Class Character

Despite more than sixty years of Independence, we continue to be divided on the lines of caste, religion and language. But, on a subtle basis, we are also divided on the basis of class.

This is what is called as the “middle-class mentality” because it is most prevalent in the middle classes and the nouveau-riche. We seek to compartmentalise people on the basis of their incomes, the kind of lifestyle they lead, and the kind of society they move in. The fact that every being has personal preferences and tastes – and every person is different from every other – is conveniently glossed over.

Even a person who is very rich and is earning a lot of incomes may prefer to lead an austere life subsisting on the bare necessities only. But this is not sufficient for those afflicted by “class character”. They are impelled to show off their affluence and wealth at every turn. For them, their wealth is a part of their persona. When, by circumstances, they are divested of their affluence, they feel that they are “nothing” and they “don’t count”.

We forget that we are all independent of this wealth, society, pleasures and what not. We seldom realise that most of our problems are because of the way we perceive the world. Even though all our scriptures talk of a gradual degeneration, still there are people who believe in an order wherein all will be equal and will treat others as equal. They lead ideal lives and strictly follow some basic rules ordained for mankind.

Thus, if we see people different from us, instead of commenting and gossiping about that person, we must understand that all of us are different from each other.

Climate Change and India

With the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, also known as the Conference of Parties, numbered fifteenth, at Copenhagen, Denmark, nearing its end, we can take stock of what has happened and what has been achieved out of this meet.

A few words on climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases since the industrial era have increased the concentration of [primarily] carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This threatens to increase the average temperature of the Earth, resulting in drastic changes such as altered rainfall patterns, or, in an extreme situation, an increase of sea levels.

Much of the greenhouse gas emissions are from two primary sources: Consumption of fossil fuels in industrial economies and rampant destruction of equatorial rainforests in Africa and South America. The various climate change summits in the past decade or so seek to address the former. [The later may have been neglected only to be regretted later].

The Kyoto Protocol signed and ratified by almost all the countries [except the United States of America] in the year 1997, enshrines the “polluter pays” principle. This means that those countries, which account for the major share of the emissions [the First-World countries], must take responsibility for cutting their emissions. If third-world countries like ours were to cut emissions, our economic growth would be hampered and it would be difficult for us to extricate our people from poverty.

However, at Copenhagen, the developed countries are singing a different tune. They have rallied some small island states [Maldives, Micronesia, Tuvalu and a few others] and are effectively telling them “Your territories are going to be submerged because of the economic growth of China and India.”

This is ridiculous. India and China together [have] account[ed] for no more than 5 to 6 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Even if both countries were to make drastic cuts in emissions [with detriment to our economic growth], still the impact on the overall scenario would be small.

India did not help its cause initially by being ambivalent on fixing responsibility on the developed countries. India has agreed for voluntary emission cuts, but this will be out of the scope of monitoring by the First-World countries. But they are insisting on monitoring [which is unwarranted]. This is like saying, “We won’t do anything meaningful, but we’ll see that you are doing something, even though we will say that it’s all because of you”.

In the end, there can be no meaningful mitigation of the impacts of climate change until and unless the people of the First World give up their extravagant lifestyles.

Is life governed by chance?

If we look into ourselves and want to know our innermost thoughts, one of the possible questions may: Is life governed by chance? Its a difficult question to answer out rightly.

Psychologists define serendipity as "The gift of obtaining agreeable but unsought things". It implies that people do get desired things and fortunate events without their putting in efforts. Or is it that they have indeed put efforts in the past, and are reaping the results now?

Sometimes, the unexpected, the life-changing (for good or bad) event does occur. Is it to say that a man remains impoverished and unfortunate due to chance or is it due to his own errors of omission and commission? Do sad events occur in a family due to chance or due to some overlooked factor?

Lets face it, the rationalist finds it difficult to accept a theory of life governed by chance. For him, an explanation is needed for each and every event that occurs in the realm of physics, chemistry, life science, political science, sociology and spirituality. But may we not be at fault that we seek an explanation within the scope of a narrow domain instead of looking at the entire picture?

Probably, the best answer would be, things do happen by chance, but without our efforts we should expect nothing favourable to happen to us.

Man and the Mind

Note: Wherever ‘he’, ‘I’, ‘we’ or similar pronouns are used, I am referring to the equivalent conscious mind.

“Some consider the body to be miraculous, some consider the soul to be miraculous, some consider the conscious mind to be miraculous, and some consider the unconscious mind to be miraculous, while others, even after considering all four, fail to understand the miracle.”

Again and again, I am dragged into the subject of the conscious and the unconscious. Yesterday, it was the book ‘Blink’. We go deep inside our minds, and find a vast array of knowledge that can be put to use, but we are unable to, because we don’t know how to tap it.

Most of us are inclined highly towards logical and analytical methodologies. [I would prefer a term “rationalist”.] This is the conscious, the perceptible part of our mind. There is another, less perceptible side, which stores infinitely more than the conscious, but is not always at our bidding. This is the unconscious mind. It sends out signals long before we realize what is happening.

Psychologists have always preferred to examine the unconscious mind of a patient to reveal the reasons behind the subject’s conditions. There may be several things affecting the patient but he himself may not be aware of it. Letting it out is crucial for a normal condition.

People have taken far-reaching decisions that have proved to be correct or appropriate in the matter of a few seconds or with seemingly insufficient data in hand. This is possible because we tap into our unconscious and extract whatever we need. In fact, most of us must have done this at some point of the time or other. Scientists have credited their theories to dreams (Kekule’s benzene ring) and chance incidents (Newton’s apple).

Yet, it is dangerous to depend solely on the unconscious. For, this part of our mind cannot differentiate between a real and an imagined experience. Our unconscious simply stores whatever has been fed to it, either in the immediate or in the distant past. The best of results are obtained, when we put together our conscious and our unconscious together and make sense of the world.

It is not that analytical solutions are wrong. Our knowledge of physics and metaphysics is imperfect. There are theories of which we may not be in the know, even though they are staring into our faces (the ‘why didn’t I think of this before’ syndrome). So we must not neglect the signals coming from deep within (the gut feeling, a hunch, or whatever we name it).

The significance of Mach numbers

This article is for time-pass.

Supersonic and trans-sonic flights are those that are greater than or around the speed of sound. They are an interesting and difficult region of flight because the assumed characteristics of the atmosphere no longer hold water.

When a body moves through the atmosphere, a kind of pressure wave is generated and sends an advance warning to the air ahead that a body is 'coming'. These pressure waves travel at the speed of sound. As long as the body is moving at low speeds through the air, the air ahead adjusts itself accordingly and makes way for the body.

But when the aircraft moves at speeds close to the speed of sound, the air ahead gets no 'advance' warning about the incoming body. Instead, the airflow comes up against the object all of a sudden. This is responsible for the changed behaviour of the airflow at transsonic and supersonic speeds.

At this juncture, we have to discard all our traditional assumptions about airflow. Air at low speeds prefers smooth surfaces; air at high speeds prefers sharp and pointed corners. This is one of the reasons behind the 'Delta' configuration for supersonic aircrafts.

The absolute speed of the aircraft or the absolute speed of sound doesn't matter; what matters is the ratio between the two. Again, the speed of sound is not constant, it decreases with increasing altitude. Thus the relative speed of aircraft (as a fraction of the Mach number) increases with increasing altitude.

On the other side of the sound barrier, we face an entirely new world: the supersonic and hypersonic zones. Aircraft are specially designed for flying in these regions of speed. Our knowledge of these regions is better than our knowledge of the transsonic speed zone. Therefore, the pilot's aim is to get through the sound barrier as soon as possible.

In the olden days, when a speed record had to be set, the pilot waited for a warm day, because the speed of sound would be highest on those days. High-speed flying required the speed of sound to be as high as possible. But today, we soar for new heights and new speeds, and can no longer be bound by the speed of sound.

Hindustan and Balkanization

The spat between Bal Thackeray and Sachin Tendulkar is too recent in memory. Also recent is the behaviour of the MNS MLAs against another member for taking the oath of office in a different language. But though the state of Maharashtra may be unduly in the focus due to these incidents, they are by no means confined to one part of the country, nor are they going to disappear unless we confront the problem.

Ever since the agitations of the 1950s produced linguistic governing entities, the nation has always been divided along regional lines. But it is only in the recent times that claims of exclusivity have reached epidemic proportions. Every special interest group seems to think that the concept of region belongs only to the natives of that region.

This phenomenon reflects a deeper problem: the failure of the state (as opposed to the centre) as a viable governing entity in India’s federal system. No longer are state governments able to manage their finances. Doling out of freebies has all but emptied their treasuries and they are dependent on the central government’s handouts and national-level projects for their well-being.

The above-mentioned feature of the Centre-State relations should act as an effective barrier against the disintegration of the country, for the resulting splinter-states would be unviable entities. But that is not the problem facing the country now. Special interest groups now desire that the jobs in that particular region be given only to the natives. This militates against one of the fundamental rights of the Indian citizen enshrined in our Constitution: the right to settle down and earn a living in any part of the country.

Institutions like the Indian Railways and the State Bank of India belong to the whole country, not just to a particular state. These companies have the right to choose the best employees and generate the maximum revenue for the country. Of course, social justice is also a mandate for these companies, but the concept is being stretched out a bit too far.

There is another thing that is intriguing: Why are these Senas so concerned about Mumbai and not about their rural areas? The same philosophy holds good for other regions.

Perhaps, the answer can be found in the fact that much of Maharashtra’s revenue is generated by Mumbai. A separation of Mumbai from Maharashtra (envisaged by some as an autonomous Union Territory) would entail a serious loss of income and political suicide. Again, as I have pointed out in one of my earlier blogs, cities are the magic pot from which money and jobs flow out, and which can be easily milked. This is true for the larger, dynamic and more cosmopolitan metro areas.

Another reason for these agitations is that they offer a convenient distraction from the real and pressing issues. No longer do we get food at affordable rates. Nor is employment generation keeping up with economic growth. Any serious debate on these issues will provoke a backlash against the entire polity.

This brings forth another point: the discrimination of regions within a particular state. As it turns out, Andhra Pradesh, which was the first state of India created on a linguistic basis, is now divided between its Telengana region on one side and the Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra regions on the other. This is proof enough that linguistic division, though well-intended, was a flawed exercise, and fifty years later, has only reopened old wounds. The division between western Maharashtra and Vidarbha have also been documented. A political party (which fortunately did not win any seats this time) have also talked of dividing Tamil Nadu into northern and southern parts.

Increasingly, it is observed that the results of the General Elections are an aggregate of the results of the individual elections of the states. This reflects that, even though the states are dysfunctional entities, the people are increasingly voting based on local issues (which should ideally be confined to state assembly elections).

I am not being optimistic or pessimistic on the above issues. What I want to say is, that, as a nation, we are facing some problems, and these problems are not going to go away unless they are urgently addressed and tackled by the polity, the civil society, the intelligentsia and the media. Instead of uniting behind Sachin Tendulkar’s remarks and against Bal Thackeray’s, (even though that may be the right thing to do in the immediate present) we must do some soul-searching into why we have ceased to function truly as a federal republic.

Jawaharlal Nehru: An Enigma

Today is Children’s Day. It is so celebrated because it commemorates the 120th birth anniversary of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first and longest-serving Prime Minister.

Unlike Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru has been subject to far greater criticism during his period and also in recent times. It is often pointed out that he was responsible for India’s partition at the time of independence. It is possible, although a number of his contemporary personalities were collectively responsible for the tragedy of partition.

Nehru’s legacy has been more widely debated than that of any other leader in India’s history. It was Nehru, who advocated complete independence and sovereignty from the British Empire, unlike others, who were content with the dominion status, in which the monarch of England would be India’s head of state. Again, it was Nehru, who stressed that the princely states had no place in an independent India.

Nehru’s contribution as the Prime Minister of India was as important as his contribution to the freedom struggle. He advocated an active role for the State in economic activity, and was responsible for setting up of a number of public sector undertakings. As the economic crises of today’s times have shown, the market cannot be allowed to have a free run. He was responsible for setting up of AIIMS, IITs and IIMs. He also set up the National Book Trust and the Literary Academy to promote national integrity.

In the international sphere, Nehru promoted the Non-Aligned Movement, which advocated a stand independent of the two major Cold War blocs. Though the relevance of the non-aligned movement has been questioned in recent times, it is important for every nation to articulate an independent stance in international affairs.

On the Kashmir issue, Nehru originally promised to hold a plebiscite as per the resolution of the United Nations, but backed off from it as the other resolution of the U.N. was not fulfilled, namely the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir. But he was also responsible for the division of the Indus river basin’s waters between the two countries, which has stood the test of time.

Probably, Nehru’s greatest error of judgement was in not anticipating a Chinese invasion of India in 1962. Nehru thought that, as both countries were former victims of imperialism, they would not aggress on each other’s territories. But this proved to be a great miscalculation, as even today China lays claims on Arunachal Pradesh.

Much has been talked about Nehru’s relationship with Edwina Mountbatten and how it influenced his decision-making. In my opinion, any examination of others’ personal lives will always bring skeletons out of their cupboards, and it is in the best interests of etiquette not to scandalise people.

Nehru is remembered as ‘Chacha’ or Uncle for working for children all through his life. But he remains controversial due to various decisions of his which have had an impact on our polity. Probably the two sides of his legacy will forever remain an enigma.

Beautiful Fractals

The dictionary defines fractals as “a geometric pattern that is repeated at every scale and so cannot be represented by classical geometry.” Indeed, fractals are some of the most beautiful forms produced by dry mathematics. A mathematical fractal is based on an equation that undergoes iteration, a form of feedback based on recursion.

[The following are extracts from the Wikipedia entry for fractal.]

A fractal has the following features:

• It has a fine structure at arbitrarily small scales.
• It is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language.
• It is self-similar.
• It has a simple and recursive definition.

Fractals are considered to be infinitely complex.

One way of classifying fractals is according to the way they are generated.

• Escape-time fractals: They are defined by a formula or recurrence relation at each point in a space.
• Iterated function systems: They have a fixed geometric replacement rule
• Random fractals: They are determined by probabilistic processes.
• Strange attractors.

Fractals can also be classified according to their self-similarity.

In nature, fractals can be found in clouds, snowflakes, rivers and lightning.

Applications of fractals include

• Fractal landscape or Coastline complexity
• Generation of new music
• Generation of various art forms
• Signal and image compression
• Creation of digital photographic enlargements
• Seismology
• Soil Mechanics
• Computer and video game design
• Fracture mechanics
• Fractal antennas – Small size antennas using fractal shapes
• Small angle scattering theory of fractally rough systems
• Generation of patterns for camouflage
• Digital sundial

Addiction: Impact on the Social Animal

The dictionary defines addiction as “being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming”. Normally, the word is used to denote a person’s craving for narcotic drugs, but sometimes people use phrases like ‘I am addicted to my work.’

What is addiction? As the definition says, it implies three things [with respect to the subject of addiction]:

• The addict must have an abnormal tolerance to and dependence on the target subject.
• The subject must have a physical or physiological impact on the addict.
• The removal of the subject must produce ‘withdrawal symptoms’ [physical or psychological disturbances].

Usually, addiction results in two important consequences:

• Increased focus and engagement about the subject.
• The ‘shutting-down’ of the rest of the person’s external aspects.

From this point of view, we can’t be addicted to each and every thing that we do in our life. Most of us know our limitations of our attempts to experience everything. But some of us unfortunately fall victim to drug abuse. What are drugs?

‘Drugs’ in this context fall into two categories: Narcotics and Psychotropic substances. Narcotics are substances that cause a feeling of paralysis or numbness. Psychotropic substances are chemicals that primarily act upon the central nervous system and alter the brain function, resulting in changes of behaviour, consciousness, mood or perception. These substances create a sensation of craving by misguiding the brain’s dopamine system, which is responsible for our sensation of happiness.

Not only drugs, people are more commonly addicted to smoking and drinking. These habits form mostly during the teenage or early adult years. Like drug abuse, they also produce a temporary ‘high’ followed by prolonged depression if the activity is not repeated.

This physical dependency wrecks havoc not only on the concerned person, but also in the person’s immediate neighbourhood and to the society in the long term. Thus there are numerous ways to deal with the problem and treat the affected persons.

A number of models have been proposed to explain addiction. These include the disease model, the pleasure model, the genetic model, the experiential model, the opponent-process model, the allostatic model, the cultural model, the moral model, the habit model and the blended model.

Numerous organisations all around the world are engaged in curing people of their addictions and helping to prevent new cases. We too, have a social responsibility not to get into any form of addiction that can be devastating for us and our loved ones.

The Wonder of Motivation

Few stop to wonder what differentiates man from other forms of life. It cannot be nutrition, because all living beings need it. It cannot be pleasure instinct, for all animals need it. If we look at it deeply, it is the need for self-actualisation.

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, self-actualisation is defined as “the desire for self-fulfilment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming”. It is the highest level to which one can motivate oneself to.

Maslow’s hierarchy defines the levels at which different kinds of motivations are effective. They are physiological, safety, belonging, esteem and self-actualisation. Fulfilment at each stage requires appropriate motivational methods.

The dictionary defines motivation as “The psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives purpose and direction to behaviour”. Thus motivation depends upon a goal, a reason, or a purpose. It is of two fundamental types: extrinsic and intrinsic.

Extrinsic motivation is more common in less developed human thought processes. In this, the person is subject to certain external conditions (called ‘motivating factors’). These may be either incentive-providing (money, food, pleasure or something else) or deterring (fear, pain, or humiliation). The trouble with this form of motivation is that when the external factor is gone, the motivation is gone. Some other studies have also shown that extrinsic motivation weakens inherent intrinsic motivation and dampens the human spirit.

Intrinsic motivation is a higher though process. In this, the subject is motivated by the self. Usually this develops if the subject can see that the desired results can be controlled by internal factors (such as effort), or if the subject develops a passionate interest in the achieving. The highest form of intrinsic motivation is self-motivation.

There are several theories of motivation other than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

To understand how to motivate people, we must understand the reasons for lack of motivation.

Motivational theories are applied everywhere, from home to business to schooling to national-level decision making.

For instance, I am motivated to write this blog because I get satisfaction in voicing my opinion over the internet. In short, understanding human motivation is very important to understand the success or failure of human societies.

Regardless of the reader, I would tell everyone that self-motivation is what every one of us must aim for, and move higher up Maslow’s hierarchy.

The Pre-paid fiasco

On reading a headline “Pre-paid service in Kashmir to be stopped” I did not understand what exactly the Government of India wants to do. If they think this will curb terrorist activities, I have no definite reply.

For what does the Government expect to achieve from this, it is not exactly clear. On top of this, the Honourable Home minister has also said that a similar policy might be introduced in the insurgency-hit North-Eastern states. By a logical extension, this might be extended to the Naxal-affected central Indian states, and eventually, to cities like Delhi and Mumbai, which have been periodically rocked by terrorist attacks.

Now, it must be obvious to our authorities that misuse of pre-paid SIMs and lax verification procedures are by no means confined to Kashmir or the North-East or the Naxal-affected hinterland. Indeed, the trouble is prevalent in our very metropolitan areas. For this very reason, our Government plans to cut connections to cellular phones without valid IMEI numbers.

Pre-paid SIMs are far more preferred over post-paid ones, because they enable the user to keep track of how much they have spent and how much they need to conserve and economise. They can be easily used by people on the move. Moreover, pre-paid connections can be discontinued at will. This is the key feature that anti-national groups misuse.

Also, it must be noted that over the years, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have become slowly alienated from the Indian mainstream due to various errors of omission by our polity. At a critical juncture like today, when we have the best chance of getting the people of India’s northernmost state back to India’s soul, we can seldom risk a chance of repeating history. If the government has real and valid reasons against pre-paid connections, I have an advice for them: Ban it throughout India.

For, then only our authorities will see the dent in India’s superpower image. Foreigners, whom we love to sucker up to so much, will say, “Here is an aspiring country which denies technology in part of its country.”

I do not deny that the Government’s decision can be right. But historical milestones are seldom decided by right and wrong intentions. One faulty move made on our part and we may have to regret it for the rest of our existence. We must carefully weigh the consequences of our actions.

Let us hope that we are guided more by our heads and less by our instincts.

Knowledge and Power

“Knowledge is potential power. It becomes power only when it is acted upon.”

For the past few days I was reading Alvin Toffler’s book “Powershift”. Written in 1990, this book talks of how power centres in today’s world are influenced by knowledge. It has not always been so, for in the past, violence, and later wealth, controlled power centres.

But today we live in a knowledge era. What we know matters a lot. The book makes an interesting point that while muscle and money cannot be used simultaneously, knowledge can be, and concurrently used to create further knowledge. The power of knowledge and information is that it can be used to rapidly transform the lives of people, and efficiency can be improved on a rapid scale. In fact, much of our service industry is based on the premise of knowledge and information, and increasingly manufacturing and agriculture are also using knowledge to expand production and profits.

But what exactly do these two terms mean? The dictionary defines knowledge as “The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.” It also defines power as “Possession of controlling influence.”

Power has always been the ultimate desire of man. He has always sought to subordinate others around him, but since this is not possible for everyone, there have always been conflicts over power. Power is neutral. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about power; right and wrong occur when the power is suitably or unsuitably applied. In different eras, power has flown from different sources.

Before the 1950s, the world was dominated by manufacturing and agriculture. Work output in these professions required brute force. Workers were interchangeable; it did not matter as to which worker did the job. Thus, power remained in the hands of people who controlled farms and factories.

But then, the growth of the service industry began to change this. The work could now not always be performed by muscle-force, it also needed workers to think and adapt to particular situations. No longer were workers as easily interchangeable as before. Those who learnt to adapt to this change by becoming knowledge centres also obtained the power to shape the mosaic of the world.

Consider for example two industries, one highly respected, and the other most detested (no reason why it should be). The financial sector, which ostensibly seems to be doing nothing productive (looked from a tangible product point of view), controls the levers of all the great powers. Why? They have information. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the espionage services, which are also sought after, for they are useful for obtaining information that is secret, or information that can be obtained only by carefully sifting through the existing open sources. They are also extremely powerful, but that is never obvious owing to their covert ways.

In the past, power flowed from the barrel of a gun, and later, from the chest of the wealthy. But today, power flows from what is there in our cranium. Most importantly, we cannot rest on what we know now. Knowledge, by its very nature, is fluid and changing, and the only way to keep up is to keep learning. Nor can we expect to keep to ourselves what we know today. Knowledge and information have a nasty habit of seeping out into the open.

When this knowledge is put into action, power will come to the actor. So if you want to have power, then accumulate knowledge, one that can be put to immediate use. We should keep learning and not rely on the exclusiveness of our knowledge.

So, as the saying goes, “Knowledge is Power”. If you have power, you may do something good or bad, but if you don’t have power, you can do nothing. So, start accumulating knowledge. Well begun is half-done!

The Universe and Man

If I were to be asked "Which is the most useful instrument that man has invented since yore?", I would unhesitatingly say "the Telescope". Indeed, the telescope does not serve any material purpose on the Earth, but it does a very important thing; it teaches man humility, by revealing his position in the cosmos.

For centuries man believed in a geocentric model of the Universe, in which every object of space was thought to rotate around the planet Earth. But the observations of Copernicus and Galileo revealed that this was not the case, the Earth is an ordinary planet that revolves around the Sun along with five other planets. Then discoveries in the 18th and 19th centuries revealed the existence of Uranus and Neptune. The study of other stars shattered the heliocentric model of the universe; it was proven that the sun was just an ordinary star. Then the study of the Milky Way galaxy revealed that the Sun is near one edge of the Galaxy, around 25,000 light-years from the centre. Then the discovery of other galaxies in the universe revealed that the Milky Way is just another ordinary galaxy. Every time we tried to fix ourselves in the centre of the universe, fresh evidence shattered the hypothesis.

Light-years are enormous distances compared to our terrestrial units of metres and kilometres. By knowing that light travels approximately 300,000 km/s, a light-year (distance covered by light in one Earth-year) would be a colossal 9,460,000,000,000 km.

The study of the stars in our galaxy and others has enhanced our knowledge of stellar evolution. Scientists now know that the Sun is not a permanent source of energy, but will extinguish itself after some 5 billion years. The same holds true of all the other stars, though the lifetime may be varying. It has also been found that all stars are not like the sun. Exotic stellar objects like novae, supernovae, neutron stars and black holes have been observed. Science is yet to fully unravel their mysteries.

The universe is believed to have started by what scientists call 'The Big Bang'. It is said that the universe was condensed in an incredibly small volume, and it exploded all of a sudden some 15 billion years ago. Now, it is said that the observable universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter. I am yet to work it out in terms of kilometres; probably all I would be doing is to count the endless string of zeros.

When we see things in space, we don't see things as they are now. We seem them as they were in the past, depending on how far they are (or were). Thus, observational astronomy, is in a sense, a time-machine, one we use to see into the past.

Astronomy and Astrophysics are wonderful branches of science. They deal with most of what is known; by them we also know of our insignificant position in the universe. But we need not be unhappy over this. The Earth is a very special place for us in this Universe; extra-terrestrial life has not been discovered till date. The Earth is as intriguing a place as the rest of the Universe is.

The facts of astronomy leave us dazzled. We learn about phenomena that can never occur on the Earth, we deal with distances and time-scales that dwarf the ones we use on the Earth. Truly, man is really great, for he has learnt so much about the Universe without so much budging from the Earth (or the Solar System).

Austerity: A principle or a passing fad?

The recent drive of austerity by our Union Government and the comment of a minister saying that executive pay must be reined in, has generated a lot of debate in our media. Some people say that since India is a poor country, its well-to-do must not indulge in ostentatious display of wealth. But others say that one’s hard-earned money can be used the way the earner pleases.

Factually speaking, austerity consists of three aspects.

• Austerity of the body: This involves worship of divinity, the seekers of real knowledge, the teacher and any other person worthy of worship. It also involves practising cleanliness, simplicity, discipline,  and non-violence.
• Austerity of speech: This involves speech that is truthful, pleasing, beneficial and not agitating to others.
• Austerity of the mind: This involves self-satisfaction, simplicity, appropriate silence, self-control and purification of thought.

Any other dimension of austerity is collateral to the above three.

Actually, when we people talk of practising austerity, we normally cut back on those aspects that are conspicuous. But real austerity must result in a real and drastic downsizing of the expenditure. The current austerity drive includes travelling in economy class and ‘not staying in five-star hotels’. The savings that our political leaders claim for their ‘austerity’ drives pale in the presence of their expenditures for the upkeep of their residences, the paraphernalia that accompanies them every time, and their election campaigns.

Not that I am saying that executive pay should not be reined in. Executive pay must reflect ‘market sentiment’. Numerous instances have been recorded where it has been shown that executive pay was rigged and even when the company was going bankrupt, the CEOs were getting an enviable remuneration.

What I want to say is, that instead of practising austerity for pastime or ‘showing solidarity with the masses’ we must practice real austerity. Some guidelines for austerity may be enumerated below.

• Austerity can come only from within and not by external regulation.
• Austerity is not poverty.
• Austerity is not against wealth, it is against the vulgar display of wealth.
• Each one of us can practise austerity, not just the well-off.
• Austerity is not practised on an empty stomach or an empty mind.
• Austerity is not practised by not doing something that we are anyway not supposed to do.

Thus, we must learn to be austere in the true sense. Let us not treat austerity as a passing fad.

Some interesting facts about the Mahabharata

Every parva (chapter) of the Mahabharata begins with the following verse.

ॐ नारायणं नमस्कृत्य नरं चैव नरोत्तमम्|

देवीं सरस्वतीं चैव तथो जयं उदीरयेत्||

Om! Having bowed down to Narayana and Nara, the most exalted male being, and also to the goddess Saraswati, must the word Jaya be uttered.

The Mahabharata defines an Akshauhini (division of soldiers) as follows.

• One chariot, one elephant, five foot-soldiers, and three horses form one Patti. (10 combatants)
• Three Pattis make one Sena-mukha. (30 combatants)
• Three Sena-mukhas are called a Gulma. (90 combatants)
• Three Gulmas make a Gana. (270 combatants)
• Three Ganas form a Vahini. (810 combatants)
• Three Vahinis together are called a Pritana. (2,430 combatants)
• Three Pritanas form a Chamu. (7,290 combatants)
• Three Chamus make one Anikini. (21,870 combatants)
• And an Anikini taken ten times forms an Akshauhini. (218,700 combatants)

The number of chariots in an Akshauhini is twenty-one thousand eight hundred and seventy (21,870). The measure of elephants must be fixed at the same number (21,870).  The number of foot-soldiers is one hundred and nine thousand, three hundred and fifty (109,350), the number of horses are sixty-five thousand, six hundred and ten (65,610).

The Mahabharata is divided into 18 Parvas. Some statistics about the parvas are given below.

1. Adi Parva (8,884 verses, 227 sections)
2. Sabha Parva (2,507 verses, 78 sections)
3. Aranyaka Parva (11,664 verses, 269 sections)
4. Virata Parva (2,050 verses, 67 sections)
5. Udyoga Parva (6,698 verses, 186 sections)
6. Bhishma Parva (5,884 verses, 117 sections)
7. Drona Parva (8,909 verses, 170 sections)
8. Karna Parva (4,964 verses, 69 sections)
9. Salya Parva (3,220 verses, 59 sections)
10. Sauptika Parva (870 verses, 18 sections)
11. Stri Parva (775 verses, 27 sections)
12. Santi Parva (14,732 verses, 339 sections)
13. Anusasana Parva (8,000 verses, 146 sections)
14. Aswamedhika Parva (3,320 verses, 103 sections)
15. Asramavasika Parva (1,506 verses, 42 sections)
16. Mausala Parva (320 verses, 8 sections)
17. Mahaprasthanika Parva (320 verses, 3 sections)
18. Svargarohana Parva (209 verses, number of sections are not mentioned)

The above details have all been given in the first chapter of the Adi-Parva of the Mahabharata.

A BITSian take on Mahabharata's Yaksha Prashna episode

Some days ago, one of my friends, commenting on a previous post of Faith and Truth, mentioned the Yaksha-Prashna episode. This well-known episode of the Mahabharata has an unknown creature’s voice asking King Yudhishthira questions of wisdom so that his dead brothers can be revived. Yudhishthira reaches out to the depths of knowledge and answers them in a brilliant way.

Let us assume that a student of BITS-Pilani replaces King Yudhishthira, and the Yaksha changes its questions slightly. Some of the slang used may be understood only by BITSians. But I hope it makes a good reading.

Presenting a BITSian take on Yaksha-Prashna.

Voice: What makes a BITSian study every day?
Student: The fear of other BITSians studying.
Voice: What rescues a BITSian from boredom?
Student: The IPC (Information Processing Centre.)
Voice: By the study of which subject does a BITSian become a ghotu(nerd)?
Student: Not by the study of any subject does a BITSian become a ghotu. It is by his association with other ghotus does he become a ghotu.
Voice: What is higher than the clock tower?
Student: The night-indicator on top of the clock tower.
Voice: What is deeper than the Shiv Ganga moat?
Student: Any of those wells scattered around the campus.
Voice: Who is the most sorrowful BITSian?
Student: The one who faces a power cut after playing hours of video games.
Voice: What befriends a BITS alumnus?
Student: The BITSian memories.
Voice: Who is the friend of the BITSian who stays in his room?
Student: The Personal Computer.
Voice: What accompanies a BITSian alumnus?
Student: The BITSAA tag.
Voice: What is a BITSian’s reason for happiness?
Student: Seeing an above average score.
Voice: What is that, by abandoning which, the BITSian is accepted by all?
Student: Grumbling – by abandoning that, the BITSian becomes accepted by all.
Voice: What is that, by giving it up, the BITSian becomes wealthy?
Student: Visiting C’not – by giving it up, the BITSian becomes wealthy.

Thus the student answers many more questions and comes out successfully.

The 2009 Nobel Peace Farce

This year's Nobel peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama, President of the United States. My initial reaction to the news was a mixture of surprise and disbelief. Though I admire the present president of the United States, it nevertheless set me wondering as to what exactly is intended by awarding the Nobel prize to him.

To be sure, the mandate of the Nobel committee is that the peace prize can be awarded to people who promote international peace. Barack Obama was nominated (atmost) within 11 days of being sworn in as the President of the United States, and has been in office for only around eight months. He had precious little time to achieve much in the arena of international peace, whether it be Israel-Palestine, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan-Pakistan, nuclear disarmament or global warming. A lot is expected of him in the coming years; in fact some people say that this prize has been awarded to him so that he will deliver on these areas. This is like awarding a gold medal to an athlete so that he can win the Olympic event.

We need to give time to the U.S. President so that he can deliver on his promises. As the leader of the world's most powerful country, a lot is expected of Barack Obama. But his intentions must be followed by concrete action in all the major areas of the international multilateral order. Only then can history pronounce a judgment as to whether his Presidency was a success or failure.

No doubt, in the past also, the Nobel committee has made decisions that are biased or politically motivated. This has been most obvious in the peace prize, though it has been subtle in the other fields also. Even Mahatma Gandhi was never awarded a Nobel peace prize (though he was nominated five times). Over the years, the Nobel prize has been steadily devalued. But in today's world, everybody is alert. Therefore Barack Obama's selection has raised eyebrows and left many people fuming. In my opinion, this award will damage Obama's credibility in the long run. I think that the best way would be for him to turn down the award; but that may be wishful thinking.

To know and not to act on what you know is equal to not knowing. Let us hope that Barack Obama does not rest on his nobel laurels but strives to achieve international peace.

Happiness: A state of Inner Consciousness

All of us are affected by the duality of nature. We tend to think: this event is good, that thing is bad, and so on. But actually, events and other external circumstances are indifferent to tags such as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It is our conditioned reaction to the external that generates a sensation of happiness or distress.

Let me narrate an anecdote I read in a book a few days back: A student approached a teacher to learn the secret of happiness. His only belongings were in a bag. The teacher, all of a sudden, took his bag and ran away. The student pursued him, but the teacher managed to dodge him in the maze of narrow by-lanes. Finally, the teacher returned and placed the bag before the student. The student immediately pounced upon the bag.

The teacher asked him “How do you feel?” The student replied “I feel very happy.” To this the teacher asked “Why so?” The student replied “Because I have got back my bag.” The teacher then said “But you had the bag with you even before you came to see me. Did you not experience the much sought-after happiness then?”

Happiness is not determined by external events; it is driven by our inner consciousness.

People get unhappy over trifles. “When people want to be happy, it means they are not happy at present. This creates an inner war between them and their desire to be happy”, says a Bangalore based Swamiji. “The only way to end our inner conflict is by cultivating a sense of happiness within ourselves, a sense that is independent of external circumstances.”

We only expend unnecessary energy when we get distressed. The highest mode of material nature is Sattva, or tranquillity. Let us learn to enjoy life as it approaches us and let us not get distressed by temporary events. In that way we can savour life.

The real traitors

Last week, I was reading an article “Bust the myth of good over evil”. The article concluded by saying “Indrajit, who was loyal to Ravana, the King of Lanka (in the Ramayana) is remembered even today and thousands of people carry his name, but Vibheeshana, who chose to follow the path of dharma in lieu of loyalty, had his name die out with him.”

Worse still, a response to this article came as follows, which said (among other things), “Neglect of the family is always considered evil. In conflict between family loyalty and societal righteousness, the former always scores.” Does it really work out this way? Let us examine Vibheeshana, the younger brother of Ravana in the Ramayana, whose name has unfortunately become synonymous with the epithet ‘traitor’.

Unlike what most people think, Vibheeshana was very much loyal and devoted to his elder brother. The difference was, when every other of Ravana’s counsellors were saying flattering words to him, it was Vibheeshana alone who chose to speak the truth and he sought to correct Ravana’s evil ways. Vibheeshana was loyal to his family, but he was even more loyal to his values and dharma. When he found that the two loyalties were in conflict with each other, he chose the path to which he had greater affinity. This is what any rational man does.

Vibheeshana had always been impressed by Lord Shri Rama’s ideas and principles, and found that they were much in common with his line of thinking. Therefore, it was natural that he joined forces with Lord Rama. This is in direct contrast to what most characters of the Mahabharata did.

When the Kurukshetra war was about to break out, Bheeshma and Drona chose to fight on Duryodhana’s side, even though they had no respect for his line of thinking. This is often quoted as an example of putting family loyalty over societal righteousness. But nowhere in the Mahabharata it is said that what Bheeshma and Drona did was right. The Mahabharata is a handbook of don’ts; therefore, in all balance of probability, what these two otherwise great people did was wrong.

Bheeshma, Drona, Dhritarashtra and Vidura knew Duryodhana’s way of error; but they were unable to do much to correct him, and Dhritarashtra [Duryodhana’s father] often acquiesced in whatever wrong he did. There is an ocean of difference between knowing what is right and doing what is right. When Lord Krishna advised Dhritarashtra to sacrifice Duryodhana in order to save the rest of his sons and the Kuru race, his advice was promptly turned down by quoting family ties and affection. Was the destruction of four million soldiers necessary for upholding ‘family loyalty’?

Much of the wrong that Duryodhana did was due to his faulty upbringing by his parents and other elders. That was the real treachery, as the prince was denied the right to grow up into a man who would love his cousins. Later, when Duryodhana begins to commit evil deeds, he does it with the confidence that Bheeshma and Drona would never abandon him. These two elders could have put their feet down and have said that Duryodhana alone was responsible for his acts; but they acted otherwise. Again, the prince was denied the right to be a good man. Later, commentators sought to cover this up under the codename of ‘family loyalty’.

Sometimes, people contrast Vibheeshana against Karna, who was unwavering in his friendship with Duryodhana. The comparison is scurrilous and unwarranted. Karna never had any natural affinity towards the Pandavas, possibly because of the way they insulted him when they first met him on the stadium of test. Later, Karna promises to Kunti that he will not kill anybody except Arjuna; but it is more due to his generous nature than any real affection for them.

No one can go back in time and change these events as they have occurred. We can only learn lessons from them. Instead of cowering under ‘family loyalty’, it is our paramount duty to correct our friends and relatives, if they ever go wrong. If we fail to do that, that is the real treachery and we are the real traitors. Every fellow man has a right to follow the path of good, and has a right to be led on the path of good. We must be loyal to our ethics, values, morals, dharma and most importantly, our inner conscience. Failure to be so would be a crime.

Mahatma Gandhi: An Epoch

“Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a man in flesh and blood ever walked on the Earth.” – Albert Einstein.

Few are worthy to be remembered. And fewer are actually remembered. But, the towering personality of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is the central theme in India’s glorious struggle for freedom. History is seldom sculpted around one charismatic figure. But Gandhiji was not all form; contained in him was the substance that was necessary for shaking the very foundation of the empire where the sun had never set for more than a century.

I have lived most of my life among people whose [among others] favourite hobby was Gandhi-bashing. But my opinion on this great personality was influenced less by my peers and more by my heritage. Positive influences apart, there is no doubt that this Great Man’s contribution to India’s heritage was as great as his contribution to our freedom struggle.

People talk of nationalism, patriotism, secularism, integrity, duty above attachment and so on, but here was one man who practiced them all. Sadly, we have not learnt much from him, though we love to endlessly debate on whether he was right in calling off the Non-Cooperation Movement or the Civil Disobedience movement.

Gandhiji was no atheist. He was a firm believer in Hinduism, and he had respect for all other religious philosophies and teachings. But he was all for a secular state, where no particular denomination of faith would be favoured.

Like all other human beings, Gandhiji made his share of mistakes. But his greatness was his frankness and integrity in acknowledging them. In his book My Experiments with Truth, he reveals all this candidly.

People may debate on whether Gandhiji’s life was a success or a failure: but the same people may become deeply uncomfortable if a similar debate about their own lives is launched.

Today is his 140th birth anniversary. Let us hope that we remember him and his ideals for more than this one day.

Faith and Truth: A Perspective

Some days ago I was reading Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code. Knowing the controversy that the book had sparked at the time of its publication, I ventured to read some of the criticism that this book had received. Most of the criticism was directed at the style of writing and some of the ‘facts’ quoted at the book. Though the critical arguments may be justified in themselves, I have a strong feeling that the criticism was not due to these factors, but due to another underlying reason.

This underlying reason is starkly revealed by the author in the second half of the book. It is just a plain statement: “All faith is fabrication.” Clearly, faith means religious denominations. This statement, no doubt, must be provocative, but it struck a resonant chord with my line of thinking.

Here I mulled over the meaning of the statement. At last I came to a fairly simple conclusion. It may be summarized as follows.

• Faith and Truth are two separate philosophies.
• Faith may draw some of its features from Truth, but Truth stands all by itself.
• Faith is related to Truth in the same way as hope is related to reality.
• There can be many faiths; but there is only one Truth.
• Faith changes over time, Truth is eternal.
  

All of us, when we say, that we are religious people, must understand this subtle, but all-important differentiation between Faith and Truth. Faith can be troublesome if we start thinking that our beliefs are superior to others. Worse still (as the novel says), people will start distorting facts to suit their own faith. Then, faith becomes a fancy. (Faith is to fancy as hope is to illusion)

In this case, the Bhagavad-Gita is unambiguous in its reiteration for the Supreme Absolute Truth over faiths of different denominations. Lord Krishna clearly says in the following verse.

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज |
अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुच: ||
[Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita, Verse 18.66]

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sins. Do not fear." (Bhagavad-Gita, Verse 18.66)

Is not Lord Krishna a personal form of the Supreme Absolute Truth, as said in the Gita? I do not know about other philosophies in different parts of the world, but the Gita is clear about the importance of Truth.

Let us not debate meaninglessly on which faith is better; let us seek this Absolute Truth.

Mahabharata's infamous game of dice: A modern-day take on the Dyoota-Parva

The king Yudhishthira, in the Mahabharata, plays a game of dice against the wily Sakuni and loses everything unto him. It is often asked as to why such a wise man is impelled to play a game of chance that is referred to in the scriptures as an instrument of deceit. Three explanations are given as follows.

• Yudhishthira had a natural tendency, bordering on addiction, to play dice.
• The code of conduct of the kshatriyas [military race] at that time required that a game of equal hazard must not be turned down.
• Yudhishthira had taken a vow not to displease his cousins and other relatives at that time.

Even if we assume that etiquette had to be obeyed, surely we can avoid games that wreck havoc on the moral fabric. The Mahabharata is a handbook of what must not be done, hence we find the wise king playing and losing the game, which results in unquenchable enmity that ends only with the destruction of 18 divisions of the kshatriyas, numbering more than four million soldiers.

In everyday life, we face situations, which propriety demands that we should turn down, but we end up doing things due to our weakness. I have been reading a book on how to say “No” to such unsolicited invitations and spent time wondering how it could be applied to the Mahabharata.

Let us assume that these codes of conduct would not be applicable, and Yudhishthira was wise enough to turn down the invitation all by himself. Presenting a modern-day take on the Dyoota-Parva.

(The first two dialogues are verbatim; the following ones are my imagination. I hope Good and Pious people and devotees of Lord Krishna are not troubled by my imagination. I only want to indulge in some light humour.)

Yudhishthira: O king, gambling is bad. It is not through heroism or merit that one succeeds in a game of chance. Asita, Devala and other wise sages who were well-versed in worldly affairs have declared that gambling should be avoided since it offers scope for deceit. They have also said that conquest in battle is the proper path for the kshatriyas. You are not unaware of it.

Sakuni: What is wrong with the game? What, in fact, is a battle? What is even a discussion between Vedic scholars? The learned man wins victory over the ignorant. The better man wins in every case. It is just a test of strength or skill, that is all, and there is nothing wrong in it. As for the result, in every field of activity, the expert defeats the beginner, and that is what happens in a game of dice also. But if you are afraid, you need not play. But do not come out with this worn excuse of right and wrong.

Yudhishthira: I agree that the better man wins in every case, but it still appears to me that gambling is wrong.
Sakuni: How can a game in which the better man prevails be wrong?
Yudhishthira: I don’t know, but authorities have associated gambling with deceit.
Sakuni: You are borne of a noble race. You are well-versed in the kshatriya code of conduct. The code of conduct demands that a game of equal hazard be accepted.
Yudhishthira: I agree that a game of equal hazard must be played, but I don’t want to play a game that will induce passions and produce enmity.
Sakuni [changing tack]: Nothing extreme will happen if the game is played in moderation.
Yudhishthira: It all starts with a little bit only. Slowly it builds up and becomes a reckless show.
Duryodhana [intervening]: I have erected this hall specially for playing this game of dice. The cloth has also been laid. You have also come all the way from Indraprastha at my father’s invitation. Now all of a sudden you change your mind like this. Is this the regard you have for my father? Is this the way you please your cousins?
Yudhishthira: No disrespect is meant for your father. But I don’t understand the logic that a game of dice has to be played every time a hall is erected and a piece of cloth laid. I have already made it clear that I don’t want to play. And if you are displeased, I can’t help it.
Duryodhana: Is this the way an Emperor who has performed the Rajasuya sacrifice talks?
Yudhishthira: I don’t understand what the Rajasuya sacrifice has got to do with this. I don’t want to play.

[A commotion prevails as it is not clear whether the game will be played or not. Yudhishthira thinks of Lord Krishna. Then Yudhishthira seems to hear an inner voice that tells him to come out for a while. He comes out, and is greatly surprised to see Lord Krishna standing before him. He offers his obeisance to Him.]

Yudhishthira: Lord, I am greatly surprised to see You here. I thought You were battling your enemy King Salva who has besieged your fortress Dwaraka.
Lord Krishna: That is true; even now I am battling the enemy, but I am present everywhere. I see that you have a problem, so I am here.
Yudhishthira: Yes, O Govinda, that is true. These Kauravas are pressing on me to play a game of dice. You know that the game of dice is deceitful and fraught with evil. Great sages have told that...
Lord Krishna: Cut the sermon short. I know all about the game of dice, and I also know that you know all about the game of dice. Know that of all forms of cheating, I represent gambling. (This phrase will later appear in the Bhagavad-Gita.)
Yudhishthira: Yes, O Lord, I want You to come to the Hall and convince these people not to continue with this game. Please come with me.
Lord Krishna [smiling]: Ajatasatru, I want you to play this game.
Yudhishthira [greatly surprised]: O Son of Devaki, have You also joined these ill-meaning people? I ask You for something and You advise quite the opposite.
Lord Krishna: Yudhishthira, know that I have never given you advice that is bad for you or your brothers. The evil that will arise out of this game will be short-lived compared to the long term good of you gaining the whole kingdom of Hastinapura and being able to rule it righteously.
Yudhishthira: Lord, I do not seek the whole of Hastinapura. I am satisfied with my own domains. Gambling will only produce immoral behaviour. Even if I gain the whole world, I will never be able to rule righteously as I will be always called a gambling addict.
Lord Krishna: O Partha, every man is endowed with certain defects. You are no exception. If you don’t gamble now, people will anyway call you a man who refused the invitation to the game out of cowardice. [Sounds eerily like the explanation given at the beginning of the Gita.]
Yudhishthira [now confused]: But why at all should I gamble? Forget about the good or bad coming to me. You should tell me the real reason behind Your strange advice.
Lord Krishna [smiling]: Son of Kunti, here I must take you back in Time and narrate to you certain events that occurred before I came to this world.

[The scene is cut here. A spiral rewinds. Lord Krishna takes Yudhishthira into the past. Yudhishthira sees Lord Vishnu (Lord Krishna’s form among the Gods) holding a council among Indra and the other Devas.]

Indra [addressing Lord Vishnu]: Lord, Protector of this Universe, You know that the Goddess Earth has already petitioned about the burgeoning human population that is burdening Her domain. Unrighteousness is increasing on the Earth. The old scriptures that were laid down by the wise sages and pious souls have been misinterpreted and are being taken out of context. The human population needs to be reduced to maintain the balance of the Earth. You must do something about it.
Lord Vishnu: Do not worry, O Gods. I will appear on the planet Earth and relieve the Goddess of Her burden. I will appear among human beings and act like one, even though I will always know who I am.

[The scene is cut. Now, Lord Krishna reveals His Universal Form. In this, Yudhishthira sees himself playing the game of dice with Sakuni. He sees himself losing everything. Then he sees Draupadi’s humiliation and the Pandavas being exiled for 13 years. After the exile, he sees the armies of the two antagonists assembled for mutual destruction. After an 18 day war, he and his brothers are seen among the very few survivors. Then he sees himself being crowned the king of Hastinapura.]

Lord Krishna: Know that these events have already happened by My will, O Yudhishthira. Just be My instrument. [This will also appear later in the Gita.]
Yudhishthira [bowing to the Lord with folded hands, offers his obeisance]: Lord, I understand Your true Purpose and Mission in this world. I will do as You command.
Lord Krishna [smiling]: So be it.

[Yudhishthira now returns to the Hall of dice, and confers with his brothers. After that, he addresses the assembly.]

Yudhishthira: Well, I shall play.

Truly, Destiny is all-powerful.

Marxism and the Gita

Fewer pairs of topics will seem to be more radically different than the atheistic philosophy of Marxism and the theistic philosophy of the Bhagavat-Gita. But there are some similarities underneath the turbulent surface of differences.

Some of these similarities (based on my crude understanding) may be listed below:

• Marx's theory bases itself on the equality of mankind; the Gita bases itself on the oneness of mankind.
• Marxism deals with two fundamental classes: the exploited and the exploiter. The Gita deals with two fundamental natures: the divine and the demoniac.
• Marx's theory of a total revolution when there is increasing exploitation also corresponds with the Gita's theory of a total change when there is a decline of righteousness.
• Marx says: "Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains." Lord Krishna says [phrasing changed]: "Abandon all fear and doubt and come unto Me! You have nothing to lose but your sins."
• Just as Marxism never clearly describes how a communist state would function, the Gita also never clearly describes how a righteous world would be like. There is no surprise in this: Marxism and the Gita are concerned how we function in the present, and not the description of an ideal future.
• The above-mentioned gap has been sought to be filled by other sources in both cases. In the case of Marxism, other communist scholars have done the job, in the case of the Gita, other Vedas and Puranas do the job.
• Marxist philosophy was succeeded by many communist movements which deviated from the original philosophy while retaining the name; the Gita's teachings were also conditionally interpreted to give rise to a number of religious movements.
• Marxism was sought to be substituted by more moderate social democracy; the Gita was sought to be substituted by temporary worship of various Gods.
• Marxism says that economic forces will eventually engulf the world in capitalism; the Gita indicates [does not directly say] that material forces will eventually engulf the world in unrighteousness.
• Marxism and Gita have their fair share of critics respectively; and are regarded as the supreme doctrines in their respective domains.

Guilt and Shame

Man is not a perfected being. Man makes mistakes. Sometimes they are found out; at other times they remain hidden. But whatever happens, they are known to the doer. Since all of us have an inner conscience, our mistakes become an albatross around our necks. The manifestation of this is guilt. When our mistakes are found out, this feeling manifests itself as shame. But should they be so?

Let us analyse this in a little more depth. People think that we feel guilty when we try to hide some wrong-doing from others. Most of the times it is true; but this need not always be the case: Man will feel guilty if he thinks that he has done something wrong and he thinks that others don't know about it. There is no question of the facts here. It's all a matter of perception. Similar is the case with shame.

Since it is a matter of perception, the feelings of guilt and shame cannot be imposed on us by somebody else, unless we have given away the keys of our emotional storeroom to others. Since these feelings are in our own hands, we can control them and make a very positive use of them. Indeed, for most of the times they are used to correct our attitude towards our internal problems and how we can solve them. But when they are allowed to be controlled by others, they are often manipulated and force the subject into a sense of inferiority. That is where the point of emotional blackmailing starts: every case makes use of our lack of control over these two conditions.

Remember, our life is our own. Though we make it useful for others, we must not let others make use of it. Our emotions reflect our state of energy: bad emotions result in lowered energy levels, and consequently lowered self-esteem. The man who wishes to conquer his emotions must have an appropriate controlled response to these twin emotions.

Don't we have a choice?

Man is remarkable for an enigma: He has an infinite capacity to understand all the possible knowledge in the world, but most of the times, he chooses to stick to whatever he has and does not strive to improve upon his imperfect knowledge.

Some time ago I was reading a weblog on "Herd Mentality". This is a remarkable phenomenon; though it is all-pervading in the human race, still I have never been able to come to terms with it. I still cannot reconcile with the fact that I should do something just because 'somebody else is doing that'.

Man always seeks to stay within a comfort zone. This ensures that he does not explore the unknown or walk the untrodden way. The man who strives to be different is characterized as a 'loner' or 'uncool' or something like that. Never has Creation made two identical people; there is no need for us to imitate anybody.

But when one sees a large group behaving in an eerily identical manner, he gets intimidated and begins to think that if he does not conform to that group's behaviour, he will have to shift out of his comfort zone.  Most of us are reluctant to do that; for doing that means we must take a risk; but we must not forget the fundamental law of statistics: higher the risk, higher the probability of return.

All the great men who have lived in our world were men who did not conform to this herd mentality. They achieved precisely because they chose to go the unknown way, and hence were toughened by the ravages of risk-taking. Going by the herd mentality will do us no harm; but it will do us no good either.

Do we have a choice? For, in most situations, it will seem that we must do the same thing others are doing; for that will seem to be the right way. But we must never forget the teachings of great philosophers. Some of their tenets have been:

• Don't do just because someone else has been doing.
• Don't do anything without a sound reason; if it doesn't have any reason, it probably should not be done at all.
• Don't do things that will cause harm to others.
• Don't do things that will cause harm to yourself.
• Don't do things that satisfy your animal instincts while they deaden your soul.
• Don't keep company whose nature you abhor. Part ways when you know you are incompatible.

Remember, rivers always take the path of least resistance, and end up being around two to three times longer than the distance between the source and the mouth. The same thing applies to mankind; it may be the least path of resistance to do what others are doing, but it will be painful for him in the times to come.

The Trinity of Human Nature

For long have philosophers wondered: What is man? What is this body? Is the man different from his body? Is there a higher force, which acts upon him to shape his behaviour in different ways? And so on are many questions that leave the best of minds puzzled and perplexed. The Hindu Philosophy seeks to answer these questions by the trinity theory of human nature; it is discussed in detail in the Bhagavat-Gita. This is the subject of my post.

A brief introduction about what is said about this will be in order. There are three modes of material nature; and every human being, indeed, every living being is subjected to all these three modes. No action of ours is exempt from any them; and no result can be obtained without their combined operation. These three modes are Saatvik or Goodness (derived from satva, meaning truth), Raajasik or passion (derived from rajas, meaning energy), and Taamasik or ignorance (derived from tamas, meaning darkness).

I must make it clear that though the soul is neutral to these three modes; the body is not. As long as the soul resides in the body, it is bound by these three modes. If we want to visualise it, we can imagine that all of us are puppets in a puppet show, and these three modes are the puppeteers; and each puppet is controlled by all the three puppeteers.

But this is not all. In most of us, one of these modes is predominant, while the other two remain subdued. Each mode has its own symptoms. The most important symptoms are: In the mode of goodness, we are conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge; in the mode of passion; we are conditioned by desire and anger; and in the mode of ignorance, we are conditioned by confusion and laziness. But there are a number of other symptoms also. They are described in the Gita in vivid detail; I am just giving a summary of them below.

In goodness, we get real knowledge; in passion, we get greedy; and in ignorance, we get foolish. Even the different kinds of food that we eat are of three different kinds.

Food in the mode of goodness increases the duration of life, gives strength, and is generally juicy, fatty, complete, and pleasing. Food in the mode of passion has extreme tastes, and gives a burning sensation. Food in the mode of ignorance is usually of a decomposed nature and gives unpleasant odours. We thus can easily see that the food of a particular mode will make us act in the same mode.

The Gita also describes many other symptoms; how they worship, what happens to them in the future, and so on. By now most of us would have an indication that the mode of goodness is the most preferred one. Though we can never become 100 percent good, that must be our guiding target. Some activities in the other two modes are unavoidable (eg. getting excited is in the mode of passion, and sleeping is in the mode of ignorance); but these can be kept to a minimum.

The trinity of human nature is sometimes confused with the trinity of Hindu Gods. So far, I have not come across any evidence of this kind.

A lot more has been described in our Vedas and Upanishads; in fact, I have not read any of them. People who read my post are free to share any additional information; and may even contradict me if I am wrong.

With this I conclude what I had to say. Let us now get back to being operated by the three modes of material nature. (In case they temporarily stopped operating on us!)

Mahabharata: The fifth Veda

Author's Note: The Mahabharata is not a story of characters who are wholly good or wholly evil. Those who are under such an impression are humbly requested not to entertain any biased views on the Epic. I however will consider any counter-opinions as comments.

In my first blog, I wrote a little on the Mahabharata. Indeed, it has remained my favourite, and no other story or fiction can take its place in my mind.

People will always continue to debate: Is the Mahabharata a fact or fiction? My answer is: It doesn't matter. We have a lot to learn from the Mahabharata; those who consider it to be fact, may take it to be a historical treatise; those who consider it to be a fiction, may consider it to be an anthropological treatise.

I have been hearing the story of the Mahabharata since childhood, but only recently got to read its full version on the net. There are many stories in this Epic; and they are woven into the main fabric of the conflict between the Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras. (We know them better as the Kauravas, but I disagree with this nomenclature, since Kaurava means descendants of Kuru, and the Pandavas were also technically 'Kauravas'. I stick to Dhartarashtras, or sons of Dhritarashtra.)

Veda Vyasa sums up the Mahabharata aptly in the Adi Parva by means of the following verse (I have read only an indirect reference about it, but it is very much appropriate):

“Whatever is found here, is found elsewhere, but what is not found here, is found nowhere else.”

Truly, in the Mahabharata, we find every possible situation we may face in life: greed, envy, jealously, anger, pride, affection, difficulties faced by the honest... the list is endless. In every story, we are narrated stories on how people faced numerous difficulties, and how they sorted them out. We also learn that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but each had one’s own way. All these have a direct relevance to our lives.

Indeed, no part of the Epic is more important than the eighteen-day war of Kurukshetra, which occupies nearly a quarter of the Epic. Incidents in the war demolish all notions that one side represents all that is good and the other represents all that is evil. Wrong and sinful deeds are committed by both the warring parties. Before the war begins, Balarama (Lord Krishna’s elder brother) says, “Let us avoid an armed conflict by all the means in our power. Only that which accrues in peace is worthwhile. Out of war, nothing but wrong can issue”.

When war becomes imminent, he says “the descendants of Bharata have let themselves be overwhelmed by greed, anger and hatred and that the peace talks have broken down and that war has been declared. Dreadful destruction is ahead. The earth is going to is a bloody morass strewn with mangled bodies! It is an evil destiny that has maddened the Kshatriya[military race] to foregather here to meet its doom.” Thus Balarama stays neutral during the war. This is just one of the ways people deal with their moral dilemmas. But I like Balarama’s opinion the most; hence I lay more stress upon it.

When we say that we must fight wars with other countries, we forget that we are putting ourselves in a state of ignorance. War can bring no good to humanity. At the end of the chapter “The Death of Karna”, C. Rajagopalachari rightly says:

 “It was Lord Krishna who incited Arjuna to kill Karna when he was vainly trying to raise his chariot out of the mud in which it had stuck. According to the code of honour and laws of war prevailing then, it was wholly wrong. Who could bear the responsibility for breaches of dharma except the Lord Himself? “

“The lesson is that, it is vanity to hope, through physical violence and war, to put down wrong. The battle for right, conducted through physical force leads to numerous wrongs and, in the net result, adharma[unrighteousness] increases.” This resonates with Balarama’s opinion.

There are many other places where the Mahabharata’s teachings are very relevant. I have just quoted one; and probably the most important one.

Some people, who sympathise with the Pandavas (but actually have antipathy towards the Dhartarashtras), justify these incidents (wrongdoings by Pandavas in the Kurukshetra War) by saying that they were fighting an evil enemy and a bigger army of better warriors. Others, who have antipathy towards the Pandavas (rather than being sympathetic to Duryodhana), quote these incidents to say that the Pandavas were no better than the Kauravas in matters of wrong and right. Again, my opinion is simple: No man is wholly good or wholly evil. The Pandavas were able to win the war because the scales of dharma were in their favour; but that is all.

It is very easy to say that Duryodhana was an evil man. Actually, I would sympathise with him a bit. Consider his childhood: a blind father who could never see him, a mother who would never look at him (even though she was not blind), a pampering uncle who would always encourage him to commit improper deeds, and elders and teachers in the family who would be always praising his cousins in front of him. (The Pandavas had not yet come into the picture). Today, any one put in Duryodhana’s situation will also become a man like him. The effects of childhood psychology have been well studied in the Mahabharata; they are well brought out in Duryodhana’s story.

I am stressing upon his character only because he is portrayed as the villain in the Mahabharata; otherwise I have no specific reason. Similarly, every other character we may consider will have such a two-sided facet to his nature. It is up to us to emulate the good side while learning from the negative side.

One more thing: With all reverence to Lord Krishna and those who worship Him, I want to stress that He is an Avataram (Incarnation). Even though He can be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, He chooses not to be (most of the time), because He has to set an example to mankind. Thus He decides not to do any actual fighting during the war (to let the world think that the Pandavas win on their own strength, and thus every man exerts himself fully to achieve success) and seemingly makes them commit improper deeds (to explain to the world that no good can come out of a war).

The only thing I can do in this post to the Mahabharata is a great injustice. There are a lot of lessons and morals to be learnt from this Epic and apply them to our daily lives.

I do not expect all people to approve of my opinion in this matter. Still, one must learn to appreciate it in a true spirit; of emulating the good while learning from the evil. That indeed is the true destination of mankind.

Purposeful Discrimination or Structural Problem?

Author's Note: This article is not intended to criticize developmental work in rural areas. It only aims to point out that this is not a long-term solution to the problem of rural backwardness.

Last month, as part of my coursework, we had a group discussion about rural backwardness. I had some ideas in my mind which I expressed during that time, but it has become more coherent as I continue to think about it. I decided to make that the topic of my post today.

Let me make two things very clear. "Rural areas are backward" is well understood. "Why rural areas are backward" is less understood. My aim is to increase the understanding of the second point. Let us begin by understanding the economics of rural and urban areas. The predominant productive activity of rural areas is agriculture, which takes up the energy of most of its inhabitants.  In contrast, the activities of urban areas are so diverse that we cannot start counting them here. This by itself is a big handicap for rural areas. Is not the man who has only one source of income less secure than the man who has multiple sources of incomes?

But this is not a serious disability for rural areas. The problem arises from another, less observed factor.  Let me make one point clear before we proceed. Two things are very infectious in human society: diseases and ideas. Rural areas have a less density of population than urban areas. In urban areas, typically 20,000 people are huddled in each square kilometre of built-up area. This results in a rapid exchange of ideas and thoughts in the concrete jungle. Rural areas are much less densely populated, and are also less expansive than urban areas. Thus the rural hinterland is always short on progressive thinking, not because there is a dearth of intellectuals there, but because the population there is less.

Some people have an idea that rural poverty can be alleviated, if the governing body of the area brings suitable facilities and social and economic infrastructure to these areas for their rapid development. Let us critically analyze this line of thinking. First, we are not a rich country. Second, we have a large rural population. And third, it is more expensive to bring the facilities to rural areas (on a per-person scale) as compared to urban areas. Work out the maths and you will see why it is not easy for a country like India to bring facilities to rural areas. Look at the plain and simple facts, rural poor migrate to towns to become urban poor, but have you ever heard of the urban rich migrating to villages to become the rural rich?

Some will say that we must bring development to our rural areas at any cost. No doubt, it is a noble thought, and may even solve the problem for the time being; but it is better to be wiser, and know that this is not a real solution. Gandhiji once said: "India lives in villages." What he did not say (but probably intended to say) was: "India's future does not live in villages, but in its industrial townships, where economic activity is carried out on a large scale."

For the time being, we must carry on with developmental activities in rural areas; but we shall achieve long-term prosperity only when the rural masses gradually migrate to townships. I am not saying that they should migrate to big cities and live in slums (indeed, why should they be at all forced out of their villages?), but suitable economic opportunity must be created in the smaller towns where they can migrate for a living. Surely, this will be cheaper than bringing infrastructure to villages. Some people may point out that the rural areas of developed countries are prosperous; but don't forget the massive subsidies their governments pump into their agriculturists. I don't think India has that luxury today.

I have put forth my points on this topic. I hope other readers think over this and bring out their opinions (not necessarily as comments) on how we can alleviate rural backwardness.

Scientific Advancements or Satisfaction of Whims?

Author's Note: This post must not be construed as an article against scientific achievements. In every way I support scientific research, for if nothing else, it stimulates intellectual thinking.

I was reading an article: "Physicists Create Magnetic Monopoles--Sort Of". While I was reading it, I was impressed by how far we have left behind John Dalton's Plum-Pudding theory of the structure of the atom. No doubt, man is truimphiantly progressing on the two pillars of scientific advancement and economic prosperity. However, I am not satisfied with blindly accepting scientific achievements (however rational this may sound).

Whenever I see some article on some invention or discovery, the first question that comes to my mind is: Will this benefit humanity, how soon and in what way? Mankind devotes a lot of intellectual energy in pursuit of science, so it is only natural for mankind to expect something in return. Truly, no discovery has helped the world more than the discovery of fire; and no invention has helped the world more than the invention of the wheel. But everyday research is not about the things that are of direct or immediate concern to mankind. Who would bother about whether magnetic monopoles can exist or not or whether there can be a grand unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism?

One of the problems with scientists is that they are (mostly) introverted (no offence meant, for even I am such a person), thus they do not reach out to the general populace and explain the direct relevance of such research to our everyday concerns. This results in the common man stereotyping the scientist as, well, we know how they are stereotyped. The common man ends up thinking that he has no connection with science, and thinks that scientists are acting according to their whims and fancies. This is a dangerous situation.

All of us must try to find ways of solving this conundrum, this enigma that is called science. I hope other people think over this and bring forth their views.