Voice From A 2.5-World Country

Response to a response

So although I will never really be acknowledged by The Head Typist, it’s interesting to note that my posts are responded to. I had written earlier about my opinion on the difference between Riots & Terrorism earlier, and why equating the 2 is dangerous. Well, according to the response to that post, Mr. D seems to assume what I am saying is: “Because you cannot punish everyone involved in a riot, you should let it go. But because you can catch all of those responsible for terrorist acts, you should focus on those”.

This is not what I said at all, and far be it from me to say that I am excellent writer and that my point was expressed well previously. So, to clarify, what I had said before is that the reason you should not equate Riots & Terrorism as the same thing is because the root causes are different.

This is why it’s damn near impossible to stop riots, and not terrorist attacks. By all means, punish the ones who are responsible, if it’s realistically possible. Is it possible in the type of riots that occured in Gujarat? So it means we need to punish the chief minister, his cronies, the police, and all of the people, which means some chunk of the citizenry of Gujarat. Best of luck, buddy. Yes, sure, in an ideal world where communists burn in hell, and the New Delhi traffic sticks to its lanes, this would be possible. But it’s not.

SO - how about actually trying to figure out WHY there is so much tension between the Hindus & Muslims of Gujarat that caused an explosion. It was limited to Gujarat - Why didn’t this tension spread to say Assam, or even Delhi for that matter, which is much closer? Why was restricted mostly to Gujarat? Has anybody sat down to determine the reasons? Yes, the Chief Minister incited the State Machinery. But the State Machinery was malleable to his will. How come? If I sat here and incited people to beat up somebody, nobody would listen to me. So how did he get that power? Are there laws that make policemen subordinate to Chief Ministers? Is that why the poplice did as they were told instead of behaving independently? What is the make up of the Gujarat police force? The general demographics of Gujarat. Is one community poorer than the other? If so why? Is it just 400 years of abuse? If yes, then why did this tension not surface elsewhere? Is the police force in other areas more diverse? If yes, then why wasn’t the Gujarati police force that diverse?

And on, and on and on. The causes behind the riots need to be studied, so that future riots don’t happen again. But the Head Typist simply says - killers are monsters, and should be punished. Oh what a lovely black and white world he lives in. Yes, for the most part, killers are monsters, but just like high-caste and low-caste people, black, brown white and yellow people, they are homo-sapiens too. many of them have functioning brains, and many of them are no dumber or smarter than you or I. I AM NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED. I am saying that just punishing a few of the worst perpetrators in a riot, does not prevent future riots from occuring. 

When we talk about terrorism, punishing the damn fools who tried to blow up parliament, IS ENOUGH. It does send a message to other people out there with similar designs on their mind. It is also possible to CATCH individual terrorists and fry the bastards. The root-cause analysis I’ve mentioned above needs to be conducted to get behind the causes of terrorism too. But, even without that analysis, we can at least prevent the damage done by terrorists, to a REASONABLE extent. Put up metal detectors, x-ray baggage, get dogs to sniff for bombs. Yes, I concede that if somebody is determined to blow you up, they will eventually win. But just because the burglar/terrorist comes in through the window doesn’t mean you leave the door unlocked.

What preventive measures can one take against civil disorder? None. That is why it is called civil disorder. The System. Breaks. Down. So fix the system, or create a new one.

Terrosism is an attempt to fight The System, Riots are an implosion of the System.

If most people are happy with the system, Terrorism will occur, but it will fail, for the most part. If people are unhappy with a system, riots will occur, and terrorism will succeed.

Tis a slow weekend

That stupid “It’s Raining Men” song is going through my head, due to the Maruti SX4 ad. How the F am I supposed remain heterosexual if I am accidentally caught singing that song ? (Although, in this country with its skewed sex ratio it ain’t that far from the truth…but then nobody says Hallelujah because of that…)

The Delhi govt. has done some interesting things, lately, and I wonder what the consequences will be. The drinking age has been lowered from 25 years of age to 21. Finally, a case of laws beginning to match reality.

(Obligatory Ivy-League Alma Mater mention). My university’s motto (in Latin) was:

Leges Sine Moribus Vanae

Which translates to: Ceaser suffers from gas because he ate a burrito last night. Kidding. It actually translates to: Laws without morals are useless

And I’m sure Ben Franklin came to that conclusion after looking into his crystal ball to see some of the laws framed by the Indian government.

(End of Alma Mater mention)

The other interesting thing the Delhi government did is make it legal for women to work as bartenders. Of course, as has been mentioned a trillion times before, India is a free country, but only in name many a time. India suffers the Asian confusion of considering “Freedom from..” instead of “Freedom to”.

By framing idiotic laws like preventing women from working in bars, India has given you freedom from drunken men molesting women. By preventing people under the age of 25 from drinking, India gives youth the freedom from inebriation (or parents the responsibility of actually raising self-reliant human beings). So, just like we got Freedom from the British, all of our laws are designed to give us freedom from things. Newsflash: They don’t work.

Instead let’s try a different approach - women should have freedom TO work where they choose - so let’s repeal the stupid law that prevents them from doing so. (I’m skipping the alcohol example because I think we all get the point.

Just saw a Discovery Channel documentary on the Delhi Metro. I knew it was a Big Deal for the country and the world in general that the Delhi Metro exists and functions, and the show just went on to prove that. I was especially impressed with the Delhi Metro control room, which looks like those cool sci-fi control rooms you see in so many Jerry Bruckheimer movies, big screens and men in ties.

I am attracted to a woman at work. She’s a hottie, and she works as an auditor for the Quality department. Now people working in the Quality department need to have a certain trait. This trait is Anal-Retentiveness. Shame she works in the Quality department. We could have had a passionate affair, having sex by the coffee machine and on my boss’s desk after hours. Ah well. She’s a long-legged single-eyebrow raiser, which really turns me on. I can only raise one eyebrow by screwing my face to make me look constipated. Even then, nobody is sure I’m raising an eyebrow or trying to poop my pants.

I hope my company lets me resign on Friday.If not, I’ll be back here to bitch. Oh wait. Even if I do I’ll be back here to bitch.

What’s in a name? Quite a lot.

Names matter. There’s a reason a certain Feroze changed his last name to Gandhi. Names are a crucial part of branding things, whether they be cars, hairdresser, politicians or actors. (Yusuf Khan  is another case in point).

So, one should be able to see the clear intent behind naming the the body responsible for cricket in India. How come nobody ever wonders why it is called the Board of Control for Cricket in India. With a name like that, it sounds as though Cricket has run amok in India and needs to be restrained by a bunch of wise old men (which if you’ll note, is the PRECISE attitude the BCCI takes towards cricket). Was “The Indian Cricket Board” too much of a stretch of imagination? I don’t advocate going all flashy and copying Cricket Australia, but really, is being called The Indian Cricket Board a big deal?

One possible objection of course, is that so what if the name changes? Agarkar will still concede an average of 22 runs an over.

My response to that is no, he won’t. Names matter. When you call yourself the Board of Control, then that’s what you want to do. You want to control cricket. You don’t to do anything for its improvement, or benefit. You just want to control it.

Why?

(of course, being an FMF*, I will again say this is because of the effects of 50 years of Indian Socialism). It is a parochial mindset.

Compare ICL (Indian Cricket League) with BCCI. The name sounds much better (and has already managed to shake things up, at least as far as players’ earnings go), and this plays subconciously on everyone who is associated with it.

As has been reiterated many times before, India is still only partially free. There is a long way to go before India makes the shift from a “Freedom from ___” attitude to a “Freedom to ____” attitude.

*FMF = Free Market Fundamentalist, a term frequently used by the JagadGuru

Why don’t private FM stations broadcast live cricket matches?

Does anybody have the answer to this? It’s probably just a stupid government regulation, but can anyone confirm this? The same goes for news broadcasts. Why is private TV news allowed, but not private radio news?

Of course, being the Free Market Fundamentalist that I am, I will say it is because Radio is more accessible than TV. Therefore, it means the government will have less control over the populace if any old fool can broadcast news. Well deplorable as that is, it is still understandable.

But what of Cricket broadcasts? I am sure the BCCI would lurve to sell more rights to competing bidders if it could. It must not be allowed to. What justification is given for not allowing cricket broadcasts? Doesn’t make any sense to me. AIR broadcasts them, so it can’t be because “it may cause public disturbance”. Of course, one could argue that the matches help keep AIR in business, but that also seems unlikely, because the FM radio stations and AIR don’t cater to the same audience, and therefore, would not get the same sponsorship.  The sponsorship for just one match would probably be enough to make any private FM station’s day.

Broadcasting cricket and news on the pvt channels can only be good for radio. Besides, I want to fantasize about noodle straps during my commute….

They aren’t the same thing

The Head Typist equates people killed in bomb blasts with those killed in riots .

Demanding justice for all victims, is fair enough, but because of the very nature of the two, it is easy to see why one bunch got justice, and the other didn’t. That in itself should be a clue as to why you cannot equate the two. Equating these two very different forms of violence is dangerous thing to do, for the simple reason that you end up diluting the impact of both riots and terrorism (in terms of the damage they do).

Terrorism arises from a backlash against the status quo. Terrorists fight against the establishment, they attempt to change the existing order, and for this, they use death as their weapon. Crazed Communist says - I want to make a statement. So s/he straps a bomb to his/her chest and stands in the middle of the Virar Fast. Kaboom. Statement made, damage done. It is for the most part, and individual act, or that of a few individuals. They may have the blessing (i.e. “moral & diplomatic support”) of a large group of people, but the acts themselves are individual. One man’s terrorist is another’s martyr. HOWEVER, if a watchful commuter, or an efficient and effective police force do their duty, there may be a way to prevent a terrorist incident from occurring. (If the security guard standing by the metal detector actually felt for bombs instead of messing with my ‘pistol’ he may actually be able to save a few lives). While you cannot prevent terrorists from arising, you can prevent the damage they do, and the number of lives lost in terrorist incidents.

Firemen and policemen saved the lives of many people by climbing up the WTC to help people go in the opposite direction. The 6 policemen who foiled the attack on India’s Parliament prevented a much worse incident.

Riots are not so simple.

Yes, the end result is that people end up dead but for very different reasons, and this matters if you are going to address the problem and to solve it. A riot is the collective breakdown of the system. Riots can be controlled with water cannons, and with teargas. But they aren’t because the people who should be doing the controlling are usually part of the riot itself. Again, it is a collective failure. Who do you blame for the murdered Muslim? The man who incited the riot? The man who pulled the trigger? Or the 5 men who held the Muslim in place while he was castrated? What about the 10 men who ran for cover instead of coming to their fellow human being’s aid? And the 15 people who watched from their windows, and did nothing? All of them you say? That’s probably correct. Now go and round up all 5 million people involved in the riot, and prosecute them to your heart’s content. Not very easy is it? Of course, you would be happy with a few murderers, thugs, and their leader as a ’symbolic gesture’ to satisfy the ’sentiments’ of the victimised community. But you haven’t done a thing to prevent a riot, because you haven’t even addressed the causes. Why was the state machinery in cahoots? Why wasn’t it neutral? Why do Hindus and Muslims still hate each other so much? Arresting a firebrand leader isn’t going to change a thing the next time 12 people are burnt alive on a train. Not one thing, because a riot is systemic breakdown.

Terrorists need weapons, like guns, bombs, fuel-laden airplanes to do their thing. They need large flashy targets for their symbolism. An army base, a 110-storey building. Riots need nothing but a lot of simmering anger. Sentencing 5 terrorists to death (or life imprisonment, depending on you political leanings) prevents at least those 5 terrorists from causing anymore harm. Sentencing the person who incites a mob, does nothing whatsoever to prevent a riot. Prosecuting the policeman in charge at the time does nothing either, if the chief minister encouraged rioting. Prosecuting the Chief Minister doesn’t prevent the frustrated majority from killing the minority, because in the case of riots, none of the root causes are addressed.

Equating these two issues, looking at them purely in terms of black and white (”people are dead”) does not help in getting justice for the victims, but maybe helps to ease one’s own conscience.