Biplab speaks on Spiritualism

Police action against Baba Ramdev's supporters is a national shame for a democratic nation

2011-06-04T20:14:00.000-07:00

I am not a big fan of Baba-but that does not mean, I do not support Baba's movement against corruption. One can smell political motivation, a stooge campaign but having said and heard all, any attempt to curb corruption must be supported irrespective of political colors.

What Delhi police did in Ramalila Moidan in the middle of the night, would have even ashamed the British Police during Raj. Ramadev and his supporters were excercising their democratic right in non-violent manner. Satyagraha is the most proud invention of Indian democracy. Civil liberty activists all over the world look to India for its unique non-violent protest movement of Satyagraha.

But Mr Prime Minister sent a wrong signal to the people of India who want to end corruption in India which is ranked as the 5th most corrupt nation in the world. Even if Raja or Kanamajhi is in Jail, there are thousands of corrupt Rajas roaming free and stashing their wealth in Swiss Bank which otherwise would have been used as investment in India. We understand there are a lot of leaders of India who would be in trouble if Swiss accounts are exposed, but so what? Indians do not have much respect for political leaders or IAS officers who are the helm of corruption and they want them to bring to justice.

And that justice must be served by action and not by verbal promise. Releasing lethal police force is no solution for a rising mass who want justice against corrupt leaders.

Verdict on Dr Binayak Sen : An insult to Indian democracy

2010-12-26T03:38:00.000-08:00

I didn't feel like writing this blog. But today when I see Twitter and Facebook are overflowing with zealot BJP supporters who are cheering at the life imprisonment of Dr Binayak Sen, I am left with no choice but to expose these groups of BJP netizens most of whom are half literate and a potential danger to Indian democracy.

First, take a look at most of the Twitter feeds on Dr Binayak Sen-it seems BJP netizens are convinced

1. He is a communist

2. He acted against the state

3. Therefore justice is served

Wonderful. They even didn't bother to look at his biography, what is his life and philosophy etc. I don't expect that level of literacy from either left or right wing supporters but a simple googling skill would have told them he led a Gandhian life throughout his career. He professed nonviolence mode of resistance and led a life true to the spirit of Gandhi. A gold medalist from Velore CMC sacrificed his whole life to champion the cause of the tribal. He

won several awards and highest level of International recognition to take health care to the poor. He set an example and inspired many other doctors to work among the poors.

If you read or watch interviews by him, there can not be any doubt about the true Gandhian values he is practicing and professing. Even all the people close to him, testified his conviction to Gandhism and not to Maoisism.

Now comes to 2nd point. Did he act against the state? Here is the charge sheet by the court

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main37.asp?filename=Ne230208listofcharges.asp

Tell me in your sane mind, can anybody be convinced that any of the evidence presented here is enough to prove his guilt? His sedition? It is laughable -a mockery of Indian justice system as India's ex-attorney general had mildly put it.

I am worried about this fanatic growth of false sense of nationalism.

What is a nation my dear friends? Does it consist of poor tribal of India or numerous corporates who want to destroy forest to set up mines in Chhattisgarh?

After this verdict, can anybody will have any doubt who are behind this mockery of Judicial system? It is clearly vested interest groups who want to cleanse the tribal from the forest for mining.

So which India you people are talking about? As Swami Vivekananda once wrote-India lives in the villages, India lives among these people who are oppressed and exploited. There is no India without them. A nation is not an abstract concept.

Dr Binayak Sen is a true nationalist because he serves India and not these netizens of BJP whose illiteracy is serving corporate interest in Chhattisgarh.

Indian left and right wing supporters must learn, humanity is above the idealism. I was equally appalled by left wing supporters who supported Chinease action against Liu Xiaobo. Basically left and right wing politics are two sides of the same coin-which is illiteracy and insensitiveness for human cause.

সিদিকুল্লার সাথে সেকুলার জ়োট!

2010-11-26T22:27:00.000-08:00

একটি খবর বাজারে ভাসছে-সইফুদ্দিন চৌধুরী, সিদিকুল্লা চৌধুরী এবং মানস ভুঁইয়া মিলে নাকি বাংলায় একটি ধর্ম নিরেপেক্ষ জোট তৈরী করছেন। জামাত উলেমা ই হিন্দের এক নেতা ( প্রাত্তন না বর্তমান, তা জানা মুশকিল) কে নিয়ে, যিনি সারা জীবন আইডেন্টিটি পলিটিক্সের বেশী কিছু করেন নি, তার সাথে ধর্ম নিরেপেক্ষ জোট হচ্ছে শুনে আপনি ও হাঁসছেন-আমিও হাঁসছি।

জামাত উলেমা ই হিন্দ ভারত ভাগের বিপক্ষে ছিল এবং এরা তত্ত্বগত ভাবে "ধর্ম নিরেপেক্ষ" ভারতকে মানে। এই পর্যন্ত শুনলে মনে হয় ঠিকই আছে-কিন্ত জামাত উলেমা হিন্দের শেষ দশ বছরের ইতিহাস ঘাঁটলে খুব পরিষ্কার ভাবে প্রতিভাত হয় এরা ইসলামিক মৌলবাদের আরেকটা কুৎসিত মুখ ছারা কিছুই না। জামাত উলেমা হিন্দের শেষ কয়েক বছরের কার্যকলাপের নমুনা

তসলিমার বিরুদ্ধে কোলকাতায় সংগঠিত ইসলামিক মৌলবাদি আন্দোলনের পুরোভাগে এরা ছিলেন
মেয়েদের ৩৩% রিজার্ভেশনের বিরুদ্ধে-এরাও অগ্রভাগে আছেন। কারন মেয়েদের বাইরে কাজ করা বা রাজনীতি করা এরা পছন্দ করেন না। অল ইন্ডিয়া প্রগ্রেসিভ উইমেন এসোসিয়েশনের সেক্রেটারী তাহিরা হাসান খুব কড়া ভাষায় জামাত উলেমা হিন্দের নিন্দা করে এই সংগঠনটি যে মহিলাদের অধিকারের বিরুদ্ধে কাজ করে, তা পরিস্কার করেছেন। সুত্র ঃ http://www.sacw.net/article1238.html
২০০৬ সালে বন্দে মাতরম মুসলিমদের জন্যে হারাম করার আন্দোলনেও এরা পুরোভাগে ছিলেন। সূত্রঃ http://www.india-server.com/news/jamiat-e-ulema-e-hind-supports-decree-15213.html

কংগ্রেস স্বঘোষিত ভোটবাদি সংগঠন-ভোট ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিং যাদের একমাত্র কাজ। তাছারা পশ্চিম বঙ্গের মুসলিম বেল্ট ছারা তাদের কোন ভোট ব্যাঙ্ক নেই। সুতরাং মানস ভুঁইয়ার এই কাজে কেও আশ্চর্য হন নি।

তবে সইফুদ্দিন চৌধুরী কিভাবে এই সিদ্ধান্ত নিলেন-সেটা খুব রহস্যজনক। আমার কাছে বোধগম্য না। জামাত ই উলেমা হিন্দ এবং সিদিকুল্লা ইসলামি মৌলবাদি কাজকর্মের একদম পুরোভাগে আছেন-সেটাত জলের মতন পরিস্কার। পিডিএস একটা ছোট পার্টি-একমাত্র কিছুটা আদর্শবাদের ওপর জোর করেই এরা এগোতে পারত। কিন্ত এই ভাবে কিছু ভয়ংকর মৌলবাদিদের সাথে জোট বেঁধে এবং সেটাকে গালভরা "সেকুলার" আখ্যা দিয়ে লোক হাঁসানোর কি মানে হয়? উনাদের কি ধারনা পশ্চিম বঙ্গে বিজেপি ভোট পায় না বলে বাংলার লোক নির্বোধ?

একটা জিনিস সইফুদ্দিন চৌধুরী এবং মানস ভুইয়া খুব বড় ভুল করছেন। পশ্চিম বঙ্গে বিজেপির অস্তিত্ত্ব নেই কারন এখানে সিপিএম এবং সিপিএম-বিরোধি রাজনীতি ছারা কিছু হয় না। ফলে বিজেপি বা পিডিএস কেও কিছু করতে পারে নি। ২০১১ সালের পর সিপিএম ভেঙে পড়বে। তারপর থেকে পশ্চিম বঙ্গের রাজনীতিতে অনেক পোলের সৃষ্টি হবে। সেখানে যদি একটি তৃতীয় শক্তির উত্থান না হয়, বিজেপি ঢুকবেই। এবার সেই তৃতীয় শক্তির জন্যে লোকজন যাদের ওপর ভরসা করছে, তারা যদি সিদিকুল্লার মতন মৌলবাদির ( যারা বন্দে মাতরম, নারী স্বাধীনতা ইত্যাদি অনেক কিছুর বিরুদ্ধে) ল্যাজ ধরে থাকেন, লোকে বিজেপিকেই তৃতীয় শক্তি করবে। বিহারের নির্বাচন আমাদের শিখিয়েছে লোকে এই সব মেকি সেকুলারদের ধার ধারে না। তারা চাইছে কাজ এবং উন্নয়ন। তারা চাইছে সিদিকুল্লার মতন মৌলবাদিদের রাজনীতির বাইরে রাখতে বা লালুর মত ভেকধারী জাতপাতের নেতাদের লাথি মারতে।

সিদিকুল্লাকে যারা প্রাসঙ্গিক করতে চাইছেন, তাদের স্বপ্ন ১০০% সফল হবে। কিন্ত ইতিহাস বড় নির্মম। যারা ওই মৌলবাদের ল্যাজ ধরেছেন, তারা কিন্ত অপ্রাসঙ্গিক হয়ে যাবেন। বা এই ঘটনার পর হয়ে গেছেন।

Analysis of Bihar Election: Are you hearing what Indians want?

2010-11-24T07:28:00.001-08:00

Let put bullet items

1. People want good Governance-caste, communal politics, minority appeasement politics not working any more.

2. Failure of left to win even a single seat is clear indication, a party cry for helping the poor will not help to get the vote of the poors. They are also looking at what you deliver for them. You don't deliver them roti and sabjji and instead keep on speaking of bakvas of idealist equality, minimum wage etc. It will not work. They need to see what is coming to their home-that is bottomline.

3. Defeat of Sadhu Yadav, Ravri and Lalu is clear indication that Mafiaraaj is seeing its end. Populism will not work any more,

Add up your views please.

My vision of a Green Party in India

2010-11-20T10:58:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the most finest and strongest realization of my life is coming to terms with essence of life which defies any scientific rational except survival-survival for families, children and for the next generation. Now imagine, what are we leaving behind for next-generation? Will that be habitable India at all? Truth is, our modern cities have less amenities and urban planning than Harappa and Mahenjodaro civilization. On the top, the whole population is the victim of a system where political parties do not pay any heed to environmental need of India. The result is worse than a terrible impending environmental catastrophe- our forests are getting depleted faster than we can even fictionalize, rivers are being killed rampantly by greedy population supported by a very short sighted politics ( I made a documentary on
killing of rivers 3 years back -please watch it ), the entire political process of the country has been hijacked by the nexus of BIG corporates, mainstream media, bureaucrats and politicians and the quality of Indian water and air is degrading every day. Food security is worsening, energy security is in political quagmire and a roadmap to green economy is unheard!

That does not mean green activism is new to India. There are thousands of NGO working in this area but unless we can form a political force, a formidable voice of India for green and environment, these NGOs will not be able to execute efficiently. Green economy which needs Government support can not get any sailing wind unless a political force is born to push our policy makers.

On the top, there are issues of democracy. Our political parties allow very little democracy to its members as evident from the expulsion of Jaswant Singh, Ex-speaker Somnath Chatterjee and many more incidents exposing the lack of intra-party democracy inside our political parties.
Yes, there are a lot of corruption issues and I believe only technology and democracy-working in unison can solve most of it. Technology provides an efficient system of monitoring and
democracy provides a public vigilance. Therefore, instead of taking to street, we need to strengthen democracy and adopt more technology in Governance.

What's about country's 300 million half starved people and 400 million illiterates?
What I hate in all political parties is their crocodile cry for India's poor. Experience
and history taught us-poverty has been eliminated only in the system that guarantees
and promote high level of production, innovation and entrepreneurship in a social
welfare set-up. Instead of taking up battle for rural economy, our political system
is more interested to show their face in camera. And taking a photograph with the
poor people is as good as it gets for their concern for India's poor.

Possibilities of a green economy is enormous-and yes, we need a Green party of India.

Verdict of Ayodhya : A 21st century perspective

2010-09-30T14:32:00.000-07:00

Finally Lucknow High Court delivered the much awaited verdict on Ram Janmbhoomi versus Babri Masjid debate. Instead of reading from News Papers, I started reading the court orders (available in this link) and somewhat shocked on the level of disagreement and ambiguity among the Honorable Judges on issues which are expected to sync after the monumental evidences being brought to the case for last 13 years. For example Justice S U Khan observed :

3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.

On the same issue of demolition of Rama Temple by the Muslim invaders,
Hon'ble Dharma Veer Sharma is certain:

3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a
Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old
structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological
Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive
Hindu religious structure.

Honerable Sudhir Agarwal is rather more agnostic towards this issue. Also there are stern differences among the judges on the issues of whether it is the birth place of Lord Rama. Honerable Veer Sharma's statement on this matter that , this temple is the birth place because Hindus believe in so, makes me nervous because then any group can claim to any property just by belief! What is the status-qua of belief in the eyes of Indian constitution?

To me, even these are minor issues. What bothered me most is the clear indication that Honorable S U Khan and D V Sharma could not rise above their religious identity. Root cause of Ayodhya dispute is the venom of religious identity which is poured to our head by our families when we were kids. Research in Social Science conforms firmly that sense of religious identity is born into a teen's head in his or her impressionable age when their families teach them that they are a separate group to boost them with a false sense of pride. Therefore Ayodhya becomes a battle line for those who believe themselves as a Hindu or Muslim. I am sure those
who believe themselves as Indian must have cherished for a University or Hospital instead of a Temple or Mosque on that disputed land.

Because modern India, the new image of India lies in her ability to compete with NASA by ISRO, by millions of software engineers who made us proud as software super house, by thousands of young scientists for whom every multinational is establishing R&D in Delhi or Bangalore and because of India's successful corporate management which has launched Tata, Reliance, Infy, Wipro and Mittal as global brand, we can't project ourselves like kids fighting for Rama or Allah.

And then there are scope to do more as we are also ashamed to be the nation with highest numbers of illiterates, beggars and malnutritioned kids. We are seating on environmental bomb in India. Now instead of solving our real problems like soaring food price, if we fight like a kid over Allah vs Rama as if they are Spider man vs Superman ( frankly speaking to an atheist, that is as much of importance we can attach to them) , who are going to benefit?

Unmasking the Moist movement in India

2010-04-14T15:24:00.000-07:00

Mr Azad, spokesperson of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), recently defended Maoist movement in India in an exclusive interview in "The Hindu". For those who are not familiar with history of communism or some factual news on the Maoist movements in India, may very well be impressed by soft spoken Azad. But once we start peeling off his augments, we would figure out Maoists are indeed misleading a lot of progressive Indians who are otherwise fed up due to prostitution of politics and corruption in India.

His interview is full of contradictions and if somebody is not aware of communist history or Indian constitutions, one can easily be mesmerized by his sweet talk. But behind the sweet talk, he left a pack of lies and self contradictions which can not be denied.

Firstly, he is claiming Maoists are in favor of democratic movements and want to join hands with progressive democratic fronts. Those who are familiar with history of communism-can ask this question point blank. What is the history of the democratic force which joined hands with Lenin, Mao,Castro? Were not they all killed or admitted to change their political view under gun point?? How does a Leninist speak of democratic force when Lenin dismissed elected socialists from the Constituent Assembly after losing in November, 1917 election? Similarly history of the progressive force which joined Mao also suffered equal dark history of brutal state oppression during cultural revolution. He wanted to showcase democratic face of the Moists! How can he do that when their Godfathers left such a brutal legacy of killing democratic movements and betrayal with progressive democratic force which joined hands with them during revolution?

Second point is practical consideration for cease fire. He is stressing on following Indian constitution. If that be it, then first condition would be simple- they have to surrender arms-because their arms are illegal. Chidarmbaram didn't ask more than this. So pointing at him for violating constitution would be backfiring argument.

Thirdly, on his defense of killing CPM workers, he made baseless comments. Many of the CPM workers may be oppressors but not all of them. Many of them were killed just because they were CPM workers. It may be a tit-for-a-tat for a party like CPM, which also does not believe in Human Rights but an eye-for-an eye is no way civilized norm. May be communists have a different meaning for the word "Human Rights" not understood by the mortal people like us.

Fourthly he supports all the separatist movement of India as struggle against imperialism and at the same time, he calls for patriotic Indians to support them. This is height of contradiction. Also for more clarity, an organization like JKLF, whom he is supporting for their anti-imperialist struggle, is not at all progressive-they believe in Sharia and all kinds of outdated misogynist social orders mandated in Islamism. Even in other day, I saw Kishenji supported Osama for anti-imperialism! So supporting Islamic radicals as anti-imperialist progressive, pro-people force is more than a raving fanaticism!

Finally, his defense of human right violation and opposing development process stands no merit. No development is perfect. Even Stalin industrialized Soviet by putting 5 million Ukraninians to starvation. It happens only at small steps. If he can not appreciate that, he can very well form a party and ask others to vote for him! His opinion does not justify gunning down the development process in the tribal areas. Also he distorted facts. In Lalgarh uprising started as a popular tribal movement. But these days, where ever there is a popular uprising, Maoists under covered as progressive democrats infiltrate the movement. We have seen how they worked in Nandigram and Lalgargh. Indeed, they are the ones who are insinuating democratic movements into an armed resistance for no valid reason when we do have a functioning democracy.

One should not be fooled by Mr Azad's interview and his sweet talk on his love for democracy. One can not love democracy and communism at the same time. Communism is anti-thesis of democracy and in order for somebody to claim himself to be both democratic and communist -either ignorance or hypocrisy should prevail at its best.

Simultaneous Release of Bengali Movies in North America

2010-03-09T11:29:00.000-08:00

Dear Leaders of the Bengali Community and Organizations:

You no more have to wait six months to see that new Bengali movie! Nor will you have to suffer bad quality pirated DVDs from your local grocery store.

The newest and latest Bengali movies will now be released simultaneously in North America and be available in USA & Canada wherever we NRIs usually Buy, Rent or Download movies --- Netflix, Blockbuster, Best Buy, Target, Amazon, iTunes and many, many more retail and online outlets.

Through a revolutionary business model and exclusive arrangements, Databazaar Media Ventures ( http://www.databazaarmedia.com/ ), will make the above possible for movies that it undertakes to distribute. The first Bengali movie already to take this route and currently available for pre-order at all the above-mentioned outlets, is “Dwando” --- by national award winning director Suman Ghosh, starring Soumitra Chatterjee and Ananya Chatterjee. Releasing in early June will be “Beyond The Stars” ( Ekti Tarar Khonje ) from the team that produced “Antaheen”. There will be releases every month and community members are encouraged to sign up on DMV’s website to be notified of all upcoming releases.

For a longtime the Bengali community in North America has been deprived of new Bengali movie releases and even good quality DVDs for Bengali films never existed. Therefore the present drive by Databazaar Media Ventures will fulfill a long felt need of the Bengali community. Besides, these movies will also be available to the wider American audience that is interested in foreign films thereby opening up the international market for modern Bengali cinema --- an industry which is in dire need of increased revenue for bare survival. The Bengali film industry does need your help and this is your chance. As a community leader please send this email to your members and encourage them to order the new releases from Netflix, Blockbluster, Amazon, etc. Higher order flow will encourage Netflix, Blockbluster and others to carry more Bengali movies which in turn will also be available to the international market.

We request that you kindly circulate this news among your community members so that everyone can enjoy this new opportunity as well as help in the growth of the legendary Bengali film industry.

Watch it on Netflix Buy it from Amazon.com

In appreciation,

VNN Bangla (http://www.vnnbangla.com/) : First online 24 hour Bengali Social News Media : Register and upload your news (text, html, youtube) in VNNBangla. It will publish your news automatically.

Join Bengali Film Review in Facebook:

Jojn VNNBangla in Facebook:

Bengali Movies are now available on first day of release in North American Market

2010-03-08T18:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Leaders of Bengali Community and Organizations,

We are excited to share a community news.

Bengali Movies now will be available in North America on first day first show release through Netflix, Block Bluster and ITune. Oney Seal, CEO of DatabazaarMedia Ventures took initiative to make this possible so that North American Bengalis now can have easy access to new Bengali releases.

As you all know, we had to wait for 3-4 months after new Bengali release before pirated DVD becomes available in the Indian Groceries. We also shared painful experience of running bad Bengali DVDs which we could barely watch without any interruption. Hopefully those days are history now.

Dwando will be the first release available on 16th March ( movie trailer) . Acted by Soumitra Chatterjee, Koushik Sen and Ananya Chatterjee, Dwando is an ethical "love storm". You can also buy downloads from the sources listed below.

As an editor of online Bengali magazine VNNBangla( www.vnnbangla.com), I appeal to all of you to spread this email to your contacts. Please understand that distributing Bengali movies in North American market costs a fortune and unless we support this venture by ordering DVD in Netflix or renting it from Block Bluster we, the North American Bengalis will be the biggest loser because this venture is serving a long-time need of our community.

Yours sincerely
Dr Biplab Pal
biplabpal2000@gmail.com
www.vnnbangla.com
Elkridge, Maryland

End your promotion with a kick -- consider a postscript to reinforce one of the key product or service benefits.

Dialectic Materialism is outdated

2009-12-27T11:18:00.000-08:00

I was reading this book in defense of dialectic materialism.

http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

The book is really funny ( strangely they claim it to be popular). It belongs to the same plot, same strategy I have seen in defending Vedas, Gita, Koran and Bible by bringing modern laws of Physics without understanding basic methodology of science.

Let me cite an example:

Authors write:

Publish Post

The fundamental proposition of dialectics is that everything is in a constant process of change, motion and development. Even when it appears to us that nothing is happening, in reality, matter is always changing. Molecules, atoms and subatomic particles are constantly changing place, always on the move. Dialectics is thus an essentially dynamic interpretation of the phenomena and processes which occur at all levels of both organic and inorganic matter.

Further, he wants to defend:

"My dialectic method," wrote Marx, "is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

The whole aspect of dialectic materialism is really funny. Time dependent quantum mechanics and General theory of relativity (GTR) that define the basic laws for the change- the evolution of material with time, have been discovered as a consequence of series of experimental discoveries. And not by following dialectic materialism, because it is too general and non-sense to a Physicist unless he is a devoted Marxist who is looking for physics in dialectic materialism like a devoted Hindu professor who looks for quantum mechanics in Veda.

The physics is all about evolution of any material ensemble that has its diffusion (non-steady, evolving or chaotic) and steady state behavior ( equilibrium behavior).

In that sense whole physics is dialectic materialism because it is all about motion and evolution of material ensemble! While this is true, what can be more nonsense than claiming that dialectic materialism is Physics? Just because Upanishad stated 'Sam Sarati Ati' -the material world is in a state of change always, we will conclude that Upanishad contains whole physics because it revealed core theme of physics like dialectic materialism?

Even in quantitative social evolution theory, scientists are using time dependent equations always-which means any social evolution is considered close to statistical mechanical model of molecular evolution (Pregonin). This development owes it root in theoretical development in statistical mechanics and not in dialectic materialism. Now, just because this evolution explains a society in motion and in equilibrium, will we say anything and everything that is happening in the social evolution is dialectic materialism?

Here is simple summery. Science developed its model of evolution in physics,biology and social sciences as a consequence of experimental observation. Philosophical thinking of dialectic materialism never influenced or inspired Newton, Einstein, Darwin or Heisenberg to discover their epoch making laws of science! It is the dedicated labor of experimentalists and force of production of capitalism that have forced the discoveries of modern method of science.

So our conclusion should be simple. Dialectic materialism is a completely unnecessary hypothesis for any modern research of any discipline. Anybody who is trying term any science as dialectic materialism, is politically motivated and is unwarranted.They are enemy of a free society. As we all know, such fraud of dialectic materialism killed 100M people in last century in the form of communism.

To the critics of Indira Gandhi

2009-10-31T07:24:00.000-07:00

Ever since the British handed over the power, the greatest challenge in Indian politics till today always revolved round the alleviation of poverty and dissemination of national policies to the hand of the marginal people tickling down through the gigantic corruption of Indian Bureaucracy. Nevertheless, throughout in the first four decades of post Independence era, when neo-liberalism was not a fad of state policy and populism ruled a great part of democratic spectrum in the Europe and the India, Indira's legacy was one of the consistent mark of progress and social justice deeply entrenched in the Indian values of peace and harmony. However, for the most part of her career as a president of Indian National Congress and Indian prime minister, she has been branded as an autocratic and intolerant leader. Her opponents jump into the immediate example of emergency she imposed in 1975 suspending democracy of India. Besides, they bring several examples of small incidents where she treated ministers and office bearers as her own servants-she changed their chair at her mercy.

While all of this is true, we need to analyze her actions and consequences with historical context and further view it with the personality cult of Indira which was built as an assimilation of ideas from the greatest leaders of the 20th century like Gandhi, Rabindranath, Krishna Memon and not to mention Neheru himself. She had witnessed the brutality of British police in India with sharp contrast to British liberalism in Britain, lived in austerity with great defiance of materialism inspired by Krishna Menon, Gandhi and Tagore and finally for the most part of the second world war, although bed-ridden for acute tuberculosis, she volunteered to help the wounded in the battle of Britain. She had first hand experience of savagery of second world war and imperial police storming into Neheru's house almost as a monthly affair. Growing up with the bitter experience of western materialism and teaching of eastern spiritualism by Tagore and Gandhi, she developed a profound liking for social benevolence as opposed to aggression and inhumanity perpetrated by western imperialism. Therefore, for the rest part of her life, we would find her as a fierce leader against American imperialism, Pakistani atrocities in Bangladesh and social menaces of Indian tradition. She championed social democracy by nationalizing the banks and other national wealth solely inspired by cause of social justice rather than any left leaning ideology-she had none.

It will be worthwhile to take deeper look into emergency in India. On June 26th, 1975, why was she compelled to sacrifice democracy of India? Remember she admitted her mistakes publicly in 1980 for imposing the emergency. But was that too bad of a decision? Was it solely motivated by the greed of power when Alahabad High Court disqualified her MP status and subsequently imposed a ban of six years for fighting in the election?

Decree of emergency suspending all the civil liberties was issued by president Fakhruddin Ali Ahamed by article 352 of Indian constitution as advised by Indira Gandhi on 26th June, 1975. Wikipedia version of the situation that led to the event of emergency is quoted below:

Raj Narain, who had been defeated in parliamentary election by Indira Gandhi, lodged cases of election fraud and use of state machinery for election purposes against Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the Allahabad High Court. On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court found the Prime Minister guilty on the charge of misuse of government machinery for her election campaign. The court declared her election null and void and unseated her from her seat in the Lok Sabha. The court also banned her from contesting any election for an additional six years. Ironically some serious charges such as bribing voters and election malpractices were dropped and she was held responsible for misusing the government machinery, and found guilty on charges such as using the state police to build a dais, availing the services of an IAS officer, Yashpal Kapoor, during the elections before he had resigned from his position, and use of electricity from the state electricity department. Because the court unseated her on comparatively frivolous charges, while she was acquitted on more serious charges, The Times described it as 'firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket'. However, strikes in labor and trade unions, student unions and government unions swept across the country. Protests led by J.P.Narayan, Raj Narain and Morarji Desai flooded the streets of Delhi close to the Parliament building and the PM's residence. The persistent efforts of Raj Narain, was praised worldwide as it took over 4 years for Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha to finally pass judgement against Indira Gandhi. The ruling later became the primary reason for the imposition of emergency by Indira Gandhi. It also encouraged greater belief in the judiciary and democracy in India.

When you read the history like this, anybody will get into a convincing belief that Indira had no other reason but to save her chair and power when clearly she was deposed by ruling of Alahabad High Court. But in all fairness, did we ask ourselves the question, was that ruling so unsettling for her as we all may think? Sonia Gandhi is no prime minister of India and yet she is still Congress supremo, the most powerful politician of India. Indira would have stepped down very easily as PM and would have continued to be president of INC-would that had taken her out of power corridor? No way. Then when there was no reason to believe she would not have lost any control of power even by following High Court ruling of Allahabad Court, why did she impose emergency? Remember Supreme Court of India granted a conditional stay of execution on 24th June-2 days before the emergency. Therefore, she was not at all under constitutional crisis when she declared the emergency as the case was hanging in Supreme Court with a clear stay order. She would have fought and won easily given that the allegation was not good enough to unseat her from PM position although Supreme Court might have ordered re-election as she indeed violated the election laws in 1971 which she admitted in later years. Later in 1975 Supreme Court nullified Alahabad High Court order but since, it happened during suspension of democracy, we should not view that to be a perfectly neutral judgment.

Indeed, all evidences in hand suggest, it was not the lust for her power but for the fact Jayprakash Narayn almost brought India to a virual halt, Indira was forced to take a very unpleasant decision as patriotic nationalist. GDP growth was sinking to worst during 1973-1975 as opposition movement unleashed reign of strikes throughout the country and Indira observed "People tend to forget their duties but remember their rights ".

Last sentence was the clue. In 20th century all the great civil and communist movements fell flat on the face because of the fact that while fighting for the right of equality and civic liberties, those political systems ignored production and logistic need to be maintained , people need to be fed and jobs have to be generated. Else, the state would collapse. In West Bengal, I do believe we have achieved more social equality and removed caste barriers than other parts of India because of progressive Left Front Government but at the end, the state is simply collapsing because of what Indira said- Left Front government was more concerned about the political right of the people than make them aware of their duties. This resulted in a complete stagnation and virtual collapse of the state economy which has the highest number of registered unemployed youths and lowest median salary even for those who are employed.

Indira believed in Nationalistic Socialism and as it was true for other leaders of same ideology, national progress always outweighed democracy in their line of thinking. Indeed Indira was quite aware of this when she said "My father was a statesman, I am a political woman. My father was a saint. I am not." And she had courage to speak that because she was imbibed with nationalism "Even if I died in the service of the nation, I would be proud of it. Every drop of my blood... will contribute to the growth of this nation and to make it strong and dynamic"

And she looked back at JP's movement from two angles-first it was impediment and obstacle to national growth and secondly, she has been victimized by conspiracy of male politicians all over the India because guided by inherent male ego, they could not put up with the image of a strong woman. Therefore she said "All my games were political games; I was, like Joan of Arc, perpetually being burned at the stake."

So it is clear that she saw JP's agitation as danger to national growth as it can easily be cited by the GDP growth data during 1974-1975 when per capita GDP fell from $164 to $156 ! One of the rare year in the history of post Independence in which India achieved negative growth thanks to JP's call to shutdown the whole country! I don't think, Indira would have at all cared for her possible ousting from Indian PM position as she was well secured in the INC but such a cataclysmic failure of Indian economy thanks to JP's agitation had to be put to an end or else, India as a nation was clearly sinking. Remember she was able to reverse the trend of negative growth to highly positive one-in 1977 when India's per capita GDP roofed to $184! Almost more than 15% growth over 1976 which India would never achieve again even in the early years of vibrant neo-liberalism of 91-2000! While I would never advocate growth by sacrificing democracy but when India was sinking to nadir, people were losing jobs left and right, whatelse she would have done? And indeed emergency achieved what it was intended for-reversing the negative GDP trend to a very high positive growth which a poor country like India desperately needed to struggle against hunger and chronic unemployment.

So to all of her critics, I would speak what she spoke "There exists no politician in India daring enough to attempt to explain to the masses that cows can be eaten" . Yes, when such is the pathetic state of populism in the politics of India, we do need a leader like Indira Gandhi who would have courage to take unpopular decision for the sake of national interest.

Obama's peace Nobel: Another shame on Nobel committee

2009-10-09T05:17:00.000-07:00

Nobel peace prize has always been controversial. Just imagine a terrorist like Yasser Arafat or an war criminal like Henry Kissinger was awarded for their contribution to 'humanity' where as Gandhi never won Nobel Prize in peace! I guess the last information was enough to puncture the glory of Nobel peace prize and this year's award to US president Barack Obama is just another straw in the same hat of ignominy and disrepute known as Nobel Peace Prize. I am not saying he would not have won it one day because of his peace effort but I believe that is as much as saying, I am trying to discover dark matter and I have a equation too! Then why not Nobel Prize to me? Just imagine this year Nobel winner in Physics, Charles Cao discovered optical fiber in 1978 and he has to wait a bloody 31 years before Nobel committee could agree on his honor and achievement. By 1991, it was extremely clear that optical fiber is the future of backbone long haul communication but even then, it took Nobel committee 18 years to recognize it.

Imagine now what Obama has achieved in peace process. He is trying to appease people in Middle East, leaders in China and military bosses in Pakistan in last couple of months. Will that achieve in peace in return? Did Iran step back even an inch from its aggressive foreign policy towards Israel because of Obama's historic speech in Cairo? Did hamas stop firing rockets to Israel? Has Taliban shown any sign of cutting a peace deal when they bombed UN headquarter in Pakistan? He even dared to keep an appointment with Dalai Lama to appease the Chinese authority! This is as much about Obama's mettle for peace process.

I am not saying that he is not genuinely interested about peace. The question is- what he has finally achieved? Nothing so far in peace process and even if he would eventually achieve anything, it would take years before we can see its ultimate result. Kao was not given Nobel Prize in 1978 because nobody that time knew what would be the future of Optical Fiber.

Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize should be awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Norway and Sweden were at that time still united, and with Sweden responsible for all foreign policy, Nobel felt that the prize might be less subject to political corruption if awarded by Norway. However Nobel's best desire could not save the peace prize falling in hand of irresponsible parliamentarians of Norway.

Therefore Mr President, I would request you to decline the Nobel Prize-your personal achievement is much more than a Nobel Laureate and therefore, by declining it you will save the honor of Nobel Peace prize as well as your integrity to be an intelligent state leader.

বাংলাদেশ এবং ইন্দিরা গান্ধী

2009-10-04T19:54:00.000-07:00

এই নিয়ে লেখাত অনেকই যায়-কিন্ত আমি এই লেখা লিখছি ইন্দিরা গান্ধীর একটি ইন্টারভিউ এর পরিপেক্ষিতে। ইন্দিরা গান্ধী তখন বিদেশ সফরে-সবাই প্রশ্ন তুলেছে পাকিস্থানের আভ্যন্তরীন ব্যাপারে ভারত কেন নাক গলাচ্ছে? কেন বাংলাদেশ গেরিলাদের ভারত সাহায্য দিচ্ছে?

তার উত্তরে ইন্দিরা যে উত্তর দিয়েছিলেন, তাতে আমেরিকার মুখ সম্পুর্ণ ভোঁতা করে দিয়েছিলেন। বিশ্বের দরবারে প্রমান করেছিলেন বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ নিয়ে আমেরিকা ও বৃটেনের দ্বিচারিতা।

আমার কাছে এই ইন্টারভিউটি একটি অনবদ্য মানব দলিল, যা জাতি দেশ ধর্মের উর্ধে উঠে মানবতাকে প্রতিষ্ঠা করে এবং মানবতা নিয়ে পাশ্চাত্যের মানুষের দ্বিচারিতাকে বেয়াব্রু বিচ্ছিন্ন করে।

http://www.politicoindia.com/newsreader.aspx?id=547

Gandhism and modern biology

2009-10-02T16:25:00.000-07:00

For a long time I have admired Gandhism, specially the aspect of self realization of truth as only mean to personal and social change. Experimenting with truth also consumed me a lot but the obsession paid off in my personal and professional life. Being an atheist, I had difficulty to assimilate how non-violence conforms to our survivability of genetic existence when we see only the stronger and fierce species survive in the nature and also in human society. Then recently while I was writing an article on Gandhism and Marxism, I came across several modern works on Gandhism exploring evolutionary cause of non-violence and altruism. Besides, neurological experience of non-violence also explains in great details how Gandhism works and will work better in the grand scheme of human evolution.

Before I explain in details, we need to understand whether we are altruist by social education or as a result of evolutionary inheritance? Is altruism embedded in our genetics?

The word "altruism" (derived from French autre "other," in its turn derived from Latin alter "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to serve the interest of others or the "greater good" of humanity. Comte says, in his Catechisme Positiviste,

social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service…. This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, who we are entirely.

Although in all the religions, altruism is the foundation of their very existence, in biology definition is tricky and at a time uprightly rude. My action will be under the definition of biological altruism if it reduces my reproductive fitness while increasing the same for the benefactors [1].

For example during the freedom struggle of India, all the freedom fighters risked their life as well as survival of their family so that fellow Indians can live in freedom and prosperity. The same phenomena is also observed throughout the biological kingdom-birds guard the eggs of the other birds risking their lives. Question that scientists always tried to answer- why the species, or we the biological beings tend to sacrifice our own reproductive fitness when from Darwinism it appears, we are nothing but a genetic survival machine? How would you explain this anomaly [2][3][4]?

Biologists came up with two possible explanations. Darwin tried to explain this as group selection-that is survival of a genetic group is more important than individual genetic mark-ups. But Richard Dawkins explained such group genetic explanation has problem with " subversion from within" [2].

Imagine that in a group of birds with altruistic genes, one mutant bird with a selfish gene is born. This selfish bird will be a "free rider" because it will have an advantage in reproductive fitness in virtue of the altruism of the other birds. Consequently, its selfish gene is more likely to be reproduced, and, over time, one would expect a selfish mutant gene to dominate over the altruistic gene. A counter to this model would be the consideration that if groups are benefited by altruism within the group, then a more altruistic group may well hold a selective advantage over a second group weakened by the individual with the selfish gene[2][3].

Therefore the second possibility is with kin selection and reciprocal altruism. This means, if I be altruist to your cause, you will be to mine as well- a simple game of favor exchange. Gandhism is based on reciprocal altruism. That is, if we be kind enough to our opponent and let them see through clearly that we are their friends and not foes and thus by doing so, if our opponents realize that our altruist behavior is to his benefit where as his oppressive nature is even against his own reproductive fitness, there is always a high possibility our enemy will turn altruist towards us as well.

Gandhi was not aware of reciprocal altruism but his sole thesis and life-long conviction to non-violent movement was based on it. When he emphasized to illuminate Godliness among our enemy by our own altruist deed, in reality he appealed to reciprocal altruism embedded in our genetics. That is the root cause of why Gandhism gained wide appeal across the whole world-because he has been able to extract one of our most important feature for biological survival to the best use of mankind's problem.

[1]Hamilton, W. D. 1970. "Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model," Nature 228: 1218-1220.
[2]Hamilton, W. D. 1972. "Altruism and Related Phenomena, mainly in the Social Insects,' Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 193-232
[3] Maynard Smith, J., 1998. "The Origin of Altruism," Nature 393: 639-640.
[4] Sober, E. 1988. "What is Evolutionary Altruism?" in New Essays on Philosophy and Biology (Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supp. Vol. 14), B. Linsky and M. Mathen, eds., Calgary: University of Calgary Press. )

Che Guevara and Kobad Ghandhi: Why do they mislead?

2009-09-23T17:46:00.000-07:00

No doubt for last two days, arrest of Kobad Ghandhi, a politburo member of the Maoist rebel group rocked the national media. Definitely what stirred the most is his sacrifice of career and Persian family fortune which he and his wife inherited during 1970. After he was baptized in Leninism in London, he continued to serve oppressed rural people of India and finally joined Maoist rebels during 1980's. One may think that rebels are just trigger happy gun master fighting against either Indian military force or Salua Julum but BBC interview of Kobad in 2008 clearly speaks volume for his work among the oppressed rural people in Madhya Pradesh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8270583.stm

You will instantly fall in love with him after reading the interview. Here is a man came from England, sacrificed his family fortune and worked tirelessly among most backward section of Indian people. He toiled for them who have not tasted the sweet success of Rs 10 lakh salaried babus in global economy. Instead they was left to rot and worst the natural resources based on which they have survived generation after generation was encroached by greedy corporates who want to grab every possible inch of land in India if that is possible. So indeed he is a hero-champion of the common mass.

I am also sure millions of Indian youths who were disillusioned by wretched politicians now must breathe a fresh air that such a true lover of common people still exists even amidst such acute crisis of materialism. Like Nietzsche, all of us are searching for a true hero inside us from the childhood-for every sphere of life. And we found one in every sector-we have a Tendulkar for cricket, Mother Teresa for charity, Bacchan for acting-but who would fill the void in politics? Frankly there was none. Jay Prakash Narayan may be close but again VP Singh or his kind, at best proved their worth to be a politician and not a champion of common mass. We always lacked one who could match proverbial romantic appeal of Che Guevera. So called leftist like Jyoti Basu or Harkishen Singh Surajit will not even fit the bill of a decent socialist politician let alone a nonpareil hero.

But now you need to look critically at Kobad's life removing the veil of romanticism. Read his interview and you would immediately figure out he believes in a socialist heaven. A society without oppression, with respect and equality for all. Like Kobad, all of us are looking for a better world-magical political system. But Sir Karl Popper pointed out

"The belief in a political Utopia is especially dangerous. This is possibly connected with the fact that the search for a better world, like the investigation of our environment, is (if I am correct) one of the oldest and most important of all the instincts"

Because we know, attempts to establish communist heaven actually produced hell in which more than 100 millions of people sacrificed their life in political genocides in the last century-the largest in human history. And it is all because there was no democracy in heaven. It turned out a democratic hell of India is far better choice than undemocratic heaven of former Soviet Union.

Just take the example of Stalin. He too sacrificed his comfortable life and good career as meteorologist. Bur instead, he took to bank robbery to raise fund for Bolshevik revolution. He lost his first wife in poverty which he embraced to serve people. But what happened at the end? Once he captured absolute power in party congress of 1928, after which, he emerged as the greatest demonic figure of the 20th century only to match Hitler! And as much as I have gone through the details of his history, all the executions, genocides and forced labor camp of Gulag -every institution of prosecution was justified by his Utopian political system. And at the end, United States achieved far more for themselves and for the whole world. If you look today, every life saving medicine, every technology that we use-computer, Internet, TV, Radio were invented in America. Soviet Union could not discover a single life saving drug. They produced only missiles after missiles. This is despite the fact USSR at a point employed twice more scientists than than Americans.

What does that tell you? There is no alternative to multi-party democracy. There is no alternative to pluralist society. Yes you can create equality but you can not feed them because production system sinks under such Utopian political system.

It is nice to talk about people's revolution but it can not sustain on empty stomach. In all the socialist countries, production system completely collapsed in the absence of market. Quality of life of a Cuban or a North Korian is worse than a beggar in India. You imagine the rest.

Therefore sacrificing for Utopian political system, which we all admire, is also squarely a danger to our political system. It's a Trojan horse. You bring it inside with admiration and then you become a victim of it.

Prakash Karat will decimate CPM

2009-03-02T16:36:00.000-08:00

A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
-George Bernard Shaw

As EC finalized the polling date today, Prakash Karat announced he is still looking! Yes, he is still looking for a one or more secular partner for a live-in relation after all communism is so pure- permanent wedlock is out of question. And he is looking for a secular partner since the collapse of his failed attempt to discover Leninist imperialism in US-India nuclear deal. Sad that his prospective secular match in Mayabati or Jaylalita didn't materialize after all in Indian politics, secularism is a mere calmoflage to lure Muslim votebank. So this gentleman thinks he is at the helm of affair of the Indian lefts! His power and status is a result of hardworks of Bengal comrades whose dedication has given him recognition in Delhi or else his status would be no better than a commoner given his level of political maturity and wisdom. And when he spoke today that he is looking for a truely secular party to partner, I recalled Plato-Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.

Therefore, I thought it would be apt to remind Prakash Karat how his meaningless persuit of third fornt is jeopardizing CPM's future in India which is already bleak among the Indian youths.
Three decades back CPM would be certainly having at least one or more MPs from almost every major state where as now, they would not be able to fight even Panchyet election in many of those same states. We can take a look of how CPM is dessicating from Indian political map in last two decades.

This is overall situation:

Political literates versus Rahul Gandhi

2009-03-01T18:56:00.000-08:00

Being raised in a leftist family of Bengal, I often stumbled across the two worlds of reality about Gandhi family. While Indian leftists assessed Rajiv and Rahul as politically illiterate emperor of Gandhi dynasty, I wondered why these "illiterate" Gandhis made far too less mistakes compared to so many political pundits of leftists put all together. More importantly I also failed to understand how power has corrupted and transformed CP(I)M into a fascist monster in West Bengal where as despite being in power in the whole country and for a longer time, Gandhi doyens have been able to maintain democracy in whole India-an unique feature among all third world countries, for which, India has been applauded in high respect all over the world. I travelled across Europe and North America. I noticed my westerner friends respect India for our ability to uphold democracy in this diverse and unique nation. But in a small state like West Bengal, democracy has been lynched to death by political pundits who are proud to be leftist and claim to have the best political knowledge of the world. Isn't that an irony? Or is there a science behind it?

To me, it was bizarre and absurdity at best.

Therefore I did thorough soul searching as to why Rajiv was more successful than his seasoned political rivals. Even today, Rahul Gandhi is also scoring high over his political counterparts in BJP and CPM despite their acclaimed political maturity and knowledge. I will not say that Rajiv Gandhi committed no mistake at all-indeed he did with Sahabanu case which paved the way for rise of Hinduvta and fanatic Muslim force. But overall, Rajiv was first to galvanize this nation with political and economic reform which catapulted India into center of the world both economically and politically after a long stagnation. Why then Rajiv was successful to transform this nation while political pundits could not? Even today, we see Rahul is propounding the vision of future while our old and the best political pundits are trying to extract water out of quagmire.

This led me to a deeper question about political theory and ideology. Does empiricism-attempt to formulate laws out of past political experience works at all in practice? In philosophy of social science,
this has been made extremely clear. Very few of the social observations can be said to be manifestation of laws of the society or history. To give you an example-let' s talk about historical materialism of Marxist school-a vision of history that formulates evolution of history and every social event as manifestation of class struggle. Or let say Leninist vision of imperialism-which he formulated as the highest stage of capitalism from famous work of British political theorist Hobson.

Now see the troubled part of this kind of empiricism. With technological evolution in USA, my housemaid, who cleans my house twice a month, drives an old Mercedes. She earns more than my wife who is a law clerk. By classical Marxist definition, my wife is a Bourgeoisie and my housemaid belongs to proletariat class! Yet this proletariat is materially better off because of technological revolution as she is no more an ordinary housemaid-she knows how to run the state of the art cleaning machines and works as a proud cleaner. As the more technological revolution would take place, robots would replace most of the works done by the proletariat and the proletariat would transgress into expert machine operators for which they will work as independent or skilled workers. Of course in democracy there will be conflict of different interest groups but by no means, in a functional democracy such conflicts can not be resolved through ballots. Bottom line-Marxist reductionism of class is at best a fuzzy suggestion and class struggle is even a furthest stretch of political fiction.

Now notice the peril of Leninist reductionism. Indian lefts opposed US-India nuclear deal citing imperialistic design of United States which undoubtedly resulted from Leninist theory of imperialism. But in reality, although US has a long history of imperialism, that deal was simply a civilian trade deal that India badly needed for her energy security as Nuclear energy would dominate the world in next couple of decades.

Last example would show political ideology is actually a hindrance than a help. West Bengal today is one of the worst state in India in terms of industrialization, education, public health and political violence. This all happened because ruling left wanted to run West Bengal according to obsolete Leninism and in process industries fled from the state. This state is a glaring example that political ideology does not work at all or worst, how political ideology can ruin a state. It didn't work for Russia or Iran-neither will it ever work anywhere in the world. Reason is simple. Any empirical political law is a kind of reductionism. We try to reduce some set of observations to laws and try to apply that empirical experience elsewhere. Like our communists tried to import Russian Bolshevik experience to India. It never worked in caste infested Indian society as admitted by CP(I)M times and again. Reason is simple. We can formulate physical laws of water because water consists of water molecules that are identical in its property and behavior. But society is composed of human beings where everyone of them is different in their aspiration and objectives. Therefore, no such statistical laws can be formulated around a society and at a given time, to solve a social problem, best alternative has to be adopted without any preconceived bias of ideology.

There lies success of Rahul Gandhi. He entered into Congress and observed perennial weakness of Congress organization in terms of nepotism and frustration of its grass root workers. He realized organization needs democratic reform so that grass root workers can select their own leaders. This is only thing CPM does perfectly about their party organization. Also it is extremely clear Rahul is resolved to take this country out of casteism and communalism. He has emphasized Muslims as human beings and Indians rather than alienation as Muslim. Even leftist leaders could not show this level of resolved courage fearing reprisal from fanatic Muslim community leaders who want to retain Muslim identity to benefit from their community leadership.

Overall, Rahul remains truthful to his own conscience and experience. This is the most important quality for a leader. Besides he also has truly western character of exploring the situation in person and he does not form opinion unless he investigates the incident by himself. This is an extraordinary scientific ability because as I said, instead of forming opinions swept by ideology, for a better tangible solution, a leader has to probe the problem like a true doctor-that is to inspect the patient by eyes and ears. That's where Rahul Gandhi stands as the best.

Unfortunately, Congress worker's off-balance enthusiasm about Rahul is harming his image. After Rajasthan election, Congress supporters were shouting about Rahulji where as true architect was Gelhot. Same happened in Delhi. This sent out a reactant message and insipid taste to majority of Indians who love Rahul Gandhi but is not fanatic to the extent that they would not spell out who deserves more credit. Such fanatic behavior of Congress supporters about Rahul Gandhi only exposes intellectual bankruptcy of Congress abrogating extensive hard work of Rahul to lift the party and the country.

One must be thankful to Gandhis to keep this nation on right path. If we would have gone to extreme left, we would be awarded with a West Bengal like situation-unemployment and tragic condition of economy. On extreme right, you may get a Gujrat where despite wealth, it's literacy rate remains average. Therefore, only a balanced approach to business and society or a harmonious vision between society and business where growth happens without disparity is the need of the hour. Right now, Rahul is the only sane voice for that delicate balance that India needs. He has rightly pointed out that future India lies in technological advancement in rural area. Best thing about him is always about how he investigates the problem being with people without being carried out by any baggage of ideology or pundits.

He is a traveller with a bag and without a baggage. That's the destination of a true traveller. Young India would certainly love to travel with him with a bag and without baggage.

Corporate Socialism for better corporate Governance

2009-01-12T15:04:00.000-08:00

Amidst the maddening ruckus of Satyam episode, Indians got their fair share of growling-as if they are all but modern avatar of Gandhi while Raju is the only black sheep in IT fairyland of shining India. Even today we learned World Bank barred Wipro for offering bribes to their employees--which, although legalized in USA in the name of friendly share option, nevertheless a variant to influence contractual decision in favor. While thousands of words and blogs taking on ailment of corporate Governance in India, what we are missing here is a big picture of corporate Governance embalming traditional Indian culture of business-compromised ethics and reduced human values for employees. However there may be a better scoring point over their American counterparts-better job security.

While discussion on ethics is useless in business- as at the end of the day, ethics is also an integral part of the product offering. Falling short of good business practice purports to suicide by slow poison, I would rather reflect upon the second part-profit over people. Infosys, Wipro, TCS and Satyam-they all did one great thing-perfected art of exploiting their employees with gross disregard to US labor regulation. Recently Infosys paid a whopping fine of millions of dollars to its employees for unpaid overtime in US soil-I feel pity for their Indian counterparts who probably slogged even harder while law of the land could not ensure them any protection from exhausting work. Infosys human resource was even callous to the extent of not maintaining a proper guidance of sexual discrimination- as a result of which, their highest paid employee of 2000-2001 & VP of sales in USA,Phaneesh Murthy, was accused of sexual advance to female employees- a case Infosys was forced to settle out of the court losing a few millions while tightening their discrimination guidelines. All the employees of Infosys, Wipro, Satyam and TCS are treated like cattle in the matter of relocating them from one part of the world to another-company barely gives them a flight ticket and that's all. Rest of the relocation, coping up with adverse and alien environment-is all left to the employees. Even a week's hotel cost is not paid as relocation. Typically any standard US company would agree to pay $10,000 minimum for relocating from coast to coast in USA where as for any worker employed with any of these crown jewels of IT-India gets only a flying ticket to their client's office! One may argue, well, they are in the game of outsourcing-where the mantra is always about an operational model of cutting the cost. But I do not buy that argument when I see they declare quarterly result with billions of dollars of profit while their workers do not get any relocation and picks up TV /sofa either from dustbin leftover or thrift store for bare minimum survival. Still they do not complain because they are earning better than their parents and Indian counterparts. Also they are more loyal to their company as well since Indian companies guarantee a better job security. While visa frauds are highly common and under senate scanner now, as an Indian, I am more concerned about an Indian IT worker walking on snow in upstate New York's freezing zero because his company didn't give him proper accommodation while declaring millions of dollar profit for its shareholders and fat bonus to CEOs. I call that profit over people and that is the disease that has plunged Indian IT industry where as in Auto or conventional industry, profit is made and shared with employees -both in Japan and in USA.

The vulgarity associated with driving profit margins for inflating share price must be stopped and penalized or else we will see more of Satyam kind of scandal hitting our reputation and savings to rock bottom. I strongly demand a law to distribute any profit over 5% equally among all the employees to stop the management making profit over people. IT employees must organize themselves in unions to raise this demand in Indian parliament for a better India and better corporate Governance. Greed of corporate management can not be checked without laws that enforce equal distribution of profit among all of its employees irrespective of rank an hierarchy. Corporate socialism is the only way for better Corporate Governance.

Birth of a new Bangladesh: Joy Bangla

2008-12-29T21:50:00.000-08:00

Although today I am overtly delighted with landslide victory of progressive force of Bangladesh, I shared same anxiety of
secular people of Bangladesh ever since, I was introduced to Bangladesh eforums late back in 2004, when there was a hue and cry among rank and files of secular groups in Bangladesh that secularism is on retreat in the golden land of Bangla which boosts a poetic harmony for mankind from time immemorial. It is a land of Lalan Fakir, Rabindranath Tagor and Nazrul Islam who spoke of undivided humanity at best and broke the fallacious barrier of being a Muslim or Hindu. This is a land which spoke human being and humanity above all and everything. Unfortunate as it is, with birth of Muslim league, communal harmony of Bengal plunged into rock bottom in the beginning of last century. Perhaps many of my readers do not know, that in 1946, Bengali Muslims actually got caught up with sinister design of two nation theory for exploitation of Bangla by Punjabi Muslims and therefore, along with Hindu leaders like Sarat Bose, Bengali Muslim leaders actually pressed for an united Bengali nation refuting Jinnah's Pakistan and favoring Bengali nationalism over Islamic identity. This was turned down by Muslim league and Congress alike. Although Bengali nationalism in Bangladesh was nipped in the bud in 1947, it took them another 24 years before breaking up with falsehood of Islamic nation theory of Pakistan paying an untold cost of three million people-largest genocide since Holocaust. Although a secular Bengali nation was born in 1971 led by Seikh Mujibur Rahaman, soon military coup d'e'tet took over in 1975 killing the forces of secularism and modern Bangladesh reversing back to Islamic nation. Since these coups were aided by US-Pakistani nexus who were apprehended by Indian-Russian influence over Bangladesh which, at that time, was full of socialist zeal to reorganize the country in Soviet fashion, Ziaur Rahaman took no time to bring back Islam into politics because it is only in Islam, he would have created a new alternative power circle against Bengali nationalism. Like any other military general, Zia started off with populist measure but reversed the momentum of modern Bangladesh into Islamic Bangladesh. After General
Ershad took over, he cunningly balanced the country between Islam and Bengali nationalism. However, he was so corrupt to begin with, he too failed the aspiration of common people and was deposed subsequently by a bloodless democratic coup. Since 1991, three elections were held in which BNP led by widow of General Zia and Awami League led by daughter of Seikh Mujibar Rahman shared their power and again failed common people's aspiration for a modern affluent Bangladesh by mindless corruption and complete collapse of state system. However, it is during this democratic time of '91 to 2006, independent media flourished in Bangladesh. This is the biggest gain
of democratic era which would prove decisive during present election of 28th December, 2008.

Ever since Bangladesh politics was torn between bitter battle of Bengali versus Islamic nationalism, poor and marginal people of Bangladesh were increasingly frustrated who were asking for food and job rather than anti-Indian or pro Islamic jingoism of BNP or "living in the past ideologies" of the Awami League. It is only in Dec,2008 election, for the first time, Awami League recognized the need for a future looking vision and the fact that young generation is not looking forward to Islam or India or Bengali but a better material living. Their strategy paid off handsomely against the backdrop of outdated conspiracy theorists turned corrupt leaders of BNP and Jamati Islami. Added with it, was empowerment of women voters who outnumbered male and was well aware of danger posed on them by Jamati Islami through Sharia law. They thrashed out all the Islamic parties sending clear message to them that they want Islam as spiritual religion and they do not want criminals
as torch bearer of Islam.

Today's victory of Bangladeshi secular modern force is a decisive victory over Islamist extremist force with 4/5th majority and after this, they can not have any excuse of why they could not turn around a modern a Bangladesh with all needed mandate with them. Now they have the opportunity to root out reactionary force that opposed Independence of Bangladesh. As Leon Trotsky once said "
in a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be magnanimous at an inopportune time"- I believe, for progressive force in Bangladesh, that time is now to eradicate poverty and malice of religious extremism. If they fail to listen to marginalized people once again as they did in 1996-2001, they too, will be trashed in history.

For a long time secular intellectuals groused over reversal of attainment of '71 freedom struggle-well people of Bangladesh has given them back what they wanted. So ball is in their court to take Bangladesh to 21st century. I hope with decimation of Islamist force, Hasina, now can be assured that people are asking for "dal vat" (lentil-rice) and they do not want religious appeasement politics which is a contagious virus in whole south Asia. I am also glad that people of Bangladesh realized hunger is the real enemy and propaganda of Islam or nationalism is a tool for the rulers to mislead them from their fundamental right for food and future.

Joy Bangla!

At the root cause of Islamic terror in Pakistan

2008-12-05T20:22:00.000-08:00

“Democracies don't go to war against each other, and by and large they don't sponsor terrorism. They're more likely to respect the environment and human rights and social justice. It's no accident that most of the terrorists come from non-democratic countries.”-Bill Clinton

While cause of terrorism is multi-faced, terrorists on the other hand are always unique in their background-ideologically guzzled, citizen of autocratic states and almost invariably exploited by foreign policy makers. While our leftist friends could not recuperate from American conspiracy theory, undeniable nemesis of rise of Islamist ideology and associated fundamentalism in south Asia needs more focus on failure of leftist politics in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. From its birth, Pakistan has been ruled by a few handful families in old tradition of Islamic family centric power politics and this group of elites ruined Pakistan for retaining their power. Worst of this case happened in 2nd December, 1978, when General Zia-Ul-Haq captured the power in a promise to set up true Islamic republic of Pakistan. Secular syllabus was overhauled and general directed Islamic brainwash from the buds-Official school texts of Pakistan started emphasizing glory of Islam and doom of polytheist Hindus in horror Casteism and Sati burning. Note that this anti-Hindu, anti-India propaganda started a year before United States got heavily involved with Mujahidin in Afghanistan at the backdrop of Russian aggression. For Zia, it was a golden opportunity to bolster his power base since he was son of a farmer and didn't belong to power broker aristocratic families of Pakistan. He saw anger among Pakistani poor people against these western educated elites and metamorphosed that anger by feeding them Wahabi Islam to consolidate his basics with added blessing from Ronald Regan, who used the general to counter Soviet in central Asia. Therefore Islamic brotherhood was call of the day since in no other way Pakistan would have been inspired to fight in Afghanistan given long history of animosity between two countries.

When Noor Muhammad Taraki of Marxist PDPA assumed power in Afghanistan in 1978, he started modernization of Afghanistan by land reform and eliminating local landlords. At the beginning, he enjoyed mass support of the poors and the military. But United State found the situation unacceptable as another country falling in the hand of communists. Therefore, US backed up feudal landlords using Pakistan as base. A mass insurgency against PDPA in whole Afghanistan was hatched using Islamic sentiments of the poor Afghans who was actually benefitting from PDPA's land reform. But atheist communists were portrayed as enemy of Islam in Afghanistan and in order to do so massive Islamic machinery was set up in Pakistan which is intact even today. Remember this started even before Russia officially marched in Afghanistan. Many a times, we find, USA has used the pretext of Soviet aggression but in reality, CIA was actively planting Islamism in this area to depose PDPA blessed by Soviet Union. From 1978 since withdrawal Russian troops in 1988, Jamat-e-Ulema-i Islam, a Deobandi school of Islamic scholars, led the task of mushrooming Islamic millitants including Talibans in Pakistan. Given by the present insurgency level in Pakistan, attempt to reverse this militant Islam since 9/11 met with very little success and the gruesome event in Mumbai reminds us once again, strength of ideology can not be reversed unless political leaderships is truly willing for eradication of Islamism. As I said before in another editorial, even if we enhance our security, our flaws against Islamists ideology would remain as permanent seed for causing more terrorism in the future. And at this point, even BJP would not be touching this sensitive issue of virus of Islamic brotherhood which is creating hell in the whole world. Instead, they would be more interested in blame game to reap harvest in voting season. Worst is the double standard of world politicians when we hear, these terrorists are rootless exception among peace loving Muslims, wolves in the herd of the cow, and rest is fine. That's why we don't see even a single protest against Osama Bin Laden in the Islamic world where as even if an order is passed to secularize immigrant Muslim in Europe, the whole Muslim world burns in anger. It never occurred to the Muslims that in Saudi Arabia, all other religions are officially banned. It can never unsettle a Muslim, that in the land of their greatest enemy, that is America, he can open a Mosque, gets his hallal meat and if wishes, he can be a senator as well where as in Saudi Arabia, Bible is burned and religious police looks out for idols in the households of the Hindus. In Middle Eastern countries, only Muslim can be citizen and such gross violation of human right never dodges a Muslim mind. However, thousands of miles away even if a Kashmiri dies in India, their feelings of brotherhood exalted them into terrorist attack on India.

Thanks to overwhelming anger of the Indians, we now know everything about perennial security flaws. But security by definition is like a porous pot-no matter how you tight it, it can always be breached. On the other hand, we can ensure our fight against virus brewing this trouble-that is the ideology of Islam which is expansionist and intolerant. And this fight must be a fight from secular and scientific perspective without giving away to right wing ideology since all the religions in the world are merely a product of sociological evolution and construct of anthropological need and nothing more. I know a religion can be interpreted in thousands of different ways and Islam is not monolithic but when human beings are attempting genetic revolution for immortality and setting out for other planets in solar system, unquestioned loyality of the Muslims to their outdated ideals is becoming anti-thesis of the civilization. Muslims must remember their glorious past of Mutazilas, the free thinkers of ancient of Arabs who questioned Islamic theology and in that critical reasoning, they excelled to be foremost civilization of their time. A society, a religion can not get better without criticism of its past and ideals since we are all evolving with changing mode of production triggered by computers, internets and genetics. That's why Nobel Lauriat Prof Abdus Salam said greatest crime against Islam has been committed when Muslims stopped questioning Quran and its principles like Mutazila-prosecution of the free thinkers among Muslim was the end of Islamic domination in the world. But right now their choice is limited-accept modern ideals or face consequence which our diplomatic leaders will not be able to deter for a long time as the experience of Mumbai would continue to happen.

Is present concept of secular state flawed?

2008-11-28T06:56:00.001-08:00

Is present concept of secular state flawed?

-Biplab Pal
California 1/8/07

Idea of secularism in 19th and 20th century

In the simplest and precise form, by secularism we mean separation of the church and the state-that religion has no business in the matter politics, governance and law. Holyoake, Nietzsche, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are undoubtedly the greatest philosophical motivation behind the concept of secular state as one may find in Holyoake’s treatise on secularism: (English secularism, 1896)

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.

Despite the existence of International humanist and ethical union (IHEU) and the secular humanism it is professing, it is more than clear that a lot more number of people are finding their meaning of life in religion than that of secular humanism. Also, religious leaders are becoming more and more vocal against the concept of secularism except with a few notable exceptions like Dalai Lama who adhered to secularism by stating "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things”.

I have been thinking deeply on this serious issue-why secular ethics is only welcome to a few limited literate elites and not as welcome as religious ethics to the most of the young generation? And also why the concept of secular state is getting cornered as a result of denial of ‘man-made’ secular ethics and laws? We might talk about American influence, capitalist conspiracy etc. but in my view that will be dilution of an extremely serious issue which will determine the future of secularism.

Is secular state compatible with existentialism?

What do I mean when I utter the word ‘I’? Does it mean a mind and a flesh ?

Not really- the existence of ‘I’ is broken into multitude of sub-existence as father, son, husband, friend, employee, engineer, citizen etc. etc. I am all of the above packed together. Then what does it mean when I say I am a Hindu or a Muslim?

If I pray five times, go to the Mosque, perform Hajj and do all the rituals, can I be a Muslim? Which part of my existence needs these rituals?

None.

I go to Durgapuja, offer the sacrifice to Kali and take bath in Proyag. Does that make me a Hindu?

Nope.

Then what is it that makes me a Muslim or a Hindu? How is this religious identity born?

Clearly not the rituals that have no link with my existence as social being-a son, a father, a husband, a friend. Rituals only render a mask of identity as Hindu or Muslim and do not get deeper into our existence because it’s not linked with it!

But think of these-a Muslim any where in the world has a feeling for a suffering Muslim in Iraq –he does not have any for the Tamils in Shrilanka. In the case of a Hindu it is reversed but the matter remains the same- we strongly feel for the group that forms our supporting system. Of course a supporting system can be a city, can be a state but for believer of Hinduism or Islam, feeling of sympathy arose from the primary cause of religion -- to self-organize our society by forming a supporting system.

Yes, now you must get the point. One becomes a Muslim only when he/she tries to perfect his behavior as a father, as a son, as a husband/wife and as a friend according to his religion or its interpretation he/she believes in. Following rituals does not make him/her a Muslim. In a secular state, the laws of divorce, the laws of treating a woman are governed by secular ethics and not by religious verdicts. So one can not be a true Muslim or a true Christian unless laws of the land are derived in accordance with their religion. That is why Muslims in a dar-ul-haram demand for a separate Muslim personal law as we have seen in the recent events of Canada, UK and Denmark. Or for that matter, the reason is the same as to why the Christian religious leaders are bitching against the secular state as a destabilizing factor for Christian way of life in America, UK, France and Italy.

Therefore, the concept of secular state and religious way of living can not survive side by side and the clash is imminent and inherent in a system.

But what is the common ground? A way out?

Option one: Have red revolution and wipe the religion out for ever and for good! But the concept of communism turned out to be such a draconian experience, this one is already a forgone conclusion-neither feasible not advisable.

Optione two: Censor the religion and transform it into a dynamic process of self-quest like a sufi or saint. Of course someone can be adhyatamik ( I can not use the word spiritual-because I want to mean study of self and its objective) and yet be a secular person but a person believing in Islam or Hinduism or in any other religion can not be a truly secular person for the said reason of existentialism problem.

It is not possible to censor Koran or Gita in a democracy-one will not find a single believer who wants to dilute Koran even if it tells you to beat your wife-they would rather find logics and reasons to either follow so no matter how idiotic that can be or decent people would find an interpretation that would rationalize the Ayat as obsolete from historical perspective when humanism was not so much of a prevailing idea. Irrespective of religious background, no religious person would support any less of their religious texts because their rational sense is already curtailed and lost in their crisis of theist existentialism. That’s why you will find so many devout Muslims with PhD degree would still believe in Koran rather than in secular humanism.

Only an autocratic government can force it through state education system and machinary-but this is neither a feasible option in democracy not it is advisable to institute an autocracy to implement a change.

Option three:
Clue to the failure of two is theist existentialism-which prompts to provide a stronger alternative to theism that would meet the needs that theism provides to the common people. On my quest to science and religion, I found science can answer all the philosophical questions of religion more satisfactorily than God oriented religious scriptures. The idea that religion and science have different realm is flawed and Richard Dawkins was very right to point out S J Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) between science and religion is nothing but a sweet political move to balm the theists. Indeed science can be a complete alternative to religion if it is expanded and promoted in that fashion. I am convinced we will achieve nothing by proving religion is wrong or opposed to science unless we provide an effective alternative to emotional need and quests of human beings- answering and defining their spiritual quests through science or proven empirical method.

So looking at all the possibilities, I found third one is the only feasible way out to secularism. It is not enough to prove a religious belief is rotten , inhuman or unscientific. It won’t help because religion is about interpretation and apologetics will always bring about the best of humanism from religion to prove that other interpretation exists and that the problem in religion has to do with its wrong interpretation. And we will lose the game because trusting in ‘right’ interpretation in religion would serve more purpose in common people.

I am citing an example from Imrana case. When the case exposed the ugly face of Sharia and Indian media was all over for imposing uniform civil codes on the Muslims, comes the balming face of All Indian Muslim Ulema who started a propaganda stating that Deoband Ulemnas erred in this case failing to understand Koran!

In the Imrana case the father in law forced himself onto his daughter in law. She screamed and shouted for help. Clearly it was not with consent. The father in law is obviously guilty, while the daughter in law is the victim. The above injunction applies only when consent is involved. The Imrana angle has to be viewed from the viewpoint of a number of other injunctions in the Koran that demands compassion and kindness to the victim. I am surprised the Deoband ulemas failed to apply these Koranic commands. Certainly Imrana, her husband and her five children deserve these considerations. By declaring this marriage to be null and void, the final price for this dastardly act will be paid by the victims. That violates the spirit and the letter of the Koran. The Deoband ulemas have erred badly.

Prof J. S. Bandukwala
Vadodara, Gujarat
drbandukwala@yahoo.co.in

The issue abated since then. Note that this professor –while advocating Sharia based on correct and diverse interpretation, has no concern over the fact that the right interpretation of religion needs a strong secular background. If the people like Deoband ulameas who belong to the most prestigious school of Islam in whole Indian subcontinent can issue a fatewa like this, what will be the condition of thousands of rural muslims women living in obscured part of the subcontinent? Can he ensure right interpretation of Koran by the illerate Mullahs when the most literate like Deobands are issuing a fatewa like this?

Therefore, we are left with no alternative but to provide a scientific alternative to religion. Because science is objective truth that does not change with interpretation. We need to provide more satisfactory answer from science meeting the emotional need-specially on the purpose of life. One can not continue to live without knowing what is the purpose of his/her birth into this world.. We don’t do that and let religion takes the precedent in this important philosophical question, secularism is already out the door. Please do understand that we can not rely on Awami League or CPM for implementing secularism on our behalf- I bait we would achieve nothing for secularism and instead of cornering fundamentalists we would get thrown out from state system as it has already happened in Bangladesh.

Some people also reverie in utopian idea that humanism can replace religion. No it can not. When you are attacked by an enemy humanism does not and can not tell you what to do but religion does. That is the whole concept of Jihad or crusade. We may hate this religious product but what else other than a call to arms would have liberated Bangladesh against the oppressors? Both Koran and Gita advocate armed uprising against oppressors and consider that as an essential part of religion. On paper, Jihad is a perfect concept but on history, both the Hindu and Muslim rioters in great Calcutta killing were motivated by the same Jihad or DharmaYudha. Hence again we are back to the vicious circle of interpretation, interpretation and interpretation! And that is the reason why we do need science to replace the religion-so that we do not chase the ghost of interpretation anymore and the social laws be firmed on an objective and empirical method.

However humanism can replace one strong aspect of religion- a support system of life but unfortunately I am yet to see secular humanists are sacrificing their career in numbers to support poor kids in Africa or Asia which we find in God inspired Christian missionaries.

Therefore, I am of the strong opinian that in order to set up a true secular state, one can not ignore the demand-supply aspect of religion in the emotional journey and realization of human being and the support system it forms around its follower. If science can not be a part of that realization and support system, it does not serve any significant purpose just by proving God does not exist or religion is vile. There will not be mass taker of rationalism except a few intelligent beings-not enough to form a political force. And unless we are a part of a strong political force, concept of secularism will be out from the self-organization of human society.

In the last century, communism was replacing religion and gaining political power because it was addressing those basic questions that otherwise religion is left to handle. And in the history of mankind, nothing could raise a stronger idea of a true secular state than communism. But it failed because, it misconceived the the question on purpose of life and deviated from the basic method of science that demands that there is no better alternative to democratic system. It is only with the opposing voice, opposing force can be developed which is the most important aspect of dialectic materialism-without it, there can not be any evolution of the society. Also, you can easily see either in communist North Koria or in Cuba, political power is inherited by a family and not the people as promised. You may ask why? Simple, because the purpose of human life is to continue its genetic code and definitely this drive is stronger than the idea of establishing socialism as supreme objective of life! Hence denying this basic purpose of life, we can not build a movement or a political philosophy that would aim to set up a secular state.

We can not expect the people to derive their objective of life from religion and the same person would support man made laws-that is an inherent contradiction of secularism we are trying to promote. And as a result, secularists are losing all over. Hence we have to provide some alternative to religion or else the idea of secularism is destined to lose its political weight.

Whom Hindus should blame for conversion?

2008-11-17T19:54:00.000-08:00

-Biplab Pal

11/17/2008: Washingtin DC

Recent incidents of ongoing communal riot between Hindus and Christians that resulted in death of more than sixty people in last two months, tarnished the pluralist image of India. We held this sacred image of religious tolerance as our supreme ethos for last two thousands years. Christianity stepped into India with Saint Thomas in first century AD-at a time when Christians were persecuted ruthlessly by the Roman empire . Judaism came to India in 70 AD, soon after they were expelled from their land by Romans. Nathan Katz observes ( Who are the Jews of India) -India is the only country where Jews were neither discriminated nor persecuted. Such tradition of religious tolerance over thousands of years is unmatched in the history of civilization. Magnanimity of Indian civilization radiated from the core philosophy of Sanatan Dharma-Ekam Sat. Reality is everywhere and in every being! Unlike Abrahamic faiths, Sanatan philosophy is not in pursuit of 'perfect belief' but in search of truth accepting personal evolution of individual spiritual quest. The whole idea of Adaitya Vedhanta, at the center of Hinduism, accepts highest level of plurality by Aham Brahman-realization of universal consciousness in individual consciousness in their own way. Therefore, modern Hindu spiritual leader of 19th century, Shri Ramakrishna declared this plurality of Vedanta as Jato Mat Toto Path-as many ways that many paths to realize the truth. In short, this is the true summery of Hinduism-unity in diversity of faiths.

However political reality of India experienced an entirely different version of Hinduism, devoid of enlightenment and encapsulated with casteism supporting Brhamnical supremacy. Question of social identity of lower Sudra caste, who are not considered a Varna( high class) Hindu, happened to be at the root of all communal tension till to date. Hindu epic Ramayan unambiguously promotes casteism and Brahmnical supremacy. However , in Mahabharat, although in Bhagbad Gita, Lord Krishna unabashedly supported casteism, the epic reveals an ambivalence position of casteism in Hindu society. For example, when Ghotakatch, mighty son of Vima, second of Pundav, asked explanation from Krisna-whether he has not been summoned to war because he is not born of a caste Hindu mother and that whether caste Hindu warriors would find it embarrassing to fight with him, a low birth by Hindu caste system, Lord Krishna gracefully replied- caste of a person is not by birth but by his achievement. This seemed to sound a very different note with Pundav's attitude towards mighty "Suta Putra" Karna, who has never been addressed by Pundavas as King of Angada but always by suta-putra (son of Chariot owner) despite Karna exceeded high caste Pundavs in the grace of might and generosity. Based on the numerous evidences in Mahabharat, one but can not fail to see, Hindu's position on castism has always been ambiguous but it was ruthlessly implemented as 'birth based' social system denying the social identity of the working labor class. This ambiguity and sometimes, ruthless denial of human position of lower castes in Hinduism made them vulnerable to conversion. When Islam invaded India, scheduled caste Hindus, specially in Bengal, embraced them as boon against tyranny of Brahmanism. However, Islamic rule didn't create much of a communal tension because majority of Muslim leaders were also supporter of cast based Hindu system and indeed, Indian version of Islam adopted its neo-casteism by attaching their elites to superior ethnicity to distinguish themselves from local low caste Hindu converts. Except for Aurangazeb, who was an Islamic zealot, a very high degree of cohesion between Hindus and Muslims can be found throughout entire Islamic history of India.

When Christian missionaries came to India, they too found their soft targets in scheduled cast Hindus during sixteen and seventeenth century. However, they faced a daunting task of conversion because by then, Hindus were aware, that lower castes may leave Hindu society altogether and therefore waves of reformist movement swept across India to eliminate casteism as a response against egalitarian message of Islam. In Bengal, Shri Chaitanya led the reformist movement through Gauriya Baishnavism where he proudly declared abolition of casteism in fifteenth century. His magic worked among lower class Bengali Hindus who accepted his teaching and mass conversion to Islam virtually came to a full stop. However, effect of casteism was only reduced but never nullified. Nevertheless, success of Christian missionaries in terms of conversion were very limited and they established themselves by social service to common mass. Even today, all the best schools and hospitals in India are run by Christian missionaries. Most of the Hindu elites of today are product of these Missionary schools and none of them would ever complain that these missionary fathers ever made any attempt to convert them. Till Hinduvta movement started swinging in full glory in late 80's , there was no tension between Hindu and Christian community who are almost invisible minority in India. What is then root cause of new wave of communal hatred against each other?

Much of it is hidden in recent rise of Hinduism as aggressive political response to monotheist faiths. Historically Hinduism always responded to Islam or Christianity by reforming its religion. For example, Gauriyo Baishanvism was response to Islam and Brahmo Samaj was Hindu counter response to Christianity. Indeed, in those days, Hindusim took to intellectual and meaningful spiritual response very successfully because it didn't enjoy political power. But this time, since Hinduism is having more political power than ever before, it is stooping to low by responding the problem of conversion politically where need of the hour is to address the problem and isolation of lower caste Hindus who are getting converted because neither they get any social recognition nor any material support by staying in Hinduism. Instead of choosing the most difficult and meaningful path of accommodating vast number of scheduled casts and tribes into the fold of Hinduism by giving them equal social status and material means as Shri Chaintanya did it in fifteenth century, todays' Hindu leaders, devoid of spiritual and intellectual ardor, are more interested in the politics than spiritual quest. They are foxy political leaders who are more after a fortune harvest by playing Holi with bloods of the innocent Christians.

I hear much noise about legal ban on conversion. First of all conversion is a foolish idea and it serves only the purpose of social identity exploited in politics. But question that a caste Hindu must ask first-why even today, position of casteism in Hinduism is as ambiguous as it was during the time of Mahabharata? This simple truth exposes why reformist teaching of Hindu spiritual maestros like Shri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Dayananda Sarawati could not change Hinduism when it comes to casteism. Why we don't see any strong denouncement of castism by Hindu organizations? In theory, they do and speak of abolition of casteism but can anybody cite me single example of any Hindu caste leader got his children married to a scheduled tribe? Why they are still apologetic like Lord Krishna and never can come out very clearly rejecting it like Vivekananda who condemned it in the harshest language? How long do they think, these scheduled casts and tribes can be fooled by their empty slogan of equal social status in Hindu hierarchy?

Therefore, need of the hour is for another socio-spiritual reform movement inside Hinduism to abolish caste by encouraging wide-spread inter caste marriage. Though, I am not entirely sure, how many of Hindu zealots, who seem so conscious and worried about conversion game, would comply or encourage marriage of their relatives to scheduled cast and tribes. Gandhiji felt this need at his heart but he too, could not take any affirmative position. Therefore, now it is left to consciousness of Hindu mass to realize that conversion is happening because of their failure to eliminate castism which is aptly exploited with material means by Christian missionaries.

Analysis of failure of secularism in West Bengal

2008-09-03T20:06:00.000-07:00

-Biplab Pal 11/27/2007

Take one: Taslima hurricane on Indian secularism

At no point of Indian history, a person from other country occupied such a central stage in Indian politics and media as Taslima did in last few days. Her saga emerged as litmus test for ‘secularism’ in India . While Indian constitution provides for censorship of religiously sensitive material, it does not approve any kind of vandalism or intimidation to anybody. Over last few days we have seen so called leftists have miserably buckled before Islamic fundamentalists and exposed their ideological bankruptcy. At the same time, Narendra Modi is making ‘Taslima’ as his prime and prized campaign against Congress. Congress, at last, has been able to show some secular character by a tough statement from Prime Minister vowing full security for Taslima and action against Islamic extremists. I would try to shed some lights on how WB leftists become completely bankrupt in the matter of secularism.

Take two: Legacy of Muzaffar Ahamed and CPI

CP(I)M was founded by Muzaffar Ahamed. The Communist party of India was first set up at Taskhent on 17 October 1920. Comrade Muzaffar established contact with the International Communist Movement and began collecting papers and journals in large numbers from abroad. The Vanguard of the Indian Independence , the first publication of the party, came out on 15 May 1922. Muzaffar met Comrade Abdul Halim towards the end of 1922 and jointly took up the task of building the Communist Party of India.

Between 1938-40, the Communist Party had spread to all 28 districts of undivided Bengal and party members began to be enrolled in thousands. Trade Unions and Kisan Sabhas developed in large numbers. The task of re-organizing the party continued throughout the fifties. The party began to emerge as a national party both inside and outside the legislature. Comrade Muzaffar Ahmed was at the centre of all these activities. He was the Secretary of the Bengal Provincial Committee of the party from 1940 to 1943. Throughout his life Comrade Muzaffar Ahmed remained in the leadership of the party.
Several features of Muzaffar Ahmed's life attracted everyone's attention. His deep devotion to working class internationalism, firm conviction in democracy, and tremendous enthusiasm for equal rights of women combined to make him a great revolutionary.
Ahmed believed that freedom of press and speech is essential for expansion of mind and that the exchange of ideas is essential to encourage thought. He used to protect and nurture press, paper and bookshops with loving care. The National Book Agency and Ganashakti Press are his contributions. His articles on many different subjects are to be found scattered in many journals and magazines. His writings on peasant problems, his Communist Party of India : Years of Formation 1921-1933 and his Myself and the Communist Party of India throw valuable light on contemporary politics.

Every Bengali comrade who took to street for undivided CPI in '70s was disciple of comrade Muzaffar-you name it-be it Jyoti Bose or Biman or Buddha or Promad Dasgupta. In the seventies, three distinct characters made communism popular in West Bengal —their struggle for working mass, liberation of women and protecting democracy against Congress goons. This was the legacy of comrade Muzaffar, popularly known as KakaBabu. Every CP(I)M member lived by these principles till they captured power in 1977.

Take three: 1977-to present: sordid history of decline of CPM party ideology

Before that, we look for how CP(I)M succumbed to religious right wing and lost its secular values. Before 1977, party workers had nothing to gain-except to embrace misery at the hand of Congress and Naxal goons. They worked purely for their dedication to ideology. Who were they? Mostly a group of educated people who struggled in their personal life to realize class struggle. Post 1977, saw emergence of a different set of leadership devoid of their commitment to secularism. It is extremely important we analyze the class and character of this new leadership. First I will start with Muslim leadership in CPM. One has to understand, communism in India mostly started with Muslims as they have seen and been subjected to oppression more than educated Hindus.

Muslims leaders of CPM used to be better secular minded than their Hindu counterparts in '70s and '80s--but they have been gradually removed from the party power because they could not gather much support among Muslim community as Congress did wide-spread propaganda that communists do not approve Allah. I have witnessed this gradual deterioration sadly. I have seen how Abdul Bari established CP(I)M in Murshidabad since 1970s. He was a close friend of my father and both once worked for leftist cause in Muslim dominated areas of Murshidabad. By 1982-84, Bari uncle was a frustrated man--he frequently complained how fundamentalist Muslims are rising on CPM ranks-and finally he was removed. He died broken heart. Today leaders like Muhammad Selim, Abu Sufian are the face of minority in CPM--who are at best Islamic leftists --a garden variety of Sonar Pathar Bati. There are exception like CPM MP Moinul Hossain, a young comrade who took ardent task to secularize Muslim community in village area by writing book and criticizing Islamic texts. But look what happened! Last time he lost his seat because Congress capitalized his criticism and he was portrayed as Murtad. This is true secular character of Congress. Bottom line-CPM Muslim leaders already succumbed to religious rights to garner vote by 1987.

Now, let focus on Hindu leadership in CP(I)M. CP(I)M allowed sublime castism in its intra-party power. I lived in a locality where Mahishya cast were majority. Their vote bank matters the most. So even if, there were more charismatic Brahmin leader of CP(I)M, all the top party positions were filled with the people from Mahishya cast. Even I can not blame Congress with this kind of cast bias. What better you can expect from this kind of leadership that was elected based on cast politics? Leftists? I have quite a high number of relatives in CP(I)M rank and file-they have not abandoned their cast and religious bias completely.

Take Four: Rise of Islamic fundamentalism in WB

Muslims in WB comprises mostly working class peasants in rural areas. There are two kinds of Muslims in West Bengal—Urdu speaking in Calcutta , called Bihari Muslims and Bengali speaking Muslims in the village area. Religion of Bengali speaking Muslim is a inheritance of mixed culture drawn from Baul, Fakir-Sahajia tradition of Bengal . Very little influence of orthodox Islam could be found among them till ‘80S. When I was a kid, I have not found a single Bengali Muslim offering five time prayer in village area-they were exception. Gradually they become a norm. How? Arab Petrodollars fueled billions of dollars in these area and Madrasas after Madrasas, Masjids after Masjids were mushroomed during ‘80s-2000 as value of gasoline took a meteoric rise in international market. Arab money provided free food to the poor kids and converted them into orthodox Islam. In the past, spiritual need of the Muslims was mostly drawn from soil—musical tune of the Bauls praising the love for Allah—cult of devotion was the source for their spiritual inspiration. Gradually Imams took their place with their hate mongering teaching—so the cult of love was shifted to the cult of hatred.

Was CP(I)M watching? Of course. Mr Bari wanted to stop mushrooming of Madrasa and reported to leadership but in vein. As the Muslim fundamentalists gained power, they kicked out CP(I)M. CP(I)M is weak in two districts-Murshidab ad and Maldah—in both the districts, Muslims are majority. Congress enjoyed power here thanks to Islamic fundamentalists in their ranks. So Islamic fundamentalists are boon to Congress but a threat to CP(I)M. But then why CP(I)M is buckling before the Muslim fundamentalists? To understand this, we need to analyze Bengali Hindu Nationalism and failure of BJP as political force in WB.

Take Five: Why buckling before Muslim fundamentalists?

Rise of BJP posed a threat to Bangladeshi refugee vote banks of CP(I)M during ’91-96. But it failed. BJP never gained any ground in WB because Hinduism in Bengal is quite different than Hinduism promoted by BJP. Most of the Bengalis follow reformed Hinduism-either from the tradition of Chaitanya for poor mass or Ramakrishna order for educated elites. Both the orders promote ritual free spiritual Hinduism. This image of Hinduism does not fit with cast infested Hinduism of cow belt championed by BJP. So it is difficult for Bengali Hindus to accept the ideology of Hinduvta which appears to them as imperialism of the North India . However, it will be wrong to assume that Bengali Hindus are secular-indeed they are soft towards Hinduvta but not enough inclined to bring them into the power. It is because of this problem of separate Bengali Hindu nationalism, CPM knows that their Hindu vote bank is secured. It will not switch to Congress either because its image has already been tarnished as party of Islamic fundamentalists and servitude of Delhi high commands. So CPM emerged as the only champion of Bengali Hindu Nationalism!

So question is, when there is no threat of losing Hindu votes, how they can win back their lost ground to Muslim fundamentalists? CPM is choosing easiest option. Recruit the fundamentalists in their leadership. Lot of Imams are party leaders in the district of Murshidabad and Maldah. They are the latest comrades of CPM. Which ideology do you expect from them?

Take six: The future?
Bengali Hindu nationalism is the most prevailing sentiment of WB yet it is not represented by any political force. Bengali Hindu nationalism is characterized by reformed Hinduism, Bengali music " culture, defiance of power management from Delhi and rejection of or apathy towards Islamic culture. Except for element of hatred towards Muslims, it has nothing in common with Hindu nationalism. And the very reason, it has not evolved into a political force despite a dominance of sentiment, has to do with its element of hatred towards the Muslims. This is a tragedy and let me explain this point further.

Bengali Muslims in general are highly respectful of spiritual tradition of Chaitanya and RamaKrishna. However, they are opposed to ritualistic Hinduism of cow belt. So is Bengali Hindu Nationalism. Al Amin Mission started following the footsteps of RamaKrishna Mission and not any Arabic NGO. So far Al Amin Mission is the most successful reform movement among Bengali Muslims producing hundreds of doctors and engineers by adopting poor Muslims to their schools. Bengali Hindus have failed to recognize fellow Muslims and isolated them from Bengali nationalism.

Therefore, need of the hour is to convert Bengali Hindu nationalism into Bengali nationalism by rejecting the element of hatred and apathy towards the Bengali Muslims. Bengali nationalism is the only political force that can unite Hindus and Muslims of Bengal against confused and fallen leftists of Bengal . Order of Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and Sufism represent liberal spiritual tradition of Bengal . Neither of the order is in conflict with Marxism or any scientific thinking as they are the product of reformed movement that acknowledges dynamic nature of an evolving religion and opposed to any class exploitation. Rich tradition of Bengali culture and literature can serve as basic ground of political motivation. Bengali secularism can not be devoid of spiritualism—it is impossible given the spiritual inclination of the mass and our tradition. Instead we can assimilate tradition of Sufism, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, Rabindranath and Nazrul to promote secular spiritualism of Bengal .

Basic hindrance for evolution of such political force in WB is the pathetic attitude of Bengali Hindus towards the Muslims. Sooner, they would be able to assimilate them into Bengali nationalistic force better. Or else Bengali Muslims will be hijacked by Arab nationalism (Jamat) and Hindus will be dominated by North Indian imperialism as a result of collapsing ideology of CPM.

[The article is not copyrighted- and meant for free circulation]

Existential crisis of Bengali Babus in North America

2008-08-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

By Biplab Pal

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass

-Hollow Men, T.S .Elliot

*********************************

For those who have been to Laguna Nigel’s Kali temple, Prufullada (real name withheld) is a ubiquitous face. In his late fifties, he still looks pretty young. Although, I have been living in Orange County for last three years, I never visited the Temple . Couple of weeks back, I drove there for a melodious evening of Shyama Sangeet.

-You must be new to this area.

I heard an amiable voice.

- I am Prafullad Sarkar. And you?

- Amio Bangali. Bolun. Ami Biplab

(Am also Bengali, ya tell me, I am Biplab).

- Tai vabchilam. Katodin halo Americai ?

(I was thinking the same. For how long you are here in America?)

I have perfected this trail of conversation. He wanted to claim his superiority by virtue of his arrival date in America . Immigrant population of any ethnicity follows this hierarchy-first come first seniority basis status in the community. That’s why any senior person you would meet will kick off by reminding his seniority. A very linear story.

- Cha bachar

( Six years)

- Bah. Amar kuri bachar haye gelo. Software ye naki? Ekhanei permanent thakcho? (I am here for twenty years. Are you in software? Will you be staying here permanently? )

- Na software noi. Dwitio prashno tar uttar to jani na dada

(Not in software, but I don’t know the answer of the last question)

- Family niye thaka hoi ?

(Do you stay with family?)

- Ha, kintu sobai pujote Kolkatai

(Yes, I do. But they are in Calcutta now. Puja time.)

- Kolkatar pujo katodin dekhi ni

(For how long I have not seen Pujas in Calcutta )

Then he introduced me to his teenage daughters Tanisha and Rina. They greeted by saying "Hi Uncle". Yes, anybody in America with an Indian accent is uncle to second generation Indians. We are uncle by association of accent-eternal guilt, perennial fate of being born in another land.

We exchanged a few trifles. Prafullada is a Shivpur BE college alumni, who settled here as an Engineer during ‘80s. We promised we would meet again.

But that didn’t happen. He handed over his phone number to me. Since he is a senior, I was supposed to call. My wife does not like to be in touch with senior Bengali families. She thinks their wives are worst than torturous and slightly better than mother-in-laws. True, Bengali wives of America , even in their fifties put up a heavy make up. Quite unusual by Bengali modesty standard. But hay we are in America . Gotta understand most of them are working women. In America , you must look younger. Either by make up or by exercise. Bengali diet is not too healthy. So veil of make-up is the only way out..

-You go and meet with those old witches, I can’t. Their make-up, hoity-toity attitude towards new comers like me is simply unbearable! They pretend to be helpful but in reality that was a gesticulation for superiority. They like to advice on everything-starting from butts and boobs to what I am supposed to feed to my kids. You can’t even talk about any singer. They would rather boost how close she was to him! Bunch of morons.

I thought my wife is over reacting. Some of the Boudis are quite accommodating and helpful to new generation. It is always true, immigrants are so busy in managing their lives, earning a little more by working a little extra, they do not have time to groom themselves to the latest cultural fad and greatest literal output. This is true all across the board. Amidst the assiduous schedule, their cultural mind does stretch beyond a few movies. A weekend meet (Dawat for Bangaldeshi and Nemanttana for Bengalis of Indian origin) among the families serves as the only refreshing recreation in the absence of close friend circles.

What’s about the identity then?

What nonsense, I am talking about! Just think. I am into office, working as a middle class hardworking American. I am 100% American in the office including my lunch. I step out; drive back home and then I become a dad. Dad of an American. Given the cultural difference between these kids and the dads, it is not the same dad-son chemistry we have enjoyed in our teens. There was depth of criticality and appreciation which is obviously missing here. So I am a half dad and a half Bong.

What’s about my Bengali identity?

The hardest part. When I go out and meet new people in the job, I hear the phrase-Are you an Indian? Yes, sir. That’s about being an Indian. My colleagues are such a bosom friends and cohorts, my ethnic identity already desiccated into cosmopolitan American whirlwind.

And of course, I have a Bengali wife, few Bengali friends, a Bengali TV channel and once a year Durga Puja. Thanks to my wife, I still enjoy some of the ethnic Bengali dishes. And thanks to Internet, I am connected to my motherland. Yes BS from Ananda Bazar, I am relying on-what else to do. But that’s all about it

Death of a Bengali inside the Babus is not as painful as the death of a feudal lord inside. Adjustment from feudalism to capitalism. In our homeland, most of us were somebody. We were made to feel somebody-either by virtue of good academic career or by the respect from commoners who can not afford two squares meal a day. What ever it is, we were identifiable somebody-either as a secretary of student organization or as a good student.

In America , we, the Babus are nobody. Very few make it to the top management –because success as a manager needs cultural assimilation with its own accent. Mathematical skill is not much of a help to ride in the ladder. Bengali immigrants of post IT era are still better off-at least they are the proud Indians who have a Bangalore in their pocket. Old Bengalis of 60’s, 70’s and 80’s suffer from a chronic inferiority complex. Despite their talents, they never made it to the cream of the American Corporate except with a few notable exceptions. Blame it to discrimination, but one can clearly see its lasting effect on their lives.

After IT revolution, Indians made it to the top of the American society-as venture capitalists, managers, scientists and doctors. So young Babus like us have very little corpus to complain-no room to blame discrimination for our flop career. But for the senior Babus, it is still a big sore. Chronic discriminations they have faced in their days when Indians were not that of a recognized face, still make them depressed. At least when asked about my education, I can proudly say I am IITian. I don’t need any American stamp what so ever, to prove myself further. Surely that was not the case in the seventies and eighties. Hard works of our seniors established the Indian brand-name. Beyond doubts, we are the beneficiary of their hard work.

But then comes the worst part. In America , we can exist in a real or virtual ghetto in our cultural life. We were, somewhat, forced to. I don’t know of many first generation Bengalis or Indians, who would be comfortable with American night life. First, scary discrimination from the blonds in the night clubs. To those bimbos, our physique and look is slightly better than that of a monkey. An au fait revenge on the behalf of womanhood for au courant racist Babus who have very little appreciation for swarthy Bengali brides back home. Second, many do not like acid rocks. Immature death of eardrum smoothened by RabindraSangeet and chocolate melodies.

I have a lot of good American friends but in general they are not very sociable outside office relation-specially in comparison to the Europeans. I have lived with American families twice as a paying guest. They do not socialize copiously even with other Americans in comparison to what we Bengalis like to do. In the matter of social skills, Americans in the mid-west are better off than those from the coast. Mid-westerners are better cultured than coastal people, specially the yahoos of west coast. Europeans are somewhat like Bengalis-they love adda as much as we like it. That’s why I have more European friends than Americans.

But what ever it is-the fact remains the same. We need Bengali friend circles, Hilsa and a Durga puja to keep alive. Hilsa Vape is still substitutable by smoked Salmon. But Bengalis friends and Durga puja are indispensable.

Hence comes the reality. And a bitter truth. Every senior Babu wants to rein his control over Puja committee. Just to save himself from a losing identity of nobody. I saw the same among Bangladeshi community. In their case, identity crisis metamorphosed into a meaningless Awami League versus BNP tug of war in a foreign soil. Jahed Ahamed may not appreciate it. But I have full sympathy for those people who are struggling, fighting, throwing extravagant parties to be a leader in the community-striving to be somebody from the eternal hollow of nobody.

Allusive pursuit of existence in a meaningless ruckus.

Well, that’s what the life is all about! Isn’t it?

Anaheim 10/26/06

Anti-Americanism of Bengali intellectual

2008-08-07T07:30:00.001-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4540756.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4534260.stm

For time being, let's assume, invasion of Afganisthan and Iraq was US imperialism.

But then could anybody tell me, does there exist a single example in the history, when a country could transform into democracy from a bloodthirsty detector without intervention of a foreign power, directly or indirectly? Hitler & Mussolini had to be deposed by external power, and invaded (?) so as to call! From Stalin's Soviet to democratic Russia took 50 years for a peaceful gradual transition to democracy!

In Afghanistan, it was definitely for cleaning up Talibans, the breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. People who could smell a pipeline there, are definitely some brainwashed islamists and mentally off-balanced leftists. Then came Iraq, the most controversial one because Iraq has oil and US foreign policy has not been too kind for the countries who nationalized their oil resources. On the top of that, no WMD could be found in Iraq led to overwhelming suspicion that Iraq was invaded for oil.

Now that people of Iraq responded en mass in the concluding election is a direct proof that people of Iraq are determined to change their own destiny. If their elected Parliament supports for nationalization of oil, what would my leftist friends would say?
America invaded for oil but once democracy was established they were kicked out?

Question, then I would ask to my leftist friends: who paid for this democracy?
Who shed blood for establishing this democracy in Iraq and Afganisthan?

Answer is US and only US.

One might argue that US did so, so that their defense manufacturing companies like GD, Lockheed, Bechtel or Haliburton can profit from the war. May be it is true, but so what? Isn't it true that we are living a good life because of new discoveries like life saving drugs , cars, TV, Internets etc. all of which have been discovered by capitalist greed? The honest and truthful assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan would be the same- these two countries are seeing horizon of hope because of US capitalist greed. And when a person speaks against US capitalist greed, he or she is no better than a hypocrite ( or worst than a terrorist because terrorists are at least honest in stating that they are the enemy ) because he survives on medicine & equipments invented in USA, he communicates through telephone and Internet invented in USA and enjoys through sound/media equipments invented in USA! And guess what, behind his quality of life, only single factor that contributed is American capitalist greed. Socialist systems or other countries never invented any significant commercial discovery, that is worth talking about.

If you are enjoying its fruit, why then don't we admit it!

Well here comes the intellectual problem--Bengalis intellectuals are born hypocrit because they are trained by their hypocrite mentor who are half literate at best. Even if they never read Karl Marx except a few quotes by him, they would portray as if they have a PhD in Marxism! Most of them even don't know the difference between dialectic materialism and historical materialism, between Marxism and Leninism! Short cut way to be an intellectual icon of common mass in our society is to shed tears for the poverty and then blame it to American capitalism. You don't need to pursue logic and reason but to find an enemy, an wealthy one so that you address both hunger and jealousy of the common mass. And then finally promise them a free lunch of socialism that could not feed any society at any given time of the history.

And thus an intellectual leader among the Bengalis is born. Except for Tagore and Amartya Sen, in last one century we didn't get an intellectual whose contribution
in world history of intellectualism is worth mentioning.

And yet, we are proud, we the Bengalis are genius, the intellectual race.May be on a moribund shore of industrial wasteland in West Bengal and Islamic bomb industries in Bangladesh.

Chairman Mao versus Naked Gandhi: Who will have the last laugh?

2008-08-07T07:26:00.000-07:00

Biplab Pal04/07/05

This is not an article. It’s a prelude to a great debate. A debate that will continue to hunt the mankind as the tyrannical oppressors will continue to bleed the civilization.
Oppressed nations and subjugated ethnic minorities always revolted back with arms…throughout the history. Central power of Rome was engaged in endless battles to suppress the revolution of independence by Gaul, Goths, Normans and Egyptians. Countless revolution against Mughal Empire by Marathas, Rajputs, Bengalis and Southern India finally pulled down the whole empire. In that sense, Mao’s method of arm resistance against oppression is not new and he is not the only icon of great arm resistance in the last century. Truly speaking every nation has its own hero. Bengalis have Netaji and Mujibar. Marathis have Shibaji. But still Mao emerged as the final prophet of arm struggle for independence because in him, oppressed people of all kinds see the hope of a utopian society-free of class and oppression. Final independence.
Compared to Mao, nonviolence resistance of Gandhi is rather new. Principal of nonviolence as a form of protest is a direct consequence of Buddhist and Jain renouncement. Self immolation to protest tyrannical regime is a historical Buddhist tradition. In 900 AD, during seize of the Nalanda and Takhashila by Muslim invaders, monks sacrificed their life as a protest against burning of the valuable books. The same tradition continues even in modern Burma where often we find the news of self-burning of the monks as a form of the protest. In that sense, Gandhi does not hold the patent of Satyagraha (nonviolence resistance) but he emerged as an icon because for the first time, he successfully applied this method to liberate the largest colony of the world-India under British Raj. Not only Gandhi achieved success both in South Africa and India, he also proved his superiority as a civilized culture over British. A nation too proud of their civilized ancestry, bowed before Gandhi-Gandhi as a man. Never had it happened in world civilization that a man who liberated a nation from empirical power also achieved highest esteem from the ruthless power lords of the empire. Mujibar Rahaman is still considered to be a traitor and conspirator in Pakistan. Status of Netaji to British historian is no different. But when it comes to Gandhi, he is a hero both in his home and abroad.
Here is a glimpse of the current conflicts in the world. A brief summery will tell you, influence of Gandhi and Mao.
Naxalite struggle in India: In last two years around 56 districts in India have been brought under grip of communist rebels – Inspired by Mao
Communist rebels in Nepal: Mao
Kashmiri freedom struggle: Islamic Jihad
Tibetan Freedom movement: Gandhi
Democratic movement in Burma : Gandhi
Armed struggle of Palestine : Islamic Jihad/Che
Democratic movement in Uzbekistan : Gandhi
Rebels in Chechen :Islamic Jihad
Liberation movement in South Africa: Gandhi
Tigers in Lanka: Tamil nationalism
Several rebel groups in Latin America—Mao/Che
It is interesting to note that the nature of the rebel movements is undemocratic (authoritarian) if it is not inspired by Mao or Gandhi. Movement inspired by Gandhian philosophy gained more respect and support from the rest of world because of its democratic and spiritual nature. Movement inspired by Islamic Jihad gained most notoriety and hatred because of its cruelty against common people. Besides, non-Gandhian rebel movements always produced authoritarian monsters like Osama Bin Laden, Pol Pot and Pravakaran. It is interesting to note that cruelty against Tibetan people by China is no less than cruelty of Israel against Palestine. But Dalai Lama successfully managed to keep Tibetans nonviolent and established his cause before the world. Therefore Tibetan freedom struggle gained respect all over the world where as Palestine freedom movement gained notoriety as its nature transgressed from secular (initially Arafat was greatly influenced by Che) to Islamic.
I am summarizing the view of Gandhi and Mao over different aspect of life and society.
Struggle for independence:
Mao’s method is definitely by gun but there is bigger truth. Gun should be in the hand of poorest of poor people. It is only when the last section of the mass will be mobilized for true independence –a society without oppression will emerge following Marxism. I am attaching a few famous quotes to understand Maoist viewpoint of freedom through arm struggle.
War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes.
"Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War" (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.
However there are good wars and bad wars in Maoism unlike Gandhi who dumped all kinds of wars as manslaughter. In this respect, Mao’s vision is same as that of Krishna in second chapter of Gita. However unlike Krishna, Mao’s justification for war is based in dialectic analysis and not on metaphysical duty.
“History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars; we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore, the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever possible.
Ibid., p. 150.
Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society, and without them it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power.
"On Contradiction" (August1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 344.*
Gandhi on the other hand analyzed the history and came to conclusion that anything that is achieved through violence loses its objective of supreme value of humanism. He saw an inherent contradiction in violent method of resistance.
“Violent means will give violent freedom. That would be a menace to the world and to India herself.!”
-Gandhi
Clearly Gandhi didn’t see any merit in Mao’s arm revolution because it destroys the supreme divinity in the heart of the revolutionaries.
“It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself, for we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator, and as such the divine powers within us are infinite. To slight a single human being, is to slight those divine powers and thus to harm not only that Being, but with Him, the whole world.”
-Gandhi
Nature of virtues in a Man and experimenting with truth:
Both Gandhi and Mao had strong view on evolution as a human being. While Gandhi stressed on honesty and truth, Mao focused on evolution of human being as an intelligent analytical persona. Mao is definitely more inclined with true nature of evolution—it is the cunning and deceptive method to kill the prey has made us evolved as human being.
The only virtue I want to claim is truth and non-violence
-Gandhi
Mao analyzed the truth in dialectic manner-which is also the basic method of science. To him every truth is like a hypothesis that needs to be tested in the due course of social evolution.
In their social practice, men engage in various kinds of struggle and gain rich experience, both from their successes and from their failures. Countless phenomena of the objective external world are reflected in a man's brain through his five sense organs - the organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. At first, knowledge is perceptual. The leap to conceptual knowledge, i e., to ideas, occurs when sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one process in cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process of cognition, the stage leading from objective matter to subjective consciousness, from existence to ideas. Whether or not one's consciousness or ideas (including theories, policies, plans or measures) do correctly reflect the laws of the objective external world is not yet proved at this stage, in which it is not yet possible to ascertain whether they are correct or not. Then comes the second stage in the process of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge gained in the first stage is applied in social practice to ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or measures meet with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man's struggle with nature. In social struggle, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer defeat not because their ideas are incorrect but because, in the balance of forces engaged in struggle, they are not as powerful for the time being as the forces of reaction; they are therefore temporarily defeated, but they are bound to triumph sooner or later. Man's knowledge makes another leap through the test of practice. This leap is more important than the previous one. For it is this leap alone that can prove the correctness or incorrectness of the first leap in cognition, i.e., of the ideas, theories, policies, plans or measures formulated in the course of reflecting the objective external world. There is no other way of testing truth. -Mao
Science in Society:
Gandhi’s view on applied science is controversial. According to him, science is the main cause of growing materialism in the society. Materialism destroys the inherent spiritualism of a man—he saw the negative impact of science. He witnessed the devastation brought by scientific invention in the First and Second World War. He didn’t see any value in material comfort as a result of scientific discoveries.
A certain degree of physical harmony and comfort is necessary, but above a certain level it becomes a hindrance instead of a help. Therefore the ideal of creating an unlimited number of wants and satisfying them seems to be a delusion and a snare.
-Gandhi
Mao also believed in limited materialism but he also welcomed science to enrich materialism –as a mean to progress in the society and as a society. His assessment of science in the society is by far the best one can find in any leader.
Natural science is one of man's weapons in his fight for freedom. For the purpose of attaining freedom in society, man must use social science to understand and change society and carry out social revolution. For the purpose of attaining freedom in the world of nature, man must use natural science to understand, conquer and change nature and thus attain freedom from nature.
Speech at the inaugural meeting of the Natural Science Research Society of the Border Region (February 5, 1940).
“The history of mankind is one of continuous development from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. This process is never-ending. In any society in which classes exist class struggle will never end. In classless society the struggle between the new and the old and between truth and falsehood will never end. In the fields of the struggle for production and scientific experiment, mankind makes constant progress and nature undergoes constant change, they never remain at the same level. Therefore, man has constantly to sum up experience and go on discovering, inventing, creating and advancing. Ideas of stagnation, pessimism, inertia and complacency are all wrong. They are wrong because they agree neither with the historical facts of social development over the past million years, nor with the historical facts of nature so far known to us (i.e., nature as revealed in the history of celestial bodies, the earth, life, and other natural phenomena).
Quoted in "Premier Chou Enlai's Report on the Work of the Government to the First Session of the Third National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China" (December 21-22, 1964).
Sex:
Mao was a great lover. He was married four times. He wrote a lot of beautiful love poems. He has insatiable sexual appetite for daughters of the proletariat. It is rumored Mao never turned down any request to sleep with him!
Gandhi saw sex as a stigma. A deterrent to spiritual attainment. Sex is merely a necessity like urination for the purpose of reproduction.
However there is a link between Gandhi and Mao in their sexual practice. Sleeping with teens to enhance the internal energy is a Taoist (Daoist) practice. Both followed this Taoist practice to elevate their metaphysical male energy level!
In his book The Sexual Teachings of the White Tigress: Secrets of the Female Taoist Masters, Hsi Lai writes that Mahatma Gandhi "periodically slept between two twelve-year-old female virgins. He didn't do this for the purpose of actual sexual contact, but as an ancient practice of rejuvenating his male energy. . . . Taoists called this method 'using the ultimate yin to replenish the yang.'"
Mao’s private Doctor Li wrote a book on unknown sex life of Mao “Memoirs of Private Physician of Mao Ze Dong” where he also found how Mao fell in love with Taoist sexual practice to regain his youthful energy. The practice is same as what Gandhi did with naked young girls. However Gandhi used virgin girls merely as a testimonial of his celibacy control where as the Chairman grew found of group sex in the form of Taoist practice.
A few controversial lines from “Memoirs of the private physician of Mao Ze Dong”
The English edition claims that Mao adopted the Daoist practice of complementing Yang with Yin via sex:
"Mao became a practitioner of Daoism then [when he was 67]: sex was intended to prolong life and not just for pleasure." (p.343)
That is all there is to the sensationalist story of Mao practicing Daoist sexual methods. No mention of Yin or Yang or any other details. In the English edition, this sentence is slightly altered:
"It was then that [Mao] became an adherent of Daoist sexual
practices, which gave him an excuse to pursue sex not only for
pleasure but to extend his life.[italics added]"
Then the "editors" of the English version proceed to add two entirely new sentences that are not in the Chinese edition:
"He was happiest and most satisfied with several young women
simultaneously sharing his bed. He encouraged his sexual partners
to introduce him to others for shared orgies, allegedly in the
interest of his longevity and strength." (p.358)
On the same page, the "editors" also insert a long footnote, amplifying the term "Daoist Sexual Practice" with the explanation how Yin could be made to complement Yang. There is another reference to group sex in the English edition:
"[It was at] the height of the Cultural Revolution, that Mao was
sometimes in bed with 3, 4, even 5 women simultaneously."(p. 517)
There is no explanation of who saw this or under what circumstances it was observed. The Chinese edition makes no mention whatsoever of group sex for the simple reason that the Chinese would see through the lie. Likewise, the Chinese Edition does not make the assertion that Mao also liked to have sex with men as is alleged in the English edition.(p358--359).
Gandhi’s experiment of sleeping naked with naked young teens looks less scandalous before Mao’s sex life as described by his physician.
Gandhi yoke did sleep with young females--and what's more, both parties were often naked at the time. He was 77 when this odd practice came to light, and from what we know sleeping was all they did. However, when a renowned holy man of any age pulls a stunt like this, he takes the chance that it'll turn up in a book with a title like The Sexual Teachings of the White Tigress.
Gandhi's sleeping arrangements attracted public attention during the winter of 1946-47, when he was trying to quell violence between Muslims and Hindus in the Noakhali district in what is now Bangladesh. It came out that Gandhi was bunking nightly with his 19-year-old grandniece, Manu. In part this was an effort to stay warm in the winter chill, but Gandhi soon acknowledged there was more to it: he was testing his vow of brahmacharya, or total chastity in thought and deed. If he could spend the night in a woman's embrace without feeling sexual stirrings, it would demonstrate that he had conquered his carnal impulses and become "God's eunuch." It turned out that Manu was not his first brahmacharya lab partner--he'd also recently gotten naked (partly, at least) with another young woman in his extended family, starting when she was 18.
There were quite a few raised eyebrows in India. One of the most vocal critics was Nirmal Kumar Bose, a university lecturer who served as Gandhi's interpreter in Noakhali. While conceding that no hanky-panky had taken place (Gandhi and his entourage typically all slept in the same room) Bose protested that the master was exploiting the women, each of whom felt she had a special place in his affections and became "hysterical" if slighted. (Here I follow the account by author Ved Mehta in his 1976 New Yorker series on Gandhi and his followers.) Gandhi, far from being abashed, vigorously defended himself in meetings, letters, and articles, arguing that making a woman "the instrument of my lust" would be far more exploitative than what he actually did.
Remarkably, the critics eventually quieted down. Even Bose, who quit in protest and later discussed the issue in a book, My Days With Gandhi, remained an admirer. Gandhi continued to sleep with women until his assassination in 1948, and the matter is little remembered today. The esteem in which Gandhi was held no doubt partly accounts for the lack of repercussions, along with his advanced age. His notoriously eccentric views on sex may have been a factor too. Gandhi believed that sex for pleasure was sinful (for that matter, he felt eating chocolate was sinful), that sexual attraction between men and women was unnatural, and that husband and wife should live together as brother and sister, having sex only for purposes of procreation. (I take most of this from a memoir by journalist William Shirer, another admirer.) He swore off sex at age 36, required a similar vow of his disciples, and publicly freaked when he had a nocturnal emission in 1936 at age 67. Many hearing him rationalize his unusual blanket substitute probably figured, eh, that's the mahatma for you. (For what it's worth, the kinkier takes on the story--e.g., that Gandhi was regularly massaged by naked women--have no basis in fact that I can discover.) Whether or not you buy the notion that he didn't get off on contact with his very young bedmates (or feel that that would make it any less creepy), it says something about this profoundly strange guy that you can hear his claim that naked sleepovers were tests of purity for both participants.
Religion and God:
While Gandhi sought final salvation and supreme goal of mankind in achieving his relationship with God, Mao’s view of God was completely sociopolitical based on Marxism. Gandhi’s perception of God starts with Spinoza but then it quickly gets dissolved in Gita.
My own experience has led me to the knowledge that the fullest life is impossible without an immovable belief in a Living Law in obedience to which the whole universe moves. A man without that faith is like a drop thrown out of the ocean bound to perish. Every drop in the ocean shares its majesty and has the honor of giving us the ozone of life.
If you think, this sounds more like Spinoza then read another quotation from Gandhi on Religion
“Religion is more than life. Remember that his own religion is the truest to every man even if it stands low in the scales of philosophical comparison.”
Clearly, Gandhi could not think of a life with a religious purpose.
Mao not only rejected religion but also any metaphysical or any subjective idealism.
“Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality. Materialism and dialectics, on the other hand, need effort. They must be based on and tested by objective reality. Unless one makes the effort one is liable to slip into idealism and metaphysics. “
-Mao
Conclusion
Clearly Mao adopted more scientific approach than Gandhi. But in personal life Mao failed to rise above personal greed in his old age. His individualistic lust to retain power forced China into its nightmare –Cultural Revolution. Millions of people died so that Mao could eliminate his opposition. Gandhi was also power hungry but he never sacrificed his ideals to subdue his opposition-to him that would have been end of the supreme objective.
Here lies the triumph of Gandhian policy that emphasized and warned
Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.
However a stronger and better philosophy is not necessarily the best contender for survival. Survival is determined by the natural selection-which theory can adapt to changing social dynamics. I don’t know who will be the ultimate survivor.

Theist Existentialism and Islamic Terrorism

2008-08-07T07:24:00.000-07:00

-Biplab Pal, 10/27/05

In those days of crusade, both the crusaders and the defenders were highly confident-killing infidels is not a sin but the surest path to God (Allah)!

Thousands of years passed by. I am not sure how many among 1.2B Muslims can think otherwise for this rubbles of deaths in Delhi, which must have crossed sixty now. Only one thing has surely changed. Thousand years later, they have developed another face-public face to be apologetic, no matter whatever they discuss in the inner circle.

Situation is same with Hinduism-I was reading that in every 40 minutes on average, we have have one death from dowry! Speak in public with any Hindu, specially if he is new to you, he will show you how progressive he is against all the Hindu rituals! Dig deeper, he might be one of those who beats his wife for dowry. His actual self, didn't change from days of Manu, but he did develop a modern face to speak and live in the religious world of double standards.
Majority of the Muslims belong to same category, specially if they live in the west. They speak of death to infidels in their Mosques while put up an apologetic face in the public. As if Islam will be the last religion to sanction terrorism!

Well, problem of terrorism is complicated. It is like poison ivy, that needs seeds, some watering and some negligence to clean it. In this case seed is Koran, Arab money is watering it and American defense corporates are making sure that they grow it well, so that at the end, we need their service to clean terrorism! That's why we find double standard of US Govt which will never recognize Koran as source of terrorism.

Koran starts with invectives against those who do not believe in the advertisement of Allah and promises toughest treatment against them by all 'merciful' Allah. Anybody who has a minimum gray matter in his/her head will immediately understand from Koran that Muhammad faced a daunting task to establish his new religion specially when Jews, Christians and Pagans were quite advanced civilization of their time. To cash on the angers of poor pagans, to fuel their hatred against rich pagans, Muhammad would have done only one thing. That is to sanction this anger and hatred in the name of Allaha- that is what the Koran is all about. This is nothing new in the history, specially this is a prescribed one from Kautilya (400 BC). In Artha Satra, Kautilya wrote, the easiest way to induce hatred or love among the common people is to sanction it in the name of God-A king must preach his subjects that he talks to God and a king's will is therefore the God's will. Muhammad, definitely proved himself as the most worthy student of Kautilya!

But wait, who does not know the above! Non-Muslims of course. Yes, even Muslims do understand above. But they can not believe it, because believing that Muhammad is as good fraud as any other king when it comes to religion, is tantamount to disbelieving his own existence. Yes, this is the classic problem of theist existentialism, existence precedes essence. Root of all terrorism.

Most of the Muslims do not know what rotten egg is there inside Koran as the most of Hindues do not know what garbage is called Vedas. But they believe, these are sacred book. Why?

Because they want to find a meaning of life-an objective, as to why they live and they should live. So they believe that these books have defined their objective of life-submit to Allah and reach kingdom of heaven. This mortal life is sin and eternal life in heaven is defined as supreme objective of life. If you look at all the Muslim terrorists, they have defined their objective in heaven!

Sometimes, I laugh at the desperate attempts of the Muslim apologetics who want to prove that the terrorism is a handiwork of American corporate. American corporates definitely didn't define their objective in heaven. Koran did. Americans merely utilized a seed of poison ivy-known as Koran. Tomorrow, when Americans will not be the master imperialist, the seed will remain. Other master race will use it.

Surely we need to destroy the seed. It must be destroyed by the Muslim themselves-understanding that Koran is merely a problem of existentialism for them. Understanding that they can have an independent existence without Koran. A Muslim as human being,a biological being who can love his friends of all religions and Koran are two independent existence- it is mixed up because they are born and brought up that way.

But that can not be done, unless we can provide an alternative to religion.

An apologetic may argue that merely a few thousands are terrorists among the hundreds of millions ( Like Taj Hashami). But is there any difference between an apologetic and a terrorist? Both the apologetics and the terrorists are suffering from the same problem- problem of existentialism. Neither can think of their existence disbelieving in Koran. One is explicit, others are implicit, silent supporters of same supreme objective. That's why everywhere, it is a few of thousands of fundamentalists, run over millions of others- who are ' apparently' good religious people-nonterrorist type. Why? Because these millions do not have moral strength to oppose these few hundreds. Opposing is equivalent to destroying their own existence as Muslim! They are essentially on the same boat. Iran fell in to the hands of Islamic terrorists because of these apologetics.

My bottom-line would be to provide an alternative to religion-philosophy of science. Which I deem to be the only solution.

Origin of Hindu Fundamentalism : In search of Montheism

2008-08-07T07:23:00.001-07:00

-Biplab Pal :12/3/05
In my recent debate with Mehul Kamdar, I proved the fact that Hindu fundamentalism has grown up from Indian nationalist movement that started during 1870-1900. My argument is simple-there was no such cohesive religion as Hinduism before British. It was merely a paganism of diverse culture with obscured religious texts, divided into thousands of sects, casts and subcasts. Such a dilapidated and dying force, striving for its existence in fanatic forces of Maratha nationalism and thousands of local feudal kings serving under Newabs, could never unite against pan-Islamic and Christian fundamentalism that was threatening the existence of local pagan culture. In those days, it was a mixture of Bramhinical Hinduism with locally rooted deism. By 1830, Christian missionaries with their everlasting zeal of mass conversion caused resentment among conservative Hindues. Along with it, grown a section of Hindu population, educated in Lord Bentinck’s vision of humanism, started a mass reform of Hinduism. Notable among them are Raja RamMohan Roy, VidyaSagar, Keshav Sen, Debendranath Tagore , Dwananda Swaraswati and Bal Gangadhar Tialak, who were increasingly aware of the fact that in order to establish Hindu unity against the threat of monotheism, polytheist deism in Hinduism would be of very little help. Hinduism as a platform boosted virtually every religious philosophy, and therefore, a booming need for monotheism forced the reformed Hindues towards Gita and Adityabad or non-dualism in Vedanta as a primary source of inspiration.
Though Gita was written around 1000BC and Koran was composed roughly about 7th century AD, central message of Gita and Koran are similar:
Both the texts transpire a non-material philosophy based on sacrifice of materialism. Sacrifice and submission of ego as our existence as biological being on the feet of supreme creator is the central theme of both Gita and Koran.
Both the holy texts demand absolute devotion to the lord (Allah) and nothing but the lord (Allah)
Also similar are the facts that both the books demand they are the absolute truth-all other religious texts are adulterated!
And both the books declared war against invaders and tyrannical leaders-holywar is translated as DharmaYudhya in Gita and Jihad in Koran.
Difficulty is, considering the historical timeline of the past, when science didn’t emerge as supreme military power, above mentioned cannons were extremely powerful tactics to unite and strengthen a society. Pure deism is good for a flourishing culture but it can not boost a military unity. The central canons expressed in 1-4, are deadly religious weapon which can be used for both fundamentalism and unification of a society.
I was looking for more information into the subject and found this wonderful article by a professor from University of Utah on the origin of Hindu fundamentalism.
Strangely the article supports and states everything I stated in the debate in connection to political promotion of Monotheism for Hindu fundamentalism. Hope the article will be interesting reading to our audience.
OUTLINES OF HINDU FUNDAMENTALISM
Let me begin with some observations that should give any reasonable person pause. In 1998 Hindu fundamentalists proposed that a new Goddess temple be built at Pokharan, 50 km from the site of the atomic bomb tests that were conducted in April of that year. According to their program this would be the 53rd example of Shaktipeeths (seats of strength, literally Goddess power) of Hindu preeminence. Another power center is the new temple to Rama in Ayodhya, being built on the site of the Babri mosque, destroyed by a Hindu mob in December 1992.) Some suggested that radioactive sand from the test site should be distributed as prasad, the Hindu sacrament, but cooler heads vetoed that idea. Some Hindu fundamentalists also believe that ancient Indians actually possessed atomic weapons, which they call AOm-mad-bombs.
The Indian military helps to fuel this religious enthusiasm by having named its long range missile after the Vedic god of fire Agni. (The Pakistanis countered by appropriating the power of the Hindu Goddess by naming their missile Ghauri, a name for the Goddess in Southern India.) The followers of Shri Shena, a fundamentalist organization in Mumbai, proudly proclaim that, after the bomb tests, Hindus were no longer eunuchs and now could stand up to the world as real men. During 1999 Durga festival in Calcutta celebrants found new figures in the traditional tableau of the Goddess Durga and her attendants. They saw life size figures of brave Indian soldiers who won a victory in the mountains of Kashmir because of Durga’s divine grace. Hundreds of years ago Hindu kings went into battle only after receiving Durga’s blessing by sacrificing dozens of water buffalo to her.
Another chilling experience is to read about the recovery of an original Hindu Empire, extending West into Afghanistan and Central Asia encompassing all Buddhist sites; extending North to recover the Tibet, the original land of the Aryans according to Dayananda Saraswati, extending Northwest to Cambodia to recover the Hindu Khmer kingdoms of Angkor Wat and North Vietnam, where Shiva lingas have been found; and extending Southeast to Java, where a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom once flourished, and Bali where three million Hinuds still live. This reminds me of Zionist maps of Greater Israel or plans by some Calvinists for a new Confederate States of America where God-fearing Anglo-Celtic top males will rule their households and their nation of fifteen states.
The origins of Hindu religious nationalism are quite recent considering the long history of advanced cultures in the Indian Sub-Continent. V. D. Savakar’s Hindutva (literally Hinduness ) was published in 1923, but the ideas of this book go back to the beginning of the 19th Century. The supreme irony about Hindu fundamentalism is that its first writers were profoundly influenced by European Orientalism and its archeological and linguistic discoveries. The same Orientalism that gave Europeans the excuse to view Asians as effeminate and impotent, thereby lacking the capacities for self rule, was used by Indian writers to create a view of India as a unified nation that gave birth to not only to the European languages but also to its first civilized peoples and the world’s greatest religion. The idea of India as the cradle of civilization and spirituality is, amazingly enough, found in Voltaire, Herder, Kant, Schegel, Shelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer. Some scholars argue that the Indian philosophy that we now know as neo-Vedanta found in Aurobindo, Vivikeananda, and Gandhi, is just as much German idealism and Indian philosophy.
Hindu fundamentalists were flattered by Aldous Huxley’s idea of the Perennial Philosophy and its mystic monism, originally found in the Upanishads and only later, according to their views, spread to other cultures. Thesophists such as Annie Besant turned orientalism on its European creators, claiming that what they perceived as weaknesses-- namely, non-dualism, nonviolence, renunciation, meditation, and tolerance were precisely what was needed for the salvation of Western societies. In the 1870s there was a concerted effort on the part of English theosophists to merge with the Indian Arya Samaj (Society of Aryans) as part of Annie Besant’s vision of a World Federation of Aryans. Ironically, in another move of reverse orientalism, members of Arya Samaj vetoed this idea because they insisted that Indians were the only true Aryans! Interestingly enough, both Indians and Europeans agreed on at least one proposition: Hindu civilization was indeed corrupt and suffering a long decline, but Hindu fundamentalists believed that the solution to that problem was not Christian capitialism; rather, it was the recovery of a glorious Hindu past that Europeans had conveniently rediscovered for them.
Even before Arya Samaj there was the Brahmo Samaj (Society of Brahma, the Hindu Creator God) founded in Calcutta in 1828 by Rammohan Roy, who, although still preserving the idea of Vedic authority, developed a fully modernist, that is rationalist and humanist, approach to Indian identity and nationhood. Debendranath Tagore, father of the more famous Rabindranath Tagore, broke with Roy over the issue of Vedic authority, and another nationalist Keshab Chandra Sen proposed that Hinduism ought to be Christianized. The result of these developments within the Bengal Renaissance was a growing view of Hindu supremacy and exclusivity. One of the most dramatic examples of these views came from Bajnarain Basu, who waxed eloquent as follows:
The noble and puissant Hindu nation rousing herself after sleep, and rushing headlong towards progress with divine prowess. I see this rejuvenated nation again illuminating the world by her knowledge, spirituality and culture, and the glory of the Hindu nation again spreading over the whole world.
Rajnarain was insistent that the Hindu Motherland could have no place for Muslims because their religion was alien to India. India’s religion should be a cultural Hinduism based on the Upanishads but allowing for the mediation of the one true God by means of the traditional idols. The Brahmo Samaj proposed gradual but sure reform on the elements that had tarnished the image of Hinduism word wide: caste problems, widow remarriage, untouchability, and child marriage.
Arya Samaj was founded by Dayananda Saraswati in 1875 in Bombay, now renamed Mumbai because of Hindutva. (Madras is now called Chennai and Hindu nationalists want to change all English street names to Hindi and do not want their children to attend English medium schools.) Dayananda’s philosophy is sometimes called neo-Hinduism or Semitized Hinduism, what I would call an Abrahamic Hinduism. Dayananda claimed that the Aryans originated in Tibet, a hypothesis that the Nazis tested by sending Ernst Schaefer and Bruno Beger on two expeditions there in the 1930s. (The Nazis were also captivated by an alternative bizarre idea that the Arctic was the home of Aryans, an idea promoted by Hindu nationalist B. G. Tilak.) While in Tibet the Aryans, according to Dayananda, purged themselves of inferior people (identified as the dasyus in the Rigveda) and then spread to the rest of the world. In India they established the Hindu Golden Age described in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. This great age came to an end with the Kurukhetra War, the beginning of which is dramatically described in the Bhagavad-gita and the result, according to the text, was over a million deaths. Hindu civilization then descended into a long decline that was exacerbated by the pacificism and nihilism of Buddhism and Jainism, which were seen as failed off shoots of Hinduism and not separated religiously from Hinduism. During the Second Millennium CE a weakened Hindusim was easy prey for first the Mughal invaders and second British imperialism.
Dayananda saw the Aryans as paragons of virtue and the world’s first monotheists. Even though he uses the Hindu epics as proof of the Golden Age, he argued that only the Vedas and the Upanishads have religious authority. (Oddly enough, the members of the Ayra Samaj retained the Vedic fire ritual for their services.) He rejected the authority of the priests to interpret scripture and set himself up, in a way very similar to some preachers in the Abrahamic religion, as the only one that could interpret the Vedas correctly. He saw the Vedas and Upanishads as the literal Word of God and as the infallible text of the one true Hindu church, a concept alien to the Indian religious tradition, but one again very similar to the Abrahmanic religions. Setting the stage for 20th Century Hindutva, Dayananda lauched systematic attacks on traditional Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, and Buddhists.
On the plus side, Dayananda believed that the subjugation of women came with the decline of Hinduism and declared that this was a social ill that needed correction. He also spoke out against the thousand plus subcastes (jati) that divide Indians according to specific vocations and prevent lateral movement in Indian society. With regard to the four main castes Dayananda thought that it was a mistake to think of them as hereditary, a position that was an advance over Gandhi, who, while rejecting the oppression of the Dalits, still maintained the hereditary nature of the four main castes.
After Dayananda’s death there was a campaign to reconvert Dalits whose families had gone over to Christianity and syncretistic Muslims who, because they so fully participated in Hindu celebrations, ought, according to Arya Samaj, to return to the fold of the true faith. This campaign of reconversion is still at the forefront of Hindu fundamentalist efforts today, especially among the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
A key figure in the transition from the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj is Chandranath Basu who is the author that coined the term Hindutva (Hinduness) and he turned Hindu nationalism in a decidedly conservative and reactionary direction. In 1892 he published Hindutva: An Authentic History of the Hindus in which he defended traditional views Hindu ritual, caste, restriction of women’s education and civil rights, and the maintenance of male authority. Chandranath was firmly committed to demonstrating the superiority of Hinduism over Christianity, especially after the wide spread concern that conversions to Christianity were increasing in the latter half of the century.
In the novels and commentaries of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyaya, we see again the profound influence that European philosophy had on the rise of Indian nationalism. Particularly important was the work of Immanuel Kant, Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, and Auguste Comte. Interestingly enough, Bankim early support for women’s equality, presumably under Mill’s influence, disappeared in his later works, which also contain stronger claims to Hindu supremacy and more stringent anti-Muslim comments. He criticized Mill and Comte for their atheism and substituted Krishna’s religion of love as the key to human spiritual cultivation and progress. Nineteenth Century Indian nationalists were fully caught up in the idea of evolution and Bankim proposed that Hinduism was the perfect candidate for Comte’s idea of Apositive religion, the final stage of human perfection. Huxley’s Perennial Philosophy finds a new Indo-European home, but it has a new humanistic twist. Bankim rejects both the abstract monotheism he finds in Abrahamic religions and the impersonal monism of his own Brahmo Samaj in favor of the divine incarnation of Krishna as a human being.
At the turn of the century one of the most important Indian nationalist figure is B. G. Tilak, whose importance and standing in the Congress Party was second only to Gandhi. For purposes of our study of Hindu fundamentalism, Tilak was instrumental in inventing a powerful new form of devotionalism centered on the elephant god Ganesha. Tilak’s strategy was calculated and very effective: the new Ganesha festival (first celebrated in 1893) would compete with the Muslim festival of Muharram, which Hindus had always attended. Hindu nationalists in the state of Maharastra were successful in creating a new division between Muslims and Hindus that would intensify decade by decade into the new century. The Ganesha festival in Bombay is now so huge that it is common to see pictures and stories of it in the international press.
Tilak also resurrected King Shivaji, who, by the grace of his patron goddess Bhawani, was by far the most successful Hindu warrior king against the Mughal Empire during the 17th Century. Hindu fundamentalists admire Shivaji’s courage and excuse his ruthlessness against the Muslims he defeated. Tilak also instigated celebrations honoring Shivaji but many of them in the 1890s turned violent, the beginnings of the communal conflict that was to increase in the next century but was an uncommon occurrence in earlier times. Tilak used the Bhagavad-gita to justify Shivaji’s campaigns against the Mughals but also the violence that may be necessary to keep the Muslims of his day in line. Shivaji has become a hero and a model for a militant leader who will bring back the glory of all things Hindu. It is significant, however, in terms of the historical Shivaji that while Muslims repeatedly declared jihad against him, Shivaji principal motivations were Maratha nationalism rather than a broader Hindu nationalism based on the concept of the Indian Sub-Continent as one nation and the idea of Hinduism as a universal religion. Tilak also ignored the fact that Shivaji not only had Muslim allies but employed Muslims in his army and administration, demonstrating that his concept of a Martha nation included non-Hindus as well. Nonetheless, the revival and revision of Shivaji’s reign resulted in a number of Shivaji societies that believed that violence against British rule was a religious duty.
Tilak was also involved in researching and writing about the origins of Hinduism and the Hindu nation. I have already mentioned his wacky thesis, defended in a book entitled The Arctic Home of the Vedas, that Aryan culture actually goes all the way back to the last Ice Age. Drawing on astronomical allusions in the Vedas, Tilak takes Vedic history back 8,000 years and argues that the Vedic gods were polar deities worshiped by arctic Aryans. From all of his research he drew the same conclusion that many other 19th Century Indian nationalists did, and I will conclude with this illustrative but problematic passage:
During Vedic times, India was a self-contained country. It was united as great nation. That unity has disappeared bringing great degradation and it becomes the duty of the leaders to revive that union. A Hindu of this place [Varanasi] is as much a Hindu as one from Madras or Bombay. The study of the Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata produce the same ideas throughout the country. Are not these. . . our common heritage? If we lay stress on forgetting all the minor differences that exist between the different sects, then by the grace of Providence we shall long be able to consolidate all the different sects into a mighty Hindu nation. This ought to be the ambition of every Hindu.
The sects of which Tilak speaks the Sikhs, the Jains, and the Buddhists. Not at all included, unless they pledge allegiance to Hindutva (conversion itself is not mandatory), are India’s 40 million Christians and 120 million Muslims.
Needless to say, seeds sowed by Tilak, Bankim and Dawananda have grown up as today’s RSS, Bishwa Hindu Parishad and Shiva Sena. That will be another story.

Sir Karl Popper against Pseudoscience of Marxism

2008-08-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

Biplab Pal

Published on November 17, 2005

We live in a wonderful world of mysterious structures and processes. Throughout the human civilization, we made attempts to understand that every experience around us is behaving in accord with universal laws. Any of such human effort is indeed a scientific approach but what makes for a scientific approach to delving into the mystery that surrounds us, and separates this from practices and theories that are not scientific? What makes Newton's work on planetary motion scientific, but astrological prediction of human future based on planetary motion unscientific? Is there a criterion, a set of rules, that we can apply to demarcate the scientific method from other approaches to knowledge, and that will help us to adjudicate between competing solutions to these mysteries? The question is not about which practice deserves the noble title "Science", but about the best method for promoting the growth of knowledge and the control of error. There may be a defensible argument that shows that the disciplined study of astrology led to prediction of human future with some supporting evidences but the question is:

· Are the results repeatable under same conditions?

· What is error between prediction and the theory?

· Is there any method that has been followed to control the error? Meaning, how do we know that the experimentalist who was trying to validate the theory didn’t manipulate the experimental data. This has been a classic problem in Marxism. Throughout its development after 1870, Marx, Lenin and Mao, manipulated the historical data severely to fit into their theories, which otherwise would have been rejected based on the data.

· What happens if the theories are not in agreement with 95% of the experimental data? Do we reject the theories? Or adjust the theories? Marxism suggests adjustment. And Karl Popper shows such adjustment led to dogmatism in Marxism. Adjustment can be done only if a theory is matching with some confidence interval limit, such as 95% or 99%. Else the theory should be dumped and new theory needs to be proposed.

Problem of David Hume’s Inductionism and Scientific Method:

Let us start with a simple question. What is knowledge?

Before David Hume Treatise of Human Nature [1739], all approaches to knowledge had assumed that it could be derived by a process of justification. Deductive logic, meaning we know A and B to be true and hence a logical deduction of C based on A and B is the right path to knowledge. The empiricists argued that all knowledge was derived from experience; while others argued that knowledge was derived from reason itself. But they all agreed that knowledge was Justified True Belief.

If that is true, what is the problem of predicting future based on past observation?

The empiricists thought that our knowledge of the regularities and universal structures of the world were derived logically from experience or observations. But Hume pointed out that our experience is limited and that there is in fact no logical or even probabilistic connection between say, the number of times the sun has risen and whether it will rise tomorrow.

1. The assumption that there are universal laws and regularities and that we can know these.
2 There can be no valid reasons justifying our belief in a universal law other than those based on experience.
3. There is no valid inference from observed cases to unobserved cases.

4. Yet, universal laws cover an infinite number of possible cases throughout the whole of space and time, and therefore necessarily go beyond all actual and possible experience.

This is the notorious problem of induction. What is it basically?

Simple. Think about the fact why do you think Sun will rise in the east tomorrow? Or next year same time?

What is the rational behind it? Can there be any direct proof other than inductive one that it is happening for last 500 million years and therefore it will be the same next year? And yet an asteroid can kill the whole planet next year! Hence when we form a scientific law, it indeed goes much beyond our direct and verifiable experience.

Why is it notorious then? Well, problem is, Science had to admit that it does work on the principal of induction. Which is, experimentally verified theories are applicable to the situation in space and time that is not necessarily verifiable!

And why is so much of noise about it? It contradicts the basic definition of science-knowledge is experimentally verifiable truth!

Indeed Hume showed, science is basically inductive truth from experiment!

Popper attempted a solution to this problem. The basic principal is again admitting experiments as standard and therefore, as adjudicator between competing theories. Only one assumption is retained. The golden assumption.

The world contains universal laws and structures and we can discover what they are.

Let’s see this simple, yet the most puzzling statement. Let say a scientist observes that males like to have sex only after dinner. How he will attempt to prove so scientifically? Will he collect all the data of men’s sexual habit (1a)? Or he will collect the data pertaining to what men do after diner (1b)? Or he will collect only evidence of whenever men do sex after diner (1c)? Or he will collect the men’s sexual habit after lunch? (1d) or he will gather data pertaining to when men do not do sex after dinner (1e)---

Look, how difficult it can be to choose the right one. And how will he chose the right one? Right one will be the choice that will control the error most effectively.

Popper found the most elegant and so far most universally accepted solution.

He proposed the complete rejection of the search for justifications and replaced this quest with the search for truth alone by the method of bold conjecture and refutation. Whether intentional or not, his proposal revived a hint in Plato's Meno that the possession of merely true opinion would serve one just as well for the satisfaction of curiosity.

So let review this in the light of above problem (1). If the scientist collects the data following (1c), he does collect evidence that men do sex after dinner but the observation does not lead to a scientific law.

To elaborate his argument Popper focused on scientific knowledge as the problem could be stated more clearly for this type of knowledge. Popper expressed his wish to characterize a heroic conception of science, a conception that captured the spirit and method of great scientists such as Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein and Bohr. It must be understood that Popper's main concern in his philosophy of science is to account for and to promote the growth of knowledge. So that we may be able to chart better at least the contours of that vast ocean of truth that Newton spoke of. It is Popper's idea that such men made possible a tremendous growth of knowledge by championing bold ideas and subjecting them to severe attempts at refutation.

A scientist must have the data of (1e) which is attempt at refutation in order to establish his theory as scientific observation. This is the core of Popper’s logic of scientific method.

Sir Karl Popper’s “The logic of Science” (1934):

In 1919 Popper's was provoked to the analysis of this bold risky approach of those scientists who had expanded our knowledge by his first hand experience of approaches and those who did the exact opposite: Marxism, Freudianism and Adlerianism. When they encountered attempted sound criticism, these theories were always able to deflect it. Karl Popper originally used the term "conventionalist stratagem" to describe this type of response to criticism, but then adopted the term "immunizing stratagem" from Hans Albert. Popper argued that Marxism, which originally was an empirically testable theory, had been recast in the form of empirically irrefutable metaphysics. This maneuver, Popper argued, saved Marxism from refutation and immunized it against further attacks. (Popper, [1976], Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, page 43.) Freudianism and Adlerianism were, Popper says, irrefutable from the beginning. The basic theory of Freudianism or Adlerianism does not need any immunization to make it irrefutable. (Nevertheless, it does incorporate immunizing stratagems.)

Let review this for a brief moment. Example will serve as best training. Setara Hashem posted an article from African Communist Party draft which “attempted to correct socialism”:

http://www.liberation.org.za/collections/sacp/slovo/failed.php#THREE#THREE

Now, they issued a statement towards their goal to make socialism more dynamic and ‘scientific’:

“We believe, however, that the theory of Marxism, in all its essential respects, remains valid and provides an indispensable theoretical guide to achieve a society free of all forms of exploitation of person by person. The major weaknesses which have emerged in the practice of socialism are the results of distortions and misapplications. They do not flow naturally from the basic concepts of Marxism whose core is essentially humane and democratic and which project a social order with an economic potential vastly superior to that of capitalism.”

“In summary, we believe that Marxism is a social science whose fundamental postulates and basic insights into the historical processes remain a powerful (because accurate) theoretical weapon. But this is not to say that every word of Marx, Engels and Lenin must be taken as gospel; they were not infallible and they were not always correct in their projections.”

Here is the example of immunizing stratagem from the above:

, remains valid and provides an indispensable

because accurate

Automatically the whole article shifts to non-scientific paradigm.

Popper contrasted these two theories with the theories of Newton and of Einstein which were full of testable (i.e. falsifiable) content. Thus the term "immunizing stratagem" arose in connection with Popper's attempt to solve the problem of distinguishing scientific from pseudo-scientific theories - the so-called demarcation problem. Popper's solution was the methodological rule to allow into science only empirically falsifiable hypotheses, and subject these to severe criticism. In addition, theory development was to proceed from less to more testable, i.e., more informative theories. If a theory is refuted and an alternative sought, it had to be more testable, not less, and the more testable the better. For to reduce testability is to reduce knowledge, but in science we desire the growth of knowledge. An immunizing stratagem is a development in theory that reduces testability.

Popper begins with a rough characterization of bold ideas: a theory is bold if it is a new, daring, hypothesis. It is daring if it takes a large risk in being false. Popper argues that this risk can be analyzed ultimately in terms of the amount of possibilities that the idea excludes the degree to which it forbids states of affairs. Severe attempts at refutation are severe critical discussions and severe empirical tests.

Popper illustrates these ideas by examining the development of cosmology, from the heliocentric theories of Aristarchus and Copernicus to Einstein's general theory of relativity. Popper argues that this development illustrates not only the growth of knowledge but an improvement in method, in which theories become ever more daring and subject to severer tests.

It becomes apparent that riskiness and testability are linked: the greater the former the greater the latter. Aristarchus and Copernicus conjectured that the sun sat at the centre of the universe, in opposition to the prevalent earth-centred view of their own times. The heliocentric theory was exceptionally bold because it clashed with both common sense and the prima facie evidence of the senses. It went beyond the appearances to posit an unobserved reality; the appearances were explained in terms of this unfamiliar reality. This was bold in itself, for it broke with the Aristotelian idea that to explain something is to reduce it to the familiar.

However, Popper says, neither Aristarchus nor Copernicus were fully scientific because neither of them was bold enough to predict new observable appearances and thereby expose their theories to new empirical tests. They explained the known appearances, but did not explicitly suggest the existence of unknown appearances, appearances that might decide between the heliocentric and earth-centred views. If they had made such predictions their theories would have been much more informative, and therefore have taken a larger risk of being false, but they would also have promoted the growth of knowledge.

Kepler comes closer to Popper's idea of good science. Kepler had a bold theory of the world, but he also made detailed predictions of new appearances. Not only that, he abandoned many of his ideas in the light of the observations furnished him by Tycho Brahe. In accordance with a promise he had made Tycho, Kepler tried to fit Tycho's model of the solar system to these observations. Tycho accepted neither Copernicus's nor Ptolemy's model, but like all other astronomers Tycho took for granted their Aristotelian/Platonic assumption that orbits must be circular. Nevertheless, he subjected this idea to empirical testing. Kepler made seventy different trials to fit the model to the data and failed. He then took the bold step of proposing that the orbits of the planets were elliptical. The data fell snugly into place.

Kepler's three laws, though good approximations to the truth, have been refuted. But, Popper says, though false, Kepler's theory is regarded as scientific. Newton's theory is also regarded as false but scientific. Hence it is not truth which decides whether a theory is scientific. Why should this be? Each theory, though false, represented an attempt to increase knowledge, and did so because even though each was false, it had greater truth content than its predecessor and exposed itself to more tests. Popper's answer, then, is that it is a theory's openness to empirical refutation that makes it scientific. But more generally, it is whether the theory is an attempt to expand our knowledge, whether it represents an increase of information on the theory it replaces.

We may infer from this that Marxism or Freudianism would not be counted as unscientific simply because they have been refuted, but because of the way Marxists and Freudians have dealt with refutations. What is most important for the demarcation criterion is a critical attitude and the proposal of increasingly falsifiable theories in response to refutations. Kepler's elliptical orbit hypothesis represented just this sort of increase of information content in response to empirical refutation.

What impressed Popper most about the theory of relativity were the following characteristics:

(1) Like Kepler's and Newton's theories, Einstein's theory was very bold, differing fundamentally from Newton's outlook.
(2) Einstein derived from the theory three predictions of vastly different observable effects, two of which were radically new, all of which contradicted Newton's theory.1
(3) Einstein explicitly declared in advance of the experimental tests of his theory, that they were crucial: if the results did not precisely match his predictions, he would abandon them as false.
(4) Einstein regarded his theory as simply a better approximation to the truth. For a number of reasons he was convinced that it was false. He specified a number of characteristics that a true theory would have to satisfy. (Popper argued that Einstein's attitude to his theory clearly showed that belief in the truth of a theory was unnecessary to working on it as a promising candidate. It is worth noting, though, that Einstein believed that the theory was closer to the truth than its rivals; so it could not warrant the inference that belief is irrelevant to explaining why Einstein worked on the theory.)

Popper's proposal was that science was distinguished from pseudo-science by two things:

1) The boldness of predicting as yet unobserved phenomena; especially phenomena which will pit the theory against its competitors and allow us to decide between them. Einstein was acutely aware of the need to compare his theory with its competitors.
(2) The boldness of looking for tests and refuting instances. (I would also add: the boldness of accepting refuting instances, which is not implied by the boldness of looking for them.)

We may generalize the methodological conclusions of Popper's investigation as follows:

1. Propound empirically testable theories;
2. Aim to refute them;
3.Given any theory T, aim to replace it by another theory T' which is more general and precise (i.e, has higher information content.), one that explains the success of T, explains the refuting evidence of T and is moreover independently testable.

Popper later placed much more emphasis on the importance of non-empirical theories, while retaining empirical content as the ultimate goal of theory development. These are purely methodological rules. But there is also an historical thesis connected with it. It is Popper's conjecture that these ideals are responsible for some of the greatest leaps of man's scientific knowledge. Many commentators have confused Popper's methodological/normative analysis with his historical hypothesis. Kuhn is perhaps mostly responsible for this confusion, and others (for example, Boudon) have been lead astray by relying on secondary sources. Chalmers also makes this mistake.

It is worth emphasizing that there are two aspects to the demarcation criterion: one of attitude and one of pure logic. Firstly, the scientist must try to find falsifying instances to his theories. This is a matter of the correct attitude; the critical attitude. Secondly, the scientist must have at his disposal refutable theories. The possibility then arises of a scientist earnestly following the first injunction without realizing that the theory he is dealing with is empirically irrefutable. Equally, a body of theory may be logically capable of refutation, though its adherents have refused or neglected to look for refuting instances. Since Popper is interested in the growth of knowledge he is most concerned to discourage the use of immunizing stratagems that flout the demarcation criterion, effectively reducing the information content of our theories. (The term "information content" will be defined later.) Kepler, for instance, could have described the planets that did not fit his master's model as not really planets. After all, he might have said, planets do not behave like that: a planet is essentially an object with a circular orbit. This would have been an example of what Popper calls an immunizing stratagem. Such a maneuver, Popper would say, saves the theory but at the price of a reduction in information content. As we have seen Kepler's actual response greatly increased the informative content of astronomy, and is rightly admired for that.

Why Marxism is not a science:

To clarify the logic of the sorts of systems we are talking about and the possible empirical criticism to which they could be put, let us take an example from chemistry. A classic metaphysical sentence is: gold has an acidic solvent. This is an irrefutable statement, for however far and wide one looks for such an acid without finding it, it is always possible to say that it exists at some other time or place. So is experience, our strongest critic, irrelevant to this type of statement? Professor John Watkins has pointed out that experience can be brought in as a critic here indirectly via a well tested scientific theory which is directly testable. (Watkins, [1958].) The metaphysical sentence in question is in fact incompatible with the well tested theory that gold has no acidic solvent.

But is such an analysis relevant to the Marxist's attempt to evade criticism? Yes, for like the spatio-temporally unrestricted singular statement about gold, the Marxist's apology is also a spatio-temporally unrestricted singular statement. Both would require a systematic search of the whole of space and time for a direct empirical refutation (or alleged "confirmation"), which is obviously impossible. (Of course, the Marxist's assertion covers only future time, though it might be made to cover the past if he were desperate enough.)

A Marxist is unlikely to adopt such an unrestricted prediction, at least not at the time of writing (The article forwarded by Setara Hashem was a perfect example). Such a position might emerge after innumerable attempts to evade criticism, perhaps taking 50 to 100 years to evolve. By that stage the moral of the apologist may well have sunk to an unrecoverable low. But even if a Marxist did resort to this desperate maneuver, he would still be open to an indirect empirical refutation. Ludwig Von Mises argued that without a price system, which communism would eliminate, there is no even equally adequate way to allocate resources. (Mises, [1935], "The Impossibility of Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealthquot; , Reprinted in F. A. Hayek, ed. Collective Economic Planning.) Against the desperate hope in the possibility of communism Mises pitted economic theory, a theory which makes many detailed empirical predictions.

One might argue that economics does not make predictions of the same empirical precision as does chemistry. One might even argue that economics is not empirical at all, but a very suggestive and true metaphysical theory.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/le41-s14.shtml

The analogy with chemistry would then be weakened. But we can certainly say that economics has greater informative content than the Marxist's unrestricted singular prediction, and may still undermine the Marxist's case.

It is easy to assume that empirical observation is the strongest critic. The implication would be that if a network of ideas succeeds in shielding itself from empirical counter-evidence, it will have evaded, if not all sorts of criticism, at least the most damaging both psychologically and logically. This may not be true. An interesting possibility is that perhaps opposing metaphysical theories are sometimes of greater weight than empirical observations. Watkins has shown how metaphysical theories serve to filter out some possible theories before they even enter the body of science; these theories do not even get discussed because they conflict with the prevalent metaphysical background assumptions.

Watkins' discussion of the influential role of metaphysical doctrines ('haunted universe doctrines) is highly suggestive in this context:

...what informs and integrates the heterogeneous ideas of Augustine, or Bossuet, or Condorcet, or Burke, or Comte, or Marx is in each case a distinctive view of history which both shapes each of their interpretations of historical facts and suggests a certain kind of moral and political outlook....the moral-political suggestiveness of haunted universe doctrines indicates that large clashes of belief in the moral-political sphere need not have their origin in disagreement over moral principles or over observable facts. They may be generated, partly or wholly, by conflicting metaphysical interpretations of the world. (Watkins J. W. N. [1958], "Confirmable and Influential Metaphysics." Mind 68.)

The Marxist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

We may conclude that even if an ideology assumes the form of a metaphysical doctrine it may yet be criticized, not only by unproblematically empirical theories, but also by scientifically acceptable metaphysical assumptions. The Marxist's retreat to unrestricted prediction, does not save his position from criticism, but only creates other grounds for criticism.

History of Transformation of Marxism into a dogma:

(From Wikipedia)

Nevertheless, at least from the 1870s the pressure towards the doctrinalisation of Marx's interpretation of history became increasingly strong, for several reasons.

(1) Marx & Engels did aim to increase their own political influence in the labor movement and socialist movement, and for this they needed a popular ideology or doctrine which people could easily understand and act upon. Both men were quite capable of splendid political rhetoric and, occasionally, of making sweeping generalizations

(2) Attacks by critics, academics and competitors in the socialist movement also forced them to systematize their ideas; generalizations from experience and research demanded a more explicit coherent theoretical framework.

(3) Christian religious and moral doctrine was still very influential among the working classes, who mostly lacked access to a scientific education, and this created the political need or pressure to articulate a complete alternative belief system or scientific world outlook. Thus, Engels sought to distinguish between religious-utopian and practical-scientific socialism.

These three factors are the original sources of the tension between science and ideology in Marxism. Engels, who was the first great "Marxist systematiser", tried to take a nuanced approach in his writings and popularize the materialist approach without vulgarization.

In a Preface to the English edition of his pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (completed in 1880), Frederick Engels indicated that he accepted the usage of the term "historical materialism". Recalling the early days of the new interpretation of history, he stated:

"We, at that time, were all materialists, or, at least, very advanced free-thinkers, and to us it appeared inconceivable that almost all educated people in England should believe in all sorts of impossible miracles, and that even geologists like Buckland and Mantell should contort the facts of their science so as not to clash too much with the myths of the book of Genesis; while, in order to find people who dared to use their own intellectual faculties with regard to religious matters, you had to go amongst the uneducated, the "great unwashed", as they were then called, the working people, especially the Owenite Socialists".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm

In a foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), three years after Marx's death, Engels claimed confidently that "In the meantime, the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/foreword.htm

In his old age, Engels speculated about a new cosmology or ontology which would show the principles of dialectics to be universal features of reality. He also drafted an article on The part played by labor in the transition from Ape to Man, apparently a theory of anthropogenesis which would integrate the insights of Marx and Charles Darwin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/

(This is discussed by Charles Woolfson in The Labor Theory of Culture: a Re-examination of Engels Theory of Human Origins).

At the very least, Marxism had now been born, and "historical materialism" had become a distinct philosophical doctrine, subsequently elaborated and systematized by intellectuals like Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov and Nikolai Bukharin. Even so, up to the 1930s many of Marx's earlier works were still unknown, and in reality most self-styled Marxists had not read beyond Capital Vol. 1. Isaac Deutscher provides an anecdote about the knowledge of Marx in that era:

"Capital is a tough nut to crack, opined Ignacy Daszynski, one of the wellknown socialist "people's tribunes" around the turn of the 20th century, but anyhow he had not read it. But, he said, Karl Kautsky had read it, and written a popular summary of the first volume. He hadn't read this either, but Kelles-Krausz, the party theoretician, had read Kautsky's pamphlet and summarized it. He also had not read Kelles-Krausz's text, but the financial expert of the party, Hermann Diamand, had read it and had told him, i.e. Daszynski, everything about it".

http://www.rote-ruhr-uni.org/seminare/lesekreis.shtml

After Lenin's death in 1924, Marxism was transformed into Marxism-Leninism and from there to Maoism or Marxism-Leninism-Mao Ze Dong Thought in China which some regard as the "true doctrine" and others as a "state religion".

In the early years of the 20th century, historical materialism was often treated by socialist writers as interchangeable with dialectical materialism, a formulation never used by Friedrich Engels however. According to many Marxists influenced by Soviet Marxism, historical materialism is a specifically sociological method, while dialectical materialism refers to a more general, abstract, philosophy. The Soviet orthodox Marxist tradition, influential for half a century, based itself on Joseph Stalin's pamphlet Dialectical and Historical materialism and on textbooks issued by the "Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union".

Criticism against Popperians:

Before all said and done against Karl Popper, one must not forget, his “of immunizing stratagem” is the supreme guidance in the research of experimental science. Null hypothesis is just one of criteria that prevents immunizing stratagem but because of some practical difficulties with null hypothesis, improvements have been made with the method. However that does not mean, by furthest imagination, as the rejection of his philosophy. There are approximately 400 Journals on social science and everyone accepts statistical hypothesis testing without any exception. This is the supreme victory for Popperians.

Here are the famous objections raised against Popperians:

(1) In Physical Science laws are very precise. For example, no experimental evidence has been found to negate Special Theory of Relativity. Does that mean we will reject STR? This was the objection from Stephen Weinberg and indeed found to have same problem in some social theories. However, solution to this problem was made via the fact :

A theory can be tested via alternative hypothesis and does not need null hypothesis if statistical data shows the theories have been proved right in 100% cases (like STR or GTR). This will reduce research time, which is always the problem, if the problem is sought to solve through null hypothesis. However this does not mean deviation from immunizing stratagem, but to establish immunizing stratagem through 100% supportive evidence.

Since a lot of exceptions to historical materialism can be found, this Marxist theory is not eligible for “Immunizing Stratagem’ and indeed should go through null hypothesis for testing.

(2) The Quine-Duhem thesis argues that it is impossible to test a single hypothesis on its own, since each one comes as part of an environment of theories. Thus we can only say that the whole package of relevant theories has been collectively falsified, but cannot conclusively say which element of the package must be replaced. An example of this is given by the discovery of the planet Neptune: when the motion of Uranus was found not to match the predictions of Newton's laws, the theory "There are seven planets in the solar system" was rejected, and not Newton's laws themselves. Popper discussed this critique of naïve falsifications in Chapters 3 & 4 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. For Popper, theories are accepted or rejected via a sort of 'natural selection'. Theories that say more about the way things appear are to be preferred over those that do not; the more generally applicable a theory is, the greater its value. Thus Newton’s laws, with their wide general application, are to be preferred over the much more specific “the solar system has seven planets”.

While underdetermination does not invalidate the principle of falsifiability , Popper himself acknowledged that continual ad hoc modification of a theory provides a means for a theory to avoid being falsified. In this respect, the principle of parsimony, or Occam's Razor, plays a role. This principle presupposes that between multiple theories explaining the same phenomenon, the simplest theory--in this case, the one that is least susceptible to continual ad hoc modification--is to be preferred.

(3) Other practical difficulties:

A: Astrology will have enough falsification: Does not matter, it will be a rejected scientific theory because it will not meet stringent 95% confidence level criteria

B: In medical testing, one needs to wait till a patient will die (null hypothesis)! Typically null hypothesis is tested on animals, alternative hypothesis on human. Human are special enough to make exception.

(4) Thomas Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued that scientists work in a series of paradigms, and found little evidence of scientists actually following a falsifications methodology. Popper's student Imre Lakatos attempted to reconcile Kuhn’s work with falsificationism by arguing that science progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than the more specific universal statements of naïve falsificationism. Another of Popper’s students Paul Feyerabend ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology, and argued that the only universal method characterizing scientific progress was anything goes.

On the one hand, logical positivists and many scientists criticize Kuhn's "humanizing" of the scientific process going too far, while the postmodernists in line with Feyerabend have criticized Kuhn for not going far enough. SSR was also embraced by those wishing to discredit or attack the authority of science, such as creationists and radical environmentalists, and the changing national attitudes about science which occurred at the same time of the book's publication (Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was released in the same year), and modern scholars have wondered whether Kuhn himself would have made more explicit that he meant not to create a tool with which to undermine science had he seen what was coming down the pipe.

Conclusion:

I have learned two most important lessons of my life from Karl Popper:

(1) Immunizing Stratagem’ or assuming that my thoughts are right and infallible are root cause of ego and dogma that lead to wrongful analysis because we tend to fool ourselves by manipulating evidences. Hence to analyze a thought, first thing we need to do, is to find a counter evidence first to make our ‘self’ free from dogma. This is the supreme spiritual guidance to remain truthful and to see the truthful.

(2) Free thinking does not lead to non-dogmatic or rational thinking. Only way to think rational, is to follow the framework of scientific method of falsification which is the basic guide against dogmatism. Opposing the falsification method in our thinking can lead to dogma and irrationalism.

Rewritten with from:

(I have mostly edited and added some examples for understanding)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/computer/sas/hypothesis.html

http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/intro_popper/intro_popper.html

Noam Chomsky: New Ayatollah of Sharia Lover

2008-08-06T22:13:00.000-07:00

-Biplab Pal,12/20/05

"It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted".

David Horowitz

Though professors of political, social and economic science have thrown him out as a mere 'hippi' jerk, popularity of Mr Chomsky and his brand of anarchic radicalism seems to have drawn more supporters from Islamic world than any sane section of world population. His half baked political theories of anti-Americanism based on rumors than facts are not only laughable but the worst part is, despite his open endorsement to Islamic fascism, a major section of our leftist friends hail him like a hero of our modern time! It is well known for quite a few decades that Islamists and leftists are more of a bed-partner of convenience but it is only in recent time, Muslim world found their best friend in this political anarchist of America-Noam Chomsky! A linguist by research but seems to have earned his fame through his anti-American jihad on anything and everything.

He has been reflexively hostile to the United States, exaggerating its alleged crimes and iniquity, while downplaying the crimes of its enemies.

In "American Power and the New Mandarins" in 1968, Chomsky said that in the United States, "to me it seems that what is needed is a kind of denazification”. Paul Krugman in a exchange with Kathleen Sullivan, describes Chomsky as epitomizing "the left-wing view that all bad things are the result of Western intervention"

Mr Krugman further writes on Chomsky:

As I read your remarks about how Kosovo reverses the usual left/right roles on intervention, I found myself wondering what Noam Chomsky--who epitomized the left-wing view that all bad things are the result of Western intervention--is saying now. Well, I couldn't find anything about the current crisis, but thanks to the miracle of search engine technology I did find some remarks about Bosnia, which are pathetic but revealing: First he tries to blame it all on the Western Right, then suddenly gets all judicious and practical..

The truth, I think, is that the very success of America--our emergence as the world's overwhelming superpower--creates a set of moral dilemmas for the left.

While Mr Krugman’s observation about the leftists is more than correct, I always wonder whether today’s leftists, including Noam Chomsky read Karl Marx at all. Unfortunate truth is, America’s triumphant capitalism endorses success of Marxism many times more than failure of Leninism in Soviet Russia. In his book “ Profit over people’ Mr Chomsky displayed his glaring and blistering knowledge of free-trade which he thinks, is a WTO enforced phenomena started with Regan! While I was reading his book, it was explicitly clear to me, Mr Chomsky never read much of Marxist writing on free-trade. Had he been chosen the harder way of learning Marxism rather than feeding philanthropic appetite of anti-Americanism, he would have learned that free-trade and battle of protectionism existed even as early as 18^th century:

The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph of free trade in the 19th century. In every country where manufacturers talk of free trade, they have in mind chiefly free trade in corn and raw materials in general. To impose protective duties on foreign corn is infamous, it is to speculate on the famine of peoples.

Cheap food, high wages, this is the sole aim for which English free-traders have spent millions, and their enthusiasm has already spread to their brethren on the Continent. Generally speaking, those who wish for free trade desire it in order to alleviate the condition of the working class.

[ Karl Marx “On the Question of Free Trade”: MECW Volume 6, p. 450;]

Quite naturally, his sensible old Marxist friends started getting disillusioned about his increasing insanity. Adrian Hastings, reviewing The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo in 2001, writes,

"Chomsky just has not entered deeply into what he is talking about and he is not greatly interested in anything except digging out material for anti-American invective."

“Chomsky’s scathing indictment of NATO intervention in Kosovo is packed with information and diatribe relating to numerous episodes of American foreign policy in the twentieth century and, indeed, still earlier. It is precise, bitterly sarcastic and merciless in analysis. Could it really be the case, he asks, that a government with so criminal a record, one which has for years undermined the United Nations and refused to sign almost any significant agreement to strengthen international law, should suddenly in the late 1990s start to behave differently, using military power in a new, humanitarian way for the benefit of the world at large rather than ruthlessly pursue its own selfish agenda? Essentially this book is not about Kosovo. It is an attack by an American intellectual on American state policy as also on American commentators who have written idealistically about the war in Kosovo as constituting ‘a landmark in international relations’. The European and the Balkanist can hardly not feel that he is overhearing another round in an over-heated debate for which Kosovo is little more than an excuse.”

However, his separation from mainstream leftists seems to have reached a dot end after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when a number of leftists criticized Chomsky's immediate response to the attacks, alleging that not only he showed little sympathy for the victims, his comments showed utter distaste in the wake of horrible tragedy of 9/11. I am presenting his scholarly thoughts and remarks on 9/11:

A Quick Reaction

Noam Chomsky

CounterPunch, September 12, 2001

The September 11 attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims they do not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt.

In October 2001, Chomsky described the US attacks on Afghanistan as a "silent genocide" that would kill millions by starvation. On November 10 he explained that "What the effects will be, we will never know", arguing that if there were millions of deaths, "nobody's going to look because the West is not interested in such things and others don't have the resources."

In response to Noam Comsky style anarchism, Todd Gitlin wrote in outrage (The Guardian, September 2001):

At this moment, American outrage is not only fierce, it is utterly and plainly human and it is justified. Sneering critics like Noam Chomsky, who condemn the executioners of thousands only in passing, would not hesitate to honor the vengeful feelings of Palestinians subjected to Israeli occupation. They have no standing.

In a September 2002 article in The Nation discussing the American left's reaction to the September 11 attacks, Adam Shatz observed that Chomsky had denounced the attacks, but claimed that he "seemed irritable" in the interviews he gave just after September 11, "as if he couldn't quite connect to the emotional reality of American suffering", and described Chomsky's subsequent references to atrocities carried out by the American government and its allies as "a wooden recitation".

Chomsky's reaction to the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC were widely criticized from people on different sides of the political spectrum, who believed he was attempting to rationalize the actions. One critic was author and journalist Christopher Hitchens, who had previously been a supporter of Chomsky's work. In an exchange between the two, Hitchens also said that Chomsky's opposition to military action in Afghanistan coupled with his portrayal of the NATO military action in the Balkans as naked aggression and persecution of the Serbs as evidence that Chomsky was in fact soft on terrorism and fascism. He also characterized Chomsky's comparison between al-Qaeda's attacks and the 1998 bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical facility as a form of "moral equivalence". Chomsky argued that the consequences, rather than the moral intent, might be comparable. According to Chomsky, "Hitchens condemns the claim of 'facile "moral equivalence" between the two crimes.' Fair enough, but since he fabricated the claim out of thin air, I feel no need to comment." Chomsky's suggestion that 10,000 people died as a result of the attack on the pharmaceutical plant, though, has been disputed.

Here is the selected excerpts from Christopher Hitchen aginst Chomsky style rationalization of 9/11 event.

“…

One iota of such innate fortitude is worth all the writings of Noam Chomsky, who coldly compared the plan of September 11 to a stupid and cruel and cynical raid by Bill Clinton on Khartoum in August 1998….

Yet when a stand was eventually mounted against Milosevic, it was Noam Chomsky and Sam Husseini, among many others, who described the whole business as a bullying persecution of--the Serbs! I have no hesitation in describing this mentality, carefully and without heat, as soft on crime and soft on fascism…

Concluding, then. I have begun to think that Noam Chomsky has lost or is losing the qualities that made him a great moral and political tutor in the years of the Indochina war, and that enabled him to write such monumental essays as his critique of the Kahan Commission on Sabra and Shatila or his analysis of the situation in East Timor. I don't say this out of any "more in sorrow than anger" affectation: I have written several defenses of him and he knows it. But the last time we corresponded, some months ago, I was appalled by the robotic element both of his prose and of his opinions...

Samantha Power, in an otherwise sympathetic review of Hegemony or Survival (New York Times Book Review, January 2004), writes:

For Chomsky, the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. America, the prime oppressor, can do no right, while the sins of those categorized as oppressed receive scant mention. Because he deems American foreign policy inherently violent and expansionist, he is unconcerned with the motives behind particular policies, or the ethics of particular individuals in government. And since he considers the United States the leading terrorist state, little distinguishes American air strikes in Serbia undertaken at night with high-precision weaponry from World Trade Center attacks timed to maximize the number of office workers who have just sat down with their morning coffee.

It is inconceivable, in Chomsky's view, that American power could be harnessed for good. Thus, the billions of dollars in foreign aid earmarked each year for disaster relief, schools, famine prevention, AIDS treatment, etc. -- and the interventions in Kosovo and East Timor -- have to be explained away. The Kosovo and Timor operations' prime achievement, he writes, was to establish the norm of resort to force without Security Council authorization. On this both the Kosovars and the Timorese, whose welfare Chomsky has heroically championed over the years, would strongly disagree.

In a talk given in 1997, Chomsky ridiculed the concept of "anti-Americanism" as a symptom of totalitarian thinking: "It's the kind of term you only find in totalitarian societies, as far as I know. So like in the Soviet Union, anti-Sovietism was considered the gravest of all crimes." I am citing his full speech to expose to what extent this man has lost his sense to claim Iran is more liberal than America!

A lot of religion gets thrown in. Remember that the United States is an extremely fundamentalist country. You look at comparative statistics, usually religious fundamentalism declines as industrialization goes up, it's a pretty close correlation. The United States is off the chart. It ranks with devastated peasant societies. Probably more fundamentalist than Iran. Why this is so, I don't know. I mean, the fact is it's a complicated question

Well such is the true genius of a man called Noam Chomsky. Perhaps, somebody never asked him, had he said the same in Iran, how long he would have survived in the dark prison of Khomeini? Or whether comfort of his multi-million dollar home and yet being vocal against America for anything and everything is available in 10ft by 10ft prison cells of Iran?

Conservative author David Horowitz is one of Chomsky's more vocal critics. He has described Chomsky as the "Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate" and "the most treacherous intellect in America" claiming Chomsky has "one message alone: America is the Great Satan", in a series of articles along with historian Ronald Radosh .

Horowitz claims "It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted".

Peter Collier and David Horowitz compiled a set of critical essays in 2004, called The Anti-Chomsky Reader, that analyze some of Chomsky's more popular work. The Anti-Chomsky Reader argues that many of the sources in Chomsky's works are himself. Thomas Nichols' essay Chomsky And The Cold War discusses Chomsky's attitude towards anti-communists after the Soviet Union fell apart. There is also extensive criticism of Chomsky's claim that the US invasion of Afghanistan might result in millions of deaths, labeled by some critics as the "Silent Genocide" claim, named after his quote, "Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide".

Full excerpt from Noam Chomsky:

“After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the delivery rate is down to 1/2 of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims”

Of course what happened was that the U.S./Northern Alliance combination rolled through Afghanistan so quickly that the World Food Program and others were able to meet goals for food shipment that likely would not have been met under the Taliban's rule

Shortly afterward, on November 10, 2001, Chomsky tried to spin his claims by saying that millions might still die from starvation -- the world would simply never know because no one would bother to investigate (apparently Chomsky still hasn't learned from his Cambodian fiasco that large numbers of deaths will inevitably show up in population statistics -- it's almost impossible to hide large scale deaths).

At that time, Chomsky said,

The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) had already warned, even before the bombing, that over seven million people would face starvation if military action were initiated. After the bombing began, it advised that the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe in the short term was very grave, and furthermore that the bombing has disrupted the planting of 80 per cent of the country's grain supplies, so that the effects next year will be even more severe.

What the effects will be, we will never know. Starvation is not something that kills people instantly. People eat roots and leaves and they drag on for a while. And the effects of starvation may be the death of children born from malnourished mothers a year or two from now, and all sorts of consequences. Furthermore, nobody's going to look because the West is not interested in such things and others don't have the resources.

The last paragraph is ridiculous for somebody such as Chomsky to make. If there had been large scale starvation deaths from starvation, it would have been almost impossible to hide.

Fast forward two years, and a reader of the Independent asked Chomsky, "Where is the 'silent genocide' you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?" to which Chomsky replied in his defense,

That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe, and the bland announcements in the press that Washington had ordered Pakistan to eliminate "truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population."All of this is precisely accurate and entirely appropriate. The warnings remain accurate as well, a truism that should be unnecessary to explain.

Unfortunately, it is apparently necessary to add a moral truism: actions are evaluated in terms of the range of anticipated consequences. Which is so typical of Chomsky in his attempt to be the new Messiah of Muslim kingdoms.

Although a Jew and a self-described Zionist (though he admits his definition of Zionism is usually considered anti-Zionism today), Chomsky has called for the dismantling of the State of Israel for most of his career. He advocated instead a "bi-national" state with an Arab majority. Because of his advocacy for the end of the current Isreali state, the Faurisson affair, and for other such reasons, Chomsky is often accused of being a self-hating Jew, charges which Chomsky strenuously denies.

Chomsky has also made statements regarding the Jewish religion - describing it, for instance, as "genocidal" - and Jewish power which have led many to regard him as an anti-semite. One such statement claimed that the Jews are now "the most privileged" group in the United States and that anti-Semitism "hardly exists in the West". He has further claimed that the accusation of anti-Semitism is a tool of the powerful used to consolidate their power. Of course Iranian foreign minister who wants to nuke out Israel from the world map or wants to push the Jews to Alaska would find a great friend in Mr. Chomsky.

In 2002, the president of Harvard University Lawrence Summers drew attention by claiming that the "Noam Chomsky-led campaign" to have universities divest from companies with Israeli holdings is "anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intention". Although Chomsky signed a petition in support of divestment, which states in part, "We also call on MIT and Harvard to divest from Israel", he has expressed reservations about the boycott campaign.

Conclusion:

Absence of organized leftist ideas in United States created a vacuum for addressing grievance of capitalism. As a result, anarchist radical like Noam Chomsky is in demand even without having any background of Marxism. But he understands ‘market-demand’ of anti-capitalism quite well and used it to make his fortune of millions. Even if that means supporting Islamic terrorism. Rationalizing 9/11. And never speaking or writing anything against Islamic atrocity against non-Muslims or Muslim women. I have no problem with that because he essentially proves the success of capitalism in preserving liberalism and in utilization of market opportunities. But I have serious concern and utter despise for his brand of neoliberalism which has already crossed its limit in fueling inspiration to fascist force of Islam.

Source:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

[2] “Profit over people” by Noam Chomsky

[3] The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo by Noam Chomsky

[4] Middle East Illusions by Noam Chomsky

[5]Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky

Clash of Civilization: Lesson from Lord Bentinck (1829)

2008-08-06T22:09:00.000-07:00

Biplab Pal

Published on 03 April, 2006

[Recently, we are observing a phenomenon among conservative Muslims which has nice parallel in the Indian history during 1820s, the glorious period of Hindu reform brought about by Lord William Bentinck. History is a much better teacher than hypothesis of social science and therefore, I found it amazingly interesting to browse through the writing of Lord Bentinck to understand the nature of problem- whether or not "human rights" are "western" ideals, and not universal!

East India Company had a declared policy of non-intervention into religious matter of its Hindu and Muslim subjects. Hence, when Ram Mohan approached to Lord Bentinck for the abolition of Satidaha and to make it criminally punishable, one of the finest humanist of all time, Bentinck had to fight with the council to get permission on the issue of religious interference.

The year 1828 has traditionally been regarded as demarcating the beginning of a new era in the history of British India. Up to this time attitudes concerning the governance of an alien society varied and were mostly discordant. But the dominant ethos was ' reformist' and it grew in strength and stridency. Initially held at bay, it captured the mind of Parliament first, indoctrinated the bureaucratic class that was trained at Hailey bury to run the new empire, and overwhelmed the objections of orientalists and pragmatists .By 1828 liberals like Macauley and Utilitarian like Mill, Bentinck and Trevelyan had the field to themselves and immediately instituted reformist programmes.

Bentinck was appointed governor general of Bengal in 1827 and was successful in turning the annual deficit of about £1.5 million into a surplus of about the same amount. Consequently, the Charter Act of 1833 renewed the government of East India Company, and Bentinck became the governor general of India in 1833. Strongly influenced by the tradition of Utilitarianism—a political school of thought, influenced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, which believed in reform through rational administration—he brought about important changes in the administrative structure of India, such as an end to discrimination in public service recruitment, adoption of a liberal attitude toward the press, and the far-reaching measure of making English the official language of India. Although he followed a policy of nonintervention in the day-to-day running of Indian states, he annexed Mysore, Coorg, and central Cachar. He abolished the practice of female infanticide prevalent among some Rajput tribes. Indian reformers such as Raja Rammohan Roy (1772–1833) advocated abolition of the sati system (the custom of burning widows alive with the dead bodies of their husbands). In Regulation of XVII of December 1829, Bentinck declared sati illegal. However, this has not been as easy task and he had to write constantly in the favor of reform.

Here is, one of such golden collections of his writing which has shown light to the Indians and mankind in general. I am adding my notes (blue) for the readers.]

From "Lord William Bentinck on the Suppression of Sati, 8 November 1829," in Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 17501921, ed. Arthur B. Keith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922), vol. 1, pp. 208226.

Whether the question be to continue or to discontinue the practice of sati, the decision is equally surrounded by an awful responsibility. To consent to the consignment year after year of hundreds of innocent victims to a cruel and untimely end, when the power exists of preventing it, is a predicament which no conscience can contemplate without horror. But, on the other hand, if heretofore received opinions are to be considered of any value, to put to hazard by a contrary course the very safety of the British Empire in India, and to extinguish at once all hopes of those great improvements-affecting the condition not of hundreds and thousands but of millions-which can only be expected from the continuance of our supremacy, is an alternative which even in the light of humanity itself may be considered as a still greater evil It is upon this first and highest consideration alone(Quite interesting analysis of the situation by Lord Bentinck-it is clear that he was influenced by Mills and hence, he considered humanism as the supreme objective. This is also a clear proof that proponents of Muslim personal laws like Ziauddin and Setara Hashem are much behind Lord Bentinck and his ideas in 1829. If not for anybody else, a Ram Mohan or a Lord Bentinck is needed to baptize them with absolute value of humanism -BP)., the good of mankind, that the tolerance of this inhuman and impious rite can in my opinion be justified on the part of the government of a civilized nation. While the solution of this question is appalling from the unparalleled magnitude of its possible results, the considerations belonging to it are such as to make even the stoutest mind distrust its decision. On the one side, Religion, Humanity, under the most appalling form, as well as vanity and ambition-in short, all the most powerful influences over the human heart-are arrayed to bias and mislead the judgment. On the other side, the sanction of countless ages, the example of all the Mussulman conquerors ( Bentinck was of the opinion that Muslim rulers did nothing to stop inhuman practice of Hinduism. This is not true. Empire Akbar also restricted Satidaha and ritual infanticide by the Hindues-BP **) , the unanimous concurrence in the same policy of our own most able rulers, together with the universal veneration of the people, seem authoritatively to forbid, both to feeling and to reason, any interference in the exercise of their natural prerogative. In venturing to be the first to deviate from this practice it becomes me to show that nothing has been yielded to feeling, but that reason, and reason alone, has governed the decision. ( Educated Muslim supporters of Sharia must be felt ashamed to find out Lord Bentinck was ahead of them!-BP )

. . . So far from being chargeable with political rashness, as this departure from an established policy might infer, I hope to be able so completely to prove the safety of the measures as even to render unnecessary any calculation of the degree of risk which for the attainment of so great a benefit might wisely and justly be incurred.... With the firm undoubting conviction entertained upon this question, I should be guilty of little short of the crime of multiplied murder if I could hesitate in the performance of this solemn obligation (This is a classic reasoning why a humanist should be as equal guilty if he does not take action against any kind of inhuman practice without seeing color, race and religion-BP) I have been already stung with this feeling. Every day's delay adds a victim to the dreadful list, which might perhaps have been prevented by a more early submission of the present question. . .

. . . When we had powerful neighbours and had greater reason to doubt our own security, expediency might recommend an indirect and more cautious proceeding, but now that we are supreme my opinion is decidedly in favour of an open, avowed, and general prohibition, resting altogether. Upon the moral goodness of the act and our power to enforce it; and so decided is my feeling against any half measure that, were I not convinced of the safety of total abolition, I certainly should have advised the cessation of all interference.

Of all those who have given their advice against the abolition of the rite, and have described the ill effects likely to ensue from it, there is no one to whom I am disposed to pay greater deference than Mr. Horace Wilson (This British was a supporter of Sati and rumor goes that he was bribed by conservative Hindues. Readers may find a similarity in recent Sharia debate-BP). I purposely select his opinion because, independently of his vast knowledge of Oriental literature, it has fallen to his lot, as secretary to the Hindu College, and possessing the general esteem both of the parents and of the youths, to have more confidential intercourse with natives of all classes than any man in India. While his opportunity of obtaining information has been great beyond all others, his talents and judgement enable him to form a just estimate of its value. I shall state the most forcible of his reasons, and how far I do and do not agree with him.

1st. Mr. Wilson considers it to be a dangerous evasion of the real difficulties to attempt to prove that satis are not "essentially a part of the Hindu religion." I entirely agree in this opinion. The question is not what the rite is but what it is supposed to be, and I have no doubt that the conscientious belief of every order of Hindus, with few exceptions, regards it as sacred.

2nd. Mr. Wilson thinks that the attempt to put down the practice will inspire extensive dissatisfaction. I agree also in this opinion. He thinks that success will only be partial, which I doubt. He does not imagine that the promulgated prohibition will lead to any immediate and overt act of insubordination, but that affrays and much agitation of the public mind must ensue. But he conceives that, if once they suspect that it is the intention of the British Government to abandon this hitherto inviolate principle of allowing the most complete toleration in matters of religion, there will arise in the minds of all so deep a distrust of our ulterior designs that they will no longer be tractable to any arrangement intended for their improvement, and that principle of a purer morality, as well as of a more virtuous and exalted rule of action, now actively inculcated by European education and knowledge, will receive a fatal check. I must acknowledge that a similar opinion as the probable excitation of a deep distrust of our future intentions was mentioned to me in conversation by that enlightened native, Ram Mohun Roy, a warm advocate for the abolition of sati and of all other superstitions and corruptions engrafted on the Hindu religion, which he considers originally to have been a pure Deism. It was his opinion that the practice might be suppressed quietly and unobservedly by increasing the difficulties and by the indirect agency of the police. He apprehended that any public enactment would give rise to general apprehension, that the reasoning would be, "While the English were contending for power, they deemed it politic to allow universal toleration and to respect our religion, but having obtained the supremacy their first act is a violation ol their profession, and the next will probably be, like the Muhammadan conquerors, to force upon us their own religion.(Hindues were always afraid - like Muslim rulers British would try to convert them as well-BP)"

Admitting, as I am always disposed to do, that much truth is contained in these remarks, but not at all assenting to the conclusions which, though not described, bear the most unfavorable import, I shall now inquire into the evil and the extent of danger which may practically result from this measure.

It must be first observed that of the 463 satis occurring in the whole of the Presidency of Fort William, 420 took place in Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, or what is termed the Lower Provinces, and of these latter 287 in the Calcutta Division alone.

It might be very difficult to make a stranger to India understand, much less believe, that in a population of so many millions of people as the Calcutta Division includes, and the same may be said of all the Lower Provinces, so great is the want of courage and of vigour of character, and such the habitual submission of centuries, that insurrection or hostile opposition to the will of the ruling power may be affirmed to be an impossible danger....

If, however, security was wanting against extensive popular tumult or revolution, I should say that the Permanent Settlement, which, though a failure in many other respects and in its most important essentials, has this great advantage at least, of having created a vast body of rich landed proprietors deeply interested in the continuance of the British Dominion and having complete command over the mass of the people....

Were the scene of this sad destruction of human life laid in the Upper instead of the Lower Provinces, in the midst of a bold and manly people, I might speak with less confidence upon the question of safety. In these Provinces the satis amount to fortythree only upon a population of nearly twenty millions. It cannot be expected that any general feeling, where combination of any kind is so unusual, could be excited in defense of a rite in which so few participate, a rite also notoriously made too often subservient to views of personal interest on the part of the other members of the family....

But I have taken up too much time in giving my own opinion when those of the greatest experience and highest official authority are upon our records. In the report of the Nizamat Adalat for 1828, four out of five of the Judges recommended to the GovernorGeneral in Council the immediate abolition of the practice, and attest its safety. The fifth Judge, though not opposed to the opinions of the rest of the Bench, did not feel then prepared to give his entire assent. In the report of this year the measure has come up with the unanimous recommendation of the Court.... No documents exist to show the opinions of the public functionaires in the interior, but I am informed that ninetenths are in favour of the abolition....

Having made inquiries, also, how far satis are permitted in the European foreign settlements, I find from Dr. Carey that at Chinsurah no such sacrifices had ever been permitted by the Dutch Government. That within the limits of Chandarnagar itself they were also prevented, but allowed to be performed in the British territories. The Danish Government of Serampur has not forbidden the rite, in conformity to the example of the British Government.

It is a very important fact that, though representations have been made by the disappointed party to superior authority, it does not appear that a single instance of direct opposition to the execution of the prohibitory orders of our civil functionaries has ever occurred. How, then, can it be reasonably feared that to the Government itself, from whom all authority is derived, and whose power is now universally considered to be irresistible, anything bearing the semblance of` resistance can be manifested? Mr. Wilson also is of opinion that no immediate overt act of insubordination would follow the publication of the edict. The Regulation of Government may be evaded, the police may be corrupted, but even here the price paid as hush money will operate as a penalty, indirectly forwarding the object of Government.

I venture, then, to think it completely proved that from the native population nothing of extensive combination, or even of partial opposition, may be expected from the abolition....

I have now to submit for the consideration of Council the draft of a regulation enacting the abolition of satis.... It is only in the previous processes, or during the actual performance of the rite, when the feelings of all may be more or less roused to a high degree of excitement, that I apprehend the possibility of affray or of acts of violence through an indiscreet and injudicious exercise of authority. It seemed to me prudent, therefore, that the police, in the first instance, should warn and advise, but not forcibly prohibit, and if the sati, in defiance of this notice, were performed, that a report should be made to the magistrate, who would summon the parties and proceed as in any other case of crime....

The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and a more just conception of the will of God. The first step to this better understanding will be dissociation of religious belief and practice from blood and murder (Isn’t it amazing, how he was ahead of his time “dissociation of belief and practice from blood and murder”. No religion or religious practice which is inhuman in universal standard be tolerated in the name of religious freedom-BP). They will then, when no longer under this brutalizing excitement, view with more calmness acknowledged truths. They will see that there can be no inconsistency in the ways of Providence, that to the command received as divine by all races of` men, "No innocent blood shall be spilt," there can be no exception; and when they shall have been convinced of the error of this first and most criminal of their customs, may it not be hoped that others, which stand in the way of their improvement, may likewise pass away, and that, thus emancipated from those chains and shackles upon their minds and actions, they may no longer continue, as they have done, the slaves of every foreign conqueror, but that they may assume their first places among the great families of mankind? I disown in these remarks, or in this measure, any view whatever to conversion to our own faith. I write and feel as a legislator for the Hindus, and as I believe many enlightened Hindus think and feel (A humanist, as warm as Lord Bentinck, must feel compassionate enough to identify him with the very cause!-BP ).

Descending from these higher considerations, it cannot be a dishonest ambition that the Government of which I form a part should have the credit of an act which is to wash out a foul stain upon British rule, and to stay the sacrifice of humanity and justice to a doubtful expediency; and finally, as a branch of the general administration of the Empire, I may be permitted to feel deeply anxious that our course shall be in accordance with the noble example set to us by the British Government at home, and that the adaptation, when practicable to the circumstances of this vast Indian population, of the same enlightened principles, may promote here as well as there the general prosperity, and may exalt the character of our nation.

Foot note:

** Empire Akbar also reformed Hinduism, as instructed by his beloved principal wife JodhaBi. He restricted Sati system and made it legal only if the window would volunteer before the Mufti. He also stopped infanticide in GangaSagar Fair, for obtaining more children. His religion Din-hi-Elahi was an atheist religion with no God and no prophet (1575) and as a consequence, Mullahs declared it to be blasphemy..

The whole write up actually shocked me to the core-almost two centuries have passed and religious people of our subcontinents made no progress as it can bee seen that only a handful among us, the so called educated can think like Lord Bentinck. Rest are either indifferent or advocating the religious values over universal codes of humanism. Worst, some people are trying to justify their religious line of thinking in covert form of pseudo-science and socialism.

Humanism is a fundamental trait and above all the reasons and hypothesis. That was the summery of Lord Bentinck which remained unchanged in last two hundred years.

California 10/15/05

Of extraneous existence in nostalgia

2008-08-06T22:07:00.000-07:00

Of extraneous existence in nostalgia

Biplab Pal

My spirit I to Love compose,
In humble trust mine eye-lids close,
With reverential resignation,
No wish conceived, no thought exprest,
Only a sense of supplication ;
A sense o'er all my soul imprest
That I am weak, yet not unblest,
Since in me, round me, every where
Eternal Strength and Wisdom are.

The Pains of Sleep: Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The very basic fact that we continue to breadth and insufflate every new morning in the most humdrum job one could imagine, transcends into reality of living-survival, struggle and ennoblement of existence through fracas for position, wealth and recognition-you name it. Yes, we are not among the seven hundred millions of Indians who strain to manage 2100 calories a day. And not among the billions whose human existence depletes every day against all kinds of pollutions-environmental, ethical and moral.

Didn’t I tell you, we, the immigrants who have managed to escape, have excelled in the art of living? We escape to excel and excel to escape.

Hei! Don’t talk rot euphemism of nationalism! Of patriotic feeling and tickling of idealism which rarefied into global ecumenical cosmopolitan culture long times back. We live in an era of internet. An era of no fence, no border. Esites are our real asylum, erommance is our real crash and efriends are our real chums. Does not matter that I don’t know the name of my neighbors-it does matter that hundreds of people are reading my blogs, my scraps. I have tons of friends in chat line from Brazil to Russia. And of course they are all gals- more real than the next door girl in my town whom I could never blab the teen ecstasy of a tattooed heart. But I know these gals are real with 34C-they told me.

So what? Who am I? A dude, dad, husband, son, friend, fiancé, Bengali, Indian, American, Engineer and so many fragmented combo of existence packed in a bin- a marketable case tagged with the brand NRB, NRI, Indian techi. In a shiny day, I am American to Americans, Indian to Indians and Bangali to Bengalis. Otherwise, I am a rat worshiping, masala stinging Indian to American who has stolen their otherwise reassured job. Deshi to Indians who according to him, responsible for poor image of Indians in America because I don’t have etiquette enough to be American. And a snob, Greek, cryptic character to most of the Bangladeshi and Bengalis other than the Bangladeshi shop owners. Shiny or gloom is just other side of whether I have market relation with my annotator. Antic stock of market economy in social relation-yes, that’s real me, the ‘I’.

Does nostalgia mean anything to a stock? I am only rated by my market value in real and option market. People around me would buy in or out depending on stock’s prospect in a jittery market. No body has damn time for me, unless I have fungible worth for their investment. No truth is more real than this nasty Bazzari reality.

So how does it matter if I am missing a group theater in Calcutta, riverine terrain of Ganges delta, surreal look of rupasi Bangla and a street corner adda with my soul mates at the day end and weekend? Am I not earning enough dollars for a compensation of homesickness? A cold turkey of what one can easily say not so valuable in our professional life! Compensation is a wrong word in market economics. Actually I am being paid the worth it takes to replace me. That does not count for anything-not even my skill sets other than its availability and vicarial in the naukri bazzar. Yes, I am worse than the hookers, the B-gals. Even they get the worth for their beautiful boobs and bums, almond eyes and ruby cheeks. I don’t. I get the value for hardship in replacing me! I have never been rewarded for my knowledge, skills and diligence. I have always been compensated because they couldn’t find another stock like ‘me’ at the same price.

But it does not matter anymore. I am into eternal biological cycle. I am a dad now and someday, I will be grandpa. My Y gene will survive and that is all that matters. Like colorful falling leafs in autumn, my biological existence would wither away. Pretty much the same way a cow or a pig subsists its life cycle.

Could we ever be better than a biological being?

Better than a snap shot in evolution Scheme?

"How often already you've had to be told,

Keep cold, young orchard. Good-bye and keep cold.

Dread fifty above more than fifty below."

I have to be gone for a season or so.

Good bye, and keep cold: Robert Frost

California 11/15/06

While atheism is fastest growing in the West, it is declining in South Asia

2008-07-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1fgKXmNJrQ&feature=related

While majority of Europe is conclusively turning into atheism, and in USA, atheists are increasing in number ( 8 to 12% from 1986 to 2005), in South Asia we are still in the grip of religious illusion of Islam and Hinduism.

Here is the tally of atheists population.

Sweden 86%
Japan 56%
France 54%
UK 44%
In USA, it is at 12% now from 8% in 1987

Question is why in South Asia we are falling back while West is moving forward?

Couple of hypothesis we need to analyze-

(1) Poverty-lack of education
(2) Stronger heritage of spiritualism
(3) State patronage
(4) Stronger existence of family structure
(5) Fall of communism as savior of oppressed mass
(6) Conservative response to women liberation movement in the West--fear of losing battle over women womb.
(7) Cultural heritage is religious heritage---because of mass illiteracy, secular literature /culture is still alien to the poor South Asians.
(8) Media patronage of religion.

Did I miss any?
Biplab

Zakir Naik's popularity is convincing proof of Islamic fanaticism

2008-07-18T19:37:00.000-07:00

This Islamic preacher of Indian origin supports

(1) Death to apostate as he thinks they are traitors of Islam.
(2) Polygamy should be legalized
(3) No religious right to non-Muslims
(4) Every Muslim must be terrorist against America

And he has millions of followers in Muslim world!!!

[3] is very serious. Just read this:

*****

Interviewer: Here is a question from a non-Muslim from India. Are non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and to build their places of worship in an Islamic state? If so, why is building of temples and churches disallowed in Saudi Arabia, whereas Muslims are building their mosques in London and Paris?

Zakir Naik: I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what’s the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6? They’ll say, no. I ask, why? They’ll say, because he does not have correct knowledge of mathematics. Similarly, as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God. In the Holy Quran (3:85), it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question, regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshipping is wrong? Therefore, we will not allow such wrong things in our Islamic country.

Interviewer: But is it not that they (non-Muslims) also think that their religion is true, whereas we (Muslims) think that our religion is true?

Zakir Naik: In religious matters only we know for sure that we Muslims are right. They (non-Muslims) are not sure. Thus, in our country we can’t allow preaching other religions because we know for sure that only Islam is the right religion. However, if a non-Muslim likes to practise his religion in an Islamic country, he can do so inside his home — but he can’t propagate his religion. It is exactly as if a teacher thinks in his mind that 2 plus 2 equals 3. He has the right to do so, but we can never allow such a person to teach this to our children. Non-Muslims are no doubt experts in science and technology. But they (non-Muslims) are not sure about religious truths. Therefore, we are trying to get them to the right path of Islam.”

Should we in India or in America also ban Islam because we think it is vile????

Can any supporter of Naik will clarify me why they support this Mullah Zakir who even does not admit the
religious right of non-Muslims? Should we apply Zakir's argument on them as we can provide thousands of logics why Islam is notorious as faith and therefore it must be wiped out from India, Europe and America?

This man has millions of supporters. Which mean they also do not support religious plurality. This is height of communal sentiment. This is the reason we all think most of the Muslims are fanatics.

Who’s responsible for the stereotypes of Islam?

Sudheendra Kulkarni

Islam fascinates me. But the conduct of some of its adherents also frustrates me. The positive aspects of Islam are too numerous to escape the attention of any unprejudiced and truth-seeking non-Muslim. For example, Hindus have much to learn from Muslims about the virtue of solidarity and fellow-feeling within their community. During the month of Ramadan, I am captivated by the sight of Muslims who, after offering their evening namaz, end their day’s fast by grouping together and eating from the same plate, without any distinction of class or status

Ad Links

Islam Symbols Mecca Denmark Muslim

Also, one can only marvel at the power of devotion and the degree of self-surrender of many Muslim mystics, whose lives have undoubtedly influenced pious, ordinary Muslims. Here is a story told by Vinoba Bhave, the great Gandhian who learnt Arabic at age 50 just to study the Holy Quran in the original. An old Muslim saint once had a thorn in his foot. It had gone deep and doctors were worried that the pain involved in removing it would be too much for the old soul to bear. One of his devotees then told them, “Don’t worry. You remove it while he is offering his prayers. He will be so engrossed in Allah that he won’t feel anything.”

Sadly, this ennobling aspect of Islam sits uneasily with the fanaticism that tarnishes its image. Last week I was shocked to watch an interview with Zakir Naik, a well-known Mumbai-born Muslim preacher, whose TV talks on Islam are highly popular in India and around the world. His books and audio/video cassettes are sold in huge numbers worldwide.

Watch the interview at YouTube, the free video site on the Internet, and draw your own conclusions.

Interviewer: But is it not that they (non-Muslims) also think that their religion is true, whereas we (Muslims) think that our religion is true?

Naik’s views provoke a troubling question in my mind: “Why do some Muslims demand secularism and more than equal treatment in countries where they are a minority, but aggressively turn anti-secular and deny even equal treatment to non-Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries?” Muslims cannot escape their responsibility to answer this question.

Naik’s defense of the denial of fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia is not unrelated to an unbelievable incident that happened recently in the land where Islam was born. On February 26, four French nationals — all non-Muslims working in Saudi Arabia — were killed by gunmen. Their crime? They were resting on the side of a desert road about 10 miles from the holy city of Medina, which, like Mecca, is restricted to Muslims only.

Whenever non-Muslims, including those who admire Islam’s positive features, express alarm at incidents like these, or at views such as Zakir Naik’s, they are accused of spreading “stereotypes” about Islam and Muslims. But shouldn’t Muslims themselves be debating what produces these stereotypes?

What is God? Will he exist anymore?

2008-07-13T20:32:00.001-07:00

God has various meaning and hypothesis beyond actual existence or non-existence. You can look at God from various angles--philosophy ( absolute truth), social science (self organization), study of self (spiritualism), social evolution (Memetic theory), micro-economic model ( spiritualism as basic need and God/religion as product to meet the need ).

Let start from a social evolution theory--I wrote a short note on it last year

http://biplabpal2000.googlepages.com/Businessofreligion.pdf

Basically an ensemble of society will evolve from polytheism to monotheism to atheism-atheism does not necessarily mean only no God. In analytical philosophy it means lack of absolute truth. In that sense communists were not atheist-they believed in historical materialism as absolute truth. Atheism also does not mean lack of spiritualism (study of self). Spiritualism does not need a God or absolute truth or religion.

http://biplabspiritualism.blogspot.com/2007/09/essence-of-being-born-into-this-world.html

http://biplabspiritualism.blogspot.com/search/label/Scientific%20spiritualism

Question is why such evolution will happen-I have explained that in

http://biplabpal2000.googlepages.com/Dharma_Biggan.pdf

as matter of emerging force of self organization of the society. Even today, despite electronic media is behind the social integration, God stands out as much superior force of integration because of cultural legacy. But as the media will be all pervasive and single most important factor in social integration, political power of 'God' will decrease proportionally. But God will rule spiritual domain for sometimes-let me explain this aspect of spiritual God.

A human being can be viewed as chaotic system-unless one place enough boundary around him/her, he/she does not function as a productive system. That is --we all follow certain sets of disciplined functions to keep ourselves focused and a utility machine in the society.Much of these disciplined functions are cultural inheritance-which can be ethnic, religious, political etc. Through these sets of disciplined functions, we bond ourselves with the society and matter around us.

But this chain of commands of marriage, family, society, job etc. also hold our conscience/thoughts to hostage-these sets of cannons force a contraction and pressure on our thought process and you feel as if your mind has been imprisoned by your wife, kids, parents, society, political parties etc. So your mind seeks freedom from this material bondage and this process of liberation can unfold in various synthesis in human beings-most common of which is the complete submission of the self ( ego and very presence of yourself) to a ' God' ( existence of absolute truth). This is the central message of Quran and Gita. To the atheists, this synthesis can be quest for more material (empirical) truth to liberate himself/herself. No matter what-one must develop a conflict within himself/herself for progression of his mind through a synthesis of ideas. A synthesis needs a conflict between thesis (liberation) and anti-thesis (cannons) in your mind. Dr Radhakrishnan and Jiddu Krishnamurty spoke at length on the synthesis of spiritual mind.

Question is: why most of the people seek liberation through God and not through empirical truth? Answer is very simple--it is a lot easier process-does not require much background-mentally more enjoyable as well. Seeking liberation through knowledge is called Gaan Yoga in Hinduism and liberation through submission to God is called Vakti Yoga. Indeed in Gita, Arjun asked this question to Krishna--if knowledge can lead to salvation why do you need submission to God? Krishna answered in the same way-most of the people don't have background to set a quest for knowledge-so for them submission to God serves better purpose.

However, poor people's love for spiritual God has been exploited throughout and is still being exploited even today all over the world. And it all happened because common people can not distinguish between" political God" and "spiritual God". This is darker side of blind submission without any rationality.

But that is another story in another day.

Biplab

Exposing Dr Zakir Naik's claim of science in Quran and Polygamy

2008-07-13T18:07:00.001-07:00

This is my video rebuttal against Indian Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik who is falsifying data in public lectures to support Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism. Such businessman of religion, is dangerous for secular state and growth of true spiritualism.

Part-1:
Scientific hint Quran? I have explained how Middle East petro-dollar has been used to
'buy' western scientists to speak on Science in Quran-many of their statements have been manipulated as they have later confessed after the money game behind it was exposed by a Wall Street Journalist in 2002

http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/Western_Scientists_Bribed.htm

There is no science without experimental data-since Quran does not have experimental data, it is waste of time and insane to speak about science in Quran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBn166l3-m8

Part-2:
Polygamy supported by demographic data? My exposure will show Dr Zakir Naik does not have minimum knowledge of Anthropology and Social Science to speak on this topic.
I have shown how he is making a sale of religion based on
identity crisis of the Muslims. It is a dangerous trend to justify
outdated customs in the name of science without knowing even minimum basics of
science..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LULgVB9Tpo

Thanks
Biplab
7/15/2008

Rationality and irrationality of being Indian

2008-06-16T14:59:00.000-07:00

Dr M Ambekar "One simple example I would like to mention here is that if a Mother has two children one is Disabled. Who she will look after with care? I live it your imagination to answer it.
Your view will be welcomed. "

BP>>First of all I would like to thank Dr M Ambekar to give me opportunity to explain further on the point of irrationality and existence of nation-and thereafter nationalism.

Answer to his question is yes- a mother will look after more for his disabled kid. From the stand-point of economic theory, it is irrational decision. In economic theory, a children is a product of a company formed by partnership of parent. Since a disabled kid is less likely to carry their genetic survival (and therefore a defective product), a rational decision would be to take care more for her able kid. But because we are human beings, we opt for irrational decision!

In Anthropology, we have seen many ethnic groups, where disabled kids are abandoned on birth. Ancient Sparta was a example. Hitler brutally implemented elimination of disabled kids in the name of Darwinism (which is a shame-because natural selection does not mean killing of each other in the name of survival-it means weaker genetic pool will automatically be unable to reproduce their genetic imprint-and therefore their bloodline will be discontinued.). However these are exception-and in human society, parents do care for disabled kids.

But, does it violate Darwinism? Not at all. That disabled kid is less likely to get married. Parent will be kind to him- but dating market will abandon him. I am sorry but bride's mother will not be kind to give her daughter to him. He will not get a prospective match to reproduce his genetic print because of his disability. And thus Darwinism will be in work.

But question is--parent's irrational decision to care for disabled kid. Does it violate the notion that Economic theory is not at work? Not at all. Philosophy of science as founded by Sir Karl Popper, demands that there should be exception to hypothesis to form a scientific synthesis. Literature, arts, religion, culture--by large, these activities do not help human beings to be economically rich-expanding their material wealth. But these irrational behavior of human beings make us human and not a machine or robot. However, our survival is not linked to our human behavior but to our rational steps to increase our wealth. How does it shape up in India?

Let me give a simple example. Bengali culture are practiced in two places-Bangladesh and West Bengal. Standard of culture practiced in WB is quite higher than that in Bangladesh but Bengali culture is dying in WB but flourishing in Bangladesh because existence of Bangladesh as a nation depends on Bengali culture. Most of Bengalis in WB may think, their culture will be better protected if WB can form a separate nation like Bangladesh which won it against Pakistan. However, they will never like the idea of breaking up from India because then, where they will work to earn a living? Years of leftist rule yielded a sterile economy in WB and all most all the capable Bengali people are earning their living elsewhere in India!!! So rational decision is forcing them to stay with India! Or consider Maharathra. It has great economy-but where this economy will head if Siva Sena wants a separate Maharasthra state? The day Maharathra will be independent nation, 80% of its industry will be shutdown because their survival is linked to 1.1B Indian population.

Biplab

Absurdity of Buddhist philosophy

2007-09-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

Greed, Buddhist Philosophy and science

Four noble truths of Buddhism emphasize that it is our greed, our expectation which is at the root of our suffering.

Question is-how solid is this foundation of Buddhism? Is it a rational, scientific foundation?

Now look what we are-what is our existence as human being!

I am a father, husband, son, Engineer, Indian, Bengali etc. etc. Meaning, I have to carry out certain biological and social functions to continue as father, husband etc. For carrying out these functions, for each and every step I am dependant on scientific invention of last centuries like phone, PC, internet, electricity, medicine etc. etc. Without these innovations, my existence reduces to a primitive man and some of existence like engineering dissolves into vacuum.

Which of the above innovation was not born out of greed of making money and forming capital? Edison created electricity to make more money-or else he would not have risked investing his resources to build electrical infrastructure. Internet came from APRANET, which again saw its sky rocketed growth thanks to the greed of each and every individual—be it business or pornography or dating. Hard to digest-but truth is--every video technology—be it VHS, VCR, DVD or streaming came to existence for the greed of porno Industry in USA which always wanted better video quality.

That’s why Capitalism is called –science of rational greed. The word rational is important. It means you are allowed to be greedy within the limit of law.

I give you an example. Let say, I meet a beautiful charming lady in a party or in a train. If I become so greedy that I attempt molesting her- I will be behind the bar next day. This is irrational greed. Now according to four noble truths of Buddism-- after seeing her, I shouldn’t desire to talk to her because that would raise some expectation in my heart—will that be good? Not at all—If I don’t get excited looking at beautiful girl, I would consider my biological existence depleted at that moment—because after all our biological existence is completely sexual. So as long as my excitement is within the rational limit, it serves no bad purpose and indeed greed keeps us into our existence.

We see so many scandals in share markets—because people crossed the limit of rationality in being greedy and they are in Jail. USA and advanced countries have tons of laws to rationalize this greed or else the civilization will collapse. All the corporate laws are essentially a kind of rational limit on corporate greed. But society will not innovate for material growth if there is no greed. Hence, rational greed is the solution and no greed according to Buddhism is counter productive to the social evolution.

It is completely absurd to talk about elimination of greed-our biological religion is to raise kids (see my blogs in http://biplabspiritualism.blogspot.com/ ) . In that process we try to ensure survival of our kids by giving them education and building wealth that he/she would inherit. That’s why a person is much less greedy when he/she does not have children. It is proven in social science that a society that forbids individual inheritance, is less wealthy and sterile in innovation. And that’s why Communism is not in existence any more. Our greed is linked with our biological existence for survival of our genetic code.

Anyhow, I found four noble truths are useful not as a religion but to rationalize our greed. I started a lot of reading on Buddhism after I broke with my first girlfriend. I was suffering and I thought Buddhism might alleviate my pain. Well, it helped but I also realized suffering in love is essential and without suffering nobody can realize true love either. Likewise without suffering from greed, nobody can realize their existence either. Hence four noble truths are useful but they are not good enough for human realization and in some sense not relevant at all to our main biological religion.

Secularism is absolutely essential for a State

2007-09-08T20:31:00.001-07:00

Few months back, I wrote an article on why I think concept of present secular state is flawed:

http://www.vinnomot.com/BiplabPal/Flawed%20secular%20state.htm

I will start from where I ended in this article:

Therefore, I am of the strong opinian that in order to set up a true secular state, one can not ignore the demand-supply aspect of religion in the emotional journey and realization of human being and the support system it forms around its followers. If science can not be a part of that realization and support system, it does not serve any significant purpose just by proving God does not exist or religion is vile. There will not be mass taker of rationalism except a few intellegent beings-not enough to form a political force. And unless we are a part of a strong political force, concept of secularism will be out from the self-organization of human society.

My point is simply this--our society, culture, laws --everything has been formed around God and religion. Or at least in the name of it. Now if I throw God out from the equation, how could we form a society and political system based on scientific social laws? Is that possible?

For example what would be law governing the divorce?

Actually it is much simpler than said for a scientific society. Social research on divorce proved that divorce has devastating effects on the kids:

"A startling thought is occurring to the folks who study the impact of divorce on children: A good divorce may be much worse than a bad marriage."

http://www.divorceresourcecenter.com/sleeper-effects.htm

"American society may have erased the stigma that once accompanied divorce, but it can no longer ignore its massive effects. As social scientists track successive generations of American children whose parents have ended their marriages, the data are leading even some of the once-staunchest supporters of divorce to conclude that divorce is hurting American society and devastating the lives of children. Its effects are obvious in family life, educational attainment, job stability, income potential, physical and emotional health, drug use, and crime."

http://www.hispeace.org/html/artic27.htm?pfriend=Yes

"But some long-term research suggests that children of broken marriages face a higher risk of divorce, difficulty forming relationships and serious psychological problems."

"Given the potential reverberating effects of divorce through a child's life, some divorce experts say that broken marriages have become a serious public policy question. "

"For parents, the question can be excruciating. ``Most adults want the freedom to end an unhappy marriage,'' said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University. ``But they don't want to harm the lives of their children. The question of long-term effects tells us whether the difficulty of divorce will last into the next generation.''

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/media/news%2087.htm

"Three-hundred-and-thirty undergraduates at a large southeastern university completed a confidential anonymous 26 item questionnaire designed to assess the effect of parental divorce/remarriage on the relationship with their respective parents and on their own romantic relationships. The data revealed several significant relationships-respondents whose parents were divorced and remarried reported being less happy and less close to both their mother and father than respondents whose parents were still married. In addition, offspring whose parents were divorced were more likely to avoid short-term relationships. Implications and limitations of the data are suggested."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_38/ai_n8589845

http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/NR060600.cfm

"The present study updates the P. R. Amato and B. Keith (1991) meta-analysis of children and divorce with a new analysis of 67 studies published in the 1990s. Compared with children with continuously married parents, children with divorced parents continued to score significantly lower on measures of academic achievement, conduct, psychological adjustment, self-concept, and social relations. After controlling for study characteristics, "

http://sched.sbu.edu/faculty/czuck/CE660/_disc3/00000002.htm

So when a scientific society will formulate laws on divorce-they don't need to seek for obscured religious texts of Koran or Manu--instead, they need to look after the results from social science as stated above--to protect women and kids-to minimize the impact of divorce on state productivity. State productivity must be measured in terms of education and well being of the kids.

This is what I call a secular state--a state which relies on scientific research to guide its society and does not depend on any idealism like Hinduism, communism, Islam etc. These are anti-thesis of human civilization.

Religion against social and biological model of human being

2007-09-08T19:17:00.000-07:00

Ok. Now it is high time to explain how religions are failing to meet minimum social demands.

Just a couple of examples from different religions.

You must have noticed number of criminals among the Muslims far surpassed their percentage in Europe and India. Most of the Muslim criminals including famous actor Salman Khan thinks he is answerable only to Allah. Even a former atheist-- famous Bengali singer Suman Chottopadhyay ( now Suman Kabir) after adopting his new faith declared that he is only answerable to Allah when he was battered and convicted with the crime of beating his German wife in Calcutta. Most of the Islamic terrorists also think they are only answerable to Allah and they have no obligation to mortal society. Does not matter that his friends and relatives will die in a blast in Mumbai or London-the very city which has provided him a living. So what? Who cares for a living on the earth when Allah has promised a thousand time better living in heaven with virgins for his loyal soldiers. When I read Koran --Allah sounds more like a Dawood Ibrahim kind of Gangstar who promises a lot for his followers and death for the opponents.

Being socially responsible is essential for self organization of human beings. You must return whatever service you are getting from the society. You have been a responsible citizen because your parents, school teachers, professors, friends and writers have contributed in shaping 'you' immensely. And you return it being a responsible parent and social human being. Cycle of life goes on. No society can be built on the principles that its citizens are only responsible to God and not to the society.

In Hinduism, castism is perhaps the best example of how religion can render a very weak cohesion among its citizens. Let's say, I am a Bramhin and I am enjoying food from a farmer who is a Biashya and manual service from a servant who is invariably a Sudra. Both of them belong to lowest rank and file of the society according to Hinduism. Now, scientifically this means a gross disregard for functions of the society which are thousand time more essential than religious practice which is the occupation of the Brahmins. As a result, for a long time India has the weakest military power. Any Tom, Dick and Harry invaded India and subjugated its fertile land for centuries. Social crimes committed by Hindu religion stand largest and ugliest in the human history.

Now I will expose how religion has no relationship with human being as a biological existence. We all know that we live for raising our kids-biologically parenting is our supreme religion because that's how we ensure that human genes survive and make itself better through natural selection.

Look at religious practice in Islam: Hajj ( pilgrimage), 5 times prayers ( Namaz), Ramdan or fasting--how any of these stupid activity can help in parenting?

Also look at Hinduism-- Idol worshiping, concept of Maya & reality in Adaityabad, Kirtan etc.--How any of these meaningless activity and philosophy can help in raising a good kid?

Story remains same and sordid for Buddhism and Christianity.

What helps to raise the kids:

1) A society with excess of food production
2) A society with superior military/political justice system to give political stability
3) A society with good education systems
4) Honest social administration-kids will be honest only if they grow up in a honest society.

Human beings do not need a God or Allah--they need (1)-(4).

Muslims and Hindus migrated to USA and Europe, a land of Christianity because these countries have much better provision for (1)-(4). Had religion been a primary thing in their life, they would not have migrated to Christian land where he/she will be a minority. However most of the religious Hindus and Muslims in USA fail to understand this basic reality and they continue to practice their religion more enthusiastically in foreign land without realizing it brings nothing to parenting or well beings of kids for which they have migrated.

Unfortunately in the process of social evolution political systems that promised (1)-(4) in the name of God or Allah have been more successful irrespective of whether they have actually delivered it. These political systems enforced the fear of God/Allah in the minds of kids using state machinery.

Once the fear of God/Allah is installed in a kid's mind,99.9% times, he/she has to live with this fear throughout his/her life. Most of the Bengali intellectuals are born out of leftist families because in a God fearing society of Bengalis, leftists are exception and their children do not have to bear the burden of God-which is counter productive to the development of human intellect and rationality.

The essence of being born into this world

2007-09-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

Every one of us is looking for happiness.

To some, freedom equals to happiness. Others may think dollar equals happy mode. To a woman of 30+, a successful date may mean happiness. However, for a moment, nobody understands that we are actually chasing following set of questions and not happiness.

-who am I?

-why am I born into this world?

-what is objective of this mortal life?

Well, religion has attempted to answer these questions as 'advertisement from God" and not scrutinizing social and biological science. If you ask above questions to any religious master of Abrahamic faith, you will be returned with following.

-You are the son of God

-You have been born into the world to serve the purpose of God

-Your aim in life is to attain and please God's will-..

These are not actually the answers-it is simply a bunch of bullshits to avoid a deep quest to understand our nature-human nature.

Just think, if instead of religious answers, I put forward our biological and social understanding:

-I am just a biological being like billion other biological beings in this planet or possibly in the universe

-I am born into the world to continue and improve the genetic code from my ancestors. Thus, I am a part of positive evolution of mankind.

-My mortal objective is to raise kids-work for the society so that they can live a secured and healthy life.

Irrespective of religions, every human being actually follows these biological definition as they have been programmed. But the world civilization has been hijacked by the bullshits of religious preaching and stupid lies of revelation from God or Allah. And our civilization is at danger-from the Islamists, from Zionists, from the Hinduists and from the Christian fundamentalists. In next blog we will analyze these questions further to understand our basic nature and reality around us.

Biplab speaks on Spiritualism

Police action against Baba Ramdev's supporters is a national shame for a democratic nation

Verdict on Dr Binayak Sen : An insult to Indian democracy

সিদিকুল্লার সাথে সেকুলার জ়োট!

Analysis of Bihar Election: Are you hearing what Indians want?

My vision of a Green Party in India

Verdict of Ayodhya : A 21st century perspective

Unmasking the Moist movement in India

Simultaneous Release of Bengali Movies in North America

Bengali Movies are now available on first day of release in North American Market

Dialectic Materialism is outdated

To the critics of Indira Gandhi

Obama's peace Nobel: Another shame on Nobel committee

বাংলাদেশ এবং ইন্দিরা গান্ধী

Gandhism and modern biology

Che Guevara and Kobad Ghandhi: Why do they mislead?

Prakash Karat will decimate CPM

Political literates versus Rahul Gandhi

Corporate Socialism for better corporate Governance

Birth of a new Bangladesh: Joy Bangla

At the root cause of Islamic terror in Pakistan

Is present concept of secular state flawed?

Whom Hindus should blame for conversion?

Analysis of failure of secularism in West Bengal

Existential crisis of Bengali Babus in North America

Anti-Americanism of Bengali intellectual

Chairman Mao versus Naked Gandhi: Who will have the last laugh?

Theist Existentialism and Islamic Terrorism

Origin of Hindu Fundamentalism : In search of Montheism

Sir Karl Popper against Pseudoscience of Marxism

Noam Chomsky: New Ayatollah of Sharia Lover

Clash of Civilization: Lesson from Lord Bentinck (1829)

Of extraneous existence in nostalgia

While atheism is fastest growing in the West, it is declining in South Asia

Zakir Naik's popularity is convincing proof of Islamic fanaticism

Sudheendra Kulkarni

Related Stories

Ad Links

What is God? Will he exist anymore?

Exposing Dr Zakir Naik's claim of science in Quran and Polygamy

Rationality and irrationality of being Indian

Absurdity of Buddhist philosophy

Secularism is absolutely essential for a State

Religion against social and biological model of human being

The essence of being born into this world