Sunday, March 15, 2015

Avijit Roy, as I knew him

                                                             (1)
 It was perhaps fall  of 2004.  I relocated from New Jersey to California in a new job. I don't remember exactly how but  I found a Yahoo group called Mukto-mona [https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mukto-mona/info]. The group immediately pulled my attention and time. Keep it mind, in those days, Yahoo group was the most vibrant of all social media forums for debate and discussion. MM group was a great place for debating on topics like philosophy, religion, science and politics with like minded rationalists  from South Asia.


 This was our first personal exchange after a few months of debate in MM forums on myriad of topics like "whether religion is the true cause of misery in South Asia ", " Ethics and Darwinism", "Communism as Religion" , " Is Capitalism the end solution ? "






       ******************************
                                             (4)
I started writing in Bengali in 2005. Initially with low pace and then it become my passion.
I was working in a job where everyone would have been happy if I become less productive as thanks to corporate politics, being productive would have been counterproductive for my job security and position.  I was expected to do pretty trivial work, not worth challenging my intellect or qualification.  In fact, giving two hours a day in the job was more than what I needed!

 Rest of the time, I have utilized in MM platform. I had a strong passion for literature. But due to lack of proper association, never I got a chance before to cultivate it.

Avijit and me both had a strong obsession with Tagore but with a different outlook. First time we seriously debated with each other is on "Feminism and Tagore".  There was no doubt in personal life Tagore was parochially conservative. But I differed on his view that Tagore's write-up does not reflect feminist movement of his time. We exchanged several posts and sometimes with bit of personal attack but we always talked to understand each other.

    This is one of his post on Tagore rebutting my position on Tagore:
                  https://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/biplab_rabindra_puja.pdf

And then followed my rebuttal  available in the link.

  The discussion and debate turned nasty. So Bonya came into both of our rescue calling both of us in a conference call and dissolved the debate for time being. She has played referee times and again for our debates and we had a great faith on her neutrality.

                   
Matter of fact, year of 2005  has been the most productive for me on Mukto-mona Yahoo group and the website. I started reading mostly on Marx and his critics. And I discovered Sir Karl Popper, greatest known philosopher of science. Learning the basis of Poperian falsification changed much of my thinking.

    It is on that year, we got engaged in largest philosophical debate in MM platform- on scope of science in defining our philosophy.  In general, academically, this is known as naturalism. Debate started with one of my article on "Bigganbad" which is lose translation of naturalism. Link to the
article:

And debate is here:

   Most of the celebrated members of the forums participated. Avijit, Bonya and Jahed opposed my view. I had a long debate and discussion with Bonya on the forum. Jahed got nasty and wrote a piece linking me to my background in RKM for writing such a piece but later on he retracted understanding nowhere, I meant any theology at all.

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

WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/28355

Following science means, freeing your mind from any dogma, rationally. 

You have failed to do so in this posting and become dogmatic as a logical consequence as predicted by Popper. Which is actually the warning from Sir Popper. Let analyze who is becoming dogmatic based on same method of science. I am glad, you provided me with this opportunity.



AV:"I dont think "voting" by common people can give any "scientific 
criterion" in any subject whatever it is (1a). What is popular may not be 
true, and what is true may not be popular always (1b). Science does not 
allow taking a stand just because it is politically correct or 
popular to majority (1c)." 



BP: Let again analyze your view on this point. My point was:

Because 70% people thought Aiswaria is the most beautiful woman, I can used this as a counter evidence against what we believe as purely subjective choice of beauty being guided by our chemistry. If we have 10 beauties to vote and 70% of large sample size voted for Aisharia , can be taken as a clear counter proof that our choice of beauty is not purely subjective unless you have different definition for subjectivity. Subjectivity is the word under hypothesis and the example served is an evidence against the hypothesis.



Besides if your (1a) is true, you have just made all the statisticians jobless! Do you know, testing of tea, smelling of perfumes, liking of advertisements, rating of the movies are all done on statistical liking? Remember, we are looking for statistical hypothesis testing based on a hypothesis. I suggest you take a course of hypothesis testing to understand what is scientific evidence and method. Your statement is a proof of your ignorance in statistical method. 



And turn to (1b),"What is popular may not be 
true, and what is true may not be popular always (1b). "



I am surprised a logical person like you is bringing this point. Because the hypothesis was on 'popularity' in the beauty. The hypothesis is not about finding any other 'truth' other that subjectivity of beauty which is being tested trough the popularity of beauty. In this case 'popularity' is a direct "parametric measure' of truth and not the truth is an inductive one based on the popularity.



Now to your confusion of (1c):

"Science does not allow taking a stand just because it is politically correct or 
popular to majority (1c)." 



How is this related to our hypothesis of subjectivity? You made a completely uncorrelated statement. We are not taking stand. We are looking for evidence of failure which is the basic method that separates science from non-science. In this case 'popularity' itself is the parameter we are looking for and not that we are taking a popular or politically correct decision on popularity number. Please do not confuse popularity as a statistical measure versus, popular choice of popularity. Again, I suggest you to read measure theory in Mathematics.



AV"Science solely depend on scientific proof. 
There should not be any confusion on this."

BP: What is scientific proof for the null hypothesis, i.e, some artistic views can be objectively perceived or viewed! I gave you (3) counter evidences-1. Algorithmic evolution of subjective prose 2. Study of cyber-pschycology 3. Popular choice of beauty of Aiswaria. which in a way to show that people does have a pattern in selecting beauty.


Explain to me why these can not be accepted as evidences for null hypothesis?



What are the scientific proofs for null hypothesis? Ofcouse it can be how human brain image or human brain radiation behaves while evaluating beauty and such research is being carried out!



As said before, you need to take a course on statistical hypothesis testing and experimental design to understand what is the definition of scientific proof. Problem is, now a days because of advanced software we always do research using software and tend to forget the basics. That's what happened to you in this case.


AV" Love, fear, altruism, conscience (sense of right 
and wrong), admiration for beauty - these are biologically rooted instincts."



BP>> How do you know it is only intrinsic? You mean to say love, fear has nothing to do with the society and upbringing? Why Muslims hate non-muslims and love their brotherhood? Biologically intrinsic? kidding me! Poor you!



Would you behave same as a postune (pathan) when you have to fire a AK47 against your enemy? This is not true and if true, in this case, after statisticians you have made all the practicing psychiatrists out of their jobs.



AV"Instincts are not controllable or influenced by "scienticsm"."



BP>> If instincts would not have been controllable or influenced by our knowledge or acquired knowledge, we would have been raping all the beautiful women now and then! We do control our instincts based on learned ( cognitive) behavior). I am disappointed that you made this statement.





AV"Science does not decide to control or the tastes or 
flavor of pupulation such as : favourite poet, favourite 
acctress, "greatest Bangalee", "greatest beauty" ..etc (to be frank 
these sort of listing greatest beings gives emotional hype, not 
logical/scietific. :"



BP: Though you have written a book on science and also wrote that science means its method and not the laws, it is clear, deep down in your mind, you also understand a set of a laws as science! Which is common among students of subcontinents, for the very reason, the way they are trained in science.

The statement is the clear example. If science is a method to understand love, fair and rage in this case, how will you make a meaning out of the above? Clearly you are viewing a set of laws as science and then only above statement does bear a meaning. If science is a method, we can come out with answer

(1) The hypothesis is unscientific (2) It is scientific but rejected under testing (3) accepted under testing. We can have a lot of hypothesis on this, few of them will be unscientific, few will be accepted, few negated!



AV"Science doe not deal with those short listing 
unless you dogmatically try to promote as a "ism", which I dont 
support)."



BP>> Your statement is dogmatic because you are declaring 'rigidly' such things can not deal with such things ( though pretty much we do in behavioral science ). The statement is a dogma. Because, my statement " Science can deal with it' is viewed and analyzed as falsifiable hypothesis. Which means, I assume " Science can deal with such things wrong' and then look for counter evidence to find out whether it can!





AV"But of course science can certainly help explain the 
BIOLOGICAL ORIGIN of love, affection, admiration for beauty, 
morality, altruuism and/or other human values and attributes. "

BP: Again if you are right, I am afraid so many psychiatrists are out of job at this moment! There is learned behavior added to it.

AV"Once again I repeat: To understand or to seek the biological roots 
of love, or admiration of beauty is scientific, but to take decision 
on some emotional criterion thru popular vote is purely unscientific."



BP: Prove your statement by method of science, because unscientific is a well defined word. But I can prove your statement is unscientific.

"to take decision 
on some emotional criterion thru popular vote is purely unscientific"



Because of the word 'some', one will not find a counter evidence! Therefore the statement is unscientific.



Summery:

Method of science has been discovered to end dogma and if you oppose it, by rules, you will become dogmatic and irrational as happened in this posting. There is a beautiful writing by Sir Popper, Rational scrutiny of man. You will realize, if you do not follow prescribed method of science, you will produce more and more irrational and dogmatic statements as you did in this case.



In any case, I suggest you to do some serious reading on Statistical methods, hypothesis testing and experimental design. Then you will realize power of null hypothesis to end dogma. 



But I am glad, you did so many mistakes. Otherwise I would not have get this chance to show, how a rationalist can slip into irrationalism if fails to follow the method of science!



Anyhow, do not take it otherwise. If you would have taken some courses on Statistical measures,measure theory etc., I am sure you would not have posted this.

**********
 In fact, Avi wrote a complete rebuttal to my position on science and its efficacy. It can be found in 

Bigganbad and Falsification: Few comments Avijit Roy


Biplab, 
I don’t want to take our debate to typical cyber “Bangali Jhogra” that is very much evident in all typical Bengali forums. Normally most of the cases, a thread starts with innocent disagreement but ultimately ends with personal attack. I thought ours will be different. But, unfortunately, after reading your last response I had to think whether it’s really worthy to continue the debate. I seriously do not want to take our discussion in a heated nasty clash as we both know each others’ position pretty well. Your last response shows perhaps you’ve become frustrated dealing with the issue over and over, hence to much irrelevant comment was made. For example: 

a) Though you have written a book on science … it is clear, deep down in your mind, you also understand a set of a laws as science! Which is common among students of subcontinents,..
b) I am surprised a logical person like you is bringing this point….
c) Why Muslims hate non-muslims and love their brotherhood? Biologically intrinsic? kidding me! Poor you!
d) Your statement is a proof of your ignorance in statistical method. Etc..

This kind of Ad Hominem attack is a general category of fallacy because irrelevant attack against the character of person making the claim, his/her circumstances, or his/her actions cannot give any lift logically, in any debate. If you think making personal attack will lead you to winning situation, then I have nothing much to say. However, I will try one more time (may be this is the last time) to clarify my position.  

I gave enough evidences in my previous write-ups that beauty is a relative thing. My idea of beauty may differ from another person’s concept of beauty. This does not mean that the concept of beauty changes at all, just my perspective of it is different. In a nutshell, relative truths (there is a scientific definition of this term; for ref. see sokal’s book) change with time and perspective. They are useful in experiencing the world around us, but are different for each individual. Some criterion like beauty, poetic artwork, literary values are sometimes impossible to define, and must be understood largely on the basis of personal experience, not by any strict scientific laws. It seems you do not want to agree, even though you are aware of the facts. You used “statistical methods” to calculate majority people’s taste and called the process scientific. I agree that you maintained a scientific process here. However, just following a scientific process in any matter does not necessarily lead to scientific reality. Astrologers also sometimes uses statistics or mathematics to calculate individual’s fate (I have seen some astrologers even uses computer to generate the result), but that undoubtedly does not make astrology scientific. Willium Dembski is also using lot of statistical theory for formulating thesis on ID (he even claims that his mathematics have replaced Darwinism), which also does not make it ‘scientific’ to the scientific community. Just Scientific Language or some statistics does not Make a topic Scientific (For details please check How thinking goes wrong by Michael Shermer). This is a danger that Sokal and Bricmont pointed in their “Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science” explaining why they feel that each is misusing specific scientific concepts without understanding their scientific meaning. Even if we want to use “statistics” here we should not debate anymore; as all of the members (at least 4 out of 5) responded to the thread disagreed with your view. So will you accept that your theory was wrong based on this statistical result?

You said, “Your statement is a proof of your ignorance in statistical method.” I am afraid it’s you who are not aware how scientific method works. Science is no politics, it’s rarely any matter how much vote one can obtain like a political leader in a competition. Also please think that if Aishwaria did not appear in world beauty contest  (he could have made that decision) and did not come to the world of hindi movies, only few people would be aware of her “beauty”. Certainly she would not be in the top list in such popularity vote. However, not attaining a competition does not mean that the beauty of Aishwaria can be changed at all, only truth is people would not be aware of her “beauty”. You so called “scientific” analysis completely missed this point. And you are suggesting me to learn statistics!  Same goes to your citation of “Algorithmic evolution of subjective prose” or kind of “poetic software” which cannot produce a Lalon, Tagore or Shakespeare (or Picasso in the world of art) . Artistic/poetic genius is more than your stated poor algorithm, and of course still in the area of subjective judgment.  
Again, arguing with you it gave me impression that you are also not aware of the logical fallacies like – “Argumentum ad numerum” and “Argumentum ad populum” while you propose majority vote as a criterion in a scientific analysis.  

You have some other important flaws in your analogy. Let me remind you from where the main conflict started.  

[1] You used a term “scientism” in one of your messages (message # 27919) and wrote a Bangla piece on “bigganbad”. However some members showed the definition (dogmatic form) of scientism and you shifted your position saying, you did not mean it rather you meant scientific methodology (which is already an established term, why we need Biggan baad then, is still beyond my understanding!).Scientism is a century old term which has already been rejected by many sociologists, economists and even the scientists again and again for it’s own self-annihilating view. And any ‘ism’, I clarified many times, represents just a specific doctrine, cannot be a representative of complete  science. You are somehow overlooking the important aspect, Biplab. Let’s see who you fell in your own loop-hole while preaching ‘scientism’. You criticized Marxism for being dogmatic/unscientific for using it in political aspect (check your Marxism ki biggan?), however it is you who argued that you want to make use of science politically (scientism) to fight against Mullahs. How much different is this approach? Please check :This is what you wrote in “Bigganbad ekti purnango dorshon” : 

“.. Birodhider kono rajnoitik Dorshon nei, Nana Munir nana Mot. Nanan Dol. Moulobadider biruddhe ebhabe ki lorai shombhob? …chai shoktishali dorshon. Ekmatro Bigganei pawa shombhob” 

This is purely self-contradictory. Again, you accused Marx and Lenin for not to be skeptical about their own theories or conclusions, however, I also find the same attitude in your writing too :)  

[2] Your Bangla article started defining scientism by formulating hypothesis. However conclusions you drawn many times are oversimplified and self contradictory. For example, to formulate the root cause of Islamic terrorism you have pointed two mutually exclusive factors – Islam’s teaching vs US policy; this is a typical example of "black and white" / "false dichotomy" or bifurcation as it presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist (For example, socio-political reasons for raising of Islamism basically in ‘80s: example : decolonization such as Ba'athism, Arab Nationalism, vigor in the Iran-Iraq War, conflict against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Zia-ul-Haq’s exploitation Islamist sentiments, Khomeini’s revolution etc. ). Your “Bigganbaadi” conclusion (especially for mukto-mona) came from a wrong hypothesis, which I think, is inevitable if one follows the philosophy of scientism dogmatically. See, this is what you argued : 

“Abar Keo Keo bolchen Koran ebong America ubhoyi shoman dayee” [Mukto-Mona]  

Mukto-Mona did not preach Koran and/or US – such silly bifurcation, let alone be it “equally” (another intentional mistake of yours) responsible. I wonder what let you take such silly conclusion. Scientism?  

[3] Your “Bigganbaadi” conclusion on divorce is also a classic example how Bigganbad can be promoted as a dogma.  This is what you exactly argued : 
“Shontan Dharoner por Divorce kono motei kammyo noy. Shontan na thakle oboshho ekta lok kota divorce korche tate kichu jay ashe  na” 

See how desperate you are in preaching your own biased conclusion in the name of “Bigganbaad”. It can be argued that divorce is very closely associated with women’s liberation and women’s rights issue. All these centuries, religion and society did not let us fight against the oppression on women; they were forced to stay in a marriage because they had no other choice. It is really interesting and entertaining to see that you are also coming to the same conclusion with your ‘bigganbaad’. So, an abused woman has to stay in an abusive marriage only because of bigganbaad; at least your theory suggests so. If it’s not dogmatic, what it is! 

In the same respect I wish to remind you how by implementing Darwin's theory of evolution in social context with a hidden agenda, some “scientists” tried to associate in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics etc. Hope your enthusiasm for scientism would not be of this kind. 

[4] In general I agree the method of falsifiability in the case of strict scientific (experimental) research at least; however we must also know even in those scientific realm many “real” physicists, including Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg (in case of string theory he rejected Popper) and Alan Sokal, have criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. For e.g, Sokal writes, 

 "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." [Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability  ] 

Let me give some precise examples to show the limitation of falsifiability:  
a) Astrology is an example which most rational people would agree is not science. However, if we follow Popper’s theory, it has to be a part of science, cause, astrology constantly makes falsifiable predictions -- a new set is printed every day in the newspapers -- yet only few dogmatics would argue this makes it scientific. 

b) The proposition that the patient is homosexual is not falsifiable as according to Popper’s theory, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate his heterosexuality to the analyst ( checkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_circle  for details). This eventfully can lead to another dangerous proposition; some may argue supporting homosexuality right is not scientific (your “scientism” would surely lead to this conclusion). Now check your very simplified conclusion on divorce etc, you will get your answer where you were wrong. I do not consider that your wrong conclusion is just a lack of hypothesis, rather inevitable loop of holes for following “scientism” dogmatically.  

c) Another good example can be cited from laws of physics: remember - Isaac Newton's laws of motion in their original form were falsified by experiments in the twentieth century (eg, the anomaly of the motion of Mercury, the behavior of light passing sufficiently close to a star, the behavior of particle being accelerated in a cyclotron, etc), and replaced by a theory which predicted those phenomena, General Relativity, though Newton's account of motion is still a good enough approximation for most human needs. It’s not still “entirely” rejected. Now I give exactly opposite examples in the following passages: 

Consider “Super String” theory where string is considered as one dimensional object which is yet to be verified experimentally. Many scientists think it’s really impossible to experimentally verify this theory, even though they accept the theory as scientific. But, it is not a falsifiable theory in the sense of Popper. Now please let me know your opinion - whether it’s really a scientific theory (Please do not argue that String models have mathematical formulations etc. Astrology or Ptolemy’s geocentric models also had mathematical formulations).  

Another good example in physics is Higgs field, which has not experimentally verified (Check the book The Fabric of Cosmos by Brian Green, pp 269) in a sense that observations do not prove that Higgs field exist. It’s kind a like (but not exactly) a concept of Eather. Obviously, these concepts are not falsifiable in the strict sense of Popper, but still considered as scientific to almost all physicists.  

d) 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 falsificationist methodology. His argument was totally opposite of what popper’s theory. Personally I think scientific research proceeds accepting delicate balance of both Khun and Popper.  

Perhaps you know that  Popper's student Imre Lakatos (later an influential philosopher) 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 (this is where I argue). Another of Popper’s students Paul Feyerabend (another influential philosopher) ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology, and argued that the only universal method characterizing scientific progress was anything goes. 
e) Popper himself argued that Marxism was not science. Again, this does not mean, that any of these types of theories are necessarily invalid or unacceptable (just as gay rights/divorce rights etc.) in the society. Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether theories are valid. Many sociologist today argue that social theory does not needed to be falsifiable always (I am not arguing for Marxism here, just giving a thought whether falsifiability can be taken seriously as a sole criterion for social/political/cultural acceptance).  

f) Many argues that falsificationism in its various forms is an interesting idea but insufficient either to characterize science or solve the demarcation problem. It suffers from a series of logical and philosophical difficulties that should perhaps give us pause if hoping to find a single answer to what makes good science and what does not. Please check : http://www.galilean-library.org/falsificationism.html  

 Again Biplab, my intention is not to make you frustrated and put you in an attacking or defensive mode. I thought we can both learn and grow from our friendly interchange. If you keep on attacking me on silly issue without understanding my points, then please consider this as my last response in this thread.
Avijit Roy writes from Singapore.  e-mail: charbak_bd@yahoo.com
 ***********************************
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Israel -Gaza conflict : Which side you are supporting ?

Israel -Gaza conflict : Which side you are supporting ?
-Biplab Pal, 3rd August 

The most complex philosophical problem I have ever faced is this one! On one side, plight of people of Palestine is undeniable and on the other side, Israel has right to defend their own citizen. How can you take side except you may wish they should converge into table of negotiation ?

I tried to understand the logic of my friends from Israel on the issue of plight of the Palestinians. Some are sympathetic-most of them are not. They think people of Gaza deserve this treatment because they elected Hamas as their leader! They should have known whom they are voting for!! Upon digging a little deeper, I found it is easy to speak that way. People of Gaza voted for Hamas because they were fed-up with corruption in the rank and file of Fatah. Drug was killing the society. Hamas brought some sense of order needed in Gaza. People outweighed their evil ideology against practical utility. Can that be enough reason for punishment ?

On the other side- I tried to understand why Israel will be stripped of their right to defend. Or is Israel response disproportionate ?

I have my own ambivalence on this issue. Firstly, when you clean weeds, you clean it totally. Half done weed cleaning is of no use. In that respect, I see no reason why Israel will show any leniency in terrorist cleaning operation.

But there is other side of the story. Sun Tzu in art of war suggested no war is won by brute force. A true win happens without killing in battlefield. Frankly, I have failed to see any such strategy from Israel that solves this issue. Let's say Hamas is cleaned. So what? You have 80% population in Gaza unemployed! They are receiving donations, but it will be of no use till they have a way to do commerce.
Perhaps IT and BPO can be a solution to Gaza. Israel must be actively involved in creating a sustainable economy in Gaza without endangering its security. Disarm them. No issue. But plan to give them jobs. Israel must show at least this much of compassion to the people of Palestine so that they can get some employment. They should get respectable living.

Israel can't afford to have a state on their border where humanity is humiliated and unemployment is a triggering ground for breeding terrorism.

As an Indian American, my practical choice is simple. In both the countries, we have suffered at the hand of Islamic terrorism and Muslim radicals. So at no point of time, I can support Hamas which promotes radical ideology of Islam which is nothing but cancer of the civilization. But at the same time, I can not ignore what triggers such radicalism. It is easy to say, all blame to Islamic ideology but in true scientific spirit, religion is a product of social evolution. Theologically, Islam is no more or no less evil that other religions. Geopolitical situation, lack of democracy in Middle East is spreading religious radicalism. Hardworking workforce can't afford to be radical-survival makes them practical.

In my view, Israel must have to think for a long term solution. They have to think how these people can be involved in jobs, employment so that they can damn the radical ideology. Without jobs and hopes, Palestine youth will have only one option-fight against Israel.

Did you see Tibet rebel against Chinese occupation? They didn't simply because China created opportunity for them-for their work. So who in Tibet except for their exiled community in India bothers for the Tibetian freedom instead of jobs provided by Chinese economy ?

Likewise, I believe solution to this conflict lies in making Gaza a protectorate state of Israel at least for a decade where people of Gaza be given factories and business for their living from the state of Israel. They should live a dignified living, learn skills and be focused on their economy under Israeli occupation because under their own leadership this is not possible. However, this occupation should be for a limited time and when economy will improve, Israel can phase out their occupation of Gaza. At the end, people of Palestine deserve their own state and leaders-but perhaps, not under the present condition.

I know Arab and leftist world will make a lot of hue and cry-but who cares for tears of Dalai Lama when Tibetian people are better fed and financially more secured under China? Likewise, once living condition of people of Gaza will be improved, they will not call for desperate measure of throwing rocket.

Israel has nothing to worry. All the world powers are behind them. Arab states are also largely behind them because they are autocratic and need easy arm from Israel to be in power. So why should Israel bother if they occupy Gaza for a limited time and provide jobs/employment for the people of Palestine?
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, July 18, 2014

On the question of justification of a Jewish state

Over the last few days, I read the history of formation of Israel and Jews in general with a great interest. There is no doubt in my mind that Jews needed a state of their own after 2400 years of continued persecution in the hand of European rulers. It is only in 19th century Jews were admitted as equal citizen in the laws of England and France. Holocaust may be the final straw, but expulsion of Jews forms the most common pattern in history everywhere and in every time with exception to Jews in India! Therefore, a Jews state was badly needed but question is definitely-was the land of Palestine a right choice? Historically or by religious text, it may be-but practically, to accommodate 5-6M jews, present land of Israel was neither suitable nor politically viable given the presence of a large native population. I am not bringing the issue of justification here because if Jews state in Israel is not justified on the ground of displacement of native, then none of the countries in North and South America is justified as all of the states have been formed by replacing the native population. Therefore displacement of local population does not form a sustainable logic but it is definitely a major humanitarian concern which if ignored, can be inflamed only.

  What a few handful Jews did in 1948 to establish a Jews state is the greatest story of dedication, sacrifice and unparalleled valor in human history. I followed that history almost day by day from 1947 to 1949, and what can be found very easily-during that time whole Jews population of Israel would have been killed by local and invading Arab army. Therefore, Jews had no choice but to form Israel. From the riots of 1930s, it was clear not a single Palestine leadership wanted a Palestine state where Jews and Arab could live peacefully. So when Palestine leadership wanted to fight it out instead of peaceful negotiation, why are they crying after losing the war after war? If they would have won the war, would they have left any single Jew alive? Palestine wanted to solve it out through war and they got what they deserve. Before 1st and 2nd Israel-Arab war they were asking for total annihilation of Israel and it is only after defeat, Israel become oppressor ?

  Instead of war, if people of Palestine wanted peaceful negotiation, they would not be in a position where they are today. Israel can not and would not have done any aggression against a non-violent population. Arab tribes in Israel are doing far better than any Arab in Middle East. Are they deprived in Israel of education, food, their religion etc? Were they afraid of Irgun in 1947-48? But truth is Haganah and world Jews population never approved them ( directly opposed them) and a settlement of a future state was always possible under British rule as India was divided into Hindu and Muslim population areas, It was the people of Palestine who wanted war from day one and they got it. They made it complicated by not accepting British attempt of secular state of Palestine or two states where both communities could have lived in peace.
I personally salute those 600,000 Jews who defended their land and homes in 1948 against British and Arabs. In contrast, most of the Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan could not resist rioting Muslim mob. Same is true for Indian Muslims who face rioting Hindu mobs in UP and Bihar. 1947 partition was a great tragedy and again British was completely responsible for it as they are responsible for Israel-Palestine mess as well.
I do not think world will have any religion in another 100 years and I strongly believe even the basic concept of state will be almost meaningless in another 50 years or so given the emergence of stateless economy and communication. Therefore fighting for political determination of a new state is already a meaningless activity. If future is what should be guide and not the past, people of Palestine should be allowed to be become Israeli citizen with equal right or form their own state and focus on their economic development by accepting Israel as their peaceful neighbor and a partner in their economic growth. Future of mankind does not have any space for the concept of enemy states. There will be only a global economy where everyone of us will participate.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Arrest of the "atheist bloggers" of Bangladesh- A country sinking further into Islamic fundamentalism

I can't recollect how I lost my faith in God but as far as I recall, I never had one since my parent didn't force me to think of God and fairly tale of religion. They forced me to study hard so that I could survive well for my future.

But I am watching my son growing up without faith. I never told him about non-existence of God. Rather we live in a catholic neighborhood infested with God loving neighbors and he does go to temple twice a month for Indian culture class. He never read any atheist literature. He is only seven- too young to understand atheism! But for last two years, he is telling me, he is quite sure of God as a make-belief story because  God  is more akin to Spider man and Superman.  Indeed, one day he told me why so many people believe in God when God does not exist!! It was difficult for me to explain him the evolution of God with human civilization and history. Therefore I told him to recollect how many of his friends believe in spider man ? He agreed it must be a large number and he understood myth does play a strong role on human mind. I am quite confirmed, all children are born atheist but society and their parent force them to be theist. Fear of God is cultivated in young mind by their family. You do not force them or teach them to be afraid of God, and all children by default will be atheist. You do not need to teach them to be atheist. They will be so by their own rational, common sense and realization. Atheism, therefore is the most natural unperturbed state of human faith. Theism on the other hand is a cultivated state of human mind which is forced upon by the family, politics and society.

 Lack of belief can make you an outcast in the theist society.My son too  is facing problem in the neighborhood. Neighborhood kids are from devout catholic families. His loss of faith in God already made him slightly isolated and being subject to ridicule by his friends. But he learned to ignore. As such, I never faced issues with my atheism as Indian philosophy has place for all kinds of people. Indeed all the major philosophical branches of Indian philosophy are atheist in nature. Indian philosophy has the foundation where atheists and theists can live in peace and harmony. Besides, most of the scientists, technologists and entrepreneurs with whom I work,  are atheists. Atheists are majority among accomplished citizens of US. Therefore, it is difficult for me to realize and understand state repression faced by the atheists in a Muslim country where they are viewed as an alien.

 Monotheist religions like Jews, Christians and Islams leave no space for atheism. Atheists were not treated kindly in their holy text and in the due course of their religious history. Therefore in an Islamic country like Bangaldesh, proclaiming to be an atheist can be dangerous. You can be jailed or imprisoned for losing faith in God!

 Yes, you heard it right. In Islamic country you can rape women, kill men of other religion in the name of Allah and instead of being punished, you will be patronized just because you claimed yourself to be a fighter or Jihadi of your religion.  This is the continued story of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Your religion and faith brings your supreme justification in the society. It does not matter whether you are an accomplished doctor or engineer or a writer. If you do not comply as a good Muslim-- in the most of the Islamic countries, you can be discriminated, bullied and worse, can be languished in prisons like atheist bloggers of Bangladesh.

Yes, civil societies in the most of the Muslim countries didn't progress at all-they have equivocally given in fearing criminal persecution and death. Questioning existence of God can be seen as blasphemy and therefore in Pakistan you can be stoned to death as punishment of blasphemy. In Bangladesh, which was a more moderate and tolerant country, blasphemy law is not well defined but now an union of Islamic groups is demanding death for blasphemy as mandated by Sharia law of Islam!

So what is the reality in an Islamic country like Bangladesh? A quick review may make you laugh but even that can be construed as "hurting religious feeling"

-  Most of the Muslim criminals, rapist, thieves in the world are named  Muhammad.  Because Muslims love to name their son after their prophet.  This does not denigrate or insult their prophet. But if a cartoonist draws a cat naming Muhammad he will be in Jail!!

- All business and politics must have their allegiance and loyalty to Islam.  Recently there was a Bank called "Bismillah Bank" ( Bank of Allah) in Bangladesh which looted nearly $120M of poor people.  This is not blasphemy in Bangladesh. This is not insult to their God!

-  Bangladesh and Pakistan constantly ranked topmost position in corruption. Islam as a religion strictly opposes corruption and dishonesty. The religion of Islam also advises to live like a poor to remain less greedy and honest.  These are good and valuable teaching of Islam to mankind. But "Islamism" or adherent of Islamic thoughts have been used by all the political parties of Bangladesh to loot the country and its people further. Islam didn't reduce their greed of great loot.

         Then what purpose did Islam serve to the people of Bangaldesh when none of them accepted the core message of Islam and almost everyone of them is using Islam for meeting their political and material greed?  These bloggers of Bangladesh, specially Asif was raising this question. It was clearly uncomfortable for the ruling class of Bangladesh and therefore, they dumped him in prison!

 Islam or any religion is a political decoy for the ruling class. Although all religions, including Islam was born as a revolution against existing corrupt ruling class, in the end, it is now a tool for the ruling class to deprive the common people of their political and material right.  Bloggers of Bangladesh started raising these uncomfortable questions for their ruling class. Therefore, ruling class replied with their police power by cracking down on them.

 Yes,  that is the real situation in Bangladesh. You can open a Bank like " BisMillah Bank " ( Bank of Allah) and perhaps a Bismillah brand POT-Nobody will mind. As long as you add word like Bismillah, ummah you are in good book even if you continue to be corrupt. But questioning this corruption in the name of Allha is blasphemy in Bangladesh and be aware, Govt wants to see you in prison!

 It is impossible for any country to make progress without freedom of speech and religion. Only a critical society makes progress. Other society can be a corrupt follower at best in absence of freedom.





  
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 9, 2012

"Raising a father"- Incredible biographical novel of Arjun Sen

 My son handed me the book once it arrived via UPS. He chuckled "Dad, are you reading this?" - I guess for the lack of a better narrative, he wanted to drop me a message - Are you the same dad who is reading this book?

 Implication is simple. For last couple of months, I have failed to take him to swimming and soccer regularly and he is also missing his bed time stories with me which used to span across all the amazing development in the scientific world. I have given him an excuse- a professional one. I was too busy or showed him hope, I would take him to swimming next day.  Finally my son came to realization, dad does not have much time for him.

 When I started reading the book- Raising a father, I realized,  author Arjun Sen started his journey from where I am today.  But he asked himself the fundamental question-what is the definition of success?  What does that success mean if achieved at the sacrifice of time with our kids? How much is that worth?

  So Arjun started his journey with a new realization of success and the story unfolds more interesting and thrilling twists than any novel. He and his daughter Raka chartered a territory of surrealist dreamland in their own company "Zen Mango" and there begins a journey more thrilling and enticing than magic realism. It's the narrative of a father as seen by his daughter and the way the little girl transformed her dad's life and realization upside down.

   There can not be and should not be a life without purpose and realization.  Arjun's book will kindle the hope and realization among millions of dads like me who are otherwise forced to believe the rules of competitive survival are more real than our own sweet time with our kids.

 Every corporate dad should read this book at least to realize how they are missing a life which can offer a lot more rewarding treasure hunt. The book is available in Amazon/Kindle and in almost all the online book stores ( Click on this link to get all the buying  URL ) .
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, June 4, 2011

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


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.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)