On Light, Gravity and Inter-Galactic Travel Plans

Conventional wisdom is that light travels in a straight line. It is also wrong. This is not an outrageous claim and has been well known to anyone following Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The explanation is also rather simple and everything to do with gravity - yes, the same gravity we all were taught in high school.

This post is not to explain General Theory of Relativity (I gather that there are very few who understand it - so I'd imagine I don't). The post is around how we can actually travel across the universe without breaking the speed barrier. Current science puts the max. speed limit of any object at c - the speed of light. Weird things start to happen as an object approaches light speed - its mass becomes close to infinity, but more importantly, TIME STOPS for that object at the speed of light.

Meaning:
1) There is indeed a way to stay young forever and ever - just keep traveling at the speed of light.
2) The old Hindu mythology I read in my childhood often made references to a strange concept - that a second ("ek pal") for the Gods is equivalent of eons and eons of life here at Earth. They probably travel at a speed very close to light.

I digress. The cosmic problem is that the universe is so vast, it would take a near-infinite amount of time to get to its edges (at least 14 billion years traveling at light speed since that's the age of the universe as per the current scientific wisdom). Even to get to Andromeda Galaxy, the nearest galaxy to our Milky Way, it would take 2.5 million years when traveling at the speed of light.

So even if we devise a way to travel at the speed of light (and stop time, i.e. aging for us), it would still take 2.5 million years for a person to go explore Andromeda. That just seems useless.

I do think there is a way - and that we can rely on our old friend Gravity to help us here. You see, Gravity is nothing but a warp in space-time. Bigger the object, bigger the warp. See picture on the right (courtesy  (c) NASA).

The warp is what pulls nearby objects to the bigger object - objects essentially "fall" towards the bigger object. P.S. If you are curious why Earth just doesn't fall into Sun, it's because of the angular momentum Earth has (google for more info).

Here is the important piece though - Light travels along the warp created by gravity.  It doesn't travel in a straight line but along the curve (warp). Now this has some huge implications, one of which is gravitational lensing, allowing us to see galaxies that are hidden behind other galaxies (again, google it).

So how is this relevant to my inter-galactic travel plans. Well, you see, gravity is directly proportional to the mass of an object. So, my gravitational warp is less than that of Earth's, and the Earth's is less than that of Sun's. Imagine the gravitational warp that'd be created by the galaxies themselves - Milky Way and Andromeda. 


And light has to follow the warp to get from Milky Way to Andromeda - in other words, light is taking really the long, curvy route to get between these two galaxies. See picture on the right.




What if we figure out a way for us to travel really using the shortest path, and not along the gravitational warp (i.e. not along the path light takes). Then the distance we'd have to travel will be cut down massively. The reduction in distance will be proportional to the mass of the two objects we are trying to travel between. Given that galaxies are massive, the reduction in distance would also be massive when we travel using the shortest path.

The key issue is that we would be traveling across a completely new (as yet undetermined and undiscovered) vector, since the space-time vectors we know are warped (curved). I imagine it is only a matter of time (?) we find that vector. And then, off we go to Andromeda and beyond.

While on the subject, think about the gravitational warp created by the whole universe itself (meaning all the objects in it combined). I'd imagine the warp to be so deep, and the distance for light to travel from our universe to perhaps an adjacent universe so long, that for all practical purposes, our universe would appear as a block hole to another universe!

Selling FREE STUFF in lieu of FREEDOM - A Perspective on US Presidential Election 2016

There is a place where people can get free food, free housing, free medical services. No, that place is not a utopia. It is called a PRISON!

You see, it is indeed possible to get free stuff just as long as you mortgage your freedom. This is as much true at an individual level as it is at a societal level. It is just that it takes time for this to be realized at a societal level. Thankfully(?) we have seen this numerous times in the recent past. Let's just take two examples:

At its simplest, the entire communist system can be summarized thus - people mortgage their entire decision making authority and freedom to a central authority (party, politician, council whatever). In return, that central authority promises to take care of all the people - food, education, health and so on. Millions of people have found this idea appealing (and millions still do). There is only one problem - it doesn't work as evidenced by Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany and so on (if you thought China, it is one of the most capitalistic economies currently with an exceptionally large private business, with Ali Baba, Foxconn etc. as examples).

Socialism, the half-brother of Communism, is essentially in the same economic boat. It allows politicians to promise everything free but creates a society where nothing is ever available. Look at post-independence India as its biggest example (of failure). Within 44 years of independence, all the free stuff promised brought India to its bankruptcy. India was saved only by the political chutzpah of PM Narsimha Rao and mastery of Manmohan Singh, one of the best finance ministers India has ever seen.

One of the greatest mysteries to me is how people ignore all of these recent events, and want to march towards their next road to serfdom. Just look at the United States and the ongoing political debates. Here is what I see (this is a selective view):

1. A march towards Socialism, big government and in general, FREE STUFF - Of course, we all like free stuff. I'd very much like if government can take care of my medical expenses, my kids' education etc. But I also know(from history) that NOTHING IS FREE. I may not be mortgaging my immediate freedom but I sure would be selling my kid's future to get these free stuff. Do you want your country to become the next Venezuela, or remain the United States.

2. A march towards lawlessness - It is often useful to stretch an argument to its extremes to see if it makes sense there. If it doesn't, one should immediately become suspicious of that argument. And that's what I am - suspicious - of arguments that profess that US must provide a path to citizenship to its 11 million illegal immigrants because it would be too time consuming, too inhuman to take legal actions on them. Really? So, if the numbers of criminals (drugs, sex, murder - pick your crime) become large, we should just forget about them because pursuing all of them would break too many families? Have you ever stood in line, and experienced the frustration when others break the line and get ahead? Well, then you know the frustration of LEGAL immigrants in the US with the current discourse on immigration.

3. A mindset of entitlements - $15/hour minimum wage is a reality in California, promising effectively a 50% raise to many workers over the next six years. Good for all of them. Guess who is not getting a 50% raise - everybody else. So essentially everyone else just had their effective buying power reduced, by government dictum. I have a simple question - why $15/hour? Why not $100/hour or $1000/hour? Imagine some government official sitting at their desk deciding what's the minimum private enterprises should pay to their workers, and you have imagined the stepping stone to road to serfdom.

4. The rise of religious nutcases - For the first time in decades, US is seeing a return of measles, thanks to a sustained anti-vaccine movement by nutcases. States are actively promulgating laws making discrimination to LGBTs legal on the pretext of religious freedom. So if I form a religion that professes slavery, misogyny, discrimination etc, it would be okay? In the same vein, religious fanatics are routinely making it harder for women to control their bodies and health. And these people are allegedly for "less government" except when it comes to women issues.

Freedom is precious. Millions of our ancestors have lost their lives so we can live in a free society. We are privileged to be born and live in a world (at least in most countries) where we can take freedom for granted. We shouldn't. The most important gift we can give our next generations is the gift of freedom. Let's not mortgage our kids' futures for our comfort and political correctness today.

India trip: KLM's costly delay, Jet Airways corruption and the high-fives

During my recently concluded India trip, a few things stood out that I thought were worth calling out:

1. KLM systems are inefficient and probably need an upgrade.
The longer version: Our SFO-AMS flight was timely. However, our AMS-DEL flight, that was initially on time, kept getting delayed, first by two hours and then by four hours. Now, flight delays are not uncommon. What I thought was remarkable (sic) was the lack of empathy one of the ground staff showed to the weary passengers.

After the first delay information (of two hours), we asked how it would impact the flight arrival time in Delhi. Clearly many of us had onward journeys from Delhi and hence wanted to make arrangements if needed. We were very clearly told that there would be NO IMPACT on arrival time.This was obviously great news and we laid easy.

Then, after two hours, the flight got delayed by an additional two hours. Just to be sure, I again asked for the anticipated arrival time in Delhi. This time, I was told that arrival in Delhi would be delayed by FOUR HOURS. This was a surprise for us since just some time back, the attendant had informed us that there would be no delay in arrival time due to the first two hour delay. So why this four hour delay in arrival just with an additional two hour delay in departure.

The answer could have been (and as it turned out, it was) that the original information about "NO IMPACT on arrival time" was wrong. However, the attendant really got pissed off at me for asking what I thought was a reasonable and logical clarification. She refused to accept that just a few minutes back, her own system was showing NO IMPACT on arrival due to the original two-hour departure delay.

Any way, another attendant came to our rescue and apologized for the original mistake. Good for her, not so much for me though. I had to cancel my current DEL-IDR flight, getting only 20% of the original amount back. Then, I had to book another flight, at THREE times the original price. So in summary, I ended up paying 3.8X of the price, thanks to a KLM goof up. And because I was travelling with my spouse and our kid, the damage was amplified 3X. Ouch! Thanks KLM...

2. (Unexpected) corruption shown by Jet Airways Delhi Ground staff
The general feeling in India is that the public services have endemic corruption, the private services are generally clean. General day to day encounters in India typically reinforce this. So it was a great surprise (and dismay) when I experienced first hand corruption in Jet Airways, one of India's premier airline carriers. Here is how it went:
After reaching Delhi, we proceeded to check in with Jet Airways to fly to Indore. Yes, this is the ticket we had booked at 3X the original price, thanks to the KLM delay I covered above in part one. At the check in counter, we were told that we had about 15KGs of extra luggage. This was not a surprise to me since we had weighed ealier and knew the domestic flight luggage rules. The conversation went like this:
Jet Airways check-in staff - Sir, you have about 15 KGs of extra luggage. This will cost you about Rs 5000.
Me - Yes, fine.
Staff - How much can you pay?
Me - I have already paid a lot for the tickets. Perhaps you can take that into consideration and reduce the price.
Staff - Ok, how much can you pay?
Me - you tell me...
Staff - How about Rs 3000
Me - Sure. I took out Rs 3000 in cash and attempted to give him in full public view at the counter.
Staff - No, no, don't pay here. Go with that person (pointing to the baggage handler).

He completes the formalities (even adds priority to my baggage). Then the baggage handler takes to a side and signals me to hand over the cash, which I do. He slyly pockets it.

This entire episode is happening right in front of everyone, a very busy series of check-in counters. Although small, this episode of corruption was sad to see happening at Jet Airways. I can only hope this was a one-off.

In contrast, I must mention the following five positive service interactions (the high-fives):
i) I was able to submit paperwork for my land mutation formalities in Bangalore (Mugalur Gram Panchayat office) without any bribe. The officer was especially helpful and considerate.
ii) The security guard at my housing complex in Bangalore refused to accept a tip of Rs 100 for a small favor he did for me. To put this in perspective, these guards are very poorly paid and Rs 100 is a reasonably high amount of money for them. Still, he didn't accept the tip.
iii) The bell boy at Royal Orchid hotel (Whitefield) also refused to accept any tip for bringing my luggage up. Very pleasing experience.
iv) On my return, the Indigo ground staff in Patna promptly charged me Rs 5000 for my excess luggage.
v) The KLM flight crew during my return flight (both DEL-AMS, and AMS-SFO) were very kind and considerate, especially towards our 5-year old. Thank you!

So overall? Well, I guess a generally positive travel experience except for an unnecessary deep hole left in my pocket due to KLM flight delay and mis-communication.

Next blog on my Indian Railways experience and how a Railway GM delayed my already late train by another hour.

No Country for White Men

Like most people, I listen to the public radio (NPR/KQED  San Francisco Bay Area) while commuting to work and back every day. On most days, the (obvious) liberal bias is annoying but on some days, the bias is so strong it leaves me frothing with frustration. The liberal narrative makes it appear as if all the problems in the world can be blamed on USA, and in particular, on its white population.

And I am not even white.

Sample some of the narratives in the recent times:

Black Lives Matter 

Of course they matter! But doesn't this movement sound exclusionary, at least a little bit. What if I substitute "Black" with "White", or "Christian". "White Lives Matter" is so Ku-Klaxian, the liberal media would have certainly been horrified should such an organization was forming anywhere - and rightfully so. But then why is saying BLM ok? Imagine being a white person being told in your face day-in day-out that "BLACK Lives Matter". Wouldn't a sense of frustration start building up - slowly yet surely.

Instead, can we look at the media and prominent black organizations to change the narrative to "All Lives Matter" - something that is more inclusive and that we can all associate with.

Shooting Tragedies

Am I the only one to have noticed a distinct difference between the media narratives describing different kinds of shootings. In case of police shootings, even though more whites die at the hands of police, the liberal media only wakes up when the headline reads "WHITE police office shot and killed a black...". To be clear, this is not an apology for the despicable murders some police officers seem to have committed from what we can see in videos circulating in the public media. But it begs the question - why does the liberal media wake up only in one situation. What about cases where blacks are murdered by blacks - something that accounts for the vast majority of black deaths? Why is there a near-zero outcry about crime rate of Chicago - a city governed by democrats since 1931, and that is now synonymous with crime and corruption. Isn't the silence of liberal media on utter failure of a once-great-city under the democrats incredibly dishonest at best and racist at worst? 

Ideological nut cases driven tragedies

This is where the liberal media really shines in their bigotry. Should the perpetrator be anyone other than radical islamists, they will make it clear in their opening statement that the perpetrator was a "". People start going crazy blaming gun-owners so much so they don't even want them praying for the victims.  However if there is the slightest hint of radical islamism at play, the great liberal media circus starts, with them doing every kind of gymnastics just to avoid stating the obvious. The latest tragedy in San Bernardino caught even the POTUS off-guard with his completely orthogonal and nonsensical response. 

How many times have we heard the line "let's be clear, a vast majority of muslims are peace-loving..." in an effort to not generalize the issue. And THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO - Of course, we can't blame an entire community for the actions of a few nut-jobs. But why can't the liberal media follow the same standards when the shooter is a white gun-owner, in which case they seem ever so enthusiastic to generalize the entire gun-owning population. 

We are not going to have gun reforms by vilifying a large part of our population. 

Illegal Immigration

The left does their best to conflate legal immigration with illegal. As Douglas Murray put so eloquently, there is a big difference between the two - the law is on the side of one and NOT on the side of other. USA is still considered the land of opportunities by many, and it draws talent from around the world. However, to come here, most of them follow the laid-down process, a process that is lengthy, excruciating, and sometimes seemingly unfair. But following the process should be the ONLY way to get here. However the liberal media talks endlessly about the plight of illegals. The politically correct term I believe is "undocumented", as if it is merely an issue of documentation. Platitudes like "no human being is illegal" are thrown around. Of course that's true. Should we then invite about 30% of India's poor and nearly whole of Africa as well? The bastion of liberal hypocrisy, NY Times, has nothing but disdain for Indian IT workers affecting 250 jobs at Disney and yet their complete and active support for the 11 million illegals here. 

It is no wonder the liberal media can't get their head around Donald Trump's appeal (they have been predicting his demise for ages now). If you are a white guy, sick of getting liberal hypocrisy shoveled in your face every morning and evening, you would even consider a guy as blunt as Trump for President. 

I consider myself a liberal progressive, the kind that believes in freedom of speech, human and constitutional rights, less government, women's and LGBT rights, freedom of and from religion, environmental protection etc. Alas, today's "liberals" are mostly the leftists of yesterday's - an ideology that completely failed in the twentieth century and resulted in unspeakable misery for almost half of humanity. They are not progressives but regressives. The true liberals amongst us must speak up and claim the right liberal narrative. We cannot let NPR and NYT turn USA into USSR.

Free Electoral Promises - Signs of a decaying society

Free food, free medical access, free education, free retirement plans - the lure of the free stuff is overwhelmingly compelling to the voters. So it is with awe and admiration I look at political systems where the debate has not degenerated into who can promise the most stuff free.

The path of "free" is also the shortest path to poverty of a country and its economy. What's more, societies with a lot of free promises are also the societies with the least freedom. That politicians still promise free stuff after the failed Soviet experiment (communism is the epitome of a society with free promises and the least freedom) speaks to how quickly collective amnesia takes over a society.

Now we can all agree that everyone should have enough to live a healthy and productive life. The only question is how do we make that possible at a societal scale. Some (many?) argue the way to be to just give the stuff away - make everything a right - food, housing, medical care, education and so on. This is all very hearty but what you get is East Germany, USSR, even India pre-liberalization - where everything is free and nothing is available.

The other approach is what USA showed the world - you want stuff, you work for it. At some level, this is cold-hearted and doesn't jive with the goody mushy feeling we yearn for. But this system produced the most prosperous society on earth in merely a couple of hundred years of its existence (and yes among other and some horrible things as well but not unlike other societies that have had their own issues). Compare that to societies that are hundreds and thousands of years old, and are still trying a way to figure out a way to bring mass scale prosperity to their societies or are looking at slow but sure decline in living standards in decades to come.

It is in this context that I fear the whole democratic party rhetoric currently underway. Their platform and message is simple and goes along the lines of "you should have a right to a good life and we will fulfill that by making things free for you." Never mind that they have no clue about where they'd get the money from (except that they will raise taxes more). I sure hope they are sane enough to appreciate that people (doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers) won't just show up for work without being paid, just in the name of the greater good of the society.

You would think given the Democratic rhetoric, it would be easy to pick the Republicans with their commitment to fiscal discipline, small government and focus on economic activity as an engine of wealth generation. Alas, they have done their best to portray themselves as the party of people leaving in cuckoo-land. In this day & age, what mainstream nitwit politician advocates against women's right to make decisions about their own health, and against gay rights. Whatever small government they want, they want that meddling in women's affairs. The so-called pro-lifers need to get a life. The travesty of the GOP presidential debate was not the tough questions Kelly asked Trump, it was that she didn't expose Walker and Huckabee for the regressive positions they take on abortion. "I'd like you to keep your legislative hands off my body" would have been a nice straight line from Kelly.

Please America, don't lose your working soul. Don't be under any illusion that you are somehow special - you are not. Your system and work ethic is what makes you special. Barter that for the promise of free stuff, and you get nothing but a society of moochers. 

Je suis CHARLIE

Over the last few days, it has been encouraging to watch the mainstream international/western media debate. It appears as though the liberals are finally realizing that ignoring or dancing around an issue doesn't make it automatically go away. In fact, it can come to bite them (and all of us) as it did in France. The sad part is that it took out the bravest amongst the media.

There have been attempts to paint Charlie Hebdo as a racist, right wing organization. It was/is exactly 180-degree opposite - this group is so far to the left, it is actually one of the most trenchant critic of Marine La Pen and her right wing French party. The fact is that Charlie Hebdo is one of the few LIBERAL media organizations in the truest sense of the word - they regularly lampoon the powerful, and regularly challenge the authority of the most powerful opium the human race ever had - religion.

It hasn't even been a few days and there are already apologists popping up for the cowardly massacre. And this group is an eclectic one - from Financial Times to OutlookIndia columnists to the so-called (a few) religious spokespersons. Excuses vary but here are the major ones I have come across in media so far:

Excuse 1: Charlie Hebdo had it coming when it chose to publish beyond the boundaries allowed by religions. It is such a medieval argument, it almost seems like we still live in a theocratic society, not secular one.

Excuse 2: Charlie Hebdo murders are a result of Western invasion of the Middle-east, or segregation of minorities or something else, anything but what the murderers expressly said during the attack - they were avenging printing of cartoons (not fighting for Palestine, not fighting for better social conditions, nothing). We have to start challenging the victim-mindset put forth by the apologists. One can only blame the world so much.

Excuse 3: Charlie Hebdo is racist. No, it is not. Charlie Hebdo lampoons religions, not races (two entirely different things). It's cartoons are filled with caricatures of multiple religious figures. And while it is perfectly alright not to agree with them, to ignore them or to lampoon Charlie Hedbo in return, physically harming in any for, least of all by murdering their staff has to be criticized unreservedly.

The event is so appalling, it has been condemned by major religious leaders of all denominations, as it should. But my clearest ray of hope actually came from the President of Egypt, when he talked to the religious leaders about the need for a religious revolution, no less. He gave that speech before the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Alas! His message didn't reach the French brothers soon enough. Here are some excerpts from his speech

Freedom of Expression is not and cannot be a grey area. Putting it in a grey area harms not the powerful but the very weak. Answer to a satire is another satire, answer to a book is another book - not guns, machetes or bombs. Charlie Hebdo is a grim reminder - we must all defend our freedom of expression actively and not leave it to just the few among us to carry the weight for all of us lest we want them to keep getting buried under that weight.

Religious Conversions - The Capitalist Way

A religious conversion, for all the hullabaloo around it, is nothing more than changing a service provider, like changing your mobile carrier. And so it is only fair that they compete just as hard for our business as these companies do. And if we are not happy with their service, we should be able to switch from one to another.

Now many religions spend billions on promoting (marketing) their religions and luring people to come to their fold. They deploy all the classical marketing tricks - word of mouth, material inducements, even going as far as promising a better after-life (something that no other service/product industry does today). With all due respect though I'd submit that the religion marketing has fallen behind the curve. What they need is a focused hiring effort of the best and brightest MBAs who can then design marketing promos.Being a proud MBA myself, I couldn't resist the urge to suggest a few ideas but I am sure there are far more and far better ones:

Creamy Caste - Feel good about yourself immediately and get the right to look down upon hundreds of millions of people simply by joining us right at the top of our vicious caste system.

Sainthood Surprise - Get sainthood in five years flat (fast track available for enough dough). May require a trip and short stay in some third world country, and some imbeciles who can attest to the magical powers you obviously possess, like healing cancer with your mere touch.

V for Virgins - 72 of them when you join us and then kill some infidels. Especially targeted towards young college grads having a tough time getting a date. Special promo season could be just after Valentines Day.

Bring Your Own God - Not happy with your current God. Well, join us to choose a God of your own from the existing 330 million we have. You can even create your own. More the merrier - we are good in numbers.

One is not enough - Not happy with just one wife? We understand your medieval tendencies and especially designed our religion for you where you can come and enjoy as many wives as you want. Fine print - you may have to leave your country and relocate. We are working tirelessly to make polygamy a universal rule and are currently fighting our opponents around the world.

Pedophile's paradise - We understand your love for children and have special jobs designed just for you. You can brainwash the parents, have their children and be respected all at the same time. Deal?

An open market for religions would also bring out some much needed competitive intelligence. Religions can hire investigative journalists who can shine light on what promises are actually being fulfilled and what are simply hogwash. Imagine a headline stating "9/11 attackers denied their virgins - God ruled that the killings were haraam" or "A convert promised moksha re-born with village buffoons as parents, God ruled he must study Science in this life to improve his chances". Oh the possibilities are limitless, just like our universe.

Like I have said before, I am all for conversions. In fact, just like I can chose either Pepsi or Coke or both depending on my mood, I should be able to change and chose my religion based on what's best suited for the moment - need to eat beef for lunch, become a Muslim; want that bacon for breakfast, embrace Christianity. As a deeply religious man who never does things proscribed by his religion of the moment, my moksha, with a place in all heavens and with all their accouterments seems certain. The worst that can happen is I might be asked to leave one heaven for the next from time to time - seems like a good deal, it will keep away the boredom. Wanna join my Just in Time Religion?

Are Atheists smarter than people believing in God

Innumerable debates have been organized between champions of atheists and people believing in God. Watching them, one almost feels sorry for the people representing God because invariably the organizers bring some religious leader to represent people believing in God.

Is religion the only way to represent God?

Atheists have a field day making fun of religion and some of the ideas/stories that form their foundations. Rightfully so. The foundations are so shaky and ridiculous - virgin birth, denial of evolution, sexist and violent books - that they are simply indefensible in any debate.

The real debate, which I am yet to come across, should be between Atheists and Agnostics. It may also be a difficult one since they would agree on so many things except on one question - is their a higher power guiding this universe?

The scientific quest for the origin of universe continues. It is simply awe inspiring to hear people like Lawrence Krauss talk about what we know about the origins of universe, could universe have started from NOTHING, what happened during the Big Bang etc. The question that no one has answered yet is what was their before the Big Bang, or what was beyond the boundary of the object that exploded (Big Bang), where is universe expanding to. There is so much that is unknown today. Atheists like Richard Dawkins have admitted repeatedly that they dont have the answers and that they are working on them. It is here where Agnostics can state that while even they don't have the answers, a belief in a higher power devoid of any religious baggage is perfectly rational. God in this case would be a hypothesis which cannot be proved or disproved. Your final position/inference will be exactly the same as your initial hypothesis.

Now a belief in Agnosticism, one can argue, can lead down a slippery slope. If you believe in a higher power, what does it do, how does that power affect your lives, why was this universe "created", what's the purpose etc. There are obviously no answers yet but perhaps more importantly, there is no good reason to believe that the higher power is even bothered with our Milky Way, much less about our solar system, or about Earth or about humans as a species (of the millions that exist). It is simply conceited to think ourselves as the center of anyone's attention, higher power or not.

I am very open to hearing arguments that disprove the existence of a higher power beyond a reasonable doubt. Until them, I must say it is a coin toss.

Religious Conversions - From One Mirage to the Next

2014, IMHO, has been a watershed year as far as debate on religions go. One only needs to search in youtube to get some very fascinating debates - one religion vs. another, religion vs. atheism et al. If you haven't, look for Bill Maher, Douglas Murray, Majid Nawaaj, Richard Dawkins, Anjem Chaudhary, Athaar Khan etc. The discussions are thoughtful and highly entertaining to say the least.

The ongoing debate in India around conversions (and re-conversions) towards the end of 2014 has been an icing on the cake, so to say.

Now conversions are not new. Some of the major religions in the world openly propagate it and thrive on it. It has been going on for centuries. And while I firmly believe and openly profess the right of a person to believe in anything, and follow whatever path he/she thinks is the right one, I cannot but wonder what kind of a person (the preacher or the converter) would ask someone to forego his/her current religion and join a new one. That person, the converter, has to be a BIGOT or an IDIOT.

There is no way to sugarcoat this. You see, at the heart of the conversion inducement lies a fundamental assumption - that my religion is better than yours! Really, in this day and age, if someone says "my religion is better than yours", either he/she is a complete nincompoop or a vile scheming bigot. There are no other categories I can think of.

If a person decides to leave his/her religion of his/her own volition and go to the next one, there may be some understandable reasons. I will give a few but the list could be really long:

- Caste - If you belong to one of the so-called lower castes, there may be good reasons to embrace a different religion. All Hindus who love their religion need to wake up and realize that calling/treating some Hindus as "lower caste" is self-annihilating. Self respecting people will simply walk away as they should.

- Gender - Need I even say anything. All religions give women the short end of the stick. Some societies have moved away from the barbarism, some follow it today and some would like to get back to it! For females, the best alternative seems to be to show their middle fingers to this entire religion thing and let the males squirm. Pity is that it is the females who seem to be conditioned the most to follow their religions (and accept their second class citizenship status) from early childhood. They hold their religions on their shoulders oblivious of the fact that it is religion that has been burying them down for centuries.

- The Books - Living by the diktats of books that were meant for life in ancient/medieval times might insult some people's intelligence. Most people simply ignore those books, as they should. However if your society judges you by your degree of adherence to medieval books and ideas, it might be time to say goodbye to your religion altogether.

- The Followers - If your co-religionists make you uncomfortable, you can either fight them and make them irrelevant, or ignore them (but for how long), or leave your religion. Would you want to continue to be part of a group whose ideas you no longer identify yourself with.

There could be obviously many other reasons. In fact, I would aver that most people simply don't leave/change their religions out of inertia. They are too busy with their lives to care about it. However we all have to decide what kind of society we want to leave for our children. If we believe in something, we should raise our voice for it. If we don't agree with something, we should fight against it. Silence in this day and age is a privilege we don't have.

Indian Politics - I'm lovin it

Alternative 1:
Sonia G, Manmohan ji, Laloo ji, Digvijay ji, Karunanidhi ji, Raja ji, Devegowda ji, Yedi ji, Advani ji, Mulayam ji, et al

Alternative 2:
Modi, Nitish, Kejriwal, Shivraj,  - the list is short but hopefully growing (can Rahul ji make it to this ji-less list here?)

The fact that the political discourse in India is changing from a fight between "ji vs. ji vs. ji" to "tea seller vs. Engg. vs. IRS officer" is something that few would have contemplated even a decade back. The change is momentous. The first group focuses on who to give special privileges, who is exempt from paying tolls at toll gates (Vadra ji) while the second group clamors to do away with special privileges (Kejriwal has started it but I expect the second group to follow suit).

The first group professes a politics of entitlements and divisions of an existing cake (this or that group has first right to India's natural resources) while the second group works to make the cake bigger and better, so all and sundry can benefit. The first group throws freebies to win elections, selling the future for today's votes while the second group works for a better future.

The first group believes in "managing elections" (Digvijay Singh) while the second group works to widen its appeal amongst one and all, with their own unique methods. Mainstream media survives like a pest in a symbiotic relationship with the first group. The second group largely survives on its own PR by leveraging social media.

By no means the above generalizations about both the groups are 100% accurate (e.g. some in the second group also believe in entitlements). But in my view, they do largely represent the differences between the two groups.

Once the political battle is won (elections), next comes the economic battle. Leaders in the second group will have to show that they have an economic vision for India. Can they generate jobs? Can they engender entrepreneurship? Can they make India rich with economic activity? So far, only a few have shown the economic astuteness while a few are still playing with the politics of entitlements.

Regardless of how this goes, I will take an India where the battle is among Modi and Nitish and Kejriwal any day over an India where the battle is among Sonia G and Advani ji and Mulayam ji.

Perspective - Never lose

Work

The security guards, manning every apartment in Bangalore... I can't begin to imagine their lives. If you live in a typical Bangalore apartment (as I did), chances are it is manned by just two guards, one in day and one in night. 12 hours each. Bad, but not so much you say. After all, don't we all work 10-12 hour days. Yes, of course. Except that we also get our weekends. Now these guards, they get their day off too, but that means the other guard has to be on duty for a full 24 hours - and if you do the math, you will see they dont quite get a full day off, its just a half day off, every week.

Every time, I felt I was overworked, or that my work was mundane, looking and greeting my guards helped me put things in perspective.

Family

You cannot spend enough time with... And yet, we all know every relationship has their ups and downs. Life can get monotonous and so can being in a relationship. When we were young, we thought our parents were too much drag. Now that we are the parents, we often have our own issues. And yet, any day I have to leave my family to travel on business, for even a few days, it seems like forever. On my way back, I literally run the last few steps. Is distance good for relationships? I don't know. I suppose its like elastic - the further you pull, the more force there is between the ends to get together. But pull it more and it just breaks... If your work doesn't come in the way of you spending every night with your family, thank your stars and count yourself as the luckiest few.

Career

There was a (profane) line I picked up while watching a Hindi movie sometime back - jiski chalti hai, uski ga*nd par mombatti jalti hai. Loosely translated - people with authority often have their ass on fire.
The more I watch people around me with real authority, the more I see them being in constant stress. It is amazing how there is no end to this cycle. Authority breeds paranoia. Everybody has a boss to please regardless of who you are. Even CEOs and entrepreneurs have boards or investors to answer to. So while you go for that promotion and bask in that limelight, remember, as you get closer to the flame, the temperature only increases.

By the way, here is a closing thought experiment - what happens if all the farmers (and meat producers), world over, decide to go on a strike for a year? If they plan it right, they will have enough grain to last them for the strike year, which means anybody who is not directly involved in production of food (60-70% of world's population) is in trouble - people in manufacturing and services economy - people who are relatively well off today. Because there is no food being sold, no one is buying any cars, laptops/tablets or even gold. Money loses value and we go back to barter system. Hmmm, how much grain do you think that code or presentation will buy you.

Perspective is precious - don't lose it.

The Enslaved Indian Mindset

While watching the movie adaptation of "The Sign of Four" on a lazy Sunday afternoon, two thoughts occurred to me -

ONE: The great loot of India by the British was not done just at an institutional level but also at a personal level. It was a free for all wherein individual British citizens residing in India had an opportunity to amass for themselves wealth that they would not have dreamt of before. This mass loot was in no doubt aided and abetted by the Kings of India and their subjects who provided an easy access to India's wealth by concentrating the riches of the land in their own small confines, in their palaces where a stronger power could easily come and partake of the jewels - without scavenging every city, village and home which could have been an impossible task for any foreign power.

TWO: Even with all the wealth in the world, and all the men at its disposal, India failed miserably to guard itself and its freedom. Invaders, with a small militia, starting with Ghazni and followed by Ghori, Nadir Shah and the British among others, could always come to India at their will, loot its wealth, destroy its places of worship, treat its citizens inhumanely and return, only to come back again and repeat their acts. Contrast that with the British who fought against Hitler valiantly, and the Soviets who died like cattle but still held on to Stalingrad in WW2.

An easy explanation of this recurring (pathetic) behaviour of Indians can be that Indians at that time were divided among numerous kingdoms, each with their own small little armies, big egos and were constantly fighting among each other, thus making themselves weak. That would be just partly correct, if at all. After all, even with a thousand princely states, for a country as big as India, there would be enough people in each of those states to take on the invaders single-handedly.

No, there is an easier explanation. For the vast majority of Indians, it simply did not matter who the ruler was, for it had no bearing on their well-being. They could care less if a Nadir Shah was coming and fighting their king, their king was doing scarce little for them anyway. This majority was comprised of the farmers, the landless labourers and the untouchables (at that time). From an economic standpoint, while this class of people broke their backs working in their fields, the kings and their subjects amassed wealth for themselves. Why should the farmers take up arms if their king was in danger of losing his kingdom - good for the bastard, time to pay for his sins (and all the atrocities his men had committed on them).

From a socio-cultural standpoint, the majority of the people at the bottom rungs of Indian caste hierarchy gained little from the then prevalent system, a system that gave little respect to a vast majority of them. Why should the untouchables get agitated if a certain Ghori was looting a temple - they were not allowed in that temple in the first place all their lives. Let Ghori loot all he could - as long as he didn't come into their homes, not that he would find anything worth looting in there.

In all, there is a fairly simple explanation to India's continuous desecration by foreigners for the most part of 2nd millennium AD. And there are two vital lessons - don't let a few amass your country's wealth (a distributed wealth is nearly impossible to loot); and treat your people at the bottom of the pyramid with respect (give them a reason to protect their motherland).

Those who know me, know that I am a staunch believer in free enterprise, and have nothing but contempt towards communism. And yet for free enterprise to be successful and benefit the majority, we must be watchful against crony capitalism. I believe and can see that twenty first century India is inching towards a system based on free enterprise, albeit slowly. Hundreds of millions remain under poverty but millions have come out of it in the last 20 years. This is a good sign.

However the caste system in India remains entrenched as before, and much to my dismay, the situation has not become better even with rising education levels. In fact, some of the educated lot I come across are the most vicious proponents of casteism, forming their own exclusive clubs. Our politicians across all party lines feed on this division among people. But there is no point in blaming the politicians - we get the leaders we deserve (and vote for). The current system of reservations, while providing some benefits, perpetuates the caste division. We have to strive for a system and a society where reservations themselves become meaningless - by providing educational opportunities to each and every child to rise to the very top, and by allowing private enterprise to create jobs free of bureaucratic shackles.

If Indians can do this, they would have learnt something from their own history, and make this third millennium theirs. As I see it, return to the golden age is predicated upon if we can unshackle our enslaved minds of our rigid caste hierarchies. It is that simple!

Owaisi and Right of Speech

Right of speech and expression must be absolute. If we don't believe in that, then we essentially are in the same category as the fanatics with only difference being in the shades. The spoken or written word, however harsh and insensitive, never does any physical damage. Physical damage requires physical action and any criminal physical action must be dealt with swiftly under the auspices of law. But should we stop people from expressing their opinions. No. Not even if the opinions are as crude as that of Owaisi. For, the moment we draw a subjective line, that line keeps moving, increasingly restricting people's right of expressing themselves, inevitably resulting in a state where even the simplest of remarks is an affront to someone's sensibilities.

For me,  Owaisi's right to insult Hindus is the same as that of Rushdie's to write Satanic Verses; Tasleema Nasreen's right to write is as sacrosanct as Mullah's right to preach. It must be understood - there is no middle ground. The theory that neither Owaisi should say bad things about Hindus nor sartorial cartoons about Muhammad be published by a newspaper - i.e. let's all just shut ourselves up - is essentially the quickest route to serfdom and a police state. Our much vaunted freedom amounts to zilch and we don't deserve it if we don't recognize others right to unqualified expression. And I am deeply pained by the popular intellectual discourse (at least in media) being that a middle ground (everybody just shut up) is the right way. Middle grounds are useful in some circumstances but think about it, if you want a daughter and your wife a son, do you settle for a eunuch? Exactly.

Now, a pertinent question arises with absolute right of expression - political and religious leaders use it to incite their communities to violence. So how can an absolute right be granted. Wouldn't that lead to anarchy. Yes, but only if we deserve it. Just because some imbecile is asking me to kill Hindus/Muslims/another human being, shall I go ahead and do it. If you get influenced by such imbeciles, you are one yourself. We must very strongly lay the responsibility of one's actions where it belongs - on the individuals. If as an individual one has the absolute freedom of speech, one also must bear the complete responsibility for one's actions.

By putting Owaisi in jail, govt. is only going to increase his popularity. What would have been helpful is to have some other leader, Muslim or otherwise, to come out and give a speech challenging each of Owaisi's arguments. Do we not have a single leader today who believes in the idea of India as a syncretic culture, a land of billion people, a million gods, thousands of customs and vernaculars, hundreds of castes and sects, tens of faiths but one India. That would be the real tragedy.

Hold Judiciary Accountable!

Yes, for the rape and eventual death of the girl whose story got told, and for the rapes and deaths of girls whose stories never got told. Judiciary, seen as the last standing bastion of people power in India is actually the most vicious and unaccountable arm of Indian democracy. It hasnt changed much since the British established it. Result - millions of pending cases with inarduously tortuous wait for justice for the people. It serves only and exclusively the powerful, ironically precluding the disadvantaged with its slow pace of delivering justice.

Who is judiciary accountable to. The much maligned politicians have to go in peoples court  every five years. The much disgraced police work at the whims and fancies of their political masters. But Judiciary is accountable to none. They also have that contempt law allowing them the power to put you in jail if you display a problem with their grand pronouncements.Politicians are way too afraid of them because most have pending court cases against them. This lack of accountability has resulted in the current situation where law has lost its power of deterrence. Rape all you want - I still have a million cases before I get to yours, ie, if I get to yours at all. If you are lucky, you will die your natural death before we get to sentence you - thats what our much revered Indian judiciary says to criminals. This is not merely a figment of my imagination. This is the reality.

Lets take some obvious examples. What on earth is Supreme court doing about Babri mosque dispute. Do they even have the will to pronounce the judgment. Or are they waiting for the stars to align. How about Sikh, Godhra, post Godhra massacres. In many of those massacres, rape was committed at massive scale. The ones who died got releived of their misery, the ones who live still suffer their pain and humiliation. When will they get justice.

 We often hold our Judiciary in high regard. But really its only the Supreme court that has captured our popular imagination. But justice for a billion Indians is served in the mofussil and district courts. And the inefficiency, nepotism and corruption prevalent in these courts will put even our most viled politicians look like saints. Who should be held accountable for that.

It appears that the Delhi rape case may get a speedy trial. But what will change for the thousands of other women that have been raped. Was  their rape any less of a crime. Were their perpetrators any less guilty. We must ask the judiciary to start publishing its status reports,on total pending cases and in what state they are in. Lets start with the rape cases. Then and only then will some good lasting change come out of this most horrific tragedy.

Classroom Shootings - Outlier or Inevitable

Tears literally ran down my eyes as I read about the teacher who threw herself in front of the assailant to protect her students (Std. 1). She did not duck or hide or ran away. She threw herself, at the certain death she saw in front of her. That is not just compassion and love, that is courage!

But the question is why does this keep happening in the US. Are these shootings, and there have been quite a few in recent times (Virginia Tech, the Gurudwara shootings, the Aurora Shootings etc) merely outlier events or are they an inevitable culmination of the much touted the US way of life. Is the US way or life responsible responsible for creating these outliers. Because whatever the motivation be for these shootings, one theme runs common - a lone gunman deciding to take life of a group of people (children), often for no apparent reason. What can be a reason to kill 20 kids?

For a large number of world population, it must sound crazy that right to bear arms is a fundamental right in the US, guarded by its constitution. I will not go into the merits or demerits of that. In spite of over 300 million guns held by US citizens, US is no pirate infested Somalia. But right to bear arms manifests itself in various forms during the normal day to day business in the US. Let me give just one example -  If you are ever stopped by a traffic cop in the US, it is best to just keep calm, keep your hands where the cop can see them, not reach for your glove box without being told to do so, and not do any sudden movements. You may wonder why. What's the big deal. Well, if you don't do all of that, you might just get shot. Yes, it is that serious.

Why? Because the cop has to start with the assumption that you are carrying arms with you and any sudden movement threatens him/her. You can be shot for no good reason other than the fact that the Cop did not know whether you were reaching for your driver's license or for your gun. I am not making this up. It is in California's license handbook - when a cop stops you, no sudden movements. Period.

Goes back to "right to bear arms". Another example is that of a man (I forget his name) shot in New York for running with a kitchen knife, and not surrendering himself to Police. He was likely high as well. But here is the thing - if he was a wild animal, a tranquilizer would have been used (most likely). Because he was a man, he was shot down. After all, animals can't bear arms, can they.  Phew!

Should the right to bear arms be revoked? I don't know. I don't know enough about the US, and its history/culture to suggest anything like that. But shouldn't getting a gun be made at least as difficult as getting a driver's license. That should at least be a start. 

POTUS - Why is there no OBAMNEY option

The dance of democracy is in full force currently in the US. After all, it is for the post of President of the US (POTUS). If you are not from the States, or do not take much interest in politics, here is the crux of where the candidates stand and differ:

1. Economy - Romney calls for less govt, less taxes, generally is in favor of making it easier to do business in America. Obama has clearly come out for more taxes on the wealthy, and wants to do something (not clear what) which will create jobs here in the US, and perhaps stop the outsourcing of jobs.

To me, Obama is on a very weak ground here. He is an educated man and one expects better than just socialist moorings of failed ideas from him.

2. Women Rights - Romney has vacillated so much on women's right to their bodies that it is nearly impossible to say where he stands. Obama has been clear and consistent - Women have right to their own bodies and none but them should make choices related to their health and future.

You would imagine that a gentleman like Romney would at least be very clear on something as basic as this topic given his firm belief in capitalism - my property is my business. If I and only I can make a decision about my car (and not be forced by govt.) then how it is that women should not be allowed to make a decision about their own lives and health.  Romney seems like a dinosaur on women's rights.

To put the above two points in perspective, think of it this way - if you have a daughter, Romney is likely to teach her to take her own responsibility (and not depend on govt.) but he is likely to subjugate her by curtailing her freedom to her own body.

Obama will give her all the freedom but with his big govt. attitude, he will also make it harder on her in terms of finding a job (because his policies are largely bad for enterprise) and higher taxes (because of an inefficient and blotted govt. that meddles in everything).

Who would you choose.

Me, if I had a vote, I'd have voted for Obamney - a person standing for free enterprise and for equal rights to women in all matters.

Between the Lines

In her recent outburst, Ms Arundhati Roy says, "I am on this side of line. I do not care...pick me up put me in jail". This lady has become larger than law itself. Even after making a complete mockery of Indian Justice system by defending a duly convicted terrorist Afzal Guru (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265790), the Indian Judiciary, Executive, Legislature and Media still treats her as a demi-goddess, outside the purview of law. They are all afraid of her, even the highest Judiciary, as was clear in their muted and guarded response to this lady's clear contempt of court earlier.

This lady knows that she has become almost unreachable. I quote - "Now that Operation Green Hunt has begun to knock on the doors of people like myself, imagine what’s happening to activists and political workers who are not well known". Our rotten system is always afraid of "well known" people and this lady is taking a great advantage of that, laughing at our faces (us, not well known people) who have more pressing matters to attend like providing for our family against all the odds.

I am sorry lady but I don't stand on your side of line. I also do not have the luxury to stand on Indian Gov side of line. I am the one who gets bulldozed in the middle. I am the one who dies in train attacks by Maoists, who dies in blasts by terrorists, who needs to earn and pay so that the Government can protect me (and often screw me). They are screwing me all over the place and yet, I work everyday with reinforced zeal so that my children have a better tomorrow. That's an idea worth living for, probably the only one!

India Pak Peace Process - Favourite Intellectual Masturbation

There seems to be no end to reading and hearing so many mushy-mushy or 'intellectually stimulating' articles/talks on India Pak relationships. I view them now as nothing but intellectual masturbation. Authors and speakers get a high and think of themselves as great thought leaders. Frankly, all of this is essentially so stupid and so hopelessly naive that one has stopped responding to them or taking them seriously. Nobody says anything that has not been said before. There is the usual odd visit report by a columnist saying how hospitable the Pakistanis are, the usual speaker feeling nostalgic about their pre-partition days when they used to play in Lahore, the usual candle lighters... In short, too much of all the usual things. Not since last year but since the cows came home.

Reality is until Pakistan can get its act together, there is no hope for India to get out of this quagmire. Two neighbours, with a stake in development, can talk and come to conclusions. But if one of them is a scoundrel who has given hope on his/her life, then the second neighbour cannot hope to reach a settlement. This only results in blackmail, with no end.

Stop the talks. Do everything to seal your borders. Work hard like crazy to improve lot of Indians. Become rich and resourceful. Dictate or influence world opinion. These are the things India should spend energy on. Not utterly futile talks , going on since 1947, resulting in so many over and covert wars!

What do you stand for?

Do you stand up for a cause, any cause?

Terrorists do - they want to disintegrate the society. And they die for it.

Maoists do - they want to disintegrate democracy. And they fight for it.

Religious fanatics do - they want to eradicate pluralism. And they preach hatred over and over again and are not afraid to blow themselves up.

Regionalists do - they want to drive away all outsiders. And they break bones of outsiders and glasses of media houses with equal panache.

Communists do - they want to remain powerful by keeping people poor. And they struggle for it continuously until the goal is reached.

What do you stand for? And what do you do about it? Here is a generalism - you (and I) stand for comfort. You study and work to be prosperous. Nothing wrong in that actually. But in a fight between the active seekers and passive observers, who is more like to win regardless of the numbers!

The joy of teaching

Have been going to a voluntary coaching class engaged in providing free tuitions to children who basically cannot afford the paid services. This voluntary organization is being run by an old gentleman. He has managed to get a room at the backside of the local temple. He tells me that there are a few more people coming and taking tuitions for students (mostly class 9, some class 10) in various subjects. I try to teach English. The funny (and nice) part is that the students do not understand Hindi and I do not understand Kannada. So our progress in English has been good.

Teaching generally is considered a dull job but it does challenge you to think creatively. Getting your thoughts and ideas across to a group in a language that everybody understands is hard enough, having to do it in a language uncommon between you and the group is laborious, requires patience but is funny most of the time. I just spend 2 hours every Sunday interacting with the kids but that is something I look forward to every week.

Sometimes I teach Mathematics as well. Once I started teaching them how to take square-roots. Half through demostrating the process to take square-root of 2, I realized I had forgot the process! I made some excuses to look at their text books and understood where I was going wrong. I then explained the process to the students. I hoped that the students did not realize that I actually did not remember the process to take square roots. But I have feeling they realized it.

Anyway, they did come the next week and have been coming. And I do try to be better prepared in what I venture to teach now.