Indians: Argumentative versus Opinionated

There are different categories of people in Indian society. These categories I am talking about have got nothing to do with categories or groups that fall under the head - sociological but it is purely psychological. Sociological/Social groups are for example caste groups, religious groups and others. At least arguments or debates with such groups will be blunt and clear as the one who argues with them knows in advance what their stand is on a specific subject, and the possibility of obfuscation is minimal or none.

I shall explain these groups/categories in terms which we can easily understand and relate.

Category 1: Those who say that India is a pathetic country. Every invader who came here for pillage & plunder has helped us improve from being a highly pathetic society to a less pathetic one. Let’s see some clichés which people use who fall under this category.

• Thank god, Greeks invaded and enslaved us. Because of which we have learnt logic. Otherwise we would have been stupid.

• You know, if Mughals did not invade us we would have never learnt how to make Chicken Tikka & Kebab. So I salute Mughals.

• Thanks to Brits, we now have post offices, Railways, bridges & high-rise buildings. Most importantly they taught us English along with morals and a great religion through missionaries. Otherwise we would have been a bunch of idiots worshipping rocks, monkeys and idols. Thanks to Lord, they have given us Jesus. 

Category 2: Those who say that India is a best country in the world, and there is nothing wrong here and they say India is shining. There will be no need for any clichés because for them nothing is wrong with our society. These people will normally will hold their allegiance to a political party. For example, when BJP is in power, if you speak to a hard core BJP supporter he will say that “India is shining” and there is nothing wrong with India because all is well. When Congress is in power if you talk to a hard core congress party supporter, he will say that India has become a super power and all other parties are communal, we are the only secular party in India etc.,

Category 3: Though I am tempted to call this category as neutral, rational and objective, but they are not completely rational. Because Humans will never be completely rational. There is nothing called as rationality, but bounded rationality, says Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize winning Economist. Read his paper here  to understand as to what is Bounded Rationality. So, though in a way people who fall in this category are relatively better than the two categories mentioned above, they are not completely neutral. Because they will have a soft corner to a particular party or ideology, even though they don’t agree with them completely. Let’s take my example I have a soft corner for BJP at the moment when compared to the positions of other parties on subjects like national security etc., I go along with BJP but not on everything, but still have a soft corner. If not on all the occasions most of the times discussions will be driven by facts rather than by unsubstantiated opinions & obscurantism. 

In this occasion I will be my own judge and say that I fall under this category3. Because for most of the opinions I rely on facts. If I say that both LTTE & Sri Lankan establishment are equally responsible for the sufferings of Tamils, I will cite at least few facts to support my argument, instead of making claims out of my hat. If a person who falls under the category1 have to speak on this issue, he will blame either Sri Lanka or LTTE as fully responsible with least regard to facts but not both. LTTE sympathizer might just say that Prabhakaran was a freedom fighter notwithstanding the atrocities for which he was responsible, and a Srilankan supporter would just dismiss him as a terrorist. Truth may be in between? So, I claim that I fall under category3. Jury is out.

In my opinion we’ll be tempted to debate with people who fall under category1, because we fall in to the trap as we feel that they are sane and at first impression appear to be category3, but actually you can reason it out with category2 not with category1.

Let’s me quote few types of people who fall under category1. Most of the people who have secured a good social status through reservation, yes I am talking about a group which was institutionally oppressed i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe group. For our discussion here I am referring only to those who fall under the definition of category1, not all.

The reason for undertaking this painful exercise to explain the categories is to explain and share my experience of a conversation I have had with a person who falls under category1. Yes, the type who says that we are better off today only because of British. What appalled me was his reluctance to accept facts contrary to his beliefs and passes judgment only based on his experience. I sympathize for the sufferings he might have undergone, but his personal suffering is not enough to pass a judgement on a whole society which is saner, civil and forward looking, at least on a relative basis.

Let me briefly explain the profile of the person with whom I have had such a conversation. He is a Professor and Head of the department in a reputed university and claims to be teaching for the past 30 years or more. He is about to retire say in a year. An SC/ST who reached where he is now partly because of the policy of reservation or quota system. He is bustling with his prejudice towards Caste Brahmins. Of course he claims to be a victim of caste Brahmin bigotry. Normally he does not take pride in anything good about in India, even on our achievements, past & present. Everything that has gone wrong with this country he sees it through the prism of Caste Brahmins oppressing SC/ST groups.

The conversation started with his prejudicial statements that in those days Brahmins would pour melted copper in the ears of Dalits if they dared to study or educate themselves. For a very long time I have tried to find an evidence on this claim as this was not the first time I have heard such a statement, but I could not find any convincing evidence so far. Even if we have to agree with that statement for a moment, is this what India all about?

Without answering that question directly, I brought up the issue regarding the documentary made by BBC on 2012 Delhi gang rape case and the innuendos suggested in that documentary. I told him that, while rapes are bad and it happens in India too but neither all men are rapists or ours is a society of rapists as suggested by that documentary and tried to convince him that his example was also something like that. And apprised him with facts that the incidence of rape is much higher in western countries when compared to India. As per the official figures, every 25 seconds one woman is sexually harassed in US and in every 6 minutes one woman is sexually harassed in UK, by that I don’t mean that we are better off. Even if it is going to be one rape, we are ashamed of it as a society. But that one rape does not define our identity.

I further added that I have completely agreed with him on the question of discrimination of Dalits primarily by caste Brahmins and conversation is sealed as we have no differences on this subject.

But he was not convinced and went on and said that it is only because of British we are here not otherwise. Then came his clichés which I have explained in the introduction about the people who fall under category will normally use, that he is thankful to British for railways and buildings etc.,

I replied that I disagree with him on this and argued that he should read and understand the theories of Brain and Economic drain. The whole budget of England was based on the resources looted from India, such was the amount of limitless resources she had. Not long ago during Vijayanagara Empire Rayala seema (plains of stones) in Andhra Pradesh was called as Rathanala Seema (plains of diamond). Every piece of visible wealth was taken away from here. In 2000 years of recorded history (read Madison project) India was an economic power house for 17 centuries in a straight contributing towards nearly 30 % of global GDP consistently, only as a result of systematic exploitation of British we came down to 1% at the start of 20^th century. Without British we could have been better off. Though the Chinese were colonized by the British the Chinese never say that they are grateful to their colonizers. Why is it in India we have people praise British for what they have done? The answer is we are psychologically still slaves and we need to break these chains of slavery.

By now he is completely lost his posture and shot back that in China there was no caste oppression. I was getting bored by now, as he clearly lacked intellectual depth in his argument and completely handicapped by his casual opinions which is the result of hearsay & anecdotal evidence.

I humbly retorted “Sire, do you know nearly 33 million innocent people were killed in China during the Cultural Revolution! Doesn't that count as oppression to you? He replied, “No that is different”.

I don’t want to elaborate here on every thing we have discussed but only few important ones. Few things he said about Christian missionaries and their assistance to us. He declared that we are stone worshippers and not wise people etc and Christian Missionaries have helped us. I replied that if a religion or ideology has to be evaluated and a judgement needs to be passed we need to consider its history. A woman was not even treated as human being but slave and how the church persecuted scientists is an open secret, some were burnt alive just because they went against church, and you should really have credentials to preach. But in India Science & religion complimented each other, they were never at war with. Ours is an advanced thought process, but we have our own pitfalls and we agree that. Hence we don’t go to Saudi Arabia or Europe and say that Islam & Christianity is non-sense, your gods are false gods, why don’t you accept ours? But every other murderous crook who came here from these countries told us exactly that.

Then came his sexist remark, women in Europe are white and beautiful and that is why they wanted to keep them as slaves and women here may not be that beautiful. That is what he implied. Already it has been two hours since the start of this conversation with him. Only after that sexist remark I have decided that I might be wasting my time and offered him for a full day discussion on another day so that I can prove him wrong. He was not ready for that, as he said that he does not have a full day. He is nearly 55 or 60 years old and a Head of a Department in a university, and his ego is badly hurt. In all these hours I have not heard one single sane argument. In addition to the arguments I have explained in this write-up I have quoted many other examples to prove my points, but not discussed here all of them for the sake of time and space.

I have told him that it is certainly true that caste Brahmins have discriminated Dalits, but that should not become the only reason for him to hate India and I also said that “I disagree with your theory that only because of alien invaders we are better off”.  After that we have said goodbye to each other, as the discussion was reaching nowhere.

In conclusion all I would like to say is, that it is tough to help people who fall under the Category1 to come out of their mental prisons in which they are living right now, but it is not entirely impossible, and we should not stop trying. I have had positive results in the past. Just that this time I was stuck with a rigid old bird. 

Should Colonizers & Oppressors Pay reparations for Slavery ? Yes. They should.

Responding to an NYT report on whether former colonial powers should pay reparations for slavery?

For all that modern jargon in Human rights and insistence of European Powers to follow them, it will be a surprise for someone to hear it for the first time that it is none other than Europeans who invented “Slavery” and oppressed almost more than half of the planet.One thing is for sure. Being a former brutal oppressor and colonizer does not mean they have no right to talk about Human rights or some higher ideals.

But European powers in a way are indeed polluters of humanity and must be obliged to pay reparations. To borrow a principle which is relied on environmental suits mostly in India ie., “Polluter Pays Principle” and use it in this context as an analogy or as a metaphor might help. This principle more or less says he who pollutes and/or has a direct role in perpetuating pollution should pay for it. In that sense former colonial powers are liable to pay the compensation. It is no doubt that people in African and Caribbean countries are the most oppressed who could never fully recover from the atrocities committed by the European countries. China & US, they asserted themselves since beginning, who were the only two former colonized countries/regions went on to become major economies in the world, thanks to their resolve, but not everybody is that fortunate.

Arguments like whether we can bring in people in to courts who were actually oppressed does not stand, their legal heirs and next generation must be compensated. And the reaction of Lauterpacht Center forInternational Law is understandable.Reparations such as these will definitely put Jihadist apologists in a spot, because oppression by the Christian world was always shown as a justification for the atrocities they have committed and still committing.

Richard Dawkins some time ago in his twitter conversation said that yes, Christians have committed innumerable atrocities by killing & maiming millions but they have moved on and realized their mistakes.

The spiritual giant of India Sri Aurobindo too supported Colonial powers especially British because in his opinion though British is a colonizer and oppressor it also propagated many good ideals like democracy and freedom etc., hence he supported the colonial powers in their war effort against axis powers, who then called colonial powers as advanced and progressive forces.

So in that context when juxtaposed with axis powers, the colonial powers were considered either angels or lesser evils. You cannot imagine a world after World War II with axis powers winning it; civilizations must have been made to endure highest forms of slavery.

An extract from Volume 36  of Aurobindo's writings “Autobiographical Notes and Other Writings of Historical Interest” Pages – 459 & 467 could help us understand the argument.

It is hardly possible that after the war the old order of things can survive unchanged; if that happened, there would again be a repetition of unrest, chaos, economic disorder and armed strife till the necessary change is made. The reason is that the life of mankind has become in fact a large though loosely complex unit and a world-order recognizing this fact is inevitable. It is ceasing to be possible for national egoisms to entrench themselves in their isolated independence and be sufficient for themselves, for all are now dependent on the whole. The professed separate self-sufficiency of Germany ended in a push for life-room which threatens all other peoples; nations which tried to isolate themselves in a self-regarding neutrality have paid the penalty of their blindness and the others who still maintain that attitude are likely sooner or later to share the same fate; either they must become the slaves or subservient vassals of three or four greater Powers, or a world-order must be found in which all can be safe in their freedom and yet united for the common good. It will be well for India, if in spite of the absorption of her pressing need, she recognizes that national egoism is no longer sufficient. She must claim freedom and equality for herself in whatever new order is to come or any post-war arrangement, but recognize also that the international idea and its realization are something that is becoming equally insistent, necessary and inevitable. If the totalitarian Powers win, there will indeed be a new world-order,—it may be in the end, a unification; but it will be a new order of naked brute Force, repression and exploitation, and for the people of Asia and Africa a subjection worse than anything they had experienced before. This has been recognized even by the Arabs who were fighting England in Palestine before the war; they have turned to her side. Not only Europe, Asia and Africa, but distant America with all her power and resources is no longer safe, and she has shown that she knows it; she has felt the peril and is arming herself in haste to meet it. In the other contingency, there will be not only the necessity for a freer new order, but every possibility of its formation; for the idea is growing; it is already recognized as an actual program by advanced progressive forces in England and elsewhere.

We should remember that conquest and rule over subject peoples were not regarded as wrong either in ancient or mediaeval or quite recent times, but as something great and glorious; men did not see any special wickedness in conquerors or conquering nations. Just government of subject peoples was envisaged but nothing more—exploitation was not excluded. The modern ideas on the subject, the right of all to liberty, both individuals and nations, the immorality of conquest and empire, or such compromises as the British idea of training subject races for democratic freedom, are new values, an evolutionary movement; this is a new Dharma which has only begun slowly and initially to influence practice,—an infant Dharma which would have been throttled for good if Hitler succeeded in his “Avataric” mission and established his new “religion” over all the earth. Subject nations naturally accept the new Dharma and severely criticize the old imperialisms; it is to be hoped that they will practice what they now preach when they themselves become strong and rich and powerful. But the best will be if a new world-order evolves, even if at first stumblingly or incompletely, which will make the old things impossible—a difficult task, but not absolutely impossible.

The victims of European colonization must be satisfied with one thing that at least their former colonizers agree and apologize that their crimes are deplorable. But, the victims of Islamic Imperialism are not that fortunate enough. The way forward should be that either through political or legal means the victims must be compensated that would add more credibility to European’s current status and equating international aids with compensation is completely misleading.

May be it is time to codify in international law that nation states which are economically weak and backward must be allowed to seek compensation from their former oppressors for crimes like slavery and must not be restricted only to slavery. Probably if this case is taken up and it wins in ICJ that would certainly set some kind of precedent which shall withstand assertions like calling the whole exercise as legal fantasy.

India must also explore such options for the atrocities committed by England in TamilNadu, India where native Tamils were migrated to plantations of Srilanka and made to work as slaves, not sure if we can ask the same to the oppressors of Persia.

Act of International Criminal Court to prosecute only Africans is illegitimate.

Reacting to Jurist  report on " Africa leaders should be immune from ICC prosecution: AU "

The bullying of third world countries by international agencies, especially courts is not something new and it is a regular phenomena since the formation of UNO and other institutions which came to existence subsequently. International criminal law might have taken a new turn ever since the Nuremberg trials, but the disgust stems from the maxim - "Selective application of law is no law" . Are we to assume that in this civil world it is only in Africa people commit crimes especially state sponsored ie., the crime where leaders take an active role in engaging in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide?

Whenever you hear about a case in International Criminal Court (ICC), there is a high degree of probability that the accused will be from third world, mostly from Africa. Mired in poverty, illiteracy and political corruption and at the receiving end of super powers they remain robbed off their wealth. Oppressed by the European colonial powers they continue to remain as a second class civilians and their very state of life is a blot on the legitimacy of civilized world.

The interest and alacrity which colonial powers shown in robbing off the wealth of Africa is not shown when it comes to contributing towards its development. It is a misnomer to claim that whatever little the developed world is doing is due its generosity but in my opinion it is firstly a misplaced argument and secondly it must be seen as if they are giving it back to the rightful owners from whom they have taken forcefully. The rosy picture given by the the departments of international development of developed countries on their contribution towards global development cannot taken at face value.

Yes. There is no doubt that by providing 70% of funding which is required to run ICC, EU uses it to settle political scores and for the purpose of arm twisting in the resource rich Africa. And in this light the threat by African Union to pull out of ICC is highly legitimate and AU must make the regional institutions stronger and establish an ICC like setup exclusive for Africa and try all cases there, probably with an international supervision. And the former colonial powers must not be allowed to use new tools to loot Africa.

If we ever have to try all the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the European Colonial powers, especially by the countries like Portugal, Spain and Britain we may have to establish hundreds of such courts.