Freedom of Expression and a Few Hypothetical Situations

In recent times intense debates have raged over the extents to which two almost antagonistic rights should be allowed - freedom of expression against avoiding emotional hurt. Law, as many say, is an ass. Some call justice blind. It would be very tempting to then consider the Judiciary a blind ass, and I used to share this view, too. But, since last few years I realized, the offhand judgments we pass to consider something as ethical/unethical, or allowed/disallowed are too instinctive and visceral. To pass such offhand judgments is easy, but to justify them under an accepted framework of principles and rules is extremely difficult.

I will present a few situations. Person 'A' is the victim and claiming to be hurt because of freedom of expression exercised by person 'B'. For convenience A is a woman, and B is a man. I have enlisted the reasoning that could be given by A to complain and by B to defend his freedom of expression. I would like the readers to state if they feel B should be punished, with reasons if possible, and notwithstanding what the law in India says. One thing I would like to urge the reader is that irrespective of which of the two antagonistic rights (of freedom of expression and right to avoid emotional hurt) gets precedence in your judgment, it should be consistent across all the situations to the extent possible. If the reader makes an appeal akin to "it is widely accepted to be offending", then it must be applied to all situations. Basically, whatever grounds used to hold B guilty or not guilty must be employed in every case to maintain consistency. For, what is justice if not consistent.

I must also add that some of the situations are similar to recent events, but to point out the different standards to judge them that few people had employed is not my intention. And please disregard a few zoological details! ;) Even if some of the situation might sound funny, I am enlisting them here in earnest.

-----

Situation 1

B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.

A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.

B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting.

A: But I had no idea that the painting could hurt my sentiments!

B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 2

B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. The painting becomes controversial. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.

A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.

B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting and moreover, she knew that those worshiping the depicted goddess had felt hurt on seeing the painting. So why did she go and watch the painting?

A: But how could I be sure that your painting could have indeed hurt me!

B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 3

B tells A, "The goddess you worship copulates with frogs".

A: What B said about the goddess I worship hurt me. So B must be punished for saying that.

B: I felt like saying it, so I said it. It's my freedom of expression.

A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!

B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 4

B tells A, "Your religion has many dangerous superstitions. It is very cruel to sacrifice cats on every November 31. What kind of goddess could be so cruel. Also, you people amputate the left little finger of your girl child. How disgusting is it! Why do you people forcibly kill husbands upon the death of their wives? You don't find all this barbaric and primitive to follow?"

A: What B said about my religion hurt me. So he must be punished for saying those things.

B: It was my compassion for cats, the girl child and widowers that made me point out those things to A. My only consideration was the welfare of those wronged through religion! And moreover, it is my freedom of expression. I felt like saying it and hence I said it.

A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!

B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 5

A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B, he whistles in her direction.

A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.

B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to pass by.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!

B: If anyone wants to walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.

---

Situation 6

A wears a revealing nightie and enters her bedroom. B, who is her husband whistles at her.

A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.

B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to enter the bedroom.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!

B: If A wants to walk into my bedroom, listening to my whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided entering the bedroom.

---

Situation 7

A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B's house on the first floor of a building, his pressure cooker on stove develops sufficient pressure and as the valve releases that pressure, A hears a whistle.

A: The pressure cooker that B was using whistled at me. I felt offended and he must be punished for it.

B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like cooking food and the pressure cooker whistled. Moreover, it is my fundamental right to cook food, the way I want in my house.

A: B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his pressure cooker's whistle.

B: If anyone wants on walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.

---

Situation 8

B, who is A's coworker says, "Hi, how are you?".

A: B said "Hi" and asked me how I was. That hurt me. B must be punished.

B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like greeting her. That is how I greet everyone. Moreover it is my freedom of expression to have greeted her the way I wanted.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his words!

B: If anyone wants to go to workplace, being greeted has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided coming in front of me knowing that is how I greet everyone.

---

Situation 9

Colleague B circulates an email among office workers, wherein he writes in great details the past sexual encounters of A (whether the details are true or not is irrelevant). He does not send that email to A. However, a female colleague 'C', out of concern tells A about the doing of B.

A: B and C hurt my feelings. So they must be punished.

B: I never sent the email to A; I only sent it to other people. Moreover, to write and send whatever I want is a part of my freedom of expression. So nothing of what I did was directly responsible for A's hurt.

C: I told A about B's deeds out of concern. It was not my intention to hurt. Moreover, to tell her of the happening was my exercising freedom of expression.

A: But C never allowed me the opportunity to not hear the offending news!

C: If anyone enters a conversation being hurt by the information has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 10

A is a twelve year-old class topper who had fallen sick just before exams. She could not prepare well and does poorly in exams. Her teacher, 'B', writes her an email with subject: "You should be ashamed of yourself!". The body of the email also contains equally harsh words, and conveys to A that she would be scolded in the class also before all the class mates. A becomes reticent and aloof in the class. Upon being scolded a few more times in the class she becomes tearful. The matter goes to the school principal who warns B against treating A insensitively citing the fact that she is just twelve year old. Yet, B continues his behavior. A commits suicide.

A's parents: B's insensitive behavior led to our daughter's death. He must be punished.

B: I felt like scolding her because of her poor performance and I did just that. To do that followed from my freedom of expression.

A's parents: But B never allowed our daughter an opportunity to not hear his scoldings!

B: Wrong! My email had contained clearly stated that I was to scold her in the class. She could have avoided being scolded by me by not coming to my class. If one wants to attend school, being scolded and feeling hurt have to be acceptable risks.

-----

With this, the ten hypothetical situations end. I want to point out that we all enjoy freedom of expression, but what curtails it many times is not being physically stopped from expressing ourselves, but the fear of consequences including litigation and ensuing punishment. So by extension, any liability attached with freedom of expression hardly amounts to freedom.

I have deliberately made the situations very extreme and ludicrous. One of the aims was to point out how neither of the two above mentioned freedoms could be allowed to fullest degrees without legal liabilities to maintain a functional society. But another much more important one was to try to determine what all are the possible factors that have made the law enforcers take a view that they take of freedom of expression (especially so in India).

Personally, I do not consider the laws in India perfect. But I also acknowledge the fact that India does allow much greater freedom of expression than many other countries both through legal and social acceptability, apathy or inaction.

But neither do I agree with sanctuary that religion is provided as a ground to feel hurt. I quote here one of the statements by a Karnataka High Court judge (click) from an order he had passed, which summarizes the view taken by the Indian Judiciary of religious sensibilities. It must be remembered that this line of reasoning might be used as precedent to be followed by all the lower courts throughout the country, and may not be challenged unless and until someone from a higher court goes out of his/her way to substitute it with another reasoning. The portion that I find most frightening is in bold-face (especially, if juxtaposed with situation 4 above):

While considering the case, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Section 295 stating that, Section 295 has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court has held that, to find out whether an offense is made out under Section 295-A or not, the susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds is relevant and the Court has to give due regard to such feelings in consideration of the case.

Above rationale is codified in the section 295-A of the Indian penal code (click):

Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Lastly, this post was written with a lot of ideas I arrived at after having exhaustive discussion/debate with The Quirky Indian - Of Freedom of Expression and the Right Not to be Offended (click).

Narendra Modi is Not Superman. Please!

He is at best an administrator significantly better than his peers. He may have shown promise, but let us not burden him with Superman('s)hood as that will only raise our expectations to such levels that they will be impossible for anyone to fulfill.

What afflicts Modi is that he is not looked at as a normal man with attendant limitations of inefficient, opaque and lethargic bureaucracy, local governments and their agencies like the police force. This polarizes us into "lovers" and "haters" - making us prone to exaggerating whatever he does, be it purportedly "good" or allegedly "bad". There is only so much he can do working with limited material and human resources. Not to forget, challenges faced by any sincere administrator are numerous and grave - high population density; resulting apparent and disguised unemployment; illiteracy; struggle for basic resources that makes common man take recourse to 'socially accepted taboos' like bribery, nepotism and "cutting of each others' throats" in any kind of competition; ignorance and gullibility of citizens that are exploited by misguiding mass media; corrupt subordinates/peers/superiors; and obligation to compensate those financing election campaigns.

Somehow Modi has started working on basics by: promoting education (specially of girls); raising public office-bearers' accountability; efficient use of available resources; clearly separating religion and tradition from state policies (demolition of numerous temples for road works and making teaching English compulsory from class 1) and countering strife by encouraging investment in industries. He has rightly realized that it is not agriculture (largely, disguised unemployment) but other industries that should and will be major sources of employment as reflected in gradual urbanization promoted by him.

What we need is not one Modi whose power and efficiency would spread thin by becoming the Prime Minister, but many such administrators at all levels who could sincerely and with foresight try to solve India's problems.

My admiration for him lies not so much in the results he has shown which can anyway be undone by a single year of 'regular' leadership, but a crack of hope he has been able to create in my hardened cynicism that "yes, it can be done".

In response to a few comments, here.

How Morality is Indispensable to a Social Life

This post had started as a response to one of the comments by Darshan, whose ideas and blog-posts (click) I really enjoy and also recommend to other readers who appreciate critical thinking. The reasons I am publishing this response as a separate blog post are: because the response is too long; I would not like other readers to miss out on ideas earned after hard sessions of thinking, and lastly, because I any way wanted to discuss these issues some times on my blog. It just so happens that now this post will serve as an appropriate launching pad. So ultimately, obviously, this post does not merely remain a response to Darshan's comments, but is a post with his ideas as the backdrop.

Obviously, since this post is fundamentally a reaction rather than an essay, I am not giving a much elaborate background. Darshan's comment (click) was as follows:

"This might sound irrelevant to you.

First of all, I do not believe in the established concept of morality, which is perfectly human-centered. In my concept of morality stealing, lying, money, robbery and society, these are so petty issues that are not even visible to me. There are much much bigger issues facing existence!

In fact this entire affair is something which does not affect me. It is so HUMAN-SPECIFIC!!! As far as any such thing is concerned, I find myself in the game again. So whatever decisions I take by whim in the game, is neither right nor wrong.

I might save the one who stole in this case, for example; Or I might sometime also think that one human less is good for the planet ;) Depends on the mood I am in at the moment!"

Now I urge readers to exercise restrain in drawing any untoward conclusions about how Darshan as a person is. This discussion between him and me is at an ideological-philosophical level, and his comment must not be construed to think that he reaches decisions in his life exactly in the same fashion as might seem from the comment. In my interactions I have found him to be very agreeable and rational and not at all inclined to hurt someone deliberately. The only reason I am quoting this comment here is to put forth the context in which my post had materialized. As to what he means by a "game" would become clear from his post called - How to attain bliss without being in Himalayas? (click).

I am quoting the lines that I feel are pertinent, but yet I encourage the reader to go through the actual post for two reasons - that there should be no "loss in translation" in my quoting something selectively, and also because the post is a well thought out one and well written.

"...Now consider your life as a game. You are the main protagonist in this game. There are innumerable stages in this game like childhood, schooling, adulthood, love, work, marriage, divorce, riches, poverty etc. Through all the stages in the game there are things like making friends and enemies; pain and pleasures; love and hatred. You earn points when you make friends. Lose points when you make enemies. Earned love, earned points. Lost love, lost points. Consider points as a measure of happiness. That’s how a game works. Human life has endless possibilities of occurrences. All the things which happen in your favor add to your points and those occurrences against you reduce the points. When you succeed through the tasks you jump up in happiness with “Whoa!” and “Wow!” and when you lose you throw the joystick with “Oh fuck!” and “Shit!”"...

..."But after all, it’s a game, not the real life. What you experience in the “game world” is left behind when you are done playing the game and return in your “real world”. Happenings of the “game world” can not affect your behavior in the “real world”, unless you are so obsessed with the game that you have lost your mind and the realization that the two worlds are different."

Also, my response is not an attempt to contradict or disregard Darshan's personal views, which I do not share, but do not even disagree with. This is because, in some areas of life, what views we hold are just our personal preferences, possibly based on factors like nurture, genetics, life-experiences, personality, etc., and however hard we try, we cannot justify them on a rational basis. This in turn happens because, the fundamental axioms in life like "what is the purpose of my life?" or "what is the purpose behind the existence of the human race or the Universe?", etc. cannot be answered in fashion, which we all would agree with. It is how we (especially, in the given case, Darshan and I) answer these questions differently, that have led to the differences in our opinion, and at the outset I wish to clarify that I do not consider either Darshan or my answers to either of the above questions as more correct or less correct, because there is no established or agreed upon standard to gauge their "correctness" against. My frank confession that my views are more of preferences, rather than absolute "correct" manner of looking at the issues would, I hope, be amply visible in my response, which is as follows:

-----

Darshan,

There is no rational reason I could convince you to be more emotionally engaged with humanity and its affairs, or for me to justify my being engaged thus, but what you said was alarming! This is not to offend you, but nor to downplay what I felt reading what you wrote.

It is to your credit, you have made me think something slightly more deeply, making me reach this philosophical conclusion that yet again that there is nothing really very rational that can make me urge one to choose to be moral.

Morality (click) stems from human concepts of 'ownership' and 'rights' (as in adhikaar). So yes, morality becomes operational only when one accepts a certain framework of these human conceptions of 'ownership' and 'right'. Integrally attached with both the concepts is another human conception of "deserving", which is the most nebulous, and hence, difficult to define. And that is why we all differ in what one "deserves" - usually, we are most predisposed to feel what we 'enjoy', we deserve, and what we do not enjoy, we do not deserve. Which is what introduces the subjectivity and consequent liberal bias in assessing our own motives and actions. And, so it becomes imperative to decide upon certain mutually agreed upon criteria to delineate what is deserved by whom.

I yet again concede, I have no rational reason to assert that this framework should be applied only to humans, and why other sentient living beings (especially, mammals that are so similar to how humans are) should be excluded. Partly because, animals cannot talk back to us, as to what they want. No, this is not an excuse to be cruel to them, but the psychological reason why this "we" (humans) v/s "them" (non-humans) kind of communalism (click) operates in our minds.

My feeling greater solidarity for humans as compared to other species, or "nonliving" parts of the "nature", can be considered a form of communalism, and hence is unjustified. The best possible justification (or rather, my double standards), you could find is here:

Ball of Karma (click). Do read comment #16 onwards if you are short of time, otherwise, I believe the entire debate is entertaining, if not enlightening!

...somehow humans take precedence in deciding upon moral issues. If someone asks me why?, I would say it is a very sophisticated form of herd-mentality. That I feel greater solidarity for those who resemble me than those who do not (this line of argument is extremely risk-fraught when it comes to interhuman interactions, I know!). And animals have never really cared for us humans, or for each other (sounds stupid, but is a valid argument because only sometime back we were talking of putting animals on same pedestal as humans). They have killed us humans for their food or to protect their shelter. So we can do the same to fulfill our ‘needs’.

‘Needs’ is another contentious term. Is the desire to live a fulfilling, happy life a ‘need’? Is the desire to see one of our relatives not die of AIDS/cancer/malaria – a need? Is the desire to not suffer from painful rheumatoid arthritis and debilitating kidney disorders and diabetes – a need? Is the desire to not suffer from irritating common cold – a need?

Please see, in all the 3 examples, there is a gradual downscaling of threat to human life. While very few would disagree that we would be alright with killing of a few thousand animals, if the outcome (cure) for the said disease is able to save millions of human lives. The problem comes when discussing animal experiments for treatment of ’simpler’ disorders, which are not immediately life-threatening. But then the question would arise - what ‘level’ of threat to human life do we use to justify animal experiments?

So well, at least practicality dictates that we must not infringe on others' (humans') "rights", for instance, right to live, because then they can also attempt to do the same, and we all might suffer pain or death. Of course, I myself have stated on your blog that it would not be "bad" in 'absolute' terms if the entire human species or the Earth itself are wiped out, but in a 'subjective' sense, I want to live, and I am afraid of death! Possibly, this fear is an outcome of natural selection through genetic mutations, but then the fact remains, I am responsive and subservient to such a fear. I am also responsive and subservient to desire to feel happy [differences between 'happiness' and 'contentment' are hazy; I will have to think a lot about them]. Provisionally, I can define happiness as a mental state I would like to remain in, and not lose. So, talking of the original post that led you here, while everyone prioritizes the (self-assigned) purposes of life differently, directly or indirectly human happiness does figure somewhere at the top of everyone's 'agenda' for life. No other human-assigned purpose would be able to stake that claim - not, living for the country; nor, living for poor; nor, living for endangered species; nor, living for a single (as in, everyone devoting life to a common) religion; nor, living to set exemplary behavior. And even if someone defines something else as the purpose of their life, say, attaining salvation, they do it in belief that salvation will bring them happiness (as defined above).

But since, we humans have to co-exist in space and time, and share the same resources amongst us in our attempts to achieve our purposes (whatever they be), we have to distribute them in most pragmatic fashion possible - such that such distribution minimizes conflicts (which will cause pain, which majority of people want to avoid) and satisfy maximum number of people's desire to be happy (the way they feel it could be fulfilled). And as I said before, it is the limitation in resources and unavoidable interpersonal interactions that make us define every person's rights, authority and what they do or do not deserve.

Just as you pointed out, these concepts are merely human constructs, and hence not binding on you, and I agree. But if all actions were to depend on what one's "mood" is, for instance, what will prevent one from slapping a random person in a bus or raping a random woman in a secluded place? I am sure you must have not done either of the two things, but the questions is what prevented you or will prevent you if you feel like doing it? Or will nothing be able to stop you from doing so once you feel the urge?

So personally, I do think a lot about these (morals, ethics, justice, etc.) issues, precisely because I do find myself deeply engaged in human affairs. Though I have the option of not doing so, by two possible mechanisms - living in some secluded area totally by myself, and hence doing away with all sort of morality OR by committing suicide. I am afraid of both the options, as I pointed out in my response in the Conflusions-post (click), and moreover I have am enjoying my current mode of living; abiding to moral principles is hardly a challenge for me. So, I choose to live by the standards set by the society (morality) because I am living amidst society. Living amidst society is always following our agreeing to an unwritten contract, and that contract is what morality is. If one chooses to disregard these contracts, they instantly lose the right to live a life dependent on fellow human beings. And hence, either such people have to be removed from society because of their incompatibility in coexisting with others (death sentence) or punished (conviction by courts) or of course, the third option - that they live in some secluded place without interacting with any other human being (exile). But then, that they breach certain clauses (rules and regulations) of the contract with the knowledge that --> doing so invites the consequences they had agreed to --> by way of choosing to live in a manner they would depend on others --> they automatically become deserving of the punishment they had agreed to in the first place by breaching the the terms of the contract. For instance, a person committing rape in India becomes deserving of punishment as defined in the section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (click), because he had consented to be punished the moment he rapes a woman while being a part of India (Indian citizenship). This was all law and justice.

You might but ask, what if someone does not want to enter this contract of interpersonal interactions? Why force someone to enter interpersonal interactions? But the problem is no human being at birth is independent. The moment one accepts nurture from one's parents, and wears clothes made by another human being, or eats food prepared with another human's labor, they inadvertently put their seal on the contract of the society called morality. And hence for these "reasons" I do not think it is possible to escape consideration of moral issues.

[With this my response to Darshan practically ends; what follows is the ideas built opon what I just presented]

But of course, the next question could be who gets to decide these set of rules? And more importantly, what are the bases of such rules? It is here, the (supposedly) most widely agreed upon principle of maximizing human happiness and minimizing human pain that comes to fore. We all humans might not always agree as to what constitutes legal, ethical, moral "etiquetted", etc., but if we define some "minimum possible standards", we will at least have a rational framework to work within. These could also be termed as "moral axioms", as in they have no other underlying bases, except that (assuming and hoping) highest number of people in the World agree upon them. I will enlist the most significant moral axioms here:

1. Every human is equal and has same rights at birth.

2. Every human at birth has an equal right to live.

3. Fulfilling the desire to be happy is one of the fundamental goals, and every human at birth has equal right to be happy.

4. Fulfilling the desire to avoid pain is one of the fundamental goals, and every human at birth has equal right to avoid pain.

5. Everyone should try to reach decisions on any issue such that, as far as possible, none of the above principles are violated.

I believe, a large part of what we instinctively think of as moral or immoral (and also, legal, ethical, honorable - or not so) can be accounted for by above principles. Of course, I am no expert in philosophy of ethics, morality and law, but at least this serves as a good starting point. I also believe, if some societal impositions or government-sanctioned laws do not fit into the above framework, then they make a good case for a closer scrutiny. For instance, what in the above framework would make consensual homosexuality immoral/unethical/illegal? Or for that matter, euthanasia? Slightly more contentious would be issues like abortion. Likewise, issue of death penalty would be most contentious. The "at birth"-part finds repeated mention to allow for some other concepts like "deserving" and unequal "ownership" (say, owing to one's hard work) to apply, which could lead to subsequent inequality. Additionally for instance, if the established law punishes a convict, the punishment might go against their rights to live, be happy and to avoid pain. But to ensure practical functionality of the entire framework, we have to also admit the possibility some people will not honor point number 5, and hence this dishonor makes them eligible for predetermined punishment. And of course, a very touchy issue of what is a "right" as against what is an "opportunity" has not been addressed here. For example in our contemporary society, despite having same rights, do children respectively born to poor and rich parents get equal opportunity to healthy diet and good education? How do we tackle such moral issues? I would be discussing these issues also in one of my subsequent posts, but then they cannot be covered in limited space.

So to end this post, I just want to point out that the instinctive ideas of moral, ethical, and appropriateness of government-sanctioned laws, etc., are very difficult to scrutinize on a firmly rational bases, but the point is they can be! And at least, we have to make an attempt to do so. If we stop looking for "reasons" to regard something as moral v/s immoral, we would be entertaining moral arbitrariness (and hence, "relativism") as an acceptable criterion. Once that happens, it is only downhill course for the collective human happiness from that point. And also that reason cannot be "someone said so" (scripture-directed morality), because what would be valid reason would not be that someone said so, but the reason as to why someone said what they said. As long as we are living in the human society, it becomes binding upon us to think over moral issues. The moment we lose our commitment to morality, we lose our right to live amidst with other human beings.

-----

One recommendation:

Read this extremely well-explained and argued blog-post by Professor McCormick - Open the Floodgates (click), where he demonstrates why exclusively faith cannot be used to believe in the existence of God without committing intellectual dishonesty.

One request:

Kindly visit a copy of this blog I have prepared at Wordpress (click). This is just an experiment. I may or may not shift to Wordpress. Currently, it is unlikely that I switch over to Wordpress because it does not allow customization of CSS of blog-templates. Of course, the only attractive feature of Wordpress over Blogger is their comment-system, which might eventually win me over if I get into an 'aggressive' mode of blogging. ;)

Direct Democracy in India: a Possibility?

While in one of my recent posts (click), I had questioned the validity of this subconscious idea that "consensus by majority is the best way to reach decisions for a huge heterogeneous community, like the Indian population", no other method that could replace populist decision-making seems plausible. So, democracy is here to stay.

But the biggest flaw in (at least) India's democractic process, is that it is of the representative kind. Meaning, the people only get to choose who will make laws and policies for the next five years, but not what they would be. It is assumed that the political parties which contribute to the formation of a government will keep their pre-election assurances. This assumption, apparently, rides on immense faith in the integrity of those thus elected, and to put it mildly, has proved unfounded. Also, there is a common perception that immense financial expenditure and covert affiliation with shady elements of the society, that winning these elections require, has largely kept out of the electoral 'race', those with genuinely good intentions for the country/constituency. I have not yet had the courage to verify for myself if this perception matches the reality.

An idea that has been doing rounds is to issue a unique electronic ID to every citizen.

Though, creating an electronic database for the entire population would take time, the extent to which the information technology (IT) has progressed, should accelerate the process, if the idea is pursued sincerely. And in my opinion, it should not take much longer than an average census (2-3 years) takes.

This, apart from improving security situation in the country, will enable us to start thinking of an almost unheard of thing in Indian political circles--DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

We, after 6 decades of representative democracy have got so obsessed with it, that it surprises me, how direct democracy is talked so little of, which was actually what democracy was supposed to mean!

Some might point out that Panchayati system, with provisions for informal consultation with all the villagers represents the very same idea. True, it does, but somehow, it has not shown results.

But an informal 'consultation' does not ever make it binding on the actual village heads to implement the popular decision. Also, I am unsure if the resources that are allocated to such bodies are sufficient to make a real difference.

An idea had occurred to me years back, as to why not have automated teller machine-kind of kiosks to effect direct democracy! Simply meaning that the common man gets to vote on the individual issues, rather than only who would decide on those issues.

This, according to me would have several benefits:

1. Individual policies would be based on majority's decision. This is the most obvious benefit. For instance, the junta would get to decide if the limited resources that are available should be used for widening a road, or adding a new wing to a hospital, or to open an orphanage, or to say, build statues to beautify a town. Likewise, analogous issues could be presented to the rural population.

2. Enhanced accountability on part of administrators. This would be a very important benefit, but not immediately apparent. The legislators would be obliged to come up with issues on which they would like people's votes! This itself would ensure that they do some work.

For instance, this degree of audacity has not yet permeated our country's polity that a politician would truly confess, "Sorry folks! I was busy vacationing with my extended family in Hawaii, so no issues for you to vote on this month!".

3. End-of-the-term assessment. When a term ends, political parties, the Election Commission, as well as the junta would get a report card on the incumbent legislator's performance. For instance, how many popular mandates did they overrule, and how many did they respect. This would automatically tell if their incumbent legislator still retains prior popularity.

4. Continuous assessment. If the common people get to decide on given issues, they also get to rate their leader! More importantly, on a continuous basis, say, every half-yearly. This would serve both as incentive and coercion for the legislators to keep the electorate satisfied.

How could direct democracy be implemented?

Of course, I am no expert on political sciences, or art of administration, or legal issues, etc, and needless to say, there would be many loop holes in my ideas, here.

But here, I will try to address a few of foreseeable issues.

1. Who will vote?

Everyone! Of course, those who are eligible to vote in general and local elections. What will allow this is a unique national electronic identity. This will prevent illegitimate voting, as well as prevent duplication of voting.

2. Where would one be able to vote?

The kiosks for voting could be built just like the ATMs, and kept at similar locations. So, could be placed at railway stations, important bus stops, outside public hospitals, even along with ATMs! For villages, they could be placed near the village dairy or post office, etc.

3. What issues would be open to voting?

Issues could be anything--right from if a city should be renamed, to where should (limited) funds be allocated to? Of course, junta cannot be consulted on all issues, but at the end of the term, when a 'report card' would be framed, none of the political parties would like to look stupid by having changing names, building statues and demolishing illegal constructions as their only achievements to brag about!

4. What would be the frequency to vote on a new issue?

This portion of the process will have to gradually evolve. I think for starters, one issue per month should be good enough. Gradually as the entire process would become smoothened, voting concurrently on multiple issues could be enabled.

Also, the same kiosk could enable voting at multiple levels--say, voting on a national issue, state level, or even local level.

5. How will the required information on the issue be disseminated?

Of course, to vote on an issue, voters need to be informed about the issue. This could be done through dedicated advertisements on TV channels, FM radio, internet, large screens installed in kiosks, etc.

6. Will it be binding on legislators to 'obey' the results?

Initially, it need not be binding. But as explained earlier, it will give a direction for new policies, and also ensure a certain basal level accountability from the legislators.

Also with progress of time, the continued rating system could make it binding on political parties to field better candidates.

It could be so provided that if an elected candidate is ejected from his seat because of abysmally low ratings, he cannot seek re-election, for say, next ten years.

7. How much financial investment would be required?

This is a question I can totally not answer! But it should only suffice to say, that whatever the investment, it would be largely one-time, save the operational costs. Of course, with some shrewdness those operational costs could be recovered through advertising at the kiosks, where, no doubt a large number of aware citizens (with good 'purchasing capacity') would throng!

Flaws of the proposed system.

In my limited assessment, fundamentally, this system would have no additional functional flaw that the current representative democracy is not suffering from.

Also, I am not suggesting that this system supplant the 'normal' representative democracy, but it can certainly supplement it.

Why was such a system never implemented?

Obviously owing to the technological limitations imposed at the time of drafting of the Constitution.

So, would such a system ever be implemented?

I doubt it. For two reasons. I am not sure if the implementation of this idea would constitute altering the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

Second one is more obvious! I am no genius, much less, well versed to any degree with ideas on politics, administration, etc. It would be conceited to think none of the able civil servants and seasoned politicians would have thought about this before. But if they implement this idea, they will actually have to work for the public's benefit! And no doubt, be clean and efficient! So, will they ever pass such a bill, that too with two-third majority? What a joke!

Wikipedia article on direct democracy (click).

States of Matter. State that matters - An Explanation. And a joke!

This is the explanation for my previous post which could be found here (click)

I do not believe in writing ambiguous posts, especially as part of the reason I write is to know how others and I view the same things differently. I believe, if not most, some people do have reasons for what they become/what they choose to become. And when the same things are viewed differently, it gives all the parties involved a chance to review what their belief systems are, and what are they based on. At the 'end' of the discussion, one may emerge more confident of the views held priorly, or less so. One may also feel insecure of new ideas if they threaten to upset the equilibrium of their life, which usually is very difficult to achieve, and this is probably also what contributes to the inertia we experience in reviewing and imbibing new ideas, apart of course, from the fact that whatever we currently know/think would be outcomes of numerous experiences, mistakes and rewards, which consolidate our confidence in our 'own' ideas. So with this short preface I seek to establish that on my blog, I wish to be understood precisely, and to understand the contributors equally precisely, though it will only rarely so happen that I change someone's views, or someone, mine.

The only reason I had not included this explanation was the constraint of length of 18 SMSes. Also I did not want to dilute the spontaneity of my ideas by inserting technical explanations for abstract analogies, for it is ever so rare that I come out with posts, which I feel rather than think. I had planned to clarify the analogies as a part of my replies to comments, but I realized, I needed to also come up with a detailed explanation of what I meant through each analogy.

-----

Fluid. By 'fluid' I did not mean weak or flexible. For one talks of flexibility only when there is a shape one could identify with.

By gradients of availability, I meant rushing in for things only because they are available. An avarice for things without pausing to think if we want/need them or possessing them would make us any happier.

A simplistic, but illustrative example is weddings, where so many times people take so much ice cream that they cannot finish it. Mind you, I am not talking here of etiquette, or health hazards of gluttony, or wastage of food, which are separate issues in themselves, but of a weird kind of opportunism. An opportunism that does not even serve our interest! But the sheer pleasure of enjoying something unearned, and probably undeserved (which is contentious, though), but worst of it all, undesired and unrequired! If that ice cream would be required or desired, not so much of it would be found wasted in the plates at the end of the parties!

By falling into next empty space, I was talking of the same opportunism, but manifesting itself differently. Flattery, imitation and insincere agreement. Others' needs for praise and approval are like empty spaces, and on spotting an opportunity (availability) they can be filled! They can be filled instantly and effortlessly, only because this fluid is guided by a gradient. It does not have its own ideas or opinions (no shape), or probably does not value them enough. Does not have any attachments or committed loyalties (no place), and hence has nothing to lose when it goes and occupies the next available space.

This fluid comes in contact with a vast expanse of surfaces, always leaving a trace of wetness (good impression). But it itself never knew what it stood for or against. Its attraction for things (gravitation) was its only guiding force.

The structure called self is a composite of ideals, desires, opinions, tastes, distastes, preferences, and a conscience but most important, a recognition and subsequent acknowledgment of all of these. By surrendering them to the 'demands' of opportunity and availability, this structure collapses, and that is what I had meant by to fall, in fact the collapse of an identity called 'self' is so profound that all shapes and senses of location and direction are lost, whereas as a person grows, it is expected that they accumulate more ideas, ideals, opinions, loyalties and attachments (climbing).

By evaporation, I did not mean destruction or death, but a total loss of identity of the 'self'.

Passively plastic. A passively plastic person also lets their ideas and opinions get shaped according to external forces. There is nothing wrong with allowing external ideas to shape one's opinions, in fact, without the action of external forces, not many ideas can be formed. But when one holds them only to fit into a collective/communal identity, then they lose their own ideas and aspirations. The identity of the individual is supplanted by the perceived identity of a community (mold). The driving force here is the willful assumption of a preformed, assembly-line-manufactured identity, even at the cost of losing one's 'real' native identity, without a sense of remorse.

How is this deformation allowed, or rather sought?

Probably because the original shape was not loved enough? It did not receive assent from coexistence with a number larger than zero, that is, owing to being unique ('one')?

This can extend right from "a feminist needs to defend everything a female does" to "secular people have to side with the 'minorities'"; from "doctors 'should' be dressed in formals" to "'hip' people 'need' to wear low-waist jeans"; from "you need to agree with everyone if you are broadminded" to "learn to say 'whatevah' if you are above the rest of petty people, and close to attaining 'nirvana' to firmly establish you do not care about their existence or their opinions"

Reactively plastic. This simply implies trying to be different from others. It does not matter if what I end up is different even from my 'real' self. The only priority is a need to stand out. To be a 'trend-setter', fully forgetting that trend would also be followed only by opportunists and those seeking the shelter of a collective, without ever respecting the very same shelter.

Rigid. This is what I need to personally guard myself against the most. I know what I want. I know what I like. But I also know, the world is not going to act according to my wishes. I will not the get the kind of education system I want. I will not get as friends, people as honest as I would want. I will not work at places whose ethics would be in alignment with mine.

Because all these systems are too rigid to yield. Whether they are more correct, or I, is a different matter. What matters is that their walls and my contours are incongruent.

And if I barge into these systems brazenly, unprepared, it will be me that would be hurt. Both physically and emotionally. Gradually, I will start giving up. What were originally my aspirations would no more remain so. What I used to find pleasurable, would turn into pain.

As an example, I find it extremely immoral to simply memorize some fact and write/mark that as an answer in exams, without understanding its cause or significance. It, according to me is nothing short of copying. What is the difference? How is not knowing and copying wrong, but not knowing and pretending to know, right?

But I need to survive. I cannot change the exam system according to my wishes. In its confines, memorizing, without understanding is alright, or maybe, also admirable.

That brings me to elasticity. Elasticity is not absolute deformability, which is actually plasticity, but an ability to return to its original shape. A rubber band is elastic not because it can be stretched, but because it can recoil back. So possibly, elasticity lies somewhere between two extremes of plasticity and rigidity.

Deformability would entail that I will need to compromise on occasions. To fit in, to survive, to make life fulfilling. But same time listening to my conscience, to let it pinch, to not silence it, which will remind me that I had betrayed the 'self'--my ideals, original aspirations, which I had loved. All this because the circumstances (edges and corners) had forced me to change. But also to remember that choice of fitting in and compromising were both mine, and mine alone.

Important is to not drown my conscience in "It's okay!". To remember to not compromise the next time out of force of habit, or simply knowing that a simpler route exists.

So yes, elasticity is indeed deformable rigidity, and thus by default a moderate property between the two.

Self-love. This is the trickiest to define. To love the self, first, it is important to recognize the 'self'. Self is the innermost desires, doubts, the knowledge of what I like, what I hate, what I want to do. And if possible, also 'why'? But this assessment needs to be most honest. Most of what constitutes 'self', calls for some action or reaction, be it, lazing late till afternoon on a holiday or 'fighting the system'. To understand that it is alright for those actions to be directed by the desires, but within such a framework that very same actions will not bring 'me' shame in my own eyes.

Ultimately all actions have to serve the upkeep of self-image. If I love my 'self', I will make a most honest assessment of it. If not, I will try to shield it from my own scrutiny, or to distort it. The moment I try to distort it, I know, there is something that I do not like. Either I try to change it, or accept it as my limitation/deficiency.

Loving the self does not amount to serve primal-most self-interest to the exclusion of anything that entails sacrifice for the good of someone else, which if seems 'right', and not doing so, 'wrong', then it is indeed congruent with my desire to somewhere make a change outside of 'me'.

This might seem too mechanical way of living--the loving-the-self-part, but actually it still is the most spontaneous expression of the 'self', just that it passes from under a screen of introspection. :)

-----

A sinister, sadistic, half-asleep-from-previous-night's-binge-examiner eyes neatly dressed, frightened, semi-prepared students of final year MBBS exam, standing before him in mock respect, but genuine awe, and thinks: WTF?

Neatly dressed, frightened, semi-prepared students of final year MBBS exam, standing in mock respect, but genuine awe, eye a sinister, sadistic, half-asleep-from-previous-night's-binge-examiner, and think: WTF!

Examiner's WTF? = Who to flunk? | Student's WTF! = WTF!

States of Matter. State that matters--1

Do not be so fluid. So fluid that you fall into the next empty space. No shape. No place. Existence defined only by gradients of availability. Never able to climb; only fall. You will spread yourself wide. You will spread yourself thin. And before you know it, you will evaporate into nothingness.

Do not be so passively plastic. So plastic that you always fit in and forget your own shape. Always wanting the rigid confines to define the contours of your being. You will fit in. You will not remain you.

Do not be so reactively plastic. Yes, plastic again. So plastic that you change shape the moment you see a mould. Only to not fit in. Letting the confines define the contours of your being--this time staying out. Before you know it, you will become the next unshapely thing. You might become the next mould. Only fluids and plastics will occupy you. You will forget your shape.

Do not be so rigid. So rigid that you want the confines to yield, to replicate the contours of your being. You might wish, but you will not succeed. Before you know it, the edges and corners will scrape off chunks of your own being. You will lose them forever. You will not remain you. If you wait for that perfect mould--the one made for you, it will never be made. You will always remain outside. Outside is only for lodging. Outside, you will not live.

Be elastic. Mostly fitting in. Sometimes comfortably. Sometimes uncomfortably. Fitting in, yet feeling where it hurts. Knowing where the edges poke the contours of your being. Remembering what shape you were the last time. Springing back into your shape, each time you come out. Choose the best mould, but it will not fit perfectly. It will hurt. Be prepared for that. If a mould is too convoluted, too constricting, remember, it is best to lodge outside. For inside, painful poking will overwhelm your senses. You might remain you. Life will not remain life.

That elasticity is self-love. Love yourself, and life will become the simplest it could. You will remain you. Life will remain life.

---
1. This is simply a summary of a lesson on how to live that I have learned. What you have learned could be different. If so, consensus need not be reached.

...continued (click)