Three decades and one year of solitary existence demands a good explanation.
I have a descent job, descent looks, can talk sweet and reasonably committed to a cause. Still I am unmarried. So, I thought this needs an explanation.
Several ancient European cultures had fancy punishments for people who opted to remain unmarried, though, this didn't extend to priests. They couldn't leave a will (reasonable), or hold a public office (Atal Behari would never be PM) or appear as a witness at a trial. (hmm ..) Ancient Rome levied more tax on the unmarried. So, does modern night clubs in my city. Less if you have a partner, more if alone. May be civilizations were driven by the zeal to increase superiority via headcount.
Women of my city have a different explanation for the love marks of my celibacy. Sometime back I was accused by couple of my female colleagues that I ignored them at a public place. And that, I was accompanied by another man at that time. Hence, they seemed to conclude that I am different ! A few decades back, they would have labeled me arrogant. Courtesy modern openness, that is not fashionable anymore.
I ask them to focus on the title of this post now. The text is written upside down without using any images. How ? English characters have been substituted by Latin ones, wherever needed. For e.g. 'ƃ' replacing 'g'. Might have been the digit 6 as well. So, please stretch your imagination. At that moment, after a few drinks and junk food, I was searching for a washroom. And it was a pretty serious search. Thats why I didn't have the luxury of breaking into an elaborate conversation. A little bit of spiritual explanation here wouldn't do bad. I do not search truth in beauty but beauty in truth. Which is even a more serious search.
However, I do not hold that futile search guilty of not returning any results. Life's certain circumstances have forced me to focus my time, energy and money on things other than marriage. Like my mother's treatment, a long standing property dispute and an unexpected turn of events when I had almost converged on the search result. It is this simple. The script of my life has already been composed by the almighty and this is what he (or she) had designed.
This was not an advertisement of my bachelor life, neither a mating call for the eligible spinster. Only a word of wisdom, that has been passed to me by my teachers. Please, please, please. Do not jump to a conclusion, arrive at them.
The search result will always be sweet.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Class Struggle
No, comrade. This ain't for you, though you can continue to read.
Since boyhood, I heard my parents say, we belong to the "Middle Class". (Its still that way !) Time and again, the same categorization has also been emphasized by my extended family and friends. Why were we called so ? Is it because we didn't have a car or because we travelled in side-upper berths in a non-AC train compartment. Gradually, I deciphered that all the reasons why we weren't called the "Upper Class" requires money. Henceforth it was etched in my mind, that class and money are interchangeable.
A teacher of mine said, if you have doubt about an established thought, figure out the etymology of the words that describe it. I resorted to the age old general classification of our Hindu society - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya & Sudra. The established thought said it was by birth. Could our ancient wisdom be so over-simplified ? The Rig Veda describes the primordial man - "The Brahmin is the head, his arms were Kshyatriya, his lower abdomen became the Vaishya and feet is the Sudra". Nowhere is it mentioned that a person is born to any class. On further investigation, it can be found that the social status depends on someone's deeds and actions. In fact, each of these is a state of life. The Sudra is the person seeking mundane pleasure, someone running without The reason; the Kshyatriya realizes the fallacy and symbolizes the conflict within. The Vaishya is knowledgeable (currently Subject Matter Expert) whereas Brahmin is the enlightened. Ideally a person starts as a Sudra and elevates to a Brahmin. If Brahmins were by birth, why are they also called 'Dwij' or Twice Born.
In ancient times, maybe the Kshatriya really fought those who resisted free thinking and the Vaishya made money owning to his/her working knowledge, the Brahmin relinquished everything to live in the temple and the Sudra kept running around for opportunity. Probably the existing form is an aberration or the Rig Veda was rigged in favor of the the privileged, and from his debris was born the Middle Class.
Not even McKinsey can "status-ify" India more accurately than the Indian Railway express train compartment does, unknowingly - too many people cramped into the General Compartment like you see in slums & MHADA complex, some chair cars for the middle class in waiting, a lot of sleeper class for the gigantic middle class, few air-conditioned cabins for the upper middle class and a large compartment with butlers for the few belonging to the upper class. In fact Indian Railways have been polite to drop the word 'class' which was a British leftover and changed to only General, Sleeper, 2AC, 1AC, etc. like the Americans calling us 'Third World'. Would you have liked if they said 'Third Class' country instead ?
And yes, without a doubt I belong to the large middle class. Because neither am I a genius nor too good a person. But there is a slight caveat if you are either genius or good. There is no guarantee where you will land up - low or highclassincome. But definitely not middle classincome.
This will be the class struggle of my life.
Since boyhood, I heard my parents say, we belong to the "Middle Class". (Its still that way !) Time and again, the same categorization has also been emphasized by my extended family and friends. Why were we called so ? Is it because we didn't have a car or because we travelled in side-upper berths in a non-AC train compartment. Gradually, I deciphered that all the reasons why we weren't called the "Upper Class" requires money. Henceforth it was etched in my mind, that class and money are interchangeable.
A teacher of mine said, if you have doubt about an established thought, figure out the etymology of the words that describe it. I resorted to the age old general classification of our Hindu society - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya & Sudra. The established thought said it was by birth. Could our ancient wisdom be so over-simplified ? The Rig Veda describes the primordial man - "The Brahmin is the head, his arms were Kshyatriya, his lower abdomen became the Vaishya and feet is the Sudra". Nowhere is it mentioned that a person is born to any class. On further investigation, it can be found that the social status depends on someone's deeds and actions. In fact, each of these is a state of life. The Sudra is the person seeking mundane pleasure, someone running without The reason; the Kshyatriya realizes the fallacy and symbolizes the conflict within. The Vaishya is knowledgeable (currently Subject Matter Expert) whereas Brahmin is the enlightened. Ideally a person starts as a Sudra and elevates to a Brahmin. If Brahmins were by birth, why are they also called 'Dwij' or Twice Born.
In ancient times, maybe the Kshatriya really fought those who resisted free thinking and the Vaishya made money owning to his/her working knowledge, the Brahmin relinquished everything to live in the temple and the Sudra kept running around for opportunity. Probably the existing form is an aberration or the Rig Veda was rigged in favor of the the privileged, and from his debris was born the Middle Class.
Not even McKinsey can "status-ify" India more accurately than the Indian Railway express train compartment does, unknowingly - too many people cramped into the General Compartment like you see in slums & MHADA complex, some chair cars for the middle class in waiting, a lot of sleeper class for the gigantic middle class, few air-conditioned cabins for the upper middle class and a large compartment with butlers for the few belonging to the upper class. In fact Indian Railways have been polite to drop the word 'class' which was a British leftover and changed to only General, Sleeper, 2AC, 1AC, etc. like the Americans calling us 'Third World'. Would you have liked if they said 'Third Class' country instead ?
And yes, without a doubt I belong to the large middle class. Because neither am I a genius nor too good a person. But there is a slight caveat if you are either genius or good. There is no guarantee where you will land up - low or high
This will be the class struggle of my life.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Mens sana in corpore sano
This Latin phrase translates to "healthy mind in a healthy body" - Roman poet Juvenal (10.356)
A comparison among the greatest two exponents of this quote - Michelangelo & da Vinci
Leonardo said, "Nature is the source of all true knowledge; she has her own logic, her own laws; she has no effect without cause; no invention without necessity." He had no formal education, hence couldn't write well, instead, drew his ideas. He wanted to know everything & his life has been the quest of unraveling the mysteries of nature. Michelangelo was a perfectionist & couldn't withstand criticism. Once a co-painter, Torrigiano, broke his nose; a damage that never healed, which made him look even uglier. So he remained obsessed with beauty throughout his life. People still debate who among these Italians is the ultimate "The Renaissance Man".
Both of them grew up alone, without a mother.
Leonardo dwelled in the future tense. His notebook is a testimony of the grand ideas he had conceived, 500 years before those were actually realized. It included design for the flying machine, battle tanks, under-water diving suits, study of human anatomy and maps, even the design of spectacles. Michelangelo lived in the present tense. He was an ferocious executioner, completing most of the works he had commenced - the Pita, statue of David, Sistine chapel fresco and even engineered the revamped architecture of Medici chapel and St. Peter's Basilica. Once Michelangelo scoffed Leonardo because Leonardo never completed the magnum bronze status of a warhorse he had promised to his patron, Ludovico Sforza.
Both of them loved symmetry and dissected human corpse.
Leonardo was the Class. According to folklore, he was courteous, sober and affable. He kept a good company and participated regularly in discussion circles. Michelangelo was the Mass. He was known to be unkempt, rude and braggish. Its also said that he rarely bathed and slept with his shoes on; to the extent that it peeled off his skin when he took those off.
Both of them never married.
Leonardo was the brain of God & Michelangelo, the hand of God. Leonardo thought what no one had ever thought, Michelangelo did which no ever had ever done. Leonardo's highly accurate studies of anatomy match the modern medical textbooks and Michelangelo's amazing layout and perception of Sistine chapel fresco can undermine the advanced designing software. According to Vasari, Leonardo and Michelangelo were pitted against one another by the shrewd Machiavelli, to draw side by side, the walls of Council Hall of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. The competition never completed. Instead he could have asked Leonardo to "think" and Michelangelo to "do".
Leonardo is the mind, Michelangelo is the body. Following is my humble tribute to these amazing men.
A comparison among the greatest two exponents of this quote - Michelangelo & da Vinci
Leonardo said, "Nature is the source of all true knowledge; she has her own logic, her own laws; she has no effect without cause; no invention without necessity." He had no formal education, hence couldn't write well, instead, drew his ideas. He wanted to know everything & his life has been the quest of unraveling the mysteries of nature. Michelangelo was a perfectionist & couldn't withstand criticism. Once a co-painter, Torrigiano, broke his nose; a damage that never healed, which made him look even uglier. So he remained obsessed with beauty throughout his life. People still debate who among these Italians is the ultimate "The Renaissance Man".
Both of them grew up alone, without a mother.
Leonardo dwelled in the future tense. His notebook is a testimony of the grand ideas he had conceived, 500 years before those were actually realized. It included design for the flying machine, battle tanks, under-water diving suits, study of human anatomy and maps, even the design of spectacles. Michelangelo lived in the present tense. He was an ferocious executioner, completing most of the works he had commenced - the Pita, statue of David, Sistine chapel fresco and even engineered the revamped architecture of Medici chapel and St. Peter's Basilica. Once Michelangelo scoffed Leonardo because Leonardo never completed the magnum bronze status of a warhorse he had promised to his patron, Ludovico Sforza.
Both of them loved symmetry and dissected human corpse.
Leonardo was the Class. According to folklore, he was courteous, sober and affable. He kept a good company and participated regularly in discussion circles. Michelangelo was the Mass. He was known to be unkempt, rude and braggish. Its also said that he rarely bathed and slept with his shoes on; to the extent that it peeled off his skin when he took those off.
Both of them never married.
Leonardo was the brain of God & Michelangelo, the hand of God. Leonardo thought what no one had ever thought, Michelangelo did which no ever had ever done. Leonardo's highly accurate studies of anatomy match the modern medical textbooks and Michelangelo's amazing layout and perception of Sistine chapel fresco can undermine the advanced designing software. According to Vasari, Leonardo and Michelangelo were pitted against one another by the shrewd Machiavelli, to draw side by side, the walls of Council Hall of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. The competition never completed. Instead he could have asked Leonardo to "think" and Michelangelo to "do".
Leonardo is the mind, Michelangelo is the body. Following is my humble tribute to these amazing men.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Why Communism failed before Religion ?
Neither am I a devout follower of Religion, nor member of any Communist party. This statement is to justify my neutrality to both these before I begin.
There are several theories explaining the downfall of most Communist ruled states - USSR, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, et al and most recently, my own state of West Bengal, India that has been ruled by the Left Front headed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). At present, any person in my state think you're a supporter of Trinamool Congress (the party overthrowing Left Front) if you speak against the Left Front and vice versa.
A few say that the American anti-communist propaganda machinery was more effective than the enthusiasm of communist ideologies; others are of the opinion that the principles of communism were against the natural law of inequality and hereditary succession. In fact, the later is reverberated in the opinion of majority high-net-worth Chinese who are looking to invest abroad fearing that the state might cede their wealth. None of them is totally false. But we overlook one important factor - religion. Post-World War II, when the world was polarized, headed by the US and the USSR and the fascinating rivalry that followed, we have seen the USSR excel the US in many departments - missiles, space, chess, literature, medicine. However, USSR failed ! It has been best summarized by Robert Hanssen, ex-FBI who was believed to be working for the USSR and later sentenced for life - "The Russians were Godless".
I will now attempt to make a scientific explanation based on the Nobel prize winning author Elias Canetti's "Crowds and Power". Canetti does not make any reference to communism but only analyses crowd dynamics. The points in italics are verbatim from the book.
Any **-ism is followed by enthusiasm usually anti-establishment in its nature. However, it isn't the work of a single individual. The ideas of the individual are propagated to the crowd (the people) who join him or her which makes it stronger. Canetti describes the main attributes of a crowd and I am trying to use it as a corollary. According to Canetti - the four main attributes are
The crowd always wants to grow.
Throughout the world, whenever governments are challenged by public unrest, we see them impose a curfew, restriction on assembly. During violent protests the goal of the police is to disperse the crowd for which they resort to tear gas, rubber bullets even water canons. (I would also recommend shit water)
Within the crowd there is equality.
All supporters of a football team wear the same coloured jersey regardless of their socio-economic status. The next point follows from the above.
The crowd loves density.
Nothing must stand between the crowd. Canetti says that the density is maximum at the moment of discharge i.e. when the crowd forgets all differences and feel equal, say, when the team scores.
The crowd needs a direction.
People do not gather without a purpose.
This final point is of utmost importance. As soon as the crowd loses the reason why it gathered it will disperse as quickly as it assembled. And here religion beats communism.
If we look at all major religions of world, we notice that there is something about these which isn't attainable in a human life. The concept of heaven and hell are found in most of them. All of them preach that neither heaven nor hell is the earth - those are some unknown places which you visit only after you die. We also find the concept of re-birth which maybe this world in a different life-form or in another world. Some speak of the great journeys which every human being needs to undertake after mortal life. Regardless of the foundations, re-birth, hell or heaven depend on one's deeds. And there is no cut-off period. Everything is recorded till the very last moment, even on the great journey. Hence, crowds united by a certain religious faith always have a direction. Although, we see a certain faith has internal fragmentation but it is safe to assume that everyone is equal in that fragment. Density, for a religious faith or its fragmented groups is ensured by the rituals. And its a natural law to grow.
All religions veto the male-female form of holy matrimonial union which also ensures growth. Communism had all these but as soon as it overthrew the proletariat and trumpeted victory in the class struggle, it lost its direction. The purpose was achieved. The match ended. Celebrations complete. Communists never had a woman in any major post. (exception: Rosa Luxemburg). Women are central to the natural continuity of human beings. The lack of woman leadership in major communist parties is testimonial to the fact that they never had a continuity plan.
Communist use Karl Marx for all explanation and I used Elias Canetti. Can communists ignore the divine intervention that both were Germans ?
Now, for those who need a more simpler explanation. Imagine the following teams whose all members are still alive; and consider that they will do what you know they did. Which one will you support ?
Team A
--------------
Karl Marx
Vladimir Lenin
Fidel Castro
Che Guevara
Jyoti Basu
Team B
--------------------
Jesus Christ
Gautama Buddha
Zoroaster
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh
Sankaracharya
There are several theories explaining the downfall of most Communist ruled states - USSR, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, et al and most recently, my own state of West Bengal, India that has been ruled by the Left Front headed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). At present, any person in my state think you're a supporter of Trinamool Congress (the party overthrowing Left Front) if you speak against the Left Front and vice versa.
A few say that the American anti-communist propaganda machinery was more effective than the enthusiasm of communist ideologies; others are of the opinion that the principles of communism were against the natural law of inequality and hereditary succession. In fact, the later is reverberated in the opinion of majority high-net-worth Chinese who are looking to invest abroad fearing that the state might cede their wealth. None of them is totally false. But we overlook one important factor - religion. Post-World War II, when the world was polarized, headed by the US and the USSR and the fascinating rivalry that followed, we have seen the USSR excel the US in many departments - missiles, space, chess, literature, medicine. However, USSR failed ! It has been best summarized by Robert Hanssen, ex-FBI who was believed to be working for the USSR and later sentenced for life - "The Russians were Godless".
I will now attempt to make a scientific explanation based on the Nobel prize winning author Elias Canetti's "Crowds and Power". Canetti does not make any reference to communism but only analyses crowd dynamics. The points in italics are verbatim from the book.
Any **-ism is followed by enthusiasm usually anti-establishment in its nature. However, it isn't the work of a single individual. The ideas of the individual are propagated to the crowd (the people) who join him or her which makes it stronger. Canetti describes the main attributes of a crowd and I am trying to use it as a corollary. According to Canetti - the four main attributes are
The crowd always wants to grow.
Throughout the world, whenever governments are challenged by public unrest, we see them impose a curfew, restriction on assembly. During violent protests the goal of the police is to disperse the crowd for which they resort to tear gas, rubber bullets even water canons. (I would also recommend shit water)
Within the crowd there is equality.
All supporters of a football team wear the same coloured jersey regardless of their socio-economic status. The next point follows from the above.
The crowd loves density.
Nothing must stand between the crowd. Canetti says that the density is maximum at the moment of discharge i.e. when the crowd forgets all differences and feel equal, say, when the team scores.
The crowd needs a direction.
People do not gather without a purpose.
This final point is of utmost importance. As soon as the crowd loses the reason why it gathered it will disperse as quickly as it assembled. And here religion beats communism.
If we look at all major religions of world, we notice that there is something about these which isn't attainable in a human life. The concept of heaven and hell are found in most of them. All of them preach that neither heaven nor hell is the earth - those are some unknown places which you visit only after you die. We also find the concept of re-birth which maybe this world in a different life-form or in another world. Some speak of the great journeys which every human being needs to undertake after mortal life. Regardless of the foundations, re-birth, hell or heaven depend on one's deeds. And there is no cut-off period. Everything is recorded till the very last moment, even on the great journey. Hence, crowds united by a certain religious faith always have a direction. Although, we see a certain faith has internal fragmentation but it is safe to assume that everyone is equal in that fragment. Density, for a religious faith or its fragmented groups is ensured by the rituals. And its a natural law to grow.
All religions veto the male-female form of holy matrimonial union which also ensures growth. Communism had all these but as soon as it overthrew the proletariat and trumpeted victory in the class struggle, it lost its direction. The purpose was achieved. The match ended. Celebrations complete. Communists never had a woman in any major post. (exception: Rosa Luxemburg). Women are central to the natural continuity of human beings. The lack of woman leadership in major communist parties is testimonial to the fact that they never had a continuity plan.
Communist use Karl Marx for all explanation and I used Elias Canetti. Can communists ignore the divine intervention that both were Germans ?
Now, for those who need a more simpler explanation. Imagine the following teams whose all members are still alive; and consider that they will do what you know they did. Which one will you support ?
Team A
--------------
Karl Marx
Vladimir Lenin
Fidel Castro
Che Guevara
Jyoti Basu
Team B
--------------------
Jesus Christ
Gautama Buddha
Zoroaster
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh
Sankaracharya
Friday, June 3, 2011
Adult Entertainment or Fear & Greed.
This is not a analysis of the online porn industry; anyone who wishes to enlighten in such knowledge may stop reading.
This is my personal opinion of why do we buy or sell and why aren't monks counted in the census of a country.
The first investment that I made when I started to earn is buy a life insurance. Why ? Fear. I feared that I may die before my natural life expiration and needed to have an exigency for the people who are financially dependent on me. Each year, I pay the premium gripped by this "fear". Since then the world has seen two financial crisis and two major wars. And I happened to read about a new investment plan. Euphemistically, these are called life settlement-backed security. In simpler words these are known as "death bonds". Suppose an aged American is in urgent need of cash and also has a life insurance policy, say, which assures $1M on maturity or death. The smart dude at Wall Street will negotiate to buy the policy at a lesser price, say $40,000. Thereafter, he continues to pay the premium and collects the sum insured. The quicker the person dies, the lesser the premium and more the profit. So, when the policy is negotiated the mortality of the person is scrutinized. What drives the person doing it ? And thus enter "greed". My death is sold or bought for either greed or fear.
The origin of fear is debatable. However, most agree that "fear" is of the unknown. We usually fear something we cannot anticipate. When we enter a dark room, do we fear if its our bedroom. But we are afraid to enter a supposedly haunted house by the highway. In short, we fear what we cannot see. On the other hand, greed is born out of things we can see. I wish I had that nice sports sedan which Mr. X parks in his garage. I may feel amused to buy a car which runs on human urine but do not really yearn for it. Because I cannot see it yet.
(They realize that Sourajit Basak is eavesdropping and abandon their chit-chat)
In the words of a chartered accountant, fear accounts for the bottom-line and greed adds to the top-line. When real estate stocks were skyrocketing, everyone wanted a share of the pie. When the cat was out of the bag, a mad frenzy of selling plummeted those. The monthly high is pushed by greed and the monthly low pulled by fear giving us those exotic statistical curves. My tongues cannot resist the greed of that ice-cream but my heart fears cholesterol choking his arteries and persuades my legs to go for jogging. A gastrointestinal test may give wonderful insights on the dominant feeling.
We can never abandon these two for we do not wish to stop riding the roller-coaster ride of life. The world will be a rather dull place if it were filled with monks. Monks and monkeys need to co-exist to complete the tapestry of life. But its worthwhile to ponder on the other question. Why aren't monks counted in the census ? Well, small perturbations are often ignored from the main readings of an experiment. But doesn't anything drive them when they abandon mundane pleasure. Maybe they wish to make that celestial journey to the other world to see the wonderful things beyond. But one thing is certain.
They fear what they cannot see and are greedy for what they can..not.
This is my personal opinion of why do we buy or sell and why aren't monks counted in the census of a country.
The first investment that I made when I started to earn is buy a life insurance. Why ? Fear. I feared that I may die before my natural life expiration and needed to have an exigency for the people who are financially dependent on me. Each year, I pay the premium gripped by this "fear". Since then the world has seen two financial crisis and two major wars. And I happened to read about a new investment plan. Euphemistically, these are called life settlement-backed security. In simpler words these are known as "death bonds". Suppose an aged American is in urgent need of cash and also has a life insurance policy, say, which assures $1M on maturity or death. The smart dude at Wall Street will negotiate to buy the policy at a lesser price, say $40,000. Thereafter, he continues to pay the premium and collects the sum insured. The quicker the person dies, the lesser the premium and more the profit. So, when the policy is negotiated the mortality of the person is scrutinized. What drives the person doing it ? And thus enter "greed". My death is sold or bought for either greed or fear.
The origin of fear is debatable. However, most agree that "fear" is of the unknown. We usually fear something we cannot anticipate. When we enter a dark room, do we fear if its our bedroom. But we are afraid to enter a supposedly haunted house by the highway. In short, we fear what we cannot see. On the other hand, greed is born out of things we can see. I wish I had that nice sports sedan which Mr. X parks in his garage. I may feel amused to buy a car which runs on human urine but do not really yearn for it. Because I cannot see it yet.
Fear: I managed to frighten a young girl because she had pimples and was afraid of losing the prom-night Queen to her best friend.
Greed: You perhaps didn't know that I tempted the guy at the cosmetic company to add harmful chemicals to the skin lotion she's using.
Fear: Uggh ... ly..
Greed: It was cheaper than fruit extracts. He planned to save a lot and make good profit.
Fear: Actually he feared of losing his promotion once again !
Greed: Yup. The company promised to give him a better apartment, the ones with heated pools.
Fear: Is this the same company which was on the verge of bankruptcy a couple years back ?
Greed: I heard that too. And I had to persuade a drug mafia to invest.
Fear: Ah. I remember. The mafia wanted to elevate his social status and broaden his portfolio to white-collar business.
Greed: Now, you get the point.
(They realize that Sourajit Basak is eavesdropping and abandon their chit-chat)
In the words of a chartered accountant, fear accounts for the bottom-line and greed adds to the top-line. When real estate stocks were skyrocketing, everyone wanted a share of the pie. When the cat was out of the bag, a mad frenzy of selling plummeted those. The monthly high is pushed by greed and the monthly low pulled by fear giving us those exotic statistical curves. My tongues cannot resist the greed of that ice-cream but my heart fears cholesterol choking his arteries and persuades my legs to go for jogging. A gastrointestinal test may give wonderful insights on the dominant feeling.
We can never abandon these two for we do not wish to stop riding the roller-coaster ride of life. The world will be a rather dull place if it were filled with monks. Monks and monkeys need to co-exist to complete the tapestry of life. But its worthwhile to ponder on the other question. Why aren't monks counted in the census ? Well, small perturbations are often ignored from the main readings of an experiment. But doesn't anything drive them when they abandon mundane pleasure. Maybe they wish to make that celestial journey to the other world to see the wonderful things beyond. But one thing is certain.
They fear what they can
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Proposal for a smarter judicial system
Ideally, a proper functioning democracy should have three independent branches - the executive, legislative and judicial branch. This ain't false for our country. Our constitution has provision for having all three of these branches to be constituted independently. This article aims to formulate a process to make the judicial branch more effective and amicable to the common man.
While doctors continue to dominate the highest paid jobs in the US, the profession immediately following is that of the legal practitioners. According to Forbes, 12 out of 20 companies which offer the best compensation and perks are legal firms. This even beats the best tech companies. It is hard to corroborate that the same holds true for our country where a supreme court judge is hesitant to declare his assets. And there has been several such similar cases for the lesser state-level High Court judges. Are lawyers more creative or intelligent than a scientist or an artist ? You may call me biased but the will not shrug away if I reply a point blank "no". I would have no objection to paying them the maximum remuneration and allowing them the premiere privileges if their role was to establish the "truth". But it isn't. They simply prove what their client asks them to do. So, if a corrupt person employs a lawyer, "falsehood" might well be established. Since we are all equal under the blindfolded Lady Justice, its time we re-look at the judicial system.
So, why are lawyers paid more ?
They know certain facts about the constitution, rights of people, the Indian Penal Code, legal implications, statutory notifications and certain processes in practice that we do not. They also have access to updates to these acts, rules and regulations. We are paying because we consider them experts on the subject matter - a matter thats in many cases is not in line with the standard way of an innocent life but at the whim of the legislative branch. However, I am not questioning the constitution. An example will clarify. Few years back, the factory act mandated that in a factory-floor where several people are working, the company should arrange for a Indian-style matki for storing water. Times changed and new technology replaced it with the modern day water purifiers and
coolers. A certain company, naively, installed such a modern water cooler only to pay a fine during inspection since the age old matki was not to be found. I am not even asking to change such rules. They happen in their due course. The point of this reform is information accessibility. The company could have avoided this if it knew of such a rule and kept a matki for its namesake. At least, companies are organized and can afford a legal advisor. But most of us find it
extremely difficult to read through a legal document which may be land or house deed and end up paying thousands to lawyers. Are we stupid ? No. How are you supposed to read a legal document whose each individual statements run into several pages resembling a paragraph; without proper sentence segmentation or even a punctuation mark. There-in-after, who-so-ever, here-in-with. I dream about a society when poets will write agreements. But that seems to be Utopian. Lets turn our attention on what can be done to make our lives easier.
The official language of India is Hindi with secondary emphasis on English. States in India can legislate their own official languages. However, neither the Constitution of India, nor any Indian law defines any national language. But there are in fact 17 major Indian languages and we have examples of the state executive branches use these. So unofficially we have 17 official languages. However the constitution is available in English and Hindi only. Some people have been prudent enough to publish it on the internet. And some benevolent souls have done the hard work of translation portions of the Indian law to regional languages. Thats it ! It still continues to be like the holy grail to the common man.
Usage of the internet is ever rising. People are also using various devices to access the same information. The first part of the proposal is to start the process of translating all laws especially the ones related to public affairs in each and every of the 17 languages. This can be a daunting task. However we have seen extraordinary results in the field of translation using phonetics and statistical techniques. The scope of this article is not discovering those techniques but there are indeed established ones. However such sensitive information should not be left to the machines only. It should consist of a three stage process in which the machine does the first level translation. It is reviewed by a human from a non-legal background. In this way, we have laws written in the common language and not borrowed from Elizabethan style of English. Finally, it is vetted by the court appointed reviewer. Even if a verbatim translation isn't possible, we can compare this to a reference to the original text, like Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespeare". We may not get the exact dialogues but grasp the central point.
Next step of the process is to put all this information online which can be viewed from all popular devices like the personal computer, mobile phones and easy-to-use kiosks at public places.
The final step is to make this information search-able. There is no shortage of search competencies in the market. Companies are able to search trillion bytes of data at the fall of an eye-lid. Because the above data will be of no use if it can't be searched easily. For e.g. a person willing to know the legal processes and laws pertaining to the transfer of shares to his family member can look at the relevant laws only. Someone interested in registration of his newly bought house searches for that part only and so on. Since the uneducated mass bear most of the brunt of the legal machinery, another good to have feature is voice based search. However, technology on this front is immature and can be easily replaced by a semi-manual call center. And I am optimistic there will be many among us who will be helping out those who can't read or write totally free of cost.
The whole idea of the judicial machinery making unfair money by misleading and harassing clients is because of the information asymmetry. The above proposition breaks this disparity. Anyone who needs to interact with the judicial branch can arm themselves with enough information before proceeding. The process of justice can be expedited. In many case people realize after a few sittings of the bench that a case wasn't possible in the first place. The lawyer persuaded them to press a case. All these can be avoided. This doesn't mean that lawyers will run out of business. Did open source software make commercial product development companies go bankrupt ? It made them stronger. Lawyers can graduate to the same social prestige as that of a teacher and doctor.
(Another ambitious second phase is to do the same thing for all recorded court proceedings. But this tool will benefit the lawyers more than the average person. So I leave it to them to plan it out.)
A lawyer makes money at the cost of someone's misery. It is a very sensitive profession and ethical standards aren't maintained always. Hence shifting the knowledge base to the common man makes them more accountable. And we regain the trust in our judiciary.
If India can fight for the Lokpal Bill which empower the civil society in the judicial process, such a system will benefit us even more. We do not need to have heavyweight funding for this project. Just deduct hundred rupees per month for the first five years payable as part of the income tax which can be reduced to thirty rupees per month after the system is ready. These numbers may be revised but the point is clear.
While doctors continue to dominate the highest paid jobs in the US, the profession immediately following is that of the legal practitioners. According to Forbes, 12 out of 20 companies which offer the best compensation and perks are legal firms. This even beats the best tech companies. It is hard to corroborate that the same holds true for our country where a supreme court judge is hesitant to declare his assets. And there has been several such similar cases for the lesser state-level High Court judges. Are lawyers more creative or intelligent than a scientist or an artist ? You may call me biased but the will not shrug away if I reply a point blank "no". I would have no objection to paying them the maximum remuneration and allowing them the premiere privileges if their role was to establish the "truth". But it isn't. They simply prove what their client asks them to do. So, if a corrupt person employs a lawyer, "falsehood" might well be established. Since we are all equal under the blindfolded Lady Justice, its time we re-look at the judicial system.
So, why are lawyers paid more ?
They know certain facts about the constitution, rights of people, the Indian Penal Code, legal implications, statutory notifications and certain processes in practice that we do not. They also have access to updates to these acts, rules and regulations. We are paying because we consider them experts on the subject matter - a matter thats in many cases is not in line with the standard way of an innocent life but at the whim of the legislative branch. However, I am not questioning the constitution. An example will clarify. Few years back, the factory act mandated that in a factory-floor where several people are working, the company should arrange for a Indian-style matki for storing water. Times changed and new technology replaced it with the modern day water purifiers and
coolers. A certain company, naively, installed such a modern water cooler only to pay a fine during inspection since the age old matki was not to be found. I am not even asking to change such rules. They happen in their due course. The point of this reform is information accessibility. The company could have avoided this if it knew of such a rule and kept a matki for its namesake. At least, companies are organized and can afford a legal advisor. But most of us find it
extremely difficult to read through a legal document which may be land or house deed and end up paying thousands to lawyers. Are we stupid ? No. How are you supposed to read a legal document whose each individual statements run into several pages resembling a paragraph; without proper sentence segmentation or even a punctuation mark. There-in-after, who-so-ever, here-in-with. I dream about a society when poets will write agreements. But that seems to be Utopian. Lets turn our attention on what can be done to make our lives easier.
The official language of India is Hindi with secondary emphasis on English. States in India can legislate their own official languages. However, neither the Constitution of India, nor any Indian law defines any national language. But there are in fact 17 major Indian languages and we have examples of the state executive branches use these. So unofficially we have 17 official languages. However the constitution is available in English and Hindi only. Some people have been prudent enough to publish it on the internet. And some benevolent souls have done the hard work of translation portions of the Indian law to regional languages. Thats it ! It still continues to be like the holy grail to the common man.
Usage of the internet is ever rising. People are also using various devices to access the same information. The first part of the proposal is to start the process of translating all laws especially the ones related to public affairs in each and every of the 17 languages. This can be a daunting task. However we have seen extraordinary results in the field of translation using phonetics and statistical techniques. The scope of this article is not discovering those techniques but there are indeed established ones. However such sensitive information should not be left to the machines only. It should consist of a three stage process in which the machine does the first level translation. It is reviewed by a human from a non-legal background. In this way, we have laws written in the common language and not borrowed from Elizabethan style of English. Finally, it is vetted by the court appointed reviewer. Even if a verbatim translation isn't possible, we can compare this to a reference to the original text, like Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespeare". We may not get the exact dialogues but grasp the central point.
Next step of the process is to put all this information online which can be viewed from all popular devices like the personal computer, mobile phones and easy-to-use kiosks at public places.
The final step is to make this information search-able. There is no shortage of search competencies in the market. Companies are able to search trillion bytes of data at the fall of an eye-lid. Because the above data will be of no use if it can't be searched easily. For e.g. a person willing to know the legal processes and laws pertaining to the transfer of shares to his family member can look at the relevant laws only. Someone interested in registration of his newly bought house searches for that part only and so on. Since the uneducated mass bear most of the brunt of the legal machinery, another good to have feature is voice based search. However, technology on this front is immature and can be easily replaced by a semi-manual call center. And I am optimistic there will be many among us who will be helping out those who can't read or write totally free of cost.
The whole idea of the judicial machinery making unfair money by misleading and harassing clients is because of the information asymmetry. The above proposition breaks this disparity. Anyone who needs to interact with the judicial branch can arm themselves with enough information before proceeding. The process of justice can be expedited. In many case people realize after a few sittings of the bench that a case wasn't possible in the first place. The lawyer persuaded them to press a case. All these can be avoided. This doesn't mean that lawyers will run out of business. Did open source software make commercial product development companies go bankrupt ? It made them stronger. Lawyers can graduate to the same social prestige as that of a teacher and doctor.
(Another ambitious second phase is to do the same thing for all recorded court proceedings. But this tool will benefit the lawyers more than the average person. So I leave it to them to plan it out.)
A lawyer makes money at the cost of someone's misery. It is a very sensitive profession and ethical standards aren't maintained always. Hence shifting the knowledge base to the common man makes them more accountable. And we regain the trust in our judiciary.
If India can fight for the Lokpal Bill which empower the civil society in the judicial process, such a system will benefit us even more. We do not need to have heavyweight funding for this project. Just deduct hundred rupees per month for the first five years payable as part of the income tax which can be reduced to thirty rupees per month after the system is ready. These numbers may be revised but the point is clear.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Why is terrorism not resolved easily ?
I had visited Kasmir at a time when I was a child. I had heard that couples used to take a romantic boat ride on a skikara in the Dal Lake and seen black and white photos of them sitting close to each other, pretty usual in honeymoon. Fast forward thirty years, same lake, same shikara but the couples changed. Now they are both males. Are they gay ? A double no; because their sexual orientation is natural and no they are not gay, according to original
meaning of the word. They are unhappy. Because one is a subhedar from the Bihar regiment and the other, lets say Gorkha Rifles. Both are carrying AK-47s and both can die any time.
Who gains when there is a fight - the men in olive uniform who are registered voters of the government or the veiled men belonging to roll call of a terrorist outfit ? People like to take sides because belonging to no man's land is a terrifying idea. But who really wins ? We do not require a expert in international relations to answer this. Its as simple as whoever sells them the guns and bullets. Like the stock exchange, no matter which party makes money, the exchange will always trickle portions of the transacted amount.
In 2010, the Indian union Government alloted Rs. 1000+ Cr for the Ministry of Tourism. There is no public data available for India government's military expense for Jammu Kashmir but even if we make the worst estimate, say 5% of our defence budget, it comes around Rs. 7000+ Cr. Add to this the spending of our friendly neighbourhood, lets say that Rs. 3000+ Cr. Even if we spend the entire money alloted to tourism ministry only for Kashmir, we are spending ten times less than what we are spending for guns and bullets. Which sane person would now wish to resolve the Kashmir crisis ?
Imagine a Bollywood movie. A poor boy falls in love with a rich man's daughter. They sing and dance by the trees. The girl's uncle sees them. And then goes back and convinces the father that the boy is very promising. They marry. Everyone lives happily ever after. Never ! The uncle will not persuade the father, especially in India uncles are always bad, read Shakuni. And then a conflict starts. The boy is wrongly implicated in a burglary. And the story goes on.
But Bollywood seldom ends in tragedy. Ultimately after the struggle, pain and agony, the boy and girl live happily ever after.
Fastforward another thirty years. Same lake, same shikara. Once again a couple. This time a boy and a girl, regular couple. Ofcourse the boy is now old and the girls cheeks are wrinkled by history. And I am holding my grandchild on my laps.
meaning of the word. They are unhappy. Because one is a subhedar from the Bihar regiment and the other, lets say Gorkha Rifles. Both are carrying AK-47s and both can die any time.
Who gains when there is a fight - the men in olive uniform who are registered voters of the government or the veiled men belonging to roll call of a terrorist outfit ? People like to take sides because belonging to no man's land is a terrifying idea. But who really wins ? We do not require a expert in international relations to answer this. Its as simple as whoever sells them the guns and bullets. Like the stock exchange, no matter which party makes money, the exchange will always trickle portions of the transacted amount.
In 2010, the Indian union Government alloted Rs. 1000+ Cr for the Ministry of Tourism. There is no public data available for India government's military expense for Jammu Kashmir but even if we make the worst estimate, say 5% of our defence budget, it comes around Rs. 7000+ Cr. Add to this the spending of our friendly neighbourhood, lets say that Rs. 3000+ Cr. Even if we spend the entire money alloted to tourism ministry only for Kashmir, we are spending ten times less than what we are spending for guns and bullets. Which sane person would now wish to resolve the Kashmir crisis ?
Imagine a Bollywood movie. A poor boy falls in love with a rich man's daughter. They sing and dance by the trees. The girl's uncle sees them. And then goes back and convinces the father that the boy is very promising. They marry. Everyone lives happily ever after. Never ! The uncle will not persuade the father, especially in India uncles are always bad, read Shakuni. And then a conflict starts. The boy is wrongly implicated in a burglary. And the story goes on.
But Bollywood seldom ends in tragedy. Ultimately after the struggle, pain and agony, the boy and girl live happily ever after.
Fastforward another thirty years. Same lake, same shikara. Once again a couple. This time a boy and a girl, regular couple. Ofcourse the boy is now old and the girls cheeks are wrinkled by history. And I am holding my grandchild on my laps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)