"Brennt Paris?"

Was watching the movie "Is Paris Burning?" today. After having read the book, the film was, obviously, a let down. But there was this series of dialogues that caught my attention.

Von Choltitz was the Nazi Governor of Paris who disobeyed Hitler's orders to destroy the city, for which he was called "The Savior of Paris" and was revered by the French. It is well known that if not for him, Paris, as we know it, would not exist and would be ruined just like another Warsaw.

A ceasefire has been brokered between the Germans (under Choltitz) and the French resistance by the Consul of Sweden. This ceasefire was, again, done without Hitler's knowledge. In this scene, Choltitz is talking to members of the French resistance about their breach of the terms of the ceasefire.

Choltitz (On the French Officials entering his room where the Consul of Sweden is also present) : I suppose you know the Swedish Consul, Herr Nordling. Thanks to his efforts, we arranged a truce which, up to now, has cost the lives of 200 German soldiers.

French Official : As a representative of General De Gaulle's provisional government, I protest against our arrest in the midst of the cease-fire. We are just contacting our people to make sure they respected it.

C : In your car, my guards discovered a proclamation that was designed to provoke the city of Paris to revolt. I don't see how you maintain you're respecting the cease-fire and then make vicious attacks on our men right in front of our faces!

F : I'm a member of the French Government in Exile and I won't permit you to question my word of honor! The circular in the car was a proclamation that had been revoked.

C : In that case, why did your men shoot at our soldiers?

F : You command an army of regulars. When you give an order, your men obey it. The Resistance is an alliance of many movements, and I don't control them all.

C : The Communists, for example?

F : Our ranks include both Communists and anti-Communists. Now we're all battling against a common enemy.

C : You can make among yourselves all the politics that you want! Only you must not shoot at my soldiers!

F : If you would like to finish these incidents, stop sending out your patrols.

Now, few would find anything wrong with what the French Official said, including the statement highlighted in bold. Let us look at the context - the Germans have forcefully, through war, occupied France; the French resistance, as claimed by the official, is a bunch of teams of people agitated by the oppressive occupation, craving for liberation, for seeing themselves controlling their capital, for seeing their flag atop their public buildings.

Now consider a present day analogy. The Israelis have forcefully occupied non-Israeli lands; the Palestinian resistance, along with the democratically elected Hamas, is a bunch of teams of people agitated by the unjust occupation, illegal encroachment, craving for independence and statehood, for seeing themselves controlling their land, for seeing their flag and nation recognized by the Israelis.

If the French Official could justify sporadic breaches of ceasefire on the pretext of lack of control, why are the Palestinians deprived of that justification? It is suggested (and accepted even) that it was Israel, with reference to Operation Cast Lead, that broke the ceasefire and not Hamas. But even if you discard that, if you support the Israeli assault on Gaza, would you not have to support the Nazi occupation and endorse the planned destruction of Paris? Or if you supported the French resistance against the illegal German occupation, would you not have to support the Palestinian resistance against the illegal Israeli occupation?

Superstition

The idea of presenting logical arguments against superstition might sound absurd. And it is. But to hell with that.

My claim is that superstitious people are racists. Here's the argument.

Actually, before the argument itself, let me give a broad, vague definition of the word "racism". Here, I am using the word to mean a belief that a subset of people are superior to the rest in some sense. Lots of further definitions might be necessary to make precise what I mean, but I am in no mood to go into semantic pedantry.

If you believe in a superstition, you must also consider yourself and a set of people who are similarly superstitious superior to "distant people". By "similarly superstitious", I mean others who have the same superstitious belief. And by "distant people", I mean people from the world around who do not share your culture, belief-system.

Now, I think that there are superstitions that are experiential. These are also results of the (often irrational) human tendency to search for causation of events experienced. You're watching a cricket match where the team you are supporting is winning - you change your seat and they end up losing - there is a tendency to associate the two independent events, which is superstition. I will disregard these "causative superstitions".

But then there are other superstitions that are engrained into minds of people by the culture or belief-system of the people around them -- waking up on the right (usually, the right) side of the bed, "touch wood" etc would fall into this category, which for convenience, I shall call "cultural superstition". Very few (almost none) cultural superstitions are universal. But, there is always a presumed reasoning behind these things. Whether the reason is itself known or not, the existence of the reasoning is accepted -- "People were not crazy to make up things with no reason" would probably be a reply to questioning these. There is also a predisposed greatness of the people who've actually figured these out. So, in this sense, there is pride of this knowledge.

You have cultural superstitions -- you know not everyone in the world believe in it -- so, either you believe that not believing will nullify its effect, in which case, you can nullify the effect on yourself by not believing, and you are rid of cultural superstitions -- or, you believe the distant people are stupid to have not figured it out yet, to be suffering as a consequence of it and to not have correlated cause with effect; and your race is superior for it has done these things -- you are a racist.

As an aside, I think the ultimate, most annoying argument against someone arguing against superstitions is to claim that he/she is superstitious about arguing for superstition.

Swayam-na-vadhu

I have always hated and vehemently opposed "reality shows". Come on! The name is itself an oxymoron - "reality" is something that doesn't happen in a "show". But, somehow these shows manage to garner a lot of public attention. Whether it is for ruining kids' lives by subjecting them to unwarranted, extremely critical, rebuttals of performances aimed at increasing ratings; or trained judges opposing each other just for the heck of opposing, bringing their idiosyncrasies and idiotic theories to the fore, to give the audience a laugh, again at the expense of the contestant. Or the controversy arousing game show where no one knows whether there is a lie detector or the lie detector is nothing but a sensation maximising device, which makes me wonder how a sane person would choose to contest - to be ridiculed on the one hand, or humiliated on the other -- really, it is a lose-lose situation for the celebrity contestant, amply exemplified by Vinod Kambli.

To top them all is the Indian Britney - Rakhee Sawant! Here's a girl who is willing to do anything, "any" thing, to be in the spotlight. No one had thus far slapped her boyfriend when he came to her home with a bouquet of flowers apologizing for some crap -- perfect recipe for brouhaha, live on TV! And in no one's case was the whole episode "filmized" with background scores suiting the mood of the scene. No woman had been so outspoken about her personal life - everyone needs some personal space. But not Rakhee (or Salman, for everyone knows everything about him) ! I am so fed up with all the news about reality shows and Rakhee Sawant, that the sadist in me has awoken, and I conjured up the perfect end to her televised swayamwar -- the selected groom rejecting her, live on TV! (evil grin)

Of hypocrites and narcissists...

 I was arguing with a friend the other day about mandatory military service. My stance was that it was OK for a government to impose such a rule, even in a democracy like India. My friend did not stop with must opposing it, but went on to call me a hypocrite for not having served in the army when I had the chance to do so. He then proposed his "theory" of no national boundaries in the world. Needless to say, I was amazed by his naivete.

 Here I try to justify my stance. And I write it as I would explain it to my friend - 

 In no way am I claiming that I am perfect. In fact, the hypothesis of this argument is my imperfectness -- a gap between what should be and what is. Therefore, instead of being accusatory, as in "You are doing this...", the tone here is actually remorseful, as in "We are doing this... Sadly!"

 I will now try to explain my ideology. I should forewarn you that most of this is a process of rudimentary thought in this direction, and you cannot hold me answerable to every minute detail. The crux however, I hope, will remain the same for a long time to come. I will start with a few things my theory is predicated on.

 First that all humans are equal. Irrespective of race, religion, caste, skin colour, hair colour, intelligence, smartness, smugness, snobbishness etc etc etc everyone is ideologically equal. It follows that if I believe me doing something is acceptable, I should be OK with anyone else doing it, for I am in no way special, and by extension I should be OK even if everyone does it. Therefore, whatever I do must be something that would not impede the functioning of the world if everyone else were also to do it. To clarify, in this framework, not following traffic rules is OK because if everyone were to do it, the system would be crippled.

 Secondly, I will work with majorities. That is to say that if I believe something holds for a majority, I will simply say it holds. In other words, I stick to the norm, and do not speak of deviations to either (or any of the) extremes. For example, I say "people are not suicidal" etc.

 It is well accepted that man is a social being. We have understood this from very early times,  dating back to the time when we first appeared on earth. Though there is no written proof, man is believed to have lived in communities right from the beginning. From the way civilizations have flourished and societies have evolved, it is clear that man, irrespective of where he lived, realised the importance of rules to be laid to help with peaceful co-existence within the society. The result was the complex systems in various societies, an example of which is the government. So while man was a social being, he was also not directly compatible for living in a society. "Artificial" rules were necessary to be enforced and followed. This is what is civilization in my opinion -- the acceptance to abide by rules not imposed by nature to allow you to live in communities without affecting the overall functioning of the community. That is to say that a system of government is one of the most important necessities for a civilized society. Wikipedia says that the earliest government was formed around 5000 years ago with the appearance of 'city states', which followed "relatively non-hierarchical" communities. Every civilization had a general hierarchy in the society, especially when it came to the governance of the people.

 From this history and common experience, I conclude that a hierarchical system is inevitable. In other words, a single system with no boundaries that includes everyone in the world will not work. The historical evidence I have cited earlier. Now I will try to illustrate this with some common examples. If the Indian government had no lower hierarchies, it would be responsible to clear the garbage on the road where you live. Can you imagine such a centralized system with no local subsystems actually accomplishing this task effectively and regularly? On a lower scale, can you imagine the CTO of a company handling every project without other people under him with smaller tasks on hand who report to him regularly? On a much smaller scale, can you imagine a single head for a family taking care of every need of every member of the family without anyone else's help? It is clear that a hierarchical system with division of responsibilities is inevitable.

 Given this, the establishment of countries with local responsibilities is a very acceptable system. I would also say that I am unimaginative to an extent that I cannot think of another viable alternative to this system. Note that every level in the hierarchy has local responsibilities. The corporator for your locality is responsible for clearing the garbages on all roads in your locality, the mayor of your city is responsible for various things in the city including ensuring proper working of the corporators of different localities, the chief minister and his cabinet responsible for proper functioning of your state and peaceful coexistence with other neighbouring states, the prime minister and the parliament responsible for the progress and prosperity of the nation along with maintaining amicable relationship with other countries etc, the countries of the world themselves agreeing to respect each other's sovereignty, tackling common problems of climate control, terrorism etc. I think of this as the mother taking care of food requirements of the family and the father ensuring that the mother has whatever she needs to fulfill her obligations and meeting his responsibilities himself. Note that a higher authority imposes constraints on the levels under it. A mayor's work depends (to some extent at least) on the chief minister's budget. A mother's cookery depends on the father's liking and salary. Also note that sometimes a lower system is entirely answerable for a certain responsibility. Once the father provides the money for the food, the mother is entirely responsible for the nutritious content and the taste of the food -- the father takes no blame if these are questionable. Similarly, the world community is not responsible for economic growth in some country -- this is left for the local national government to solve.

 From belonging to a certain subgroup of people comes a sense of 'ownership', so to say. It is "My family", "My locality", "My school", "My city" and "My country". A result of this relationship is the obligation to it. Responsibility for your family, a sense of belonging to your locality / city / country / society -- patriotism, a kind of pride about your alma mater etc. And as a result of this obligation, it is considered ethical to have an allegiance to each of these. To each of these to various extents, I agree, but there is no denial of the allegiance. This does not mean you cannot help other communities, but it definitely means that if you do not help when your "belongings" need help, then you'd be indulging in unethical behaviour. Note that like a mere sending of money to your parents is not all of your obligation to your family, a mere payment of tax is not all of your obligation to your country.

 With all this build up, I arrive at our specific topic of discussion -- as to whether one should be OK with a mandatory service at the army / police etc. In the wake of the Bombay events, everyone is worried about the security system in India. We accuse the government of not providing good enough security, of not having a well informed intelligence, of not doing enough to show that it is actually a government of the people for the people, but, let us take a moment to think about what we owe to the country before talking of what the country owes us. We have all heard news reports about the shortage of personnel in the armed forces and the police force in India, right? A Google search for "shortage police india" or "shortage army india" gives me all these news articles on this -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 . Note that link # 5 is a Pakistani website. Now even the terrorists know where our problem lies. Also note that ALL of these articles appeared before 26/11. Given this problem, if you were the government, what solution would you propose? I personally find the solution of mandatory army service for fixed duration (2 years, say) perfectly acceptable. While this would definitely put our lives on threat for a while, there is no other way out. You want to live peacefully without the fear of dying in a train, a hotel, a temple? Then serve in the army for 2 years, and you are assured of a better security for the rest of your life. Isn't that a good deal? I think it is.

 Now coming to your argument, rather name-calling. That I am a hypocrite because I am OK with mandatory army service whereas when I had a chance to serve in the army I shunned it. From my argument, you can see the rationale behind my opinion. A mandatory service puts my life in threat, sure. But, it is a system that works. I am sure that if I see the end of my service, I can rest assured that the security system is at least in good shape. Whereas on the other hand, when I have the option of choosing to go to the army, I would think twice before going because not only am I putting myself at threat, but also not contributing in any way to a change that will result in a working system. I obviously don't want to risk my life without gaining anything!

 Now you tell me, am I a hypocrite for my opinion? Or are you a narcissist who does not want any obligations himself, but wants someone else to bear the brunt?