Critique

Critique

So important

Yet unwanted by many

For self-delusions of grandeur

It can shatter

Forever.

An Open Letter

This is but the first little letter in a series of open letters that I thought to compose to send to those elite few; those colourful characters who make our day to day life the hell that it is quite often.

Firstly in line:

The Cool Dude, or Mast Banda or whatever else he fancies himself as.

Dear Mr Dude,

Your are one of the most glaringly prominent members of modern society. So (in)famous are you that there is not one day when the newspaper's aren't filled with tales of your latest exploitations... er, I mean exploits. From eve-teasing to molestation and even rape, you do it all; and why shouldn't you indeed? After all, judging by the effort you put into wooing a girl with your cat-calls and comments (which some uncharitable folks call obscene) you do deserve some reward; and if it involves bashing up some lazy sod who doesn't do things your 'manly' way then all the better you'd say. Of course, the public wouldn't always approve of your activities, but fear not; our netas and assorted officials are ever ready to defend your acts. That is what we elect them and contribute to their salaries for anyway.

In fact, if I were a neta I would surely to speak on your behalf to the public (after all, isn't that what neta's do?) and I would plead: Please forgive these oafs (its a term of endearment) their minor indiscretions after all  it wasn't really their fault; the girl was actually seducing them and putting lewd ideas into their heads.

She was dressed in a burqa you say? Doesn't change a thing, haven't you heard that famous Govinda song "Ankhiyon Se Goli Mare". They never even so much as glanced at the poor chappie? Well they must have employed mind tricks: you see, the very femininity of their nature corrupted the innocent Dude's mind, its like a force field spread over a vast area around them. Its the reason for all these regrettable but 'understandable' incidents and if not for that he wouldn't have even touched her or even dreamt of beating up her male companions.

You and you buddies yourselves can tell us how you slave away in a gym or a pub or both, for hours on an end every single day in the hopes of polishing your powerful charisma (read: chauvinism) and wooing skills (read: eve-teasing) in the hopes of snaring one (un)fortunate gal in a sort of relationship and how these modern girls have become so callous in their disregard of your feelings (or lack thereof) that they are all but asking for it. You would probably tell us how you were just having a merry time drinking away to glory when that evil seductress came along and 'forced' you to outrage her modesty, she was probably 'asking for it' each and every time you've done your (evil) deeds, and I bet those conservatively dressed demure girls are the worst of the lot! Seducing you so subtly, not even flaunting their bodies like most!

All in all, you probably feel rather justified in your acts. After all it never was your fault, really; plus with the end of the world coming one can't really grudge a guy some fun, eh?

Well it seems I can.

For some reason I feel the need to object to all this. Your justifications, your innocence and the girl's perpetual guilt- they all ring hollow in my ears.

Yes, maybe I'm a bit strange, maybe I'm not a proper Dilli-waala like you manly dudes are, maybe I'm just a wimp but  somehow feel that your activities aren't justified in the least and the only reward you deserve is a nice long jail sentence, maybe a healthy dose of thrashing with it too, after all, haven't we all heard the saying: "laaton ke bhoot baaton se nahi maante".

Now now, don't glare at me like that. I'm just voicing my opinion, I do have the right to free speech, as long as it doesn't hurt any political big-shot's or his/her family's sentiments, and I don't think that I've done either, not directly at least. You see; people like you and people who think like you, despite the fact that they may have been a victim themselves have had a lot to say about the issue (like a certain Didi from the land of Rosogullas). You're always up and about reaffirming the guilt of the girl and how really early marriages and banning of chowmein can help improve the law and order situation so I felt that enough was enough, we foolish people should also have our say and thus I dared speak up.

The thing is: I don't really believe that the girl is as guilty as you make her out to be, nor do I believe that chowmein has much to do with it. What then is the cause you ask? Well, you. You and your mentality and your insecurity. You feel insulted that girls may think of themselves as equals, you feel slighted you see a girl actually doing something with her life while you sit rotting your away and you feel outraged that your brawn doesn't get the adulation you feel it deserves. That is what I believe. I believe that you're so petty that rather than to make something out of yourself you begrudge others their lives and rather than learn to respect a girl and treat her right you'd go and force yourself upon some unwilling girl and then, instead of owning up to what you did, like a proper man would, you blame it all on her. All in all you've become a total failure, an empty headed, empty hearted ruthless predator who only seeks momentary relief from his own pain at the cost of deep hurt and pain to others at the cost of ruination of someone's life and dreams.

But then again, you're not really the one to blame. Your failure is but partly your fault for you only failed because we failed you. Your parents or guardians failed to raise you with the right outlook on life and women, your neighbourhood failed to set you right when you started to go wrong, and we, the citizens of the nation, failed you by not teaching you to respect the rules, to fear the law. We failed because we taught you to laugh at the law rather than honour it.

Sincerely Ashamed to be a Delhiite

Akash Kapur

Atheists Demystified (to a slight extent)

One of the most common topics these days in forums all over the net is atheism: its rise and the 'threat' it poses to the world. And very often I find these forum threads populated with comments and ideas that are hopelessly misinformed. Tired by all that useless chatter out there I decided to post my own little piece of 'useless chatter' out here away from the clashing voices of the debating multitude to help demystify the often misunderstood Atheist and also to caution those overly zealous Atheists who are about as dangerous as any fanatical religious extremist. Of course many other people have probably written more about this topic and in a much better fashion that I, but still I can't resist adding my own two bits, perhaps just for the sake of convincing myself that I too have contributed to this vast muddle of a discussion.

The first thing most people must get clear in their heads is that atheism is NOT a religion in fact, the word atheism is very misleading in this respect as it gives the impression of being a strict order, very much like a religious one, which it is not, therefore I'll try not to use that term too much. The general belief among theists who haven't had much exposure to the atheistic world is that atheists have a fixed doctrine and that they are but members of a different religion of sorts, an anti-religion religion if you will. One would think that this oxymoronic sentence itself would give them pause and make them rethink, yet for some reason it doesn't. But anyway, what I want to stress out here is that atheists DO NOT share some common doctrine which has to be obeyed to the letter, we just have certain beliefs that we've come to accept after rationally analysing all the evidence available to us and arriving at our own independent conclusions.

Of course, the facts being what they are, the beliefs of most atheists will be strikingly similar, but yet again, that does not mean that there is a common doctrine, just that they've seen what is to be seen and since the world is the same to everyone (as in the general world) the conclusions will also be more or less similar. But they'll have their differences too. Some will believe in the Multiverse theory, some won't, some will believe in the Super String Theory, some won't. But then again these beliefs are not fixed, if one theory is proven somehow the others will be discarded as we decide our beliefs rationally. We believe that nothing can travel faster than light, but if we do find a particular situation under which this is possible, we'll revise our beliefs and this is one major difference between religious beliefs and the scientific beliefs promoted by atheists.

Religious beliefs are based on blind faith. There is never an attempt at proving or verifying anything pertaining to them as one cannot question these faiths for doing such will be blasphemy or hurtful to religious sentiments which can be perilous to the well being of the curious soul, while in science beliefs are constantly questioned and the only thing being hurt is the ego of some scientist which doesn't make for much of a threat in comparison.

However I digress. The gist of what I wanted to say is that an atheist is, more often than not, open to new ideas and change. He thinks things through and the true atheist never shirks at the thought of changing his beliefs if new evidence demands it.

In fact, if a rational atheist or agnostic is shown irrefutable proof of God's existence he/she will convert immediately, as opposed to those people who are strictly opposed to any such beliefs to such an extent that it has become one of the most unchangeable tenets of their lives. The latter will resist all change and theirs is not the rational atheism that I follow, but the irrational fanatic one which is no better than the exteremist form of religion that many people preach.

Another point I'd like to clear up is the belief that Atheism has been the cause for some of the greatest tragedies like World War II and also the discrimination against religious people in North Korea. For the World War II point all I'd like to say is: READ UP ON THE FACTS!

The second World War was not fought for the idea that there is no god, it was fought because of hurt German sentiments after severe and unnecessary humiliation by the smug Allied Forces in World War I , it was fought because of an irrational hatred of Jews in the mind of one charismatic, fanatical man, it was fought because of a belief in the race superiority of the 'Aryan' race and to establish a superior world power.

As for the discrimination in North Korea. Read up on The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel, read up some good scholar's work on the topic, try and understand the gist of what communism is all about and then you'll realise that the reason for persecution of religious people in North Korea is not because the state is atheist. No, its because the communist belief is that all men are equal and that spreads divisiveness and inequality and hence must be curbed and as communists are bound to be rather stern with these issues as compared to us non-communist people, the punishment for being religious in a communist nation can often be very painful, even terminally so. In short the state of North Korea is atheistic because it is communist, i.e. it doesn't ban religions and get equality for all as a by product instead it believes in equality (of a hypocritical kind perhaps, but equality all the same) and hence bans religions, thus making its atheism a by product.

Also before bandying about the atheism promotes violence line I'd appreciate it if the person promoting that belief looks back on to his/her own religion's past and even at the present state.

So basically the average atheist you see is not a bogeyman to be feared, he's just another human being who simply doesn't share your beliefs.

Of course, there are some who take their atheism to a new level and become the very sort of people from the non-believing crowd that I detest in the group of believers: extremists.These people believe that all religions are outdated and should be done away with and that this must be enforced by some means (preferably martial force as per some complete imbeciles) that brooks no argument and ensures complete eradication of religion. They want complete eradication of religion by force which in my eyes makes them no better than those who kill, torture and maim others in the name of religion, both encourage/practice terrorism and the world is better off without either.

I too believe that religions are stifling and create unnecessary divides, at least in their current interpretations. I believe that we should stop placing a child under the tag of 'x' religion just because the parents belong to the same, I believe that the child should be raised free from all pressure to study all the data available on religions, on science and as per his/her own conclusions decide whether he/she believes in a god or not. But these changes will come gradually they cannot be enforced by forceful means doing so will not only be fascist in the extreme and harmful to our freedoms in general but will also make these religions rallying points for people opposed against fascism and will make them the beacons of hope that stood out against the 'fascist atheists' thus leading to a more powerful resurgence of these religions, an end that these extremists surely don't want.

A very good example given by Richard Dawkins (to the best of my knowledge) is that of the Greek Mythos and of Norse Mythology. The Greek Mythos was so powerful and influential that even the Romans adopted this Mythos and it remained a powerful and influential force for a very long duration of time (whether more than or less than Christianity, I do not know) but now no one worships even a single deity from the pantheon of Greek/Roman Gods. As for the Norse mythology, their mighty Thor is not a deity worshiped anymore, he's more of a comic superhero these days. These myths as we call them now were religions in their own right, but they died off slowly and so too will our current batch of religions if given time (and not strengthened by foolish acts of extremism on a non-believers part) and we'll soon enter a future where there is no more blood letting and violence due to different opinions about a creator or interpretations of what the said creator did or demanded of our species, a future where there is no 'hurt religious sentiment' to stall progress and scientific development... minus a violent transition.

P.S. Of course, I know that my dream of a peaceful future is probably too idealistic of me, but at least I can hope for a future where friends and acquaintances don't end up as enemies just because one group believes in Text A while other in Text B.

They can have more logical reasons for fighting like... who's footing the bill :P

EDIT (1/03/15): However, a recently read blogpost (I read it on the phone and so the link will have to be added later) shows that even in 'atheism' these days there is a almost religious vein of thinking. The post was titled 'How Dawkins got pwned' or somthing along those lines and raised certain interesting points about one of the most outspoken (Christian?) atheists in the world. That apart seeing how entrenched the idea of religion is in our society I doubt we shall ever be rid of it. It may change and morphose into new forms. The gods of the current major religions may merge into one confusingly jumbled entity or may vanish altogether to be replaced by the religion of technology with people religiously following, working towards, and utilising the latest technology upgrades. For all you know, we may end up with a techno(-theo-)cratic society; somewhat like that of the planet Ix from the Dune universe; wherein science and technology are the sole (twinned?) deities whom we seek to appease. We may end up transitioning from the current set of abstract, metaphysical religions to a religion of science envisioned (?) in Asimov's Foundation saga, as well as other works by authors such as Neal Asher.

After all, we humans have had a love for the mystical and many a teams long for a hierarchy wherein we 'know our place'. A 'religious' structure would offer both. That being said, I'd prefer a pure technocratic society compared to one with theocratic influences, but I'll probably be long dead before we as a species reach that stage (assuming we don't kill ourselves off or make our planet unfit for ourselves to live on before that) so I guess to me it doesn't matter, except as an intellectual problem.

Truth and Beauty

The purest Truth and Beauty

Reside not in long winded statements

Or displays of complexity

Of technique and skills

But in the lost art of simplicity.

I don’t think this piece needs any elaboration. Yet still I’ll add my two bits for a (most probably) unnecessary explanation, or elaboration, if you may, of the idea in the verse above.

Most people these days try to make things looks really, really complex. If they have something to say, they dress it up in long winded statements that can drag on for paragraphs which in turn can crawl on for pages and pages filled with utter nonsense and drivel, all to say just one little thing which could have better been said in a line or two. Many artists make their works look dauntingly complex all in the attempt to show off their highly developed skills and that in itself makes them loose favour in my eyes.

Not to say that those pieces aren’t beautiful too, they are, but they pale in comparison to any piece that on first glance conveys to the viewer a sense of simple beauty no matter how complex the technique and arduous the task of producing it may have been. What I particularly enjoy are those pieces that have an almost organic fluidity to them, those where the eye flows over the image or the sculpture or canvas rather that jump, those that convey their meaning in one go, drawing one in to then notice the subtleties that are testament to the artist’s genius. Those pieces are my favourites.

The same is in the matter of truth, the more long-winded your statement, the lesser the hopes of the essence of it being conveyed faithfully.

After all, a long essay of a joke is infinitely less impactful than a witty two-liner that gets the essence of the situation.

O MLA! Why you no legislate?

A witty, tongue in cheek video prepared by the well-known Indian newspaper ‘The Hindu’ shows a typical college classroom with the stern old professor standing at the board and announcing a topic for a debate in the class and declares which side is to speak for and which will speak against the topic. So far so good, there are no foreseeable problems that could possibly arise, other than high volumes and higher tempers of course.

Then the gentleman makes the mistake of saying that he expects ‘proper parliamentary behaviour’ during the discussion.

How is that a mistake you ask? Well, move a few seconds further into the video and you realise why. Many will probably find the video extremely funny, I admit I sure did enjoy that completely bewildered and flustered expression on the professor’s face as his class erupted in complete pandemonium, but like the best of the stories from the genre of satire, along with tickling the audience’s funny bone it also highlights an important problem in or country today: the un-parliamentary behaviour of our ‘representatives’.

Not only do these modern day Bourbons, as a columnist for the very same paper titled them, live in their fantasy worlds where everyone adores them and use their power and influence to ensure this fantasy doesn’t get disrupted (read misuse of state judicial machinery) but they also feel that they are completely above any law, regulation or even code of conduct and can do whatever they please, whenever they please; and governing and the functioning of the state apparatus be damned. Passing legislations, ensuring that the parliament is actually running are but secondary, nay, tertiary objectives for them if even that. They’d rather engage in heckling and abusing the opposition party MP’s or anyone who isn’t ‘one of them’ and, in demonstration of their love for brawling, turn any session of parliament into a slug-fest whenever they please.

While the world is in recession and our nation is struggling to stay above the water and keep its economy floating our dearest ‘leaders’ are busy getting the police to lock up people who offend them, creating a ruckus about corruption claims with respect to the opposing parties to fend of attention from the charges they themselves are facing and being indecisive about anything that has to do with legislation or governance. It is as if they are unaware of the global situation.

Of course another explanation is that they are probably reassuring themselves that we’re clocking 5.5% on our GDP (not sure of the precise figures, so please point out any mistakes) and that having so much in the way of resources and man-power and skills we can’t possibly be in any danger of sliding backwards and ending up in the dump. They probably believe that the threat of economic status downgrade is but a fictional threat, like those mommy used to make up about boogeymen and ghosts who kidnap naughty little kids, to get them to do something [good] which they’d rather not do, namely: legislate.