Beautifully depressing

Fernando Botero's paintings were on exhibit in the Doe library at Berkeley. The subject: torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of American soldiers.

Botero has attempted to capture the event which the American government is all set to erase from its memory. The government has ordered that the prison be brought down.

The hall had a melancholic atmosphere. No one spoke throughout. Not even in whispers. I can not describe the paintings. The words would only be too crude. It was quite depressing to stay in the exhibition hall. I realized it after quite a while. And I realize now how depressing, how sickening, it could have been to undergo such torture, when it was so depressing to stand there, and so difficult to write now about the paintings.

After a successful display in Europe, there was no museum in the US which offered space to Botero. Indeed, Berkeley is the first museum exhibit of the paintings in the US. As I walked out, I realized that the exhibition was open to everyone. Nevertheless, the fact that most museums turned down the offer does demonstrate the parochial, almost escapist attitude that most of the American institutes have.

A society is healty if it can take criticism. If it can look inside and find faults. And I see a possiblity of a healty society by the popularity the exhibition had. By the fact that there was no malicious attempt while the exhibits were on display.

Which brings me to my second point. Could such an exhibition have happened in India? I think Indians are more open to criticism. Indeed, the greatest cynics of the India Shining story are Indians themselves. But the attitude undergoes a total change when it comes to certain beliefs. Religion, early leaders, religious heads, to criticize them is akin to attacking people personally. Surprisingly, some criticisms which non-secular countries in the world are able to digest, there are uproars in India. The Da Vinci code, the Satanic Verses. Or sometimes, the zeal to protect those beliefs is such that the protestors miss the whole point. The criticism of Gandhigiri, and of Gandhi himself (I am sure Gandhi wouldn't have agreed with the protestors. Or their methods.). Why are we so averse to differences in opinion? Why are we so insecure? Are we being escapists, too?


Update : A university article : http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/27_botero.shtml
says fifteen thousand people visited the exhibit while it was on display. Commendable, isn't it?

A feel-good article

Most of my reading habits changed once I arrived at Berkeley. Moving from the Hindustan times to the Daily Cal, news became very local, almost too close for comfort.

One reading I continued was the Sunday articles in the Hindustan Times. Karan Thapar's 'Sunday Sentiments' and Vir Sanghvi's 'Counterpoint' still occupy my mind the whole day. The anticipation of seeing these articles has stayed the same, and maybe, even increased. Its a pity that Vir's Rude Food is not available online (or, well, he stopped writing it).

While 'Sunday Sentiments' is, well, quite sentimental, almost personal, 'Counterpoint' is (arguably) better thought of, and quite strong. The former leaves you smirking, giggling, or frowning, while the latter almost always leaves you contemplating. I can never, ever, forget the words in 'Counterpoint' analyzing the Gujarat riots, and its consequences.

Over the years, though, 'Counterpoint' has become more and more emotional (and less and less logical!). Nevertheless, Vir Sanghvi is fun to read for the conviction he has in his words. For the way he structures his article. And for the way he ends it.

Here's this week's article. Despite it presenting an incomplete picture, its
fantastically feel good :-)

http://hindustantimes.com/news/181_1944719,00300001.htm

enjoy!

The biased truth

Is a biased collection of statements necessarily untruthful?

Deliberate hiding of facts to present only one part of the story, only half-truth, is bias. It is this bias that I refer to when I talked of articles on Wikipedia.

An unbiased article should attempt to prevent and unprejudiced consideration of a question.

Consider the three paragraphs on Gujarat violence here.

The first paragraph says :

"In February 2002, when Narendra Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, violence broke out across the state claiming around a thousand lives. While some consider the violence to have been sporadic communal riots, others allege that the violence was directed against Muslim communities. An official estimate states that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed, with 223 more missing.[5] The riots followed the Godhra Train Burning incident, where 58 Hindus were burnt alive on a train carriage, which was believed to have been set on fire by a Muslim mob[6][7]. A panel set up two and a half years after the incident claimed that the train burning was an accident. However, the panel was declared illegal by the Gujarat High Court[8][9][10]."


What do you infer?

1) It is not necessarily true that there was violence directed against the muslims after the Godhra train burning incident.

2) A central question is whether the train carriage was set to fire by a muslim mob. It is unanswered, but the answer is widely believed to be in affirmative.

The second paragraph:


"Subsequent reports from several human rights organisations and political opponents have claimed that Modi and his ministers instructed Gujarat's police officers not to obstruct the attacking mobs. The National Human Rights Commission criticised the government, pointing to "a comprehensive failure on the part of the State Government of Gujarat to control persistent violations of rights".[11]. In turn, several of these human rights groups have been criticized for biased reporting against Hindus and overt generalizations regarding the complex situation[12][13]."

Inferences:

1) Several human rights organizations believe that the ensuing violence was under Modi's directions.

2) They may not be right.

The third paragraph:

These claims have also been rejected by Modi, and the BJP and its supporters have attacked the reports as being politically motivated, due to the fact they came out at the time of an election. A judicial commission constituted to examine allegations of Gujarat state administration's involvement in the riots of 2002 has twice so far said that there was no evidence "as yet" to implicate either Modi or his administration in the riots. However, recently the widow of ex-Congress MP Ahsan Jaafri filed a court case against Modi and his government[14][15] As an aftermath to the riots, there were calls for Modi to resign as chief minister of Gujarat. The opposition parties stalled the national parliament over the issue. Even allies of the BJP like DMK and TDP were asking for Modi's resignation[16]. Modi submitted his resignation to the Governor, Mr. Sundar Singh Bhandari, only after three months and recommended the dissolution of the 10th Gujarat Legislative Assembly[17]. In the subsequent elections, the BJP, led by Modi, won the elections by a huge margin.

1) So far no evidence of Modi's involvement.

2) In the aftermath of the riots, some parties demanded Modi's resignation. He resigned.

3) Modi led BJP to a resounding victory in the ensuing elections.


I admit that as far as I know, every statement in this section is correct.

Questions I raise on this particular section of the article:

1) Does Modi's winning the subsequent elections deserve a place in the section titled "Gujarat riots"? Doesn't this end the article on a triumphant note for Modi, creating an impression that the people made a judgement on the contention of government's involvement in the riots?

2) Why (as pointed out by Vivek) are the unofficial death-tolls not quoted?

3) Why is there no mention of the fact that there were elements within the BJP who believed Modi orchestrated the riots? Or the majority of the media?

4) Observe the ending of each paragraph. Contrast it with what is inside. Consider the fact that last sentence lingers in the mind longer.



Some questions on the rest of the article:

On "One of the most significant achievements of his government has been successful raising of the height of the Narmada Dam from 95 to 110.64 metres, which resulted in increased irrigation, water supplies and hydroelectric power [5]."

5) Why does Narmada Bachao Andolan deserve no mention? Why do the thousands displaced deserve no mention? Maybe they are not important, and maybe the advantages of the dam are more important than the disadvantages. But surely, the disadvantages deserve a mention, don't they?




"Apart from the controversy that he always generated due to his staunch support of Hindutva, he is also regarded as one of the best political administrator that India has ever seen"

6) Who regards him as one of the best political administrators? What community? Where is a citation?



On "Position on Terrorism"

On July 18, 2006, Modi delivered a speech criticizing Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "for his reluctance to revive anti-terror legislations" such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He asked the Centre to empower states to invoke tougher laws in the wake of the blasts in Mumbai[26][27].Quoting Modi:
“ Terrorism is worse than a war. A terrorist has no rules. A terrorist decides when, how, where and whom to kill. India has lost more people in terror attacks than in its wars[26][27]. ”

He was criticized by Communist Party leaders after making the speech[26][27].

7. Criticized for what? For this statement against terrorism?

8. [26][27] have NO mention of communist parties. How do they form valid citations?

9. Look at the ending of "Visa controversy" article. Consider my Q.4. In fact, check the last sentence of each paragraph of the article.

That's my case.

The RSS on Wikipedia

It disappoints me everytime see the articles on the Rashtriya Swayamsevi Sangh (RSS), its cadres, and political parties which share their ideology with RSS, on Wikipedia. The bias is evident.

Quoting from the article on BJP :
"The BJP has often been accused of participation in religious violence and using religiously sensitive issues for political advantage. These accusations, largely a political smear campaign by opposition parties, have tarnished the image of BJP in the eyes of many Indians, particularly Muslims."

The article on Gujrat riots on page on Narendra Modi almost gives him a clean chit. Rajnath Singh is praised no end.

A five-hunderd line article on the RSS has thirty-odd lines on its criticism. The rest of the article is as biased as any of the above.

The previous article for Rajnath Singh was actually copied from his biography released by the BJP! I got it deleted long time back, but the new article is not much better.

Considering that searching name of _any_ politician invariably yields his/her Wikipedia entry as the first one, its a sad state of affairs. Imagine an impressionable mind searching details of Gujarat riots on the web!

Just another instance of a vocal, vociferous minority imposing its views, posing as representatives of the majority. Or in this case, as unbiased writers. This is a major problem for an 'encyclopedia' like Wikipedia.

Its hard for any one person to change it. So are people reading this interested in removing the bias? Its not hard, just time consuming. But satisfying. And important.

For a start, read the articles on Modi and the BJP.

The dark side of the Sonar Killa: Open question!

First, this phenomena is quite general. Almost all tourist places in India have children working for long hours.

We met some farmers and on my visit to Orissa, I saw people there who was poorer than those on Sam Sand dunes in Jaisalmer, but I also remember that the kids went to school. Education, and the ensuing carrer, is an attractive option there, as compared to the the option of earning quick money at a major tourist spot. The fields require only so much work, and the kids would be better off learning something for the rest of the time.


So is this a bane of being born a poor family in a tourist place? Yes! The short-term advantage of forcing the child to work for more hours is more obvious than the advantage of the alternative.

I see no practical way by which we can simply ask the people to stop forcing their children to work. Besides, force is never the way.

Me and mom came up with a seemingly simple solution: let them have school for six months. In Jaisalmer, there are no tourists in the summers! From April to around September, its too warm for tourism. Special schools can be run for these children in these months. They can be let off for the rest of the year, possibly with some vacation homework.

The solution would work elsewhere, too. Since most tourist places in India have some "tourist season".

I am sure its too simplistic to not have any feasibility problems, but there could be ways around those problems, too. Not only is finding those ways important for Salim and his kins, but also for the tourists to enjoy their vacation without a tinge of guilt. Asha, AID, anyone listening?

I might table this problem, and possible solutions, at the next AID/Asha meeting. So pour in your solutions! Leave a message down here, or mail me at pulkit_AT_gmail.com.



(Update on facts/statistics:
Majority of the population at Sam and nearby areas is illiterate. Those educated have usually studied till 5th standard. The area is predominantly muslim. Women's rights are often overlooked. Majority is underemplyed/unemployed.)

The dark side of the Sonar Killa

"Ride on this one, sir!"

He looked like a boy of eleven, as he offered me to take a ride on his camel, into the vast sands of Jaisalmer.

camel boy : what's your name?
Me : Pulkit. What's yours?
camel boy : Salim
Me : Salam Salim bhai!

Salim glared back at me. Giving me the first sign that not everything is right in this idyllic place. My smile stuck, nonetheless, not knowing where to go.

I got onto the camel. Bargained with the camel owner, a much older man, for the price. Went on to the first vista point. And thereon, the camel owner left, leaving me and my family with the boys, who walked as we rode the camels deep into the Thar desert.

Sometime later, I garnered enough courage, and a question, to start a conversation.

Me : So which class do you study in?
Salim : I don't study.

I didn't know what to say next. I wasn't shocked. Its just that the question had never had such an answer. I would have usually known if the child I was talking to was not receiving any education.

Given that the starter didn't quite work, I tried to do away with the cheerful pretence, and instead dug deeper.

Me: Why don't you go to school?

No response.

Me: you take people out for rides in the evening, so you can go to school in the morning!
Salim : As if the 'seth' would allow me.

Seth is the boy's caretaker. He pays him for taking people to rides, and taking care of the camels.

Salim : He asks me to give the camel a bath, and give it fodder in the morning. That hardly leaves me with any time to go to school.

I was somewhat relieved that he didn't add "Besides, what would I learn there?". Though the fear of this answer kept me from bringing up a conversation on the importance of education.

What would he learn there?

Back to the circuit house in Jaisalmer, I had a fictitious conversation with Salim in the night.

Salim : Regardless of what I learn there, I would probably end up doing this job all my life. It would make no difference!

Me: At the very minimum, what you would learn about science, history, mathematics, humanities, would broaden your perspective. It would tell you that there is world beyond the dunes of Thar, that there are people with alternative lifestyles.

That there are possibilities beyond being a camel boy. That life is sometimes about making choices, and not following commands.

That you get a say in what you want to be.

It would tell you what it means to be free. Free of your seth. Free of the constraints which force you to walk like a silent, chained being on the sands of the Thar desert.

(to be continued)

Superposition of all emotions

I wake up. I feel elated. Also disappointed. I feel pure, alive, enthusiastic, adventurous, perceptive, fickle. I also feel calm, composed and nervous, uncertain. I step out, look at the sun. I feel delighted. I walk on, and realize its too bright and too hot. A cool breeze reminds me I left my jacket at home. It makes me feel jittery, but with the added freedom, I feel like dancing. I jog. It takes away the cold. I keep jogging till I sweat.

I stop.

I wait and think. I hum a tune. I start jogging again. I start running. I sweat more. It feels good.

".. the goodly smell of rain on dry ground".

India, here I come!

Protest, protest, protest!

Jaswant Singh visited Berkeley about a month back. This is what happened. Find some pics here.

In recent times, Jaswant is the only Indian politician to be on the receiving end of such a humiliating protest. I was pleasantly surprised that this happened in my backyard. Surprised, and proud. Nevertheless, it bothered me that a senior Indian politician was insulted in this manner, outside his homeland. I was not sure if such a forceful and violent protest was in need.

Was a more restrained protest called for? What is the boundary which a protest shouldn't cross? What factors determine this boundary?

Gandhi once noted that it is important to register your protest even in the face of obvious loss. That registering a protest makes the authority feel that their move hasn't gone down as well accepted. He would have stood against the BJP, but not in this way.


There are different ways to protest. The contrast, however, is nowhere as stark as in India's freedom struggle. The two ways were those of the revolutionaries and Gandhi. Both set their boundaries. Both seeked to achieve some aim. In Gandhi's case, however, the aim determined the methods. As he himself put it, an India ruled by a few Indians is no better than an India ruled by a few Englishmen. The power had to come from the people themselves, and not a small fraction of the population.

Therefore, the methods are not arbitrary. The aim classifies the methods as legitimate and illegitimate. So, were the means used in Berkeley legitimate? Or, were they merely justified?

Two of a kind

There are not many people who have the confidence to go against the consensus of a whole nation. I thought I knew of only one, who lived a long time back, decades before I was born. Who did not care of opinion of anyone, not even his closest ones. When he decided to call off mass movements he himself started. When all around him opposed him. When he would himself have thought that his act would go down in history as accepting defeat in face of victory.

Until, that is, Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu Sharma.

Why would anybody want to defend Manu.

Why? Ram 'loses' no matter what happens to the case. The public/media have made the decision already. No body, except the close friends of Manu Sharma would admire his intent to defend Manu.

Why? In Counterpoint , Vir Sanghvi suggests he's getting a fat paycheck. I rule that out, mostly for my own whimsical reasons, but also because the man is too old to drool for a few rupees more.

Why? I am sure even he doesn't believe Manu Sharma is innocent.

The only plausible reason is his disillusionment with the route the law took. He is a lawyer, and he believes in integrity of justice, of the process of attaining justice. Of evidence, of proof. And he believes that this integrity is being stripped away by the way the media and the public opinion have influenced the judges' decision. He believes this case is setting up a precedent for public trial, a trial by votes, a trial by public opinion. And considering the media influence on the vocal and visible section of the society, this case is a precedent for trial by media. Certainly not the way the law is supposed to function.

Do I support his stand? No. I don't personally know what evidence is there against Manu. I know very little of the claims of fabrication of evidence. The articles that I have come across generate no sympathy for Manu. I dearly hope that Ram would back-off once he has made his point. But I fear that the only way for him to make his point is by proving lack of sufficient evidence against Manu.

Yes, Manu may be wrong. But he can't be punished if the evidence is not there. If the witnessess backed off, our society must learn to be bold to stand for statements. If evidence was fabricated, India has to have police officers who perform their duty with honesty. But if Manu is punished today, without sufficient evidence, then some innocent would be punished tomorrow.


Consider this. In the fading years of his life, the man has the courage to go against opinion of each person in the country he has lived in all along. Knowing that all it would bring to him is infamy. That most would not even understand the point he is underlining.

It is not the first time for him. He voiced his opinions against Rajiv Gandhi, and single-handedly got him out of power. He defended Indira Gandhi's assassins (albeit, without much success). He was once the vice-president of BJP, the same party whom he contested against in the recent elections, by standing as an independent candidate against Vajpayee. He stood for Geelani, who was to be hanged. And he continues his crusade against wrong. Against what ever he believes is wrong.

However, even for this seasoned rebel, it is the first time when no one, absolutely no one, stands with him. Even his family members have distanced themselves from him. And he is not oblivious of this obvious displeasure. He knows it all. But he also knows he is right.

Probably its not a coincidence that he is a lawyer, too. Probably another lawyer, a long time back, when I wasn't even born, would have nodded in admiration.


Addendum (18th Dec): Yesterday, Manu was held guilty by the court. I found that Jethmalani came up with flawed, fabricated theories in support of Manu. In that light, I withdraw my case in the article above.