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.

The joy of hard work

Being 'hard' and 'work', most people dislike the idea of hard work. While I admit that flying kites in lush green fields is fun, I maintain that hard work is a beautiful thing too.

Of course, results are one important factor. But results alone can not make hard work beautiful. In fact, I propose that results do not even contribute to making it so. And no, I am not talking about Gita's message on Karma. That is in an entirely different spirit.

The fact is that there is a purity in hard work, a genuineness. A reflection of single mindedness. A feeling unattainable by any other means. A feeling of usefulness, of satisfaction, of calm. Of joy beneath the calm. Of smile beneath the frown.

Hard work is beautiful for itself, in itself. It is not merely a means to an end. Its worthy of being an end in itself.

But the beauty is often veiled behind the goal. The goal is a more tangible, more understood concept. Thus, though undeserving, goal is often mistaken to be the goal of all hardwork. Indeed, the goal of all hardwork may not be the goal, but it may be hardwork itself. It is with this self-referential hard work that the beauty of hard work decends in front of your eyes, for you to admire and savor.

The subtle charms of Hoji-Cha

Delight shone into my eyes at my first sip of Hoji-cha. As the evening sun danced in the golden-red tea, the soothing aroma and the relaxing taste made up for the long day.

Ever since, the roasted green-tea has brought life to my evening study sessions. It would be an exaggeration and an understatement at the same time, but Hojicha, along with Matsutake mushrooms, are the greatest gifts of the Asian world. Matsutake, incidentally, deserves one full entry on its own, so I won't dwell upon it here. Instead, I dedicate this essay as an ode to the subtle charms of Hojicha.

If you were to taste Hojicha as your first thing in the morning, when "rise and shine!" is the call, you wouldn't appreciate half as much as you would when the call is "lage raho!". Inhaling the aroma of the roasted leaves, roasted as if to reflect your hard work, is akin to confiding in a pal who has been through what you are going.

Hojicha does not take away the thirst, but the desire to let the sensation linger just those few moments on your taste buds keeps you thirsty. It makes you thirsty, too, for that one last attempt at the unsolved problem, or one calm sleep, and beautiful dreams. Dreams of a hard and fruitful day, and a cup as the sun goes down.

Indulgence it maybe, yes, but it is indulgence for the deserving.

Reasoning by Analogy

So what really is religion? Is it just a set of beliefs of some men of intellect and influence who thought a great deal about life? Who decided for you what is black, and what is white, so that you don't have to think for it yourself?

This point of view is more interesting than it appears. Knowing the possible theories, you can you just verify their theories, rather than solving the whole mystery all by yourself. Not bad, or so it might seem, even to those who accept Vique's law (of the fish, and the bicycle).

The catch is that there is no black or white. So, then, how do you test their 'theory'?

The most straightforward approach would fail for most such experiments. There are very few aspects of a religion which contradict with itself. So if you are looking for inconsistency, it is hard to find. It is hidden, or if it is obvious, it is justified by way of examples. If one has been brought up in that religion, it is so ingrained in that person that looking for alternatives is extremely hard. Much harder than looking for inconsistencies. And consistency, or apparent consistency, is extremely satisfying, and convincing.

It is, therefore, easy to be conviced by the dictims and laws of the religions, and their explanations of how the system works. The flaws are not obvious, and embedded in fiction, peppered with glorification, the religious arguments sell to you the ideas they premeditatedly want to. The epic stories and the fables and quoted, the response of the protagonist is deemed to be good, and the justification is derived from what happens next. Which, remember, is completely in hands of the author.

This holds true for many purportedly non-religious authors as well. These authors seem to arrive at logical conclusions from some basic axioms. First, the conclusions are made to seem logical, by way of analogies. Second, the axioms are chosen to suit the conclusions. In effect, its a choice for the axiom, one or the other, or a third. Ayn Rand, for example, took this route. Even Gandhi, if you read Hind Swaraj.

This, precisely, is the art of Reasoning by Analogy. If a theory is specious, and most aspects of it are reasoned by alluding to analogies, a warning sign should appear in your mind.

The foundations of this art rest on the fact that there can not be a single theory detailing the 'ideal' response in a social situation. It depends strongly on what your axiom set is. Social sciences, by their very nature, lack objectivity.


That is why it becomes all the more important to question the axiom set you were spoonfed as a child. Question the beliefs that you developed because of those axioms. Show the courage to leave them for once, and look at them from a distance. Look hard for flaws, for counter-analogies, for alternatives. Test it to the extreme, and go back if you deem it reasonable.

Why is this exercise useful?

Religion, has been used, and abused, for controlling the masses. Take Hiroshima, for example. Apparently, Japanese people harbor no dissent against the Americans. The Christian clergymen from all over the world arrived in Japan right after the bomb was dropped, and their sermons had a pacifying effect. Where the bomb was dropped, there exists a park today, "the park of peace".

Then again, it is also a useful tool when agitating masses for a wrongdoing. Sadly, examples of this case are omnipresent today.

It is important to know if you are being used as a pawn in furthering interests of some blind believers. It is important, at a personal level, to stop arguing in their favor if you find you should not agree with them. It is important, at a social level, to stop others from agreeing with them, too.

If you look back, my argument is somewhat circular. I argue by way of analogies, too. And I argue for my axioms, my notions of right and wrong, black and white. I do not refute that there is no escape from this style of argument, because when dealing with social situations, it is the examples and the analogies which take place of reasoning. But being a skeptic may not always be worse than being a blind believer.