Where are all the liberals?

The problem with wanting to stick to a consistent and balanced secular and humanist outlook is that it is often a lonely road to walk on. Sure, when I want to criticise American foreign policy in the middle-east or express my disdain for the Indian right-wing, I find it pretty easy to garner support. However, the minute I start talking about freedom of expression and freedom of religion in, say, China, I find that most of my left-liberal friends, even the ones who won’t ever stop talking about minority rights in India, couldn't care less. And if I happen to talk about freedom of religion, or the lack thereof, in the middle-east, my Muslim friends treat me like I just agreed with a Subramanian Swamy editorial. I wonder what sort of a reaction I would be able to get out of all of you this time, if any.


A man is facing possible execution in Iran. His name is Yousef Nadarkhani. He has a wife and two young sons. His crime is that he converted from Islam to Christianity when he was 19. He subsequently went on to become a Christian priest, a pastor, which I am guessing is what provoked the Islamic authorities in Iran more than anything else.

And before you start thinking that the reason why Malcolm George is so concerned about Yousef Nadarkhani is because he is a Christian, let me make something clear. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist, with no religious affiliations or spiritual inclinations. I do not agree with Nadarkhani’s religion or with any other religion. However, I believe in the freedom of expression and religion, and vehemently oppose any attempt to force people into changing their beliefs or religion, particularly through violent means. Like Voltaire said, ‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it’.

Death for apostasy, or renouncing one’s religion, is the most serious violation of this right to choose and practice one’s religion. Sadly, even in the 21^st century, we have countries like Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, amongst others, where if you are a Muslim, you are forbidden by law to change your religion. If you do, you face a possible judicial execution, just like Yousef Nadarkhani. Then there are countries like Greece, China, Myanmar, Vietnam and Malaysia, which are a step below this and either have a state religion, or certain state sanctioned religions. One can practice other religions in private but public promotion of those other religions might get you into trouble. Fine, you don’t get executed but it is still in clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an international treaty which, in its Article 18, guarantees that, ‘Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching’. And yes, Iran has signed and ratified this treaty, so it does put the authorities there in a bit of a pickle. So what do the Iranian authorities do? They now say that Nadarkhani’s crime is a curious mixture of being a Zionist, a threat to national security, rape, running a brothel and extortion. Quite convenient isn’t it? Especially when copies of the court brief from last year clearly show that Nadarkhani was being tried for apostasy.

What I find shocking is the almost complete absence of this story in mainstream media. BBC is absolutely silent on this. Al Jazeera, the same. Before this I had the greatest respect for Al Jazeera but this has just left me more than a little disappointed. Just goes to show that a multiplicity of views is still no guarantee for a balanced viewpoint.   

Even the big human rights organisations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, only got around to giving importance to this story a week back. Of course, when liberal media and organisations fail to take up such issues, it gives the religious right a ‘god-given’ opportunity to justify its existence. In this case, it is the Christian Solidarity Worldwide which has been fighting for Yousef Nadarkhani. Christian Solidarity Worldwide is ostensibly a human rights organisation ‘working for religious freedom through advocacy and human rights, in the pursuit of justice’. But hey, make no mistake; it is called Christian Solidarity for a reason.

I absolutely hate it when I find that an issue that I am passionate about is the same issue that organisations like CSW and Fox News are passionate about as well. But I don’t have a choice since the liberals of this world are mostly silent.

C’mon liberal, secular people – break your silence. Or is this issue not fashionably left enough for you?

‘Shake’ off the indifference and ‘blast’ away the complacency…please

Yesterday was quite an eventful day in Delhi. If the bomb blast wasn’t terrible enough, the earthquake really ‘stirred’ things up in the evening. My thoughts go out to those affected by either, though the earthquake seems to have had a very limited impact. Would the bomb blast have an equally limited impact on how the Indian government views public security? I hope not.

In all fairness, I don’t think there are any easy solutions to either the Kashmir problem or the Naxal situation or even the north east crisis. I also concede that it is extremely difficult to stop such attacks from occurring in the madness of a Chandi Chowk or a Zaveri Bazaar. But how in the world can security provisions be so inadequate at the Delhi High Court? There is so much ambiguity about the security at the court; there is absolutely no clarity about the presence and condition of CCTVs, metal detectors or even an active, alert police force in adequate numbers. These should be part of standard security provisions at all governmental buildings, not just at the residences of cabinet ministers in the Lutyens Zone.

Also, I humbly request politicians of all backgrounds to stop playing ‘whoever-reaches-the-hospital-last-is-a-rotten-egg’. It is not a race. As much as I dislike my non-UPA options, I very much appreciate reports of Mr Rahul Gandhi being confronted by angry relatives and families of the victims. In situations such as these, the people want to know what the government can do about the situation, not what the situation can do for the government. It is not a PR exercise; don’t turn it into one because it is disrespectful.

A bomb blast in a crowded market is bad enough. But a blast in a law court is worse. Forget about the symbolic attack on India’s constitutional institutions, sovereignty, etc. The question the common man would be asking tonight is that if the government can’t even protect its own buildings, how would it ever be able to protect us? The people of India need a sense of security, and the complacent attitude of the government is not helping at all. 

Just one final point, dear politicians: burying your head in the sand does not necessarily save your head; but it always leaves your backside a lot more vulnerable.

Slipping on a ban‘anna’ peel

It is no longer significant that this year began as 2011. Henceforth, it would forever be known simply as 1 A.D. , the year of the historical anna divide. It signifies a period when, as an Indian, you just can’t be noncommittal; you have to take a stand, one way or the other. It has also been marked by the appearance of those gems of unparalleled brilliance, those rare twinkling spots of reason and logic in discussions on Indian politics on the otherwise dark cyberspace horizons of Facebook.

Of course, there are still your very predictable ‘Do you support corruption? If not, then support Anna Hazare!’ kind of people.  But then these are the same people who complain ‘why isn’t the government hanging Kasab?’ (for the last time, the judiciary passes judgements and is separate from the government…6^th grade political science, if you were paying attention). Honestly, let’s not allow them and their kind to keep us from celebrating the political awakening (from a kumbhkaranisque slumber) of the urban Indian middle class.

The great urban Indian middle class had the misfortune of missing out on supporting other fasts and movements (did someone say Irom who?). Even the Naxal explosions barely manage to interrupt its cosy dreams of iPads and penthouses in Gurgaon. But hey, even the media couldn’t care less at one point, so why pick on the middle class alone? But corruption, now that is a clincher. It’s a no-brainer. It doesn’t matter if you are left or right, left of the centre or left out of the centre, smack-bang in the middle of the centre or so left that you actually come out right, you cannot really support corruption. It’s a no-brainer (I can’t emphasis that enough).

It is the Lokpal Bill, in its various avatars, that has provided a people desperately trying to ignore a 4-0 whitewash a legitimate distraction. I understand that we would like to fast (no pun intended) track the dream of a corruption free India. But what about little details like the constitution and constitutional structures, and making a government elected by 1+ billion people subservient to an elite group who would be accountable to…who is it again? I thought it is actually this kind of power, in the absence of corresponding accountability, which corrupts, but then again, what do I know, I didn’t set up a model village, did I now?

Of course, it is infinitesimally easier to ban a poor villager from enjoying his favourite poison (and personally flogging him when he does) than to take on the collective might of Mallya sr., Mallya jr. and whoever it is that Mallya jr. might be dating these days. Would model cities place a ban on five star hotels serving liquor? And would it require the closure of Blues? Scary thought, makes me want to reach out for that vintage 12 year.

But then again, no one has been publicly flogged (yet) during this surprisingly peaceful movement. Fine, even if it is the middle-class, surely even they have the right to express themselves peacefully. This brings me to the greatest PR disaster in the last couple of months, the arrest of Anna Hazare. UPA government, please fire whoever suggested that move, because in case you didn’t notice, it failed miserably. Was there no one amongst you who could take on Anna Hazare on an intellectual level first (the PM’s speech came a little too late)? Or did your brains disappear somewhere, possibly to recuperate in the US?

On the other hand, no one likes a kid sitting in the middle of a supermarket aisle howling ‘I want THIS and I want it NOW’. It is quite an irritating experience.

The only difference is that you can reason with the kid.

Anarchy in the UK: Part II

Richard Mannington Bowes died today in the hospital. He was hit on the head by rioters. He wasn’t trying to save his business or his home. He was just trying to put out a fire lit by some rioters.

Unlike the bat wielding vigilante groups of Southall and Birmingham, there wasn’t quite the same sense of macho bravado in his actions. However, there was a quiet but definite defiance. The message was quite clear, ‘I don’t approve of your actions’. He lost his life precisely because of his disapproval and his defiance. One can argue that trying to put out a fire in a garbage bin might seem a bit pointless. On the other hand, killing someone for it is equally pointless, especially since the prime motivation for your behaviour probably is that you don’t approve of his defiance.

This is precisely why I think there is a problem when the armchair anarchist celebrates these riots. I do not have a problem with him airing his views. Au contraire, I do believe he has every right to do so. However, in my opinion, there is a massive danger of providing intellectual justification to mindless behaviour and so I would challenge his reasoning.

As mentioned in the previous piece, I do partly agree with a lot of the reasons being given for these riots: unemployment, recession, race tensions etc. However, I always make a distinction between understanding the reasons and to approve of the actions. It is a very simple concept but surprisingly, I regularly observe that a lot of people have difficulties in making this distinction. But as a concept, it is quite useful in the process of understanding the facts within the context of a specific situation and then forming an opinion on the subject.  

Reading some media reports, I came across a few phrases: ‘poorest of the poor’, ‘oppressed’, ‘destitute’, you get the idea. I’m sorry, but did they all just conveniently miss the fact that the riots were largely organised on Blackberry messenger and social media? If these were indeed the ‘oppressed’, we could do with a few more societies where the ‘poorest of the poor’ carry Blackberries! The large number of employed people and 11-15 year olds, who don’t need employment, arrested for rioting again dilutes the possibility of unemployment being the main reason. And do keep in mind that we are talking about a country where the government provides unemployment benefits, housing benefits, disability benefits and the like.

Let me take you back a few years, to November 2006, to be precise. Thousands of young men who had just finished writing a police entrance examination went around Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh, a satellite township of Delhi) rioting, burning buses, vandalising shops and molesting girls, ostensibly because they found the exam too hard and unfair. Let’s do the checklist in this situation, shall we? Youth, check, unemployed, check, not from a privileged background, given that the exam was for hopeful constables and I am yet to see an Indian police constable living in Greater Kailash or Safdarjang Enclave, so check. But I didn’t see anyone justifying their actions. I wonder why.

Probably the most convincing argument I have heard which comes even remotely close to justifying the riots is that finally ‘the masses’ have a voice and are being heard and noticed. This would be the classic case of the Zizekian concept of objective violence of society going unnoticed till subjective violence by  those oppressed brings it into public view. But again one has to remember that the situation in the UK is quite unlike the situation in, say, India where the media only realises that there is a north-east part of the country when there is a bomb blast in Guwahati, or which only woke up to the problems of the tribal belt some twenty years too late, once the naxalites became too powerful too be ignored. Here in the UK, recession, unemployment, benefit cuts, education and race issues are all front page news and the most discussed and debated issues on news channels. Hence, these issues weren’t being swept under the proverbial carpet or being ignored at all. If anything, these issues have been considered of prime importance by the media. So, as convincing as it might sound initially, on closer scrutiny it does not justify the riots.  

So what did the riots achieve? In the long term, probably nothing. What I am hoping is that now, thanks to these riots, the UK government does not introduce some draconian measures leading to the police restraint, that I praised in the last piece, to become a thing of the past.

Yes, a lot of situations demand breaking the law as we know it, in an attempt to redefine it. Indian independence could not have been achieved without creating a situation of anarchy in terms of social and political disorder. Political movements such as those in Egypt, Libya and Syria demand a situation of disorder to break down the existing order. Then, there are class struggles, like those of the naxalites, whose inception lie in absolutely valid reasons but their actions, beyond a point, seem unfeasible and a lot of times, unjustified. Unjustified because a large proportion of their victims are people from their own class and community, the very people they are ostensibly fighting to emancipate.  Unjustified because a lot of times it boils down to ‘whoever is not with us, is against us’ and I am very uncomfortable with such reasoning, especially when the situation is to be resolved at gun point. Unjustified, because all movements advocating ideal classless, stateless societies have historically only created a narrower elite class with virtually limitless power and almost zero accountability.

This is brings me to the idealised state of anarchy. To be honest, I am only talking about this because a very special friend read my last piece and commented that ‘anarchy is not that bad’. I completely misunderstood her and thought she was talking about social disorder as with the riots. So I do want to provide her comment with a proper response.

Yes, I do believe anarchy should probably be the ultimate ambition of our species. Here I refer specifically to anarchy in terms of Kant’s concept of law and freedom without violence, or possibly even individual self governance and a complete absence of law and government. But we as a species are thousands of years away from that state. This is why I find claims of establishing an ideal state in the present times absolutely ludicrous. And this is why I am very uncomfortable with the justification of ‘collateral damage’ in an attempt to establish an ideal state. It requires some blind faith to believe that an ideal state can be established in the present times, especially when the facts almost certainly show that it can’t be done. I don’t even put my faith in a god, much less humans.

The fact is we as a species are too rudimentary for an ideal state. Lots and lots of technological, biological, psychological and social changes are required before our species achieves that ideal state of anarchy. We will have to lose a lot of what we take for granted today: our concepts of family, society, country, religion, culture, labour, nutrition, procreation, possibly even gender. In short we will have to be a lot more than the present human species; we will have to be some sort of a ‘post-human’ before that state is achieved. Sounds impossible, even hilarious I guess, but in my opinion, if and when it happens,  we will be laughed at by post-humans, much like we joke about Homo erectus and Neanderthals, not unlike Nietzsche's overman laughing at man.

It’s a humbling thought indeed.

On the other hand, the post-human would never have had to put up with the hypocrisy of the armchair anarchist! 

Anarchy in the UK

The Sex Pistols song title has got to be one of the best lines to describe the recent situation in the UK. Well, almost. I say almost because life in most of London, and other parts of the UK, does continue as normal. People are still going to their offices, the tubes are running and I continue to be unemployed, so yes, normal. While for most people the situation is anarchist enough, for a select band of ‘intellectuals’, it is not. I seek to address the latter through this piece.

For years I have wondered if I should have a regular blog. I remember at least three occasions over the last four months when I was itching to write something but didn’t. After all, the internet is full of people gratifying their urge to say something without necessarily having something to say and I did not really want to join their ranks, so I gave up on the idea. However, seeing a few particularly ‘bright’ remarks on Facebook condoning, even celebrating, the London riots, something did snap inside me. It was probably my patience towards stupidity.

Yes, we all know there are problems in this country, just like there are in other countries across the globe. The armchair anarchist tells me, and I do agree partly, that the riots are manifestations of the general unemployment, dismal economic situation and race tensions. But to view the riots on the whole as a sign of the social and political empowerment of the deprived class and, more importantly, to justify it as such, is asinine. I have been in the UK for a couple of years now and I can spot a poor homeless bloke when I see one. However, what I saw on TV were not the poverty-stricken, impoverished have-nots but yobs in branded sportswear, apparently organising the riots through Blackberry, Twitter and social media. Pray tell, if you have a Blackberry, just how destitute are you?

What I am seeing is poverty of the human spirit and moral bankruptcy. Videos of an injured boy being helped to his feet and then mugged, and pictures of a passerby being stripped naked in the middle of the street by rioters are going to be the lasting legacy of this riot and no amount of justification is going to change that. In fact, can anyone ever justify setting fire to residential buildings with families and children inside? The answer is no, no matter for what reason. Please don’t say collateral damage because that term has been used and abused to the point that it has become a polite way of saying ‘lives don’t matter’. The fact of the matter is that the end does not justify the means at all. It is the means which keep defining and re-defining your end and in the process, you.

Let us assume for a moment that what UK has been witnessing over the last few days is not largely about vandalism and opportunism. In that case, what have you achieved? You vandalised a small flower shop run by your own community member who probably was keeping his business running in these hard times through hard work, ingenuity or maybe even dumb luck. Congratulations! You just brought down capitalism.

In fact it is very much against the armchair anarchist’s interest to bring down the social order as we know it. The grants he gets for his academic conferences, the grants for his PhD, the University he studies in, are all funded by a combination of the bourgeois government he loves to criticise, public funds generated through the current social system that he hates, fees of students either paid by parents who work in this ‘abhorrent’ system or generated through bank loans (yes, the detestable ‘B’ word), not to mention direct funding by the ‘contemptible’ capitalist companies. Yet, he believes he is above and beyond society and cannot help but view it with a ‘holier than thou’ attitude.  Yes, one of the finest characteristics of a true democracy is that you have the right to criticise it to the point of being opposed to it. That is how it should be. I do hope, comrade, that if and when your revolution succeeds, and you ever choose to criticise it, you have the same amount of freedom to do so as you do now.

Of course our armchair anarchist, who loves bashing authority figures, would love for the rioters to gain a few more victories over the police. I know everyone loves criticising the cops in their own country. But for once, I am going to side with the cops, the reason being that I have had a few close interactions with the cops in the UK, which has really given me the opportunity to observe their general behaviour. They are on the whole courteous and polite, which is a refreshing change. Now, I don’t even want to compare them with the Indian variety, but the only time in my life I have felt that I could have a reasonable conversation with a cop is in the UK. I am sure they, like all humans, have their vices. Could they have handled the riots and the events leading up to it a bit better?  Yes, no doubts about it. But for the first time in your lives, step back and try and see it from the policeman’s perspective. At least in the UK, there are strict procedures which ensure that the cops operate within a given set of rules at all times. This is how it should be for law enforcement agencies in any civilised society.  However, do try and imagine their predicament as they are trying to fight people who have no regard for rules while being bound by rules themselves. This cannot and should not change because law enforcers cannot be law breakers but it does make their jobs a lot tougher. Given that it is largely a thankless job anyway, I do sincerely empathise with them at this point.

What really made me realise how we tend to take the cops for granted was a little hypothetical situation I just happened to think about. Given the recent situation I was wondering what if I am walking with my girlfriend back from the station at 11 in the night and happen to bump into a group of ten people. In such a situation who would I prefer them to be: a) rioters b) gang members c) cops.

Don’t know about you, but I will take my chances with the Bobbies any day.