Can we separate politics from law ?

Whenever I try to give a political dimension to a legal question, I am cautioned by learned people and teachers by a statement “You should keep yourself away from Politics”. Instantly I would ask myself why?

This is not the question only with respect to academia but in general too. Suppose we are travelling in a public transport and if you happen to discuss your political views with your fellow traveler, what if he does not agree? Or what if he weakens your argument. What if it ends in a duel? May be that is why generally if someone talks about it – Politics, others might just say “here we go we have got another wayward”. If that is the case we should declare “Aristotle” a wayward.

But here I would like to ponder over such cases with in the academia. On the other day my teacher and I were discussing some legal questions on few things, one of the item that came up was federalism and Art: 370 of Indian constitution.

My view was that India is not strictly a federal country; any time centre can usurp all the notional powers given to provinces or states.

And it completely depends up on temperament of the leader who is ruling at a specific point of time. Nehru and Indira Gandhi are such leaders whose tendencies were always unitary and they rarely indulged in the practice of federalism. May be we have had a single party rule for a very long time. But that is not the point.

The moment I have taken few names in politics, comes the caveat “Don’t mix the politics” in law.  Then the question would be is it really possible or is it appropriate to view politics and law as two separate worlds? May be yes. But it should not be, if we are looking for a holistic view. After all law is nothing but the result of political deliberations and in effect law is an offspring of politics. Without politics, law is not possible. But in the Indian context unlike west we have a lot of practical difficulties if we ever have to engage in daily life political discussions. Though in broad terms ‘Politics’ could mean everything we do in our life, here I am only referring to relations between public & political parties which rule the former through an institution called government.

Aren’t we discussing politics all the time? When fuel and cooking gas prices are hiked we deplore the actions of govt. because we know it is they who have taken this decision.

Why academia as a whole does not engage itself in political discourse is an important question. At least teachers from the depts. of Humanities and Social sciences rarely discuss current issues in public or classroom. That is why there is a scant regard for social sciences in India.

In India people do not practice “Transaction based reactions” i.e., you do not agree/disagree with a person but only with issues. Even though congress is neck deep in corruption it is possible that few people including I could agree on few issues that does not mean that I am either Pro or anti.

But the compulsion of teachers not to discuss current politics with students in particular or with in academia at least is because if your political inclinations are known, there will be issues in career progression i.e., becoming from guest prof. to tenure prof. or from an Asst. Prof. to Prof. or to go on and become a vice chancellor or directors. So there is hardly a requirement of your subject mastery. Additionally they fear professional retaliation if they make their inclinations apparent.

In reality if we endeavor to answer critical legal questions in its entirety, keeping politics aside will not help either the student or teacher. Way to go for Democracy in India!

My Comment on The Politics of going public

Commenting on John W. Patty's The Politics of Going Public

One of the earliest constitutions which gives so much of power (Near absolute ?) and enough room to react on exigencies, doing public vetting on certain decisions (few may be less important) looks like some kind of precedent setting.

America appears to have guarded itself from an outright tyranny which is prevalent in third and Muslim world, because most of the presidents were some kind of Plato's Philosopher kings, but I know many would disagree with this assertion.

While there is no disagreement that the president gets to decide when and in front of whom, but the larger question I feel it should be, is he not shackling the future presidents by his current actions.The expectations of the public will be raised ?

Going or not going to public may not be an issue in a country like India for example, they are mostly ritualistic, where once a year the prime minister or the president will address the nation on independence day and opening session etc., And no importance is given to clarify their stance to the public directly before/after taking critical decisions.

I forgot to mention they go around during election campaigns.

My Comment on Arms Race in Asia between China and India

Responding to Arms race between China and India

There is another possibility like Chinese media some time ago quoted, that India is actually underplaying its missile development program. And Agni V itself is some kind of ICBM, just to avoid an arms race in ASIA India constantly projects a  picture to the world in general and China in particular that it is not racing with them but in reality it is reaching near China's military prowess. But I hope Chinese intelligence is not that dumb in not knowing what we are up to.

Western powers have realized that the embargoes and regimes like MTCR(Missile technology control regime) have in no meaningful way obstructed India's indigenous development of ballistic missiles, though we have to agree that it did sluggish the pace. The job of our scientists is commendable. The issue was always with political leadership.

May be the statements like the one which Avinash Ji made could be because of current circumstances where Chinese at will cross Indian borders and go back. The strategic leadership may have stage managed such comments and reactions in their attempt to create some kind of deterrent to Chinese with respect to border intrusions.

We really do not know if mere statements could cause deterrence. But there is a profound pride on reaching this milestone by India among the educated citizenry.

The reply I got for the above comment :

From JB :

Having something in your drawing room showcase does not mean you know how to or you have the mental strength to use them. In 1962 having far superior air power India failed to put it to resulting in lasting humiliation!

And my further response to it is mentioned below :

Agreed ! But that was exactly what I have said as it has to do with Political unpreparedness rather than Military unpreparedness.

You know, Nehru once declared that India does not need a military. All it needed was a police force to control the public. How naive. The strategic thinking itself was not in deficit, but the strategic thinking of political leadership was in deficit. China never had this problem.

Can Hegelian Idea of War & Peace address the Issue of corruption?

Recently read thoughts of Hegel:

• The movement of power from one nation state to another is the march of God on earth. 

• Men stagnate in peace. Corruption could be the product of prolonged if not perpetual peace.

Reflecting on the above thoughts.

Power does not remain with a person, nation, group, tribe, clan forever as it moves from one to another and for the time it remains in a specific place that entity enjoys certain status and is in a position to set the rules for others and then exacts obedience for the rules it set.

The theologies of different religions which sprouted in the last 2000 years have thrown the baggage of divine power on us in which king or caliph has to rule his subjects, a theory which could not stand the scrutiny of reason. With no defined boundary for religion and state the entity of God was imposed on all personal affairs of men and he permeated in the air like oxygen. As someone new to this domain I am thrilled to see an innovative explanation of Hegel on how he explains the march of God on earth. The movement of superpower status from country to another is march of God on earth.

So it appears to be true to an extent. Once the ultimate power lied with Spain and Portugal then it moved to Brits then to US at the moment. Much before 2000 years there were powerful kingdoms but there was always one kingdom which had the supreme power.

The possession of power was purely written in a destructive sense at a time this was coined. If you are too powerful you can annex. Now the other dimension of this is march of god theory is equal to theory of power, you need to fight for God otherwise he moves elsewhere, so is your superpower thereby your superpower status.

If you are engaged in constant war to retain the power which is nothing but you are trying to retain the god, apparently there will be no peace, so during war men will be either less corrupt or completely honest because peace is a reason for corruption and men stagnate in it. That could mean he does not innovate and just stays idle? May be yes. If there was no second world war the academic discipline (technique) Operations research would not have been discovered. All the modern weaponry would not have been discovered because people were forced to innovate on sheer necessity.

So Hegel essentially says – “God marches from one to another and you need to constantly engage yourself in war to retain him without becoming a victim of an abstract idea called Peace”?

I am just realizing that in the medieval terms war certainly meant a direct armed conflict with two opponents. But in current times it could be many things in addition to direct armed conflict.

The struggle to retain God and acquire him continues. God meaning power.

Powerful state/s i.e., those entities who currently have god with them in their attempt to retain him have to make sure that no other state acquires him. So firstly they will find out the serious contender, once identified they will see who is the contender’s contender then he will be funded to fight his contender.

An example on Hegel line could be, in strict Bi-polar sense God has already marched to US and it has to retain it somehow, any attempt by other nation to acquire some superpower status must be resisted by US. So we have had this Afghanistan and Jihad which was funded by US to thwart Russia’s efforts to acquire such status, though Jihad was no friend to US.

Men are constantly at war for power. When it is ensured that there is no peace why then still corruption continues? It is because of God=Power?

So when you have power you abuse it, just like Lord Acton said. The problem is even the march of God cannot stop corruption.

Can we say that to manipulate the march of god men engage in corruption?

Money, Social Status & Social Distance leads to class consciousness, vanity and false pride

I have been doing an elementary reading on political sociology and found the concept Social status & Social distance more interesting because I then realized that we encounter it on a daily basis without knowledge.

Social status is the starter and Social Distance shall follow as a consequence. Primitive man was never a victim of this non-sense and he led a satisfied life. But then that alone will not be a strong reason to give up the feeling of Social Status. On a positive note if you are a soldier and serving your motherland, you should be proud about that and Social Status which ensues as a result is reasonable and indeed legitimate. The only danger is if you carry the baggage of Social Status all the time and/or your heightened obsession towards this, will only harden your ego and is not good for your mental & physical health. Let me tell you how and why.

The Hindu scriptures quote that Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Mada , matsarya which in English translates to Lust, anger, greed, attachment, pride(vanity,ego) and jealousy are the six enemies of man. Man is virtually a prisoner of these six evils which does not allow him to realize the god within or elsewhere. These six evils act like layers which obstructs men to see and experience what is real. This teaching is at the core of Hindu philosophical thought.

The most dangerous of these six is ego (Ahankar-Hindi/Sanskrit) Ahambavamu-Telegu, Ahambavam – Tamil. And Man’s excessive consciousness of Social Status nurtures this feeling of Ego which is detrimental to his mental peace. With Ego and pride your mind will always be agitated. A disturbed and agitated mind causes severe damage to your physical health too, so it is in your own interest to shun it.

Let’s see how this pans out in real time. For Political sociologists social status maintains some kind of order in society which is positive and is actually required, this is mostly associated with an official position sometimes but mostly it has got something to do with possession of material wealth. If you are a politician your Social Status is different from the ordinary citizenry. And if you are an Ambani like that means you have a lot of money so your social status is different from the one who is a popper.

In the ancient days we have had this caste system through which order was ensured in society, this is a typical example of Social Status, which is primarily associated with the occupation one is engaged in to. Though in the current days there is no utility of caste system it is upheld by some zealots. This is actually a blot on Hinduism itself.

The debate of haves and have-nots: It is important to note that in a society where income inequality is rampant, the have-nots running behind material wealth and the haves being indifferent is quite common. It is a no-brainer that men who possess enormous amount of wealth also maintain status and influence in every arena. This mere possession of wealth and status forces him to maintain a social distance with those who do not have it.

So you maintain a marked distance with your relatives because you are afraid that they might ask you for a material help. Does this not sound like a prejudice? And you want have a relationship with someone who has an equal status (Social status) i.e., someone who has material wealth of your level or even more.

As you move on you develop some kind of profound ego, which makes you think that you have all the power at your disposal and you can do anything you want. This is obviously true. You can literally do anything with money starting from turning a man to woman and woman to man to buying judgments in courts. It shall be noted that many dalal street traders too were in that mental makeup but committed suicide in the verge of 2008 financial crisis. Their Social Status, distance and ego etc could not save their life.

The nature of wealth accumulation is such that you would naturally create a class of stooge, which will agree to anything you say there by catering to your ego which further degenerates to false ego. You end up creating false class consciousness i.e., you call all of them who does not have enough wealth to matche your level either second or third class, which is absolutely not needed apart from genuine governmental purposes i.e., taxing individuals for example.

During my childhood I have encountered a strange mindset of my cousin, she would call me a third class because as a kid of say 10 years old I would enjoy blowing soap bubbles. I never knew that if you blew soap bubbles you are a third class. For a very long time I thought about what could be a potential reason for this peculiar behavior, why would she call me a third class?

I realized that as far as I see the only difference was that of a classic case of haves and have-nots. She too was a kid of tender age; somehow her family socialization has taught her that all have-nots are either second or third class. That is a disturbing behavior. This false pride sustains your ego. And you tend to think you get some kind of superior plane because of your financial status, which is rubbish. Because a financially inferior person could be superior in other facets of life.

So it is not too late. If you are catering to your ego through your false pride which rests on the premise of possession of money or because of your official position, ie., say you are an employee of governmental organization or you are an employee of an IT company or you are simply living abroad after some brief education etc., you do not gain some kind of imaginary first class status. If you think you are in that class then you are a victim of your ego and this will not allow you to become a perfect human being. So stay there at your own risk.

What is professionalism?

Have you come across this debate on who is a professional? Many might have been through this question for sure, especially if you are in the so called corporate domain. But this question is not limited to white collar labor, though our discussion would be primarily about them.

With that above statement we cannot help but go back to the same corporate domain, because that is the place where the term professionalism is abused often with its distorted meaning. The fixation on dress code is especially pre-dominant in defining professionalism and the corporate psyche has been a victim of that notion.

It is more or less declared that wearing an ironed shirt and Pant is the end of professionalism. Do you agree? If you do then I have a serious doubt on your reasoning ability. Who decided that if someone wears an Ironed shirt & pant becomes a complete professional?

Here is how I would like to spin it out. Long ago, i.e., centuries ago when Englishmen were out for territory acquiring expeditions in east and west, they not only invaded all those lands physically but also culturally. Now what I mean culturally is that it is the culture of English men to wear shirt, pant, and coat then all that suffocating stuff, but it was not our culture definitely. Ours was dhoti and/or pajama.

So from the time we became slaves and were employed in the offices of Englishmen we must have started wearing these. Or were naturally inclined to that costume because it was something new.

Figment of imagination: Let’s assume that long ago if Indian kings went on land acquiring/annexing expedition and did subjugate the west through brute force, by now the corporate definition of professionalism with respect to dress code would have been wearing dhoti and pajamas. Can you imagine that?

India’s defense minister and Finance Minister wear their cultural dress that is dhoti with western style shirt on top even on their foreign tours. Are they not professionals?

Now if a politician wears an Ironed shirt and pant but engages in a scam, can we still call him a professional?

Let’s move on to the real meaning of professionalism instead being stooped at this pant & shirt debate. Some of the components mentioned below in my opinion shall make someone a professional if not a complete professional, most of it based on common sense.

v  If you have to reprimand someone do it in private but appreciate in public.

v  Speak truth and stop lying.

v  Stop your ill will against your colleague.

v  Don’t be a cunning idiot, it only suits a fox.

v  Don’t pretend but do some actual work.

v  Don’t score points on your colleague’s mistakes but help.

v  Don’t claim credit for other’s work.

v  If you have become a manager it means you are still a human being, so behave humanely.

v  When you are talking to people who are inferior to you, i.e., with respect to official position, show respect.

v  Shun your ego.

v  Stop thinking that you are the last brilliant left in this world.

v  Just do not talk but also listen.

v  Stop using the word attitude.

v  Maintain the harmony of thought, word and deed.

This list is definitely not exhaustive but a way to evolve in to something better. In corporate arena people just adhere to that Ironed pant-shirt thing and claim that they are professionals which is not only rubbish but an attempt to fool oneself. The whole argument is while there is nobody saying that people should wear dhoti and pajamas to work place thought it is correct to wear it on a daily basis. But over emphasis on JUST the DRESS CODE defeats the whole purpose of turning someone in to a complete professional.

Why China gives a damn about India?

Did you ever think about why China gives a damn about all the rhetoric India is engaged in to when on a weekly basis (if not daily) it breaches India’s border on the pretext of issues with border demarcation.

Some of the reasons why I think India will never stand up to Chinese hegemonic aggressiveness are:

India is seen as a weak democracy?

Aboriginal thinkers like Aristotle called democracy as a mob rule in its extreme form, which is without doubt a pre-requisite of turning a stable state or society in to anarchy which will further destabilize the polity. Bench marking democracy can be another topic altogether and people have already written too much about it or I may be oblivion of complete list of such writings at the moment. Among plethora of such criteria which could describe India’s weakness as a democracy, “Coalition” politics is one such element. The single largest party could never take any decision for the interests of all the people of India.

Asymmetric warfare

I do not want to enumerate then juxtapose Chinese and Indian armaments here, but it is an open secret that India is no match to China’s conventional weaponry hence chances to win an upfront confrontation are bleak. Part of the problem is as experts say that it is because of issues with defense procurement. The bogey of corruption has already swayed defense sector too. So India’s inferiority with respect to Military hardware on relative basis with china is going to remain for sometime in future if not forever.

Parties of Myriad ideologies Or Myriad Ideological parties?

For any student of sociology or Political Sociology Indian society is a great platform to study and get awed by its complexity in nature. Hence there exist parties of different ideologies catering the psychological bent of different societies of Indian Society. Hence Indian society can be rightly called as mosaic of different societies, caste and religion forming an important part of it.

For Communist parties a right reaction to China means a breach of their ideology just like for parties which thrive on Muslim vote bank and divisive agenda reacting to Pakistan means harm to their established vote bank.

Weak Leadership

The face of India’s leadership is seen as a weak one. Yes. I am quoting the Prime Minister. If it is just a perception problem as it is made out then people have to work accordingly to dispel the myth of his weakness. But the truth is contrary. He requires to be gagged by the opposition to comment on matters of national importance, forget about leading any strategy. The Chinese know this well.

Credibility is built on actions taken but not on rhetoric

Though Govt. Of India takes tireless efforts in duping the public of India as far as Chinese incursions are concerned about the incursion’s non-interference in diplomatic engagements, it was never an effective bargainer with China.

For diplomacy to succeed India must strive to become an equal partner. Now China knows it is a long shot for India, hence it gives a damn about India and its standing in international fora.

Vivekananda Run in Chennai as a part of 150th year celebrations

On September 11 as a part of year long 150th year birthday celebrations of Bharath's Cyclonic Monk - Swami Vivekananda, Vivekananda Run has been organized at Vivekananda House Chennai at 4 PM.

Sharing a presentation prepared by my friend on why should participate in this.

My Favorite one :

What the Harvard Professor said about Swami on credentials to attend world parliament of religions ?

When Swami Ji said that he does not have the credentials to attend world parliament of religions, Prof Wright at once wrote to the Chairman of the committee

“  Here is a man who is more learned than all our learned professors put together”

“ To ask you, Swami , for credentials is like asking the sun its right to shine”

The Hobbesian thought: It is “Fear” that subjugates men

Recently I have been talking to some of my friends who work in corporate world i.e., white collar workers. Some had a real fear that with the current state of Indian Economy and a dying rupee their jobs are in real danger and their sense of job security is dwindling gradually.

In the whole conversation I have had with one of my friend recently about this subject also with few other friends one thing that stuck me was their fear on whether they could be shown the door for some unexplainable reason.

Keeping this incident (me talking to some of my friends about the job security etc.,) aside only for a moment, I shall indulge in talking about something I read on FEAR recently.

As a part of elementary reading on the subject Western Political Thought I came across a thinker Thomas Hobbes who propounded the idea of social contract and discussed in length about an important component of man’s inherent nature which is “Fear”.

If we have to for a moment assume that there are no governments or any other institutions which protects men, he will live in a continuous fear of death from his fellow human beings because there is no public interest and every one will act in his own self interest. In his words on the nature of men– “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” This is exactly what is his idea about man which was no doubt based on experiences of times he lived.

But the element of fear in my opinion is applicable to all times including the future. Imagine if there is no law that says that if you kill others you will be awarded death sentence, any petty fight will lead to death/s of humans, and it is because the killer knows that there is no body to question his act.

On a positive note, Fear also instills some kind of moral behavior in kids, may be that is why a mother counsels her kid no to do a certain act, if you do god will punish you. This is particularly the case in Indian society. Yes God/religion has a significant utility in keeping men sane. The Point is out of that fear of punishment kid is deterred in acting in a certain way which he could have if the fear was not instilled.

To fear is at times is a moral thing. People often say on commenting some body’s character, he is a good man because he is god fearing person etc.,

Going back to Hobbes again. As someone who is at the stage of infancy when it comes to the subject of political thought I am stunned by the way Hobbes depicted “Fear”, by saying that his mother gave birth to twins i.e., himself and fear, thereby making “Fear” his half-blood.

With due respect to Rousseau’s propounded general will and individual will, there might be few utopians who say that in liberal societies men do not have to worry about anything and his independence is absolute. Frankly speaking there is nothing called as absolutely independence but it is limited to and subjected to certain conditions.

But going back to the theme on which I have started this whole thing i.e., “Fear” of Job insecurity in a corporate especially for the white collars, it has to be noted that at the time of 2008 we have heard the arguments on for and against layoffs then few also argued that crisis was used as some kind of pretext by corporate companies to shed some waste and increase the savings.

The moment you come across a grapevine about an eventual layoff, you could see people working so diligently, so committed at least in appearance and constantly exploring avenues which could keep them in work, all this with a sense of fear and worry. Because they Fear the aftermath of an immediate job loss and worried about the monthly payments towards loans they have taken based on the hefty income they are receiving.

There is another possibility. Corporate world is filled with managers who given the chance are essentially immoral, and are constantly looking for opportunities to subjugate their subordinates at the altar of their authority and want to use grapevine to their personal benefit, so it is in our interest to identify reality of the situation.

To instill confidence I shall conclude that in India which is a booming economy and market place for the products (including services) made worldwide only next to China there is a remote possibility of jobs getting wiped off completely. So if someone was really laid off in a big corporate it may not be primarily because of some sort of economic crisis but may be they just want to rid themselves off from your inefficiency? Or a personal sweat dream and whim of an arrogant & Idiotic manager?

There by “Fear” comes in handy for a corporate to subjugate their employees. This brings us to the conclusion that it is “Fear” that subjugates men.