Random Musings - Part One

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"- John F Kennedy.

He couldn’t have put it any better, could he? Patriotism has been used and misused time and again. Many a case can be made against patriotism. It has been pointed out by many to be the source of war and misery. Let me define what I mean when I say Patriotism before I venture into anything more. Patriotism is the love for ones country. Period. The problem, as I see it, comes up when this love for your own turns into hatred for the other. Consider two parallel lines, one yours and another mine. Expecting my line to grow (and working towards that cause) is analogous to the patriotism I am talking about. Cutting the other short to make mine look bigger- now that’s misuse. When people talk about nationalism (or patriotism) being the bane of mankind, I am assuming they are talking about the second kind. That is why we need standards.

Long back in class 6, if I am not wrong, I read this story of 5 blind men and an elephant. Each blind man feels different part of an elephant. For the person who touched its leg, an elephant is a vast pillar like creature. For the one who touched its ear, it is like a piece of cloth. And so on…My point is, we are, if we don’t adhere to standards, like blind men. Our perception of something stems from our interaction with something, or how it was taught to us in school or interpreted by a friend. Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and others lived at an age when Hitler implicated wrongly, the notion of country and race and declared war on ‘others’. I believe they have a right to believe what they want to. But the problem is, rather my problem is, that’s not how I see it. I love my country not because it is great but because it is mine. This doesn’t imply I hate the rest (without reason). I am of the opinion, following my definition of patriotism, that people with negative cognition of term patriotism are attacking the wrong problem. Patriotism isn’t wrong. How someone interpreted it, is.

On this note, a very common question I was asked about ones country is that it wasn’t by choice. So, there wasn’t supposed to be much significance to ones country. To be frank with you, this only makes me laugh. For all you know, being human may not have been a choice as well. It really is funny when people talk of free will. Re-think. Freedom of choice is a diluted concept. We are not given choice in most cases- definitely not about my species. (I would have chosen to be a dog, with all due to respects to Tommy. If there ever was a reason I got to be a human, it was because I wasn’t worthy enough to be a dog). That certainly doesn’t imply that someone must dictate everything to us. If that is what you think I implied, you must stop reading this note immediately. Forebear at your own risk. What I write is what I think. The interpretation is yours and yours only.

Freedom of choice is a freedom only when it isn’t infringing on another’s. (Which is pretty redundant a sentence in context). But the bigger picture is important -always. So, if the entire human race is uplifted by my death, killing me against my freedom of choice is right and not immoral (Suggested reading- Robert Pirsig: “Lila, an enquiry into morals”). While I am definitely pro-choice, I am of also of the opinion that my options must be equally balanced. For example, in a discussion on Orkut, people were of the opinion that religion must be a choice. I agree that it is feasible, but only in an environment where nothing is forced (so much redundant again, but rethink and you will see what I mean) upon you or made to look tantalizing. I chose this example of religion with a reason (apart from the fact that I am an Indian), that of emotional value. For different people, religion means different things. For me religion is a means of making a human being disciplined and living a pious life- something intended for the overall good of the society and no doubt, having been misused. (Again, going by my definition, if religion is foolishness; I say you are attacking the wrong problem).

Being an Indian and in that context, if you are talking about Hinduism vis-à-vis Abrahamic religions, which are the major religions in India, I’d say you are comparing apples to oranges. Just because some people could not pronounce “Sindhu” properly, people beyond the river became Hindus. These people beyond Sindhu, did not have nor do they have a centralized institution that prints out texts to follow so you remain a member. Hinduism, for me, is not a religion implied in the sense of a particular book to follow/ path to lead. It is an ensemble of different paths that guide you in your quest of life- what that is, is again upto you. I am not giving out answers here- only looking at the question differently. It is, simply put, a way of life (Ref: Writings of Swami Vivekananda). I am a Hindu and an atheist at the same time (and still not a moron, well, arguably).

Still on the question of aim of life, let me explain how I see it for myself. I was watching F.R.I.E.N.D.S (a comedy TV series) in which a young woman asks Ross (character of a paleontologist) for an autograph and not Joey (playing the role of a popular TV series actor), which, as they put it, never happens. Joey is astounded that the woman doesn’t know him but Ross and goes on to ask the woman about it. The woman responds she doesn’t have a TV. Joey comes up with this gem: “What is all your furniture pointed at?”

Apparently funny, but this somehow makes me think what all my furniture is pointed at- what is my goal in life. Earn money, have fun and lead a ‘happy life’. Is that it? There again, the problem of standards comes up. For me happiness is a state of mind. I need not have a ‘lot’ of money, (if such a thing is possible), and still be happy.

Digression apart, simply put, my aim in life is to reach a state where I am unaffected by surroundings and at the same time also not affecting my surrounding, while living- which might seem to be oxymoronic. That state is probably what they call death- but you can’t be sure either. I am more in the stage of trying to catch my own tail, going in circles right now. If that is possible somehow, it would be an example of ‘living’ while being unaffected by life. (Ref: Bhagavad Gita Chapter 9- a Sanyasi and a Karma yogi in one).

Let us assume life is a thermodynamic cycle and we are the system in question. Society is our environment. I have to stratify ‘society’ speaking from my viewpoint. Society for me implies the immediate neighborhood, that which affects me directly. I may shake hands with person A, who shook hands with person B. But that doesn’t mean I shook hands with person B. So person A is part of my society and I give a damn about B, so to speak.

My society affects me and I affect my society. I take something from the society and debatably give back to it. I am of the view that from a social point of view, man has three stages in life. In the first stage, he is taking from the society- the TAKE stage (eg: resource utilization). The second state is where he is independent of the society- the INDependent stage. A third stage where he is giving back to the society – the GIVE stage (eg: tax).

A quick mix-n-match will tell you that one can be in both the TAKE and GIVE stages simultaneously. There need not be an IND or a GIVE stage at all in someone’s life (or have insignificant amount of these stages). But I am of the opinion and you may disagree that every person has a TAKE stage. Sometimes there is a dynamic balance between the GIVE and TAKE stages for every system (person). Again I am of the opinion that on an average, per system (person) the TAKE is higher than the GIVE.

Now I have to stop my generalization and speak of India only – mostly because I am an Indian, not by choice again but in spite of and yet.

When I said society, I am not talking about the irregularities in the society (and unwilling to open that can of worms here yet). When I said GIVE stage and the example of tax, I did not elaborate on the recipient of this stage- which is undoubtedly the society but this is a heterogenous distribution (pun intentionally unintended). So our GIVE stage especially in the Indian society context must have two stratifications. One is the plain GIVE stage (lets call it GIVE1) and the other with an enhanced “distribution” function GIVE2.

As you may already have guessed, I have a view of an engineer in my mind when I talk about all this- I am assuming you stopped reading otherwise. My TAKE stage is to an extent, on-going. I have utilized resources during my childhood and the society has spent them on me vehemently- the fruit of which is my becoming an engineer. Of course there was an inherent self-effort involved etc, but I am sure you see what I intend to say. My TAKE stage although ongoing is insignificant.

I now work in the US where I get my salary, where I pay my tax and where I basically live. So as far as Indian society is concerned, I am in my IND stage. As far as I am concerned, there is now a deficit in the Indian society. This is probably how brain drain works. And this is definitely not good for India. An argument against this would be about having a less efficient GIVE stage if I were in India. Let me reserve more comments on this for later.

The perfect resonance for this model, as I see it, is in having no IND stage, a larger GIVE1 stage (which is a combination of the otherwise GIVE1 and IND stages) and an efficient GIVE2 stage.

Maybe I am only looking at the problem at a different angle. Let me venture into giving a solution using this model. How to make the GIVE2 stage efficient? Rather, when will GIVE2 be efficient? I think it is efficient when there is a network – or an ORGanization. The importance of an Organization is the goal it provides, the TV in the F.R.I.E.N.D.S. example. The alignment of views is one of the most important thing according to me. There are and have been organizations which have been working in the GIVE2 stage in India. Apart from the alignment on issues topic, the only other thing why I think India is still a Third World Nation is because of the improper management and monitoring of these organizations.

I have come across a lot of Indians who ponder about the intellectual standard of an average Indian being equal if not higher to the people from developed countries but still us lagging behind. My answer to them is this: Ferrimagnetics. These are materials which, have magnetic domains within them but are not aligned properly. So in effect they cancel out each other and the resultant magnetic property is zero. We are so like this. Indians, if we work together as an organized and efficient society getting rid of our infighting, are bound to progress fast to a great future.

<--To be continued-->

Side Note: (If I were to take this further, for any given system and its surrounding, overall entropy always increases- which for me is analogous to the overall mess we generate through our interactions – it is funny, how closely we can relate to a thermodynamic cycle, philosophically)