Arcade of Thoughts

A month back, my friends and I were talking about funding for different departments and graduate research assistant stipend during summer. I learnt that some student get twice as much during summer than during regular semester. I hadn’t asked my prof about my pay-check then. I did concede that it was partly because it is uneasy to talk about money. That’s when it occurred to me about write about cultural differences that I have encountered so far.

Profit is a dirty word

I had read an article (link) by Amit Varma where he talks about Profit being a dirty word during Nehru’s socialistic governance and later on until economic liberalisations. The thought of profit, and consequently money, being dirty have always been taught to us since primary education. I remember reason couplets that talk about working hard without really worrying about the result of money that you can get out of it. Also, I remember how angry parents used to get when, as a child, we prayed to god for anything materialistic. The idea that money is last thing to worry about is etched in our minds. Its hard to let go of such ideas in quick time. Asking for raise is not something Indians are comfortable with.

Even e-mailing profs for funding when going for an Internship is hard thing to do. Clearly, expecting money for you work is not wrong. But the idea of money being ‘dirty’ is playing its role here. On the other hand, American students are pretty frank about it. Unlike Indians, they do not go to grad school if they are not funded. Understanding local culture and adopting them and letting go of our conservative mindset is what we need to learn.

Tipping

Indians in US are infamous for being bad tippers (it could just be a stereotype, but i have seen a few people in my university who refuse to tip). Despite arguing that waiters are not paid as much they are suppose to paid because it’s a ‘tipped-job’, some people refuse to accept what I say. We ought not to be so insensitive to any practice here. I believe that while in Rome, we should do as Romans do. There is a reason why romans do the things they do. We ought to respect that.

Japanese Shopkeepers Handling Currency Notes

I have guilty of being culturally insensitive too. In India, you are always taught to offer and receive anything (including money) with your right hand. Money is offered directly to hand. Also, both the giver and the receiver should either be inside the house or outside. I think it’s just a way of saying, ‘I respect you’. There were two instances when I was in Tokyo when the shopkeepers asked me to place the currency notes on a tray. Forgetting that I was in completely different country, I gave it to their hand in dominating way. This happened twice. It was only later that I realised that I may have offended them. That was when I made a mental note of being sensitive to local customs.

I still don’t know if I have offended them. Anyone who knows, please let me know.

Language

Recently, I read about a case (lost the link … sorry) in Canada about an Indian shop keeper who had used the words, “I will kill her if he doesn’t give the sweets to you” to a regular Canadian customer. We Indians know that “I will kill you” is used in jest by everyone. But in a different place, the implications are completely different. The shop keeper was arrested by the police on a complaint by the customer about the “death-threat”. I think the mis-understanding as later resolved. Such thing do happen by accident but it is in our best interest to adapt quickly.

A lot of things are lost in translation. I have heard this statement, supposedly from Koran: “If people do not convert to Islam, kill them (infidels) by swords”. I do not think it is true but even if it is, I am interested to know the context in which it was said. For all we know, “kill them” can mean “ignore them”. Who know what it meant 1300 years ago?

Student in India use “jobless” to say they are free to do stuff. I once said, “I will be jobless tomorrow, you can call me” and they appeared really concerned. Two seconds later I released my mistake and explained the meaning of “jobless” much to their amusement.

Any such funny or serious stuff you guys have experienced? Comment it.

What prompted me to write this is another post shared by my friend on google reader. It talks about Sarabjit Singh, the woman who did not want her husband released in exchange for terrorist. Kudos to her. I really admire her because she put her country before herself and her family. What I did not appreciate in the post is that he called another person, desperate to get her family back during Kandahar hijacking, an anti-national. It is becoming rather fashionable to call some anti-national. Be it cutting flag coloured cake, playing musical version of national anthem, or if it looks like someone’s leg is facing the national flag. There are lawyers who make a living out of it. I want to explain why demand or negotiating release of hijacked passengers in lieu of terrorist is not anti-national, but plain human. I know some views are controversial, please do not jump to conclusions before reading this post completely.

One of the jobs of the Govt. is to protect its citizens. The govt. is elected by the people, and consequently it is the job of the society to elect the right government. In other words it is the society which takes care of itself. Now, a plane is hijacked. Obviously, the govt. failed in its duty to protect its citizens. What is wrong with demanding the govt to secure the release of the passengers? It is the govt. which has failed and has to set things right. The society is very much entitled to demand this. It is very disappointing to see that a part of a society thinks otherwise. As if it is duty of the hijacked passengers to die for the country.

It is very easy to judge the relatives facing the trauma as “anti-national” when others have no experience dealing with such uncertainties. Everyone loves their country, most of us love ourselves more. That’s the fact. I am really appalled by the ease with which the author of the post judged the poor woman anti-national. I bet the author has never been in situation that has gambled with his life.

Many say that if we ‘give-in’ to the terrorists, wont it send the wrong signal to the terrorists that every time a plane is hijacked, they can pull another of their heroes back from prison. If you are scared that that signal we sent that day somehow made them think that hijacking a plane is solution to their problems, haven’t you
already conceded that they will hijack again and there is nothing India can do to prevent that? Are you convinced that we can protect ourselves any more? This to me is the real felling of “giving in” to the terrorists.

In some sense, many think that govt. “gave up” to the terrorists. Here’s how I look at it. Had we remained stone hearted and let the passengers be killed, we are sending a signal that if we release a terrorist we cannot catch him again, that we were very lucky to have caught him.

Lets assume that India has a reputation of storming the planes every time they are hijacked. Think for a moment,as a terrorist, what would you do? Would you attempt negotiation with the govt. from the hijacked plane? Or would you blow it up mid-air or against a tall building out of spite? I have a feeling this has been done before.

For once, before calling anyone anti-national, society ought to step into their shoes and look and the options before them. It is the fault of the government/society that the plane was hijacked. After the harm is done, society should try and rectify it. Not treat the victims like guinea pigs in a failed experiment and let them be killed by hijackers. The society has to take the responsibility of bringing them back alive.

Talking about social responsibilities, let me express my views on capital punishment as well. I am myself not sure about capital punishment, but there is one case where I am against it. I was in favour of capital punishment before watching the movie ‘monster’ which portrays a like of a prostitute who becomes a serial killer out of circumstance. I am against capital punishment given out to psychopathic serial killers.

People don’t just become psychopathic serial killers. It is the society which makes them. It is the society which gives them tough choices and it is the society which treats them badly. When the results aren’t favourable, society wants to treat the person like a guinea pig and kill him. It is bad enough that we treat labs rats and well, guinea pigs that way. I dont like the ‘tax payer’s burden’ argument about keeping them in jail when there is no hope for them to recover. It is the society which made them that way. From a moral stand point of view, society should pay for its failed experiment.

Another argument I have heard is that we all have lived in the same society, and we did not turn out to be serial killers. My simple answer is that every individual is unique, and if you cant respect that, you are the one who doesn’t deserve a place in society. Some favour death penalty for the ’sentiments’ of victims’ families. I dont buy that because the decision which the family takes is an emotional one and not necessarily the rational one.

Moving a little away from the topic, people love to call those who have left the country for education or job as anti-national. IITians, and in last ten years, NITs, BITS etc, are the main targets. Let’s examine that claim as well.

Firstly, ‘the lakhs of rupees spent on an IITian’ argument. As an IITian, I can say that we were not put in luxury. We had to pay for everything from electricity bill to Rs 600 for renting a gown for the convocation to ’security’ for the hostels. They subsidized the mess (which was horrible) up to Rs 8 per day per student which, I agree, is quite significant. But then who isn’t subsidized in India? Petrol is subsidized. Diesel is subsidized more for the farmers which makes people buy diesel cars (they are real anti-nationals if you ask me ). Gas is subsidized to every household. Taking all of that into account, I am sure subsidy for us is remarkable more then rest of the country. Profs are paid for research and teaching us. Its their job and cannot be counted towards the “burden” of the tax payers. The only place where, I think, the lakhs of rupees figure makes sense is the licensing of the softwares for research. Sophisticated Labs and Labs Equipments are something which undergraduates seldom use. But, I am sure any research that is done in IITs and IISc comes back to nation as inputs for ISRO, DRDO etc. for India’s development. Most of research is done by PhD students who stay in country. I am damn sure the lakhs of rupees figures is not the true figure. The realistic figure, I believe, is a much reasonable amount. I do realize that rest of the colleges do not even get the minimal facilities that we “enjoy”. That only talks about govt. apathy.

Secondly, lets look at the reason why the “brain-drain” occurs. A student expected to pay back to country though research or through entrepreneurship. As far as research is concerned, it is known that hardly any importance is given to it in India. Expenditure towards research takes a back seat. Infrastructure in India is lacking. Who is responsible for that? Government/Society. How about entrepreneurship? India was a socialist country 20 years back. Little wonder that brain-drain was rampant back then. Today it’s, thanks to economic reforms, much less. Again its the government/society responsible for that. Calling people anti-national is doing society no good. There are very few who put their country ahead of their personal ambitions, they are truly amazing. Other are human, not anti-national.

Also, why is the responsibility of the chosen few to bring the country out of the mess it is in. What is the role of the people who judge others as anti-national? Isn’t that an indication of resigned society putting burden on a some of its members to bring them back on their feet.

Before calling anyone “anti-national” the society should learn its responsibility.

Couple of friends of mine and me had an argument which was kicked offby this peace of news. My reaction, just like many others, was, “wtf?” We all know how the government had done such a mediocre job is building new schools. The right to basic education is being denied to scores thousands of people in the state. Yet, the government goes out of the way to destroy the existing school. This clearly shows the sign of its irresponsibility. Yes, the schools were given to permit teaching in only Kannada as the medium of instruction and they did flout the law. All that govt. had to do was warn them and remind them about the condition on which the permit was given. It wasn’t necessary to take the extreme step. Let’s face it; English is the language in which science is best taught. International standardization for scientific terms has existed for long time. Social Studies, on the other hand, is best taught is the native language. When you learn about a society or about a culture, the native language obviously has the richest vocabulary to express the ideas. It was wrong on the part of the schools to have taken license for schools to run in Kannada medium and flout the rule. I can only say that, it’s now fair if the govt. gives permits to existing schools either as Kannada medium or as English medium provided the schools follow the necessary norms. Though many may hate to admit it, English medium is a necessity and not a luxury in Urban India. In rural India, perhaps, native language works the best.There had been a constant worry among Kannada activists that the language is losing importance. Some of them have taken extreme measures to burn English hoardings in Bangalore to encourage Kannada. This is not acceptable. Kannada Activists have every right to encourage Kannada, but they have no business to discourage English or any other language like they did. There are ways to popularize Kannada and other regional languages. For instance, a good comic book for primary kids and good novels to a high school kid goes a long way in developing interest and enthusiasm in a language. You can’t enforce a language on someone and hope that it popularizes it. You have to develope a natural inclination to a language. The fact that locals are offended by “outsiders” are encroaching Bangalore is laughable. Different kinds of people coming into Bangalore has added diversity and richness into the culture of Bangalore. And remember that the Indian culture we talk about has again evolved over 20 centuries. If we have to retain our identity, we have encouraged it, not prevent people from coming into Bangalore. IT is blamed for “infesting” Karnataka. Remember, IT contributes to 25% of GDP of Karnataka. Given 50% comes from agriculture, the share of IT is phenomenal. It’s up to the govt. (indirectly, the people) to use them.

Regionalism took its tool on our debate. points about how Tamilians never speak in other languages, and how accommodative Kanndigas are as they are “allowing” people to stay in Bangalore were all made by my friends. I did not agree to the fact that Bangalore was decaying because of presence of other people.

The topic of the debate swayed a little bit to how tolerant, in general, Indians are. My friend claimed this has lead to our downfall in some sense. We talked about how foolish India was for not trading POK for Lahore after the ‘71 war and other passive attempts to counter terrorism. Speaking of recent comments by Manmohan Singh , I acknowledged the fact that a stronger stance was needed to counter terrorism, state-sponsored or otherwise. Then the debate turned to religion. And that’s what prompted me to write this post.

At this point I made it clear that I don’t find my life very different from a Christian Indian or Indian Muslim. I don’t consider myself a Hindu and that I am an atheist. I don’t want to assume a narrower Identity. I am a citizen of the world first, then India, then my state. This according to them was being too benevolent. They said, “We have to serve our people. One has to be a Village/Town’s person first, State next, country next and then the world.” They claimed, ‘Indians have this tendency of giving a lot to the world and not getting as much in return by being benevolent and tolerant to others.’ Despite the obscene portrayal of Hindu deities by MF Hussein, he was felicitated by the Indian Govt. Govt. was blamed for appeasing the minority for votes (obviously) and splitting the majority and successfully make a living out of it. They claimed that because of the India being a secular nation, political parties are able to use the mantra of “divide and rule”. That is, appease the minority, get their votes, split the majority, get half their votes and win election. However, it isn’t clear to me how the majority is split. Both of them went on to claim that India will be more peaceful nation if it officially a “Hindu state”.

I was taken aback. What sort of a country (and democracy) is it when you don’t have a freedom to choose the religion you want to follow. They went on to claim that Secularism hasn’t worked anywhere in the world. I claimed that it obviously wasn’t true. It is only in India that Secularism has worked because of Hindu Muslim conflict. The only other place where a bitter war is being fought in the name of religion (between two religion) is Israel which isn’t a secular state. Source 1, 2. The rest of the world is quite peaceful secular or not. It is easy for Hindus in India to say make India a Hindu State. What about the minority. Why should they be subjected to the torture of having to follow a religion not appealing to them. India is a free country, a secular country. For a country as diverse as ours, that’s the best.

I was baffled at this point. First, they say that my priority of considering myself citizen of the world first is screwed and second they want to make India a country which bound by laws of a rigid religion whose rules cannot be changed easily. The topic of Narendra Modi was also raised. I called him a cold blooded murderer and a terrorist. This was agreed upon. Then came the issue of conversion, Christian missionaries and of course Graham Steins. One of my friends claimed, he can justify the killings of him and his two sons.

—
He Explained:
It is against the Indian constitution to coax anyone into converting his religion. Graham Steins did just that. He went to tribal area, spoke to people over there. Introduced then to Christianity. Offended a lot of people. He deserved to die.

I answered back, “how the hell can you justify him being killed for that? What was the fault of his two children? Would you kill Osama’s children? The intention of the missionaries is to spread Christianity. They do a lot of social service. If they can inform people that that is what Christianity is all about. There is nothing wrong in asking them to convert as long as he doesn’t force them.”

He started, “Ok, killing his children was wrong but he still coaxed people. Its against constitution”
Me: “Coax is not a crime. It is surely not wrong. Constitution is wrong there. It should be changed. It can be changed”
Him: “Nothing is right or wrong in abstract sense. I follow what constitution says. I accept it as a norm”
—-
My opinion: Great argument in rhetoric, hardly holds any weight otherwise.

I asked him if he thinks what missionaries is doing is wrong, does he approve of what ISKON is doing? He replied, “Yes, there are spreading Krishna Conscience, not Hindu conversion.” Logically speaking, since Krishna is Hindu God, shouldn’t an ISKON follower imbibe certain (not
all) Hindu customs and traditions? Isn’t this a hypocrisy? You can’t approve what Iskon is doing and not approve what Missionaries are doing.

He went on to speak about how he insulted people over there and that there is a written proof of that. He offended a priest in the tribe who ran away from the place and that aggravated people. I asked him, “If he was insulting them at their face, how did he even hope to convert people.” He answered, “lets not get into logistics of that.” He told me that police and ministry wouldn’t help the tribe and hence they asked Dara Singh to kill him. He said, “Dara Singh, in a way, helped them.” At some point I asked him the source of this information. He said that it was in a book by Arun Shouri. Why didn’t that surprise me? He is from BJP. He is obviously going to bend facts in Hindu’s favour.

Even then, how does it justify him being KILLED? His view was that Indians have been insulted by Graham Steins’ actions. I questioned him if he believed Christianity was an Insult. He said, “no”. He also stated that such action were “necessary” for Hindus to retain their identity. At this point I was totally agitated. He had just claimed killing was a necessary and not just that. He wanted it to happen once in a while. He continued, “tribal were threatened by him, they killed him. I don’t support the killing. But, it is justifiable.” I made the usual clichéd argument about no one having a right to take a life. I also firmly said a big NO to capital punishment to Dara Singh or to Osama.

What kind of a religion supports violence? Isn’t the intolerance expressed by my friends totally against any religious beliefs? I asked him if he supported Osama Bin Laden’s Killing. There is a parallel here. He merely claimed they were different cases altogether. Seriously, Bin Laden is killing because he feels his religion is being threatened. Dara Singh did the same. Isn’t what he did a Hindu jihad? Just that in other religions there is no name for religion sponsored killing. How can anyone who supports what Dara Singh did, not support ehat Osama is doing? They are being hypocritical.

All of this happened between 1am and 5am. Raising my voice of several occasions and repeating many times, “how can anyone ever justify killing?”, I was waiting for an answer. I still am.

[PS: Ironically, this post on a heated argument had to come right after my post on lack of social interaction in IITM]

This was an article i wrote about a year ago, will be published in the next issue of Bharati (IITMadras), I don’t see any signs of the magazine hitting the hostals, i decided to make it my blog. Upon the suggestion from the editor, the title ‘composite culture in india’ was changed to ‘assimilative indian culture’

Assimilative Indian culture
—————————

Few countries in the world have such an ancient and diverse culture as India’s. Stretching back in an
unbroken sweep over 5000 years, Indian culture, down the ages, has developed in to a highly composite culture which has been enriched by waves of migration which were absorbed into the Indian way of life. The assimilative culture has manifested itself into a strong force. This manifestation is the result of co-existance of so many different cultures that were fused into ours in the course of time. As a result out culture became enriched.

The source of different elements of the Indian culture is not unique. The dynasties like that of Aryans, Mugals etc. have infused diversity in our culture. The roots of Indian civilization stretch back in time to pre-recorded history.

Indus valley civilization is one of the earliest knows civilizations in India. The prosperity of this civilization is well known. Even in the 4th or 3rd millennium BC, the urban developement, that had taken place was phenomenal. Roads were built perpendicularly, vast granaries, brick built houses were very common. Though it was mainly an agrarian society, its advancement in urban planning is undisputed. Recent excavations have shown remarkable similarities between the current indian culture and the indus valley civilization. Recent historians and research suggest the the Aryan (vadic) civilization and Indus vally civilization are one and the same.

Our culture is, to large extent, influenced by the aryans. They intermingled with the people, and gradually associated themselves with the social framework. They were the ones who developed the language of sanskrit, which even today is considered to be the most organised language. They composed the hymns of the four vedas, which are the fundamental base of hinduism. Hinduism constitutes eighty percent of today’s population. Earlier, vedas were written on the banks of saraswati and then on the gangetic plains owing to a natural shift that dried saraswati river. Ramayana and Mahabharata is thought is have been written during this period.

6th century BC saw the rise of the two significant religions in the country, jainism and buddhism. Their popularity spread owing to their message of non violence and practicality. In the Third century BC, it was the turn of the Mauryan empire to hold the rule in the country. They extended their empire over the entire sub-continent. The greatest king of this empire, Ashoka, converted to Buddhism later in life and spread the message through a script called Brahmi.

In 326 BC, Greeks tried and succeed in invading India. Through the passages of time and wars, Greek established their supremecy. The interaction between the two cultures resulted in a change in art form. Sculptures made during that era mark a Greek influence. After Ashoka’s death, the Mauryan empire perished.

4th century AD saw the Gupta empire rule the nation. Hindism consolidated its position. This era saw the emergence of the classical art forms and development of various facets of Indian culture. This age registered considerable progress in literature and science, particularly in astronomy and mathematics. Aryabhatta, who lived during this age, was the first Indian who made a significant contribution to astronomy.

Meanwhile, South india remained largly unaffected by the changes in the northern part of the country. Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism established themselves comfortably. The great dynastyies here were the Cholas, Pandyas, Cheras, Chalukyas and Pallavas. The dravidian Architecture flourished during this period. This region was propelled by the trade links with the African nations. New sea routes were discovered for the development of trade. Arab traders permanently settled down in Kerala. They were allowed to practice their religion. This further led to the enrichment of the ‘Indian Culture’. St. Thomas brought christianity into the country during this period.

The impact of mugal reign in India is phenomenal. Our life style changed in every walk of life including the cloths we wear, the language we speak, architecture, of which Taj Mahal is the best example. This was not just one sided. Even the Islamic culture was influenced by us. Urdu, for instance, began to written in the devanagri script. Islamic Sufi cult and hindu bhakthi cult made their presence felt. Followers of Guru Nanak, who founded the Sikh religion, soon became popular. The co-existence of hindus and muslims brought more glory to the Indian culture. The mightiest king of Mugal empire, Akbar himself set an example by getting married to a hindu princess. Marathas played a significant role in shaping the Indian culture. Though their kingdom did not grow in size, they had a considerable hold over their region.

Final intruder into India were the Britishers. French, Dutch and portuguese had their eyes on India, but succumbed to the power of Englishmen. The effect of British on the nation need not be told. However, it is important to mention that foundation of industrialization and commercialization was laid by them.

The need for public awareness on the independence triggered the wave of social reforms. This brought major changes the social outlook of the country. Festivals were used to campaign for the Public outcry against British. For instance, Bal Gangadhar Tilak popularised Ganesha festival in Maharastra. Even to this day it is celebrated in a large scale in that region. Social reforms in society took place during that period.

Our culture did not decay as a result of wars, battles or invasions. The influx of their culture preserved our culture and helped it grow. To this day the people are fascinated by the composite culture of ours. Emerging sceanario of our composite culture is tough to predict. The growth of our culture is unparalleled. Truely our culture symbolizes unity in diversity.