teacher might come down to the level of merely dictating notes. Or, if the students are to appear for entrance exams, and if the said teacher would be teaching in some 'coaching institute' then she would share 'tricks', 'shortcuts' and mnemonics with them. What would happen to science and her love for it; that would get buried somewhere? Can you imagine how miserable would she feel?

This clash between demand and supply has been very well exemplified by Howard Roark (click), the architect from Ayn Rand's (click) novel - 'The Fountainhead'. Though a great fan of Ayn Rand and her vision, I am stating here something almost contradictory to the 'moral' of her story. In her story, Roark triumphs against his adversaries. His complete antithesis - Peter Keating (mentioned in the same Wikipedia article on Roark) - initially succeeds a lot as an architect. Keating's only drives are approval by others and money. In the process, he loses everything - including the only one thing he had truly loved in all his life - his friend of childhood - Catherine. While, what happened to Keating is very likely to happen in real life, Howard Roark was plain lucky! Also, he had this incredible amount of tolerance. Tolerance of contempt, tolerance of physical hardships, tolerance of deceptions, tolerance of slow rate at which time passed (in other words, patience he showed in waiting for Dominique Francon to understand that he could not allow 'others' to dictate to him what he did with his life, and that what others thought of his work was not a determinant of whether he should do it), tolerance for failures. The only thing he did not have was tolerance for derision of his Divine, i.e., his vision of what buildings should be like. His Divine was intensely personal to him - he could not tolerate others' touching his building-designs, more specifically, the functionality behind them (Rand had sought to use functionality of building designs as the counterpart of 'truthfulness' in one's way of living). His vision of his Divine was sacrosanct to him. Others' visions, if not backed by the same passion, were mere contaminants for him. All this might make him seem arrogant, to be so unaccommodating, but what endeared him to me was his frank admission of the same! He had one true love - architecture - and he stayed loyal to it. On many occasions, by trading off his comfort and prospects of fulfillment of other desires. Thus, Howard Roark for me became the perfect human being that could be envisioned! He was my Divine (click), and still is. But I am not trying to emulate him. I know I do not have it in me to live the way he had. In fact, Ayn Rand had herself alluded to the fact that her (exemplary) characters are not to be found in the real life, but were extreme idealizations of traits that could be found in some extraordinary humans.To paraphrase her (and in turn, Aristotle), she had wanted to present characters, not as humans are, but could be and ought to be. And she had juxtaposed those perfect characters with the contemporary imperfect world, which was quite adversarial to perfection (as envisioned by Rand). She wanted to highlight the conflicts that perfection had to engage in to be able to survive in its purest form.

So, what is the solution? Should one abandon what one is most passionate about, and totally forget it, only for the fear of the difficulties that the world would pose?

In a way, yes. But of course, not totally. It is not as bad as it might sound. I think it is best to pursue what one generally likes but also has a few misgivings about as one's vocation (for income). This will ensure two things. First, you would be sensitized to the possibilities of disappointment and frustration. If your fears indeed turn out true, you would be emotionally prepared for that. Also, as you would not have invested all your emotions in the 'also-liked' activity, you would still have lot many things to look forward to in your life if your career does not shape up exactly the way you had wanted. The second thing that this would ensure is that you will still have fascination for your passion. Your romance with it can continue on the side. You can pursue it as your amateur interest, doing exactly what you want, exactly on your own terms, without any care of who says what or how much you get to earn from pursuing it. Additionally, one can use that amateur hobby as a source of supplementary income (e.g., photography, painting, writing, etc.). Another related idea is to try to save sufficiently in the early parts of your career, and when you have requisite financial security, you could try making a career out of your passion.

Of course, not all career-options are open to amateur pursuit. E.g., joining the army or being a civil engineer or a doctor. But if one looks at such choices carefully, it must be asked, how can one develop passion for them without any exposure to the actual work involved in those fields? I have seen many adolescents/children get fascinated by the white coat, the stethoscope and the respect that doctors command. But that is not what medical practice is about! Fascination for such things hardly amounts to passion! And I'm afraid, quite a few teenagers harbor wrong impressions about what a particular field of work entails.

Also, despite my never having been to any western country, I feel people there do not need to be as much apprehensive while selecting their career for many reasons. First, there seems to be lesser competition for college 'seats'. Second, work ethics are better, so it is easier to like one's work there (whereas, the situations seems to be quite the opposite in India!). Third, the society is more accepting of various kinds of career choices. There would not be neighbors or relatives gossipping about an unconventional career choice one makes. Also, they are more accommodating in general of choices people make. E.g., someone aged thirty-five making a career switch would not be ridiculed by his 15 years younger class mates, but in all likelihood would still be respected for exploring new things. Fourth, owing to greater availability of college seats it is easier to make a career switch. Fifth, on the whole less effort is required to be able to afford the basic amenities for living. Meaning, even if one makes a bad career choice, and income would be less, their existence would not be 'hand-to-mouth' so to say. Whereas in India, vast majority of employed people have to struggle real hard for even basic survival.

So basically through the preceding paragraph, I just wanted to point out that the extreme paranoia that forms the backdrop of my entire argument, would apply only to India or few other countries with comparable social milieu and economic condition.

I am aware that given the extremely loud message conveyed by the media (in form of career advise in 'educational' supplements) and movies like 3 idiots (click) of to go for career involving one's passion, my arguments to some might seem extremely wacky or deliberate attempt to be stand in opposition to common sense. However, that of course is not the case. :)

Your thoughts are welcome!

Ethics in Tangents: Part 1 - Lessons on Inequity of Risks and Benefits

In a lecture on radiation safety, the teacher had veered a bit into the ethics of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. He explained that it has to be ensured that those working at nuclear establishments for larger good of the society (e.g., energy production, diagnosis & treatment in medicine) despite facing risks to health & life, must be adequately compensated as not all the benefits that arise off their work go to those working. A logic similar in line has been laid out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (IRCP) [click] in their (PDF) document on their History, Policies, Principles (click to download):

For equity reasons (because those who are exposed are not necessarily those who gain by a practice) some dose or risk limitation is necessary to prevent the optimised situation from being one where a few individuals receive inappropriately high doses.

It was agreed between the teacher and the students that that compensation to the workers is in the form of the salary they draw. But that got me thinking: is that really so, more so in the government-controlled nuclear establishments in India? Do those working at high-risk places get higher pay as compared to those doing the same work in low-risk environments? Does for instance, an office clerk working in precincts of a nuclear establishment draw a larger salary than one working in a college administrative office? Answer, as of now is “no”. Why is that so?

My above thoughts were tangential to what was being discussed in the class (though, I would return to them later). The teacher went on to assert that if nuclear establishment worker gets monetarily compensated for the risk he/she takes, then the converse must also hold true, i.e., all those who derive benefit from existence of such establishments must face a non-zero quantum of risk. Well, that made perfect sense to me. And that is how he justified the risks posed to the general public by the operation of facilities with radioinuclides [click] (those forms of elements that emit ionizing radiation, which have potential for health hazards). As an aside, I came across this (click) blog post, which explains how risks posed by waste routinely generated from nuclear power plants have been overestimated by many [note: the article does not cite many sources, moreover, it does not cover risks posed by nuclear accidents, but to the best of my knowledge is quite correct].

Later, the teacher also explained how the principle of ALARA (click) - As Low As Reasonably Achievable that the ICRP uses for (radiation) dose-optimization has a flaw. Why what risk (radiation dose) I find reasonable for the benefits I derive, should also be reasonable to my neighbor? What alternative does one who applies most stringent threshold for radiation exposure have if the majority in an area consent to a higher dose? This led me to think about the representative form of governance. It allows a small number of people to take decisions on behalf of a very large number of people who ironically would be influenced much greatly by such decisions. So possibly, not just a minority, but even the majority in a constituency could be opposed to construction and operation of nuclear establishment in their vicinity, and yet the government (small number of individuals) would have the legitimate authority to overrule such a wish. But this ethical predicament is taken care of by the assumption that the electorate would choose with greatest conviction (and hence, numbers) a person they trust the most to take decisions in their best interest. This was just an offshoot of thoughts in my mind, and I would not like to comment any further on this aspect of representative form of democracy.

Returning to one of the original predicaments: why would a clerk working for a nuclear establishment in India not be paid more than another clerk working in an administrative office of a college despite the former facing a greater risk to health and life? It is not difficult to answer – unemployment. Of course, there could be other reasons too for the said clerk not demanding a higher pay, e.g., ignorance of the risks posed by working there. But yet, I believe the biggest reason is unemployment. The state of employment market, even in government sector, whether we realize or not, is greatly influenced by demand-supply factors. The said clerk does not have any bargaining power. The moment he would say, “I want higher pay for the additional risk I would be facing”, the government would tell, “fuck off! Next!”. So obviously, our clerk is not going to make such a plea. Because he would know that there are many people with his kind of abilities seeking livelihood. If not him, someone else would take his place. This brings us to a somewhat intuitively obvious inference – the money that can be earned from doing a job is a function of:

1. Number of people wanting a job done. Greater the demand for a job, greater would be the pay.

2. Number of people willing to do that job. More the number of people willing to do the job, greater would be the bargaining power of those wanting the job done. Thus lesser would be the amount paid.

3. Number of people capable of doing that job. Greater the skill/training/experience a particular job requires, fewer would be the people capable of doing that job.

While, I had been vaguely aware of above factors, I was made to think more about them during one of my train journeys from Delhi to Mumbai. I had a very heavy luggage with me, mostly consisting of books - could have exceeded 100 kg. Whatever be the exact weight, I had to engage a porter to carry my luggage to the platform. I had another friend with me, and what the porters had demanded was exorbitant amount – to the tune of Rs. 800 for all the luggage. Seeing the weight of luggage, I was alright with that amount, but my friend was not. So, we engaged only two porters instead of three or four that would have been required. The arrangement obviously required us to carry quite a bit of luggage ourselves – covering a distance of about 300 m. By the time we had accomplished the task we were totally exhausted, and needless to say, a few of our muscles must have got pulled. But for me, the ordeal was not over yet! My train was scheduled to depart a couple of hours after my friend's – and from a different platform! Basically, I had accompanied him from the hostel for the sake of keeping him company. Before he boarded his train, we had engaged another porter to shift my luggage to the platform where my train was to arrive. He and I had carried some luggage so that only one porter would be required. But it so turned out that my train coach was to stop at a faraway point from where we had parked my luggage. So, I had no option but to ask yet another porter to carry my luggage from the original position to the appropriate spot on the platform - this time, just to transfer the luggage form one segment of the platform to another. Weirdly, there were no trolleys at the New Delhi railway station. I suspect, it could be because of the lobbying by porters' association as that would increase their earning. But that is besides the point. The third (and the last time) I had required porter's service, I was so exhausted (and also in pain), that how much I was paying was least of my concerns! It could be pointed out that I could have better planned the whole thing, and saved some odd hundred or so rupees, but again that is besides the point. The incident brought one thing to my attention. Whatever amount one pays the porter, it is basically less than what he 'deserves'. You might ask how?

My inference follows from one assumption, i.e., “no one likes to part with the money they have”. So, if you pay amount 'x' to the porter, you've the option of not giving that money. How? By carrying your luggage yourself. Carrying luggage is a very simple job – it does not require much specialized skill. Yes, if you are alone, then you might not be able to carry the luggage yourself, as you might have to make more than one round to carry all of it. But in most cases, people hire a porter's service because they are uncomfortable doing the job themselves. It is to avoid exhaustion and pain that carrying the luggage would cause. So, if despite having the option to carry the luggage yourself, and not lose the amount x in the process, that you agree to lose it only proves that you would have not carried that much luggage for someone else to earn amount x. Now just pause for a moment and think:

For what amount of money would you be ready to carry for someone else the same luggage that you ask the porter to carry?

I believe, some of the middle class/upper middle class or upper class persons would feel offended at being asked such a question. But that is not totally besides the point. Just kindly note the contempt some might feel for the job of carrying others' luggage or for the persons doing so, so much so that this question itself would lead to perceived offense. Anyway, returning to the point. For instance, on that day I had to pay up around Rs. 300 to the porters. Would I carry that much luggage as the porters did for me for someone else for Rs. 300? No, I will not. Yet, I felt the porters had charged me pretty steeply! Is that not weird? How much would I charge to carry that much luggage? I indeed thought about it. Not less than Rs. 2000!

My current income is stipendiary. In not very distant future, I would get to earn at least Rs. 2000 per day, doing almost totally sedentary work. Would I like to earn my livelihood the way those porters do? Definitely not. Would the porter like to earn his livelihood the way I would get to do? Almost certainly yes. Which means, the work he is doing is much more difficult than what I would be doing to earn, yet he earns significantly less than what I would. And as obvious corollary, I would earn much better than him despite doing a more pleasant and less painful job. Is something not strange about this equation?

Of course, it is not difficult to figure out that this situation has come about because relatively fewer people would have gained my kind of knowledge and training as compared to the bare minimum 'skills' required to carry heavy luggage. But at least in countries like India, do all people really get the opportunity, and subsequent choice of how to earn their livelihood? So though we do largely have free job market as far as influence that demand and supply exercise on amounts paid by people in return of services is concerned, but it has got highly monopolized. It has got monopolized because acquisition of those skills that enable earning relatively easily are beyond reach of the majority of population. The porters who had carried my luggage must have never got the opportunity to acquire those skills. Their children are unlikely to get opportunity to get the education to escape out of what has almost become a vicious cycle.

The realization of this inequity of opportunities is not new for me. Apart from movies, TV programs and short stories in textbooks that had sensitized me to these harsh realities, what had brought me face-to-face with them was my stay in a hostel during my graduation. There in the mess, as helps we used to have boys – some of them could have been below the age of 14 years (which would qualify as “child labour” in India, and is illegal). That it was illegal was the least of the problems with the situation. Those who are aware of the ground realities in India would appreciate that there is no infrastructure to support such children. Their parents are usually so poor that despite government (claiming to) provide free education and mid-day meal, etc., children who do not start working are seen as liabilities by parents. It is also possible that a few of them could be orphans.

A vast majority of students (the GenNext, if you may) were so comfortable with ordering them around. Scolding them for food badly prepared by the cook. Some of the angry students would not shy from using incestual expletives (“mother fucker”, e.g.). I am not saying, ”Haww, students were so indecent as to use 'bad words'”, but what had always shocked me was the comfort and the authority with which that contempt was held. The acceptance of master-slave relationship was mutual and apparent on both sides. The idea that one set of human beings were “first class”, and another set were “second class” was so strongly ingrained in the collective psyche that I used to find the environment nauseating. I am not a very intrusive person by nature. So I hardly said anything to anyone. Yet, to some of the closer friends, I used to point out if they were to get rude in terms of ”what is his fault”? Since they were close to me, my friends would apologize to me, and correct their behavior for some time. However, what I could invariably notice was that they would do so because they would feel their behavior had not been 'proper', or because they should be 'nice' to people. In other words, even the courtesy shown (upon prompting) was an outcome of self-serving narcissism. The very fundamental idea of egalitarianism never occurred to them. It never occurred to them that the people they were putting in a mental effort to be 'nice' with, were just as much humans as them, and that they had as much right as them to live, to breath the same air as them, to just be happy! Just because they were bringing food from the kitchen for them, and carrying their plates back after they would have finished their meal does not in any way push them to a lower stratum. The work they were doing was a service, for which they were being paid. Seeing those children, some of who were only a few years younger than me (I had entered the hostel at the age of 17), I used to remain in a state of perennial guilt:

As compared to them, what different have I done to deserve these opportunities in life? How are the ways of the world such that these children are seen as inferior beings as compared to me? What is their fault? How in the scheme of things of the world, they had become the lower stratum of the society, the secondary citizens? Whatever I am today or I will be in future, as compared to these kids, would always remain undeserved - however 'hard' I work towards it.

Somewhere down the line, I had happened to read Ayn Rand's (click) two novels - 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas shrugged'. I had become (and still am) quite impressed with the philosophy contained therein. But I realized two things about the main characters in the novels:

1. All of them might have had to struggle, but yet the society was never such that they would be deprived of basic education. Probably, the poorest of them all - Gail Waynand and Howard Roark (both found in The Fountainhead) had at least basic education [latter, in fact, had brought such circumstances upon himself that he was expelled from one of the better American architecture schools].

2. None of the major characters themselves had children. Only one of the somewhat prominent characters - Jed Starnes had children. He had died suddenly and hence had not had the opportunity to prepare his will (recalling from memory).

Despite the fact that Ayn Rand had spent her childhood in the erstwhile USSR, it seems she had not come across the kind of poverty and utter lack of opportunities to even study and gain knowledge to become 'employable' with some bargaining power - that are seen in India. The reason perhaps her characters did not have children was because she might have not wanted them to face the ethical dilemma of how much time, money and emotions to invest in the children in case they would not turn out to be with same value system as their own. The central theme of her novels, as far as I could make out was: to value people in proportion to their attributes that could be objectively adjudged as 'valuable'. Thus, children pose unique ethical predicament. On one hand parents owe them their nurture (investment of time, effort and emotions) because, children are never party to the decision of bringing them to life, i.e., children's consent as to whether they would like to live and risk being unhappy or in pain, is never sought, which makes it obligatory on parents to try to provide them with such resources that children do not regret their parents' unilateral (parents as one party) of bringing them to life. But on the other hand, objectivist philosophy would demand that one devote one's time, money and emotions in persons only in proportion to their worth as determined by their attributes. However, children either do not possess any pervasive attributes, or if those attributes make them disfavored candidates to receive nurture, then what to do? I can imagine, Rand's characters would bequeath their property and money, not to family members, but to some capable employee or colleague. But that is so unusual in our society! Perhaps to escape this dilemma Rand's major characters did not have any children! I have not read the other works of Ayn Rand, so it is possible she might have dealt with this issue elsewhere, though I find it hard to understand how she could have resolved such a complex problem (perhaps she did not have any child despite being married for over 50 years to the same person).

The reason I discussed the above concept was to explain, how the concept of inheritance is ethically flawed. And it is inheritance of parents' nurture (and the opportunities that come with it), affluence, social status, etc. that basically leads to monopolization of resources to acquire 'higher-order' skills that are required to gain greater bargaining skills in the employment market (education and vocational training). This concept of inheritance brings with it a strange condition, wherein, whether a person will die of hunger before turning five, or would struggle as a child laborer, or enjoy a middle class education and opportunities for 'upward mobility' through the social and economic strata, or would be born at the very top with the proverbial silver spoon in the mouth - are determined to a very great degree and in current Indian economic situation irreversibly so by just one factor - PURE CHANCE. In absolute terms, a child before even getting to commit any acts so as to display recognizable traits, which in turn would be required to determine 'what' the child deserves as a person ('good' v/s 'bad' things), becomes largely destined to one or the other social and economic stratum. All this happens without the humanity getting an opportunity to determine how 'deserving' the child is and of what!

The situation is so bad in India possibly because means to basic survival are much more difficult to acquire here than in the Western countries, which in turn, I feel are because of India's high fertility rate and population density.

Now, trying to apply all that I had inferred and speculated in this free-wheeling write up up till now, let us assume India's population density would have been less than what it is now:

1. The porter who carried my luggage would have had access to much better education. This because, the overall production of goods (needed for basic survival) would remain the same (most of the rural population currently is afflicted with high degree of disguised unemployment), but would be distributed among much fewer people. Hence, the porter's parents would not be worried about having their household income augmented by making their son work.

2. He might have become a teacher or a clerk or a doctor or an engineer.

3. There would have been much fewer porters at the New Delhi railway station.

4. Whoever would now be the porter at the railway station would have had much better bargaining power. Possibly, he would have earned more than Rs. 5000 a day instead of Rs. 500 that he currently might be earning.

5. His children would also get to study in schools and be at par with 'middle class' as far as opportunities for skill acquisition would be concerned.

6. Because there would be a paucity of porters, coupled with his good income, he would be respected.

Almost the same analysis as above could be applied to helps in the hostel mess. Likewise, those working at nuclear establishments would be able to realistically demand a higher pay for risking their lives and health.

Those who manage to read this post till the end might be wondering, what is the big deal?! Meaning, everyone knows that India's large population (density) is a liability. Apart from delineating the inferences I could draw from mundane experiences, and discussing broadly their ramifications in the field of ethics (something that we understand intuitively, but never get into the details of), one of the goals was to show how India's large population density is has implications in areas as seemingly unrelated as nature of interpersonal relationships. It is not difficult to understand that with such acute differences in rights and opportunities that arise with economic disparities, friction amongst various classes is imminent. The incentive to move to the higher strata is much stronger. The idea of social hierarchy is so very deeply ingrained in our collective psyche that we never realize that it represents something very wrong! E.g., an educated (and higher earning) boss would be entitled to humiliate a comparably educated subordinate only because we love hierarchies! So, likewise the disincentive to stay in one's socioeconomic strata is also very strong. No wonder, the worst target of these prevailing factors is ethics. Everything becomes fair in love and war. And everything becomes love and war. Upward mobilization is what counts.

To summarize:

1. Less desirable jobs should be high paying.

2. India's overwhelming population density and accompanying poverty and paucity of material resources leads children into child labor. This pushes basic education and skill acquisition beyond reach of many children.

3. These children even after growing up remain poor bargainers when it comes to compensation for the extremely physically challenging and monotonous work they do (despite the fact that I proved above that they automatically deserve much more than what they get - from the porter's example).

4. People with only very basic skills are held in contempt because of their poverty and abundance of such persons. As a consequence, sharp socioeconomic stratification emerges.

5. The sharpness of this stratification leads to abandoning of ethicality in one conducts in favor of practices that can earn one money. E.g., this leads to ills like nepotism, corruption and other crimes.

6. Children of deprived parents enter the same cycle as above and produce more children, who in turn enter the same cycle.

7. This cycle can be broken! Not so much by providing more universal schooling, but by decreasing the population density, for which fertility rates will have to come down, for which in turn better education and awareness need to be created! Ah, so it might not be that easy to break the cycle, after all.

My pessimism in this regard had been broken only once by Atanu Dey in his blog post - There’s only so Much that Needs to Get Done (click).

A small note: Given India's energy crisis, I find nuclear energy a very good means of energy production. I find the fears instilled by some environmental pressure groups to be exaggerated greatly. The solution lies not in shunning nuclear energy as an option altogether, but to improve the levels of professionalism across the populations and vocations. Directly or indirectly the high cost of energy (whether required to run automobiles and locomotives or to light our houses) is a strong contributing factor to India's being behind in manufacturing sector, and also for high inflation. Latter further perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty.

Possible conflict of interest: Area of my work is going to involve nuclear technology. But which also means, I am better aware of the risks posed by radiation exposure vis-a-vis other losses that not using this technology would entail.