Cubicle Diaries III: Conversations

The one on politics:
It is on rare occasions that I chat with one of my flatmates (also a co-worker) about politics. But whenever we do it always veers into the fascinating territory of secularism, existing political parties and systems. I don't why we always manage to strike a chord: it could well may be that we both possess very strong opinions. Him a spokesman of the conservative thought. Me a card-carrying liberal.
I like him for his opinions. His is the unabashed conservative articulation. He is not in the least unapologetic about what he believes in. In discussions, he arms himself with simple yet strong arguments-

• In the recent past, 99% of terrorist activities has been committed by Muslims. Hence the followers of Islam should be under constant surveillance and suspicion. They ought to be guilty unless proven. We are dealing with human lives here (terrorist attacks) and hence you cannot ignore the damning evidence (the 99% fact)
• India needs an anti-terrorist law: special courts, faster justice (or rather faster route to the guillotine!) and hence safer homeland. Why have mercy on people who don't think twice about killing innocent men, women and even children? Why keep them in jails (and why feed them?) while in about a year's time they can hijack an airline and demand the release of such scoundrels? If all this is not pansy enough, what is? The present administration is very soft on terror
• Communism cannot work anywhere, and it can never work in India. As for Chinese Communism (I'm assuming you know what it is) that too can't work in India as we have a democracy that caters to too many opinions

I am quite unlike him. When faced with a conservative, I don't counter each and every argument. There could be many reasons for this, but I am fairly aware of two-

• I am not qualified or experienced enough to have the last word. I have never experienced the three things that make a man shed his liberal inclination ('garb'?) - fear, greed and loss. Fear when you fear for your life and limb. I have not lived through a riot. Greed- that lust for power or money that overwhelms any other consideration. I am moderately ambitious- but I have not yet been presented with a situation of all or nothing- where I can say "Stuff happens" to convince others, not in the least myself. Loss- I haven't lost anyone to terror. I don't know the feeling after such a loss. There is much I don't know or haven't seen
• I prefer equanimity to vitriol. Faced with a staunch conservative, I know I have very little chance of converting him, no matter how hard I try. I listen to the rules of probability and play safe. I abdicate my responsibility to liberalism (and hence society?) this way but that's what I am. A post on that later

So I write. Here is what I wish to say to him but I can't-

• The evidence is damning. But there are many ways to resolve a situation: either I can give up and detain (or worse) kill all Muslims or we live in the hope they elevate their cause to more saner ways: through protests, discussion and debate. We are talking about lives here: "they" are also human beings. The methods of terror are not theirs: they simply adopted it. Terrorism did not have Islamic origins
• Justice does not mean Hindu justice. I am not one to say we don't need better courts- there have been plenty of ink wasted on how we can have a better judicial system- faster courts is definitely not the cure-all
• Divisions are endemic in Indian society. I will not dwell on this, I have far too many posts on this matter. But communism (the Indian brand!) diluted the divisions at places they were successful. It took time but it did happen. A more robust version when applied on the whole of India can do the trick - imagine the power of a communist party with foothold in at least 12 states. And with practised ease, it'll kill off most sources of dissent. The only reason the party has lost its balance today is that it wields too little power (significant presence in 3 states) and too gung-ho on industrialisation. Even then, will it be voted out of power? NO CHANCE. Communism is very effective in reducing all other forms of opposition to nought (not for perpetuity, but for quite some time). Nationalism has the same traits (Hitler, Mussolini, Putin?!) but the constant need for devouring other territories sketches its downfall- Communism does not need this crutch. So the Chinese brand of communism can work in India, provided we have a revolution (a bloody one is not necessary)

I am not a fan of communism. Neither do I have putrid hate for such a system. But I think it can function in India. By this I don't mean any of these- the poor will be saved, the rich will be hanged, inequality will disappear or even we'll become as caste less, secular country. Certain divisions will blur, newer ones will emerge, we'll lose many forms of liberty and there will be the "lives of others". But the system may survive- can't just claim that'll not even last a day.

Mistakes and Life

This post actually came out of three impulses: a chat with my ex about mistakes in life (as portrayed in the novel "The Joke"); idle reminisces about some silly things I did in school. And that the post would be somehow congruent to the latest bestseller "Three Mistakes of My life" (I haven't read the book and neither do I intend to. It's just that I think I can guess what it is about and then contrast it with what I have to write).

Mistakes have always been quite intriguing to me. What is a mistake? If you commit a wrong (something that in itself is subjective) the wrong-doer would try to label it as a mistake and the affected will probably not be so generous. Ludvik, in "The Joke", commits several things that could be labeled differently. His letter to his romantic interest having references to Trotsky (which proved to be a turning point in his life): was it a mistake? surely it was an attempt to "show off" his intellect- in a free society, the only outcome it could have had is a "jerk" from the girl, shaking her head. Or at the maximum, a censure.

But it wasn't a free society. Ludvik, of his age, should have known better. Now there is a belief that one deserves what one gets. Did he deserve what he got? it is from this point subjectivity creeps in. I believe nothing is sacrosanct- and very few believe in this. You try and strip a greatly revered idea/person/faith of its glory and the most likely face you'll see is a shocked one. Worse, universal condemnation.

Was his treatment of the women (who came later) justified? Subjectivity creeps in- answers would vary from "see it from the context" and "no". It'd also include mine- what one goes through in such extreme circumstances is something very few can empathise with. So all actions commited during such periods are very difficult to judge upon. But we have to; otherwise there is no rule of law. We have "extenuating circumstances" to mitigate such judgements. But we cannot free the wrong-doer.

To be consistent, Rule of law cannot be taken as sacrosanct. I've always felt an inexplacable derision towards authority. But I admit its importance; and hence bow down to it.

Life has its own quirks. Randomness (I have been fooled by randomness!) makes sure people make mockery of rule of law- let's not get this wrong- I'm only talking about people who went scot free without exercising any form of influence. Ludvik was also not punished, or rather not in the sense we see punishment.

But he understood the "jokes" of his life. Is the realisation of a wrong, punishment enough? I am in murky waters now. Realisation is not suffering. Or is it?

Life is a narrative. Everyone makes mistakes: some of these are "wrongs". Some are punished for what they have done. Some realise and repent, some don't do either.

Today, the mysterious mind drifted to my schooldays. I remembered a computer class where I (armed with a basic knowledge of MS DOS) was acting smart and had this "I know it all and so I don't need this" attitude. Seated in the back bench, me and a few others (same tribe of "experts") looked at the instructors with disdain and tried to create a ruckus now and then. Try and make a mockery of the proceedings.

The instructors didn't need all this. I'm sure they were getting paid- but noisy kids who know the alphabet and know nothing of prose are something they ought to not have bargained for. Eventually they got me (One female showed me something I didn't know- and how was I to realise that there were so much I didn't know and still don't know). But I saw the light and learnt to be humble.

I realised my mistake- but did it change me? Not really. Even today, I make the same "mistake". With some semblance of expertise under my belt, I sometimes bask in the glory of an "expert". Why? I have seen others do it? A fault built inside me?

Let's not be too difficult on myself. I am rather humble compared to many I have seen. I experience moments of hubris- and sometimes I show it to others strategically. It helps. But experiences (like the one I described) have made me wiser- I am aware of what I don't know, haven't done and haven't achieved.

Mistakes are like death and taxes. At least in my case, it has never ceased to go away. The chronicler knows some of these are "wrongs".

There are no three mistakes in my life. There are too many. I can only rank them according to how they have affected me- not others. That I'll never know- because sometimes they will not tell me or they may not know themselves and more importantly, sometimes I wouldn't like to know.