We have freedom of speech, but...

India got outraged when they heard Sibal talk about censoring Facebook. First couple of days, they 'dharna-ed' in front of his house with placards. They prayed that Sibal-Mamu would 'get well soon' (Munna Bhai reference) and were furious that Sibal would even think about trespassing on their God given right to the freedom of expression.

To tell you the truth, I was amazed. I was pleasantly surprised that Indians cared to protest. To see that people cared enough to feel threatened by what Sibal was tempted to do. On the face of it, removing sites that are 'anti-social' or 'anti-religious' sounds very reasonable. But censoring the social media is a slippery slope. It will start with anti-religious pages now, but it can just end up being like China, where TV shows which ask people to vote for the contestants are banned because the government thinks it will give people wrong ideas (like, that they should be able to make decisions) This sets a bad precedent and is ripe to get exploited, especially by people like Sibal.

Thankfully, people here got pissed that Sibal was intruding upon their right to expression. And fairly so; you have your rights only when you are willing to protect them. Sibal had to back off.

People 1, Sibal 0.

My euphoria was short-lived though. Last Sunday, I saw a news item about how a Delhi Court asked the same websites to remove the objectionable content, and there was no reaction from anyone!

Well played Sibal.

Innocent until proven guilty

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

- Clarence Darrow

Kanimozhi was denied bail last week. General consensus seems to be that Judge Saini has done the right thing by denying her bail. “She deserves to be in prison”, most say, “the rich and wealthy never go to jail; they should not be allowed to get away”.

Only problem - the judgment was not the sentencing after trial – it was a decision on granting bail.

Bail is the incentive that the court seeks in order to ensure that the accused will come back to court and stand for trial. The accused is let go with a condition that he/she will come back to face trial once the prosecution has gathered evidence and built a case against the accused.

Now there are circumstances where it may be believed that the accused is likely to skip bail (abscond), believed to be a danger to public (commit another crime while he is out on bail), tamper witness (intimidate them) etc., due to which bail may be denied. But unless there is a reason to believe that such a circumstance exists, bail should be granted to the accused. The prosecution should have a convincing argument that granting bail will undermine their case.

(In this particular case, prosecution did not feel that such circumstances exist - maybe because they didn't think she could tamper witness any more than Karunanidhi can)

One may feel that Kanimozhi deserves to rot in prison, but it shouldn't be before she is convicted. We cannot decide that she is guilty before we have gathered evidence and built a case. What is denied to her will be denied to us.

Bail is not designed to be punitive and we should not punish before anyone is convicted of a crime. The accused should not be penalized for the time it is taking the state apparatus to build the case against the accused (unless there is a strong reason to believe that letting the accused to be free will stymie the delivery of justice).

Just because there are countless other cases where the guilty have not been brought to justice, it does not mean that Kanimozhi should be punished before her case goes to trial. That is just misdirected anger and not justice.
 
I have not read the full transcript of what the judge has said, but according to most news sources, the essence of the ruling was:

The persons involved in such offenses... do not deserve any indulgence;  and any sympathy to them not only being entirely misplaced but also against the larger interest of the society [because] such offenses are preceded by cool, calculated and deliberate design with an eye on personal gains and in fact not all such offenses come to the surface.

Here are a few things that Judge Saini has decided:

• Because the crime Kanimozhi is accused of is a serious offense, the accused does not deserve sympathy
• Because the crime she is being accused of needs careful planning, the accused does not deserve sympathy
• Because crimes like these do not usually come to court, the accused does not deserve sympathy
• Because a strong message needs to be sent to... criminals [that] it does not pay to be on the wrong side of the law, the accused does not deserve sympathy

Key word here being, "accused". The judge is condemning the accused before she got her fair trial. I would have agreed with the judge if this was said at the time of her sentencing.

What's even more dangerous is that this sets a precedent. I believe the judge's decision itself has been based on a previous judgment - Mukesh Jain v CBI. From now on, any Judge arbitrating on a corruption case can deny bail to anyone because the crime is a serious one.

In the public's eye, Kanimozhi is guilty, but people have the luxury of sitting on the couch and passing judgment. People do not require evidence. We do not need hard facts. Public decides based on emotions. It is only understandable – we are dejected and impatient with the state of affairs. We are frustrated that justice is both delayed and denied especially when the rich and powerful are involved. The system has failed us so many times that we are baying for blood now.

But judiciary cannot be playing for the crowds! Judges cannot get emotional and make statements instead of passing judgment. The primary objective is to arbitrate, not make a point or an example of someone. What we need is justice, not a witch-hunt.  

Judicial activism gets especially dangerous if judges are unable to rise above their bias, prejudice, or popular sentiment. 

Shit that Patil Said

Ms. Patil expressed her deep concern at the rising trend of crimes against women and called upon the law and order enforcing authorities as well as society to create a safe and secure environment for women. She lamented that even as the country entered the 21st century, families were worried about lack of security for their women members.

She continues to amaze me in so many ways! Patil is expressing her concerns and calling up on law and order enforcing authorities to create a safe environment for women - that is very reassuring. I mean what else can she do? It's not like she can talk to the Home Minister and insist on accountability, or talk to the police commissioners and talk strategy. Its not like she can seek counsel with supreme court judges and discuss how to solve the problem. C'mon.. you cant expect her to do any of that! She is just the president of this country.

So, what is her solution? What is she suggesting?  "Self-defense is the best form of defense". That's right! You are on your own girls.

“A paradox of sorts exists as far as women in India are concerned. On the one hand they have proved to undertake all types of missions and works and on the other they faced numerous challenges and discrimination emanating from social prejudices and social evils.” 

 Do you know what a paradox is, Ms Patil?

The President emphasized a “forward looking and comprehensive approach” to meet the challenges of an “evolving society.”

I am sure you did, Madam President.. this definitely sounds like the the kind of crap you would say.


You go girl!

Delhi Terror Attack

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "This is a cowardly act. We will deal with it. We will not succumb to pressure of terrorism." He added, "This is a long war in which all political parties, all people of India should stand united so that the scourge of terrorism is crushed."

You will deal with jack squat, Mr.Prime Minister.

All you will do is add more strip searches in malls and groping in movie lines. You will add more "security" guys who will eyeball car trunks but wont even glance inside the cars or ask whats inside my backpack. You will have more cops on the streets to take bribes from people to allow them right of passage. All this when what failed is intelligence.

Not sure why this is a cowardly act when they just flip us off every time and tell us that they did it and you can do nothing. You cannot prove anything and you cannot get us justice. You are the coward Mr. Singh, not them. You do not have the cajones to do what it takes to bring the perpetrators to justice (the masterminds, not the ones who pulled the trigger or pressed a button). This is war and you have zip to prove it. You will talk a lot of trash and your posse will talk a lot of trash. But nothing will happen. You will make sure that this is a long war.

I don't even know what "we will not succumb to pressure of terrorism" means to the families of the people who got killed. On the face of it, it looks like you are saying that tomorrow is going to be business as usual. That nothing will change. You are saying that they can kill some more and nothing will change.

All the political parties, all the people of India, we will all stand united and we will gawk. We will stand up and we will think that just the mere act of being united will crush the scourge of terrorism.

You suck sir. Big time.

Do Ends Justify Means?

Here's how democracy works:

• people elect their representatives in order to govern themselves
• the representatives introduce and vote on legislature
• most of the legislature that gets introduced by the representatives will be done keeping the interest of their respective constituents
  (otherwise, the people wouldn't elect them next time)
• the representatives vote on each piece of legislature keeping the interest of their respective constituents
  (majority of the constituents, because it may not be possible to get the full population to agree on something and also it is the majority they need to get elected back into power)
• if a majority of representatives vote for a piece of legislature (keeping in mind the interest of the majority of their constituents), the legislature becomes law

Here is how Anna Hazare and Team got the Jan Lokpal bill passed:

• They wrote a piece of legislature
• They forced parliament to vote on it
• With the threat of the mob, they forced the parliament to pass it

Here are some reasons why I didn't like how it was achieved:

• The way this goal was achieved sets a bad precedent - anyone can start fasting and ask for any piece of legislature to be introduced/passed
• Out of a population of over 1 billion people, less than 1% decided what should be law

Most people ask me, "but the cause is just, how can you be not supporting him?". Yes, the cause is just. The goal to remove corruption is noble. I have nothing against it. I myself am frustrated at the rampant corruption in this country. It is the path taken to achieve the goal that I have a problem with. Anna Hazare is touted to be a Gandhian because of his non-violent methods and his fasting. How can he be a disciple of Gandhi when he is just using Gandhi's weapons and has forgotten/ignored Gandhi's principles; the most important one being, "ends do not justify means".

Democracy is a beautiful concept, but it is also very tricky to maintain. It’s a very fine balancing act. What Anna Hazare did can have major ramifications that can debilitate and weaken an already ruptured system that we currently have. The system is flawed not because of the politicians but because of the people. The people who do not insist on telling their representative what they want and the people who do not hold their representative accountable. People (majority of the people, that is) of this republic have no interest in taking any role in its governance. This government is not representative of the people of this country because the people have decided not to communicate to their representatives. The people have not shown a desire to do so. The people have not been educated to hope for such a system let alone demand it.

Instead of cultivating such a system, the media and Hazare have reinforced the idea that the government will never be representative of the people and that you have to take to the streets and threaten the government with anarchy if you want something. Conversely, it reinforces the system where my government can ignore anything I want unless I threaten (and display the wherewithal) to throw the country into chaos.

One big talking point in support of Hazare is that he had the people behind him, and that it was a people’s movement. Here are some statistics I got from the internet:

• When Hazare and Team asked people to give missed calls to show support and solidarity, they received 100 lakh calls from 77 lakh unique numbers
• I think we can safely assume that the number of people on the streets will be less than the number of people who gave a missed call
  (the logic being, giving a missed call is far easier; if you are on the streets, you definitely can give a missed call)
• That is 8 million people, out of a population of 1.2 billion
• All they had to was give a missed call, and less than 1 percent of the population did that
• Even if I take just the mobile subscriber base in India, the figure is 8 million out of 850 million subscribers.

But still, 8 million is a considerable number. Why were they on the streets supporting Hazare? Obviously Hazare couldn’t have paid all of them for their support. (hang on there you crazies, I am not saying he did, I am saying he couldn't have) The fact that there are so many people vociferously supporting this movement should mean something; and it does. It says the people are vexed. The people are frustrated with the current state of affairs. They are sick and tired of hearing of corruption and having to deal with it. People are so desperate that they are clutching at anything that even remotely looks like a solution. But a country this desperate is a threat to itself.

I've been told that no one in the right state of mind could be against Hazare unless they are corrupt themselves. "Are you saying you want corruption?" they'd ask me. That is a logical fallacy. I can want India to be free of corruption and still not approve of Hazare's tactics or his solution. I can want corruption to be rooted out but still be worried that Hazare's solution will create another monster. As Nietzsche says, "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." This Jan Lokpal can become the monster we are fighting (but that is a separate discussion altogether).

People say, "This is the only way that works for these politicians", but it is the people that put the politicians there. And, this incident does nothing to fix how the polity works. The media, which has given so much free publicity to this movement does nothing to educate the masses that they should be demanding things from their representatives and how they should be communicating with their representatives about what they want. Movie after movie has reinforced the idea that the politicians are incorrigible and the system is irreparable. We all talk about how the system is rotten, but do we know how we want the system to function? If we have the power to control people’s minds and reprogram them to be honest, do we know exactly how they should function? What does the ideal politician do? How does the ideal government operate? If you were the MLA, MP or Minister, what bills would you introduce?

By Arvind Kejriwal's own admission in The Hindu, "when we conducted referendums on the JLB, we used to try and explain its contents to people. But they said they did not want to understand the details. They just wanted to put a mohar [stamp] on Anna" To me, this is scary. That is why the number of people on the streets does not mean much to me. They don't know the details of what they are supporting and the crux is in the details. 

How are these people any different from the people following KCR and burning down public property because they want a separate state? They are not burning anything down, but they sure are threatening to, unless the Parliament buckles down and gives what their Anna wants.

So tomorrow, if some people want to come in and remove reservation in this country, and gets the support of 10 million people, should we do it? What about the opposite; if someone wants 100% reservation, and gets the support of 10 million people, should the Parliament go ahead and pass that bill?

Sai Baba of Puttaparti

Sai Baba passed away this week. Devotees from different parts of the world and leaders from all major religions and various groups were present at Puttaparti to pay their final respects. True to his trademark style, Baba left with a controversy about his “trick”. This one involved the prediction of his own death – apparently, he said he’d leave this world when he is 96. So in the last couple of weeks before his demise, there were the indispensable spates among the believers and the non-believers – one group questioning his divinity and the other supporting it. I have been hearing these arguments all my life. “Ah-ah! He is no God! He said he’d die at 96 and he’s dying at 84” said the non-believers. While some devotees have been shamed into silence, others brought up instances where Baba had near-death experiences before and how he’d make it aeven this time.

Now that he is gone, I heard there is a theory doing the rounds that somehow explains how 84 equals 96 (lunar calendar vs solar calendar thing) and therefore Baba was indeed the avatar of God. With this explanation, Sai Baba passed the God Entrance Exam (GEE) in flying colors because his dead-by-ninety-six trick was indeed a success. At least, it felt like he did, since people stopped questioning his death-date feat.

Here is what boggles me – why is a “trick” the passing criteria for claims to be God? Is that what God boils down to for the most of us – a conjurer? Some point me to all the nice work he did for the people - hospitals, schools, water pipelines, etc. Would that make all philanthropists avatars of God? How about a psychiatrist who listens to you and offers sound advice on how to live life, would she be God? Maybe a combination of these traits would do it. How about traits that goes beyond the typical capabilities of regular mortals? Like a genius. Or Superman; would Superman be God?

For that matter, what exactly constitutes an avatar? How does one prove it? Should another God vouch for this one? Who vouches for that God? So tomorrow, if God really materializes in front of us and says, "I'm God", we'd probably just put He/She/It through some silly acrobatic tests.

Regardless, I believe that there is much to be enthusiastic about, for the Sai Baba devotees. Now that he is not mortal, less and less number of people will question Sai Baba’s “God-ness”. Just like Sai Baba of Shirdi, who had his own loyal pooh-pooh-ers in his time, but who are non-existent now, Sai Baba of Puttaparti can now take a breather, because few and few people will now be questioning his divinity. The need to question would mysteriously be removed from the minds of the non-believers now that he is incorporeal.

As for their loss, his guidance has been pretty consistent - love-everyone-everything-everytime-everywhere, or something like that. I don’t believe he has come up with any new theories recently. So, if you had paid attention to his sermons all these years, you will be fine. If you haven’t, it’s not like he’d be any more useful if he had lived forever, is it?

The trust money is a little controversial. But as long as they keep flying below the radar, no one will bother. Public memory is amnesic and their outrage short-lived. Overall, life will go on, I think...

I want it fried

Last week Rex and I were in Chennai for a couple of days. We were staying in a hotel; one of those which offers a complementary breakfast. Nice one, with buffet breakfast and those made-to-order stalls, where you can request for dosas and omelets, and they make it for you. It was like having the best of both worlds - eat all you want and ala carte!

The first day we were there, we woke up right around the time they were cleaning up, ran downstairs, and begged them to let us grab whatever's left. It wasn't good. I almost choked to death on heat-dried dosa fragments. So, even though the next day was Sunday and we had absolutely no plans, we asked for a wake up call, (actually three, - 7:00, 8:00 and 9:00 AM), in order to make it to the breakfast buffet.

I was so proud of myself. It was one of the very few times I made it to the complementary breakfast. Even though I stayed in hotels for long periods, I always used to prefer sleeping in late rather than getting a healthy meal in the morning. It always seemed to be the right thing to do.

So anyways, there I was, minding my own business and focusing on the food, while Rex was nosing around listening into other peoples' conversations, and generally trying to bother people. He obviously didn't share my enthusiasm in our little achievement.

It was right around the time that I was finishing my salad that Rex pointed me to a table with a couple of guys taking to a girl who was waiting on them; one of those from the North Eastern states. The guys seemed like they were Telugu, and one of them was saying, "I want bread". The girl was asking him if he wanted a toast, and he kept saying, "I want bread". Rex was definitely amused. This is the sort of thing he lives for. The back-and-forth went on for a couple more times and then finally the Naga chick decided to go get him his bread.

As soon as the girl left, this guy turns around and says to his friends in Telugu, "That girl is an idiot. I had to say bread 5 times! I keep saying bread, bread, bread, and she keeps asking me if I want something else. I never understand why they hire these stupid Chinks anyway"

I had to grab Rex with both hands to stop him from going over to their table and explain why they were the idiots. It wasn't for long though, since the girl returned with a couple of slices of bread in a plate.

The dude looked at it for a couple of seconds, searched for words a little bit, and then finally said "I want it fried".

I was keeling over and Rex had tears in his eyes. We couldn't stop laughing. It was a pity though, since we didn't quite catch what the girl said in response.

The Tri-Valley Scam

The Hindu reports that, "After being duped by a California-based university, scores of Indian students in the U.S. are now enduring the ignominy of wearing radio tags around their ankles so that authorities can keep track of their movements."

Now, I don't know any of these students, but I am fairly certain that they knew what they were doing. They are no innocent victims of a con-university, it was merely supply and demand. The students chose the school because it lets them work without having to attend regular classes, and the university makes easy money without having to spend on all the things that go into imparting a quality education like professors and infrastructure.

How can I be so sure? Because I know for a fact that the Tri-Valley is not the only university that does this. I know for a fact that students who go to these schools are fully aware that they are not getting an education. I know for a fact that they know what they are doing is not totally on the up-and-up. Most people I talked to are usually congratulating themselves for finding a way around the law of the land.

The US is pissed because these people are living in the country under false pretenses - they are working when they are supposed to be studying. More importantly, they are working when most Americans are out of work. The students have made a mockery of the immigration laws of the country by diddling around with the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit in which it was laid out.

Having said that, should they be treated like criminals? Are they dangerous con-artists that are a threat to society? No, I don't think so. What they did is not an equivalent of murder, kidnapping or robbery. It is the equivalent of cutting a line. They did not wait their turn and go through the legal process to finish college and then find work. In a hurry to make money, they decided to cut a few corners. They may have done it because they need the money. They may have done it to support a family. The reasons don't matter. What's wrong is wrong. The law may show some leniency in dealing with these people based on their background and circumstances, but it'll definitely not let them go scot-free. Since immigration is a burning issue in the United States, I will not be surprised if the federal authorities act tough just to make a point.

The US slapped ankle bracelets on these students because they don't trust them not to disappear into some small town. Its not unheard of - the Mexicans do it all the time, and some of the Indians do it too. Instead of getting outraged, India should take responsibility for these students and ask them to be released on the Indian Embassy's personal bond, on their personal recognizance. The embassy should house them and monitor their movements and take responsibility of these people until the proper course of action is taken in each individual case.

Democrazy

There's a new party in town; it's called "YSR Party". No points for guessing who started it or what it is about though. It's an easy guess, even if you aren't very familiar with the political scene in this region.

Keeping aside my opinions about the how lame the name is, I am actually thrilled about the fact that Jagan had to resign from the Congress party and start one of his own. And, I say that with no prejudice or malice toward him. I’m just sick and tired of the whole 'the king is dead, long live the king' routine and am glad Jagan didn't get an automatic bid to the throne just because of his father. At least now, if he does become the chief minister, it is not simply because his father was one. 

No, I am not so naïve as to consider it a triumph of democracy - the power play was unmistakable, just that the fallout was favorable.

If we look around, most of our leaders are relatives of guys who were in power at some other point of time. Nepotism is rife and party tickets going to the highest bidder is commonplace. We do vote, yes, but do we really choose who our leaders are? Or what they do? Makes you wonder if India really is a democracy, doesn’t it?

Participation is key to the creation and maintenance of a true democracy. When was the last time a regular taxpayer talked to his/her representative about a piece of legislature? Even a suggestion to that effect sounds ludicrous to people around here. "We" don't tell "them" what to do! Come to think of it, there is not even a channel open that allows us to tell them directly what we want. Once they get elected, they become unreachable. Sadly, there is not even an expectation in the least bit in the public that we should all be a part of the governing process by influencing the elected in their decisions on legislature. The responsibility of the individual in shaping the course of this country should not end on the day of voting. This policy of "don't ask, don't tell" that we follow around here, where they don't ask us what we want and we don't tell them either, has created a perverse decadent system that reeks of monarchy with pretensions of a republic on the outside. Even when there is a transfer of power or a change of guard, it is ever so subtle and demands minimal labor from the common man; it's almost like we live in parallel universes, one insulated from the other.

We in India have focused on survival for so long that we may have become insensitive to all the murkiness around us. And worse, we have internalized it ourselves. Each and every one of us, somehow, somewhere, has either been a part of, or contributed to this twisted system. They rationalize it in any way needed, inflicting long-term damage for short-term convenience. 

Just the other day, my friend was telling me about how he was waiting in line to apply for a driving license, and an "agent" casually came up to him and asked if he wanted to avoid the hassle of giving the test, or the risk of failing it, for a competitive price of Rs. 500. I am sure his experience was not atypical. I wonder how many people have declined his offer on principle and not because they didn't want to shell out the extra cash.

The most frustrating part about it is that people tend to find excuses for all the filth around here! Whenever we find out about some corrupt politician, or a scam, one can hear lots of "Oh, he's gotta live" or "that's how they are" or "he's just a fall guy; everyone's in on it", instead of being outraged by the news. Decades of movies showing politician after politician being nothing but corrupt murderers has made sure that the general population has no expectations from the government. If you are not protesting what you believe is wrong, you are actively abetting it.

Democracy comes from the Greek word dēmokratia - dēmos (the people) and kratia (power, or rule). But, in this country, the term is so incongruous to reality. The only people who are acting in their self-interest are the politicians. The common man has long forgotten (or never known) what 'rule of the people' really means, and has continually betrayed what's in his own best interest. Maybe it's just me, but that is crazy!