Mars Versus Malnutrition - The False Debate Resumes

It's been my cynical observation that nothing causes an outpouring of concern for India's poor and starving millions like a space mission (or in an earlier age, a nuclear test). [And by the way, this isn't strictly a guns-versus-butter argument, because external critics of India's defence spending are largely silent when their countries' arms industries are the beneficiaries.]

The Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM), popularly known as Mangalyaan (Sanskrit/Hindi for Mars craft), was appropriately launched on a Wednesday (which is Mangalvaar, or "Mars-day", in the Indian calendar). 

Whether MOM launched a space probe or not, it certainly launched a barrage of criticism from various quarters, both Indian and foreign. The refrain was familiar. A country with so many poor people/people without toilets/starving children (take your pick) shouldn't be wasting money on space.

It's a different matter that the cessation of funding for space research isn't going to end poverty, and in fact, might cause it to drag on longer. The argument in favour of space research has been very effectively made by Dr Ernst Stuhlinger in his letter to a nun.

In fact, the "poor people" argument is ironically the most potent in favour of India's space program. The 1999 cyclone that hit India, like typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines this week, killed 10,000 people. But the cyclone Phailin, which hit India last month, only claimed 10 lives. The difference between 1999 and 2013 was that three Indian satellites - INSAT-3A, INSAT-3D and KALPANA - provided early warning and real-time monitoring of the storm, enabling the evacuation of over a million people out of harm's way. All three satellites were developed and launched indigenously, at a cost far below comparable services that could have been purchased from abroad. Critics should talk to the "poor people" who were saved about the benefit of the Indian space program.

In the 1960s, about 10-15% of the US population was considered "poor". Should the US have abandoned its man-on-the-moon mission until there were no more poor? Should the US even now refrain from spending money on probes like the Mars rover Curiosity until the American people enjoy universal health care?

Some of the posturing is so transparent, the insecurities of the author/editors shine through. India Mars Mission to Launch Amidst Overwhelming Poverty, reads the Las Vegas Guardian's shrill headline.

Indian critics are not to be left behind. Social activist Harsh Mander thought the Mars mission showed "a remarkable indifference to the dignity of the poor".

Some Indians were more specific in their criticism of this particular mission rather than with the idea of India's space efforts in general. One blogger believes the mission is a waste of resources because it will bring back no new data of value.

Even critics like him miss the point entirely.

To be blunt, the objective of the Mars Orbiter Mission is not to study Mars or to bring back useful data about the red planet! It has had several other objectives. Even if the orbiter dies after a single orbit of Mars, it would have achieved the following:

Prestige: It is undeniable that people around the world are now looking at India with new-found respect. If India succeeds where China and Japan have failed, it will be a significant achievement in the eyes of the world. The stage-wise approach of raising the craft's orbit in increments before breaking free of the earth's gravity, is an example of the Indian ability to improvise ("jugaad") in the face of constraints (namely the lack of a more powerful rocket like the GSLV).

The bulk of the complex mission still lies ahead, but on paper at least, the plan seems simultaneously ingenious and workable

Inspiration: Countless numbers of young Indians have been energised by the mission. The glamour of being a space scientist is already inspiring large numbers of students to opt for the hard sciences - the study of Mathematics, Physics and Aerospace Engineering. Engineering enrolments are likely to see a boost in the years to come.

Cyberspace - another frontier conquered by ISRO

For a government-owned entity, ISRO has surprised watchers not only with its frugality but also with its transparency. Every stage of the mission's progress was reported on social media, and an eager band of followers (over 200,000 strong) hung on to every word, staying up till the wee hours and posting encouraging messages.

Marketing: India has subtly advertised to the world that (1) its commercial launch capabilities are extremely economical, (2) its workhorse rocket, the PSLV, is highly reliable, and (3) its mission control specialists are skilled, experienced and capable of tackling problems that arise during a mission. A lot more business should flow ISRO's way in the months ahead.

Skills and Employment: As a wag put it, India's investment of $75 million on this mission has not been stuffed in the form of banknotes into the rocket and sent off into space. It has been spent in India, providing employment and experience to thousands of professionals, including those in ancillary industries such as Walchandnagar Industries Limited, which precision-manufactured the parts of the rocket and orbiter. It's an investment that will provide continuing returns.

In short, I think critics should shut up and get with the (space) program.

Update 16/11/2013: A very clear explanation of what MOM will and will not achieve can be heard in this 10-minute clip of an interview with D Raghunandan of the Delhi Science Forum.

Update 24/09/2014: MOM has reached Mars and entered orbit around the planet after almost 10 months in space.

Sterling Values Sold For Thirty Pieces

The news of Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel (charkha) being sold for 110,000 pounds at a Shropshire auction should not shock us. It is a sign of the times we live in. We are capable of putting a price tag on simplicity itself if it appeals to people, because clearly, there's a market for it.

The author of a literally homespun revolution is now a hot collector's item

It reminds me of that other anti-capitalist icon who has become the ultimate chic consumerist commodity - Che Guevara. He has done so much for capitalists since he died, since his face adorns millions of t-shirts sold around the world.

A most revolutionary idea in fashion

When Open Source software began to be known to the average IT person around the year 2000, many people were puzzled by the phenomenon. "How can anyone make money from it?" was the question. I wrote two articles ("Open Source-onomics" and "The Capitalist View of Open Source") to address these misconceptions.

There was a time when a movie's popularity used to be measured by how many weeks it ran in the theatres. No longer. Today, the measurement of popularity is money. In recent personal experience, I was saddened to see that most on-line news and reader commentary about a movie I liked (Krrish 3) was about how much money it had been able to gross (and how quickly) rather than how good it was.

As a society, we seem to be at that classic stage where we know "the price of everything and the value of nothing".

Cultural Shorthand

When looking at a friend's Facebook photos, I came across one that was pretty striking - a lone man surrounded by women at a table, making a peculiar gesture with his hands. What was that all about?

(Faces partially pixellated for privacy, while preserving expressions)

I knew only one of the people in the photo. I had no idea what the occasion for the get-together was or who the other people in the photo were. Yet I "got" the reference immediately, and then I realised it was highly culture-specific. I had to marvel then at human civilisation. We have evolved into so many highly differentiated cultures with unique and specific situational themes that we can convey humour with a single word or gesture. We are masters of cultural shorthand.

The reference was of course to the Hindu god Krishna, traditionally shown as a cowherd playing a flute and surrounded by women of his village called gopis. There is even a special name for Krishna in that situation - Gopikrishna.

Krishna and the gopis - a popular Hindu motif

With one simple, eloquent gesture, the man in the photo conveyed enough to raise a chuckle among viewers like myself, who knew nothing at all about their group.

Obviously, one cannot imagine this being transplanted to another culture. A joke, to be effective, has to be a symbol drawn from the appropriate cultural repertoire.

"The only thorn among the roses!"

Movie Review - Krrish 3

(Warning - plot spoilers ahead)
(Further warning - this positive review is apparently leading to disappointment when people actually see the movie. Please scale down your expectations before watching :-) )

When a movie lies at the confluence of three genres (Science Fiction, Superhero and Bollywood), it becomes trivially easy to enjoy (or to dislike) but makes it very difficult to write a truly insightful review.

I'm going to try, anyway.

I saw Krrish 3 on its opening night in Sydney (Oct 31), a day before it screened in its home market of India :-). [I like watching Bollywood movies in Australia and Hollywood movies in India, because I like to have English subtitles all the time to avoid missing any part of the dialogues!]

I'd seen the two prequels ("Koi...Mil Gaya" and "Krrish"), and while there was improvement between the first and second films, I was still preparing to be disappointed by the third, because - and all Indians will know this feeling, - every time an Indian or a group of Indians (like the national cricket team) manages to get within reach of some international benchmark, they inevitably fail, disappointing their fans and well-wishers. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory seems to be in the national character, and we Indians have been let down far too often by our heroes. [The only real Indian achievers at the international level are the quiet ones in research, academia and technical-professional careers.] Would an Indian film-maker be able to hold his own against his formidable counterparts in Hollywood when venturing into their home territory of the Science Fiction/Superhero genre? Or, more likely, would his film drown in an embarrassing excess of maudlin sentimentality and shoddy production, to universal ridicule?

I confess I felt vicarious trepidation.

Nothing wrong with the poster - so far, so good

As it turned out, director-producer Rakesh Roshan acquitted himself very creditably. Dare I say this is a Hollywood-class superhero movie?

I've read some rather churlish reviews of Krrish 3 after I saw the movie. I think some critics believe their job title obliges them to criticise rather than critique. They have to show off their superior taste and artistic nous, and to do so by tearing down other people's work with a display of fine language. Rarely have I seen such reluctance to praise unconditionally ("Great effects, but too much emotional drama", "ambitious but flawed", "rubbish but a sure hit", "entertains but lacks originality"). Perhaps these critics are trying to reconcile their own tendency to be negative with the obvious fact that this is such a polished product that it's sure to be a blockbuster. Their whole attitude reminds me of the old story of The Jealous Courtiers.

The two most frequently aired complaints about this movie are that it is "boring" and is "unoriginal/plagiarised". Both of these complaints are just plain wrong.

Krrish 3 is anything but boring! Interesting things keep happening throughout the film. There are no moments that drag (if you discount the song sequences - the Bollywood cognoscenti know enough to switch mental gears and pause their pursuit of the storyline to enjoy the songs when they appear).

The charge of plagiarism is only valid at a superficial level. The story is completely original (at least, I haven't seen it anywhere else). Yes, there are specific elements and motifs that a viewer would have encountered earlier. For example, if you arrest Rakesh Roshan and shake out his bags for stolen goods, you might find the following:

• A wheelchair belonging to Professor Xavier of the X-Men
• A repurposed sonic screwdriver belonging to The Doctor
• A bunch of mutants poached from the X-Men universe, including one with a prehensile tongue like Toad and another with chameleon-like capability like Mystique
• A villain with magnetic powers like Magneto (but in a confusing amalgam with telekinesis)
• A fortress at the top of an icy mountain, which some say resembles the one in Inception (I didn't think so - it was more like the palace in Mirror Mirror)
• A rescue of a plane in danger of crashing, like in Superman Returns
• Some leaping between buildings à la Spider-man, but more parkour style
• And of course the superhero's standard secret identity as a harmless civilian

I think the charge of plagiarism would stick better if all that copying was badly done. The effects were excellent, and the story was independent, so it's more a derivative work than a copy. In other words, you're only a thief in my book if you're bad at it! [I didn't know the mere knowledge that an idea was borrowed from elsewhere could ruin an experience for people. The Magnificent Seven, being a rip-off of Seven Samurai, must have been a terrible viewing experience, no?]

I thought this movie was intelligently made because it didn't assault my sensibilities with a shoddy storyline. The reasoning hung together quite nicely, and the events clicked together well too. There were no loose ends, either in terms of "how could he/she have known about this", or "how could all this have taken place in such a short time", questions that tend to nag one after watching badly-made movies. In a word, the movie was slick.

A new superhero is born - If the original movie "Krrish" didn't establish him in the hearts of millions of fans, this one should do it

On to the characters, then. Hrithik Roshan is a truly great actor. He's likeable as well as believable in all his roles. The difference in persona between Krrish and his secret identity Krishna is dramatic but expected. Besides, the two never share the screen at the same time, for obvious reasons. The more incredible switch comes from the double role that he plays as father Rohit Mehra and son Krishna. The father is naive and nerdy, with a flabby physique and shabby attire, and a childlike intonation that harks back to his history in the first prequel as an initially mentally disabled person. The son is smart and neat, with a confident voice. When the two characters appear on screen together, their interaction is so natural, it's as if they were played by two different actors.

A scene of seamless double-acting

Father and son are both do-gooders, each in his own way. The son is the action hero who carries out the dramatic rescues. The father is the thinker back at the laboratory, working out the solutions to the world's problems, one bit at a time. When they work together, as in this film, they're an amazing team.

Superheroes are at their best when they project vulnerability rather than strength. One of the most moving scenes in "Superman - The Movie" was at the funeral of Jonathan Kent, Clark's adoptive father. Young Clark's pain is evident in his words, "All those powers - I couldn't even save him!"

That sentiment finds an echo here when Krishna expresses his despair to his father at his inability to save people dying of a virus ("What is the use of my being Krrish?"). That's one of the film's finest moments. You see, it's not enough to have super-powers. You must desperately want to help people. That's what makes a superhero. And Hrithik pulls off both action and emotion with equal ease.

The one aspect in which Krrish 3 has beaten even Hollywood is in the physique of the hero. Except for Henry Cavill (Man of Steel), no actor who played a Hollywood superhero can match Hrithik Roshan's muscles. This man has worked really hard at the gym to deserve the role of a superhero! [Also, it just wouldn't be a Hrithik Roshan movie if it didn't feature a dance sequence in which he gets to show off his liquid moves. This one is no exception.]

Hrithik Roshan - Credible emoting, incredible physique

As we cross over to the dark side, Vivek Oberoi was quite effective as the villain Kaal. [Kaal is the Sanskrit word for Time, and it was amusing that whenever he referred to time in his dialogues, he would use the Urdu word Waqt instead.]

The reason for his disability, why no one else could develop the virus that he did (or the antidote to it), why Rohit and his family were immune to it, all these were satisfactorily explained.

Of all of the villain's minions, the best was the mutant chameleon-woman named Kaya, played superbly by Kangana Ranaut (in spite of a name that sounds like she would be embarrassingly bad at cricket). In fact, she was so good, she upstaged the film's leading lady Priyanka Chopra, who played Krishna's wife Priya. [Priyanka Chopra has gone on record to assert that she (Priyanka) is the film's heroine, and the insecurity behind that statement underlines Kangana Ranaut's powerful performance.]

Chameleon-woman Kaya, the way she looks when she isn't looking like someone else

Priyanka Chopra should in fact be happy with her role. In the previous Krrish movie, she had only ornamental value. She has a vastly expanded role in this one, and she does justice to it. Too bad her character isn't required to exhibit superpowers or perform daredevil stunts.

Priyanka Chopra doesn't look half bad, and one is reminded that she's a former Miss World, after all

By the way, super-villains should heed this advice: When going up against a good-looking super-hero with a vulnerable innocence, keep your female minions well away from him. They might just go sweet on him at the wrong time and betray you. [The Phantom: Slam Evil, Superman - The Movie, Superman Returns, Krrish 3]

I may be a female super-villain, but I can dream, can't I?

Whatever the critics may say, I predict Krrish 3 is going to smash a number of records and become a super-hit like very few others. It's now even a computer game, and a player can choose to be one of four characters - Krrish, Kaal, Kaya or the mutant frog-man.

Krrish versus Kaya - The game is afoot

Is there anything that I think is bad about this movie? Nothing really bad, but there were a few things that could have been done better.

The songs are strictly mediocre. It may not mean much in the Superhero genre, but it's a pretty grave shortcoming in the Bollywood genre.

On a related, er, note, theme music is very important when building a franchise, and the Krrish theme (a very nice one in my opinion) isn't played or emphasised enough.

I wish the movie had been about 20 minutes longer just to give more screen time to some of the other interesting mutants. Other than Kaya and the frog-man (and a few seconds of the cheetah-woman), we didn't really get a good look at any of them. The scorpion-woman, in particular, with her poisonous ponytail, was very intriguing. A longer battle between her and Kaya would have been exciting, I thought.

Bollywood films in general could do with a better understanding of what is considered a child-friendly movie in other countries. The "masala" (spice-mix) nature of Indian films, where there's something for everyone, often results in portions of inappropriate content for younger audiences. In all three movies of the Krrish franchise, there were elements that might be unsuitable for children (disturbing scenes of violence and bullying in Koi...Mil Gaya, the death by impalement of the villain in Krrish, and the many scenes of disfigurement and death by a virus epidemic in Krrish 3, not to speak of the much higher level of violence in the third movie).

Krrish 3 is easier to understand if we look at it as a film aimed at children (with the qualifier in the above paragraph). That doesn't mean it's too childish for adults to enjoy or that it has flaws that only children will forgive. On the contrary, it's pretty close to flawless, and enjoyable by potentially anybody. It just means we need to take ourselves back to a stage in our lives when we enjoyed experiences without the blinkers and baggage we acquired on our way to jaded adulthood. When we leave our cynicism at the door, Krrish 3 becomes the beautiful cinematic experience it is meant to be. Good triumphs over evil, the world is safe, and we can go to bed at night with a peaceful smile on our face.

This is a film that's better than "Man of Steel" or "Green Lantern", about as good as "The Avengers", and just slightly below "The Amazing Spider-man", "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and the Dark Knight (Batman) trilogy. I give it 4.5 stars out of 5.

The Tale Of Tinkle's Travels

Succumbing to a whim, I ordered the entire collection of Tinkle Digests on-line from Amar Chitra Katha's website (all 146 of them). Everyone in the family enjoys this somewhat silly children's mag, which might provide a clue about my household's average mental age!

146 Tinkle Digests - at one a day, it will take us 5 months to go through the lot

There was no separate shipping cost, and I was amazed at how quickly the goods were delivered. The parcel was delivered by courier (DHL), and I was given a reference number and a website to track the progress of the shipment. I placed the order on the 15th of October, the parcel was dispatched from Mumbai on the 16th, and I received the lot on the morning of the 21st.

This is the tale of Tinkle's travels, via Bangkok and Singapore.

Pretty impressive - both the delivery time and the trackability

The Beauty Bias Is More Than Skin-Deep

In an article that condemns racist biases in the modelling industry, the following quote appears:

[...] says it would be great to reach the point where designers and advertisers do not think about ethnicity when they cast a model; where they would cast a Chinese girl simply because she’s beautiful – not because it’s to sell a collection of cheongsam dresses.

Did anyone else think there was something wrong with that sentiment?

I'd say, why stop with ending racist bias? What about the beauty bias? Should only beautiful people be able to find work in modelling? We've had this huge debate in recent times about plus-size models and "real women", as opposed to the waif-like models that the industry has traditionally preferred. That battle is not yet over, but it has at least caused people to examine some of the harsh and unhealthy standards that the modelling industry has imposed around the notion of beauty. But what about the role of beauty itself? Isn't this another distortion in the way we measure the worth of other human beings?

There seems to be something wrong with the values of society itself, because the modelling industry is only catering to the biases of society. The Cleo article only acknowledges part of the problem. Even if the race bias is ended, the beauty bias will remain. So it falls to us to look inwards. Isn't it hypocritical of us to only buy clothes modelled by people better-looking than ourselves? It's a bit like Groucho Marx's comment that he would never join any club that would have him as a member.

The topic of air hostesses is related. Many passengers (mostly male) prefer to fly airlines that have young and pretty stewardesses over airlines with older ones. One aspect of such sexism has been quietly dismantled, since most airline cabin crews now feature both men and women. But there still seems to be an age bias for cabin crews. It is difficult to see a mature-age stewardess on Singapore Airlines, for example. In contrast, Qantas has a number of mature-age cabin crew, both male and female. It demonstrates, louder than mere words, that Qantas considers cabin crew members to be more than just pretty faces. They seem to be valued as employees. And perhaps that says something nice about Qantas passengers as well, since passengers vote with their wallets. If I had to choose one of these airlines as my employer (even in an unrelated area like IT), I would choose Qantas over Singapore Airlines, simply because I can see that they treat their employees as human beings.

Human beings' bias towards beauty is understandable, but it is nevertheless unjustified. From an evolutionary perspective, beauty is a surrogate indicator for health, and individuals in any species have always looked for healthy partners to mate with. Such behaviour leads to optimal results for the species as a whole. However, human society is more than just a group of animals impelled by evolutionary forces. We do not believe in the survival of the fittest. We believe in giving everyone a fair go, with social safety nets for the weakest. We do not let our weakest offspring die. We give them special attention and help. The value of beauty as an evolutionarily favourable trait should be correspondingly lower in a society of human beings.

Am I being a socialist? Should everyone be treated the same regardless of merit? For the record, I favour meritocracies. I just don't believe good looks form part of a person's "merit". As a society, our preference for good looks is nothing other than a bias, and paradoxically, the majority of us are guilty of discriminating against people who look like ourselves.

Among the words of wisdom I have often heard is the advice to treat ourselves and other people the same way - with compassion and understanding. Both selfishness and martyrdom are equally undesirable. Following this advice leads to both a fair society and inner happiness. Today, the world is rife with discrimination of various sorts, and they all have labels - racism, sexism, ageism, casteism, religious bigotry, national chauvinism, etc. In theory at least, we have recognised these as evils to be eradicated. But our bias towards beauty remains unacknowledged. I think it is only when we overcome the beauty bias that we may have crossed the last barrier to reaching an ideal society and an ideal state of being.

In India, A Partial Expiation For An Archaeological Crime

It was heartening to read in the news recently that an archaeological treasure, the 450 year old tomb of Mughal emperor Humayun, has been restored.

The newly-restored Humayun's Tomb in New Delhi

It's a pity that priceless archaeological artifacts often get imbued with religious, and consequently political, significance. Islamists are the regular villains in archaeological vandalism around the world. They destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan and similar relics of a Buddhist past in the Maldives. In Egypt, they are even calling for the destruction of the pyramids and the sphinx. One can only shake one's head in hopeless sorrow at such mindless fanaticism.

Countries like the US, Canada, Australia and new Zealand, with barely 3 centuries of European history, have nevertheless done a splendid job of preserving and showcasing this heritage. [One could blame the early European settlers in these countries for the destruction of native communities and their culture, but in modern times, these countries have demonstrated enlightenment through their commendable efforts to retrieve and preserve native heritage as well.] Why do people with a heritage stretching back millennia not recognise and appreciate what a priceless set of treasures they have?

The Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan - the "after" photo shows a clear improvement over the "before" (if you're an Islamist)

The Islamic conquerors of India from the 12th century onwards were largely of the same breed as Islamists everywhere. Many Hindu temples were destroyed by them and mosques erected in their place.

And therein lies a tale of two wrongs that do not make a right. The Mughal emperor Babar (father of Humayun, whose tomb was recently restored) is thought to have destroyed (among countless others) a temple to the Hindu god Rama at Ayodhya and built a mosque over its ruins. That mosque remained standing until the last decade of the 20th century. It was called the "Babri Masjid" (Babar's mosque).

For centuries, this structure remained. It saw the passing of 7 generations of the Mughals and the advent of the British, and then it saw the passing of the British Raj as well, as Indians finally wrested back the power to rule themselves after at least 6 centuries of foreign rule.

And thereafter, with the move to democracy, the mosque's days were numbered.

This is the way the Babri Masjid looked before electoral arithmetic spelled its doom

Somewhere along the way, the Hindu right wing party, the BJP, decided that the only way it could improve its hitherto dismal electoral performance was to tap into militant Hindu sentiment that it would itself whip up. The Babri Masjid became the symbol and the focal point of the BJP's campaign. The mosque that was built on the ruins of a desecrated Hindu temple was projected as a historical humiliation of India's Hindu majority by its Muslim rulers, a humiliation that could only be reversed by the destruction of the mosque and a resurrected temple to Lord Rama built on its ruins. It was to be the righting of a historical wrong. More importantly, the site of the original temple was claimed to be the very birthplace of Lord Rama, so having the temple built anywhere but on the ruins of the mosque was preemptively made impossible!

The Hindu parties' emotive poster calling for the construction of the temple at Ayodhya, with a suitably militant image of Rama to drive home the message

By polarising society along religious lines, the BJP and its various allied Hindu organisations reckoned they could attract a significant number of votes from Hindus. (This cynical calculation, sadly enough, turned out to be correct. In 1984, the BJP had won 2 seats in parliament. In 1991, after having successfully raised a storm over the Babri Masjid, the party won 120 seats.) More importantly, the BJP formed the government in the state of Uttar Pradesh (the state to which the city of Ayodhya belonged).

[Quite some blood has been shed since the time that plan was put into action, and more is going to be shed in future, since the hardening of Hindu opinion and the consequent rewards to militant Hindu parties have now attained a momentum of their own. My own view on this is simple. We only have one history. We can learn from it, but we cannot erase it, no matter how humiliating it may seem. Destroying our own national monuments for religio-political reasons is cutting off our nose to spite our face. But of course, such arguments fall on deaf ears, since in times of strident militancy, reason itself seems weak and effete.]

After the 1991 elections, with the machinery of the Uttar Pradesh state government in its hands, the BJP began plans to demolish the temple while at the same time issuing reassuring public statements to allay suspicion. On 6th December 1992, the BJP did what Islamists worldwide have always done - destroyed their own country's archaeological monuments to satisfy religious bloodlust, and their own political ambitions.

There is grim irony in the fact that an avowedly anti-Islamic popular movement demonstrated the same intolerance and religious bigotry of their enemies. They also proved that, despite two historic changes in management, the degree of enlightenment of India's rulers had not improved in 500 years.

The armies of Hinduism sallying forth to do their sacred duty, no doubt

It stood for 450 years, then came down in one hour

And this is what was left of the Babri Masjid

Woohoo! We've destroyed a 450 year old archaeological treasure of our own country! Who needs foreign invaders?

And that's what I thought of when I read the news of the restoration of Humayun's tomb. The mosque named for the father was destroyed, but the tomb of the son was restored. I guess I could see the latter restoration as a partial atonement for the former archaeological crime, but something in me is not satisfied. When I look around me and see so many educated Hindu friends who cheer the destruction of the Babri Masjid, some openly and some less openly, I begin to think I must myself be a relic.

[Postscript:
One of my friends on Facebook commented as follows:

"I dont think even the most ardent secularist would call the Babri Masjid an archeological treasure. Especially in a country where there are many other monuments that are older. It is provocative to say Hindus thought the structure was humiliating. The movement was an act of reclaiming. A temple was not just "thought" to have existed. The Allahabad high court judgment validated that last year and awarded one third of the land to Hindus. You are being selective when you talk about restoration only of the 450 yr old "treasure". What about restoration/rebuilding of the temple which lies below."

I replied:

"QED. You have furnished proof of my statement in the closing paragraph that this is indeed the attitude of many educated Hindus today.

1. Most people around the world would find it strange that a structure 400+ years old is NOT considered an archaeological treasure by some. In your opinion, how old does a structure have to be in order to be considered an archaeological treasure?

2. The presence of older monuments does not invalidate the value of structures 400+ years old. All of them are part of the country's great archaeological wealth. None of them is expendable.

3. A chequered history like India's can only be narrated by a chronologically matching set of artifacts reflecting the power structure, dominant culture and values of the time. Our value judgement today of whether any of that was "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. It's part of our history. We can look at some of those monuments and decide, "Never again!" That indeed is the point of learning history. But destroying one's own monuments to erase part of one's history that some people in the current generation disapprove of is immature and self-harming.

4. The temple can never be "rebuilt" in any case, only recreated. As such, why not build it a short distance away and provide information to visitors about the history of the temple and the mosque? That way, you have both structures and your history intact. And from the perspective of history study and tourism, it would be wonderful.

5. If belief systems are to take priority over pragmatism in the here-and-now, then only bloodshed and strife lie ahead, not prosperity, because belief systems are mutually incompatible. We need to be less precious about our beliefs and more concerned with the real country we live in.

6. There is nothing selective about my position. You are reading an anti-Hindu bias into what I have written. My entire piece was anti-vandalism. The Islamists have vandalised monuments globally, as my 3 examples show. The saffron Islam that passes for Hinduism nowadays is doing exactly the same thing."]