The Supreme (In)Justice of India [old/unfinished]

I thought it would be the wonder of the broomstick that would set me down to my keyboard again or perhaps some bumbling old fool with a white topi on his head and a black conscience spewing out utter nonsense... maybe the idiocies of some sections of the legislature or even police, yet it is the Judicial arm of the triumvirate of bodies that run this 'glorious' nation that has prompted me to begin to type yet again.

Most of you already know, but for those unlikely few who don't and are pondering what this old and wizened institution may have done to incur my... interest, let us just say that old not always means wizened. Sometimes it also means more deeply prejudiced and blind to the lay of the land and the truth of some matters.

The rights of the LGBT community are non-existent as per our apex court and as per conservatives deeply rooted in age old bias their wrongs are many, their mere existence being the foremost and most offending one of all it seems. These communities, deaf and dumb to any new inputs from the field of science, continue to tout the 'unnatural' nature of such dalliances as your friendly next door gay/lesbian person would like to indulge in. Judging by media and societal 'outrage' on other topics worthy of such it seems for them rape carried out by 'godmen' is alright, an acceptable 'natural' phenomenon but consesual sex between two members of the same gender is a horrifying crime. To them the sexual harassment of women is only just about as objectionable, if not lesser, than the existence of people who may have affection for people of both genders or even the same as themselves.  

But as always, I digress. The point I wanted to focus on was the 'unnatural' nature of such dalliances.

The human mind is a wonderful thing, our brain, that pinkish blob of flesh housed between our ears in that part of the body rather elegantly referred to as the cranium has a level of complexity to it that even modern medical science is yet to fully probe, but from what we do know right know is that much of how we act depends upon how our brains develop. Our sexual orientation is one such thing that stems from the development of that cheerful pinkish blob at least this is what my brain drags up from that room in my head labelled as 'What Little I Know' (a room whose contents are very little, I assure you) and from what little I'd read once upon a time. Thus when you come across a person who is gay or lesbian or bi-sexual it is not by choice that they 'became' so, it is how they were born, it is in their heads in their hormones. They are that way because, to use a slightly inelegant phrase, they were programmed that way.

In the case of transgenders the 'unnatural' tag is even more ridiculous for it is by a twist of nature itself that they are who they are. One does not choose at puberty or at birth that they will become a member of the gender currently referred to as the third gender by the politically correct, it happens. it happens because of the way our bodies are, the way our hormones function.

"Know Thyself"

"Know thyself"

A Delphic Maxim from Ancient Greece. A truth thousands of years old yet still valid; a fact which may seem strange in this modern world of multiple and metamorphosing truths where tomorrow's lie is today's truth and vice versa, or in some cases the truth merely becomes an unconfirmed rumor, one of many millions that throng the 'news' channels of today. Though to be fair, I am comparing a philosophical (perhaps psychological, too) truth to the truths of the news that we see today and being from different fields perhaps comparing the two would be as fair as comparing an aircraft with a bike, or a pile of poop as would be apt for some 'news' agencies.

The context, usage and factors that influence vary a lot. 

Ranting apart: Know thyself, this little truth is oft repeated in the simple everyday philosophies espoused by others, be it people of a particular school of thought or self help authors or philosopher-authors like Paulo Cohelo (of this last last mention I am a bit unsure, though a reading of one of his books leads me to believe he may in truth espouse all I say he may espouse). People preach "love yourself", but to do so you must know well and truly who you are, and what you are to love oneself truly rather than in the narcissistic manner that one comes across so often in others, even the traitorous self to some extent. 

And yet, despite this popular knowledge, acceptance and demand people find it tough to do so. It's as though we have a mental block in our heads, not unlike the DMRC Diversion signs found so commonly in Delhi just a few years back (and even presently if you traverse certain areas of the national capital), that says "Nope. No way you want to go down there buster. Why not rather think of that awesome book you read, or that show you watched, or perhaps drool a little and relive that ice cream binge in your head?" If you somehow make it past these blockades and begin to actually analyse yourself, collecting tidbits of information contained in scraps of memory and echoes of long forgotten incidents, events momentous and mundane now lost in the dusty old annals of ancient history, sooner or later the Trojan Horse will turn up.

What is this Trojan Horse? Well, it is the severe self-criticism of your actions that hides behind the benign mask of going over past mistakes to understand and prevent a recap in the future. "Oh, a helpful dose of self-analysis" you go and let it in and when you turn away to return to your job at the forensics lab of old deeds and memories the horse opens up and out comes the treacherous worm.

"Self-analysis huh?", it goes (I guess) "Well, how about this treasure trove of stupid things you did and shouldn't even forgive yourself for? Here, go beat yourself over the head with all this"

After which, mission accomplished, it promptly vanishes lest some eager gardener, caretaker of the mind's twisted little green patch of floral delights, come over to whack it over the head and 'vanish' it for good.

Those who make it past the first stage oft falter at this second one and it takes a tremendous will of effort to do so. For some twisted reason our 'hearts' find it easier to forgive others than it does itself (and a real interesting piece somewhat related to this can be found at the blog of a rather outspoken and talented (and also quite delightful) lady by the name of Minal- http://rainbowsandrape.blogspot.in/2014/01/2014.html)*.

Does it derive from some inherent fault in our 'Emotional Mind', is it related to self-esteem issues, or is it something else altogether? I know not. What I do know is that it can be fought and that only when you crush that wicked little worm that'd have you ranting against yourself will you be able to know yourself truly, accept yourself, and perhaps change yourself for the better, thus attaining that little modicum of peace we so covet.

I myself have oft tried and have as frequently failed to make it past one or the other. Though sometimes I do take a few steps away from that serpentine menace and gain a little more insight, but the modicum of peace I mentioned above? It still eludes me. 

Don't let it elude you.


*EDIT: The lady in question has long since deactivated her original blog. To those who have but recently read this piece: I am sorry but I'm afraid that piece is no longer accessible to us denizens of the World Wide Web. 

Random Rant

Following up on my previous post and a conversation I had this evening.

Writing well, scripting flowing verses or paragraphs upon paragraphs of writing that readers ingest without complaint, not realising just how any the pages/lines went by, all this is an art. An art I practice or attempt to. Sometimes I fail, like my latest poem on the other blog. It came out beautifully in my head but there were a few holes and in patching them up the beauty is lost.

But that is not what this piece is about. When it comes to writing, I can write a fair bit. I can probably impress some people with it if not many, and when I'm 'in the zone', or get my mojo in order, or feel inspired as such I can write very well; I can script pieces of utter bullshit that don't seem so, or pieces out of bullshit that don't display any characteristics of their source of origin in their content, and no where is this more visible than in my 'conversations' with people, girls especially, online. The spontaneous comment-upon-comment chats are fine and perhaps the more honest ones, but the ones sent in WhatsApp messages or to people's Facebook inbox, how honest are they? After all, if I can write 14-20 lines on a chat and keep the conversation going for a bit but struggle when talking face to face to get even two lines beyond the perfunctory 'hi' and 'what's up?' isn't that but an example of how dishonest my writing is and how my writing oft lies to others about my social skills, my intellect, my poetic nature or linguistic skills?

Anyway, rant over. Signing off for now.

The Artist's Dishonesty

All artists and poets do is represent the ordinary in a different light, through a different perspective or lens; as something extraordinary by blithely plucking it out of context; and in all this we are dishonest.

 A man gifted with the brush can paint alive an apple seemingly under more pressure than poor Atlas as he endeavors to hold up the heavens, the celestial sphere. Another gifted with words would make of a cup of tea something of such beauty as to rival Aphrodite herself or of the act of travelling to work such a an ordeal as to challenge even the most celebrated epics. Yet are these objects and acts all that we portray them to be? We would like to think so, yes, yet it does not mean that they are so.

Some things can be worthy of such praise and oft these talents do unlock and reveal new interpretations of life, useful or truly moving ones; as in a fallen leaf one can see a microcosm of death, hope, and a sort of rebirth- the cycle of life, while in an abandoned toy by a dusty old veranda one may be brought back to the nostalgic past and made to remember all given up in the haste to grow up and then abandoned leaving one foundation-less, lost and wondering where innocence went and why it won't return.

Yet not all things are so, and yet armed with my words and my camera I do often paint them to be more than they are, create, at least in my head, epics and tragedies revolving around mere twigs or iron bars, bent old beams and mannequins, and even mundane events like a class in college to a hour long wait.

And in this, I am dishonest.

NOTE: That I use 'we' as though I were one myself may seem presumptuous to many, yet we all are artists, some of words, some with paint, some use light and some music; while others are of sports, or of legalese and logic, and even of skin and blood. The only difference is that in many the artist but slumbers, or is made to, and thus seems non-existent while mine only half slumbers, and walks about in my head, in a semi-aware daze.

All I Ask

A little solitude, is all I ask
Yet it is not in loneliness I seek to bask.
Cheer and company I would desire
Yet it's hard when your hopes are afire.
So this wall I do erect,
Of apathy, yet,
Under this mask
All I ask
Is not for solitude but for
Someone to care.

-Attention seeking, that's the word that summaries this piece perfectly. It's a sad, horrid part of me that I do not like much, but I've accepted is part of my psyche (and needs to be purged). No one likes an attention seeking maniac, and hence I do try and control, yet my control is not absolute, and it does slip. Often.

Life

Life...

A gift, a puzzle eternal

To the common man, but to

The kittens that are our philosophers

A monumental ball of yarn to play with,

While faking, for others, knowledgeable airs

And employing pompous syntax to theorise

Some ridiculous theories again and again

With long winded statements; paragons

Of the syntactically, grammatically

Complex; veiling simple, even

Absurd ideas. All in all:

A farce.

Life, is but a wonder, a gift.

    A gift much too beautiful,                      much too simple, and yet complex

To be tarnished by the farce is the ‘intellectual’ drivel

 Hiding behind the mask of sophistication

That reduces everything to instances of

   Perception and perceptions of perceptions

   In an endless word-game that starts nowhere

     Leads to nothingness and has no purpose and aim.

Another piece revolving around philosophy and stuff... but then again, that, among many other things, IS what this blog is about.  :D   <-That's a grin, in case you're wondering.

A Disclaimer :D (Warning: NOT humorous...)

Very often I seem to end up posting stuff that seems to have some deeper meaning and some resonance with some of the slightly better known threads of thought (the proper term would be schools of thought) which may give you, my faithful, (hopefully) mildly gullible, yet intelligent readers the illusion that I actually have a highly developed intellect and that I have some deeper philosopher within me who assesses everything and after long periods of deep, ponderous thought comes up with those ‘truths’ that I very often tend to post hither and tither. Well, rest assured that nothing could be further from the truth. I am but a pseudo-intellectual young man playing at philosopher while he procrastinates and leafs through some random book ranging from the witty Wodehouse, to heavy stuff (like Freud to name a not-so-recent one) while doing justice to the wide smattering of fiction that comes in between ranging from space operas (read epic sci-fi) to thrillers and courtroom dramas, and yes even though  it stings my ‘manliness’ to admit this, the occasional romantic piece of nonsense a la Sparks, and Cecelia Ahern two*, as long as the story doesn’t have nauseous amounts of purple prose and flowery dialogues, THAT I just cannot stand.

So that’s all I am truly, a guy who reads a lot and ends up thinking a lot with his thoughts often being influenced by recent experiences and books, if not an outright muddle of thoughts projected into my puny skull by means of text or that combination of the audio-visual sensory inputs as is so common these days (and is responsible for the zombification of a majority of the world’s population).

However this does not mean that everything I come up with is a result of paraphrasing other people’s thoughts. I agree that many times my thoughts and ideas may match a lot with someone else’s but many times that just means that I have arrived at a similar conclusion after my own deliberations, however meagre they may be. And I do have the grace to Google any quotations I may come up with, or come across in the vast messy jungle that is my head, so that I can give the proper author credit and I don’t let the possibility of it being my own creation ripen in my mind until and unless even Google can’t trace the quote, which means that either it is from an extremely obscure text/author or that it is indeed an indigenous product of my own thought processes.

Oh, and one more thing. I sometimes end pieces abruptly, like this.

P.S. I love adding foot notes and even postscripts. :P

P.P.S. Another, shorter, disclaimer: my vocabulary isn't as awesome as it seems. I use Google and thesauruses at times.

P.P.P.S. Grin-emoticons in the title never come out the way you think they will (yes, it's supposed to be a grin up there).

 *Intentional pun seeing that I've read exactly two books of each author.

'Shady' Characters - A Little Ranting, Theorising and Conjecture

We all have come across them sometime or the other, some of us may have joined their 'shady' ranks for a bit in between, some people you know are perhaps part of this 'elite' gang yet none of this makes them as less of a mystery to us good old regular kids. Who am I talking about? Well, none other than the 'coolest' crowd ever: Those who wear shades... indoors!

This elite crowd is one that I have never fully understood, but recently, armed with my half-baked knowledge of psychology and philosophy, thanks to the half-read books on Freud and Kant and excerpts from other thinker's texts, and my own personal knowledge and ideas about some of these wonderful people whom I have the (mis)fortune of counting in my group of friends/people-I-know and fueled by the questions of the masses, I decided to take the plunge and try to figure out what makes these people tick, what is it that makes them who they are... and what is the reasoning or tradition that lies behind this occult cult.

First off I decided to go and question a person I knew about this strange act of wearing these shades indoors, during the twilight hours and even at night and the answer I got was staggering in its revelatory powers. This person (anonymous by choice) said, "Dude. It looks kewl". Yes, you read that right. It looks KEWL, that one thing everyone one of us aims (not) to be, that tag we all (don't) aspire to, the one that (thankfully) seems out of our reach... and it is so easy to attain. After all, who wants (not) to be just plain old cool, humorous and well-versed in English. Those days are gone, so yesterday as some might say (or is it ystrdy now?). Anyhow, that was but the first in a series of revelations.

However, not all the people seem to fall into the category of these kewl people. Some of them actually turned our to be part of the (in)famous Dude gang who wear this not only to look like the wannabe-cool-movie/sports-star imbeciles (if you're a Dude reading this, that is another term of affection) but also to go 'sight-seeing', or 'bird-watching', as some of them call it, without getting noticed or caught. But these dudes are another species altogether, hence I shall leave them alone for now. They deserve more than a mere mention in this piece (they deserve a thorough beating).

Coming back to the topic, I shall now proceed with a little theorising about these 'shady' people using my own personal knowledge of those few I know and the many that I have observed.

The first theory, of course, is none other than the theory of 'kewlness' and picking up girls. I believe that most people you see probably are acting as per this very (il)logical and (un)sound theory. It goes somewhat like this: if you wear cool looking shades inside a mall or some other fashionable place (or anywhere else for that matter) you look more 'fashionable' and hence have a higher chance of picking up 'fashionable' gals or guys, whichever your gender/preference dictates.

This narrows down the playing field for them a bit as this 'elite' crowd, as the word 'elite' suggests, is not a very common or easy to mingle with crowd, but then again it is worth it, right? After all, who wants to hang* with people who are so outdated and foolish as to consider the act of wearing shades dumb. I mean, they're meant to be worn. Sun or no sun, indoors or outdoors, nightclub or mall, they just have to be worn, right? Sun-shades/ sunglasses? Aw, c'mon, that's just a name, a silly, old tag from the stone ages and as The Bard once wrote, 'What's in a name?'.

The above paragraph of digression apart, this theory works the other way round as well. In this second (and perhaps unintentionally successful) case it works as per the wounded bird principle which applies to some girls. Looking at these poor chaps shambling about a mall or a busy street with their hopeless attempts at looking 'kewl' some of these girls (or guys), at times, take pity on the idiocy of these deluded souls and decided to take them under their wing and nurse them back to a delusion-free, sane world.

The second theory is that of unbearable brilliance. Some poor souls probably find these fancy modern places too much for themselves to handle and hence where these shades to protect their eyes from the brilliance of all the modernity, however, these few star-struck souls are but a minority if the attitude is anything to go by and most of those who don't subscribe to the 'kewlness' theory only wear shades for the common good, i.e. they help people identify realise that they are in the presence of sheer awesomeness

How? Well, they say that the eyes are the gateway to a person's soul (or his optic nerves at any rate), and the brilliance of these few souls is such that it shines through their eyes so blindingly bright that they need to wear shades to make sure they don't damage the eyesight of  the crowd around them. Thus the shades mark them and set them apart from other mere mortals, kind of like Cyclops from X-Men.

Of course, all these long-winded theories are but the result of mere speculation, and the end result may be much simpler: Low self-esteem, which can only be healed by looking 'cool' all the time, or Narcissism and low IQ that demands they wear this eye-wear everywhere and instantly assume they look awesome for doing so.

UPDATE:
Another theory I've just come across, suggested to me by the insightful externalexpressions^ (http://eternalexpressions.wordpress.com/), is that these supreme "kewl-propagandists" are simply functioning at a higher plane of thought and communication, aided by the "kewl"-est of accessories - Shades. This mysterious plane could perhaps be one of those extra dimensions that all those propagators of the string theory talk about. Or something else all together. Who knows? We mere mortals can but watch on in awe and keep conjecturing while these 'supreme'-beings stride into realms unfathomable to the uninitiated, shade-less masses. 

_____________________________________________________________________

*hang with- ... : A rather silly phrase I feel. Every time someone says that, I picture them hanging side by side from the gallows, or trussed up by some cannibals; who aren't planning to eat them, as they may get indigestion due to the sheer weight of  'kewlness' in them, but will sacrifice them instead to some mystic god or another (who will naturally have a better, stronger, digestive system).

^and this mysterious eternalexpressions, as it turns out, is none other than the inimitable Amrith Nayak, champion of expressions and witty word play.

Empty

Friend in need

To those who trust,

A thought suddenly strikes me:

Am I what I am,

So eager to help,

Out of sheer necessity?

Is it but because

On the inside I feel,

At times,

So strangely,

Frighteningly,

Empty?

Part or Shield

Weirdness

Funniness

The side many see

A mere shield

Or part

Of my personality?

Random stuff, yet again :P

In case you're wondering, I think it is both, a part, and a more prominent part in front of some as it is also a shield.

P.S. I can't help but feel I misused a comma, or maybe missed one, up there. :/

Of Hostels and Garbage

"Buildings may come up, be demolished and go

And streets may be renamed to something clever.

And Potholes may come and potholes may go,

But garbage shall stay here forever."

Ah, Garbage! What would our world be without you? It is you who fills up those empty spaces left so detestably clean by people, who adds 'colour' to the surroundings and who adds that much needed fragrance to counter the effects of the noxious fresh air that some weirdos seem to like. What would Indian towns be without you? Nothing, I say. Without you, dear Garbage, these cities and towns would not be Indian cities and towns but simple towns and cities like anywhere else in the world; and there's no fun in that.

We are a nation of diversity which retains its culture and traditions while also mingling and fusing with the west and nothing gives as bold an affirmation if this fact as you do. For when one sees ladoo boxes lying amidst packets of western chips, fancy Reebok or Adidas sneakers all torn up and discarded alongside a pile of worn out chapals or a Subway wrapper floating down the drains on a rainy day, right beside a kathi roll wrap, one cannot help but acknowledge this coexistence of two separate worlds, in a manner of speaking, in one nation.

As for your value as a beautifier of a locale, I bear witness to it everyday. Be it the staircase in the hostel, the fire hydrant box, an empty shaft that's under construction or even the hotel elevators some part of you is present at one of these places at the very least, adding variety and helping break the monotony of a clean environment. Yes, despite the existence of those nefarious creations of man called dustbins or wastepaper baskets, as some call them, well within walking distance of these places I mentioned your presence has not been wiped out, not yet. After all, such is your magnificence, so marvelous is your presence that despite the best efforts of those heathens (of whose ranks I, sadly, am a part) who aim to eradicate your presence from all public spaces, who wish to see our locales, our towns and cities reduced to the bland cleanliness of some western nations your followers have held their ground. And while the rest of the world slowly gives in to the horde of dustbin-fanatics, VIT-C's Boys Hostel shall always remain a safe haven, an island of reason in the ocean of madness.

EDIT: Added an impromptu poem included in the Campus Diaries version of this post (linked here).

Don't Take Too Long

Parted ways long ago,

Lived these years

On our

Own.

Yet

You linger

In my memory.

I still see you

And your smile

When I

Close

My eyes.

And though I

Now walk on alone

I still keep,

For you,

A

Place by

My side and

Though I am willing

To wait for

You to

Join

Me again,

It won’t be

Empty forever. So, love,

Don’t take too long

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.