tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83501125515397923362024-03-06T00:04:51.298-08:00Golf Charlie PapaRandom postings on politics, economics, history and anything else that is not technology (for that, see <a href="http://wisdomofganesh.blogspot.com">my technology blog</a>). A third blog deals with <a href="http://zhongguopadayatra.blogspot.com">my journey towards understanding China</a>. My postings on non-technology subjects will be necessarily coloured by my background in technology, so apologies for that. But then, that's the unique perspective it gives me :-).prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.comBlogger466125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-82579779210101703942024-01-02T20:40:00.000-08:002024-02-07T02:14:38.761-08:00Why Hinduism Is Philosophically Superior To Christianity<p style="text-align: justify;">
[Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, not a believer in any religion. However, I'm an eager student of comparative religion, and I like to understand the philosophical standpoints of different religions, as well as the possible psychology of their thinkers and rule-makers. I also tend to play provocateur in religious debates. I have a number of uncomfortable questions to ask of believing Hindus. However, this particular post is aimed at evangelical Christians, to challenge their smug assumption that their faith is superior to the pagan/heathen beliefs of Hinduism.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let's examine some of the core beliefs of Hinduism and Christianity from a philosophical standpoint, and see which appeals to us as the superior approach.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. The notion of Individual Accountability versus that of Collective Punishment</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If I commit a crime, who should be punished for it? Me, or my family members? It's a no-brainer that I alone am accountable for my actions, not my family, and certainly not any descendents of mine who weren't even born at the time I committed the crime.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As a topical example, Israel's recent actions in Gaza violate the UN Charter of Human Rights, because it has chosen to punish the entire civilian population of Gaza (including innocent infants) in retaliation for the actions of Hamas. Collective Punishment is not justice. In fact, it is itself a crime.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Hindu notion of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma" target="_blank">Karma</a> is all about individual accountability. According to this belief, the Cosmos rewards and punishes individuals for their actions. Karma is even believed to follow individuals across multiple lifetimes. Unexplained and undeserved strokes of good and bad fortune are explained as the possible results of actions in past lives. Regardless of the validity of this belief, the philosophical underpinning of this is the notion of <i>individual accountability</i>. One's actions do not result in reward or punishment to <i>others</i>, not even to members of one's immediate family. The fruits of action attach solely to the individual alone.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt4lXznQw3-7-XKUSrzTjH3QNyVInna7rOfkEt9dKUSE_mckn5Xwd_AEj_85l2edkjH0gTRT9D6vKPP4hXELgQCyHoNMWSJH4vABlXcfV34uK4mtiX9YhApCYV24ECC-78oJ2ahMQXHQHyDi9CmxRGlwHzbtA_i6r7gNtDREVnIZhwwJMGvC26_PWmgyw/s1200/karma-and-reincarnation.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt4lXznQw3-7-XKUSrzTjH3QNyVInna7rOfkEt9dKUSE_mckn5Xwd_AEj_85l2edkjH0gTRT9D6vKPP4hXELgQCyHoNMWSJH4vABlXcfV34uK4mtiX9YhApCYV24ECC-78oJ2ahMQXHQHyDi9CmxRGlwHzbtA_i6r7gNtDREVnIZhwwJMGvC26_PWmgyw/s600/karma-and-reincarnation.jpg"/><br/><i>Any karma you earn through your actions sticks to you through death and rebirth</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Contrast that with the fundamental Christian notion of Original Sin. The basic nature of man is believed to be that of a sinner. And what is that sin that attaches to every human being who is born? It's the "Original Sin" that was committed by Adam and Eve, from whom all humans are believed to be descended. All humans are therefore condemned to go to Hell for this sin committed by their distant ancestors. It is only thanks to the <i>substitutional atonement</i> of Jesus Christ that we have a way to escape this punishment. Christ died for our sins. If we accept Christ as our saviour, then we are spared the punishment of Hell, else we will be made to suffer for the sins committed by someone else.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKmbaAcwwhdfxLgiqD3Dbu4_btuVklNnCw4nP6hKt2r-j_xJk67eWaMT7-HgL60XFTXz2swj0r1yTAWP5Y8Rb5oC8d6BXo9O76kvSCcvTtfAcSHUdb8-Qn77alkNn-ZhRxID1hX-C9WUXIvMYkPuuE3tzfouT80fZ3ajqDE6cCcbvDDt6Pp9gWM-ITqbg/s310/born-sinners.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKmbaAcwwhdfxLgiqD3Dbu4_btuVklNnCw4nP6hKt2r-j_xJk67eWaMT7-HgL60XFTXz2swj0r1yTAWP5Y8Rb5oC8d6BXo9O76kvSCcvTtfAcSHUdb8-Qn77alkNn-ZhRxID1hX-C9WUXIvMYkPuuE3tzfouT80fZ3ajqDE6cCcbvDDt6Pp9gWM-ITqbg/s600/born-sinners.jpg"/><br/><i>Bad news. We're all born sinners - according to Christianity</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Hindu notion of Karma illustrates its underlying philosophy of Individual Accountability, where each person is rewarded or punished based on their actions alone. The Christian notion of Original Sin represents its philosophy of Collective Punishment, where all of us are to be punished for the actions of someone else. Which of these would you consider the superior concept?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. "The punishment should fit the crime"</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If I commit a murder, I could go to jail for 30 years (or be executed in countries that have not outlawed the death penalty). If I steal something, I may go to jail for a few months. If I steal a loaf of bread because my family is starving, I may be tasked with a few weeks of community service or even let off altogether with just a warning. Such a system of justice seems inherently fair. In <i>Les Miserables</i>, the protagonist steals a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving family, and is sentenced to jail for an inordinately long period. Virtually everyone sees this as grossly unfair. We humans inherently accept the principle that a punishment should fit the crime.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Hindu notion of Karma is proportional. If I do something good, the Cosmos rewards me in equal measure. Likewise if I do something bad. If I poke someone, I'm likely to get a similar poke in return. Karmic retribution for a poke is unlikely to be the massacre of my entire family. Karma is believed to be <i>proportionate</i> in its rewards and punishments.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Once again, there is no evidence at all that Karma is real or that it works in this manner. However, the common <i>belief</i> among Hindus is that this is how Karma works, and hence proportionality is one of the attributes of Karma from a <i>philosophical</i> standpoint.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdQ_PynhxGgp-q3yikpTyp3mzgXOV45SbdEzxroyrDCERQ8nqRVUhyphenhyphendsQ6-AzwFWfMcG5VweA-qHCYs1lce33EOXFj0oQRqYXsicLDlYZjFTEgatbblhJlMpKxRB8KxRwDOEUfFOjNAoWpjENCPPHJEdn0cFMVYQf3sJRt_wJcS9JR93bbPVJmmsCNXiQ/s1181/karma.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="777" data-original-width="1181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdQ_PynhxGgp-q3yikpTyp3mzgXOV45SbdEzxroyrDCERQ8nqRVUhyphenhyphendsQ6-AzwFWfMcG5VweA-qHCYs1lce33EOXFj0oQRqYXsicLDlYZjFTEgatbblhJlMpKxRB8KxRwDOEUfFOjNAoWpjENCPPHJEdn0cFMVYQf3sJRt_wJcS9JR93bbPVJmmsCNXiQ/s600/karma.png"/><br/><i>The Cosmos does unto you what you do unto others, neither more nor less</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
What is the Christian reward for goodness or its punishment for evil? An <i>Eternity</i> in Heaven or Hell. An Eternity in Heaven isn't terribly controversial, but an Eternity in Hell could be. Consider how long "Eternity" is. An individual's lifetime, in comparison, is finite. Even if a person commits heinous crimes every waking moment of their lives from the time they're a toddler until they die, the crimes they can commit in their lifetime are necessarily finite in nature. Punishment of an <i>infinite</i> duration is way out of proportion to the crimes anyone could possibly manage to commit over their entire, <i>finite</i> lifetime. Add to this the "Original Sin" of Adam and Eve if you will. Was their act so evil that they deserved an Eternity in Hell? A loving parent, which is what God is supposed to be, would have let them off with a slap on the wrist.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYHiZMKrtSCqT6lm9ZT-kz9CDL30ZR-ejH44izrZBbAs10wPsTFSR5fwz6E1yCZsDHrdeChlougYTReRv-AvRX6E2Vk7FmTOnOPohO4OqVHDy4UjdvMTkKrXuGu_Yt_fNa0NDqEzKBxKXx_4ROD8p6dsuvWRNFv3QeHVmYcfbhPSLewwp1Ir5cvEnXee8/s1350/the-fall-into-hell-by-dieric-bouts.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="815" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYHiZMKrtSCqT6lm9ZT-kz9CDL30ZR-ejH44izrZBbAs10wPsTFSR5fwz6E1yCZsDHrdeChlougYTReRv-AvRX6E2Vk7FmTOnOPohO4OqVHDy4UjdvMTkKrXuGu_Yt_fNa0NDqEzKBxKXx_4ROD8p6dsuvWRNFv3QeHVmYcfbhPSLewwp1Ir5cvEnXee8/s600/the-fall-into-hell-by-dieric-bouts.jpg"/><br/><i>The Fall Into Hell by Dieric Bouts</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Viewed from the perspective of <i>proportionality</i>, the Hindu notion of Karmic retribution is fairer because it tends to fit the crime. The Christian notion of an Eternity in Hell is way, way out of proportion to any possible set of crimes an individual could commit, not to mention crimes that they did not themselves commit!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3. The attitude towards Knowledge</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Unlike Christianity, Hinduism does not see the basic nature of a human being as that of a sinner. Rather, it sees a human being as one trapped in ignorance and delusion. The purpose of human existence is to seek liberation for the <i>atma</i> (soul). Liberation is attained through enlightenment, and such enlightenment may take many lifetimes (rebirths), since the soul "grows" with each experience. When a person (finally) attains enlightenment, they realise that their consciousness is not an individual one, but part of the Supreme Consciousness, and they then attain liberation from the cycle of births and deaths by having their consciousness merge with the Supreme.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha8NxErijnRerILKMcWEsEhsSVELsB3LjW_GA7OZh0fRK6FTnf1hsRpAV9ZHC8USpWvVH3iG9879wAos565FRqxOq-IRQ04wQ8NP2rNNlfgDfztOv5eVLfo5ZxJv5zfHce9vfobwM1aK1jcu9kJSpnqF9-vIrINjT5S2KKg4z5SKGjpvVvN5q-PDO-Whs/s810/enlightenment.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="810" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha8NxErijnRerILKMcWEsEhsSVELsB3LjW_GA7OZh0fRK6FTnf1hsRpAV9ZHC8USpWvVH3iG9879wAos565FRqxOq-IRQ04wQ8NP2rNNlfgDfztOv5eVLfo5ZxJv5zfHce9vfobwM1aK1jcu9kJSpnqF9-vIrINjT5S2KKg4z5SKGjpvVvN5q-PDO-Whs/s600/enlightenment.jpg"/><br/><i>The Hindu concept of enlightenment, or the attainment of Oneness with the Supreme Consciousness</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Hindu attitude towards Knowledge is therefore <i>positive</i>. Humans are encouraged to seek knowledge and truth.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Ramakrishna_and_Swami_Vivekananda#Initial_reaction" target="_blank">they are advised not to accept even the word of a guru as gospel truth</a>, but to question, challenge and debate every claim until they are satisfied of its validity. The Hindu attitude towards knowledge is not just positive, but also <i>scientific</i> because of its encouragement of skepticism and debate. Indeed, open debates between religious denominations were common in ancient India.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdi6nksCtvoTPYu2FquW7YDZqWEZ1N5I1fm0GxcHPkuFwGv5U5uMgDFBU4JxMLM8z-zMmG6cGXJmTG6J3ucquAnEIcpIwGX97j_aNBauGtiHXeEM7iXSah6ZL0Q1HkJzXeLJxNF79ZaNwLkxXgMYZg-hbvmJ57L63TI7mi4musVLOLSeLFweIjjF3cxI4/s231/shankaracharya-debate.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="231" data-original-width="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdi6nksCtvoTPYu2FquW7YDZqWEZ1N5I1fm0GxcHPkuFwGv5U5uMgDFBU4JxMLM8z-zMmG6cGXJmTG6J3ucquAnEIcpIwGX97j_aNBauGtiHXeEM7iXSah6ZL0Q1HkJzXeLJxNF79ZaNwLkxXgMYZg-hbvmJ57L63TI7mi4musVLOLSeLFweIjjF3cxI4/s600/shankaracharya-debate.jpg"/><br/><i>The famous philosophical debate between Shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra that illustrated not just the prevalent non-dogmatic attitude to knowledge, but also the intellectual honesty of the judge, who was Mandana Mishra's wife, yet ruled that her husband had lost the debate</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[Important note: The historicity of Shankaracharya is in doubt. Some accounts place him as early as the 5th century BCE, while others place him around the 8th century CE, which is quite a broad interval of time. Also, it's not clear whether the debate with Mandana Mishra ever took place. However, when discussing philosophical differences between religions, the factual accuracy of events is not as important as whether these are commonly accepted or not. The fact that the idea of debate is popularly accepted indicates that Hinduism as a philosophy is OK with heterodox views.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let's turn now to Christianity. What was the "Original Sin" of Adam and Eve? One could say it was disobedience towards God. But what was their specific act of disobedience? What Adam and Eve did was <i>eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge!</i> Mind you, it was not an apple, as some children's books portray it. Christian scripture is astonishingly candid in using the allegory of the <i>fruit of the Tree of Knowledge</i>. That's quite a startling admission of Christianity's negative attitude towards Knowledge - on two counts. One, that Adam and Eve were punished for seeking Knowledge by being expelled from Paradise, and further, all their descendents, even those then unborn, were cursed with an out-of-proportion Collective Punishment of an Eternity in Hell. Two, that they were expected to accept the word of God unquestioningly, and their curiosity or skepticism was not encouraged but punished.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidVqGxMp8oQjVsoS-VGY9IjXJEUhxLl-mvF7WhuSdCYJGAtmpvNydJ1tXLMzYNQESRoTmJSFJe8Rlhqh9UjEoXAWpz5JsroPWOt7wCGixoyxAxoBaMZwT5XINLI2XqoWC7gh0z6ONbS7ZtsC9haLwGukO-q3POskzkR6ywQKPongS7ZxgEWU4F6ytlw_4/s595/adam-and-eve-expulsion.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="595" data-original-width="476" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidVqGxMp8oQjVsoS-VGY9IjXJEUhxLl-mvF7WhuSdCYJGAtmpvNydJ1tXLMzYNQESRoTmJSFJe8Rlhqh9UjEoXAWpz5JsroPWOt7wCGixoyxAxoBaMZwT5XINLI2XqoWC7gh0z6ONbS7ZtsC9haLwGukO-q3POskzkR6ywQKPongS7ZxgEWU4F6ytlw_4/s600/adam-and-eve-expulsion.jpg"/><br/><i>"You want knowledge? Get out! This is a garden, not a library."</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The concept of heterodoxy in Christianity has a bloody history. Catholics and Protestants in Europe slaughtered each other for centuries instead of engaging in debate. The Christian attitude towards knowledge was therefore not marked by enquiry and debate, but blind and dogmatic faith. The notorious reaction of the Church to Galileo and Darwin hardly needs mentioning.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO-MzkirvEpl76D-s4ktWtR0sTSHzPbd3lbLnSiJly896dsvd5ET8h-1HTForRA3U7nfA8S2KW-ookaM4S_GIPWHQEise40wm_E3_paZjcLAGonpBh7ZfbeWBEtBifSj7FG8QJMJIAVzw5vzyEAeiRWKKLBQ3JhCauKr_mBvrbT3ZaCaReSawhk9V9sHM/s1920/st-bartholomews-day-massacre-by-fran%C3%A7ois-dubois.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1165" data-original-width="1920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO-MzkirvEpl76D-s4ktWtR0sTSHzPbd3lbLnSiJly896dsvd5ET8h-1HTForRA3U7nfA8S2KW-ookaM4S_GIPWHQEise40wm_E3_paZjcLAGonpBh7ZfbeWBEtBifSj7FG8QJMJIAVzw5vzyEAeiRWKKLBQ3JhCauKr_mBvrbT3ZaCaReSawhk9V9sHM/s600/st-bartholomews-day-massacre-by-fran%C3%A7ois-dubois.jpg"/><br/><i>St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, a painting by François Dubois on the French wars of religion</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Yet again, the Hindu philosophy appears superior to the Christian one, this time through its attitude towards Knowledge in general, and specifically the encouragement to question received wisdom and to discover truth for oneself.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>4. The attitude towards Diversity of Thought</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Every modern corporation today has an "Inclusion and Diversity" initiative. Furthermore, the notion of diversity is claimed to be more than just the superficial diversity of gender, national origin, ethnicity or religion, but <i>diversity of thought</i>. (Whether diversity of thought is genuinely encouraged is doubtful, though. The Ukraine and Gaza crises have shown that people with views out of line with that of the Western establishment are summarily "cancelled", deplatformed and demonetised.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Be that as it may, the more enlightened sections of modern society have begun to grudgingly accept that people around the world have diverse views, and that it is not desirable to impose a single viewpoint upon everyone. Diversity of thought is viewed as a strength, in that it helps to overcome "groupthink" and suboptimal decision-making. Mutual respect, as opposed to <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239" target="_blank">the condescending concept of "tolerance"</a>, is beginning to be appreciated as a healthier attitude in a diverse world.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
One of Hinduism's fundamental beliefs is that "all paths lead to the truth", and this is borne out by the fact that Hindu evangelism and conversion to Hinduism are rarely observed in society. (Hindu evangelism is mainly seen in the Hare Krishna movement, which seems to be predominantly composed of Western people who were formerly Christian, and who perhaps therefore carry forward their old attitude of "my way is superior to yours" even after adopting a religion that explicitly rejects that notion! Rituals to convert non-Hindus to Hinduism are also a recent phenomenon. The 19th century Hindu monk, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founded the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_Samaj" target="_blank">Arya Samaj</a> and invented conversion rituals as a response to the Christian evangelism and conversion efforts that he witnessed.)
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjawxiruSL_-GoTFRxXyOnbW-w7Z2uqIpkBGt0U3ZZyU7_-6ZP8yzOYum82rHAtEl7-OZ_-9De142O0fexEnaTVBifLl4AirpJCwU16a_Ub4CagKg2xAz-p9ctI4K9E3hoRKOqnFvUERGEJkY2wdnYUE32Q-9lJZcAS_dFNmmXdIuPCqVBxA22Mv_avc7Q/s323/all-religions.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="156" data-original-width="323" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjawxiruSL_-GoTFRxXyOnbW-w7Z2uqIpkBGt0U3ZZyU7_-6ZP8yzOYum82rHAtEl7-OZ_-9De142O0fexEnaTVBifLl4AirpJCwU16a_Ub4CagKg2xAz-p9ctI4K9E3hoRKOqnFvUERGEJkY2wdnYUE32Q-9lJZcAS_dFNmmXdIuPCqVBxA22Mv_avc7Q/s600/all-religions.jpg"/><br/><i>Hindu Philosophy as stated in the Rig Veda - "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti - The truth is one but the wise speak of it in many ways", an expression of respect for other viewpoints</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Abrahamic religions (not just Christianity) are notorious for their attitude of supremacism. Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions that do not accept the equal validity of other religions, but look down on them as inferior beliefs. Judaism may not have a strong tradition of conversion, but this is not out of a sense of mutual respect for other religions, but rather from the notion of Jews being the "Chosen People". Judaism therefore lacks even the condescending desire to share one's spiritual superiority with others!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The difference in attitudes towards non-belief is also striking. Atheism is considered part of the accepted schools of thought within Hinduism, with the atheistic thinker <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka" target="_blank">Charvaka</a> being one of Hinduism's respected saints. Non-belief in God is considered sinful in Christianity, and indeed in the entire Abrahamic tradition.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Once again, it is Hinduism that exhibits the more philosophically evolved attitude of respect for diversity of thought, compared to Christianity (or indeed, any religion in the Abrahamic family).
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>5. The notion of Cosmic Time</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Christian view of Time is linear. <i>"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."</i> And we will all spend an Eternity either in Heaven or in Hell. That's it. A definite beginning, and no end.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbDG7_q4GGh2dz8iBH0ep7Q3w7njVtG9xctEq2MWVyTjIQfjmisXjnNcrvld4F0nIhIXPywkrlHJO4LUPcxtwKI5Iqe941AnPLHE70fimk_vFZEIAyWrmV5y6XJNN6APhlItUMwqe8p0GbcvJLpXfcBuqJ_6D0uECbFuJnMk9SpgclbAVsUIe6yKWylvw/s920/creation-heaven-hell.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbDG7_q4GGh2dz8iBH0ep7Q3w7njVtG9xctEq2MWVyTjIQfjmisXjnNcrvld4F0nIhIXPywkrlHJO4LUPcxtwKI5Iqe941AnPLHE70fimk_vFZEIAyWrmV5y6XJNN6APhlItUMwqe8p0GbcvJLpXfcBuqJ_6D0uECbFuJnMk9SpgclbAVsUIe6yKWylvw/s600/creation-heaven-hell.png"/><br/><i>The Christian theological concept of Cosmic Time, from the moment of Creation to an Eternity in Heaven or Hell</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
By contrast, the Hindu concept of Time is <i>cyclical</i>. The Universe, i.e., all of Creation, is created, lasts for a while, then undergoes dissolution. Rinse and repeat. There is no end to this cycle of creation and dissolution.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisMNfreYdzLlQut_jprYtYiaUKODj__5NKSYKjtaHtMoB88MKRDzoQbJbSFS572BZvnxKUnnn5lfiXZb6WQgKjmUKPq-vZu3LQrR3GcGoheXulLYKxaRgu4kaspwxCYi6qkvbfMu1irZ2wXbKr9Z_YneCaMtK6VhNnZ2LC50Ab2LttPhKutwGyr7Di2DA/s698/cosmic-cycle.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="698" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisMNfreYdzLlQut_jprYtYiaUKODj__5NKSYKjtaHtMoB88MKRDzoQbJbSFS572BZvnxKUnnn5lfiXZb6WQgKjmUKPq-vZu3LQrR3GcGoheXulLYKxaRgu4kaspwxCYi6qkvbfMu1irZ2wXbKr9Z_YneCaMtK6VhNnZ2LC50Ab2LttPhKutwGyr7Di2DA/s600/cosmic-cycle.jpg"/><br/><i>The Hindu Trinity of a Creator (Brahma), Preserver (Vishnu) and Destroyer (Shiva) keeps the Universe going forever</i></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, there is no evidence for the validity of either hypothesis. However, from a purely philosophical standpoint, the Hindu concept of a continuously repeating lifecycle of Creation is more sophisticated than the simplistic, linear one in the Christian tradition.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>6. Objective Truth and the entire edifice of Western civilisation</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This point is not strictly about Christianity. It's about Western thinking in general, and <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2020/06/an-intellectual-challenge-to-western.html" target="_blank">I have written about it in detail earlier</a>. The entire edifice of modern Western thought, i.e., what is referred to as "scientific", "rationalistic" or "evidence-based" knowledge, rests upon a fundamental premise, that there is something called Objective Truth.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But what if there is none? An early Indic philosophy (not necessarily Hindu in a religious sense) called <i>Samkhya</i> claims that there can be no Objective Truth because the Observer is an inextricable part of the Universe that they claim to be observing. This means that any observation is subjective.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Is this just an academic hypothesis? Well, the famous Observer Effect from the Double-Slit Experiment raises tantalising questions. If an Observer can change the nature of a phenomenon by the very fact of their presence, then this supports the hypothesis that there may be no Objective Reality.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's clear from the above examples that Hinduism as a collection of philosophical thoughts is too sophisticated to be dismissed as a primitive or "heathen" belief system. Indeed, Christian theological concepts seem amateurish compared to their Hindu counterparts.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let me emphasise once again that this is not a theological debate over which set of <i>beliefs</i> is superior. My personal position is that all religions are fairytales and that humans need to rise above blind belief in religious scripture, or indeed, even non-denominational "spirituality", which is also just "woo". However, when we dig a level deeper into the <i>philosophical</i> underpinnings of various religions, there is a difference in the sophistication of concepts that are found in each. This post is a collection of my impressions on whatever I have gathered about Hinduism and Christianity.
</p>
<hr/>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Comments by my friend <a href="https://www.leftbrainwave.com/" target="_blank">Seshadri Kumar</a>, a fellow ex-Hindu atheist (with minor edits of typos, and my observations in italics):
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. Individual responsibility vs collective punishment. While I understand where you are going with this, the reality is that Hinduism also has collective punishment. That's why we do shraddha. You are supposed to do a ritual every amavasai (<i>new moon day, pronounced "amaavaasai" in Tamil</i>) for the welfare of the spirits of your ancestors. This, incidentally, was the reason the sage Agastya decided to marry. He was walking one day and saw several sages hanging upside down and crying in pain. He asked them why they were in this state. They told him they were his ancestors and [that they were] suffering because he had not married and produced a child. This is the reason I flatly refuse to do rituals for my parents. I did the bare minimum for my mother so her relatives would not be offended. When she was alive, I made a deal with her that the only religious ritual I would do was my dad's annual shraddha, and that too, a highly abbreviated, 15 minute version. (<i>Fair point. However, there is a spectrum of belief among Hindus, and the less ritualistic do not worry too much about this.</i>)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. The punishment should fit the crime. Not really. You should read the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Purana" target="_blank">Garuda Purana</a>. The punishments described in it are horrific. Again, this is related to funeral ceremonies. Traditionally, priests read out the Garuda Purana to the relatives of the dead to scare them into paying huge sums of money so that appropriate rituals are done, including gifting of cows and gold to Brahmins, to prevent horrible tortures from being inflicted on their loved ones. (<i>The Garuda Purana is a little-known text that is only cited at the time of funerals, for the reasons you describe. It's probably a self-serving invention of priests, as you say. However, this isn't an everyday text for Hindus, so I would argue that it isn't that relevant.</i>)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
3. The attitude towards knowledge. What you have described is all fine in theory, but the idea that it will take several lifetimes offers zero hope to those born in low castes. In fact, knowledge was explicitly denied to those born as Shudras and Dalits because they were supposed to have been born with dark, tamasic (<i>pronounced "taamasik"</i>) souls, and so any knowledge given to them would only be misused for evil purposes. (<i>True.</i>) All the stuff you have described is only for privileged Brahmins. Also, you talk about how even the guru can be challenged by the disciple, but that's certainly not the case anywhere in India. Teachers do not like to be challenged, and that comes from Hindu culture. There was one chap who was working in Silicon Valley and decided to chuck it all to learn Hindustani music from a guru. The first thing his guru said was that you should never challenge the guru, accept everything he says, etc. (<i>You're right in that in practice, gurus generally take offence at being challenged. The better ones take challenges in the right spirit. Vivekananda once followed Ramakrishna Paramahamsa at night to check if he was going to visit his wife, and the man just chuckled and said, "That's right, test your guru at every turn." That behaviour aligns with the philosophy. 99% of gurus probably wouldn't respond that positively.</i>)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
4. Hinduism's attitude towards conversion is largely because of the caste system. If you convert someone, which varNa (<i>caste</i>) are you going to put them in? And, historically, for more than 2000 years, Hinduism did not encounter foreign religions in any significant number, until the arrival of Christianity and Islam, and their initial response was like that of the Jews - we are the superior religion, you are "mlecchas" (<i>outcastes, untouchables</i>). Hinduism had so many adherents, they weren't interested in conversions. They took pains to kick people out when they didn't like them. (<i>Yes, caste is a practical reason why conversion to Hinduism wouldn't work.</i>)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
5. Why is cyclic time any better than linear time? (<i>Not "better", just more sophisticated. Linear time is like a story made up by a 6 year old, while cyclic time is like a story made up by a 12 year old. Both fairytales of course, but one is slightly more sophisticated than the other.</i>)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
6. Careful with your arguments about objective truth. A lot of [Hindu propagandists] use exactly this to justify anything under the sun. Especially the Advaita guys. All nonsense. (<i>Any point made can be subverted and misused. I can't refrain from talking about this just because it could be used to justify random stuff.</i>)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[If you liked this post, you may find these interesting too:<br/>
<a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-three-hinduisms.html" target="_blank">The Three Hinduisms</a><br/>
<a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2017/09/fixing-symbolism-of-dashaavataar.html" target="_blank">Fixing The Symbolism Of The Dashaavataar Mythology</a>]
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-27161232438234588462023-04-10T09:28:00.001-07:002023-04-10T09:28:22.839-07:00Inscrutable No More - Three Uniquely Insightful Articles That Demystify China For The World<p style="text-align: justify;">
A survey of three articles that together paint an insightful picture of China that may surprise many in the outside world.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Read it <a href="https://zhongguopadayatra.blogspot.com/2023/04/inscrutable-no-more-three-uniquely.html" target="_blank">here, on my China blog</a>.
</p>prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-38810387501994391262023-03-19T04:16:00.005-07:002023-03-19T04:26:12.145-07:00My Letter Of Support To Former PM Paul Keating On Australia's China Policy, Copied To The Government<p style="text-align: justify;">
Former Australian PM Paul Keating created quite a stir recently when he criticised the Australian press for neglecting its professional duty and acting as a mouthpiece for the pro-US and anti-China establishment.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe class="BLOG_video_class" allowfullscreen="" youtube-src-id="Z2lQvFTmMxU" width="600" height="498" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z2lQvFTmMxU"></iframe></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
He got <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-not-above-criticism-but-these-attacks-go-too-far-20230315-p5cscr.html">a bit of pushback</a> from the affected parties for his remarks.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVhQqtGwmYK6M2blEgBTC73NeYFtwq-g0RS2qXeyeL63ZTHSIUqvRQbu1nc2Uf7sa0f6nm4zOarS2RslDCEiuG6fn7gYmE3iqmBvgOQS2qmjKzAWeIHRJObzwsov2qp9lPQbVbRYJhwr_E2Owao0Tc_sccJy6fdfVMzoWrqH6ulhMm9yn4eSSJbuC7/s745/smh-editorial-by-bevan-shields-paul-keating.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="347" data-original-width="745" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVhQqtGwmYK6M2blEgBTC73NeYFtwq-g0RS2qXeyeL63ZTHSIUqvRQbu1nc2Uf7sa0f6nm4zOarS2RslDCEiuG6fn7gYmE3iqmBvgOQS2qmjKzAWeIHRJObzwsov2qp9lPQbVbRYJhwr_E2Owao0Tc_sccJy6fdfVMzoWrqH6ulhMm9yn4eSSJbuC7/s600/smh-editorial-by-bevan-shields-paul-keating.png"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
A few days later, I saw a tweet that solicited messages of support from Australians who agreed with Mr Keating, and the tweet also encouraged respondents to copy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEIHkpuFpbiajcbtXtBanaZ8ypfhKUIY2UczwopIhw4XtzaBpNiffksx2xEJ5jQhpahvuAL-HQaYV7XwEORDZQraBfa8AaZEI-LFBe1lKZLlLm_oH8VzIKhWLuAUBrl68utgv3qSuQzm06_jT8u5UHvSEPS903pbkTSmEKAZerG0spnO_O3N02ugoq/s740/tweet-by-fairyofbloom-20230316-support-for-paul-keating.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="740" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEIHkpuFpbiajcbtXtBanaZ8ypfhKUIY2UczwopIhw4XtzaBpNiffksx2xEJ5jQhpahvuAL-HQaYV7XwEORDZQraBfa8AaZEI-LFBe1lKZLlLm_oH8VzIKhWLuAUBrl68utgv3qSuQzm06_jT8u5UHvSEPS903pbkTSmEKAZerG0spnO_O3N02ugoq/s600/tweet-by-fairyofbloom-20230316-support-for-paul-keating.png"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I decided it was best to stand up and make my voice heard, so I sent out the following email, copying both PM Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Subject: I support Paul Keating's stance on Australian policy re. China</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>To: susan.grusovin@aph.gov.au</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>CC: A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au, senator.wong@aph.gov.au</i> (The copy to Albanese bounced, since he seems to have discontinued the use of this address, but Penny Wong's office acknowledged receipt of my mail.)
</p>
<i>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Hi,
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As an Australian citizen and voter, I want to make my opinion clear (hence copying the PM and FM) that I am alarmed about my country being frogmarched into a coming proxy war being orchestrated by the United States against China.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. China is not a threat to Australia. It is our largest trading partner. The Australian and Chinese economies are complementary, and Australia will continue to grow and prosper if we maintain cordial relations with China.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. Any talk of Chinese invasion is rubbish. Not only does China not need to physically invade Australia when it can acquire Australian resources through trade at significantly lower cost, it is also logistically infeasible. This argument by the anti-China lobby is deliberately emotive but groundless.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
3. All talk by the US of freedom, democracy and human rights is well-known to be selective and used for geopolitical reasons only. The US has never criticised Israel or Saudi Arabia for their appalling human rights records because they are allies. (Now that Saudi Arabia has defied the US by signing a deal with Iran under China's auspices, I expect its human rights record will be taken up by the US in a predictable manner.) Besides, when even the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) has not complained about China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims, why is the West (which waged two decades of war against Muslim countries and killed millions of people in the War on Terror) so concerned about Muslims in China? It is apparent that the Uyghur Muslim issue is not a real one but just a handy stick to beat China with. Why is the treatment of Muslims by the Hindu right-wing government of India not mentioned by the same people who seem so concerned about the Uyghurs? Probably because India is considered an ally for now.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
4. The US is only interested in preserving its hegemony, nothing else. It has no allies, only useful vassal states that it uses in proxy wars. If we are a truly sovereign nation, our foreign policy should be aimed at securing the interests of the Australian people, not at furthering the interests of the US.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
5. We have seen how devastatingly Ukraine has been wrecked in the US's proxy war against Russia. Regardless of the moral posturing over Russia's "unprovoked aggression" (yeah, right), we know that the US has been deliberately stoking this conflict for years, and it became blatantly obvious with the 2014 Victoria Nuland-orchestrated coup that deposed a democratically elected Ukrainian government and installed successive puppet regimes. An elected Australian government has a sacred responsibility to ensure that Australia does not suffer a similar fate as Ukraine. We have this dire example before us, and cannot feign ignorance of the fate that awaits a US proxy.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
6. It is alarming in the extreme to see the orchestrated establishment and media campaign reaching a crescendo on China. The US is stoking a conflict with China over Taiwan, engaging in deliberately provocative actions when it officially has a One-China Policy that only recognises the PRC. Not only is the sudden interest in Taiwan unwarranted, the prepping of Australia and Japan towards greater militarisation should ring alarm bells. If a war breaks out, it will be Australia and Japan that will do the actual fighting as US proxies. The US will not put boots on the ground. It will supply arms (on a strictly lend-lease basis, of course, which will keep our children and grandchildren in debt), but it will be Australian and Japanese soldiers who will actually lay down their lives.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
7. Although we keep repeating the phrase "Lest we forget" when we talk about Gallipoli, it's clear that we have never learnt the basic lesson from that tragic episode - that Australia should stop fighting other countries' wars.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
8. The Scott Morrison government was extremely irresponsible in destroying a hitherto harmonious relationship with China with ill-considered and unnecessary calls for a hostile investigation into the origins of Covid. The fallout in the form of Chinese trade sanctions on Australian goods, though costly to our citizens, was only economic. The Albanese government initially seemed to be repairing that damage and resetting relations with China, but recent actions have lurched in the opposite direction, and will drag us beyond a mere economic rift to actual military conflict.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
9. The nuclear element of the AUKUS deal is particularly alarming. In the event of hostilities with China (which is what the war hawks are clamouring for), our government would have made Australia a target for a nuclear attack by escalating our military capability to a nuclear level. It is a shockingly irresponsible thing for a government to do.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
10. Spending $368 billion of taxpayer money on this irresponsibly dangerous initiative is not just a waste. It is going to be funded through massive cuts to welfare, healthcare, education, infrastructure and other areas of the economy that require committed government support. This fiscal irresponsibility is shocking too.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
11. There is much talk of Australian politics being illegally influenced by Chinese government interests (as with the Sam Dastyari episode), but the fact is that American influence on Australian politics is far, far greater, yet unremarked upon. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is being given carte blanche to conduct its lobbying activities out in the open, when its chief sponsor is known to be the US arms industry. This organisation must be shut down, its foreign employees deported and its Australian employees investigated for crimes no less than treason. The interests of Australia and its citizens are not just being ignored but actively jeopardised in favour of those of a foreign country. This is a treasonable offence.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In sum, as a citizen, I am horrified that an elected government has so dramatically turned its back on the interests of its own people and succumbed to the pressure of a fading superpower that wants to use us as cannon fodder to maintain its hegemony. I am not privy to the threats the US must have used to get our government to comply, but they are no excuse for this egregious betrayal.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
On a personal note, I am of Indian origin, not Chinese, and therefore my views cannot be dismissed as being motivated by cultural affinity towards China.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The government needs to know that its recent steps with regard to China are causing extreme alarm among its voting citizens, and there will be political repercussions if it does not reverse course immediately.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Ganesh Prasad
</p>
</i>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-14533802211290446722023-02-05T07:21:00.099-08:002023-03-16T20:03:08.607-07:00The "Civilisation State" - Phoenix, Werewolf Or Chimera?<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Two essays, two biases</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Two essays debating the "Civilisation State" have recently appeared.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The first <a href="https://www.noemamag.com/the-return-of-civilizations/" target="_blank">one by Bruno Maçães is titled "As Western Liberalism Declines, Civilization States Return"</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="https://www.noemamag.com/civilization-states-are-profoundly-illiberal/" target="_blank">second one, a partial rebuttal by Shashi Tharoor, is "Civilization States Are Profoundly Illiberal"</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Both authors agree on one point — that a civilisation state represents a political system different from Western liberal democracies. Their titles are largely self-explanatory, although Maçães straddles the fence on whether he approves of "civilisation states" or not. His tone seems to be one of resignation at their inevitability, but one can also detect some pleasure at the deserved demise of Western liberalism. Tharoor is resolutely against civilisation states and for Western liberalism. I would encourage you to check out both these essays for yourself before reading my take on them.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
At the outset, I have to say I found <a href="https://www.noemamag.com/the-return-of-civilizations/" target="_blank">Maçães's essay</a> much harder to understand, and I suspect it's because (with all due respect to his scholarship) his definitions of crucial terms seem ambiguous and shifting, and some of his arguments appear to contradict one another. He does raise some interesting and topical points though, and hence his essay cannot be dismissed for its lack of rigour.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.noemamag.com/civilization-states-are-profoundly-illiberal/" target="_blank">Tharoor's essay</a> is more relatable, although I believe his arguments are driven more by idealism than by realism.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I set great store by intellectual honesty, which is the ability to see things as they are, and not as one wants them to be. Discussing a topic with intellectual honesty can be confronting rather than comforting. So while Maçães's meandering article is hard to understand and pin down, he doesn't shy away from making his reader uncomfortable by touching upon some unpalatable truths. Tharoor's vision is a more soothing one, but one that I suspect is more divorced from reality. There needs to be a third viewpoint (and a fourth, and a fifth...)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As the author of <a href="https://medium.com/@g.c.prasad/indians-dont-understand-history-fe1902e78e18" target="_blank">an essay on why Indians need to understand their own civilisational history</a> to make sense of the modern world, I feel compelled to provide one such alternative viewpoint.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Setting things straight</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
For a start, I believe Samuel Huntington (author of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations" target="_blank">The Clash of Civilizations</a>) deserves far more credit than he has received. His advocacy of a civilisational model of world history, which he contrasts against both narrow nationalism and against universal liberalism, is the Goldilocks model that seems just right. The civilisational view is in contrast to the globalist or humanist view of the entire world being one society. While the latter is a wonderful ideal, it is clearly not a view shared by the majority of the world's people, only by a few liberals. Civilisations are also different from nation-states in being far more long-lived, because they are based on more durable aspects of people's lives than political borders — aspects such as genetics, geographical origin, language and religion. And so, Maçães is wrong when he makes an arbitrary and unsubstantiated distinction between civilisation and identity ("Identity is the mutilated corpse of civilization."). The two concepts are in fact inseparable. Civilisation is meaningless without identity.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Maçães also outrageously misquotes Huntington on the topic of Ukraine. Huntington did not say that Ukraine and Russia belonged to the same civilisation! In fact, he explicitly spoke about a "civilisational fault line" that ran down the middle of Ukraine. According to him, the Eastern part of Ukraine belonged to the Orthodox civilisation, just like Russia. The Western part (what he called Uniate Ukraine) belonged to the Western civilisation. Huntington was prescient enough to see a civil war in Ukraine as being far more likely than a war between Russia and Ukraine. To be fair to him, that is in fact what the Ukraine war is mainly about — the wrenching of the Donbas (Eastern Ukraine) away from the Ukrainian nation-state and its incorporation into Russia, where it belongs in a civilisational sense. The results of the popular referenda in Crimea and the Donbas bear out Huntington's prediction.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRWA-sAvB8JXUpI-D2rmzAXM7S0qoDzNmCf1CeAc48UA5xnD9-IbGlbdqWyxrDa65YqMUslwIcfvKn9AwLHoEtmHp9BPmp-xZcvAE_DxlcWBdtmu_GT3Zhnt21qU6cYh4_7b0Cli6H_rD8HFpocD7lrqLnxcUpgm__eQCeqeT-yt-tEfu4NaN7bF69/s681/macaes-misquote-of-huntington.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="307" data-original-width="681" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRWA-sAvB8JXUpI-D2rmzAXM7S0qoDzNmCf1CeAc48UA5xnD9-IbGlbdqWyxrDa65YqMUslwIcfvKn9AwLHoEtmHp9BPmp-xZcvAE_DxlcWBdtmu_GT3Zhnt21qU6cYh4_7b0Cli6H_rD8HFpocD7lrqLnxcUpgm__eQCeqeT-yt-tEfu4NaN7bF69/s600/macaes-misquote-of-huntington.png"/>
<i>What Maçães tells us that Huntington said about Ukraine...</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuxA7Tei6liqqJraqwZoqUeszwFWIm2_gv4KQdokq7I9VVSuRb9N5XSXsrLYKmh9GSxfzKyscQYFHfEtEP8b37mS0jHjNZCAK1PKYYIMiePKLGezlhhc1D3g8KteHLX_mpILZell6D6U5r9qbrE2JXWfBRsH8H7qt8dhhm7Ubjisyzjc0vl9TcPYb4/s998/samuel_huntington_on_ukraine-2.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="990" data-original-width="998" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuxA7Tei6liqqJraqwZoqUeszwFWIm2_gv4KQdokq7I9VVSuRb9N5XSXsrLYKmh9GSxfzKyscQYFHfEtEP8b37mS0jHjNZCAK1PKYYIMiePKLGezlhhc1D3g8KteHLX_mpILZell6D6U5r9qbrE2JXWfBRsH8H7qt8dhhm7Ubjisyzjc0vl9TcPYb4/s600/samuel_huntington_on_ukraine-2.png" width="600" />
<i>...versus what Huntington actually said about Ukraine. Shocking and worthy of a libel suit.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
What compounds this intellectual crime is Maçães's abandonment of objectivity. His visceral distaste for Russia and his disingenuously hagiographic view of Ukraine do his reputation no favours.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote>If Russia today represents the rule of instinct and unreason, Ukraine is the affirmation of light and progress.
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">(Yeah, right. Ukraine was ranked <a href="https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021" target="_blank">the second most corrupt country in Europe</a> in 2021, but after Feb 24 2022, it has magically transformed into the affirmation of light and progress!)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Russia under the perpetually inebriated Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) was a liberal democracy. That period saw the worst decline in the country's living standards, an alarming rise in alcoholism, and an unprecedented drop in life expectancy, all in the service of oligarchs who acquired the state's resources for a song. Then Vladimir Putin took charge, arrested his country's dangerous slide, reversed it with an iron fist and — dare I say it — made Russia great again.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The resurgent Russia of today is (unapologetically) no longer liberal. Yet we are expected to cheer for liberalism because.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQeNoUeZT07fmDsqqiP0rQdhLYMVoRnQKS4a4Z_4A8mkjso6kP1QrCGUd8TTROBjXc7wB_mLaP5yUeUss4KEBtIIgMXMInnmKHQJWGdNZqj9EC-tAGzNc_mEzUZI7I8ywD6SA_jCigTvDVqvBBqauhtnmB7ulkR8nVpUIa50WStjtxxm-R3G5FW1TM/s640/boris-yeltsin-cheers.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQeNoUeZT07fmDsqqiP0rQdhLYMVoRnQKS4a4Z_4A8mkjso6kP1QrCGUd8TTROBjXc7wB_mLaP5yUeUss4KEBtIIgMXMInnmKHQJWGdNZqj9EC-tAGzNc_mEzUZI7I8ywD6SA_jCigTvDVqvBBqauhtnmB7ulkR8nVpUIa50WStjtxxm-R3G5FW1TM/s600/boris-yeltsin-cheers.jpg" width="600" />
<i>Cheers! (hic!)</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I also respect Huntington a lot for his admission that he did not understand the Indian civilisation. Huntington with his admitted ignorance in fact made far more insightful remarks about India than many others who claim to be knowledgeable about the country. Far from being ignorant about the nature of Indian civilisation, his comments showed that he recognised its complex, hybrid and layered nature. The Indic civilisation (which is the term I use in order to distinguish it from both the Indian nation-state and the Hindu religion) is not a simple one to describe or to understand. To his great credit, Huntington did a far better job of it than many other authors I have read.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What then is the definition of a "civilisation state"?</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Here's my view. If a nation-state is to be considered a "civilisation state", its operating principles must go along the grain of its people's inherent and historical values and beliefs, rather than values and beliefs that are alien to them. That's it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Note that this is not a value judgement on whether a civilisation state is "better" than one that is organised differently. It is merely a definition — my definition — one that is clear and understandable, and one that I will stick to without shifting goalposts or contradicting myself. (Mr Maçães, please take note.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
From this definition, China and Russia are <b><i>not</i></b> the first civilisation states to make a resurgence in our times, contrary to what Maçães avers. We have had civilisation states in our world for decades, even centuries. Muslim countries governed by Sharia law are civilisation states. Their operating principles align with the historical values of their people and are largely accepted by them.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
And so, this is the very first point I would make on the topic of civilisation states. They are not a phoenix newly rising from the ashes of liberal states. They have always been around. We just haven't been conditioned to view them as such.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The typical blind spots of the Indian liberal</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Tharoor <a href="https://www.noemamag.com/civilization-states-are-profoundly-illiberal/" target="_blank">does an able job of demolishing Maçães's confused and confusing essay</a>, providing us with a detailed delineation of all his contradictions and fallacies.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Where Tharoor himself falters is in letting his arguments be guided by the knee-jerk reactions that Indian liberals suffer from, with respect to a couple of topics.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The first of these topics is China.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
"China bad" is an article of faith among both Western and Indian thinkers. The groupthink that occurs across these two diverse and disparate cultures lulls both sides into a belief that they are being objective and rational, when they are in fact in an echo chamber of transcontinental dimensions.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Neither the West nor India really understands China. I would go so far as to say both shrink from attempting an unbiased analysis of China, because of their deepseated fear that an honest portrayal of a successful rival will show up their own failures of governance in a way that leaves them no excuse. More on this in a bit.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Tharoor's second knee-jerk reaction is to the notion of the civilisation state that the BJP has constructed, which is of course based on a sectarian Hindu identity designed to exclude India's minorities. However, a rejection of <b><i>the BJP's model of a civilisation state</i></b> should not lead to the rejection of <b><i>the notion of a civilisation state</i></b> itself! Tharoor is throwing out the Indic baby along with the Hindutva bathwater. A civilisation state isn't inherently a werewolf that will devour its citizens, and so India doesn't have to reject this model to save its people. It is possible for India to be a civilisation state, with the crucial caveat that the civilisation be <b><i>Indic</i></b>, not just Hindu. The Indic civilisation is a tapestry that contains layers upon layers of genetics, culture, ideas and innovation, from both internal and external sources, folded in upon itself over the course of millennia, not just centuries. Hinduism is a crucially important element of the Indic civilisation, but if all other strands are pulled out of it, the fabric will simply collapse and cease to exist. If Hindus fail to understand this, it is deeply ironical, since it means that they are unable to experience the "Viswaroopa-darshanam" of their civilisation, and they can only see one limited view of it.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjykDGBqunw_6tCULLvQCGbH8CpU691haRFFMSuk_Vyg28QMfUPo9N4kw9PRKGWcs9NuWqCzUexnWDseeXhuAoNd5poz54WnTwgCWp2HtCStST20Ot3ljVcFGXtbJzpVmaT-z9z-Kwtio8VryaLKavk65nfflvI6QkJh7zR9U-ovFKn1WnElE_CjqwS/s1366/vishwaroopadarshanam-indic-civilisation.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjykDGBqunw_6tCULLvQCGbH8CpU691haRFFMSuk_Vyg28QMfUPo9N4kw9PRKGWcs9NuWqCzUexnWDseeXhuAoNd5poz54WnTwgCWp2HtCStST20Ot3ljVcFGXtbJzpVmaT-z9z-Kwtio8VryaLKavk65nfflvI6QkJh7zR9U-ovFKn1WnElE_CjqwS/s600/vishwaroopadarshanam-indic-civilisation.png" width="600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Liberalism versus a civilisation state</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Before going any further, it's important to first address the basic confusion around liberalism and a civilisational state. Maçães says different things at different times. He labels liberalism as Western in his title, but later asserts that it is universal. Tharoor meekly agrees with Maçães's latter assertion that liberalism is universal, not Western, and that civilisational states each have their indigenous ideological basis that sets them apart from these universal ideals.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So is liberalism Western or universal?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let's not pussyfoot around the nature of liberalism, particularly its provenance. Liberalism is a good idea in that it postulates the equality of every human being, and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, just because it is a good idea and is applicable to all people equally, it does not follow that the idea is universal! This is the fallacy many fall victim to.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If I have a theory about all of humanity, that does not make it a "universal" theory. It is still just my theory, even though I claim that it applies to every human being on earth.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Western liberal worldview is just that. It is a view of all of humanity, but it is still only a Western worldview. It is not "universal".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
You want proof? The shibboleth is the notion of "tolerance" as opposed to "mutual respect". Would an advocate of liberalism look at the practices of non-Western civilisations in a spirit of mutual respect, or would their attitude be one of tolerance at best, and condemnation at worst? You know the answer.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In support of his argument that liberalism is not Western but a universal, or civilisationally neutral, set of ideas, Maçães says "Liberals wanted their political values to be accepted universally, much like a scientific theory enjoys universal validity [...] Western civilization stopped being a civilization, or at least it stopped seeing itself as a civilization. [...] Its principles were meant to be broad and formal, no more than an abstract framework of relations."
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I disagree. <b><i>Western civilisation did not jettison its own civilisational views in favour of a neutral set of ideas. The ideas of liberalism — that came out of the European Enlightenment — were as Western as the ideas they replaced.</i></b> The West then tried to make these latter homegrown values <i><b>seem</b></i> universal. It cajoled and pushed other cultures, nation-states and civilisations to adopt them wholesale because they were now "universal".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
They were not. They were always Western values.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[Maçães also treats us to the heretofore unheard-of idea that even Europe could possibly reject the universalist liberal model and pursue its own version of a civilisation state! He writes a number of words about this without saying much, but in the spirit of intellectual honesty that would not shy away from confronting ideas, I will venture an opinion on what such a European civilisation state would look like. Shorn of its more recent ideas of liberalism, the West would regress to being a white supremacist society that is also devoutly Christian. In short, a European civilisation state bereft of liberalism would simply be a Fourth Reich with Catholics and Protestants at each other's throats. So the idea that Europe (or the West) could possibly turn its back on liberalism does not prove that liberalism is not Western. It just shows that liberalism is a more evolved set of — Western — ideas.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Maçães makes the important point that in spite of liberalism's vaunted universality, it cannot overcome more visceral instincts: "Liberalism wanted to build a lasting edifice of reason and logic, but it turned out to be incapable of reaching large areas of collective existence. It remained, to a considerable extent, powerless over the brute facts of social life to which no reasoning could be applied — nationalism, fascism, and religious and racial bigotry being just a few examples."
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I agree with this observation. India adopted a constitution inspired by the European Enlightenment. Its ideals may be noble and desirable — but they are not Indian.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is not a value judgement, just a statement of fact. <a href="https://www.dawn.com/news/1487041" target="_blank">Anjum Altaf quoted Dr Ambedkar in this article "The Real India"</a>: "Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic."
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Rather than be outraged by this observation, the intellectually honest way forward would be to acknowledge its validity and explore whether democracy is the only mechanism to run a country fairly, i.e., the only system that can ensure good governance.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Democracy and individual rights</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
We need to digress to discuss an important issue that is often glossed over — the difference between the related concepts of a democracy and a constitutional republic. Democracy refers to the prevalence of the will of the majority, whereas constitutions tend to protect the rights of the individual, even against the will of the majority. So what exactly is the ideal society — one that is democratic (and reflects the will of a possibly bigoted majority), or one that is governed by a constitution that places limits on the will of the majority when it infringes the rights of the individual?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Note that a pure democracy would be no different from a civilisation state, because the country would be governed according to the (traditionalist) views of the majority, with no liberal constitution to impose an extraneous set of constraints.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This brings us to the crux of what disturbs liberals when a civilisation state is discussed. People shouldn’t be allowed to get whatever they want, because they may want the “wrong” things. They need a civilising influence such as a constitution inspired by Western liberalism, which constrains what they can ask for.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Squaring the circle</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I'll stop being snarky about liberals now, because I'm probably one myself. I too like the values of the European Enlightenment and would like to see them widely, if not universally, adopted.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
What doesn’t sit right with me is the notion of dictating to people what they should want, by constraining their choices from above. That doesn’t seem liberal to me. To paraphrase Tharoor, it’s a liberal constitution that is profoundly illiberal, because it acts as a constraint on pure democracy (the will of the majority).
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
What then about individual rights, freedom of speech, the right to life and liberty, and so many other important ideas? Should we force these noble ideas on <s>uncivilised</s> non-Western people, or would that make us illiberal?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The situation isn’t as hopeless as it looks, though.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The key to incorporating new ideas into a civilisation state is … social engineering. If a people can be taught to appreciate certain values such that they <i><b>willingly</b></i> adopt them, then when the organising principles of the state are aligned with the values of its people, one could have a civilisation state that is also liberal!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Societies are not static. People can be influenced. This is how civilisations develop and evolve. They absorb influences from internal reformers as well as through external examples, and they morph. Civilisation states can therefore be engineered. They are not givens.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The mistake that people in democracies make is in thinking that change can only come to societies from below, and that social engineering from above (by governments) is inherently evil.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Not so. Much-reviled communist governments have rooted out feudalism, educated their illiterate peasant masses, reduced inequality and empowered women on a scale that would put liberal democracies to shame.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So that's the solution to the liberal conundrum. Not to impose from above a liberal constitution that is alien, but to educate and socially engineer a population to incorporate liberal values into their thinking. Warning: it may take generations, for every civilisation needs to live through its own Enlightenment for such values to become self-evident and to stick.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Also consider that Western liberalism may not be the only moral path. Non-Western civilisations have highly evolved moral concepts of their own that often go unrecognised. [See <a href="https://medium.com/@g.c.prasad/indians-dont-understand-history-fe1902e78e18" target="_blank">Section 4.3 of my essay</a> for a detailed discussion.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The China syndrome</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let's return to the uncomfortable topic of China. China is feared by democratic societies because it has become such a success that it cannot be dismissed like the Soviet Union. The democracies (and only the democracies!) demonise China because they cannot afford to have their populace ask uncomfortable questions about why their purportedly more responsive system has not done as much for them as an evil, authoritarian communist dictatorship has done for its citizens. <i><b>How has China managed to lift hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty and into the middle class in a single generation? How has it managed to eliminate extreme poverty? How did it manage to protect its citizens from the pandemic, with far fewer hospitalisations and deaths per-capita than the greatest democracies, even while being the only significant economy to grow during this period?</b></i> These questions cannot be answered honestly in democracies. Indeed, these questions must not even be asked. Instead, the Chinese civilisation state, with its unique and successful relationship between the rulers and the governed, must be cast as one characterised by the "suppression of minorities, repression of free speech and outlawing of political dissent".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Pre-emptive delegitimisation. It works. Up to a point.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
(If you think "liberal democracies" don't persecute dissidents for free speech, I have two words for you: <b><i>Julian Assange</i></b>.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Good governance - It's not a Western idea</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So when we strip away the myth of Western civilisational superiority, we see that constraining the will of the majority on the basis of Western concepts (however noble some of us may think they are) is neither ideal nor justifiable. We are forced to focus on the only thing that should matter — good governance.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Plato's Republic is a seminal Western treatise on the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, but it's hardly unique. The Indian concept of "Raj-dharma" that rulers must abide by, the Chinese notion of the "Mandate of Heaven" that a ruler can forfeit if they are unworthy, the Sharia law of Islamic states, all of these point to a concept accepted by every civilisation — that people should be governed according to a set of impartial and clearly defined rules, and not according to the arbitrary whim of a ruler.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly, non-Western civilisations too have developed standards and rules of governance that are focused on the welfare of the governed. So why should the concept of civilisation states be greeted with such horror?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
(If one is cynical enough to point out that these rules of governance are mainly observed in the breach, it may be worth considering representative democracy in the West and asking if elected representatives make laws and decisions to benefit their constituents or the lobby groups that fund their election campaigns.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Liberalism in international relations</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Tharoor makes one more point against civilisation states.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
"In international politics, similarly, the notion that civilization states can follow their own standards overlooks the need for universally accepted norms to sustain world order"
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is however a <i>non sequitur</i> — a nation's internal governing principles have nothing to do with how it behaves in the comity of nations! A country can be a democracy at home while claiming exceptionalism and being a ruthless hegemon abroad, or it can be a dictatorship at home while aligning scrupulously to international law. How a country behaves towards others is of relevance to the outside world. How a country conducts its internal affairs is no one else's business. The latter statement is not because dictatorship or the denial of human rights is acceptable, but because the alternative (of exporting freedom and democracy using regime change and drone warfare) has proven such a humanitarian disaster and such a shameful scandal.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It is a smug belief in the superiority of liberal societies over all others that results in the condonement of crimes against the people of those other societies.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So rather than be <b><i>liberal</i></b> in international relations, let's be <b><i>libertarian</i></b> instead. Let's leave other countries alone.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let's not regime-change them when they're weak.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsa36Vx943mMaNOhDxZmgCVd8w9MMEWyfqArbbdyLDixW0_0Vzddzc8-RVCozFSpWePzCgiK79A3S2wxDcLsJZgL5bXe11O4zQpDHCu7Lim-SMSsEaODfMBDOt_DhdLlpAtgIMU0p51KJQzWRtkiyPGoQWZt2MnadW0p9y2UWrBmqPu1mN7KJdOnCK/s680/us-invasion-before-after.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="616" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsa36Vx943mMaNOhDxZmgCVd8w9MMEWyfqArbbdyLDixW0_0Vzddzc8-RVCozFSpWePzCgiK79A3S2wxDcLsJZgL5bXe11O4zQpDHCu7Lim-SMSsEaODfMBDOt_DhdLlpAtgIMU0p51KJQzWRtkiyPGoQWZt2MnadW0p9y2UWrBmqPu1mN7KJdOnCK/s600/us-invasion-before-after.jpg" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
When they're strong, let's not provoke them into war to make them look like the bad guys.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhub04XHgbk6pKxepuEldUn4GnP_Acko7XFLMQj8PlhPPKIIQFI4osyt9QPBwGnDMJ5rPRa9CzAG4L6xBp-FWTDHnLmSnMlEbjT_4LoV9GsPewYatGqHIPgXTD_AgSqhyB1vcSUcBIkCH7ykqcqufTwNVSVVDlq56Xyc9Agz_gQetzppHO18tPYRY3L/s1920/map-nato-expansion.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhub04XHgbk6pKxepuEldUn4GnP_Acko7XFLMQj8PlhPPKIIQFI4osyt9QPBwGnDMJ5rPRa9CzAG4L6xBp-FWTDHnLmSnMlEbjT_4LoV9GsPewYatGqHIPgXTD_AgSqhyB1vcSUcBIkCH7ykqcqufTwNVSVVDlq56Xyc9Agz_gQetzppHO18tPYRY3L/s600/map-nato-expansion.jpg" width="600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1UnqvtjR2xhjolmQPGS1R63hsbNepK5CYPgcQ8GJOnXxsRq5DTxGr1dglAbTarfMEXbFonGXuLy0xqmn9R9AhPPkryzwjaLtyS6rSv6_z_lSbxS1mEsIytt0TdL3y3K0RHzQexah7tPvoq-bc86E8W_INfVY5j3Zooafo-47qZCB0QV1QeJ1ETGHE/s1000/nancy-pelosi-taiwan.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1UnqvtjR2xhjolmQPGS1R63hsbNepK5CYPgcQ8GJOnXxsRq5DTxGr1dglAbTarfMEXbFonGXuLy0xqmn9R9AhPPkryzwjaLtyS6rSv6_z_lSbxS1mEsIytt0TdL3y3K0RHzQexah7tPvoq-bc86E8W_INfVY5j3Zooafo-47qZCB0QV1QeJ1ETGHE/s600/nancy-pelosi-taiwan.jpg" width="600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Tharoor makes a point about fig leaves in the context of internal governance, but he fails to acknowledge its flip side.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
"Just as the devil can quote scripture for his purpose, the advocacy of “civilization states” all too often masks the malign intentions of tyrants."
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is the flip side: The advocacy of "universal values" like freedom, democracy and human rights all too often mask the malign intentions of hegemons.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusion</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
At the end of the day, these are the only ground rules that will work:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
- Nations must obey International Law, <b><i>with none considered an exception to the rules</i></b>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
- Internally, nations should govern themselves using organising principles that resonate with their people's values and beliefs. They should be civilisation states rather than govern their people using an alien set of rules.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
- The values and beliefs of people are not rigid and unchanging. They can be influenced in a variety of ways - by their own governments' social engineering efforts, by their own internal grassroots movements, and by the seductive soft power of other cultures.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The civilisational state is therefore not a chimera. It is very real. We are seeing more examples of successful societies that call themselves civilisation states, and this is giving rise to concern and even panic among others. The complacency and hubris of states that adopted liberal values (whether homegrown or imported) are being shown up.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
We can calm our panic by realising that (1) civilisations are not static but evolving, and (2) liberal democracy is just one of the means to a desired end. That end is good governance, and every political system claims it as its objective.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's time for some intellectually honest conversations about systems that work for their people and systems that don't.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-16549024110711863902023-01-28T06:46:00.018-08:002023-02-02T17:14:30.286-08:00An Absurd Question, A Cop-Out Answer - Review Of Movie "What's Love Got To Do With It?"<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>[Warning: Spoilers galore!]</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I was very intrigued by the billing of this "cross-cultural romantic comedy" that had a number of celebrity names attached to it - Director Shekhar Kapur, screenwriter Jemima Khan and top stars Emma Thompson and Shabana Azmi.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaPCzEMDGJWjuB-OzWmZ0pVvqBPQiblJeiwVqjrX4dfc8jcvOMkKiKJTkkdpwiuQbf2XCRYwjSEwYlgU6oAL7EKLCcsoiMVeGL9kCb2H9vrfaAnYLs1pxZ7WX5-QGvfoWUCgDyAxUpqLJhq8C1NR0rXn-kthdQ7YKLJSzT_H0uqKuBNkLXjKdZ0zZ6/s2700/whats-love-got-to-do-with-it-poster.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="2700" data-original-width="2160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaPCzEMDGJWjuB-OzWmZ0pVvqBPQiblJeiwVqjrX4dfc8jcvOMkKiKJTkkdpwiuQbf2XCRYwjSEwYlgU6oAL7EKLCcsoiMVeGL9kCb2H9vrfaAnYLs1pxZ7WX5-QGvfoWUCgDyAxUpqLJhq8C1NR0rXn-kthdQ7YKLJSzT_H0uqKuBNkLXjKdZ0zZ6/s600/whats-love-got-to-do-with-it-poster.jpg"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As the film began, I was also happy to see that it starred Shazad Latif, whom I'd seen before as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_Discovery_characters#Ash_Tyler_and_Voq" target="_blank">Ash Tyler</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Discovery" target="_blank">Star Trek - Discovery</a>.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2xNvTlPBiZsI3h-wPEJm1agukH5Dl8DwhRo8SG1m-UFoKPDW5ZPRxz9FJuK6hdEULyxiryX_MAVw0nNtBktQnnxVGEe1VotxPsNKsZDTN5aTNZA4jhwRZRW9W9Ji2QNM7rPeX3AYtc0f5vgj4LiNdgAfKHGclkEWtJ713DYxCpPjA3oWoWSkeo8ak/s3000/shazad-latif-ash-tyler-star-trek-discovery.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1688" data-original-width="3000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2xNvTlPBiZsI3h-wPEJm1agukH5Dl8DwhRo8SG1m-UFoKPDW5ZPRxz9FJuK6hdEULyxiryX_MAVw0nNtBktQnnxVGEe1VotxPsNKsZDTN5aTNZA4jhwRZRW9W9Ji2QNM7rPeX3AYtc0f5vgj4LiNdgAfKHGclkEWtJ713DYxCpPjA3oWoWSkeo8ak/s600/shazad-latif-ash-tyler-star-trek-discovery.png"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The film began promisingly enough, but to cut a long story short, it posed a question that was illogical, and then answered it with a cop-out ending.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I won't bother going through the entire plot with its twists and turns, since you can find those in other reviews. Let me explain why I felt the way I did about this movie.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The movie moved quickly onto its plot premise - the phenomenon of arranged marriages (also called "assisted marriages") prevalent in the Indian subcontinent. A number of pros and cons were aired in early dialogues, so the question set up by the movie was clear:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Are arranged marriages better than "love marriages"? The definition of "better" is of course vague. Is it the durability of the marriage itself, the happiness of the partners, the stability of the family setup for children, the harmony of the larger families involved, etc.?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This question strikes me as absurd because it sounds like "What arrangement of deck chairs would be better at preventing the sinking of the Titanic?"
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The necessary conditions for a successful marriage should be no secret:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
- Mutual respect and trust
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
- A willingness on the part of both partners to learn, adapt and change themselves
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Additionally, if <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2022/10/why-marriage-is-hard-work-two.html" target="_blank">the partners possess complementary strengths and have the patience to communicate in a way that is aligned to their partner's thinking style</a>, they're set to be a winning team.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Needless to say, the circumstances under which the two partners come together is irrelevant. They could have met on their own and fallen in love, or they could have been introduced by their parents and agreed to marry before they had significant feelings for each other. Heck, they could even have been forced into marriage, for that matter!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So that in a nutshell is why I thought the film went completely off-target. I have seen examples of successful and unsuccessful "love marriages" in real life. I have also seen examples of successful and unsuccessful arranged marriages. It's clear as day to me that this categorisation is completely irrelevant when it comes to predicting the success of a marriage or the happiness of a couple. Without mutual respect and trust, and without a willingness on the part of both partners to learn, to adapt and to change themselves, a marriage cannot "succeed" or be a happy one. It has nothing to do with whether the marriage was "arranged" or took place after the two partners had fallen in love. The film didn't bother to raise this most important aspect of the topic at all (although it made an attempt to address the issue of marital fidelity, which is related to trust).
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
At the end of the movie, the arranged marriage of the male lead (Qazim Khan) fails, because it turns out that his bride was in love with someone else, and was forced by her parents into marrying him. They divorce and she leaves to rejoin her lover. Predictably, Qazim then pairs up with his childhood neighbour and friend (Zoe), who has been cataloguing the entire process of his arranged marriage.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In the style of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" then, the movie turned out to be "Two Love Marriages and the Failure of an Arranged Marriage".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The reason I call this a "cop-out" ending is because this seems to be the only acceptable answer that filmdom anywhere is allowed to provide: Love-before-marriage good, arranged marriage bad.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Even in India, where <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59530706" target="_blank">over 90% of all marriages are arranged</a>, Bollywood and regional cinema only promote a romantic narrative where people fall in love and often battle parental and societal opposition to get married. The big screen doesn't reflect societal reality at all!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Is it possible at all for a movie to be honest and matter-of-fact about this topic, I wonder? Or will fear of box office failure forever keep storytellers from telling the unglamorous truth about what a happy marriage really needs?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[If you liked this post, check out a related one - <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2022/10/why-marriage-is-hard-work-two.html" target="_blank">"Why Marriage Is Hard Work - Two Psychometric Models Provide An Answer"</a>]
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-50258041992926862232022-11-24T20:03:00.010-08:002022-11-24T20:18:42.268-08:00Why It Makes No Sense For Russia To Agree To A Ceasefire In Ukraine Now<p style="text-align: justify;">
In his article <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/ukraine-the-other-side-of-the-story/" target="_blank">"Ukraine: The Other Side Of The Story"</a>, author Paul Heywood-Smith has taken a refreshingly different position on the conflict than the conventional Western one. He has made a genuine attempt to understand the situation from Russia's perspective, and ends the article with a call for a ceasefire.
</p>
<blockquote><i>
Russia should cease all current operations to not only bring more territory under its control, but also to weaken the Ukrainian resolve by attacking infrastructure. <br/><br/>Ukraine should cease all military operations to expel Russians from such territory as they are in control of. <br/><br/>And third parties, particularly the US, the UK, European and Nato countries, Canada and Australia, should cease providing weapons and materials which enable the war to continue.
</i></blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
From a humanitarian perspective, I'm all for an immediate ceasefire that will end the killing and destruction at once. In fact, the war should never have been allowed to happen. The US bears primary responsibility for provoking Russia with existential security threats and supporting the extreme persecution of Russians in Eastern Ukraine. (Read <a href="https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa" target="_blank">this detailed analysis</a> if you don't agree.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The humanitarian perspective notwithstanding, I don't believe it makes any sense for Russia to agree to a ceasefire at this stage. The following excerpts from <a href="https://twitter.com/prasadgc/status/1595958361354567680" target="_blank">my tweets</a>, suitably elaborated, will explain why.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
From Russia's perspective, it is poised to inflict such a crushing blow on Ukraine, NATO, Europe and the US that it can demand virtually anything next year.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Ukraine is not just a theatre of military conflict. It will permanently alter global perceptions and hence the world order. This is Russia's chance to show up the US-led West as a loser that no country will side with hereafter. Why stop short of such a victory?
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiRAToXUKkJph2CIP_u3qvn0bFr-PNyovaBzxl2mISQ_G2EfgHqrXuRWjS1yshQaG5OykpApFTA2l_mdDEWTe2bHcJaTr03iLIfUFnrPl_zL0RIRq8caVIzjT4ybLAms2j7We6gw6HC3WxWXS-jUliJPZTIMdEMbbJeu5oUFg7TFYGE_NVvnKoYtaR/s1915/ukraine-in-the-dark-nasa-worldview.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="890" data-original-width="1915" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiRAToXUKkJph2CIP_u3qvn0bFr-PNyovaBzxl2mISQ_G2EfgHqrXuRWjS1yshQaG5OykpApFTA2l_mdDEWTe2bHcJaTr03iLIfUFnrPl_zL0RIRq8caVIzjT4ybLAms2j7We6gw6HC3WxWXS-jUliJPZTIMdEMbbJeu5oUFg7TFYGE_NVvnKoYtaR/s600/ukraine-in-the-dark-nasa-worldview.png" width="600" />
NASA's image of Europe at night (worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov) shows Ukraine in total darkness after Russia's crippling strikes on its energy infrastructure.
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Even today, when it should be clear that Ukraine is on its last legs, <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-red-line-biden-and-xis-secret-ukraine-talks-revealed/" target="_blank">Western commentary</a> talks about "Putin's miscalculation", "Russia's futile war", etc. The Western media narrative is deliberately divorced from reality. A ceasefire at this stage will expectedly be spun as a Russian defeat.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Russia needs to pursue the war to the point when reality can no longer be denied, and the West's lies are exposed for what they are. At that point, the West's defeat at the hands of the Russia-China alliance will be complete.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
That's why I believe a ceasefire now is not in Russia's interest.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Some may argue that the West, or at least the moderate sections of Western society, need to agree to this change in the world order. There is a further view that these voices are more likely to be influenced by China's peaceful, development-based approach rather than a Russian military victory.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I have two points against this argument.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. The Russian and Chinese approaches are complementary. Russia is showing up the West's impotence, while China is holding up an alternative model based on development & trade as opposed to conflict. Since it's clear that Russia and China are on the same side, the West doubly loses.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. This may sound harsh, but it really doesn't matter what any faction in the West thinks, once the world order has been demonstrably changed. The West is simply not as relevant as it likes to believe. Power has been shifting eastwards for years, but perceptions tend to lag reality. It will take a dramatic event such as a comprehensive Western rout in Ukraine to make it obvious to everyone that the world has permanently changed.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-73681591402142468122022-11-09T20:44:00.002-08:002022-11-09T20:47:51.900-08:00My Letter To PM-Elect Anthony Albanese (May 21, 2022)<p style="text-align: justify;">
I wrote a letter to Anthony Albanese on the eve of his election victory on May 21, 2022.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In it, I outlined my hopes and expectations as an Australian citizen for the path his government would take, in a decisive break from the disastrous direction of his predecessor Scott Morrison.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I'm making this public now because I'm disappointed that Albo seems to have been coopted by unelected powers, just as previous governments have been. <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/god-save-australia-because-america-will-not/" target="_blank">This post by Bruce Haigh</a> explains just how bad things have now become.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
My letter:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Subject: <b>Congratulations from a first-time Labor voter, and a manifesto challenge for you</b>
</p>
<i>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Dear Albo,
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Congratulations on your landslide victory!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Although I have been a loyal paid-up member of the Australian Democrats for over two decades, I crossed the floor today to vote for you, and I am now taking the liberty of writing to ask you to do certain things.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
You have the mandate of the Australian people, Albo, and you can and should grasp the nettle and announce some bold changes in direction early on, while you still have the initiative and the momentum. All opposition will crumble if you display boldness and determination.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. Reset the relationship with China:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's high time Australia stopped fighting other countries' wars! We've fought Britain's wars in the last century, and we've since switched loyalties to fight America's wars. We have not covered ourselves in glory by joining the US in Vietnam, or in the invasion of Iraq. Australian foreign policy ought to be made in the interests of the Australian people, not in the interests of foreign governments.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Morrison government has made an indecorous lurch towards the US by scrapping a deal with France, and signing up to a dangerous policy of nuclear confrontation with China by purchasing nuclear submarines. His government has also plunged us into a trade war with China, our biggest trading partner, in a further bid to please the US. In return for our pains, the US has thrown us under the bus by replacing Australian exports in the Chinese market with their own.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Enough!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I want you to re-establish communications with President Xi Jinping at the earliest and normalise our relations with Asia's most important power. We should be aware that we are just a middle-ranking power, and should therefore be extremely wary of being drawn into a conflict between superpowers that will only damage us. The task before the Australian government in this area is two-fold:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
- Keep the country out of any conflict between the United States and China. It's not our war, and it would be highly irresponsible on the part of any Australian government to plunge us into a conflict that will only do us enormous damage.
- Re-establish favourable trading relations with China so we can both increase revenue from our exports, and tackle domestic inflation through the import of affordable Chinese goods.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
(I'm of Indian origin, not Chinese, so I have no personal bias in saying all of this.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, and there's this sneaky lobbying outfit for the American arms industry that pretends to be a respectable policy think tank, and which illegitimately influences Australian defence and foreign policy to the detriment of the interests of our own people. Yes, I'm talking about the ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute). Declare this an illegal organisation and shut them down. Expel their foreign employees. Investigate their treasonous activities. They have been doing great damage to Australia's interests by controlling our governments and turning Australia into a US client state for their proxy conflicts.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. Make a strong and unequivocal commitment to renewable energy:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
You need to make an early statement that is symbolically powerful. I suggest you produce a lump of coal in parliament (like Morrison did), but throw it forcefully into a dustbin!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Follow that up with clear and ambitious targets to phase out fossil fuels from every sector of the economy.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Renewables are cost-effective and ready to go. The only thing missing is Federal Government support. It's time for you to change that, and dramatically. The foot-dragging by past governments has been utterly shameful.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
3. Tackle housing affordability:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Everybody knows the dirty little secret of why housing affordability isn't being seriously tackled. The flip side of making houses affordable for new buyers is making asset prices stagnate or drop for existing home-owners. In other words, you can't please one set without displeasing the other.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So far, the home-owner crowd has been calling the shots because we're the establishment. But as a home-owner myself, let me tell you that I don't mind a stagnation or drop in asset prices if it will help hundreds of thousands of young individuals and couples buy their first home. It's shameful for a problem of affordability to be dragging on for so long in a supposedly prosperous country, and it's time a government did something about it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Hint: we all know that tinkering with the demand side like providing first home-owner grants only fuels demand and leads to a further rise in prices. The only thing that will work to reduce prices is an increase in supply. Release more crown land, at a faster rate than before. It will absolutely piss off existing home-owners, but you'll be on the right side of history.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
There are lots of other problems you'll have to tackle, of course. The old demons of inflation, unemployment and underinvestment in public services. But those are problems with known solutions, and need little imagination or courage from a leader.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The issues I've outlined require true leadership.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I have placed my trust in you with my vote, Albo. I hope you'll rise to the occasion.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
All the best!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Ganesh C Prasad
(Federal constituency of Mitchell, NSW)
</p>
</i>prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-12551892277340891062022-10-16T07:52:00.015-07:002023-01-28T06:56:09.661-08:00Why Marriage Is Hard Work - Two Psychometric Models Provide An Answer<p style="text-align: justify;">
This insight crept up on me rather gradually. There is a fundamental tension that is inherent in the necessary ingredients of a successful marriage, and it takes conscious effort to overcome this tension.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Two psychometric models explain this tension well, and their creators are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_O._Clifton" target="_blank">Donald O. Clifton</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Herrmann" target="_blank">William Edward "Ned" Herrmann</a>. I learnt about both of these models as a result of short courses that I had the privilege to be nominated for during my career. I probably wouldn't have come across them otherwise.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. "Strengths-Based Psychology" by Donald O. Clifton</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The testing tool invented by Donald Clifton has been known by several names - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_Test" target="_blank">The Gallup Test</a>, StrengthsFinder, Gallup Strengths Assessment and Clifton Strengths Test.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It describes 34 themes that make up a person's personality.
</p>
<ol>
<li>Achiever - a constant need for achievement</li>
<li>Activator - impatience for action</li>
<li>Adaptability- ability to respond to the demands of the moment</li>
<li>Analytical - objective and data-driven</li>
<li>Arranger - ability to manage all the variables in a complex situation to produce the most productive configuration</li>
<li>Belief - possessing enduring core values</li>
<li>Command - ability to take charge</li>
<li>Communication - ability to make people listen to you</li>
<li>Competition - the desire to win</li>
<li>Connectedness - awareness of the interconnectedness of all beings, and the resulting sense of responsibility</li>
<li>Consistency - preference for balance, fairness, predictability</li>
<li>Context - orientedness due to an ability to join the dots</li>
<li>Deliberative - risk-aware and careful</li>
<li>Developer - ability to see potential in everyone</li>
<li>Discipline - dealing with an unpredictable world through structure that you impose</li>
<li>Empathy - seeing the world through the eyes of others</li>
<li>Focus - having a clear destination</li>
<li>Futuristic - inspiration from what can be</li>
<li>Harmony - ability to find common ground and reduce conflict</li>
<li>Ideation - the ability to find new perspectives to explain phenomena and address challenges</li>
<li>Includer - accepting of all, non-judgemental</li>
<li>Individualisation - ability to draw out the best in each person</li>
<li>Input - tendency to collect facts and objects in the hope that they will one day prove useful</li>
<li>Intellection - introspective, fond of thinking</li>
<li>Learner - excited by new knowledge</li>
<li>Maximiser - in constant quest of excellence</li>
<li>Positivity - contagious enthusiasm</li>
<li>Relator - trusting, sharing, risk-taking in vulnerability</li>
<li>Responsibility - taking ownership of tasks</li>
<li>Restorative - energized by challenge, finds solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems</li>
<li>Self-Assurance - confidence not only in one's abilities but also in one's judgement, natural acceptance of accountability</li>
<li>Significance - need to stand out, to be recognised, a striving to be exceptional</li>
<li>Strategic - ability to see patterns where others see complexity, to see around the next corner, to make selections that work</li>
<li>WOO - Winning Others Over, can break the ice, strike up conversations with strangers and making connections</li>
</ol>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4rL7HeQ4CpHfJcSWcvm44DXMFtv74rn0YxE_Pj8sdcuYV9F1Bb7g1pyfmb0kT16_ZuEuhcAOzAIHg0GO95GNS1sXjvXccubIfxet-KHyicUke4FYlZH8wbUP5K6Bf5_7QMyNJP3q-LV0gTG0A3xNIOX6tMASpTD4LfAOOkspcu5QbQYQB00fr9p0l/s826/strengths.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="826" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4rL7HeQ4CpHfJcSWcvm44DXMFtv74rn0YxE_Pj8sdcuYV9F1Bb7g1pyfmb0kT16_ZuEuhcAOzAIHg0GO95GNS1sXjvXccubIfxet-KHyicUke4FYlZH8wbUP5K6Bf5_7QMyNJP3q-LV0gTG0A3xNIOX6tMASpTD4LfAOOkspcu5QbQYQB00fr9p0l/s600/strengths.png"/><br/>
<i>The 34 strengths organised by category</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I learnt about the Strengths-based model in the context of organisational team-building. I learnt to accept that people weren't all the same, that they had different strengths, and that rather than try to fix <i>weaknesses</i> in their people, the aim of a manager should be to put together teams of people with <i>complementary strengths</i>, so that the team as a whole could deliver effectively on all its tasks.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This was a rather refreshing approach to management. I had heard of the approach of "playing to one's strengths" in the context of individual self-development, but I was hearing it for the first time in the context of team-building. Organisations need not worry too much about deficiencies in their people. They just have to make sure that their teams as a whole are able to make up for the deficiencies of the individuals they're comprised of.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
For example, I worked in the IT Architecture division of several companies, and our job was to "<a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2017/09/ten-things-teachers-taught-me.html#:~:text=8.%20Finding%20my" target="_blank">guide investment and design decisions around technology</a>". Not everyone in our team had identical strengths. For example, some were deep thinkers who could come up with innovative models, but who lacked the ability to communicate these ideas effectively and convince other people. There were other people in the team, though, who may not have had the same ability to create models, but who could create effective visualisations of these models such that they were instantly understandable to decision-makers. Together, these two groups of very different people were effective in creating and communicating innovative solutions to the rest of the organisation. That was a practical example to me of <i>complementary skills</i> being effective in an organisational context.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. The "Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument" by William Herrmann</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
To my mind, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument" target="_blank">Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)</a> is a far more insightful and useful model than the two other models commonly used by organisations - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator" target="_blank">Myers-Briggs Personality Types</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment" target="_blank">DISC Profile</a>. Unfortunately, this excellent test is not available free of charge, and it is usually only administered through organisational sponsorship.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
HBDI identifies four unique thinking styles that people tend to use in various combinations. Some people have a single, dominant thinking style. Others have a combination of two, three or all four, with each style having a certain "weight" relative to the other three.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Each thinking style is given a colour code.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Blue - Logical, Analytical, Fact-based, Quantitative</li>
<li>Yellow - Holistic, Intuitive, Integrating, Synthesising</li>
<li>Red - Interpersonal, Feeling-based, Kinesthetic, Emotional</li>
<li>Green - Organised, Sequential, Detailed, Risk-aware</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
These thinking styles are then mapped to the four quadrants of a circle, with blue on the top left, yellow on the top right, red on the bottom right, and green on the bottom left.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, blue and red are in opposing quadrants, just as yellow and green are in opposing quadrants. These pairs of thinking styles are completely "opposite" to one another.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
More interesting are the adjacent thinking styles. They have certain common traits. The reason is that the four directions of the circle represent certain modes of thinking.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Left - The "left brain", realistic and commonsensical</li>
<li>Right - The "right brain", idealistic and intuitive</li>
<li>Top - the "cerebral" brain, cognitive and pragmatic</li>
<li>Bottom - the "limbic" brain, visceral and instinctual</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7XF9YmvOVi--wUR2IYvrVjELlNUjQ3c1wfwWNWGHdWPMbmD73UHmrwOT7t9mNkUWiUX1rJWRoAgyoIBcFFh73eKXPidy7RdXWfp4eL97wTjJnbzieKgqBz1Kmv7S_yKi26iI5V0GgbBOdASUverNDeJFirbokpvQNrDYiiq0by45oYB7ugZDEfVRI/s1024/hbdi.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7XF9YmvOVi--wUR2IYvrVjELlNUjQ3c1wfwWNWGHdWPMbmD73UHmrwOT7t9mNkUWiUX1rJWRoAgyoIBcFFh73eKXPidy7RdXWfp4eL97wTjJnbzieKgqBz1Kmv7S_yKi26iI5V0GgbBOdASUverNDeJFirbokpvQNrDYiiq0by45oYB7ugZDEfVRI/s600/hbdi.jpg"/><br/>
<i>The four thinking styles, and the "modes" of the brain that they relate to</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Adjacent colours therefore have a certain affinity.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Blue and Yellow are both cerebral rather than limbic. They think cognitively about things rather than react viscerally.</li>
<li>Yellow and Red are both right-brained. They rely on feeling and intuition rather than pure logic.</li>
<li>Red and Green are both limbic rather than cerebral. They have instinctive reactions to situations.</li>
<li>Green and Blue are both left-brained. They are grounded and realistic.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
One of the core themes in a course on HBDI (after all participants have been tested and assessed as to which quadrant(s) they belong to) is the challenge of communication. In an organisation, people need to communicate with others, explain their perspectives on situations, negotiate for resources, convince decision-makers in favour of one or another option, etc. When people have very different thinking styles, they can often talk past one another instead of connecting. This is because people are used to expressing ideas from their own perspective, and this perspective may make little sense to a person with a very different thinking style, who is used to seeing things in a very different way.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Effective communication requires a knowledge of the other person's thinking style, and a formulation of one's argument in terms the other person can naturally understand.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Communication between people with thinking styles in adjacent quadrants is relatively easier than communication between people in opposite quadrants. They can rely on certain common thinking modes to find common ground. It is a far more difficult task for people in opposite quadrants to be able to communicate meaningfully.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It is common for people in the Blue quadrant to believe that they are "superior" thinkers, but the HBDI consultants take great pains to emphasise that this is not so. None of these four thinking styles is "superior" to any other. Each has its own strengths. It is necessary for people to treat their colleagues with respect, regardless of what their predominant thinking style is, and to make honest efforts to communicate with them in a way the other person can understand.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Marriage and the Confluence of the two Models</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It struck me somewhere along the journey of my own marriage that the notions of <i>complementary strengths</i> and <i>thinking styles</i> were both hugely relevant to the way my wife and I interpreted life events and responded to them. We have had arguments and conflicts, and we have also had successes and triumphs. This is the distillation of my thoughts.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Marriage is fundamentally teamwork. Two individuals embark on a lifelong project together, and they deal with a multitude of challenges as they go along, with specific tasks and deliverables expected at various life stages. Building meaningful careers, balancing life and work, raising children, buying a home, investing for retirement, dealing with the pressures of extended family, dealing with unexpected events like illnesses, job stress, financial hardship, etc., are part of the never-ending sequence of life events that a couple must confront and overcome together.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It is unrealistic to expect that each of the individuals in a marriage is a perfectly balanced individual with all the strengths required to deal with life's vicissitudes. The most pragmatic solution is therefore for the couple to have <i>complementary</i> strengths, so that between the two of them, they have the ability to deal with a greater proportion of challenges than either of them could alone.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
However, complementary strengths come with their own inherent problem, and this is the tension I referred to earlier. Strengths are related to thinking styles, and complementary strengths are likely to be related to thinking styles in opposite quadrants. As we know, communication is difficult between people with different thinking styles, because they see situations very differently, and find it hard to understand or convince the other of their respective points of view.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It may seem ideal for a couple to have identical thinking styles. They can then understand each other most naturally, and the possibility of conflict between them may seem low. But two people who think alike are likely to share the same blind spots. Over the long haul, as they face a multitude of different life challenges, it is possible that they may make some costly mistakes because in their case, two heads are no better than one. Mistakes and failures can then introduce a different set of stresses into the marriage.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It may seem depressing to conclude that there is no ideal marriage, after all. A couple needs to have complementary strengths to be able to negotiate the gamut of life's challenges successfully over the long haul, yet complementary strengths imply different thinking styles, which make communication a challenge.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It needn't be depressing at all, though! The flip side of the coin is that a couple with mutual respect and trust, who put in the effort to understand each other's thinking styles, and who consciously learn to communicate in a way that the other can understand, can get the best of both worlds. They can function effectively as a team, and kick goal after goal.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[If you liked this post, check out a related one - <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2023/01/an-absurd-question-cop-out-answer.html" target="_blank">"An Absurd Question, A Cop-Out Answer - Review Of Movie "What's Love Got To Do With It?""</a>
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-65464045063142176442022-09-13T07:28:00.014-07:002022-09-13T22:24:11.392-07:00Movie Review - Three Thousand Years Of Longing<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>[No spoilers, don't worry.]</i>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUUi1b1aWIfiN_EOyhMMlYhhV6xUhPiV_oFfLqQXfWfh-sJZ2VOT-dulueh6-yBwIFVf9Y8u6IEgXy5UeHHZWpE_D2fvSJe80AcLzaEDgCkm0nzOIpqAYmJy4xe9F6H2kOTFlqjKGv7P5EZ3g9kYIVDa7J07uQkyJYm1hC5proJl2SO4MpReFeWbix/s1200/three-thousand-years-of-longing-poster.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUUi1b1aWIfiN_EOyhMMlYhhV6xUhPiV_oFfLqQXfWfh-sJZ2VOT-dulueh6-yBwIFVf9Y8u6IEgXy5UeHHZWpE_D2fvSJe80AcLzaEDgCkm0nzOIpqAYmJy4xe9F6H2kOTFlqjKGv7P5EZ3g9kYIVDa7J07uQkyJYm1hC5proJl2SO4MpReFeWbix/s600/three-thousand-years-of-longing-poster.jpg"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I saw this movie earlier this evening at the cinemas, and thought it was interesting enough to write about.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This won't be my usual style of review. That's because I see this movie as being composed of two layers - an original plot premise, and a certain style of execution.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I'll first extract that plot premise as I understand it, and lay it out for you in distilled form.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Then I'll try to tease out the various core themes and lines of tension that the plot presents, which may then suggest various creative means to resolve them.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, I'll evaluate how well the movie actually delivered on this plot premise, both in terms of storytelling and in terms of cinematography.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Plot premise</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The protagonist is a modern-day single woman, a middle-aged professional who has seen a few ups and downs in her life and reached a stage of philosophical equanimity. The story begins when she comes across an interesting-looking bottle in a Middle Eastern bazaar during one of her travels, and buys it. Back in her hotel room, she opens the bottle and out comes a genie who grants her three wishes.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The interesting twist here is that the woman is genuinely contented and does not wish for anything, which surprises the genie.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Besides, she has heard too many stories (and jokes) about this wish-granting business ending badly, to risk falling into the same trap.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The genie needs her to make three wishes, otherwise he will never be free. He understands that the stories she has heard have made her suspicious of genies as tricksters. He then tells her his own life story, about the three times he ended up being imprisoned in the bottle.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The woman then does something.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
That's the plot premise. The job of the storywriter is to flesh this out into a captivating story.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Core themes and lines of tension</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. The inner tension between contentment and making a wish - what happens? Does one triumph over the other, or is there another creative way to resolve this conflict?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. The suspicion that genies are tricky characters not to be trusted - is this suspicion justified? The story could take either tack and run with it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
3. What stories would the genie tell the woman? Ostensibly, they are just a narrative of whatever happened to him, but their ulterior purpose is to overcome her reluctance to make three wishes. So what would the stories be? Would they be true stories, lies, or half-truths? Put together, what course of action would they compel her to take?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
4. How would the movie's finale resolve all of these tensions satisfactorily? The genie's selfish motives, the unresolved question of the genie's own trustworthiness, the woman's suspicion of making wishes, her genuine contentment and absence of desire, and the suggested cumulative moral of the genie's three stories - how would they all play out?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Execution</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
To put it bluntly, the movie disappointed me, because I have grown to expect far more intelligent and creative storytelling approaches in modern films. Any number of talented storywriters could have picked up this plot premise and run with it in different brilliant directions.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
First, the genie's own stories, while mildly interesting, did not seem to provide any significant lessons. Neither did they provide plot elements that played out in the present day with the protagonist.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Second, the events in the present day, while touching upon elements of modernity, science and technology, did not leverage them in any meaningful way. An early scene shows a speaker on a stage talking about storytelling and narrative, and suggests that advances in modern science and our understanding of the world have dispelled many of the mysteries that in earlier days were attributed to metaphysical phenomena. This is an extremely intriguing idea that makes us wonder how the genie phenomenon would be explained in scientific terms in today's world, but this is dealt with in a very superficial and unconvincing way. Hand-waving about electromagnetism and organic matter isn't enough for an audience used to sophisticated science-fiction.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Third, the protagonist's core character was not leveraged effectively enough. There should have been a dramatic development that both resolved a moral dilemma and heightened the audience's appreciation of her character. If there was one, it was rather weak.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Fourth, there was no satisfying denouement that closed the narrative loop, no "Chekhov's gun" earlier in the plot, for example, that popped up again at the climax to play a pivotal role.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In short, the storytelling was disappointing.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The cinematography was vivid and colourful, providing a swift panorama of Middle Eastern "history" over three thousand years to the present day. This part was well done. (If I had to make a wish, it would be never to be born into a palace. The stress induced by all the intrigues would get to me long before any assassins could.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Final score: 3 stars out of 5.</b> That's for the original plot premise and the cinematography. Better creativity in fleshing out the plot would have earned it a 4 or a 4.5.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-5815312456968555472022-07-07T07:31:00.004-07:002022-07-07T19:00:31.926-07:00Professor Joseph Stiglitz's Talk At UTS<p style="text-align: justify;">
I got an email announcing that the Nobel Laureate Professor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz" target="_blank">Joseph Stiglitz</a> was in Australia, and that he would be addressing a crowd at the <a href="https://www.uts.edu.au/" target="_blank">University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)</a> on Thursday the 7th of July. So I registered for this free event and turned up for it. It was a strictly one-hour affair, which drastically reduced the time allowed for audience questions.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi30Xs6hJNKtF5Pq4dzm5bLbhHZPqA-inEhItfT7OCSn8nSIvrip0YXHZIUXcZnLRCGDZMjov-SowksC7vwev5XP1n_9Uc8Qp84XIQYXOFl0b4JsCQoGsWTz7_wOK3dNKgAH0JtlmjZysT8hDC3VB_iUZopIxs_8LrdI_-MU6qsiG3-454K9TGW41xu/s1892/joseph-stiglitz-1.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1419" data-original-width="1892" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi30Xs6hJNKtF5Pq4dzm5bLbhHZPqA-inEhItfT7OCSn8nSIvrip0YXHZIUXcZnLRCGDZMjov-SowksC7vwev5XP1n_9Uc8Qp84XIQYXOFl0b4JsCQoGsWTz7_wOK3dNKgAH0JtlmjZysT8hDC3VB_iUZopIxs_8LrdI_-MU6qsiG3-454K9TGW41xu/s600/joseph-stiglitz-1.jpg"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Prof. Stiglitz made the following points, and I took quick notes. (He said he was going to make 5 points, but then he made 6.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. Human progress was static for centuries, then standards of living and life expectancy started to increase rapidly after the 18th century. The reason is science and technology, and societies have learnt to organise themselves to harness science and technology. An important mindset that we gained from the Enlightenment was that progress is possible. Enlightenment values include democracy and tolerance for other viewpoints. In the US, these enlightenment values are being challenged today. What is at stake is every aspect of our progress including democracy. We need to re-learn the values of the Enlightenment.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. Innovation cannot be taken for granted. It is <b>endogenous</b>. We can hasten or undermine it through our conscious choices.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
3. Since Adam Smith, many economists have believed that markets would lead to progress in society. In the 1950s, the economist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Debreu" target="_blank">Gerard Debreu</a> (later a Nobel laureate himself) studied under what conditions this would occur. He realised that information wasn't perfect, and markets weren't perfect. Along with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Greenwald" target="_blank">Bruce Greenwald</a>, Stiglitz himself argued that markets weren't always good for society. Innovation isn't automatic. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter" target="_blank">Joseph Schumpeter</a> argued that competition spurred innovation. He was wrong (in more than one way, actually), because it didn't always spur the right kind of innovation. For example, reducing labour isn't as important as reducing carbon emissions, but because markets reward labour-reducing innovations, those tend to occur more. Social returns are not the same as private returns. Curing malaria is more important than stopping hair loss, because millions of people die of malaria every year. But these deaths occur in poor countries, and the people there don't have the money to pay for a cure. But rich and insecure men have plenty of money to spend on hair loss prevention techniques, hence the latter area sees more market funding for innovation. There are also "me-too" innovations that are intended just to sidestep patents. They don't add any additional value socially. Markets also stay away from risky investments. Hence some of the most important innovations come from the public sector, because governments aren't that risk-averse. Knowledge is a public good. It shouldn't be hoarded, but private enterprises tend to keep knowledge to themselves, which isn't good for society. <a href="https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/11/24/jeffersons-taper-national-digital-library/" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson said a candle doesn't diminish if it lights another</a>. Government needs to get larger as we become a science-based society.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
4. Research is an enquiry into the unknown. There will be failures. If a process doesn't see enough failure, it's not exploring boldly enough. The US government gave Tesla a lot of money, and that's why Tesla became successful. In Stiglitz's opinion, the government should have bought shares in Tesla instead of just giving the company money, so that the public would have got a return on its investment. Incidentally, government tends to get a higher return on its investments compared to the private sector. Although people say government should get out of the business of doing business, this is not justified based on results.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
5. Government should not only support basic research, but should also steer the private sector. However, industrial policy is controversial. People say, "Governments shouldn't pick winners." But this happens anyway. Governments' decisions are always steering the economy. When people aren't paying attention, special interests end up steering the economy. Like derivatives which exploded. Derivatives got first preference when companies went bankrupt. This was a law passed through Congress because of lobbying by financial firms. So if governments are going to have an impact anyway, it's better that it make conscious steering decisions, such as adopting an education policy, a tax policy, etc., which would result in societal benefits. Current tax policy steers the economy towards saving labour, which creates more unemployment at a time when people are suffering economic hardship. Saving on labour does not result in societal well-being.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
6. Government is beginning to talk about "well-being budgeting". Markets may be maximising profits and GDP, but not societal well-being. Technology policy is an important part of public policy.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
After his talk, there was a brief discussion with a panel member, who asked a couple of questions, and Prof. Stiglitz answered.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiFICHtDVT7mUEp41Ia82hwti5DqfPhED4LWq8xIrujXraVGmL_HO2uGGjuZJuylj7nvrKZV2eNzQXsOj58kueke07eh2DmQUa1iVTlZozJcekcN6QcjXXhVfOdaU4WM8orSxS0BJRb70Mh2jdZkVUfmNuG8atD2BGz89irO5GF_9ntqcdJQc3Vcmi/s1419/joseph-stiglitz-2.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1419" data-original-width="1064" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiFICHtDVT7mUEp41Ia82hwti5DqfPhED4LWq8xIrujXraVGmL_HO2uGGjuZJuylj7nvrKZV2eNzQXsOj58kueke07eh2DmQUa1iVTlZozJcekcN6QcjXXhVfOdaU4WM8orSxS0BJRb70Mh2jdZkVUfmNuG8atD2BGz89irO5GF_9ntqcdJQc3Vcmi/s600/joseph-stiglitz-2.jpg"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
There was time for just one audience question. I had a question, but didn't get a chance to ask it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
For what it's worth, this would have been my question.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Prof. Stiglitz, you spoke about societal well-being, and you also touched upon democracy. One of the intriguing phenomena in today's world is -- China. China is not a democracy in the way we understand democracy, but after the death of Mao Zedong, all subsequent Chinese governments seem to have been very focused on improving the quality of life of the Chinese people. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. The government executes a series of Five Year Plans, all of which are focused on investing in sectors that require the most attention. For example, China lays thousands of kilometres of high-speed rail every year. This is particularly relevant to us in Sydney because we have seen our government take years and spend billions of dollars just to build a few hundred kilometres of metro rail. China seems to get more bang for the buck. We pride ourselves on our democracy, and we believe that democracy is about responsive government that delivers good governance, but it seems to me that a non-democratic government like China is showing up democratic ones in terms of the societal well-being that it has been able to deliver to its people in just a few decades.</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>What are your thoughts on this?"</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-34812658400458386692022-04-16T04:07:00.003-07:002022-04-16T04:08:49.031-07:00A Logo Suggestion For Fibonacci Coffee<p style="text-align: justify;">
There is a brand of coffee in Australia called <a href="https://fibonaccicoffee.com.au/" target="_blank">Fibonacci Coffee</a>. The logo has a nice spiral, indicating that the owners are well aware of the Fibonacci series and its mathematical characteristics.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIwB7EhTAXw1DBqkYhzoQ4jJoNpUoHf9RRS4oCu50ar2rdU3IBChWyDAdLMVcsqjfjnwSoRra78v0C94ZZk16XDVBMZ0fyuwkZ1AXIP8AUfHKEMJWCwUq2brAqXqVI4A7ypXJVcKmFIek56O7qu_GypopjoROPeKhIeqg__XUNtWyIiv2xgh90NKbW/s1200/fibonacci-coffee-logo-orig.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIwB7EhTAXw1DBqkYhzoQ4jJoNpUoHf9RRS4oCu50ar2rdU3IBChWyDAdLMVcsqjfjnwSoRra78v0C94ZZk16XDVBMZ0fyuwkZ1AXIP8AUfHKEMJWCwUq2brAqXqVI4A7ypXJVcKmFIek56O7qu_GypopjoROPeKhIeqg__XUNtWyIiv2xgh90NKbW/s600/fibonacci-coffee-logo-orig.jpg"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It struck me that the logo and brand name could do with a subtle tweak that further reinforced its mathematical pedigree.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5xXspefMnnGeF5K7Hc4BidSJsNDJxPFoSrMZR5I5MCXScGeQiwWmGcSll-biPPYa98jRVDLcdG94z1M8fkG5RT1ZTux6wWWXr9m_uAGBpDcWqckEffqpsWS1Tq46UII61kqWom5AYEFS8VBYdnsLqN-hJBMnWUlDLVNVPcWb5ZqgKEaHu1aq6sV3L/s1400/fibonacci-coffee-logo.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5xXspefMnnGeF5K7Hc4BidSJsNDJxPFoSrMZR5I5MCXScGeQiwWmGcSll-biPPYa98jRVDLcdG94z1M8fkG5RT1ZTux6wWWXr9m_uAGBpDcWqckEffqpsWS1Tq46UII61kqWom5AYEFS8VBYdnsLqN-hJBMnWUlDLVNVPcWb5ZqgKEaHu1aq6sV3L/s600/fibonacci-coffee-logo.jpg"/>
<br/>
<i>Get it? The Fibonacci Series goes 1,1,2,3,5,8,11, etc., because each number is the sum of the two previous ones. Hence C, O, FF, EEE corresponding to the first four numbers in the series.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I believe I suggested this to them a while ago on some forum but didn't hear back from them.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, well.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-12129362512899035722022-03-30T12:30:00.010-07:002022-11-18T20:05:05.251-08:00The Wrath Of Revenge That Russia's Rulers Rue (How A Wronged Brother, Father And Grandfather Came Back To Haunt A Country)<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnH-BxCe9mfznAx_iGvyo0hVr8vguKQJygRt9mO39V7XF5B0JUGfrzPbVfWlL2vU1fvN_QfEShPQW6GvFhH3970clfnq3JBSBGuDkquxp5qE8g0ff3xNriYPdewbmPNfbfYlIgyv73NRtrkUr4SmLuMjZEkIywBT_6tyPy2l5bB8W5APjriseHJy11/s1374/vladimir-lenin-ayn-rand-victoria-nuland.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="622" data-original-width="1374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnH-BxCe9mfznAx_iGvyo0hVr8vguKQJygRt9mO39V7XF5B0JUGfrzPbVfWlL2vU1fvN_QfEShPQW6GvFhH3970clfnq3JBSBGuDkquxp5qE8g0ff3xNriYPdewbmPNfbfYlIgyv73NRtrkUr4SmLuMjZEkIywBT_6tyPy2l5bB8W5APjriseHJy11/s600/vladimir-lenin-ayn-rand-victoria-nuland.png"/>
<br/>
<i>Vladimir Lenin, Ayn Rand and Victoria Nuland - Russia paid for what was done to their families</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://youtu.be/TzR---YDDIQ" target="_blank">A videoclip I recently saw</a> provided some fascinating insights into the possible motivations of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland" target="_blank">Victoria Nuland</a>, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Biden government, who was formerly Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs when Obama was in power. It's almost two hours long, but worth listening to.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Victoria Nuland, of course, is known for her role in the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and was recently in the news for <a href="https://youtu.be/ydSf57SRtcQ" target="_blank">her embarrassing gaffe over American-funded bioresearch labs in Ukraine</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The video by Gonzalo Lira was revealing, because I didn't realise that Victoria Nuland has ethnic Russian origins. Why would she be working so hard against her native country then? Put simply, it's revenge, and I'll elaborate on this further on. But importantly, the video got me thinking about three different people from three consecutive generations of Russians who were motivated by revenge against the government or even the common people of Russia, because of what had been done to their families at the beginning of the twentieth century.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Lenin, or Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's well-known to all who have read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin" target="_blank">Lenin</a>'s biography that his older brother Alexander, whom he adored, was executed by the government of Romanov Tsar Nicholas II for his role in a royal assassination plot.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ7LoO-JVCHxWfSmDwwf_3-Xo0iUJgrCX5GgXnem5B-6PqCLsiJ3EWA6KnqSPJT_Z_PSFKgLZ-jNllGAVxVmkbDjXp85A7VlSTuur1y-acvqvQONwlXz5TVb1HlkKRsqmSrgxnWJdIom8LXGqFjiQBf7tC286uEfdacNcl76bEC92gl91UkqqAx7yb/s1860/lenin-family.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="1665" data-original-width="1860" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ7LoO-JVCHxWfSmDwwf_3-Xo0iUJgrCX5GgXnem5B-6PqCLsiJ3EWA6KnqSPJT_Z_PSFKgLZ-jNllGAVxVmkbDjXp85A7VlSTuur1y-acvqvQONwlXz5TVb1HlkKRsqmSrgxnWJdIom8LXGqFjiQBf7tC286uEfdacNcl76bEC92gl91UkqqAx7yb/s600/lenin-family.jpg"/>
<br/>
<i>Portrait of the Ulyanov family in happier times. Alexander is standing in the middle, with his arm on his father's shoulder. Vladimir is seated at bottom right.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Vladimir Ulyanov was already into the revolutionary movement in 1887 when his brother was executed, and that event is said to have greatly increased his fervour and determination to see the Tsar overthrown. Thirty years later in 1917, he finally succeeded. A few months after Lenin's Bolsheviks won power, the entire Romanov family was assassinated in the basement of the house where they were being held.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKj-sYw8Wtyu0TwZCpN0K3KvcUiSt-BDRyPitfZh9eJd3aQ6jIJFDfTodJUdcMLIWSSFDji1A4btm-9DNfaXI-NWiNhkLdfRkeT2yU4YPhOctYdhL4IFtzkFv8dIlx67AU0aNgdtYgzTg4RZIvDjjoqB3DXkJ7ANC_Nf_WLZLoWBaNIE_XdBx0-kab/s1600/tsar-nicholas-family.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="863" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKj-sYw8Wtyu0TwZCpN0K3KvcUiSt-BDRyPitfZh9eJd3aQ6jIJFDfTodJUdcMLIWSSFDji1A4btm-9DNfaXI-NWiNhkLdfRkeT2yU4YPhOctYdhL4IFtzkFv8dIlx67AU0aNgdtYgzTg4RZIvDjjoqB3DXkJ7ANC_Nf_WLZLoWBaNIE_XdBx0-kab/s1600/tsar-nicholas-family.jpg"/>
<br/>
<i>The Romanov family paid in blood for the grief it had caused to the Ulyanov family.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Ayn Rand, or Alisa Rosenbaum</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand" target="_blank">Ayn Rand</a>, the high priestess of Capitalism, was born in 1905 to a Russian Jewish family in St Petersburg. Her father was a pharmacist with his own shop. In 1917, when the Bolsheviks took power, they confiscated his business. She stayed on in the Soviet Union until she completed university in 1924, then shortly left on a visit visa to the United States, never to return.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
We know how her early experiences with Communism shaped her attitudes towards the ideology.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_R55GBlzHCko_jamA0s6kS4NJXUMBJlD6qi2gxrWlXGNHFCkdvsWDT7OPOJYoSqWDCBSQ0ip6mcEQH2Kii2JPGCuiiTEF20Cvm0LPZMAG7phhOyqnpxtvlS2tRw7mpJ_jdYWKlxo_63s-Kg_1t0TBCrQOOMx8ZkGjtwvnkm75T_STyBB0gYuOeNJ8/s572/ayn-rand-socialism.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="572" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_R55GBlzHCko_jamA0s6kS4NJXUMBJlD6qi2gxrWlXGNHFCkdvsWDT7OPOJYoSqWDCBSQ0ip6mcEQH2Kii2JPGCuiiTEF20Cvm0LPZMAG7phhOyqnpxtvlS2tRw7mpJ_jdYWKlxo_63s-Kg_1t0TBCrQOOMx8ZkGjtwvnkm75T_STyBB0gYuOeNJ8/s600/ayn-rand-socialism.jpg"/>
<br/>
<i>An implacable foe of the ideology that wronged her father, she influenced millions to adopt her philosophy.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_VEWtg9D0zy5LVYmrS5WyE7nzUzaR78xmc8wkuYB9P_11Qzt7munjg3xIeoe44EMUYGA-QMSnXPaFixPNL8Uv4f3RJcGcHPdhVGIKvUHFDu8aca31IohQ-zZ5nEHueK_ba_mv6p__Ib7Z4PQs4mAUGVkejcjK9DvDXiJRUKsV1yrTR9wU-QMRCOaJ/s736/ayn-rand-religion.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="736" data-original-width="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_VEWtg9D0zy5LVYmrS5WyE7nzUzaR78xmc8wkuYB9P_11Qzt7munjg3xIeoe44EMUYGA-QMSnXPaFixPNL8Uv4f3RJcGcHPdhVGIKvUHFDu8aca31IohQ-zZ5nEHueK_ba_mv6p__Ib7Z4PQs4mAUGVkejcjK9DvDXiJRUKsV1yrTR9wU-QMRCOaJ/s600/ayn-rand-religion.png"/>
<br/>
<i>The Randian philosophy has become a virtual religion.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Victoria Nuland</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland" target="_blank">Victoria Nuland</a> is the daughter of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwin_B._Nuland" target="_blank">Sherwin Nuland</a>, who was born Shepsel Ber Nudelman. Sherwin's father was Meyer Nudelman, who lived in Moldova, part of the Russian Empire. In 1907, the infamous anti-Semitic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishinev_pogrom" target="_blank">Kishinev Pogrom</a> occurred, in which several Jewish people were killed. After that, Meyer Nudelman fled to the United States. His son Sherwin and granddaughter Victoria were born in the US.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As Gonzalo Lira's video explains, Meyer Nudelman appears to have had a major influence on both his son and his granddaughter. Victoria Nuland tellingly studied Russian Literature, Political Science and History for her BA degree from Brown University.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In time, she joined the US Diplomatic Service, and her actions in recent years have all been aimed at hurting Russia.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNM7nMx5tkXMQorKVln9BZ3zKxeQOi_Qz74u4NsiSYPeHkpDLhJZ8AhTpUUy_z0K0tIoata5GPCMSxc_k78OjcDn0muQG6FhCXBu9rHKpWqXVwOHMEUiM7iVnAfc-VdjI80S__0gtSxYX0Hx0Bk6G-KgPX8raniw4BF-IPB-M2RNHhuCQkGyHXYxVH/s1280/nuland-freedom-cookies.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="550" data-original-height="806" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNM7nMx5tkXMQorKVln9BZ3zKxeQOi_Qz74u4NsiSYPeHkpDLhJZ8AhTpUUy_z0K0tIoata5GPCMSxc_k78OjcDn0muQG6FhCXBu9rHKpWqXVwOHMEUiM7iVnAfc-VdjI80S__0gtSxYX0Hx0Bk6G-KgPX8raniw4BF-IPB-M2RNHhuCQkGyHXYxVH/s600/nuland-freedom-cookies.jpg"/>
<br/>
<i>Victoria Nuland distributing "Democracy Cookies" in Kiev, Ukraine, during the US-backed coup in 2014</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Revenge and Russia</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Three tales of revenge, one from each generation, show us that Russia continues to reap the fruits of what it sowed in the early twentieth century.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It appears that revenge is a dish that can be served hot, lukewarm or cold.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-26514678741722041982022-03-29T06:36:00.007-07:002022-06-18T06:30:22.704-07:00Does India Have Agency When Dealing With China? Some Examples From Indian History<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeDp3AxfVEMxeB3OTVLH19R4EW_uI8X9mEGt-0eb3uHFBA2kqK159CSZZPzhsn5o3KuS4LGmwbfYtFqNmYDZlVqrMKdeHdAK1fleQK695OZOUtD4A65In_fjg9qLggu87L4SZoWTHRgr2AES5DAj9nHdskIjgbSPKk0DBeqGsBUv60PHOqLUWnBWsZ/s1000/article-image.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="958" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeDp3AxfVEMxeB3OTVLH19R4EW_uI8X9mEGt-0eb3uHFBA2kqK159CSZZPzhsn5o3KuS4LGmwbfYtFqNmYDZlVqrMKdeHdAK1fleQK695OZOUtD4A65In_fjg9qLggu87L4SZoWTHRgr2AES5DAj9nHdskIjgbSPKk0DBeqGsBUv60PHOqLUWnBWsZ/s600/article-image.png" width="600" />
<br /><i>Chanakya or Kautilya, India’s answer to Sun Tzu; Rajput kings Rana Pratap Singh and Raja Man Singh; Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi and Maharajah Sayyaji Rao Gaekwad III of Baroda.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
When debating with Indian friends over the right approach that India should take towards China, I first try to find common ground by asking a simple but crucial question:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Does India have independent agency when it comes to dealing with China?</i></b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, can India make its own choices that can have significantly different outcomes, or is it just a helpless player forced along a certain path by forces of history, powerless to choose how to view and approach other countries?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
You, the reader, should probably ponder this question and answer it for yourself before reading further. But before I talk about the answers I have heard in response to this question, I would like to reach back into Indian history to discuss some interesting tidbits.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Friends and enemies of the kingdom</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Around 300 BCE, there lived an Indian scholar and thinker called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanakya" target="_blank">Chanakya</a> or Kautilya, who was an advisor to two emperors of the Maurya dynasty. His well-known treatise on statecraft called <a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arthashastra/Book_VI" target="_blank">Arthashastra</a> (literally “Economics”) contains sage advice to rulers on how to recognise and deal with adversaries. In this respect, the treatise can be considered India’s answer to Sun Tzu’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War" target="_blank">The Art of War</a> and Machiavelli’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince" target="_blank">The Prince</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Kautilya had a rather cynical view of a kingdom’s friends and enemies. As he saw it, any kingdom that shared a border with one’s own was a natural enemy and hence a threat. The only allies of a kingdom were to be found on a neighbouring kingdom’s other borders, or in other words, “an enemy’s enemy is a friend”.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If one applies Kautilya’s reasoning to present-day India, Pakistan is a natural enemy for the simple reason that it shares a border with India. India’s allies are then to be found on Pakistan’s other borders, such as Afghanistan and Iran.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In similar fashion, China is India’s natural enemy on account of the two countries sharing a border. India’s allies are to be found on the “other” side of China, such as Japan, the US and Australia. If Kautilya were around today, he would probably have approved of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue" target="_blank">The Quad</a>. That grouping reflects classic Kautilyan thinking.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Subjects of the kingdom</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Fast-forwarding to the mid-16th century CE, we find the Mughal empire of Emperor Akbar dominating the Indian landscape. Adjoining his colossal empire were two small kingdoms. One was Mewar, ruled by the Rajput king <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharana_Pratap" target="_blank">Rana Pratap Singh</a>. The other was Amer (or Amber), ruled by another Rajput king, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Singh_I" target="_blank">Raja Man Singh</a>. Akbar approached both kings seeking their cooperation in his federalist vision. His vassals would support the Mughal empire, which in turn, would protect them from their enemies.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The two Rajputs made opposite choices.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Rana Pratap’s pride would not allow him to become a Mughal vassal. He chose to fight Akbar’s empire.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Raja Man Singh allied with Akbar, even giving his sister in marriage to the emperor. He became one of Akbar’s trusted commanding generals in many campaigns, including one against Rana Pratap.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Indian history textbooks glorify Rana Pratap as a brave patriot who fought an invader. Raja Man Singh is barely mentioned.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
What is interesting to consider is the fate of the subjects who lived in these two kingdoms.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The subjects of Mewar suffered the expected tribulations of a long war, as their king was first defeated and later fought his way back to some of his lost territories in a series of guerilla campaigns.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The subjects of Amer lived in relative peace and prosperity. Amer fort is just outside the modern city of Jaipur, and I had the opportunity to visit it. An interesting architectural feature of the fort is the Ganesh Pol, a huge archway built in the (Muslim) Mughal style, but with a picture of the Hindu god Ganesha at its crest. It indicates that Raja Man Singh was not forced to convert to Islam, but that he and his subjects continued to practise their religion even though they were a vassal state to a Muslim empire.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg05NWNTuM1qBJyBnqHWZvVwXXjvASMC3I09WY_-kN2i4-vdACetp5gVS6j5SkqCZL1SUR7Vbye79xxwdxGddoo1cko7M5aDGKfj35ZJfYVjkzacx0GnNiP-io0sbg5wYYLiW6Ko5rUPrkGi49Anh0Cryn4gPOLRsvha6lVqbRArpXIttRL8WawK3BK/s1024/ganesh-pol-amer-fort.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="768" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg05NWNTuM1qBJyBnqHWZvVwXXjvASMC3I09WY_-kN2i4-vdACetp5gVS6j5SkqCZL1SUR7Vbye79xxwdxGddoo1cko7M5aDGKfj35ZJfYVjkzacx0GnNiP-io0sbg5wYYLiW6Ko5rUPrkGi49Anh0Cryn4gPOLRsvha6lVqbRArpXIttRL8WawK3BK/s600/ganesh-pol-amer-fort.jpg" />
<br />
<i>Ganesh Pol at Amer fort — a unique example of Hindu theology coexisting with Mughal (Muslim) architecture</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Fast-forward again to the 19th century, when the British were extending their rule over India. The kingdoms of Jhansi and Baroda provide a similar contrast in terms of the choices they made in dealing with the British empire.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Jhansi’s queen, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi" target="_blank">Rani Lakshmibai</a>, is the heroine of Indian history textbooks. She died fighting the British when they attempted to annex her kingdom.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Baroda’s king <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayajirao_Gaekwad_III" target="_blank">Sayyaji Rao Gaekwad III</a> did not openly defy the British. He agreed to be a vassal king (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayajirao_Gaekwad_III#Delhi_Durbar_1911" target="_blank">although he had his own passive-aggressive ways of thumbing his nose at his British overlords</a>). Indian history textbooks rarely mention him.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
One can imagine what the subjects of Jhansi went through as a result of their queen’s choice. When Jhansi finally fell, the British spared no one, not even women and children. A British army doctor, Thomas Lowe, wrote, “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi#Siege_of_Jhansi" target="_blank">No maudlin clemency was to mark the fall of the city.</a>”
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Baroda’s citizens, in contrast, enjoyed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayajirao_Gaekwad_III#Public_works" target="_blank">the modernisation ushered in by their king</a> under the peace he had negotiated with his British suzerein. In many ways, Baroda enjoyed a far more advanced society and lifestyle than the rest of British India.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
History celebrates plucky and defiant rulers as heroes, and contemptuously ignores those who reach an accommodation with a superior power. Yet the lot of the common citizens of those rulers may have been quite the opposite of what the headlines of history mislead us into believing. (The plight of Ukrainians today under their indomitable leader President Zelensky is a topical example of this. Would ordinary Ukrainians have been better off if Zelensky had reached some sort of understanding with Russia instead of choosing confrontation?)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Agency, or the lack of it</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Returning to the subject of agency, Kautilya’s model of statecraft admits of no choice at all on the part of a nation in deciding its enemies and allies. Geographical and political boundaries are held to determine these, and the rulers of a nation are mere receivers of a situation that is laid out for them.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If Indians accept the Kautilyan model of statecraft, <b><i>then they implicitly acknowledge that India has no agency in determining who its enemies and allies are</i></b>! In that case, continuing down the path of using the Quad to defend against China is an unavoidable strategy, no matter the consequences.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This argument is an uncomfortable one for many Indians, who like to have their cake and eat it too. They are proud of Kautilya for having given them a homegrown treatise on geopolitics and statecraft, but also insist that their country has independent agency!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
OK, so let’s explore that angle as well. If India does have independent agency, then it has to choose how to deal with a much more powerful neighbour that expects deferential allyship. In many ways, India can see China as similar to Akbar’s Empire in terms of the deal it offers its neighbours — prosperity and internal autonomy in exchange for alignment and non-defiance. Should India defy this power, or seek an accommodation with it? In other words, should the Indian government act like Rana Pratap or Raja Man Singh? Like Rani Lakshmibai or Maharajah Sayyaji Rao Gaekwad? Accommodation does not have to mean surrender or appeasement, but the ability to negotiate a deal that wins autonomy for oneself while offering a non-threatening and cooperative relationship to the other.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As a democracy, it would be good for India’s government to make such a decision based on the likely outcome for India’s people. Defiance, as we have seen, often leads to hardship for common people. Accommodation, on the other hand, can result in peace and prosperity.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In sum, these would seem to be India’s choices today as it deals with an ever more powerful and assertive China — (1) accept the Kautilyan view that antagonism with a neighbour is inevitable (no agency), (2) exercise agency and choose defiance, or (3) exercise agency and choose accommodation.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As an ordinary citizen, which of these approaches would you like your government to take?
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-75735808702605917452022-03-23T08:19:00.005-07:002022-03-24T10:00:46.953-07:00Australia's Overdue "Re-Orientation"<p style="text-align: justify;">
"Ultra Asia" (Beyond Asia) is an apt anagram for Australia.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Geography pointedly and unsentimentally places Australia right at the southeastern corner of Asia, yet the country's cultural heart wanders wistfully in the mid-Atlantic, somewhere between the US and the UK. If it were possible for countries to move house, tectonic plates and all, that's the white picket-fenced neighbourhood Australia would choose to reside in. Alas, the tyranny of geography has no room for pity.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg27k_J0kV6T8PbQSpRDAqadIeCljDms7RICUTIMSx5F8HYibVR1cnofevS12uYLg0yA0lY50Pkzuiy08tAEE17C8fgSBrVij6gpd8WfPIDFhcHKe6Ewi1fTe8aM8vabMCbmvD75btgM2mZ3CpctMCEHcY_IpZhDsKjtVJzwm2YazmY6oNMVRWkTtdH/s1319/australia-reorientation.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="743" data-original-width="1319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg27k_J0kV6T8PbQSpRDAqadIeCljDms7RICUTIMSx5F8HYibVR1cnofevS12uYLg0yA0lY50Pkzuiy08tAEE17C8fgSBrVij6gpd8WfPIDFhcHKe6Ewi1fTe8aM8vabMCbmvD75btgM2mZ3CpctMCEHcY_IpZhDsKjtVJzwm2YazmY6oNMVRWkTtdH/s600/australia-reorientation.png"/>
</a>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Australia is in serious need of "re-orientation" (pun fully intended). Map courtesy "<a href="https://thetruesize.com/" target="_blank">thetruesize.com</a>" </i>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Now these are the most interesting times in over three centuries. The world order is being overturned before our living eyes. The future is Asian, and Australia's corner of the world has never seen this asserted so forcefully.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Former prime minister <a href="http://www.paulkeating.net.au/shop/item/australia-and-asia-knowing-who-we-are---7-april-1992" target="_blank">Paul Keating lectured for years</a> to deaf ears that Australia needed to accept it was an Asian country, and that it needed to start behaving like one. His countrymen never bothered. And now, the future is here. Australia has been wrenchingly yanked back to Asia, away from the <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Seppo" target="_blank">seppos</a> and the <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pom" target="_blank">poms</a>, and forced once more to mingle, however uneasily, with Asian hordes of all hues.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Australian foreign policy over the past century has been quite simple-minded - to fight other countries' wars instead of looking towards the interests of its own citizens. First it fought in Britain's wars, then in America's.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Gallipoli campaign during the First World War is a breathtaking example. Australian troops were sent to fight a European war. It wasn't even the understandable assignment of defending Britain against an attack by its enemies. It was an offensive campaign against Turkey, a country Australia had had no quarrel with. Over 8000 Australian soldiers gave their lives for a British war. To this day, the event is remembered in Australia as ANZAC Day, with the accompanying slogan, "Lest We Forget". Pity that Australians do forget to ask why they had to fight an offensive war against a country that had no quarrel with them, and shed their blood for another one that they just happened to identify with.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Zqmj4UUGV5p-kxsg4PiG7EZwJhHm2Ujmu_5Cuoowqx6RK4A7uJstNj0roJx_BYtW6v0SZ6w5GT35joSfVzTbQrkS-hTq4V67ylnETTbJ1He8HViXJQxcqA1Y6a98sPdKTXfAn29sEED0ceFFtqC9Jud_J-lI_sy3C1n8grD0NDgHHQ5Qsisiy6r6/s987/anzac-day.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="892" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Zqmj4UUGV5p-kxsg4PiG7EZwJhHm2Ujmu_5Cuoowqx6RK4A7uJstNj0roJx_BYtW6v0SZ6w5GT35joSfVzTbQrkS-hTq4V67ylnETTbJ1He8HViXJQxcqA1Y6a98sPdKTXfAn29sEED0ceFFtqC9Jud_J-lI_sy3C1n8grD0NDgHHQ5Qsisiy6r6/s600/anzac-day.jpg"/>
<br/><i>Lest we forget to ask why</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Second World War was a bit different, with Australian troops initially fighting at several overseas theatres in the service of the British Empire, and allying with the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. The only dramatic rift came in 1942, when Australian PM John Curtin defied Winston Churchill and brought Australian troops back to defend the home country instead of deploying them to Burma, as Churchill had wanted.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl3yLpJeAQiV5tzgheCHp3d7w56WMBo8xe-OgfOAd1iiksvmJ2Lrzd7HzCAeliI6XOuRYDUJqGdWw3t_FsWNJ5xydhOusEUgvYKlPBJz9CSoaX2zE2_tbBUUdf4maDI1aPGDqqeF-wwN8GCjfZbKVUkJXtdj1Nt8U79YsBPpbJj_t5zTid8nn9pQnc/s1200/together-poster.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="805" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl3yLpJeAQiV5tzgheCHp3d7w56WMBo8xe-OgfOAd1iiksvmJ2Lrzd7HzCAeliI6XOuRYDUJqGdWw3t_FsWNJ5xydhOusEUgvYKlPBJz9CSoaX2zE2_tbBUUdf4maDI1aPGDqqeF-wwN8GCjfZbKVUkJXtdj1Nt8U79YsBPpbJj_t5zTid8nn9pQnc/s600/together-poster.jpg"/>
<br/><i>Soldiers of the British Commonwealth, sorted by colour</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
By the end of the Second World War, Australia had switched its loyalties across to the United States, faithfully sending troops first to Vietnam and then to Iraq, both ill-advised misadventures that could have been avoided. Canada proved a savvier country in that respect.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
All of these go to show that Australia's heart has belonged in the Anglosphere, and if anyone thought the years since Iraq may have brought about a change in attitudes Down Under, these latest examples should disabuse them of that notion.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Needlessly <a href="https://twitter.com/ErykBagshaw/status/1328983898911457280" target="_blank">antagonising China to please the US</a>, predictably inviting Chinese sanctions. (What did the US do to bail out Australia? <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-11-30/us-allies-benefit-from-china-trade-row-with-australia/100659480" target="_blank">It threw Australia under the bus and sold the same goods to China!</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/29/australia-tore-up-french-submarine-contract-for-convenience-naval-group-says" target="_blank">Cancelling a multi-billion dollar submarine deal with France</a> in favour of getting US nuclear subs - <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/aus-strategically-naked-under-submarine-deal/100469254" target="_blank">20 years in the future</a>! The Anglosphere doesn't even care about other Western nations.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
For a country situated in Asia's neighbourhood, Australia has shown a contemptuous refusal to belong.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Australia's attitude to Asia thus far has been quite unsubtle:
</p>
<ul>
<li>We're white</li>
<li>We're Western</li>
<li>We're superior</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But now, Australia is starting to hear Asia's message:
</p>
<ul>
<li>You're in our backyard</li>
<li>You're alone, and the odd one out</li>
<li>There are far bigger players here than you</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It will be interesting to watch the tenor of public discourse in Australia as the new reality begins to sink in.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
History holds some pointers. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/dec/09/britishidentity.india" target="_blank">The first Englishmen in India who came to trade were quick to learn Indian languages, adopt Indian modes of attire, and some even took Indian wives</a>. But as Western power grew, cultural adaptability gave way to hauteur, and the received wisdom of Western superiority over the East took root. As history begins to right itself, my guess is that hauteur will once again yield to gracious accommodation.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
From my experience living in this country for the past quarter century, my bet is that after a round of characteristic cursing, Australians will take to being Asians with gusto.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-13532438321671595462022-03-13T12:56:00.018-07:002022-09-19T00:02:19.270-07:00A Creative Solution To The India-China Border Row<p style="text-align: justify;">
I've read a great deal about the roots of the India-China border conflict - quite a few online articles, and three books in particular.
</p>
<ol>
<li>India After Gandhi, by Ramachandra Guha</li>
<li>India versus China (Why They Are Not Friends), by Kanti Bajpai</li>
<li>Powershift, by Zorawar Daulet Singh</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Another important book is "India's China War" by Neville Maxwell, which is based on the yet-unreleased Henderson-Brooks Report (HBR). I have read excerpts of this book.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In a nutshell, the situation is complex, nuanced and characterised by misunderstandings and missteps by both sides. There are tensions between principles and interests, and between realpolitik and the pressures of democracy (on the Indian side). We will see the interplay between these aspects as we analyse the issue.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The root of the conflict</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The root of the conflict is Tibet.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
China's 1949 takeover of Tibet, which was hitherto a buffer state between India and China, suddenly created a border between the latter two countries. This is the border that then had to be negotiated.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The fundamental issue of principle is whether China had a right to annex Tibet in the first place. We can debate this endlessly based on history, and also based on whataboutism regarding India's 1973 annexation of Sikkim, another Himalayan kingdom. However, the real opposing point to principle here is realpolitik. Nobody today seriously disputes China's claim to Tibet. It is a part of the "One China" concept that all countries, including the US and India, have accepted.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Do we continue debating the annexation of Tibet by China on principle, or do we adopt an attitude of realpolitik and move on? (I would say move on.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Ownership of Aksai Chin</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Aksai Chin is a desolate and barren area of the Himalayas, cold, arid and unsuitable for agriculture, uninhabitable, and not known for any significant mineral resources. With the annexation of Tibet, however, Aksai Chin gained enormous strategic importance for China, because it provided the only access route into Tibet from China, specifically from China's Xinjiang province.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Since this was an area that was uninhabited and not actively patrolled by India, India remained unaware that China had started construction of a road in 1950 called the Karakoram Highway. China did it quietly and without fanfare. India only came to know about it in 1957, when a Chinese publication mentioned it publicly for the first time. Then all hell broke loose in India.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Given that Aksai Chin was a remote and inaccessible area, Jawaharlal Nehru was initially inclined to let Aksai Chin go, even arguing at one stage that "not a blade of grass grows there". However, he changed his mind when one of his advisors showed him documents establishing India's strong claim to the region.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
From India's perspective, Aksai Chin was indisputably Indian territory, and there was no negotiation possible. It was an issue of principle. From China's perspective, it was a question of interests. The Karakoram Highway (and therefore Aksai Chin through which it passed) were of vital strategic importance, because there was no other way to access Tibet from China. Although China today has built other access routes into Tibet (including high-speed rail links) and thereby reduced its strategic dependence on the Karakoram highway, Aksai Chin was something China could not afford to give up back in those days. By analogy, the narrow Siliguri Corridor that connects India's northeastern states to the rest of India is a strategically important piece of territory. Even if another country (say Bangladesh) were to produce strong documentary evidence proving their claim to the Siliguri Corridor, India simply couldn't afford to give it up. That was China's situation in the 1950s and 1960s. India had the legal claim to Aksai Chin, but China could simply not afford to give it up.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Pedants would point out that the strategic importance of Aksai Chin to China was only because of the annexation of Tibet, which was itself questionable. However, if we accept the international consensus today that Tibet belongs to China, then it follows that China could not afford to give up Aksai Chin for reasons of national interest. Hence the tension between principle and national interest.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Negotiating positions</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
When China negotiated with India on Aksai Chin, India's position was unyielding for two reasons.
</p>
<ol>
<li>Nehru was recently convinced of India's legal claim to Aksai Chin, and therefore was indignant that China just moved into the area without even asking for permission or notifying India;</li>
<li>Even if Nehru had been willing to yield Aksai Chin to China after understanding China's crucial interest in it, the issue had by then become public knowledge in India. India's opposition parties, the press and public opinion together ensured that the Indian government could not yield on Aksai Chin.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
We can see the tension between principle and national interest, and also between realpolitik and public pressure.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Bargaining chips</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
China realised that India was not going to budge on its claim to Aksai Chin, yet was unable to give up a vitally important piece of territory in view of its need to access Tibet.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I wonder if China could have offered to <i>buy</i> the territory from India. It might have been a fair way to settle the issue. Yet what China did in practice was introduce a new bargaining chip.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
China did not have a strategic interest in territory to the east, but saw the opportunity to make a claim there to balance India's claim to Aksai Chin. China laid claim to the North East Frontier Area (NEFA), called Arunachal Pradesh today, on the grounds that it formed a contiguous part of Tibet. There was a plausible basis for the claim because the Tawang region of Arunachal Pradesh does in fact host monasteries that are an extension of a line of such monasteries in Tibet. China offered to relinquish its claim to NEFA if India would cede Aksai Chin.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibpbND2qYt4lm6FZCVWSHaJWClkQDIsXAqs4VJBNSyzGhJWCZ_f5cpcA_TsIaA2vHvASxf1lFwkKXTpUE_STNYQpDiNpYCc-sqrEOEDuvWogoVR8H1ZQ9jmLH6dVud93sPg4ZdkLt-Z4Nmwc788AJ2KPw5FB3lPqYKd3xdB9PBckFkRDTj-qNrVWO6=s602" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="602" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibpbND2qYt4lm6FZCVWSHaJWClkQDIsXAqs4VJBNSyzGhJWCZ_f5cpcA_TsIaA2vHvASxf1lFwkKXTpUE_STNYQpDiNpYCc-sqrEOEDuvWogoVR8H1ZQ9jmLH6dVud93sPg4ZdkLt-Z4Nmwc788AJ2KPw5FB3lPqYKd3xdB9PBckFkRDTj-qNrVWO6=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The Indian government was understandably indignant about the new Chinese claim. It was clear that China, being unable to prove a superior legal claim to Aksai Chin, and faced with an India that was unwilling (or unable thanks to public pressure) to cede territory that was vitally important to China, was now staking a new claim just as a bargaining chip. Once again, we can see a tension between various elements. There's a matter of principle involved, because there is a justification for at least the Tawang area of Arunachal Pradesh to be reunited with the rest of Tibet, since the two are culturally contiguous. But then principle would also exhume the question of China's claim to Tibet itself. A third matter of principle is that one cannot accept a swap based on a new claim that was made with the transparent goal of balancing a valid claim by the other side. The opposing element of realpolitik says a swap between Aksai Chin (which India has a stronger claim to but China has a greater need for) and Arunachal/Tawang (which China/Tibet has a greater claim to but not a great need for) is a reasonable way forward. But then the indignation of the Indian government over this deliberately created bargaining chip, compounded by public pressure, meant that the swap could not be agreed to. As Nehru commented at the time, "If I agree to this deal, I will cease to be prime minister tomorrow".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The effect of time</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
China has been offering the "swap deal" (Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh) on multiple occasions to several Indian governments, and has been rebuffed each time.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But over the years, as the power gap between India and China has widened in China's favour, realpolitik has begun to make India see that the swap deal was in fact a good idea to settle the border dispute for good, because India cannot afford to have an increasingly powerful adversary on its borders.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately for India, it appears that that boat has sailed. In view of the growing power differential, the border tussle has now become one-sided in that China holds the initiative. China can keep India off-balance on the border, and India is forced into a reactive stance. The border dispute has now become a source of leverage for China over India. Every time India does something to displease China, China just has to "yank the chain" on the border to convey its displeasure. In this situation, settling the border dispute means China gives up that leverage. From China's perspective, why should it?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The new bargain</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
China now sees a settlement of the border dispute as a gift that it is giving India, because it means irreversibly relinquishing a source of leverage. Once the border is settled, China cannot make fresh territorial claims on India, which is a matter of great relief to India. However, there is no corresponding constraint on India's side. India can continue to engage in behaviour that displeases or threatens China, such as allying with China's enemies. Hence China needs something irreversible from India in exchange.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The basis for a bargain has therefore now altered. The swap is no longer the old one (Aksai Chin in exchange for Arunachal). The new swap is at a higher level (the border settlement itself in exchange for something irreversible from India).
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The opportunity</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The crisis in Ukraine has brought matters to a head. The rift between the West and Russia has become serious. China knows that its greatest threat is from the US-led West, and therefore it needs to align with Russia, but it lacks the leverage to do so openly, both because such open alignment violates its own stated policies, and because it is not immune to Western sanctions and related economic pressure.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
India is in a similar bind. There are issues of national interest in supporting Russia. Yet there are dangers in doing so openly. And there is the further issue that India sees China as an adversary and the West as a necessary ally against China. The Russia-India-China triangle is complicated, with unresolved tensions. All three countries have an interest in seeing this tension resolved.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>A possible solution</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>If India takes the initiative,</i> it will need to accept the swap deal to settle the border dispute with China, and offer something irreversible in exchange. That something irreversible could be a package:
</p>
<ol>
<li>A similar settlement of the India-Pakistan border dispute, formalising the Line of Control (LOC) as the international border, making Pakistan-administered Kashmir no longer disputed territory, and hence removing India's opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which passes through Pakistan-administered Kashmir;</li>
<li>An agreement to withdraw from the Quad and other anti-China groupings;</li>
<li>An offer to link India's transport and port network to China's BRI to provide China better access to the Indian Ocean.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>If China takes the initiative,</i> it can make India an offer that it cannot refuse. The official Indian negotiating position is still that China needs to return Aksai Chin as well as relinquish its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. Realpolitik recognises that this is unlikely to happen, and a swap deal (Aksai Chin for Arunachal) is the best that India can hope for.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
However, there is an opportunity here, because what the two countries need from Aksai Chin are different! India wants recognition of title. China wants operational control (perhaps less critically today than in the 1950s and 1960s). So a package from China could look like this:
</p>
<ol>
<li>China recognises Aksai Chin as part of India, <i>on the condition that India leases it back to China for (say) 99 years</i>. Indian public opinion can be assuaged by the fact that Aksai Chin has been returned (in terms of legal title), yet China retains operational control of the territory, which changes nothing on the ground. The financial terms of the lease may be pocket change for China.</li>
<li>China relinquishes its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. The Tawang region is possibly negotiable. India may not mind ceding the part of Arunachal Pradesh that is logically part of Tibet if it gets back its title to Aksai Chin as well as the rest of Arunachal.</li>
<li>India strongly aligns with Russia and China in terms of setting up an alternative to the US-controlled, dollarised global financial system.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Time is of the essence, because the global situation is changing from day to day. A quick resolution of issues between India and China can bring about an alignment of the most powerful non-Western countries, and a corresponding geopolitical balance.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[Check out my earlier posts on this topic:<br/>
1. <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2021/04/quad-switch-how-india-could-permanently.html" target="_blank">"Quad Switch - How India Could Permanently Alter The Balance Of World Power (While Also Ensuring Its Own Best Interests)"</a><br/>
2. <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-indians-should-learn-to-think-about.html" target="_blank">"How Indians Should Learn To Think About China"</a>]
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-85402168795575008602022-03-08T15:38:00.013-08:002023-11-09T17:56:16.673-08:00Reactions To My Essay "Indians Don't Understand History"<p style="text-align: justify;">
It has been almost 2 months since I put up my essay "Indians Don't Understand History" <a href="https://bit.ly/3K7EXGY" target="_blank">on Medium</a>, with an accompanying <a href="https://bit.ly/3mDJNkK" target="_blank">PDF version</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
These are some of the reactions I've received. I've blurred out surnames for privacy.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEij1gWR-Ep89kz3dtBn6PAGXtzUdX9myYmcQV88xI4R-gp0rehaszx3gybisBLSbBHuraxBjghOP7nOJpEqnJt6NaKwfZIqTNN05vUdbE5LQLIgszD6wy_hTzgpfsPFckNkq_SE_fYRhMntcctkwqxA9xXhs9o5J7waC4eowoxCqQOLDFA8dEMJg_tT=s2000" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="2000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEij1gWR-Ep89kz3dtBn6PAGXtzUdX9myYmcQV88xI4R-gp0rehaszx3gybisBLSbBHuraxBjghOP7nOJpEqnJt6NaKwfZIqTNN05vUdbE5LQLIgszD6wy_hTzgpfsPFckNkq_SE_fYRhMntcctkwqxA9xXhs9o5J7waC4eowoxCqQOLDFA8dEMJg_tT=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. From Indians</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
There were a number of positive reactions. Some of the commenters expressed the wish that more Indians could read it.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhg_UpIDuGiiUeTNWQY-Ctmo8P7nfPvJ-tWJ2ONwRGMLYAp486ocR7hSxjUQnBDgUCxNGWarCt7b2lqtsOt6rBHKOoS80hhixVJqEeYKndT16GHmA70xuYTw2t0BW-coCfbc2PH6fK4obRzAWKcFUorj6Z11MN6YkxQNnasGdAZgyue3osIEThe2Ic1=s1580" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1580" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhg_UpIDuGiiUeTNWQY-Ctmo8P7nfPvJ-tWJ2ONwRGMLYAp486ocR7hSxjUQnBDgUCxNGWarCt7b2lqtsOt6rBHKOoS80hhixVJqEeYKndT16GHmA70xuYTw2t0BW-coCfbc2PH6fK4obRzAWKcFUorj6Z11MN6YkxQNnasGdAZgyue3osIEThe2Ic1=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But of course there were negative reactions too, all along expected lines. The main points of contention were:
</p>
<ol>
<li>The Aryan Invasion Theory and the genetic evidence for it</li>
<li>The view about Muslim rulers</li>
<li>The view about China</li>
</ol>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEighElXhWWteVm0yBFKdVOwFls58wtCcmkhi4hWHSKFjc1ZDCH4ROs1dM9jjQofdwLIwQtCQWX0hbaYWHIW-u6vkQVIvf66bHAnkreZGBIBK-osfUwBbWRcEx4o9nPpgq4xD0X8e6M71D3XdA-xg_-jT_PND4FXlWVwwFatfsUj2sMK25zNy3rWwh75=s1330" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="882" data-original-width="1330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEighElXhWWteVm0yBFKdVOwFls58wtCcmkhi4hWHSKFjc1ZDCH4ROs1dM9jjQofdwLIwQtCQWX0hbaYWHIW-u6vkQVIvf66bHAnkreZGBIBK-osfUwBbWRcEx4o9nPpgq4xD0X8e6M71D3XdA-xg_-jT_PND4FXlWVwwFatfsUj2sMK25zNy3rWwh75=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not surprised at the mixed reaction, and I'm not disheartened at the negative views either. I view the essay as a conversation-starter. I find that Indian thinking on the topic of China has fallen into a predictable rut, with a depressingly uniform (and racist) view that the Chinese are an inherently untrustworthy and treacherous people. The popular and incorrect narrative after the military debacle of 1962 is responsible for this. If this essay challenges such thinking and spurs some debate, it would be a positive development. I'm not seriously expecting Indian foreign policy to change as a result of my essay.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. From Chinese people</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
My wife sent the essay to a Chinese friend (Christina), and her response is below.
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Another Chinese person on Twitter took the trouble to translate it into Chinese and post it on Weibo, and I then created an account on Weibo to follow up.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In contrast to the Indian reactions, which were a mixed bag, the Chinese reactions were almost uniformly positive. They appreciated the sentiment of collaboration and believed India and China should work together.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyTWkBS7EnvCsmFmlEWgSbfA_LKijaJaFBwM6s6lIUb2qkPjWlCxpEePl9mbZ35JhH8xnXvqXthEL7_SaCbpUbzAQElUwLR07r6wFxN4sUxDJqnwfBBgU8TkIFM1S_-FBFiSFJewkoQJoCDvFt1-gEpPE-3pRZcLwI3O14zXS3_6VI1PKAqJ-FLCXc=s1001" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="659" data-original-width="1001" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyTWkBS7EnvCsmFmlEWgSbfA_LKijaJaFBwM6s6lIUb2qkPjWlCxpEePl9mbZ35JhH8xnXvqXthEL7_SaCbpUbzAQElUwLR07r6wFxN4sUxDJqnwfBBgU8TkIFM1S_-FBFiSFJewkoQJoCDvFt1-gEpPE-3pRZcLwI3O14zXS3_6VI1PKAqJ-FLCXc=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
These were general comments on my Weibo page:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgRhAbzOtjmN6B3NY0yEXGQlzxbK0-gk2wlcBIcAiZ8Rp4fe9nROTY5a1hF11z7qnCTbqbAwobkAM2K5pnYVx7Dw84ER-lhWjB-eXJU-K4WCr9r3HYVVEOGDkXxFKlkm6wULEoGRismH9kClZAm7Agosn6ecCLr3wTmvLrLVah-xs3lBbzxhXFof27s=s1314" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1290" data-original-width="1314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgRhAbzOtjmN6B3NY0yEXGQlzxbK0-gk2wlcBIcAiZ8Rp4fe9nROTY5a1hF11z7qnCTbqbAwobkAM2K5pnYVx7Dw84ER-lhWjB-eXJU-K4WCr9r3HYVVEOGDkXxFKlkm6wULEoGRismH9kClZAm7Agosn6ecCLr3wTmvLrLVah-xs3lBbzxhXFof27s=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The only negative opinion was around whether it would be practical given how far gone India seemed to be in terms of Western influence.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgU4Z-V6qSz9N6gjsfXyxPKa-qyK9ObWpzOA2FeF3uxBpT-p6U7mgb913TAsYGCbbBZaXayO_8lCv46zmQzAF3YBYBwfnAAjbr-cwn_02u4buwazZv091YCB3qPxuQzmAaIeo-lWHhQDMCdntyEv-zEyAroChWmKdW9GA2K8DQWBhIrN4-J3Y8h27qa=s642" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="642" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgU4Z-V6qSz9N6gjsfXyxPKa-qyK9ObWpzOA2FeF3uxBpT-p6U7mgb913TAsYGCbbBZaXayO_8lCv46zmQzAF3YBYBwfnAAjbr-cwn_02u4buwazZv091YCB3qPxuQzmAaIeo-lWHhQDMCdntyEv-zEyAroChWmKdW9GA2K8DQWBhIrN4-J3Y8h27qa=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3. From Westerners</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
And finally, as expected, the general response from Western readers (especially Anglo ones) was one of disagreement. There were some positive responses too.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhm8-MfiBXyQVjTJSe6bAY8mJfRtLIUe4RQUO-RtAej8k0r-RlTDufxe9EJnAonaUXbr_q0-FKiMW_GJoyJoMVHHiVaygx1vtVXs_PXEXP5n6K5Q9OEZ7qQ5adD7wSarEfaZYKHSfsNOae83UfgfNogR0oTgkDguhToKuRPj6_3-YJSkbWnonJA6Sga=s600" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="527" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhm8-MfiBXyQVjTJSe6bAY8mJfRtLIUe4RQUO-RtAej8k0r-RlTDufxe9EJnAonaUXbr_q0-FKiMW_GJoyJoMVHHiVaygx1vtVXs_PXEXP5n6K5Q9OEZ7qQ5adD7wSarEfaZYKHSfsNOae83UfgfNogR0oTgkDguhToKuRPj6_3-YJSkbWnonJA6Sga=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But the negative views seemed to predominate. One of my wife's colleagues (Gavin) told her on the phone (so I don't have it in writing) that he read the whole essay in one sitting because he found it full of fascinating information that he didn't know before, but that he disagreed on my conclusion that India should ally with China. His objection was that China was not a democracy.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Other negative views are as below:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhM2BYivKuGbndgolTszJEqcwHfCQtb203fR7CFE76rSozj_f_QmJrtNWrcyHRQuTxzKZPc0mVwBgCT1-wf6GppMXAUJu6Pc34StkLjifjTy6bCsZmBj3DAX8MgkwMJr7l52NRU2OuCLvPYU1twKORbgirZwjvKDWHveyN5740J9RDl6OGDsd-CzjYv=s701" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="701" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhM2BYivKuGbndgolTszJEqcwHfCQtb203fR7CFE76rSozj_f_QmJrtNWrcyHRQuTxzKZPc0mVwBgCT1-wf6GppMXAUJu6Pc34StkLjifjTy6bCsZmBj3DAX8MgkwMJr7l52NRU2OuCLvPYU1twKORbgirZwjvKDWHveyN5740J9RDl6OGDsd-CzjYv=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The question raised by Gavin, Brian and Lionel regarding democracy is important. My response is in two parts.
</p>
<ol>
<li>Alliances between countries are based on a congruence of interests, and have nothing to do with systems of government.</li>
<li>Systems of government are not manichean but range across a spectrum.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I elaborate on these below.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Alliances and systems of government:</b> I grew up in India during the Cold War. One of the strange ways in which the Cold War played out in the Indian subcontinent was how the democratic US backed a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, while the communist USSR stood behind democratic India. And this was not an ephemeral line-up either. The arrangement lasted for over two decades and was remarkably stable. So the takeaway is that systems of government are far less important to alliances than a congruence of interests.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The spectrum of freedom within systems of government:</b> Looking back again to the Cold War, the difference in the degree of freedom enjoyed by citizens of democracies and those of authoritarian states was striking. The Berlin Wall epitomised the complete lack of freedom of the countries behind the Iron Curtain, with guard towers and machine-guns meant to keep citizens from escaping to the West. That black-and-white distinction has been erased in today's world. Not only have the autocracies become less cartoonishly repressive, but the democracies too have unfortunately regressed. Let's take a quick survey.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>China:</i> The Soviet Union rarely allowed its citizens to travel abroad. Stories of Soviet citizens defecting and seeking asylum in Western countries were common. Today, millions of Chinese travel abroad every year, and willingly return home. Chinese also apply for permanent residence in Western countries through regular channels, and it isn't considered defection. Internally, Chinese citizens seem to have a fair amount of freedom to complain and criticise their government. Only some kinds of protest, dissent and discussion are deemed threatening to the stability of the state and clamped down upon. The Chinese political system in the post-Mao era also seems to have worked out mechanisms to be responsive to the needs of their people without being a full-fledged democracy in the Western sense. The end result is that the Chinese government seems to enjoy the trust and approval of the people even without a system of regular elections at the national or provincial levels.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Russia:</i> Technically, Russia is a democracy in the sense that it holds regular elections. However, the levers of power are manipulated to keep one man in power indefinitely. Compared to the days of the Soviet Union, Russian citizens can travel freely abroad and even emigrate to other countries without worrying about guard towers and machine-guns. They are thus freer than they were in the past, especially in a market-capitalistic sense, and yet they do not have a functioning democracy in spite of the appearance of elections.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>India:</i> Regular elections give India the bragging rights to being a democracy. There is an independent judiciary, and no visible controls on the press. However, Indian governments too have worked out mechanisms to ensure obedience to authority, and the Modi government has refined these to a fine art. Institutions that should be independent have been suborned in a variety of ways. Judges who are compliant while in office are rewarded with governorships and ambassadorships after retirement, and this well-understood system of carrots ensures the servility of the theoretically independent judiciary. The press is kept in line by the subtle means of diverting the significant amounts of money in government advertising away from overly independent outlets towards more sycophantic ones. Prominent personalities who are publicly critical of the government find themselves under immediate investigation by the tax authorities, a form of harassment that stops as soon as they toe the line. The historian Ramachandra Guha has referred to India as an "electoral autocracy", where elections are held like clockwork, but freedom itself is subtly constrained.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Western democracies:</i> The dual personality of the Western press has been known for decades. Domestic politics is aggressively covered, challenged and investigated, but foreign policy is rarely questioned. The government and media act in coordination to portray allies and adversaries as good guys and bad guys, regardless of what they actually do. Saudi Arabia and Israel get a free pass for their myriad human rights abuses, and China's commendable progress in poverty alleviation and protecting people from the pandemic are downplayed or reported with a "but at what cost?" slant. In recent times, freedom in absolute terms is increasingly constrained. Under the guise of curbing hate speech and preventing misinformation, a variety of mechanisms have been used to shut down contrary views and silence dissent. The fact that channels of communication are now increasingly under the control of a few electronic media giants makes it far easier to throttle undesirable opinions. Algorithms can subtly channel content to filter out inconvenient voices. The <a href="https://www.glamour.com/story/donald-trump-social-media-bans-twitter-facebook" target="_blank">deplatforming of Donald Trump by social media channels</a> was a dramatic example of censorship. Most recently, after the start of the Ukraine crisis, the demonisation of pro-Russian opinion as state-sponsored disinformation has completely silenced dissenting voices. <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/03/02/eu-imposes-sanctions-on-state-owned-outlets-rt-russia-today-and-sputnik-s-broadcasting-in-the-eu/" target="_blank">Russia Today is banned in the EU</a>, and the many independent voices it hosted are gone with it. A <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/please-leave-stan-grant-ejects-pro-putin-audience-member-from-q-and-a-set-20220303-p5a1kw.html" target="_blank">pro-Russian audience member was thrown out</a> of an Australian TV show. Only the approved political line is allowed to be heard anymore.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
And so, the argument that a democracy like India should not align with autocratic countries like China and Russia seems idealistic and naive. A cynical view could be that the various parodies of democracy that the modern world exhibits can group together in any way they wish without seeming incongruous.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-15499200432978415552022-02-28T08:55:00.006-08:002022-02-28T09:12:25.897-08:00Review Of 6 Japanese Films (Japanese Film Festival Online 2022)<p style="text-align: justify;">
[Spoiler Alert: Many of my review comments will reveal plot elements that may be spoilers for some.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
A friend alerted me to the <a href="https://watch.jff.jpf.go.jp/" target="_blank">Japanese Film Festival Online</a> a week before it ended, so I was able to watch 6 of the 20 that were available. The service ended at 5 PM sharp (Japan Standard Time) on Feb 28, and I finished watching the last one with half an hour to spare!
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3AnA-8Ecyn7e8AjILUH_oa_9SQ-7zaFk7f7vIsfc2yMrP0nQMcfCIU-5u8dbC0WdqbKcdsTABlqP7MaRqAFA4a2KkzEodo4SLtmcc8G3hs1iN9V9ZfcNM8pcNmfSi1FWbvklFIAoc_fZs09hzoLALfdzMyYZ0ZYhBq05QH0fIaaLAe5cdfu3z0NCB=s953" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="637" data-original-width="953" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3AnA-8Ecyn7e8AjILUH_oa_9SQ-7zaFk7f7vIsfc2yMrP0nQMcfCIU-5u8dbC0WdqbKcdsTABlqP7MaRqAFA4a2KkzEodo4SLtmcc8G3hs1iN9V9ZfcNM8pcNmfSi1FWbvklFIAoc_fZs09hzoLALfdzMyYZ0ZYhBq05QH0fIaaLAe5cdfu3z0NCB=s600"/>
<i>The JFF website, showing a partial line-up of the 20 movies available. I've moved the 6 I watched to the beginning of this list.</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The online festival is available in quite a few countries, so I would advise my friends to <a href="https://jff.jpf.go.jp/join/" target="_blank">subscribe to the site</a> and be informed of future screenings.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHvuk3q6FDeq-YUBEzEtzHoYGVah9U4E7yksfuC4sftotH7X-FQEqOYvIzAf5ZlkhLNS-IK3vRVvqJIalxf-d_NBr7YFcB-W3lYFQnm5wFTA1KS6pvZl9YaVN71_DloXHxhtnP0l1gJmQXEgDwBn9uDBPs0C-k7QNe8_xSPIQfceT5JuQLILIwv1at=s1229" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="1229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHvuk3q6FDeq-YUBEzEtzHoYGVah9U4E7yksfuC4sftotH7X-FQEqOYvIzAf5ZlkhLNS-IK3vRVvqJIalxf-d_NBr7YFcB-W3lYFQnm5wFTA1KS6pvZl9YaVN71_DloXHxhtnP0l1gJmQXEgDwBn9uDBPs0C-k7QNe8_xSPIQfceT5JuQLILIwv1at=s600"/>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let me complain about one of my bugbears right at the start. The website does not support Linux! Sure, they tell you that on their Help page, but for someone like me who only uses Open Source operating systems, this was a real pain. I had to watch all 6 movies on the cramped screen of my Android phone.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgtDhw82hjp4M3h6yV-usdFithfN4kwCkBuOHoX8AslUICIhhf7WTNtxEGpRdtZe2biAbPPPcnz_8-o5mWXD2qMHCL-2XmY09EcB6adB16vo3pysFxNi8cvttDLImIEZwWQuuWYkDuV6idp1yy3udkeNciqPy0QnEgDCEJGZkbv2cPq7biukJWJWskv=s566" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; ">
<img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="146" data-original-width="566" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgtDhw82hjp4M3h6yV-usdFithfN4kwCkBuOHoX8AslUICIhhf7WTNtxEGpRdtZe2biAbPPPcnz_8-o5mWXD2qMHCL-2XmY09EcB6adB16vo3pysFxNi8cvttDLImIEZwWQuuWYkDuV6idp1yy3udkeNciqPy0QnEgDCEJGZkbv2cPq7biukJWJWskv=s600"/>
<i>I really hope the JFF ups its game and enters the 21st century by 2023!</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
With that rant out of the way, here are my reviews of the movies I watched. All of them had English subtitles, although they were almost not required, since half of all the words spoken seemed to be just <i>Arigato Gozaimas'</i> (Thank you)!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Happy Flight</b>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEja2X8qdYdWlF48ZT5QXIvDmgYduQ_6htQvrszMnE_s_h8LPo725BU0q1Ucc-5WYgayE9VpWFFHBvIoJPAsYjdLk6qBtfH3TfvvDHgljgE78zMMB57PdOAozieoURmCsxsuLp0KyYuP9Z1xuJ0NCGIuN6oCZHDvLYRjxtMZaMyN9OVjtW9Bmq5Epvrt=s1500" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEja2X8qdYdWlF48ZT5QXIvDmgYduQ_6htQvrszMnE_s_h8LPo725BU0q1Ucc-5WYgayE9VpWFFHBvIoJPAsYjdLk6qBtfH3TfvvDHgljgE78zMMB57PdOAozieoURmCsxsuLp0KyYuP9Z1xuJ0NCGIuN6oCZHDvLYRjxtMZaMyN9OVjtW9Bmq5Epvrt=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I can best describe this light movie as a documentary held together by the thinnest of storylines. A plane takes off, then returns after a couple of hours due to technical problems. With this simple plotline, the movie shows us all the processes that happen in an airport, like an <a href="https://www.summaryplanet.com/literature/Arthur-Hailey.html" target="_blank">Arthur Hailey</a> novel would. There is light humour throughout, but I wouldn't classify this movie as a comedy.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I liked this movie for the way it educates its viewers about everything that happens in an airport, using a few characters and short storylines.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj4oxLG_YUq5_awbF6sm4mqvO_ZZREP-mO_0OmrVa8T91aZZD7IvAfTZREWY6F7wjuY8LIBcsfp_FFOPzQs-9WF5xDCB_FX682u3JlJfsnfUqQnKlYRW3XHZ7se-4UnYZS5UGolCRbKnMhokf09NnXsl4rdSUcUtszNuFCh2rw2ME8ikAmjZj8-Ag7I=s678" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="678" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj4oxLG_YUq5_awbF6sm4mqvO_ZZREP-mO_0OmrVa8T91aZZD7IvAfTZREWY6F7wjuY8LIBcsfp_FFOPzQs-9WF5xDCB_FX682u3JlJfsnfUqQnKlYRW3XHZ7se-4UnYZS5UGolCRbKnMhokf09NnXsl4rdSUcUtszNuFCh2rw2ME8ikAmjZj8-Ag7I=s600"/>
<i>Ground engineers - If a tool is missing, the entire area is searched and no one goes home until it is found. The risk of a tool ending up inside an aircraft engine is simply too great.</i>
</a>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjd3OznHQTmEnx7B5a2OMWw7570kcyhs6T3G826FHEpsSwi1TKDevAQhCUhLbJzUBh3apZiqGyqf_zaQaJfXUHjZxAB3_jWLjKR2v9TKSHOqp7pYs2gYWMFFZPeHe4CGeWI1oEormJ7yFt9sJOTGcmw-XPjfvSF-MatXsR357y7c-yXjhXGnesa6rRk=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjd3OznHQTmEnx7B5a2OMWw7570kcyhs6T3G826FHEpsSwi1TKDevAQhCUhLbJzUBh3apZiqGyqf_zaQaJfXUHjZxAB3_jWLjKR2v9TKSHOqp7pYs2gYWMFFZPeHe4CGeWI1oEormJ7yFt9sJOTGcmw-XPjfvSF-MatXsR357y7c-yXjhXGnesa6rRk=s600"/>
<i>Ground service staff - They deal with the mess of overbooking and the confusion of misplaced baggage, among other things.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgNSmWGcr4bQT8MvFZKE_V7SHeieqoxeZ2OGPpGDlyo_Jk5G7RjRH1uUKj-MzpPGh7XWYKmMCbA6mN2C0w_KJwFGgAASrRoJDZL9E0w_107_oZYc98B76O1sk7r8k6KimwNQwinQGrq38iaFIyroMOnW5LhPf-ysrjU7cvNKMBiB6TB4uwjFcIVYDxp=s1280" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgNSmWGcr4bQT8MvFZKE_V7SHeieqoxeZ2OGPpGDlyo_Jk5G7RjRH1uUKj-MzpPGh7XWYKmMCbA6mN2C0w_KJwFGgAASrRoJDZL9E0w_107_oZYc98B76O1sk7r8k6KimwNQwinQGrq38iaFIyroMOnW5LhPf-ysrjU7cvNKMBiB6TB4uwjFcIVYDxp=s600"/>
<i>Cabin crew - Life is a series of minor emergencies and challenges, from difficult passengers to unexpected food shortages, all handled with calmness and smiles.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiRY-GBMYMlGJI02QeT_C_kRuHVjBBcyeXfmoi-TXuJVUromdKV0Tme9JxCVwA47m6K1qeAFHGWUr_Cpx7r-Up6_MNabDmZtpGvXFFlUxkbVlzrGRXu3s3edJVV2SdlS9ovnlEEklJWFKhMtLkUgIxLWHeqapkSgg12z5xgK4NmbArovRoPmPrrWH-y=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiRY-GBMYMlGJI02QeT_C_kRuHVjBBcyeXfmoi-TXuJVUromdKV0Tme9JxCVwA47m6K1qeAFHGWUr_Cpx7r-Up6_MNabDmZtpGvXFFlUxkbVlzrGRXu3s3edJVV2SdlS9ovnlEEklJWFKhMtLkUgIxLWHeqapkSgg12z5xgK4NmbArovRoPmPrrWH-y=s600"/>
<i>Air Traffic Control - Dealing with weather issues, sudden changes in flight plans, and real-time decision-making are all in a day's work.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj9TnXmwftpAUVYLmVw79jdXtbnkRjiaJkfFMXOzVLhledSkLT0Ixxp3DuOajANTJCNUV1hb_1j9KFy5O6bzGDRve1qVGTftovzlkvn6Lgz74rZpLRdnkrwUiIfnd6oSFQZgYJsqLiOr_D1RmRUCjFLeVdlRAtv7UY6ifmSpyUJBwbEoFN0zSi_G1uW=s700" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="700" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj9TnXmwftpAUVYLmVw79jdXtbnkRjiaJkfFMXOzVLhledSkLT0Ixxp3DuOajANTJCNUV1hb_1j9KFy5O6bzGDRve1qVGTftovzlkvn6Lgz74rZpLRdnkrwUiIfnd6oSFQZgYJsqLiOr_D1RmRUCjFLeVdlRAtv7UY6ifmSpyUJBwbEoFN0zSi_G1uW=s600"/>
<i>The pilots - Anyone can seemingly do this job, until there's an emergency, which is when their training kicks in.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This was a light and no-stress movie, and I would give it a 3 out of 5.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Ito</b>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiwXqKEsr7W60tN6w0Siz5TfPadJZLRnjPBurRePiBBstR5OCIxAZ8YAPr9EJW04zGH1z22NuZ1oDqDBNiet5JFjH2p2M5h92c283LjVQr4LYDOw3PO-sMUdD_RXp3f0zH9Nh4Ham3wUd-Z7mrbOUdlH693OvahSVejmgKNHxAkyBsBhiW4BqbJjB0Z=s905" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="905" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiwXqKEsr7W60tN6w0Siz5TfPadJZLRnjPBurRePiBBstR5OCIxAZ8YAPr9EJW04zGH1z22NuZ1oDqDBNiet5JFjH2p2M5h92c283LjVQr4LYDOw3PO-sMUdD_RXp3f0zH9Nh4Ham3wUd-Z7mrbOUdlH693OvahSVejmgKNHxAkyBsBhiW4BqbJjB0Z=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It wasn't clear at the start what kind of movie this was going to be. I don't like watching tragedies and "struggle movies". But thankfully, it wasn't anything like that.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Ito is a shy country girl who lost her mother at a very young age, and lives in a village with her father, an academic, and her maternal grandmother who is a classical musician. She takes a train to attend school at a nearby town. She seems a troubled teenager, but it's not clear what her problems are.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Bit by bit, she grows up as she resolves each of her problems, whether it be her own lack of self-confidence, her inability to communicate well with words, her unresolved feelings about her mother's death, her reluctance to play the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamisen" target="_blank">shamisen</a>, or her relationship with her father. Taking the first step, which is to apply for and take up a part-time job as a waitress in a "Maid Cafe", draws her out into the larger world and helps her develop her personality. At the end of the movie, we see her climbing a mountain with her dad and shouting with abandon as she looks down from the peak. Ito is fine, and we're happy to see her grown up as the movie ends.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJEi4KPZVcz5aDD3iA7gY1PcIeBUf97eWQtvPmYikJR_2AwkE9IGcovkJ8RGWrizrXmaWydyJNnCGHjTDae77v0BDOLIJPpaWSQ-jIn9j9U9nWcJ7aviy9s1ng7KJzIPnwW71WEUKSAK--A__9s932zzMFvmUhBmMsFoA_Jlg9RKEGOjYJo_eQKAyU=s1210" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="673" data-original-width="1210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJEi4KPZVcz5aDD3iA7gY1PcIeBUf97eWQtvPmYikJR_2AwkE9IGcovkJ8RGWrizrXmaWydyJNnCGHjTDae77v0BDOLIJPpaWSQ-jIn9j9U9nWcJ7aviy9s1ng7KJzIPnwW71WEUKSAK--A__9s932zzMFvmUhBmMsFoA_Jlg9RKEGOjYJo_eQKAyU=s600"/>
<i>Ito's grandmother is a sane voice in the household, capable of talking sense both to her granddaughter and her son-in-law when the latter have a spat.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrSMsyJXvQvqWTe7IAkFTpGB_xbDFi4ipRa6_P7wx4A1jNDI-3JALvvp2Q4ERDqO0OwGZ4lM-SD6MKHbEy68_9j5nq2p60s2buN01DoMgQFogCrhOT1HJ7na4AZY6YduP2JQO7O4AUfz7lVr6EjZOqIPRBd2Gh1Jr2s7hgwbwlOilkcAxCfwEFdeft=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrSMsyJXvQvqWTe7IAkFTpGB_xbDFi4ipRa6_P7wx4A1jNDI-3JALvvp2Q4ERDqO0OwGZ4lM-SD6MKHbEy68_9j5nq2p60s2buN01DoMgQFogCrhOT1HJ7na4AZY6YduP2JQO7O4AUfz7lVr6EjZOqIPRBd2Gh1Jr2s7hgwbwlOilkcAxCfwEFdeft=s600"/>
<i>Taking up a job as a hostess at the "Maid Cafe" was the best thing Ito could have done. It introduced her to a bunch of nice people whom she grew to like.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiPIeVDS3JbZCLqYnpcEjtzHcupDDeuUtx_yt20QRiDrzjZmdVP4Q6Lf-fO7JXf_RgzUW20gJIBOhizXi_loo23lVn0g4d6orH8Q8DLqhA0pwC853d_8w1khawNPDTbvo3im5dexIVNMSsHS-IqsV196xH9fe-1JMzRaD8eq4MuRZICKwLtjxUYrDAl=s1924" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1039" data-original-width="1924" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiPIeVDS3JbZCLqYnpcEjtzHcupDDeuUtx_yt20QRiDrzjZmdVP4Q6Lf-fO7JXf_RgzUW20gJIBOhizXi_loo23lVn0g4d6orH8Q8DLqhA0pwC853d_8w1khawNPDTbvo3im5dexIVNMSsHS-IqsV196xH9fe-1JMzRaD8eq4MuRZICKwLtjxUYrDAl=s600"/>
<i>Ito's father overcomes his misgivings about his daughter's job in what he considers an anachronistic outfit when he sees her actually working.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFeqJxC74V8XCGzMvVJFlPl6viqd7NDDOpQEUtWlbSkpbU9HTd1v_T34QPtu8ekVMV8mlo_fnlAuUZJC-UuT4l-10RqHFb3IYuM33Bmn4T0tmxY6SvfbLXtUlXsXYsEXk_pJ0-Hta2EF3c0jBwPx5d7zj75NSEPQTLIkqeGSge_HNX4dTRqf60NLlY=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="349" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFeqJxC74V8XCGzMvVJFlPl6viqd7NDDOpQEUtWlbSkpbU9HTd1v_T34QPtu8ekVMV8mlo_fnlAuUZJC-UuT4l-10RqHFb3IYuM33Bmn4T0tmxY6SvfbLXtUlXsXYsEXk_pJ0-Hta2EF3c0jBwPx5d7zj75NSEPQTLIkqeGSge_HNX4dTRqf60NLlY=s600"/>
<i>Ito accepts herself enough to start practising the Shamisen again with her grandmother.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This was a mild coming-of-age movie, and I would give it a 3.5 out of 5.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Bread of Happiness</b>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj53dvWpH5bTkNhOPJ_xZCSQdfZBgqn23zKwB0p6Wtjdnz6MPkxqgFMGtP9f8mXCQA_UV08jH_vAKVmUFsCzntMrS1SejAb-gW56bNc0p3qrWmsKO-1R22G398GCYkyJrw_KOYZRYXQnO03Rm7sy2gZ59EXrp3MkTKQ9WoGT1dBNTRq6qVB2JGXuPEy=s1708" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1708" data-original-width="1194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj53dvWpH5bTkNhOPJ_xZCSQdfZBgqn23zKwB0p6Wtjdnz6MPkxqgFMGtP9f8mXCQA_UV08jH_vAKVmUFsCzntMrS1SejAb-gW56bNc0p3qrWmsKO-1R22G398GCYkyJrw_KOYZRYXQnO03Rm7sy2gZ59EXrp3MkTKQ9WoGT1dBNTRq6qVB2JGXuPEy=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In some ways, this was the weirdest of the 6 movies I saw, although it wasn't bad. It seemed to have some mystical elements to it, and the female lead's problems and motivations weren't very clear.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The female lead is a young woman called Rie, who is heavily influenced by a childhood storybook about a boy called Mani and the moon. Mani to her represents a soulmate, and she gives up on her dream of ever finding such a soulmate as she grows up. After her father's death, she is all alone, and accepts the invitation of a man she knows (Nao Mizushima) to move from Tokyo to a small village. It's not immediately clear that they are married, and the relationship between herself and her husband isn't fleshed out well. They just seem to be joint owners of the Mani Cafe, which is also a boarding house.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The story is a series of episodes where people with various problems come to their cafe, and go away happier after the encounter. Whether there is supposed to be some mystical element to the bread Nao Mizushima bakes, or the coffee and soup that Rie makes, isn't clear.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
At the end of the movie, Rie finally realises that her loyal and supportive husband is the Mani (soulmate) she's been looking for after all. She tells him they're going to have another guest in the new year, pointing to her tummy.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbpIx9DBcerVfaV7N8KNrmehpoTTlc-O4UpMKJDRhh8akJLwciKNClvsvXAMOTGeM4VVJMd4WrhWm1RwKKwEDgoy_qepG9hW2RR-rd1q4v_20SgRCq-wX1VKGV3DXBffyfDgMrlsYIjVlOMZ1zKRPh9ajz9Y5X2sOw_HNgqGtus_BI1A2bkri8hDeh=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbpIx9DBcerVfaV7N8KNrmehpoTTlc-O4UpMKJDRhh8akJLwciKNClvsvXAMOTGeM4VVJMd4WrhWm1RwKKwEDgoy_qepG9hW2RR-rd1q4v_20SgRCq-wX1VKGV3DXBffyfDgMrlsYIjVlOMZ1zKRPh9ajz9Y5X2sOw_HNgqGtus_BI1A2bkri8hDeh=s600"/>
<i>Rie making coffee (She looks Vulcan!)</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFpAiaPG7D-za3hoRaTSc53OVymMWsZ1G4jeZtjnPqKmukHxbWA450ix2ImSCFiUAeo-mIJ6FZlmU_NLl5eyHM7q_oZiQYqHhMn7H0WVL0i405T5qu8L0BTlXkr3rlMARY6YUhnqcD8o_Ya-ezRj531e7ELhB7TGpSmOlhGNJBJow0qPXXk431kXwg=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFpAiaPG7D-za3hoRaTSc53OVymMWsZ1G4jeZtjnPqKmukHxbWA450ix2ImSCFiUAeo-mIJ6FZlmU_NLl5eyHM7q_oZiQYqHhMn7H0WVL0i405T5qu8L0BTlXkr3rlMARY6YUhnqcD8o_Ya-ezRj531e7ELhB7TGpSmOlhGNJBJow0qPXXk431kXwg=s600"/>
<i>Nao baking bread</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiPzz6VVQJZOPjUjsXo3aH9lLKrs7qBkwmVo5q3ibYxN2y3Jrtb4WdkRK1qdJUfhd1NqQnoGDnx0djIbwZ2xIIbp_9Zh0_udixzRZy1FoJy-PFyaq2DW6jIlYPGZYY3vIobjtAsX5AfYgQLSgN9j-RUOxOp3RTAdcSeQsJ9AneP69VHA0Ur8nYbFAKB=s678" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="678" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiPzz6VVQJZOPjUjsXo3aH9lLKrs7qBkwmVo5q3ibYxN2y3Jrtb4WdkRK1qdJUfhd1NqQnoGDnx0djIbwZ2xIIbp_9Zh0_udixzRZy1FoJy-PFyaq2DW6jIlYPGZYY3vIobjtAsX5AfYgQLSgN9j-RUOxOp3RTAdcSeQsJ9AneP69VHA0Ur8nYbFAKB=s600"/>
<i>A dumped girl and a man with a dead-end job find each other at the Mani Cafe after eating the magical bread there.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjfrLOqF2CbiYzTYuInME_R5NO-is6t6k6Ynip9E5hg-c1Thbbi6QBd7K_Uv44L5aOV_epfB1VGSzJoKIKd1A3xMuotnU8Jv2xC3Jo--6E0p1OCNPdAV_q2_OWATdHxc2-PX-rtJb6J4JNS0sfLLXXSwhTO0ZLiYTPiLgfqHm0BuWcvARYpuPBb5H0D=s640" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjfrLOqF2CbiYzTYuInME_R5NO-is6t6k6Ynip9E5hg-c1Thbbi6QBd7K_Uv44L5aOV_epfB1VGSzJoKIKd1A3xMuotnU8Jv2xC3Jo--6E0p1OCNPdAV_q2_OWATdHxc2-PX-rtJb6J4JNS0sfLLXXSwhTO0ZLiYTPiLgfqHm0BuWcvARYpuPBb5H0D=s600"/>
<i>A latchkey kid and her divorced father rediscover each other after some magic bread.</i>
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgiUNOMb18cKPwBnukhkdotvNwe__5Doi9iS0_VF5FdGE-vmTO3KZ8Oufq-WZk4cC3DW5d9cokaLYIem4m74dt6sh6USVvBaFT6EsGo9Q635lccU22xiPVORjVJGi9f3Mn9o2q2fXfk75xdFrYf_OB6ik9KMsoygM09TiWSp9KeR4oBpmw6CHE-s0TR=s2560" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1703" data-original-width="2560" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgiUNOMb18cKPwBnukhkdotvNwe__5Doi9iS0_VF5FdGE-vmTO3KZ8Oufq-WZk4cC3DW5d9cokaLYIem4m74dt6sh6USVvBaFT6EsGo9Q635lccU22xiPVORjVJGi9f3Mn9o2q2fXfk75xdFrYf_OB6ik9KMsoygM09TiWSp9KeR4oBpmw6CHE-s0TR=s600"/>
<i>An ailing old woman and her devoted husband find peace through magic bread.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Again, a mild and nice story, and I would give it a 3 out of 5.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Masked Ward</b>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiMUq5BoIRLOCXakI98ZarwvtohKpfT0-8QpW697492M3uskyqV34bGPi_9faeOTLY26DZKFqHV8ltv4qngOwadIP-4u7F6hZw7l5tudWC5xq9AJRMi5cQFb7I3UEUBABgLSlQGAGMV8rzVHKAoOio78aTsRdf18HNeyBrMULZDthIn0ATEr-16OtJl=s1415" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1415" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiMUq5BoIRLOCXakI98ZarwvtohKpfT0-8QpW697492M3uskyqV34bGPi_9faeOTLY26DZKFqHV8ltv4qngOwadIP-4u7F6hZw7l5tudWC5xq9AJRMi5cQFb7I3UEUBABgLSlQGAGMV8rzVHKAoOio78aTsRdf18HNeyBrMULZDthIn0ATEr-16OtJl=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Now this is a thriller where providing spoilers would be a criminal offence, so I won't. The basic plot is about a young doctor doing his first night shift at a hospital for patients with dementia, where he finds himself in a dramatic situation as a masked robber bursts in with a wounded hostage. Things get curiouser and curiouser as our hero begins to look beneath the surface. Suffice it to say that nothing is what it seems to be.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhINGX_aoeprq2QavS3lKDTzZJqZytCMeOgfLXu8ar2lXn1SCDodGgTDHk7YVwNVbS8jvLveitzs5CJY0VnkirQYUYh2j60g51fvUjAgj22mmbuOioyDP_0Sm2L8cmc4niGaY60DLoj8N0ppz5q3QIFJIwqP9u9gvvDkxdyrlkO-IAQCmtWh_B8oeja=s2560" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1707" data-original-width="2560" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhINGX_aoeprq2QavS3lKDTzZJqZytCMeOgfLXu8ar2lXn1SCDodGgTDHk7YVwNVbS8jvLveitzs5CJY0VnkirQYUYh2j60g51fvUjAgj22mmbuOioyDP_0Sm2L8cmc4niGaY60DLoj8N0ppz5q3QIFJIwqP9u9gvvDkxdyrlkO-IAQCmtWh_B8oeja=s600"/>
<i>Can we just agree that clowns are the scariest characters ever?</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I would give this mystery thriller a 4 out of 5. I found it absolutely gripping.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Aristocrats</b>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGQS9Ghu4M-EMVOXOl5sZIVlrIKiQ6PNC_cv1VzhuxshYm_O7h_WJ4F979T0KZbQtVdQAIaMk3zxKIV9tPmtgvQumSOOUidEOdYT2zDW_Eu-rlTvvk0Hz-qoy41LpDtQEwdh1Gy1tHMeq7jHuom2608oxSyz-yFt6jsBlMdyDklQbk6kuJkQVd362S=s1200" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="848" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGQS9Ghu4M-EMVOXOl5sZIVlrIKiQ6PNC_cv1VzhuxshYm_O7h_WJ4F979T0KZbQtVdQAIaMk3zxKIV9tPmtgvQumSOOUidEOdYT2zDW_Eu-rlTvvk0Hz-qoy41LpDtQEwdh1Gy1tHMeq7jHuom2608oxSyz-yFt6jsBlMdyDklQbk6kuJkQVd362S=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
With the last two movies, I would say we've moved into adult territory in the sense that the themes have much more sophistication and depth.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
"Aristocrats" gives us a good look into elite Japanese society. Japanese society in general is much more custom-bound than others, but the elites operate within an even more constricting social environment. It's a bit like the British Royal Family - glamorous from the outside, but probably unbearably stifling. It's an absolutely terrible life for the women of course, but the men born into this society don't have too many options either. The path ahead, paved as it may be with gold bricks, is laid out for them, and they cannot deviate from it.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiP84jtnCJbEVN23NWNKZWJodnTyZ7Fo_3w25wIFrqAcwsv2v6_ubkIVx5OR9JQXJRjOdjeqpYuYNFhlF1kGtqU5aS34FB4_QLpbJihAqrq2Lh0tuqRnWFe0QePRYUSKrlwOut4EDpJuHaBiZtQk9VTa941jEsRqFfeJYyDJpqhxaqkxV0IksqgwV0l=s1024" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="536" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiP84jtnCJbEVN23NWNKZWJodnTyZ7Fo_3w25wIFrqAcwsv2v6_ubkIVx5OR9JQXJRjOdjeqpYuYNFhlF1kGtqU5aS34FB4_QLpbJihAqrq2Lh0tuqRnWFe0QePRYUSKrlwOut4EDpJuHaBiZtQk9VTa941jEsRqFfeJYyDJpqhxaqkxV0IksqgwV0l=s600"/>
<i>They can keep their money! I'd rather live my comfortable middle-class life, doing whatever I want.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The story is essentially a contrast between the lives and personalities of two young women, Hanako and Miki. Hanako comes from an upper-crust family herself, because her father has been a successful and well-off physician. But the man she marries (Koichiro, literally "first son") comes from an even higher stratum. Hanako's upbringing gives her barely enough sophistication to cope with the demands of her role in this family.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Miki is from a much humbler background. Her father is perpetually unemployed, and she is forced to discontinue college for financial reasons. However, her brief period in college makes her a classmate of the privileged Koichiro. She has a relationship with him later on, although she doesn't have any hope of marrying him. Their relationship is a natural one, and they are easy friends. In contrast, Koichiro's relationship with his wife Hanako is a bit more formal and strained, even though they are both decent human beings. Hanako lacks a certain something that the less sophisticated Miki has in spades - a vivacious and sparkling personality with plenty of pluck and drive. I personally was very impressed with the character of Miki.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh2TGc2MXB9aVjgHH2IC2X0rK_TZRzuU46emQm1AeuX3D851K4LwTb-4-wb4W_iLs5ODLc_S-p2Dy8I60f8enXJlW0bHEwrDt0urb3O74bkCygeHqiuPaeW4fOz7O0fo12lx4ysrXXy1D85oOjFughbnNVRq7xYviImz6rerztKcGJtTMX57eV3Hejd=s778" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="518" data-original-width="778" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh2TGc2MXB9aVjgHH2IC2X0rK_TZRzuU46emQm1AeuX3D851K4LwTb-4-wb4W_iLs5ODLc_S-p2Dy8I60f8enXJlW0bHEwrDt0urb3O74bkCygeHqiuPaeW4fOz7O0fo12lx4ysrXXy1D85oOjFughbnNVRq7xYviImz6rerztKcGJtTMX57eV3Hejd=s600"/>
<i>Koichiro with Miki - Miki's being from the out-crowd paradoxically allowed her to relate to Koichiro much more naturally than the women of his circle could, although a formal relationship was out of the question.</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's interesting how the two women meet and interact. It seems to be an understood aspect of Japanese society that men will have extramarital affairs, and the two women negotiate awkwardly about it, Miki parting ways with Koichiro thereafter.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh8YLbuXaCjrp0yh0X0ICUtpiGxEC6lNiluYUn9xpn4JaUMg2H3Ru_4woafzghts1fJ6zWRAGsG_Q08k8hgDaZ8wP0AcvVy0b6-la2Lc_H0DWqcLXEOF_Cw7cfk1VzJoDoAcnLQpbDMT7yPVky0qlq74FgHNfi_iCssqQzc_9Q5VE9klBsZMcCUV-kV=s2000" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1315" data-original-width="2000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh8YLbuXaCjrp0yh0X0ICUtpiGxEC6lNiluYUn9xpn4JaUMg2H3Ru_4woafzghts1fJ6zWRAGsG_Q08k8hgDaZ8wP0AcvVy0b6-la2Lc_H0DWqcLXEOF_Cw7cfk1VzJoDoAcnLQpbDMT7yPVky0qlq74FgHNfi_iCssqQzc_9Q5VE9klBsZMcCUV-kV=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The surprising twist in the story comes when Hanako sees Miki in the city and impulsively meets up with her, even visiting her modest apartment. She sees that Miki's life, although more challenging and less privileged, is completely authentic, and Miki is her own woman. It brings home to Hanako that she is trapped, and once she has a child, escape will be impossible, because aristocratic families don't allow divorced wives custody of their children. She then divorces Koichiro (which earns her a slap from her aristocratic mother-in-law) and becomes a working woman like Miki. She becomes the manager for her high school friend, who is also single and a talented violinist.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The best part of the movie is at the end, when Koichiro, by now a local politician on account of his family's connections, runs into Hanako at a park. As a district official, he attends a musical performance by Hanako's friend. Hanako and Koichiro look at each other across the room, and exchange smiles.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The movie is a statement against the shackles of aristocratic society that prevent both men and women from discovering themselves and relating to one another as authentic individuals. One can see that Koichiro is a man who finds independent women attractive. That's what had attracted him to Miki, and that's what makes his ex-wife newly attractive to him in a way she wasn't when she was playing her domestic role with docility.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
For the gradual and convincing way it brought out the need for humans to live their lives without stifling social constraints, this movie gets a rating of 4 out of 5.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
(Trivia: Miki's strikingly un-Japanese looks are because the actor Kiko Mizuhara is of mixed ethnicity. Her mother is Korean, and her father is American.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Until The Break Of Dawn (The Japanese title is Tsunagu, which means "Connect")</b>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipjG03ydx2cHkBHmJxBg3LB_MUgRh7KNnbEsCFOcbSpw1SI6My04NR835IlE42pic6P5Ep1srCkzSnatuyE7EozNLkX8AW6o-YLQxVbDqIFDT9gsqzZ6xgef-glZYSrhiFZQQ4rdmX4T9bhBl6SPVRwgx4gAGEE-5qzPGom483J_swhAG_ywjJtXno=s1395" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1395" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipjG03ydx2cHkBHmJxBg3LB_MUgRh7KNnbEsCFOcbSpw1SI6My04NR835IlE42pic6P5Ep1srCkzSnatuyE7EozNLkX8AW6o-YLQxVbDqIFDT9gsqzZ6xgef-glZYSrhiFZQQ4rdmX4T9bhBl6SPVRwgx4gAGEE-5qzPGom483J_swhAG_ywjJtXno=s600"/></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I frankly wouldn't have watched this movie if I'd known how many times I'd have to reach for the tissue box. But having watched it, I have to say this was the best of the lot.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This was the only movie of the 6 I saw that dealt with the metaphysical. However, I see this as just a plot device to explore how we should see our lives.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The premise is that there are people called "connectors" who can allow living people to talk to a dead person. There is a limit of one meeting per person, both for the living and for the dead, so it is important for both to choose wisely. If a living person asks to connect with a dead person and the dead person refuses, then the living person has lost their only chance.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Ayumi, a young man who lives with his grandmother, does the legwork of connecting people. The grandmother is the actual connector. Ayumi escorts his clients to a hotel room where they meet with the person who is dead. The meeting only takes place on full moon nights, and at dawn, the dead person disappears for good.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg5H8HQhwdkBAnUD1NHAUoMyTxH5CS8sjC_VYne4Rl_iXdVLIohlenWogVdd0JBliLSvsjMVDz70MW49YXk6CjCdIc8nVANNm1Fi6U4vkEX1HMrqf6wbOE295wrsx8iv10fLdY2LIT1Kxt02skAIMikIn9jIFQAj-KwyjKmVOX81pL0H32MyDwCFzDR=s1280" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg5H8HQhwdkBAnUD1NHAUoMyTxH5CS8sjC_VYne4Rl_iXdVLIohlenWogVdd0JBliLSvsjMVDz70MW49YXk6CjCdIc8nVANNm1Fi6U4vkEX1HMrqf6wbOE295wrsx8iv10fLdY2LIT1Kxt02skAIMikIn9jIFQAj-KwyjKmVOX81pL0H32MyDwCFzDR=s600"/>
<i>The noble profession of the Connectors</i>
</a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The story is an exploration of regret in all its forms. At the end, Ayumi understands that his job is to facilitate the dead in comforting the living so they can move on.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Every client's story was deeply poignant. If I'd been watching it alone with no one else at home, I'd have been bawling like a baby.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I give it 4.5 out of 5.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-16804730124776869292022-02-24T02:40:00.024-08:002022-02-24T22:21:11.797-08:00What The Ukraine Crisis Tells Us About The US<p style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War" target="_blank">long-simmering Ukrainian crisis</a> has erupted into open conflict. What does this tell us about the US, though?
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg_tXUahqKqUhwmhQBzSkKv7OeUTyEELE9SgsSCh-84uLVzY3p-LWqZlwOZI6Zz-ee_XZLf-0uIoWL_UqSJsYI68vmW-jue7oBE0YviMAuS-TBsWNWLdtqsyW-0Wuk-jxcPS0pFavLrdj6g-em6GtD1A3Z3SfE_Gr8EglL5vPtfRmh9XSVO1T5RW_47=s1178" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="1178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg_tXUahqKqUhwmhQBzSkKv7OeUTyEELE9SgsSCh-84uLVzY3p-LWqZlwOZI6Zz-ee_XZLf-0uIoWL_UqSJsYI68vmW-jue7oBE0YviMAuS-TBsWNWLdtqsyW-0Wuk-jxcPS0pFavLrdj6g-em6GtD1A3Z3SfE_Gr8EglL5vPtfRmh9XSVO1T5RW_47=s600"/>
<i>A map of the Ukraine showing the Crimean peninsula (seized by Russia in 2014) and the two breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, where current fighting is concentrated</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let's look at three aspects of US behaviour leading up to this crisis.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. The promise not to expand NATO</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
When the Soviet Union was collapsing, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today" target="_blank">US assured Gorbachev</a> (both on its own and through Germany) that it would not seek to expand the borders of NATO eastwards.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
We know what actually happened. The inclusion of East Germany into NATO as a result of German reunification was understandable, but then <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO" target="_blank">the following countries became NATO members too</a>, and NATO's missiles moved closer and closer to Russia.
</p>
<ol>
<li>Czech Republic (1999), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact as Czechoslovakia</li>
<li>Hungary (1999), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact</li>
<li>Poland (1999), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact</li>
<li>Bulgaria (2004), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact</li>
<li>Estonia (2004), formerly part of the Soviet Union itself</li>
<li>Latvia (2004), formerly part of the Soviet Union itself</li>
<li>Lithuania (2004), formerly part of the Soviet Union itself</li>
<li>Romania (2004), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact</li>
<li>Slovakia (2004), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact as Czechoslovakia</li>
<li>Slovenia (2004), formerly part of neutral Yugolavia</li>
<li>Albania (2009), formerly part of the Warsaw Pact</li>
<li>Croatia (2009), formerly part of neutral Yugolavia</li>
<li>Montenegro (2017), formerly part of neutral Yugolavia</li>
<li>Macedonia (2020), formerly part of neutral Yugolavia</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's clear that the US adopted a winner-takes-all mentality against Russia, much like what the victors of World War I did to Germany through the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles" target="_blank">Treaty of Versailles</a>. We know how Germany reacted as a result of that oppressive treaty, so should Russia's reaction today be any surprise?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. The support for democratic values</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The US has always claimed to stand for democratic values against authoritarian regimes like Russia's.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But what actually happened in the Ukraine? There was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election" target="_blank">a democratic election held in 2010</a>, when Viktor Yanukovych defeated incumbent prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko in the race for president. Yanokovych's government therefore had legitimacy as a democratically elected one. However, <i>Yanukovych's government was pro-Russia</i>. In 2014, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan" target="_blank">there were protests in Ukraine</a> over the tilt towards Russia and away from Europe, and Yanukovych's elected government was deposed in a coup (not through an election) and replaced by one headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk. This new government promptly signed an agreement with the EU.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Nobody knows if the protests against the Yanukovych government that culminated in his ouster were a genuine grassroots uprising or were engineered from outside, although one can hazard a guess.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, it's clear that the US doesn't mind the ouster of a democratically elected government through a coup, as long as the change favours its own interests.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3. The promise of support against aggression</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
A lot of noise has been made by the US over the past few months over the imminent Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people were promised support against Russian aggression.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But what actually happened? In recent weeks, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/biden-troops-russia-ukraine-00011049" target="_blank">the US</a> as well as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/18/uk-unlikely-to-send-troops-if-russia-invades-ukraine-says-defence-secretary" target="_blank">its key European allies</a> have ruled out sending troops to fight any invading Russian army, and have only threatened economic sanctions and support to Ukrainian insurgents. Once the invasion began, President Biden <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1496691470862106631" target="_blank">said that "the prayers of the entire world are with Ukraine"</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's clear that the US goads its vassal states into brinkmanship, but when the chips are down, they only send "thoughts and prayers". Not the most reliable ally. They <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-america-abandoned-an-ally-1484949066" target="_blank">deserted the Hmong in Vietnam</a>, and they <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/6/13/betrayed-the-afghan-interpreters-abandoned-by-the" target="_blank">deserted their interpreters in Afghanistan</a>. (Something for India to keep in mind as it takes on China with the imagined backing of the US.)
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What the Ukraine crisis teaches us about the US</b>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
1. <i>They're liars.</i> Never believe them when they promise you something.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
2. <i>They're hypocrites.</i> They do the opposite of what they claim to stand for.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
3. <i>They're impotent cowards.</i> If you wade into battle on their behalf expecting them to back you up, good luck.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-38754277370654265572022-01-12T09:49:00.014-08:002022-01-19T06:02:47.194-08:00Indians Don't Understand History (Or, How India Can Reclaim Its Civilisational Destiny)<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
Synopsis</b>:
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>
Most Indians, even those who consider themselves savvy about current affairs, suffer from a shocking ignorance of India’s civilisational history.
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>
The malaise afflicts analysts, commentators and policymakers as well, and it has serious negative consequences for the prospects of the Indian nation-state.
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>
This paper lays out the scale of the problem, the impediments towards establishing a genuine civilisational narrative, and the epiphanies that can follow from such a narrative.
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>
The implications for India’s foreign policy, and indeed India’s civilisational destiny, are mind-boggling.
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Read the full document online on <a href="https://bit.ly/3K7EXGY" target="_blank">Medium</a>, or download the PDF document from <a href="https://bit.ly/3fB85bH" target="_blank">here</a>.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgTeYdqE_TZkbueqnwNtBUXWHf_1Fi54eqlIg3j2mqslQfwr_IOU59JUdqX6RuZomw-bxm-C1R1d38WiVIBnn4dbYS18qYN-2XgjOLER6aLnNoHpqqLbPVzpn_Wi4wGiP8nhYCeECyxdUsIpdPiUZc1Zq6u940xr-YhnIW03iKw640U-Pc3YUtwaPpY=s2000" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="2000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgTeYdqE_TZkbueqnwNtBUXWHf_1Fi54eqlIg3j2mqslQfwr_IOU59JUdqX6RuZomw-bxm-C1R1d38WiVIBnn4dbYS18qYN-2XgjOLER6aLnNoHpqqLbPVzpn_Wi4wGiP8nhYCeECyxdUsIpdPiUZc1Zq6u940xr-YhnIW03iKw640U-Pc3YUtwaPpY=s600"/>
Peninsular India as an unsinkable aircraft carrier. With a sixth of the world’s population and a commensurate share of the world economy, India’s strategic geographical location dictates that it be the pre-eminent Indian Ocean power and the flagship nation-state among the countries of the Indic civilisation
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-29240560852971679572022-01-01T09:07:00.118-08:002022-01-04T05:16:38.771-08:00Indian Institutes Of Obscurantism? (Pronounced "Aiyaiyo") - My Critique Of A Blatantly Unscientific And Ideologically-Driven Embarrassment From IIT Kharagpur<p style="text-align: justify;">
As an alum of the IITs (BTech - IIT Madras, MTech - IIT Kanpur), I was embarrassed and dismayed to see a calendar from IIT Kharagpur (for 2022) that was riddled with pseudo-science, bad arguments, blatantly ideological narratives and unprofessional polemic.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let me take a deep breath and find a suitable starting point.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
There is a <a href="http://www.iitkgp.ac.in/department/KS" target="_blank">"Centre of Excellence for Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS)"</a> at IIT Kharagpur.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Under normal circumstances, I would welcome the establishment of such a department or organisation, since I believe there are many rough diamonds in Indian culture that are waiting to be investigated, tested, refined and given the respectability they deserve in the modern world. An external example of the kind of development I would like to see is the Nobel Prize-winning work of the Chinese pharmaceutical chemist Tu Youyou in 2015. Dr Tu rigorously investigated an ancient Chinese remedy for malaria and proved its efficacy through clinical trials. There are without doubt innumerable such elements within Indian culture, not just in Ayurveda, but also in other streams of thought, and so I would love to see an establishment like this Centre of Excellence for Indian Knowledge Systems do the same for India.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, the stewardship of "Indian Knowledge Systems" seems to have been commandeered by right-wing Hindutva ideologists, who are doing great damage to the reputation of Indian Knowledge Systems by their unscientific and ideologically biased initiatives. Far from India getting the respect it deserves for its various intellectual contributions to the world, it is being reduced to a laughing stock thanks to the ham-fisted way in which these culture warriors are approaching this endeavour.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOXGHwphLGaD60YVfSEhAVE7WQ8TuevsUcdCqf4kHUlnGFDHBKuyMPyQRyZcISJcWjSCiAduhoPOAmQDxv9scM2Su2zX4quu7a8WUvl3qTuJe9utXiv5zItxklae1UtY7AfaRit8d2pWVdPJtfWBtXg7CyFCsxgRbpnUMPMvZQw9WuOkWLJnLP4xhD=s1350" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;">
<img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="1080" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOXGHwphLGaD60YVfSEhAVE7WQ8TuevsUcdCqf4kHUlnGFDHBKuyMPyQRyZcISJcWjSCiAduhoPOAmQDxv9scM2Su2zX4quu7a8WUvl3qTuJe9utXiv5zItxklae1UtY7AfaRit8d2pWVdPJtfWBtXg7CyFCsxgRbpnUMPMvZQw9WuOkWLJnLP4xhD=s600" /><br />
<i>Indian Knowledge Systems in the capable hands of the Hindu Right<br />(Photo courtesy @renjithhadlee)</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The calendar I am about to dissect takes up one aspect of this culture war, where it attempts to refute a bugbear of the Hindu right, i.e., the Aryan Invasion Theory.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
[The calendar has not gone unnoticed, by the way. A number of people from scientific disciplines have poured scorn over it, including my good friend Seshadri Kumar in <a href="https://medium.com/@nayakan88/descending-into-dogma-and-superstition-2481ce84ddeb" target="_blank">a brilliant and incisive post</a>.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2019/09/no-aryan-invasion-theory-has-not-been.html" target="_blank">I have posted before</a>, the reason why the Aryan Invasion Theory is anathema to the Hindu Right is that if it is proven that Hindu "Vedic" culture owes significant elements to sources external to India, then the ideological narrative of Muslims and Christians being cultural outsiders to a Hindu India is effectively torpedoed. It's nothing less than an existential battle for the Hindu Right, and <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-aryan-invasion-theory-is-finally.html" target="_blank">the recent genetic findings</a> establishing the basic validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory have put them in an extremely difficult position.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The calendar from IIT-KGP goes hammer and tongs against the Aryan Invasion Theory with a series of "evidences". [Although the word "evidence" is normally uncountable like "furniture", "evidences" is evidently <a href="https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence_1" target="_blank">an acceptable plural form in academic English</a>. I'm still getting used to it, though.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
At the risk of providing further oxygen to this forgettable document, let me point out what is wrong with it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and bad ideas are best defeated by good arguments, not by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture" target="_blank">Cancel culture</a>, so here goes.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let me first deal with the things the calendar does well (from the perspective of its proponents):
</p>
<ol>
<li>It's visually arresting, with lots of colourful images;</li>
<li>It is superficially well-structured, and appears to build up a coherent argument based on "initial", "intermediate" and "final" evidences;</li>
<li>It uses a lot of scientific-sounding jargon in conjunction with Sanskritic terms, providing an impression that Hindu religious thought is based on science;</li>
<li>It carries the IIT brand, which should awe a lay reader who may lack the intellectual wherewithal to challenge its arguments.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Being an alum of the IITs myself, I am not awed, merely dismayed that one of these highly respected institutes could stoop to producing such pathetic drivel. So let's dive in.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Before I delve into the calendar page-by-page to address each of its flaws in detail, let me provide a high-level framework to understand the thrust of this document.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Here's my one-page critique of the calendar. Feel free to download and circulate this chart. I have released it under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike licence.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgrpx5k8uoKCvCA5XlKEi6KdsaMXzNjeUSqgBqRXYGkHJ1ilMBh8t_tH8dxAuDh_Xcq9By3g4E9YDIGZ-X0lfKmgGqRmdfZ00DmkCX2A-7rTgtVlvfF0411iqae9rlNyf98Nyfywr18Cz_s02thvBIQAjiwwiEtXeBkw8zFBT9uqYzaJ7XklWbZfe3d=s2339" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;">
<img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1654" data-original-width="2339" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgrpx5k8uoKCvCA5XlKEi6KdsaMXzNjeUSqgBqRXYGkHJ1ilMBh8t_tH8dxAuDh_Xcq9By3g4E9YDIGZ-X0lfKmgGqRmdfZ00DmkCX2A-7rTgtVlvfF0411iqae9rlNyf98Nyfywr18Cz_s02thvBIQAjiwwiEtXeBkw8zFBT9uqYzaJ7XklWbZfe3d=s600" width="600" />
<i>The basic tool used by the calendar is a false "strawman" model, i.e., a dishonest representation of the Aryan Invasion Theory, which it then proceeds to demolish with "evidences".
</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Now let's go through it, page by page. It's painful, but also entertaining in its own way.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBmkwouED5PyH9dOap-NvuB_Jd7TWIZrxAOXC0GSkuj-BRwuQZbfAShtC7FoV-nGsvyoSMQ9tlB4d5h3xYoJO5wHlbPsoJePMIia0SiBrJVKdXQ4NMLbivkBW6A3TFsc3e1jZm-7pwG9CcoA_udm6lIRRL5fYCdhGaQ12SeW_UYmJb50mKL8lPmw5B=s985" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="452" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBmkwouED5PyH9dOap-NvuB_Jd7TWIZrxAOXC0GSkuj-BRwuQZbfAShtC7FoV-nGsvyoSMQ9tlB4d5h3xYoJO5wHlbPsoJePMIia0SiBrJVKdXQ4NMLbivkBW6A3TFsc3e1jZm-7pwG9CcoA_udm6lIRRL5fYCdhGaQ12SeW_UYmJb50mKL8lPmw5B=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
1. Initial Evidences
</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The first page engages in circular reasoning, by starting with an unproven accusation that the history of India's "Vedic" civilisation has been unfairly distorted by historians. <i>"It must have taken a few 1000 years to achieve [a long evolutionary sequence of literature, and cultural and spiritual texts]"</i>. No proof is offered, just an appeal to the reader's sympathy that "it must have taken longer than what is credited". A number of emotive words are used - suppression, compromises, compressions, distortions, faults and biases.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The simplest explanation, of course, is that Vedic culture and literature indeed had much longer antecedents than 2000 years, but <i>outside the Indian subcontinent</i>. This is a possibility that the Hindu Right refuses to entertain.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Such an explanation would of course close the argument before it could even begin, hence the need for circular reasoning.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjB45MGSXpA2R_gpUgzCl0lA0mbuiasoDwhg_NvHB-ogUzgnQ8b81DiEtlajwKUk_xieEJ0iine9-d9Q7HSYoy0WaVG74l8Zi0OTW1IRNpE3Wr2rZra4XB-qLN0PKCG5cMZK7cEwzEMG1sXhNhZquitQKc4QpX5g_0t2Z3NHQiOjXS3Ab2nnYi_goaV=s986" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="986" data-original-width="452" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjB45MGSXpA2R_gpUgzCl0lA0mbuiasoDwhg_NvHB-ogUzgnQ8b81DiEtlajwKUk_xieEJ0iine9-d9Q7HSYoy0WaVG74l8Zi0OTW1IRNpE3Wr2rZra4XB-qLN0PKCG5cMZK7cEwzEMG1sXhNhZquitQKc4QpX5g_0t2Z3NHQiOjXS3Ab2nnYi_goaV=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
2. January (India's Sacred Space)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This page makes an important point that the Southern side of the Himalayas had not one but three riverine systems - the Indus valley, the Ganga-Gomati-Ghaghara valley, and the Brahmaputra (Sanpo) valley. There is a distinct possibility that the civilisational history of India prior to 2000 BCE included not just the famous Indus Valley Civilisation, but these two valleys as well.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
However, while this is an important point, it is not a fatal flaw in the Aryan Invasion Theory. The references in the Rig Veda to the Gomati river are not dated. It is entirely possible that the Aryans swept through the Indo-Gangetic plain after overrunning the Indus Valley Civilisation, and that the references in the Rig Veda to these areas date from that period onward. Geographically, once the Hindukush mountains are crossed, there are few barriers to an invading army, and India's plains lie open and exposed. All three indigenous valley civilisations could have succumbed to an invader at about the same time.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmj9PxGVRKMprLlv9s1cM0yDl0yO2qgnappMPHk8oyhXTwN2QNwGApKr0aq_bpiwrqlYfTB9pFmFdu__wHpX7uXbwKlVASkrPkJYZalyYNwTtWbjDFdf0GMHLkd8jU7PL3T9sLJ3mef_Sk6NJSkdYagwn-7oeeI0FnUQbltzIOtO549RrF2shAXyVM=s985" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmj9PxGVRKMprLlv9s1cM0yDl0yO2qgnappMPHk8oyhXTwN2QNwGApKr0aq_bpiwrqlYfTB9pFmFdu__wHpX7uXbwKlVASkrPkJYZalyYNwTtWbjDFdf0GMHLkd8jU7PL3T9sLJ3mef_Sk6NJSkdYagwn-7oeeI0FnUQbltzIOtO549RrF2shAXyVM=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
3. February (Cyclic Time and Reincarnation)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This page is filled with such woo that it deserves to be dismissed with utter contempt.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The constructs of space, time and causation is the bedrock of Vedic religious ideals."</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This might impress some people, but it's a transparently pathetic attempt to make Hinduism appear like a "scientific" religion by throwing in some scientific-sounding terms.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The law of causation is based on a chain of interdependence further based on subtle actions and reactions of the flow and value of work (Karma-vada) observed by an individual. The resultant is a chain of reincarnation, through transmigration and metempsychosis (Janmantar-vada) of souls at the cosmic level."</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Souls, reincarnation, karma? This belongs in the realm of religion, not science. [Hello IITs, is this really you behind this calendar, or has your soul been possessed by some reincarnated demon? You're earning bad karma by violating your dharma as an institute devoted to science and technology, you know.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Rig Veda confirms that the life-principle of Agni as a chain (Vayu or Sutra-atman) over many lives (Jataveda) carrying its subtle repository of experiences (3rd Mandala 26.2-7)"
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, the Rig Veda "confirms" this, does it? An unimpeachable authority, no doubt. Is this meant to be a serious proof? A bit like Muslims claiming the Quran speaks the truth because it itself says so! [Dear IITs, if I had provided such a "proof" in one of my exam answer papers when I was studying within your hallowed portals, would you have given me anything other than a zero?]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The science of Palingenesis constitute the essence and practice of Indian spirituality."</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenesis" target="_blank">Palingenesis</a> is a <i>concept</i>, not a science. It is a concept in theology and philosophy. In the science of biology, this concept (also called recapitulation) has been discredited.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Indian "spirituality" is emphatically not a science, just a set of unproven beliefs.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The gnostic foundations of Indian spirituality is an alien or unknown element to civilizations in Europe, whether from the Caucasus Eurasia or from the Steppes. It is also missing in the Semitic foundations of religions practiced in the West and in the Middle East. Therefore, the invading Aryans, if any, had nothing to offer to the development of Indian Cosmology !"
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
First, a minor point. "Gnostic" sounds like a respectable term, but it is the very opposite of scientific. The Sanskrit term for gnosticism is "adhyatma vidya", or "knowledge from within". I.e., instead of observing a phenomenon and doing evidence-based research, one retreats into navel-gazing meditation and comes up with insights. It isn't very different from the Pope retreating to commune with God about important moral issues and re-emerging with a "divine" revelation over what needs to be done. Gnosticism is hardly a scientific approach, and should not be elevated to such a pedestal.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The important point here though, is that the prior existence of a gnostic tradition in India, even if true, does not refute the notion of an Aryan invasion, since the Aryan Invasion Theory only states that a fusion of cultures took place, not that Aryan culture replaced Dravidian culture and gave rise to Vedic thought all by by itself. [This is the strawman argument I referred to at the beginning.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjg9gnzV_dMnwJwCypK9tP9LfcrIoTlZsmZTfQFkBcuWSdg5WpubyCvgJKyPKLQV8dL3xlTCUerwfRy8PIeH0HfjYgXXJJnl2jXcfKqVEwFN9yMFhZfFzyHpD6FP25YQoeyLlXbcpNErEnNF6wV7gL_m-TlhfjTnwB7e79Zaz8-5RpUz-durkZDmzD=s985" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjg9gnzV_dMnwJwCypK9tP9LfcrIoTlZsmZTfQFkBcuWSdg5WpubyCvgJKyPKLQV8dL3xlTCUerwfRy8PIeH0HfjYgXXJJnl2jXcfKqVEwFN9yMFhZfFzyHpD6FP25YQoeyLlXbcpNErEnNF6wV7gL_m-TlhfjTnwB7e79Zaz8-5RpUz-durkZDmzD=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
4. March (Law of Space-Time Causation)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is again a repetition of the previous argument, that the Aryans did not have the concepts of "Yoga" or "gnostic foundations", and hence could not have been the progenitors of the Vedic culture.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But this is not a refutation of the Aryan Invasion Theory, because the theory postulates a fusion of Aryan and Dravidian cultures to form the Vedic culture. It is entirely possible that the Vedic culture draws its gnostic elements from the Dravidian culture, and other elements from the Aryan. [The strawman argument again.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeKQrUfjXQQx7TjWZo0Q3YDyvAv3F8LvVdrFty2i0UsUMOlo6Mjvkh-XDRVznTj8ESabOuuyQRI5uskHuXB8qe6Y8JGppgQcdjh1uSuYFMQ_ep6wDAbHAHUEjVqqbYrOY853V_05_WV1p5oQ538rAW_6pFNlnklailDHVwsg_8cFG2LBM3fKmaJY3u=s987" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeKQrUfjXQQx7TjWZo0Q3YDyvAv3F8LvVdrFty2i0UsUMOlo6Mjvkh-XDRVznTj8ESabOuuyQRI5uskHuXB8qe6Y8JGppgQcdjh1uSuYFMQ_ep6wDAbHAHUEjVqqbYrOY853V_05_WV1p5oQ538rAW_6pFNlnklailDHVwsg_8cFG2LBM3fKmaJY3u=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
5. April (Non-linear Flow and Changes)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The parable of the flow of seasons; an iteration of cycles of summer and winter, or spring and autumn are various allegories or metaphors. Chinese philosopher Confucius and Lao-Tzu have also used these parables."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The calendar seems to be arguing against itself here. If the concept of cyclical flow also exists in China, then there is nothing uniquely Indian about it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The cycle of the six seasons is the epitome of the wheel of life in the Vedas, and stands for the steadfast parable of a Eka-sringa (Unicorn) Rhinoceros in Buddhism, evident again and again in the Indus Valley seals."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is a highly confused and confusing set of statements. What is the proof that the cycle of six seasons is the "epitome of the wheel of life in the Vedas"? Second, would the notion of cyclical seasons not be an obvious one to any culture? Third, what is the connection between a cycle and a unicorned rhinoceros? Fourth, how does the existence of a unicorned rhinoceros in the Indus Valley seals and the concept of an Eka-sringa rhinoceros in Buddhism together refute the Aryan Invasion Theory?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The invading Aryans, if any, had no idea of these subtle constructs. It fulfills the disapproval of the invasion myth."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
What "subtle constructs"? Any culture would know of the cycle of seasons. It is blindingly obvious and not subtle at all. And if the concept of the unicorned rhinoceros persisted from the Indus Valley civilisation through to post-Vedic Buddhism, then it simply means that this strand of Indian culture was contributed by the Dravidians rather than by the Aryans when the two cultures fused. It doesn't refute the influx of the Aryans. [Strawman argument again.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhvVfj1tS8qiqR7lKswpuDu_hJ0kcHJLXcXd7y2PLPnFN_hokuE-XqeODUEL0Y2PTN9OpAYJIZIaOUG135mSAJeFaPzTp5OMUPqp1ki9yQ3lmu4AxD-_LIh4GYpenrozElsRjSZFgX1_3G4BDtrGLZWaO7JZejymkgBH4qataTFHMwCKdE-jh_Vnphf=s989" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="989" data-original-width="453" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhvVfj1tS8qiqR7lKswpuDu_hJ0kcHJLXcXd7y2PLPnFN_hokuE-XqeODUEL0Y2PTN9OpAYJIZIaOUG135mSAJeFaPzTp5OMUPqp1ki9yQ3lmu4AxD-_LIh4GYpenrozElsRjSZFgX1_3G4BDtrGLZWaO7JZejymkgBH4qataTFHMwCKdE-jh_Vnphf=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
6. Intermediate Evidences</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The quote from Swami Vivekananda is an opinion, not a proof of any sort. He would say what he said, wouldn't he? <a href="https://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.com/2021/04/in-defence-of-vivekananda.html" target="_blank">My earlier blog post</a> analyses the difficult conditions of his youth, which caused him to evolve his particular worldview.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"In what Veda, in what Sukta, do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign country?"
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Genetics is stronger evidence than any Veda or Sukta, my dear Swami. I agree it's unfair to expect you to know about this, since these findings occurred after your time.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The object of the peoples of Europe is to exterminate all in order to live themselves. The aim of the Aryans is to raise all up to their own level, nay, even to a higher level than themselves."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
A self-congratulatory statement with zero evidence. And the Swami is using the term "Aryans" here to refer to what he believes to be an unbroken Indian civilisation. How confusing.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"In Europe, it is everywhere victory to the strong and death to the weak. In the land of Bhârata, every social rule is for the protection of the weak."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Which may explain the treatment of Dalits in Hindu society? Some protection!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEimE8S2Tj8js0J0fIPf2MAbxD5Oy-5KQnuGRUH-yt6u1EG2AvzanddtLIFH_GptmSm0Hy-PqYiEwjTJyjAWoAoWrYAfMAOH89hB3SQvG4idUx-zW0QGruH5kLycT0x70o6clU9DUXDwvhz1N-h9izCsHdoM0LuLBaddukq3pJ6lJfDdx4J_fMrVUi80=s984" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="984" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEimE8S2Tj8js0J0fIPf2MAbxD5Oy-5KQnuGRUH-yt6u1EG2AvzanddtLIFH_GptmSm0Hy-PqYiEwjTJyjAWoAoWrYAfMAOH89hB3SQvG4idUx-zW0QGruH5kLycT0x70o6clU9DUXDwvhz1N-h9izCsHdoM0LuLBaddukq3pJ6lJfDdx4J_fMrVUi80=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
7. May (Sacred Feminine - The Matrix)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"This tradition [of representing the nation as mother] is unknown to the West, where nations are hailed as fatherlands."</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This assertion is easily refuted by counter-example. Russia, as a steppes culture that is most closely associated with the Aryans (there is a strong relationship between Russian and Sanskrit, both in vocabulary and in grammar), refers to the nation as a motherland, as do many other Western cultures. [There is also the tradition of referring to "Mother Earth" in the West, which is an inconvenient fact the calendar glosses over.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Hence there is nothing unique about the concept of a Bharat-mata ("Mother India"). Russia has an exactly analogous concept of "Rodina-mat" (nation-mother). One could argue that this fact proves that the concept of the nation as mother came to India from the steppes pastoralists (Aryans)!
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjG5nnNvYsZ8Q3GMdmFWo6VUFdS1b-SSsdUIBo_MXoi3DJONRDritOCOHxiZzP_KAjaeijDKG6rh0-_raWCQ5Zga1qaO1wp2XLPBsLM2-8CGzHO2JNEU0dwtYSxJcZ5Ro1tKSO9yiJcMeeUAxWRXisxBLl4cCHHS-HDI0hAnOSeKFu_5utz6weVr_Xn=s449" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="449" data-original-width="446" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjG5nnNvYsZ8Q3GMdmFWo6VUFdS1b-SSsdUIBo_MXoi3DJONRDritOCOHxiZzP_KAjaeijDKG6rh0-_raWCQ5Zga1qaO1wp2XLPBsLM2-8CGzHO2JNEU0dwtYSxJcZ5Ro1tKSO9yiJcMeeUAxWRXisxBLl4cCHHS-HDI0hAnOSeKFu_5utz6weVr_Xn=s600" /></a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Rig Veda (1.164.46) forwards the sovereign sutra of the unity in diversity, either as the principle of death i.e., YAMA, and that of Resurrection of life, earmarked as MATARISVAN."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It is not at all clear what "unity in diversity" or the "principle of death and resurrection" have to do with the "sacred feminine", or why this is somehow unique to Indian thought.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
"E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") is a well-known Latin phrase, and the phoenix is a mythical bird from Greek mythology that symbolises death and resurrection. [Dear IITs, what are you trying to say here? If I had used such logic in my exam proofs, wouldn't you have given me a zero?]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCWF0VtBwYURhk0GfU5VVGIEYw4YxUUPAM6PUAIxEQ5I6KPlpkkkrD2PBjcOOFSI2aO0oTmq_qwQ_4W3uwxsQeV2FxJKofbWu_-pwzAjidWcfpieEKOyaHfoJ59EwRCwNwa9JPUvq1qfYhloFKNTF2tP8Jgze5enJI7-J6OvTm0hpHnkW5lUqGv_NN=s986" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="986" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCWF0VtBwYURhk0GfU5VVGIEYw4YxUUPAM6PUAIxEQ5I6KPlpkkkrD2PBjcOOFSI2aO0oTmq_qwQ_4W3uwxsQeV2FxJKofbWu_-pwzAjidWcfpieEKOyaHfoJ59EwRCwNwa9JPUvq1qfYhloFKNTF2tP8Jgze5enJI7-J6OvTm0hpHnkW5lUqGv_NN=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
8. June (Unicorn - The Eka-Sringa Rishi)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So much confusion on just one page!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Unicorn-as-horse versus unicorned rhinoceros referred to on the April page - Make up your minds!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
A <i>"spinal column of light"</i> <i>"Neuro-physiologically, it is the spinal chord, the inner trunk of Yoga shoots above the eyebrow."</i> There is nothing "neuro-physiological" about a "spinal column of light". The concept is just woo. [Dear IITs, you are making me cringe!]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"In Epic Ramayana and Early Buddhism, he is identified as Sage RisyaSringa."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
As Seshadri Kumar <a href="https://medium.com/@nayakan88/descending-into-dogma-and-superstition-2481ce84ddeb" target="_blank">has pointed out</a>, sage Risyasringa was supposed to have the horns of a deer, and this had nothing to do with a unicorn!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgqPmmIXuV9B1yoL-Q_kZFsLSG55GIKb_zHvmsUXG1fKjJnVUi1OJQM5-H80l2L2JgKIh1qPOEfcASK73g7EmPAUDDuxpln1KXQbXXUMG_gQRxq8IhHYb2u4SUCpgYUlrzan3sUhUICTlMTiQaRRwWOYk6vLHiP_Cv7qCe2eOPcLnKjAIupXd_xcjEk=s987" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgqPmmIXuV9B1yoL-Q_kZFsLSG55GIKb_zHvmsUXG1fKjJnVUi1OJQM5-H80l2L2JgKIh1qPOEfcASK73g7EmPAUDDuxpln1KXQbXXUMG_gQRxq8IhHYb2u4SUCpgYUlrzan3sUhUICTlMTiQaRRwWOYk6vLHiP_Cv7qCe2eOPcLnKjAIupXd_xcjEk=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
9. July (Column of Cosmic Light & Aeons Of Time)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The Colonial rules forged a different and skewed history, suppressing or misinterpreting Shiva as a Pre-Aryan Dravidian godhead isolated from portions of the Vedas."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Again, this assumes a manichean view of Aryan culture supplanting Dravidian culture to form Vedic culture, whereas the Aryan Invasion Theory postulates the fusion of the two, in which case all these "evidences" are hardly a refutation. [The strawman argument again.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgY7N35d9y-MYcv0c9HlQ6AvvR1D0qyt-VliAneAfmzBf6We0m9gPCqCMfNHxjsR3yONfvn19kcUJi3REP0mpmu8fBejL43k9qcb8fBMKjKRssrPYBgGzt4K_gS2mvCb8eaIEiRI5Sm4HW_fcdjfaSUAslib8aXvAuz9Wn_QBbe4xXg63kJNokOikz6=s986" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="986" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgY7N35d9y-MYcv0c9HlQ6AvvR1D0qyt-VliAneAfmzBf6We0m9gPCqCMfNHxjsR3yONfvn19kcUJi3REP0mpmu8fBejL43k9qcb8fBMKjKRssrPYBgGzt4K_gS2mvCb8eaIEiRI5Sm4HW_fcdjfaSUAslib8aXvAuz9Wn_QBbe4xXg63kJNokOikz6=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
10. August (Cosmic Symmetry: The Septuplet Chord)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
A number of different arguments are made here, which are not provably connected.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Duality is a common concept to many cultures. It is not unique to India.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The concept of seven elements (colours of the rainbow, musical notes, etc.) are again not unique to India but are found in other cultures too.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"They are portrayed as the giver of Madhu, the elixir of immortality, the very secret of inter-connectedness of consciousness in this universe. Thus Vedic Cosmology is a direct clue to philanthropy and altruism as against dialectics of racial superiority and inferiority, as promoted by Colonial historians."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is drawing a long bow. The notion of givers of the elixir of immortality is not a proof that Vedic Cosmology is philanthropic and altruistic. On the contrary, the Hindu myth of the samudra-manthan that gave rise to amrit is marked by the deception of the asura race and their denial of this elixir in favour of the deva race. Does this not prove exactly what this calendar is trying to disprove, that the Vedic story of amrit represents the "dialectics of racial superiority and inferiority"?
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJSS_HThtO2iV2y9iz9LgDhflVGroP-r9eLbJhjeA4gsgBycnSpLVSE2kBTKxwpOAXPeWbJbPEa_Xus1DerIdZ2QE1NOmpYq_iqiRhoDwpiskSpRWZqTmuhVb2kOwF4wPnK5lv36RlZh0aLKLXjn1WMTYWKvNiIUoR4GLuoXmsLE4vRYPMwsAZpgd1=s958" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;">
<img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="941" data-original-width="958" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJSS_HThtO2iV2y9iz9LgDhflVGroP-r9eLbJhjeA4gsgBycnSpLVSE2kBTKxwpOAXPeWbJbPEa_Xus1DerIdZ2QE1NOmpYq_iqiRhoDwpiskSpRWZqTmuhVb2kOwF4wPnK5lv36RlZh0aLKLXjn1WMTYWKvNiIUoR4GLuoXmsLE4vRYPMwsAZpgd1=s600" width="600" />
<i>It's ironical that the calendar would choose to highlight the giving of the elixir of immortality (amrit) as an example of non-racial altruism. The well-known story is that amrit was given only to one racial group (the fair-skinned and clean-shaven devas) and denied to another (the swarthy and hirsute asuras). Even the physical portrayal of the two groups in popular art is telling.</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"But the objectives of the Aryan Invasion is one of aggression, genetic superiority by race and skin color. The gospel of the Vedas is based on principles of adaptation, acceptance and assimilation; where as the Aryan invasion myth is
based on aggression, invasion and extermination of other races ! They do not match."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This is a weak argument based on appeal to emotion. Why can a period of aggression not be followed by a philosophical period where assimilation and acceptance are emphasised? This is hardly an "evidence".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEieY-n2OqpuATtCOEPsGAI66_Nfe0LeujnM-TSGG5sNp6jmnA-TvgkmR9yrNRX1BlTNqdcxoYdmab3h5pW4jUeuG_B0E4C0sTdvWnx_blFej-cHmHDuJaOraL_Ig7fNGRwZDN0SN9g8S_M4i7vznAnOCkHpFFoRWDSm5UUX10qNawp4BV3QAS530RQD=s984" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="984" data-original-width="450" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEieY-n2OqpuATtCOEPsGAI66_Nfe0LeujnM-TSGG5sNp6jmnA-TvgkmR9yrNRX1BlTNqdcxoYdmab3h5pW4jUeuG_B0E4C0sTdvWnx_blFej-cHmHDuJaOraL_Ig7fNGRwZDN0SN9g8S_M4i7vznAnOCkHpFFoRWDSm5UUX10qNawp4BV3QAS530RQD=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
11. Final Evidences</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
After the damp squib of the initial and intermediate "evidences", there isn't much hope that the final evidences are going to be any better. And as we look at the last four months of the calendar, the set of "final evidences" turns out to be nothing more than an exercise in conspiracy theorising about why the colonialists came up with the Aryan Invasion Theory. [Sneak preview: The colonialists were culturally insecure, unlike us proud Hindus!]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5JrYk44ppUEcUSZ-DiHVymS3unOr1vsqhIU49bm3ubpvynboUZuGixeY_2dymkuv2mGERrnAzMJ9Faa68IjaF3H_ZrlP6DozqY-n-Gg6bcFaoTO7cTLhdOPwn06Y8Phr-pvF0G_8CIhEWGkugTUJ_DCohTrPo_PSiuYR-qjQTXtfkIaPihZWA45VV=s987" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="452" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5JrYk44ppUEcUSZ-DiHVymS3unOr1vsqhIU49bm3ubpvynboUZuGixeY_2dymkuv2mGERrnAzMJ9Faa68IjaF3H_ZrlP6DozqY-n-Gg6bcFaoTO7cTLhdOPwn06Y8Phr-pvF0G_8CIhEWGkugTUJ_DCohTrPo_PSiuYR-qjQTXtfkIaPihZWA45VV=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
12. September (Why An Aryan Invasion Myth Was Forged)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The colonial invaders, from the Portuguese to the British, were shaken by the striking similarity between millions of words evident in Indian languages and others in the European Tree of Linguistics. So they had to forge an Indo-European Language system, and further design a history of invading in-migration prior to the Buddha, Plato and Lao-Tzu. They proposed that the superior Colonial rulers invaded the inferior India the second time in 17th century! What an audacity and arrogance!"
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Why is this "audacity and arrogance"? Isn't linguistic similarity a sufficient basis for postulating a migration in one direction or another? Since you accept that there is a "striking similarity between millions of words [...] in Indian languages and [...] the European Tree of Linguistics", what alternative explanation would you offer for this phenomenon? Given that the "Out of India Theory" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism" target="_blank">has been comprehensively discredited by genetics</a>, the only plausible theory that remains is a migration into India from outside. Isn't it logical? Sorry, but I fail to see any "audacity and arrogance" here. I only see your cultural insecurity on display.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjby1mX9vvdxFkEdP7649c1LNP5yodp9dCbDACiPRZ1RrPfZZiJ55irRukq1XIasXlpgHy4KflOPGMUc1deR-8xQ35_-RbfbLd8H0lFX9n1OyPp-FxyBBR69IPomY9DNYMnVKD1ZYYIcrYosmP7yG8zBDOuLwphbMAL8_444Hv6BoQ2Z3FrQmN29jkJ=s985" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="452" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjby1mX9vvdxFkEdP7649c1LNP5yodp9dCbDACiPRZ1RrPfZZiJ55irRukq1XIasXlpgHy4KflOPGMUc1deR-8xQ35_-RbfbLd8H0lFX9n1OyPp-FxyBBR69IPomY9DNYMnVKD1ZYYIcrYosmP7yG8zBDOuLwphbMAL8_444Hv6BoQ2Z3FrQmN29jkJ=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
13. October (Equivalence in Semantics and Semiotics)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The colonial invaders were also shaken and shocked by the extent of similarities. They had to quickly maneuver and recast a story of Asiatic Invasion via the Caucasus and Central Steppes to prove a one-way flow of culture and sciences from the West to the East."
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
This reads like a thriller novel. The colonial invaders were "shaken and shocked", not merely intrigued. They had to "quickly maneuver". To avoid what catastrophic outcome exactly?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If the Hindu revivalists wanted to paint a picture of an insecure culture, they could have just used a mirror instead. The desperation in their "evidences" comes across, exclamation marks and all.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhn1GNu5saArcInPz3f_AsFC2lMD0WjT62qyuZ8CjbFd1uFsvYu4HFIqn0tRGRam5cfDpDVYrPa_3pBYZUSIsztBFZp1zxkVHrB5EO5ag01O36D7BRfW0zUFCOaGejfSCCOO9enRzZQvF1mMKPLDtzvkj4FhP1U-7tvMyBdKsZIhZ9kC4ZxjjsKlz_6=s987" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="452" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhn1GNu5saArcInPz3f_AsFC2lMD0WjT62qyuZ8CjbFd1uFsvYu4HFIqn0tRGRam5cfDpDVYrPa_3pBYZUSIsztBFZp1zxkVHrB5EO5ag01O36D7BRfW0zUFCOaGejfSCCOO9enRzZQvF1mMKPLDtzvkj4FhP1U-7tvMyBdKsZIhZ9kC4ZxjjsKlz_6=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
14. November (Aggression and Imperialism - An Invasion)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"From a system of philology and linguistics to racial primacy"</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The calendar takes issue with Western academics drawing unwarranted conclusions from linguistics to postulate theories about race, especially concepts of racial superiority.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In a generic context, one could of course critique the drawing of racial inferences from mere linguistic similarities, but with modern genetic research having established the existence of separate genetic groups that migrated into India in several waves, the hypothesis of distinct racial groups has been vindicated. Even if the motives of the colonialists in postulating an Aryan Invasion were self-serving, that theory, for better or worse, has now been proven. Those who believe in evidence-based research [Hello, IITs!] should accept evidence even if they personally hate it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
And just so we're clear, accepting the fact of an Aryan Invasion of India does not equate to an acknowledgement of the superiority or inferiority of any group, so you can get that chip off your shoulder.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEit2HmcAwdCivErlJ2aP92Y80-Jh-gV9RuKWQp9K3oOIry-zoSR2u-suEzhcgrxGqjBfDkcmjdqvywMwfMq6jeq852yklcvkNOTIU8QLRA5AFCbFFuT2Q2KwrCHdf-ASMIWpPAUnxj8syZc9LSC37CQ1gq8dwxjJmNgh-KL6jC72k6MQHs6fUkyFg1h=s988" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="988" data-original-width="451" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEit2HmcAwdCivErlJ2aP92Y80-Jh-gV9RuKWQp9K3oOIry-zoSR2u-suEzhcgrxGqjBfDkcmjdqvywMwfMq6jeq852yklcvkNOTIU8QLRA5AFCbFFuT2Q2KwrCHdf-ASMIWpPAUnxj8syZc9LSC37CQ1gq8dwxjJmNgh-KL6jC72k6MQHs6fUkyFg1h=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
15. December (Aryan Fallacy and The Two World Wars)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The calendar blames racial theories behind both world wars whereas it is only true of the Second World War, as <a href="https://medium.com/@nayakan88/descending-into-dogma-and-superstition-2481ce84ddeb" target="_blank">Seshadri Kumar has pointed out</a>. The causes of the First World War have been well researched and established, and these had nothing to do with racial theories. Even with the Second World War, race was not the only <i>casus belli</i>. Resentment over the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles was probably a bigger contributor. The calendar is drawing a really long bow here in its attempt to gather supporting evidences.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgy8OzH3IUk4Y49YL8DD5LEgyURRSj0dJoXuwpBrkHcHgzW8MgQlxJ_OU0upoeqyPRXo_lzOWcU3UnXdETWCZmQw-GsUB2HIlEGPWZOEU-Pux8xLgHpe7ZoLBprne_Jfvw4fgbZLYcDRL0WLQ3i9Fuur_-jynIcmeGGuDcB1dCVEz39ceiOkMsdiKSo=s985" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="450" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgy8OzH3IUk4Y49YL8DD5LEgyURRSj0dJoXuwpBrkHcHgzW8MgQlxJ_OU0upoeqyPRXo_lzOWcU3UnXdETWCZmQw-GsUB2HIlEGPWZOEU-Pux8xLgHpe7ZoLBprne_Jfvw4fgbZLYcDRL0WLQ3i9Fuur_-jynIcmeGGuDcB1dCVEz39ceiOkMsdiKSo=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
16. Epilogue (The Story of Civilisation)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The page features a collection of books dealing with much later periods than the time of the Aryan Invasion (2000 BCE). It is not clear what purpose this serves apart from furthering the polemic about "East versus West".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The poetic quote by Swami Vivekananda is a hopeful statement about the resurgence of Eastern civilisations. It is not a proof of the superiority of "Indian Knowledge Systems".
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiNNlSsbgGxJBkt_xfkec-tMizH-d98YprTBo-R-YqI2TZEPeUi-N5Wejey7ad_VhxiI2jLszkp_HpDSIeXhgCTsTgjSBmr9W2vLz8s9jvzS2TyrGo3qDbeMMCE3QcM6cbb4E-cG3sPZO1trNxIKvzP_OGgTyASOdc5RzH6X0voBXGWosB0M96WurHU=s988" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="988" data-original-width="448" height="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiNNlSsbgGxJBkt_xfkec-tMizH-d98YprTBo-R-YqI2TZEPeUi-N5Wejey7ad_VhxiI2jLszkp_HpDSIeXhgCTsTgjSBmr9W2vLz8s9jvzS2TyrGo3qDbeMMCE3QcM6cbb4E-cG3sPZO1trNxIKvzP_OGgTyASOdc5RzH6X0voBXGWosB0M96WurHU=s600" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
16. Centre of Excellence for Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The term "Indian Knowledge Systems" is itself vague and non-rigorous, and not at all what I had hoped it would mean. As this calendar disappointingly demonstrates, a lot of its elements are in the realm of belief and philosophy, not evidence-based science. Any superstition can be defended as a "knowledge system" using this logic.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The page lists the rogue's gallery of all those responsible for this execration. I'm surprised they couldn't coopt Deepak Chopra. I suspect he's a fraud of a much higher league who doesn't want to be associated with relative amateurs.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Sanjeev Sanyal is unfortunately part of this cabal. I had great respect for him at one time as an author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=sanjeev+sanyal" target="_blank">several important books on Indian history</a>. Alas, he has compromised his intellectual integrity and crossed over to the side of the culture warriors.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I suspect that Rajiv Malhotra is the <i>eminence grise</i> behind this centre. He's probably staying in the shadows and advising them on how to take on the Western academics using their own tools of the trade. I remember him <a href="https://rajivmalhotra.com/library/articles/risa-lila-1-wendys-child-syndrome/" target="_blank">psychoanalysing Wendy Doniger using "Chakra hermeneutics"</a>, which was a good example of setting a fraud to catch a fraud. The verbal diarrhoea of important-sounding nonsense words on every page of this calendar bears his stamp.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Induction of an advanced scientific methods of exploration and investigation – GPR based exploration; Laser induced breakdown spectroscopies and Photo-luminescence dating; Paleo radiology, CT computer tomography and micro-CT scans and Kirlian imagery; Paleo-botany and advanced geo-hydrological exploration studies; Decoding NLP and allied methods of language sciences using Sanskrit based on HMI and Natural language Processing algorithms; Advanced satellite imagery studies in landscape exploration; Image processing and advance visual software driven decoding of Iconographic exploration (semantics and semiotics); Exploration of advanced electrical sciences in health, healing, therapeutic and noetic science driven techniques; and many more."</i>
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Such a long list of technologies! So impressive! Wait a minute, did you just say "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography" target="_blank">Kirlian imagery</a>"? [Ah IITs, you were doing fine until that point. Mixing pseudo-science with science is never a good idea.]
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
To sum up, if this sort of nonsense goes on for much longer, I might have to hide the fact that I'm a double graduate of the IITs. I never thought this day would come.
</p>prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-15831721745117756252021-12-23T04:02:00.003-08:002021-12-23T04:04:12.819-08:00The Danger Of Focusing On Facts Alone, Without Regard To Context And Interpretation<p style="text-align: justify;">
I discussion I had with a friend recently resulted in a difference of opinion on how one needs to approach facts.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjA8YChpr5Qm4_3LrBchd8mMaCBeb02W47zlzN6864j8Pur1ZqkHVpk-5kF2R9PklVTsB5Z65iBk84rMgzepX5YoolRVNjTccwnMfhMTdMRdHaisWraur3CsB5QRLVFfJ8yKS2n7aH54yp2kxVSLh-7VfDzpbe9wdOyOOJBWHaFtdQAPpaAg1wZU09=s2475" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="2175" data-original-width="2475" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjA8YChpr5Qm4_3LrBchd8mMaCBeb02W47zlzN6864j8Pur1ZqkHVpk-5kF2R9PklVTsB5Z65iBk84rMgzepX5YoolRVNjTccwnMfhMTdMRdHaisWraur3CsB5QRLVFfJ8yKS2n7aH54yp2kxVSLh-7VfDzpbe9wdOyOOJBWHaFtdQAPpaAg1wZU09=s600" width="600" />
<i>A book well worth reading</i>
</a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I had questioned the motives behind the source of his information, pointing out that the source was guilty of the same things that were being criticised. My friend objected to my line of argument.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
He said:
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
You remember the time you and I used to argue with [people] on FB? One unwritten rule then that we used to enforce, and call [them] out on, was whataboutery. [...] I take that as a universal principle. Every action should be judged on its own merit, not by comparison with someone else's action. [...] I would urge you to focus on the facts.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
If someone points out that my roof is leaky, does it matter whether they are saying it because they are my well-wisher or whether they want to show me up?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
The fact is still that my roof is leaky.
</p>
</i>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
His was a pretty compelling argument on the face of it, but something didn't sit right with me. After a lot of thought, I composed this rejoinder using his own example of the leaky roof, and you can judge if it has any merit.
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I have said more than once that "facts" by themselves are useless. They may be objectively true, but they are meaningless without context, and they are useless without interpretation. Context and interpretation are crucial to facts, and they are the aspects that are most prone to mischief. This is why it is naive to emphasise facts alone without regard to context and interpretation.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Let me illustrate with your own example.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I hear a rumour that your roof is leaking. You denounce it as malicious gossip. I persist with my investigation and determine that your roof is indeed leaking. I can now be triumphant in my insistence on verifying the facts regardless of the source of my information.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But the story doesn't end there. The fact that your roof is leaking is a useless piece of information in itself. What is the interpretation? What is the actionable intelligence from this "fact"? Well, upon further research, I find that roofer A was the one who built your roof, so my actionable intelligence is to be wary of roofer A, and not to hire him when building my house.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let's say I instead choose to "follow the money". I try to find out who spread this rumour, and I discover that the source was roofer B. Aha! Roofer B has a motive in spreading such a rumour, because the resulting loss of reputation of roofer A will drive potential customers away from A towards his own business. Now people may argue that his motive doesn't matter, because facts are facts. Your roof leaks, and that's a fact that doesn't change regardless of who spread it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But now, armed with this extra piece of information, I start another line of research. I find out how many roofs in the locality were built by roofer A and how many by B, and further, how many of each are leaking. My results now show that an equal percentage of roofs built by both A and B have leaked. There was a particularly severe thunderstorm last night, and many roofs have leaked in the neighbourhood. It's not fair to blame roofer A alone for leaky roofs, or to deny him business based on the "fact" that your roof leaked.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So when I announce, "Hey guys, guess what? Roofer B's roofs have also leaked!", that shouldn't be considered "whataboutery".
</p>
</i>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I thought this was an important debate on <i>how to argue</i>.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-56183949094945087712021-11-07T07:27:00.006-08:002021-11-08T19:54:50.255-08:00Humanising The Other<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nbf8mUigeiQ/YYfjNgtD9lI/AAAAAAABsTg/dDtmZtQ4ZXIWBoL3NtnKL6jy3YLZTENDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1200/humanising-aliens.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nbf8mUigeiQ/YYfjNgtD9lI/AAAAAAABsTg/dDtmZtQ4ZXIWBoL3NtnKL6jy3YLZTENDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s600/humanising-aliens.jpg" width="600" /></a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
One of my friends made an insightful comment after watching a Chinese serial that I had recommended to him:
</p>
<blockquote>
I realize the power of cinema and TV serials in shaping the attitudes of foreigners about a culture. The serial may have been written primarily for Chinese residents. But in this day and age, people around the world watch these shows. Someone like me may never watch another Chinese show or ever go to China. This show, then, might have a huge influence on my view of China. With nothing else to inform me otherwise, this show becomes my reality of China.
<br /><br />
Thus the serial is very influential, and I think the Chinese government understands this, and that's why they have told makers of shows to project only positive images of the country.
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
His comment brought to the surface a theory I have been having for a while. It's the importance of "Humanising the Other" in today's world. I believe there are two aspects to it.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
Soft power as a political tool of governments
</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
When I was a kid, my dad was a professor of foreign languages and for a time was teaching Russian. We used to get to read a large number of Soviet books and magazines, and also had the opportunity to watch a number of Russian movies. I remember many of those movies very fondly. They showed the lives of average Russians and the problems they faced and overcame. Over time, an audience exposed to a series of such movies develops a deep sense of empathy with the characters and by extension, the society they come from. For a long time, I used to think Russian people were among the warmest in the world, until the horror stories from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan started coming out, and I realised Russians could be as brutal as anyone else.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
It's also true that American soft power helps the US immensely. The US routinely does terrible things to other countries, and in recent times, even the pretence of noble intentions is no longer bothered with. Yet lots of people around the world still think of the US as a benign power. I read about a recent survey that reported that Iranians have a generally positive image of the US! For citizens of a country long subject to American meddling, and still suffering crushing American sanctions, to report such a positive view of the US points to the extent of American soft power.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
So it's perfectly natural for the Chinese government to try to use the soft power of its movies and TV serials to create a positive image of Chinese society.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>
Positive stereotyping as a means of counteracting negative stereotyping
</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I was reminded of my own impressions of other groups of people during my formative years.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I grew up in Bangalore, capital of the South Indian state of Karnataka. For many years, my only travels outside Bangalore had been to Madurai, Madras (now Chennai) and other places in my home state of Tamil Nadu. I had never visited North India (even the central Indian state of Maharashtra was considered "north"), and in those pre-television days, I hardly heard any Hindi at all. "North Indians" were an unknown group of people.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
We mostly used to watch English movies, because the staff club at the Indian Institute of Science where my father worked would only show English movies. A few times a year, my parents would take the whole family to a theatre in the city to watch a Hindi or Malayalam movie, perhaps because my mother had heard good reviews about it from her schoolteacher colleagues.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I remember the time we watched the Hindi movie Bawarchi. In one scene, the character played by Jaya Bhaduri wakes up her kid cousin, saying, "ucho, ucho". I found it very cute that she didn't say "uTho, uTho" (Hindi for "Wake up, wake up") but used affectionately diminutive language (what we in Tamil call "chella bhaashai") to speak to a kid. That immediately humanised North Indians for me. I was already aware that Tamilians say "okachu" instead of "okaru" ("sit") and "taachiko" instead of "paDutuko" ("lie down") when speaking to kids, so this "ucho" thing, although a tiny part of the movie, had a huge impact in terms of suddenly turning those strange and unknown people into human beings like my own kind.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I understand that the same thing happens to non-Muslim Indians who watch Pakistani TV serials. After watching episode after episode of regular characters going through day-to-day troubles similar to their own, they start to realise that at a fundamental level, Pakistanis (and by extension Muslims) are just human beings like themselves.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I think this is a very good thing. There is too much "othering" going on, and social media is exacerbating it rather than healing it. Recently, one of our Indian friends told us that she gets into fights on family WhatsApp groups because there are people who post nasty things about Muslims. When she asks them if they personally know any Muslims or have Muslim friends, they say, "We know what they're like". Of course they have no idea what Muslims are like. They're just perpetuating stereotypes that they consider to be truths.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I imagine it's the same thing with Indians and the Chinese. I think Indians in the main have a very negative view of the Chinese (all thanks to the 1962 war and the unresolved border issue that erupts into public consciousness from time to time).
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I know that many non-Chinese people, not just Indians, have a negative opinion of China for many reasons. While most of them would justify their viewpoint based on a ready list of facts, those facts themselves probably suffer from "selection bias". In other words, people tend to see what they want to see. There is no objective truth, only subjective opinion.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Before I quit Facebook and other social media platforms, I had been engaged in a never-ending battle with people who in my view were bent on perpetuating hatred between communities, based on nothing but prejudice.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
And so, given the amount of hatred and othering that is swirling around social media, it's probably not a bad thing to counteract negative stereotypes with some positive ones.
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-53252409541726696892021-08-10T01:03:00.005-07:002021-08-10T03:09:27.525-07:00When The New York Times Proved To Be No Better Than Pravda<p style="text-align: justify;">
There was an old American joke I read long ago about the former Soviet Union, and it went like this:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>
There was a race somewhere between an American car and a Russian car, and the American car won. (Of course the American car won! This is an American joke, remember?)
</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>
The next day's headlines in Pravda said, "The Russian car came second, while the American car was next to last."
</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Ha, ha! Oh, those Russians!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
I've been watching the medal tally at the Tokyo Olympics over the last couple of weeks, and something puzzled me about American reporting on this.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Normally, medal tallies are shown in descending order of gold, then silver, and then bronze medals. The country with the most golds is on top. If two countries have the same number of golds, then the one with more silvers goes above the other. Ditto if the two countries have the same number of golds <i>and</i> silvers. The country with more bronze medals goes above the other.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Not according to the New York Times, though.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
In their reporting, the medal tally was sorted in descending order of <i>total number of medals</i>.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s_RksLzFzBU/YRIvt9VDuXI/AAAAAAABnrA/wK8uczH_e8wA407aJtJUumC7dVduwekowCLcBGAsYHQ/s1125/us-china-medals-nytimes.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="864" data-original-width="1125" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s_RksLzFzBU/YRIvt9VDuXI/AAAAAAABnrA/wK8uczH_e8wA407aJtJUumC7dVduwekowCLcBGAsYHQ/s600/us-china-medals-nytimes.jpg" width="600" /></a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
But wait, there's more!
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
One would think there would be no wiggle room when comparing gold medals, right?
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Apparently, there is. You can <i>shrink</i> the icons on China's row to make it look much shorter than it is. That way, the US won't look <i>quite</i> so bad.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-40kOlP6iQaM/YRIwMSsEqxI/AAAAAAABnrI/Mz_lp6Y7l9w2NpAw6zjyqxqak1IynoySACLcBGAsYHQ/s1348/us-china-medals-nytimes-2.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1348" data-original-width="1076" height="600" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-40kOlP6iQaM/YRIwMSsEqxI/AAAAAAABnrI/Mz_lp6Y7l9w2NpAw6zjyqxqak1IynoySACLcBGAsYHQ/s600/us-china-medals-nytimes-2.jpg" /></a>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Unbelievable, right? I guess that's what a "free press" means. You're free to bend and twist the truth in any way you like. Not that it didn't get called out and ridiculed on <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1422883778280689667/retweets/with_comments" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/oyz2kv/nyt_literally_shrunk_the_size_of_the_gold_medal/" target="_blank">Reddit</a>. In that context, I learnt a new word - <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Copium" target="_blank">copium</a>.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Luckily for them, the US ended the Olympics with more gold medals than China (in addition to having more medals overall), so it could legitimately be at the top of the medal tally, and the media subterfuge of the previous few days went by unremarked.
</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
Now you know why I don't believe the Western press when it comes to reporting on China. If they can distort such obvious facts to create a misleading impression, what else are they distorting?
</p>
prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-62315854327517304812021-06-06T07:05:00.014-07:002021-06-12T05:40:07.933-07:00Don't Buy The Covid Bioweapon Hypothesis? Let's Lead You There In Two Steps<p style="text-align: justify;">[Update 12/06/2021: This post is no longer a prediction. Look for the link at the bottom of the post. The other shoe has already dropped.]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Given the subject matter at hand, I believe I will be forgiven for using an immunological phrase -- I still have antibodies in my system after a nasty bout of WMD-itis in 2003. In other words, if the Western establishment tries to demonise yet another country after the loot and plunder of Iraq, my reaction is (understandably) going to be one of contemptuous disbelief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">China is no angel in white, of course. Every conspiracy theory regarding China necessarily carries a non-zero probability at the very outset. In other words, no one trusts the Chinese government, and that includes a significant number of Chinese people.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Still, if we're trying to be as objective as <a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/implicit-bias.html" target="_blank">implicit bias</a> will let us be, we should be skeptical even if it's the devil himself who is being demonised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">My starting point in following the money is in recognising the most recent recurrence of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap" target="_blank">Thucydides Trap</a>. The Thucydides Trap states that every rising power, however peaceful its intentions, necessarily threatens an established power, and history has shown that in 12 of the last 16 such cases, the situation has led to war. As a corollary, if a war is to be fought, it is in the interests of the rising power to <i>delay</i> the conflict until it is stronger, while the converse holds for the established power. It must strike <i>before</i> the rising power becomes any stronger.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the context of the US and China, <a href="https://youtu.be/YsFwKzYI5_4" target="_blank">independent analysts have concluded</a> that the US is under an imperative to move to contain China sooner rather than later, since every year's delay works to China's advantage.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But a move by the US against China will carry no legitimacy unless another convincing WMD story can be manufactured, and this is obviously proving hard to do since the boy has already cried wolf once too often.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A trial balloon was floated a year ago, and it was called the "Bioweapon hypothesis". It alleged that China deliberately engineered the SARS-CoV-2 virus to cripple the rest of the world while it surged ahead. If it had been widely accepted, that hypothesis should have stirred up enough outrage worldwide to endorse US-led punitive action against China. But as it happened, that hypothesis sank like a lead balloon with no takers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, such a hypothesis is vitally important to the US, because it remains the best basis for mobilising world opinion in favour of concerted action against China. The hypothesis needs to be revived through some other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And this is why I think we are now seeing the first of two steps through which we (even the WMD-immunised) will be led to accept the bioweapon hypothesis, and by extension, be led to support military/economic action against China.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_3Z88kYLKrs/YLza6Ctu7UI/AAAAAAABm7I/M35TAFDoGowVM-TuzrlLGsgN8rxPDRLKACLcBGAsYHQ/s2000/shoes-falling-china.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="2000" height="305" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_3Z88kYLKrs/YLza6Ctu7UI/AAAAAAABm7I/M35TAFDoGowVM-TuzrlLGsgN8rxPDRLKACLcBGAsYHQ/w610-h305/shoes-falling-china.png" width="610" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Lots of whispered "evidence" in support of a Lab Leak Hypothesis is turning up, complete with little-known amateur actors, some with secret identities to boot, and documentation from obscure and now-sealed sources that, by definition, cannot be followed and verified. </i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>I predict that the other shoe will drop once this hypothesis gains sufficient acceptance, in the form of "evidence" that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is an arm of the Chinese military establishment.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Voila! Bioweapon.</i></div></i><p style="text-align: justify;">The West has an inherent advantage in the propaganda war against China, which is that the Chinese government has inherently low credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, and its denials are therefore going to be ineffectual from the very outset. Almost any charge can be made to stick, provided it sounds plausible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The latest round of "evidence" in favour of the Lab Leak Hypothesis reads like the plot of a Sidney Sheldon novel. The <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-amateur-sleuths-broke-wuhan-lab-story-embarrassed-media-1596958" target="_blank">report by Newsweek</a> makes for a thrilling read.<br /><br />My interpretation of this round of "evidence" covers the following points:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Western government and intelligence sources have no credibility anymore, thanks to WMD. Hence the source for the hypothesis has to be another set of actors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Scientists and journalists are the obvious credible sources for such a hypothesis, but hardly any mainstream scientists or journalists have risen to the bait. Few have been willing to put their professional reputations on the line in support of this hypothesis.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Of the handful of media organisations willing to associate themselves with the hypothesis, none has high credibility. Media watcher site <a href="https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/" target="_blank">Ad Fontes Media</a> doesn't seem to have a high opinion of any of the organisations (Business Insider, Mother Jones, The New York Post, and Fox News) that Newsweek listed in <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-amateur-sleuths-broke-wuhan-lab-story-embarrassed-media-1596958" target="_blank">its latest report</a> as being in its corner. These would be just the sort of news outlets that a government could use to push its views.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Nm12bG1Nvc/YLzPLx7F-2I/AAAAAAABm64/BfTpbQCRJE0PGyBYIVHRc5-iTm4foM1-ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1176/media-bias-chart-5-titles-20210606.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="766" data-original-width="1176" height="279" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Nm12bG1Nvc/YLzPLx7F-2I/AAAAAAABm64/BfTpbQCRJE0PGyBYIVHRc5-iTm4foM1-ACLcBGAsYHQ/w431-h279/media-bias-chart-5-titles-20210606.png" width="431" /></a></div><p style="text-align: center;"><i>Ad Fontes Media's Media Bias chart showing the five media organisations that aligned themselves early on with the Lab Leak Hypothesis - not hugely confidence-inspiring</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Newsweek report describes the evidence gathered as establishing "probable cause -- a strong, evidence-based case for a full investigation". It carries a standard disclaimer ("None of this proves that the pandemic started in the Wuhan lab, of course: it's entirely possible that it did not."). And it heads off the demand for definitive proof with another disclaimer ("It's not clear that the best efforts of the U.S. and other nations to investigate the lab-leak hypothesis will ever turn up unequivocal evidence one way or another, at least without the full cooperation of China, which is unlikely.").</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have to wonder, if this is never going to go beyond the status of a hypothesis, why are we wasting our time on this? Unless the objective is something beyond finding the "truth".</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Many of the players in the report are amateur investigators. That in itself is not necessarily a disqualification. However, the identities of some of the key players ("The Seeker", "Billy Bostickson") remain hidden, and it is unlikely that they can be cross-examined by anyone who wishes to. The nebulous nature of the main characters raises red flags with me.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Descriptions of the sources seem designed to prevent fact-checkers from verifying their veracity. ("he'd become an expert at searching the back alleys of the web, far beyond the well-lit places patrolled by Google", and "Shortly after The Seeker posted the theses, China changed the access controls on CNKI so no one could do such a search again."). In other words, we are told in advance that the evidence cannot be independently verified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In short, the impression I get from this round of reporting is that a lot of mud is being thrown in the hope that some of it sticks. Given the pervasive suspicion of China among many, I'm sure some of this mud <i>is</i> going to stick.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From the enthusiastic forwards of these "findings" by many of my friends on social media, I'm going to accept that the Lab Leak hypothesis is going to find general consensus (even if I am myself unconvinced).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">My immediate question is, what next?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>A prediction - The other shoe is about to drop</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Let me put my money where my mouth is, by making a prediction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Once the Lab Leak Hypothesis is widely accepted, the other shoe is going to drop. We're going to be provided "evidence" (of similar quality) that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is an arm of the Chinese defence establishment. No amount of indignant protest from the Chinese government is going to be able to refute that allegation. Indeed, this could very well be an illustration of the well-known maxim, "Never believe a rumour until it has been officially denied".</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Make no mistake, once the other shoe has dropped, the Bioweapon hypothesis is effectively legitimised. <i><b>The SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a lab controlled by the Chinese military establishment.</b></i> Surely that could have had no benign intentions behind it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And with that, the hawks will have the endorsement they need for the 13th violent enactment of the deadly Thucydides Trap.<br /><br />[Update 12/06/2021: <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fauci-funded-wuhan-military-scientist-filed-covid-vaccine-patent-days-after-pandemic" target="_blank">This has just happened</a>.]</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j5kmQFsZJwU/YLzStCC4ZSI/AAAAAAABm7A/bNcGoG4TRcYC3jO2fQhq_G6k82BJJOOYwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1024/dogs-of-war.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="384" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j5kmQFsZJwU/YLzStCC4ZSI/AAAAAAABm7A/bNcGoG4TRcYC3jO2fQhq_G6k82BJJOOYwCLcBGAsYHQ/w511-h384/dogs-of-war.jpg" width="511" /></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8350112551539792336.post-44453620875183459902021-05-20T06:44:00.017-07:002021-05-20T18:37:27.050-07:00The Origin Of The SARS-Cov-2 Virus And The Decoy Effect<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Exhuming a body long buried</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">After months of seemingly universal satisfaction that the SARS-Cov-2 virus originated in the Wuhan wet markets, having crossed over from bats to humans through some intermediary species, there is now renewed interest in ascertaining its <i>true</i> origins.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The "Natural Origins" hypothesis has the virtue of being the simplest explanation that fits the facts, what is popularly known as <a href="https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-occam-s-razor.html" target="_blank">Occam's Razor</a>. Occam's Razor doesn't refute other hypotheses, but merely favours the Natural Origins hypothesis as the simplest explanation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A new hypothesis gaining ground in some circles is that the virus was a genetically-engineered species that may have accidentally escaped from a research lab, more specifically the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology" target="_blank">Wuhan Institute of Virology</a>. Given that the virus was first detected in the city of Wuhan, this hypothesis has immediate appeal. <a href="https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038" target="_blank">The paper</a> that discusses this idea in detail, and which most of its proponents point to, is one by British author, journalist and science writer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Wade" target="_blank">Nicholas Wade</a>. [Mind you, Wade is not a scientist but a popular science writer. His paper was not published in a peer-reviewed science journal but on <a href="http://Medium.com">Medium.com</a>. Still, he has a certain amount of credibility thanks to his past writings, and the paper makes a compelling case.]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The "Lab Leak" hypothesis posits that the escape of the virus from a controlled environment into the wild was the result of slipshod systems and insufficient governance.<br /><br />Perhaps the most important aspect of this hypothesis is that <i>it does not ascribe malicious intent to any party.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is another hypothesis that does.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This one is known as the "Bioweapon" hypothesis, and postulates that the Chinese government deliberately created and released the virus to bring the rest of the world to its knees while China's economy alone would remain untouched. Most commentators refer to this as a conspiracy theory and do not give it much credence.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fC7bFBa8o24/YKZktVsAmZI/AAAAAAABmds/i4RPHrSZ2mou3z8dJpX8MeAvJO9foMKSACLcBGAsYHQ/s2000/coronavirus-china-map-egg-fu.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1333" data-original-width="2000" height="375" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fC7bFBa8o24/YKZktVsAmZI/AAAAAAABmds/i4RPHrSZ2mou3z8dJpX8MeAvJO9foMKSACLcBGAsYHQ/w563-h375/coronavirus-china-map-egg-fu.jpg" width="563" /></a></div><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Conspiracy theorists would love to believe that the nefarious Chinese establishment (symbolised here by DC Comics's villain Egg-Fu) deliberately created the virus to bring the rest of the world to its knees.</i></div></i><p style="text-align: justify;">A fourth hypothesis owes its origin to Chinese researchers and authors, <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3110731/coronavirus-china-not-origin-disease-top-scientist-says" target="_blank">who postulate that the virus did not originate in China at all</a>. They point to studies by Italian scientists to argue that the virus was detected in Italy long before the first detected outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan. For obvious reasons, this hypothesis is not taken very seriously by non-Chinese, since the nationality of its proponents seems to provide an explanation of why they would seek to disclaim a link between the virus and China.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So that's the landscape of competing hypotheses on the origin of SARS-Cov-2:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A. "Natural Origins"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">B. "Lab Leak"<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">C. "Bioweapon"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">D. "Not from China"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Which hypothesis do you favour?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>All hypotheses are not created equal (or for the same purpose!)</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have an interesting meta-hypothesis of my own about these hypotheses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is a well-known tactic in Marketing known as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect" target="_blank">Decoy Effect</a>. Given competing products A and B from two companies, how can either of the companies nudge consumers towards its own offering, apart from obvious techniques like advertising and sales promotion?</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4ETa-HNRrLo/YKZljbTfHBI/AAAAAAABmd0/zITGWTY0lOwH3Il7QRomuAZyGtvTfmnqgCLcBGAsYHQ/s611/decoy-effect-1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="298" data-original-width="611" height="249" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4ETa-HNRrLo/YKZljbTfHBI/AAAAAAABmd0/zITGWTY0lOwH3Il7QRomuAZyGtvTfmnqgCLcBGAsYHQ/w511-h249/decoy-effect-1.png" width="511" /></a></div><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>The Wikipedia example describes two products, each of which has an advantage and a disadvantage compared to the other.</i></div></i><p style="text-align: justify;">A popular tactic is to introduce a third option that functions purely as a "decoy". In other words, the company introducing this third product does not expect customers to buy it. Its purpose is solely to reposition its existing product and the competitor's in order to make the former appear much more attractive.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wv2lMTztbzE/YKZl6FCaTqI/AAAAAAABmd8/oZpkJyyxmCoD02DSGd-juvyjanrww1UJwCLcBGAsYHQ/s619/decoy-effect-2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="323" data-original-width="619" height="255" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wv2lMTztbzE/YKZl6FCaTqI/AAAAAAABmd8/oZpkJyyxmCoD02DSGd-juvyjanrww1UJwCLcBGAsYHQ/w488-h255/decoy-effect-2.png" width="488" /></a></div><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>As the Wikipedia example shows, the decoy can be designed in such a way that one of the products now appears superior to the other.</i></div></i><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ooHBrgNnoDc/YKZmS1IJ6eI/AAAAAAABmeE/YrGK3bCAdjg3d5CB3F9yajqF3ez2zJqdwCLcBGAsYHQ/s619/decoy-effect-3.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="619" height="204" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ooHBrgNnoDc/YKZmS1IJ6eI/AAAAAAABmeE/YrGK3bCAdjg3d5CB3F9yajqF3ez2zJqdwCLcBGAsYHQ/w499-h204/decoy-effect-3.png" width="499" /></a></div><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>The Wikipedia entry also shows how a decoy can be designed to have exactly the opposite effect.</i></div></i><p style="text-align: justify;">The Wikipedia examples above illustrate the general principle that a decoy must appear comprehensively inferior to the company's favoured product, but only partially inferior to the competitor's product (the principle of <i>asymmetric dominance</i>). Then a prospective customer will tend to favour the company's main product (because it is <i>comprehensively</i> <i>superior</i> to the decoy) over the competitor's offering (because it is <i>not as comprehensively superior</i> to the decoy).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>The Decoy Effect as it applies to SARS-Cov-2 origin hypotheses</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Given this quick introduction to the concept of the Decoy Effect, we can see a certain pattern to the four hypotheses on the origin of the virus.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"Natural Origins" was the original product. We could consider it to be the "Chinese" product, because China seems to be comfortable with this hypothesis.<br /><br />"Lab Leak" is a competing product introduced by the West. It is meant to put China on the defensive while taking pains not to appear as a political attack. After all, the hypothesis involves elements such as Western funding and involvement by Western researchers, so accountability is diluted. Further, malicious intent is explicitly ruled out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These two hypotheses are "products" looking to persuade prospective "customers". Which of these two would an unbiased customer buy?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">To nudge the customer along, each of the competitors has introduced a "decoy".</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The "Bioweapon" product is a decoy introduced by the West. It's introduced with disclaimers of its being a ridiculous conspiracy theory, so it was never intended to win supporters anyway. It's only intended to make the "Lab Leak" hypothesis appear more credible than "Natural Origins".<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The "Bioweapon" and "Lab Leak" hypotheses support each other by claiming that the virus was deliberately engineered, and so they together exert a psychological influence that seems to outweigh the "Natural Origins" hypothesis, relying as it does merely on Occam's Razor.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Between these two hypotheses, though, Occam's Razor applies once again. Malicious intent requires a higher burden of proof than an accident or a mistake. And so the Lab Leak hypothesis is comprehensively "better" in terms of plausibility than the Bioweapon hypothesis. After all, apart from hardcore conspiracy theorists who want to believe the worst about China, most people would prefer the explanation of an innocent mistake rather than malicious intent. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">And that's the Western gambit. Introduce a decoy in the form of a conspiracy theory, and people will gravitate towards the more reasonable-sounding (but still China-blaming) Lab Leak hypothesis.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Chinese decoy, on the other hand, is the hypothesis that the virus originated outside of China, much before it was detected in Wuhan. This hypothesis turns the seemingly damning indictment of first detection into a virtue. The virus had been circulating in other countries for months, according to this hypothesis, but it was China, with its superior scientific abilities, that was first able to detect it!</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Analogously to the other decoy that we saw, the "Not from China" and "Natural Origins" hypotheses support each other in ascribing a natural origin to the virus. They thus exert a psychological influence away from the idea of a human-engineered virus. Between the two, the "Not from China" idea seems less credible because non-Chinese observers would ascribe a nationalistic motive to the argument of its proponents, and so the only credible hypothesis left standing is the "Natural Origins" one.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Chinese gambit is therefore to introduce a decoy in the form of an overly defensive claim, so that people prefer the more reasonable-sounding Natural Origins hypothesis, which absolves China of any responsibility for the pandemic.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Is there an objective truth at all?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In sum, I believe that the search for the origins of the SARS-Cov-2 virus is not a search for truth, no matter what pious protestations we may hear, because such a search is compromised from the start. Two sophisticated marketers are engaged in a battle for the mind of a prospective customer, and that customer is all of us.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Knowing what you now know about the Decoy Effect, which hypothesis would you believe now?</p>prasadgchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179696156998026173noreply@blogger.com0